There are two pairs of genes (B and E) that tell us what color our dogs are and what they will produce. There are many genes playing a role as well but they are always the same (some turned off and some turned on) like the C and A genes that tell our dogs to have a solid coat color with no spots or patches. Other genes are off so they are not brindled or have tan marks, or ticking - these genes can be found on rare occasion and thus when doubled mismarks are produced.

Anyway all we need to focus on are the B and E genes.

B = black
b = chocolate
E = NOT yellow
e = yellow

Now let's talk about yellows first. If a dog has two yellow genes (ee) they MUST be yellow. This is why if you breed a yellow to a yellow all the puppies are yellow - every puppy gets a yellow gene from each parent (e). It doesn't matter what is on the B locus - BB, Bb, or bb - the dog will be yellow. The genes on the B locus do tell us about pigment in the yellow dog. A dog that has BB or Bb will have correct black pigment. A dog that is bb will not have any black pigment - this is commonly called a Dudley but more accruately a liver nosed yellow or NBP (No Black Pigment).

Now on to blacks and chocolates - remember now if a dog only has one copy of the yellow gene Ee or no copies of the yellow gene EE they will be either black or chocolate depending on what is on the B gene. Since black is dominant to chocolate if a dog has one of each they will default to black. So BB and a Bb are black dogs. A BB doesn't carry chocolate but a Bb does. Chocolates are only chocolate because they don't have a black gene so bb is chocolate. When you breed a chocolate to a chocolate you can't get any blacks because they do NOT have a black gene (B) to give - all puppies get a chocolate gene (b) from each parent.

Now a puppy can only be yellow or chocolate if BOTH parents carry those genes. You can't make a chocolate or yellow puppy if only one parent carries chocolate or yellow. Genes do not "skip" generations as I've heard some people say since their black bitch never produced any chocolates but then her daughter did so and she was sired by a yellow that did not carry chocolate. This simply means that the black mother did carry chocolate but just didn't have any chocolate puppies but the gene was passed to the daughter.

A yellow to yellow breeding will only produce yellows but it can produce both yellows with correct black pigment AND liver nosed yellows (Dudleys) since both yellow parents could be eeBb (yellow carrying black and chocolate). So some pups will get a b from each parent.

A chocolate to chocolate breeding will never produce blacks but it can produce yellows - and ALL those yellows will be eebb or liver nosed (Dudley) because both chocolate parents do not have a black (B) to give - only chocolate (b).

Common nomenclature is:

BY - black carrying yellow

BC - black carrying chocolate

BYC - black carrying yellow and chocolate

BB - dominant black (BBEE - no chocolate or yellow to give)

CC - dominant chocolate (no yellow)

CY - chocolate carrying yellow

YC - yellow carrying chocolate and but having correct black pigment so they of course carry black as well

Does this help at all? I hope.

More than you know!! Thank you so much for taking the time to post this!!!

"YC - yellow carrying chocolate and but having correct black pigment so they of course carry black as well"

This statement needs clarification. There are many yellows that have brown/liver pigment. In other words, they are liver/chocolate dogs with yellow hair. In your "simplified" nomenclature, how would you differentiate these yellows that ARE chocolate from yellows that CARRY chocolate? That is one of the problems with using symbols that only differentiate between three possibilities when there are four possible combinations.

The last part of the statement is also very misleading. A dog can not "carry" a dominant gene like black. If black is present it shows - always - in the pigment. A yellow dog either IS black pigmented or not - it does not "carry" black. I know you are trying to get by with using only three symbols to specify color (BCY), but it just doesn't work that way. It is more confusing in the long run for people to use three symbols to define FOUR distinct cases. It makes using the notation AND understanding the breeding consequences more difficult in the long run and ignores the underlying principle that there are FOUR distinct genes at work.

It is one thing to try to make something simple. It is quite another to obscure the facts by oversimplifying.

Maureen most people use the BY, BC, YC - I don't like it because it doesn't give the full picture but it's easy. I don't see how my post "obscured the facts". Gimme a break. I'm only trying to help. I found your response unnecessarily rude.

"YC - yellow carrying chocolate and but having correct black pigment so they of course carry black as well"
************************************************
"This statement needs clarification. There are many yellows that have brown/liver pigment. In other words, they are liver/chocolate dogs with yellow hair. In your "simplified" nomenclature, how would you differentiate these yellows that ARE chocolate from yellows that CARRY chocolate? That is one of the problems with using symbols that only differentiate between three possibilities when there are four possible combinations."
**************************************************

Really it needs clarification? I specifically differentiated between the two dogs you are asking about. I wrote a YC is a dog that is yellow and carrying chocolate but has black pigment - that is how I differentiated between a liver nosed yellow that does NOT have have correct black pigment.


"The last part of the statement is also very misleading. A dog can not "carry" a dominant gene like black. If black is present it shows - always - in the pigment."


I think of the word "carry" as a layman's term for a gene that is hidden but that the dog has and thus can throw to puppies. I am not using it as a genetic scientific term here. A yellow dog with correct black pigment of course has a black gene (B) but because the dog is yellow but can have black puppies I think it's appropriate to say they carry black WHEN the dog also carries chocolate. I was specifically trying to differentiate between the two. A yellow that carries chocolate sounds like a liver nosed yellow so I would say a yellow that carries chocolate AND black. It's a given they "carry" black with a black nose so I mean come on.

"A yellow dog either IS black pigmented or not - it does not "carry" black. I know you are trying to get by with using only three symbols to specify color (BCY), but it just doesn't work that way. It is more confusing in the long run for people to use three symbols to define FOUR distinct cases. It makes using the notation AND understanding the breeding consequences more difficult in the long run and ignores the underlying principle that there are FOUR distinct genes at work It is one thing to try to make something simple. It is quite another to obscure the facts by oversimplifying."

Oh please Maureen. You don't think I know how coat color genetics work? If you don't like the way I am trying to educate then oh well I can't please everyone but I really am just trying to help. I hope I help someone but this is not life or death here. I am not "wrong" in any of my facts nor am I obscuring anything.

Honestly I am just shaking my head here and should not have responded.

I don't understand the need for your post whatsover. Really really strange in my opinion.

For people who think an explanation of how the genes work may help, see the thread below. I took a somewhat different angle.

"I found your response unnecessarily rude."

Why? Because it pointed out where the post was lacking in accuracy or misleading in concept? If the point of this whole discussion is to help educate others, then I would think clarification would be WELCOME - this is not about egos (or shouldn't be), but accuracy and usefullness of the information.

"Really it needs clarification? I specifically differentiated between the two dogs you are asking about. I wrote a YC is a dog that is yellow and carrying chocolate but has black pigment - that is how I differentiated between a liver nosed yellow that does NOT have have correct black pigment. "

OK... since you think it does not warrant clarification, how EXACTLY would you use the three symbols you have chosen to define a yellow with liver pigment? There are lots of them out there, but your notation does not make them a possibility. They are not included in your "list" of colors, so you did NOT differentiate between them. THAT is what I feel is confusing. Your protest to the contrary, you still have not answered how YOUR notation would define these dogs that are a normal occurrence in the breed.

"I think of the word "carry" as a layman's term for a gene that is hidden but that the dog has and thus can throw to puppies. "

Whether it is a lay term or one used by scientists, it is not correct to use it in reference to a dominant gene. BLACK is not hidden in Labs. If the gene is there, it shows in the pigment. It is MORE confusing to think of it as a "hidden" gene - you have no idea how many people with chocolates have commented that their dogs "carry" black. This is because most of the explanations about "hidden" genes are so misleading. Please don't add to the misunderstanding by using incorrect and misleading terminology - even if it is LAY terminology. A dominant gene is never hidden - it is always visible. Only recessives may be "hidden" or "carried".

"You don't think I know how coat color genetics work? If you don't like the way I am trying to educate then oh well I can't please everyone but I really am just trying to help. "

Your explanations do not make it clear that you really DO understand how coat color genetics work. You have completely left out one of the normal possibilities in your attempt to use only 3 symbols to define 4 color elements. How does this help?

"Honestly I am just shaking my head here and should not have responded. "

Now on THIS statement we are in complete agreement.

Against my better judgement, I wrote a rather complete response on the original thread. For those who might want a simpler and more specific way of thinking about color, please scroll down and read my last post on the other thread. The links that have been given in various posts are also very good for clarifying some of the issues that have come up in the discussion. Because the usual coat colors in our breed result from actions at two different gene locations, it can be confusing. Be glad we don't have Shepherds or Afghans or some of the breeds where a half-dozen or more genes interact to create tremendous variation in color Thanks to those who are still reading for both your interest and patience.

God, Maureen, if it's not about egos, why do you have to have the last word, and cut everyone down every time you post - to make yourself seem smart?

The simplest way to understand color in Labs is to think of them ALL as either black or choc. Even the yellows - they are blacks or chocs that lack the ability to extend the color through their coat. So, a black that can provide both yellow and choc genes is a BbEe. If a dog has at least one E's, they can extend the color through the coat hairs. If they have 2 little ee's- they can't, so they are yellow. Simple.

I take up for you sometime Maureen. But I agree, you have become lengthy with your responses again and have the attitude that only you are right. That is what is confusing us all.

You guys are a riot.

Sharon, I loved your post.

Thank you again. And if Maureen won't apologize, maybe I can apologize for her. She was very rude.

Maureen, I do believe what Sharon was trying to do is put it in layman's terms so some of us that are less eduated...not dumber just less educated can understand this info better so we can make educated decisions in our program. Thank you Sharon... I always understand your posts and truly enjoy reading them. You walk beside us, not ahead of us like some people think they have a right to. Thanks again! None of us need the Lab Nazis.

*Thank you again. And if Maureen won't apologize, maybe I can apologize for her. She was very rude.*

She sure was...... Some things never change & she won't apologize because it's *fact* IHO........ Thanks Sharon. Good job........

Why should Maureen apologise for pointing out flaws in the information you are sharing?
I can't understand why you would be offended by being corrected, you should be glad she has taken the time to try to hep clarify the information given.

Giving information which is incorrect is worse than giving no information at all. Have you ever heard of 'Chinese Whispers'? The information becomes more & more muddied as it is passed from one to another. This stuff is factual based on genetic research, not subjective as is one's interpretation of a breed standard.

Just my observation of a subject which is embarking on an unfortunate path

Olivia, it's not WHAT she says -- it's HOW she says it.

You may be her biggest fan, but the majority of the readers here are just tired of the constant one-upmanship that goes on by her.

"The simplest way to understand color in Labs is to think of them ALL as either black or choc. Even the yellows - they are blacks or chocs that lack the ability to extend the color through their coat. ... Simple."

THANK YOU, Sharon, for reverting to the explanation I used in the first place (see post in other thread). You STILL have not explained how you could describe a chocolate-pigmented yellow using your notation and why it was left out of your list of standard colors. Could you please do that in your next post??

Now that you have explained the color issue exactly as I already did, maybe you won't feel a need to be insulting any more. Clearly my posts did result in necessary clarification and did bring you around to a more correct explanation of colors. You're welcome!

Again, this is not about egos - at least not mine. I fed you back one of YOUR rude lines and agreed with it - so how does that make ME the bad guy. Your "personal" comments and insults have no place in this discussion if the real intent is to relay information. It is you who owes the apology. I didn't try to make it personal - YOU DID!

Quote PRECISELY what I said in my first post that you took such exception to!!! There were no insults intended or implied - just a question of facts. It is you, Sharon, that make it personal in your response to my first post - and have tried to make it about personalities rather than information from that point on. Since you finally explained the color genetics essentially as I did in an earlier post, I would say we probably have nothing factual to discuss. However, you just keep on with the personal insults. They have nothing to do with color genetics AND do not help anyone.

I am still waiting to see how you code for a liver-pigmented yellow with your three-letter system. If you want to really help, maybe this is the way to do it. Frankly, I can't figure out clear method to do it that would not be confusing to most lay people, so have at it and show us you are more interested in the facts than senseless fighting!

Leave Sharon out of this -- I am not her. I haven't yet taken part in this discussion until this point (my above post), but I'm tired of the one-upmanship that goes on.

I didn't intend to repeat something you had said; I don't read your posts that thoroughly, but tend to skim through them. That's just the way I think of color in Labs, and how I explain it to novices and others who wonder why I get the colors of puppies that I do with my breedings......

I do apologize for rambling on too long. However, what I wrote should not be confusing to anyone because it IS right. When I am relaying clear, documented facts, why should I have the attitude that I am NOT right? I don't see how that serves anyone's interest, do you? Really?

Again, I'm not Sharon. Please see my post above.

I can't see what your problem is with the manner in which Maureen answers these posts. My response was to do with taking on board correct informaiton, not half baked stuff because it is easier. I don't see why anyone should be offended by being corrected. You should embrace the correct information, not shoot the messenger!

If the quest for correct information makes me Maureen or anyone else's biggest fan, the so be it. Perhaps if you took the time to read some of Maureen's posts more carefully you would note that she comes from a background of technical writing. This in itself should say to you that anything she says is not going to be wrapped in platitudes and written in a sugary 'Mills & Boon' manner.

BTW I would be much happier responding to a real person than to 'Wag the Dog' Do you not have a name or do you just not have the guts to use it?

Whatever you want to believe, Olivia. In the words of the song - "That don't impress me much....." I also like correct, CONCISE information.

Nah, I never use my real name. Don't need to.

Everybody bow to the great Maureen Gamble, the true expert on all things dog.
Maureen, why don't you create your own board where you can dictate your vast expanse of knowledge without fear of one upmanship. Then you can see how many people are interested in your self serving tirades and at the same time, you will leave the rest of us to enjoy the other boards. Believe it or not, we do not need you to proof read every topic and grade it like a bitter old schoolmarm. We'd get along just fine without you.

OH... I got Wig Wag and Wag the Dog all mixed up. It is a shame people don't use their actual names so that sort of thing doesn't happen. I guess YOU are the one that agrees with me on how to explain color genetics. I am still waiting for Sharon (Wig Wag) to tell us how to use BYC to define a liver-pigmented yellow. One can easiily do that using the notation you and I have given ;-)

"Everybody bow to the great Maureen Gamble, the true expert on all things dog. "

(in an Elvis voice) Thank ya..Thank ya vera much.

One of my most important tasks in life is to learn what I am privileged to learn and teach what I am guided to teach. I am not a bitter anything - although I am a school marm I value information and feel that each little factoid we learn can help us be better breeders and owners - and maybe even better people. Most of the time I read what is posted and try to learn what I need to learn from it. I don't reply to MOST of the threads posted here or elsewhere.

When the topic is one on which I have done a lot of reading and research or actually TEACH professionally, then I DO fact check to make sure the information is accurate. This is not in any way "self serving", as I get nothing at all for my time and efforts to make sure the areas in which I interact are as factual and meaningful as possible.

I certainly do not get any thanks or appreciation from those who ae trying to pass off misinformation as facts. Those should be the FIRST to be grateful someone caught their errors before others try to use the faulty information. I know that I am grateful to those who catch MY fact errors and have THANKED some of them publicly for clearing up my misunderstanding. Sometimes making mistakes is how we learn best.

As to your last comment, it is unfortunate you feel that way. I agree that you likely would get along just fine without me. If you don't care enough about the topics on which I post to really read what I write, then you might be misinformed, but it wouldn't matter to you. If this is true, then just don't bother to read anything I post. It is just that easy to get me out of your information - or misinformation - pathway. There are many who don't agree with your comment. Every time I get into a topic like genetics, I receive a host of private posts (because I DO give my name and email addy) thanking me for clarifying the subject and taking the time to pass on both information and links to the facts on which it is built. YOU may get along just fine without me (your choice) but others get along BETTER with me

What is nice about Sharon's post is that it bridged the gap between two systems using a minimum of technical language. It respected both models of understanding. That is hard to do especially if people are intent on finding mistakes. By not using the technical terms, it opens you up to criticism by those trying to find problems because the language being used is not precise. By staying conceptually correct at a general level while moving back and forth between two "languages", she demonstrated her understanding of the material and her respect for those not as knowledgeable.

Love the popcorn eater LOL. Very cute

cute graphic

Thank you Sharon for trying to help us that are not "up" on coat color terms. Don't let sourpuss get in your way of offering great information. We do appreciate your effort.

Someone seems to be "a legend in her own mind" shall we say. YES SHE IS RUDE - CONSISTENTLY RUDE! Learning alot about dogs is marvelous, good for you. Try learning about kindness and compassion and lose that holier than thou attitude..........THEN you will have learned something.

"I guess YOU are the one that agrees with me on how to explain color genetics."

Are you making a distinction between the explanations of genetics and the genetics itself?

I ask because there are many good ways to explain something. You may have perfected the explanation that makes the most sense to you. But different people have different backgrounds, and different misconceptions, and different working vocabularies, and are just plain different. Maybe it is OK for multiple people to explain things in different ways. Maybe subtle imperfections in these different explanations are unavoidable and not really significant at certain levels of discussion.

That last sentence is the key...Maybe you should not be so concerned about imperfections in certain explanations when the intent is to explain basic concepts to laypeople. Please remember that imprecise use of language is significant in some discussions but really is not so important in others.

Of course, taking a discussion to a higher level is fun. Just be aware that you are doing that and be respectful of people who are not interested.

The reason I did not include a liver nosed yellow (eebb) in the common nomenclature is simply because I have never heard anyone using a term to denote that color combination. Breeders use the BY, BC, CY, system and thus they are not breeding liver nosed yellows and thus don't need to refer to their dogs as being such.

I also use the BY, CY, terminology myself. I have never heard a breeder use BBEe, bbEe, etc when talking to each other. How would you even say that? Instead of saying "Is he BY?" You would say "Is he big B, big B, Big E, little e?" Again I have never heard anyone say this even those that fully understand coat color genetics.

I also fully understand that a yellow with correct black pigment doesn't actually "carry black" but that is the easiest way for someone to understand that they do have a B gene. This is different from a chocolate dog being bred to a black and producing blacks since offspring can inherit a B from the black and thus that is dominant and so puppies are black. The chocolate does not have a B gene whereas the yellow with black pigment does. Two separate situations in my opinion.

Olivia if you want to go with Maureen or anyone else's information then great however I don't appreciate you stating that I did not present the correct facts. I may not have stated it the way Maureen prefers for whatever reason but my facts are not incorrect. I am actually educated in the field of genetics.

This thread has been hijacked by those who want to discuss people instead of facts. That in itself is really sad. I have changed the subject, because this is no longer about color genetics nor is it helping anyone.

"Are you making a distinction between the explanations of genetics and the genetics itself? "

Actually, yes. The genetics are clear, simple and well-documented. The various explanations in these recent threads are all over the map! "Wag the Dog" used basically the same explanation that I had in a previous thread. That was the reason for my comment that you quoted. It is simple, accurate and useable. Several have tried to use BYC type explanations that get convoluted and use analogies that are not intuitive or even valid. The bottom line is that when the symbols and analogies don't accurately portray the genetics, they lead to confusion and misinformation. I take no particular pride in authorship, many people would explain the topic as I have in their own style. I do, however, take exception with explanations that are simply incorrect.

Although I have spent a lifetime writing on technical topics to a variety of audiences (from grade school to doctoral levels), I have never found it necessary to relay a topic incorrectly in order to reach a particular level of reader. I appreciate those who try to make very complex ideas accessible for those without a technical background - it was my job for many years. I do NOT appreciate those who pass along unuseable concepts or plain misinformation in the name of "education" of the layman.

I also respect those who are not interested enough to want to read a more explicit or correct presentation of the information - I just wish they would reciprocate by being respectful of my time and efforts to provide those presentations. As I have said before, if you aren't interested in what I have to say, don't read my posts. Don't shoot (or personally abuse) the messenger when what I am trying to do is make sure the information is accurate and useable. I gain nothing from the time and work I put into my occasional posts - I do it in the hope that I can make a difference for others by relaying facts on topics that I have spent years studying. If you would rather spend years studying on your own, that's great - I usually give links to good sources for study. If you are not interested in the topic or the links, just ignore my posts and move on. PLEASE! Spending time and bandwidth discussing me instead of the information is a giant waste for everyone. If people don't have anything better to do than personally rag on others, they could come run the vacuum at my house instead - there is always dog hair available to constructively use your time

"I do NOT appreciate those who pass along unuseable concepts or plain misinformation in the name of "education" of the layman. "

What "misinformation" did I present Maureen?

You took issue with ONE statement from my lengthy post:
"YC - yellow carrying chocolate and but having correct black pigment so they of course carry black as well"

You said it needed clarification. You didn't like the terminology or what it may have left out. You did NOT state that I had misinformation or "unusable concepts". Really unusable? Most people that I know use the "BY, BC, YC, etc" terms so they are definitely NOT unusable.

You go round and round so many times that you forget what you wrote initially. Why get so upset with me? You went from stating that one sentence needed clarification according to you which is fine but then you go on to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, I gave out incorrect information, and my information is useless. How will any of that help anyone? Furthermore if you had something to add to my initial post then why not simply add it. Reply to my post by just saying something like "I would like to clarify a point that I found confusing......" Why start with why you didn't like how it was stated and how you don't agree, blah blah blah. If you really are just trying to educate and help then do that and nobody would have any problems and a simple coat color thread would not turn into this whole load of dog doo - don't you see that?????

"The reason I did not include a liver nosed yellow (eebb) in the common nomenclature is simply because I have never heard anyone using a term to denote that color combination. Breeders use the BY, BC, CY, system and thus they are not breeding liver nosed yellows and thus don't need to refer to their dogs as being such. "

Be realistic. The system you are trying to teach doesn't HAVE a way to define a liver-pigmented yellow. I have bred several liver-pigmented yellows in my line and they have each produced champions. I am not the only breeder who includes this color in a breeding program. Don't give excuses that really do not address the problem - which is that you can not differentiate between a black-pigmented yellow and a liver-pigmented yellow using the symbols you are trying to teach. Just because some breeders use nomenclature that is not accurately descriptive, how is it "helpful" to promote this system? Again... you STILL have not shown how to accurately describe a liver-pigmented yellow using your model - making excuses for WHY you didn't is not the same thing as admitting a flaw in the model.

I can propose an elegant solution! If I were restricted to using only three identifiers to define four distinct genes, I would not use all upper case letters as you did. I would use upper case letters ONLY to reference the phenotype (that which can be observed on the dog) and lower case letters to indicate genotypes that are not visible. Using this method, one could designate a black-pigmented yellow that carries chocolate as Yc. A liver-pigmented yellow would be YC. Of course, since a dominant is NEVER carried and always expressed, B would always be capitalized and used only if the dog is black.

I appreciate that you are educated in the field of genetics. I am educated in the field of education - therein lies the difference.

Another cute graphic. Where do you get them and how are they embedded? I have not seen them on the Bravenet set (might have not looked hard enough).

Maureen, please give it up. You are beating a dead horse and making yourself look petty.

I think everyone can see whose post is petty - I certainly didn't attack you or ANYONE else personally. If you want this subject dropped, then stop being insulting and DROP IT!

Maureen - you ALWAYS want the last word! Give it up!

Right back atcha Actually, I was leaving the last word for Sharon, since it is her thread.

"Be realistic. The system you are trying to teach doesn't HAVE a way to define a liver-pigmented yellow."

Maureen I am not trying to teach this system. From the beginning of my experience in Labradors I have heard people using the terms BY, BYC, YC, etc. About twelve years ago less people were fluent in coat color genetics and since genetics is my field of education I immediately read all I could and emailed Pam Davol several times and once I had a firm grasp I would help any who asked questions.

"I have bred several liver-pigmented yellows in my line and they have each produced champions. I am not the only breeder who includes this color in a breeding program."

I know many who have produced liver nosed yellows by accident but I don't know anyone who has kept one and then bred one. I don't have a problem with someone who does since it's easy to correct in the next generation however most people I know do not have the space or time to grow out a dog that will never be shown.

"Don't give excuses that really do not address the problem"

Maureen I am not trying to "give excuses". You use such inflammatory words and you point fingers for absolutely no reason. Again if you wanted to clarify something then do it - why harass along the way. I am simply responding with my honest answer to your question. It's a simple answer - not an excuse for something else? I didn't give a common nomenclature for a liver nosed yellow because I have never heard anyone use one and I am not going to simply make one up to confuse everyone else. I suppose we could say YBC and YC but why? Who cares? Not me. I can just say a yellow with black pigment that carries chocolate and a liver nosed yellow - done.

"Just because some breeders use nomenclature that is not accurately descriptive, how is it "helpful" to promote this system?"

SOME breeders? I see it written in the LQ, Julie Brown, websites all the time. Again how do you verbally tell someone about say a black that carries yellow. You would say "He is a black that carries yellow and not chocolate" or "He is a big B, big B, big E, little e? I simply say "He's a BY" and everyone knows what I mean.

"I can propose an elegant solution! If I were restricted to using only three identifiers to define four distinct genes, I would not use all upper case letters as you did."

Elegant? In your own mind perhaps. I am not going to make up a brand new system and expect everyone to listen to me when the old system works just fine for everyone else.

"I appreciate that you are educated in the field of genetics. I am educated in the field of education - therein lies the difference."

What does this mean? Why say this at all? Why not stick to helping people or clearing up what you find confusing. These are the statements that are totally unnecessary Maureen. Are you saying I am not a good educator? Is that it? Hmmmm this is only your opinion and it's rude to state that on a public forum when my teaching skills were not debated by anyone else except you. I won't go into credentials.

I apologize to Jill and everyone else for dragging this out. This is my final post and I probably should not have even typed this out but I'm very annoyed at how Maureen responds to everything.

Thanks to words, we have been able to rise above the brutes; and thanks to words, we have often sunk to the level of the demons.
~Aldous Huxley

Your delivery makes your attempts at sharing your knowledge futile as people have a hard time getting past the crap. How many times have you scolded people for not reading or understanding your posts?
Maybe if you were an effective educator, your posts would be clear and concise and people could embrace them quickly and easily. If you were completely objective as a good educator should be, they would be able to focus on your ideas, not your insults. Insults instantly threaten your credibility.

There are loads and loads of ineffective and insincere educators so saying you are of that ilk does nothing to impress us or give weight to your posts. If you really want people to hear what you say, don't place the blame on them, look in the mirror and start asking yourself why people are offended at your posts. Until you take a good hard look at your deliver, your thoughts will never be appreciated or fully understood as your motives will be questioned and your ideas lost.

And, once again.... someone who just wants to make personal attacks instead of discussing a topic relevant to the forum. Find something better to do with your time than sling insults at those who GENUINELY try to discuss facts. Here is a more appropriate quote by one of my favorite people:

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. by Eleanor Roosevelt.

“Small minds select narrow roads; expand your mental vision and take to the broad road of helpfulness, compassion and service.”

~ Sri Sathya Sai Baba

My sentiments exactly... take the broad road to helping instead of insulting. If you keep your mind on IDEAS instead of PEOPLE and on helping instead of running others down, we would all appreciate it. What is your point in continuing the insulting personal comments? Move on to something worthwhile. I think you gave the best critique for your comments in your own prior post:
Insults instantly threaten your credibility.

Geez Maureen, I thought I was being helpful!!

I was simply giving advice on how you might be more effective as an educator, albeit unsolicited advice. Well then, if you feel you have been insulted, then maybe now you know how others feel when you reply to them. How does it feel Maureen? I think you can agree that insulting people is no way to communicate effectively.

The lady doth protest too much...

In the original thread, a nice person named Anne asked the following question:

"If you breed a Byc to a By, will you get all three colors in that litter? I had asked a breeder and she wasn't sure."

Can anyone tell me how the heck so many brilliant people have not been able to agree how to answer that relatively simple question?

Anne, the answer is no. Both parents need to carry chocolate in order to have chocolate puppies. Please don't ask why! :-)

It's my job to teach "lay people" as you so call them and a good teacher explains by "simplifying" for the person to understand. I find people who can not simplify stupid themselves.

Reminds me of the mushroom effect, how one person tries to empower themselves over another.