# The new foal is here! What color????



## riddlemethis (Jun 3, 2008)

Buckskin or smoky brown.


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

With how dark the hairs around his eyes are, I'm leaning towards smoky brown/brown skin. Keep us updated with pictures as he sheds though!


----------



## Peppy Barrel Racing (Aug 16, 2011)

Cute!!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EmsTNWalkers (Mar 10, 2013)

His coloring is strange. The other spots on his back end are a very light buck color, different than his head. If he is smoky brown would that still be possible?


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

"Brown" or dark bay is just a tone of bay. It's black with agouti, just with less restriction of black. Just like how in chestnut you have different tones (light, red, liver), but it's all still chestnut. So genetically speaking, he has black, agouti, cream, and tobiano, so he is a buckskin tobiano, that is the proper name. If he sheds out of his baby coat quite dark, you can go ahead and call him a "brown skin" if you want, but that is not an actual colour, and would be a sort of self made description. His colour is very typical of a buckskin foal.


----------



## EmsTNWalkers (Mar 10, 2013)

Here's more pics. It's so hard to get good pictures in that stall!


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

ponypile said:


> "Brown" or dark bay is just a tone of bay. It's black with agouti, just with less restriction of black. Just like how in chestnut you have different tones (light, red, liver), but it's all still chestnut. So genetically speaking, he has black, agouti, cream, and tobiano, so he is a buckskin tobiano, that is the proper name. If he sheds out of his baby coat quite dark, you can go ahead and call him a "brown skin" if you want, but that is not an actual colour, and would be a sort of self made description. His colour is very typical of a buckskin foal.


Brown is not just a tone of bay. Agouti has 3 mutations: bay, brown, and wild bay. Brown and bay are different colors. Bay = A, Brown = At, and Wild Bay = A+. At agouti has been located and recognized as a distinct gene. 

Brownskin/smoky brown is also an actual color. It's commonly referred to as sooty buckskin, however, which is incorrect most of the time. Brownskin/smoky brown is At agoui + cream.

Ems = the At agouti is what is what would be causing the color differences between his head and butt. Google brownskin or smoky brown horses (or even sooty buckskin, as most are actually brown-based) and you'll see the distinction.


----------



## Fulford15 (Oct 17, 2012)

I am no color expert at all, so I am no help... But he is a cutie!! :lol:


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Poseidon said:


> Brownskin/smoky brown is also an actual color. It's commonly referred to as sooty buckskin, however, which is incorrect most of the time. Brownskin/smoky brown is At agoui + cream.


That's interesting. I've never heard of brownskin, or seen it on a registry. I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that brown (At) was at the same locus as the other "bays" (A, A+), in which case it is just a variation of bay. Would a wild bay with cream be called a wild buckskin? Why/why not the distinction?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

ponypile said:


> I've never heard of brownskin, or seen it on a registry.


Registries are notoriously behind on the times when it comes to colors and patterns. APHA still uses "tovero" to describe a horse with tobiano and "another white pattern," even though it is ridiculously outdated. They also use simply "overo," when there are multiple forms of overo (splash, frame, sabino, etc). AQHA doesn't distinguish between wild bay and bay, either...so by your logic, wild bay shouldn't "exist" or be used. 

Since bay (A) and wild bay (A+) are distinguished from each other, why then, shouldn't brown (At) be a separate color? If a bay plus cream is a buckskin, what would you call a brown plus cream if not a brownskin?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Peppy Barrel Racing (Aug 16, 2011)

Just because a color isn't present in a registry doesn't mean much. Registries are behind as far as actual color genetics go.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

My understanding has always been that black + agouti (any agouti) = bay for simplicity. Differences in the agouti are what gave wild bay, bay, and dark bay, were just a further description (based on the horse's phenotype), but they were still bay as they were black + agouti. That's where the base of my argument comes from.


----------



## Peppy Barrel Racing (Aug 16, 2011)

The horse is still agouti based but At has been labled as seal brown. It is a genetically distinct form of agouti. So calling a horse brown based is not incorrect. It has it own distinct characterists as bay does and wild bay does. Maybe I'm confused about what your confused about ponypile.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

That dark bay and brown are transferable terms. And that agouti (in it's various forms) is bay (in it's various forms), because genetically it's at the same locus, but a different allele. I'm not arguing that bay, dark bay/brown, and wild bay are different colours genetically (they are different). Just that I have never before seen a distinction made between the different variations of agouti when it comes to a horse that is black+agouti+creme. From all of my previous experience and reading that combination has always been termed buckskin.


----------



## Peppy Barrel Racing (Aug 16, 2011)

I have seen buckskins referred as buckskin with wild bay base so that is a distinction. I think it all depends on who you talking to. Some people aren't as well versed but here on the forum we try to get as technical as possible for learning purposes. Brownskin is just something someone made up to show that its a brown base plus cream. You can also say brown based buckskin, or smokey brown. I think it just depends on an individual on what it's called sometimes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

the difference is lying in the fact that brown is now testable and people are asking in this subsection of the forum wanting to know the color, in other words what genes, are causing their horse's color. 

Calling a horse a brownskin/smokey brown/brown buckskin is not wrong. It is clarifying which form of agouti they are showing.


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

In my opinion, I think that calling a horse "a brown based buckskin" is clearer, less confusing, and more correct than calling a horse a "brownskin".


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

ponypile said:


> In my opinion, I think that calling a horse "a brown based buckskin" is clearer, less confusing, and more correct than calling a horse a "brownskin".


We all have our color-related pet peeves... Post a picture of a bay Paint and call it tri-colored and you'll see what I mean ;-)


----------



## riddlemethis (Jun 3, 2008)

If you're calling all versions of A bay, then technically black "aa" should also be called bay because its a mutation of A as well. 


I personally call them smoky brown no brown skin because its some times very hard I tell a brown has cream, similar to black. So smoky brown. 


And yes I also do call them Wild Buckskins.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kayella (Feb 11, 2012)

Henny is a brownskin. He's out of a black tobiano stud and a perlino mare. The brown allele comes from his mother. I can show you all of the fazes Henny has gone through from birth until now. He started out almost a caramel color, then while he was shedding out his foal coat he looked as if he was going to shed out VERY dark, but ended up a very tan color. Then he got very dark while he was growing in his foal coat and now he is shedding out a bit lighter. 

What color would you call him, PonyPile? He is definitely not your standard buckskin. Every person on this forum that is knowledgeable about color has always called him brownskin.


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

ponypile said:


> Would a wild bay with cream be called a wild buckskin? Why/why not the distinction?


I would refer to it as a wild buckskin. I saw one once in person and was all excited, then immediately texted/messaged NdAppy and Chiilaa to tell them, in which I did refer to it as a wild buckskin.


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Kayella- I would call him a buckskin, but would further describe his colour as "buckskin with a brown/dark bay base" or "dark buckskin" or "brown based buckskin". But this is getting more technical. If someone pointed at a horse an asked me what colour it was, I would probably say chestnut pinto, not flaxen liver chestnut minimal white tobiano  So you can go on calling your horse a brownskin, doesn't bother me. It's just my experience that a horse with black+agouti+creme is buckskin, and if you want to describe it further, that's just fine.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

ponypile said:


> Kayella- I would call him a buckskin, but would further describe his colour as "buckskin with a brown/dark bay base" or "dark buckskin" or "brown based buckskin". But this is getting more technical. If someone pointed at a horse an asked me what colour it was, I would probably say chestnut pinto, not flaxen liver chestnut minimal white tobiano  So you can go on calling your horse a brownskin, doesn't bother me. It's just my experience that a horse with black+agouti+creme is buckskin, and if you want to describe it further, that's just fine.


There is a difference between the examples you are using. As far as we are aware, there is no gene that makes a liver chestnut a different colour to a normal chestnut. So they ARE the same colour. Brown and bay are DIFFERENT colours. Sure, they are mutations of the agouti gene, but they are DIFFERENT genes. For what it's worth, by your own logic, we should be calling tobiano and roan the same name. They are, after all, mutations of the same gene...


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

riddlemethis said:


> If you're calling all versions of A bay, then technically black "aa" should also be called bay because its a mutation of A as well.
> 
> 
> I personally call them smoky brown no brown skin because its some times very hard I tell a brown has cream, similar to black. So smoky brown.
> ...


The difference here is that A is a modifier to black, where as aa is the absence of that allele. By this logic chestnuts could be called black because they are ee (blacks are Ee or EE) because it's an allele at that locus :wink:


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

ponypile said:


> The difference here is that A is a modifier to black, where as aa is the absence of that allele. By this logic chestnuts could be called black because they are ee (blacks are Ee or EE) because it's an allele at that locus :wink:


"aa" is not an absences of allele at the agouti locus. It is the recessive allele. So if a horse is a/a, then they have two copies of the RECESSIVE allele. It's still there, they still have two alleles.


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Chiilaa said:


> There is a difference between the examples you are using. As far as we are aware, there is no gene that makes a liver chestnut a different colour to a normal chestnut. So they ARE the same colour. Brown and bay are DIFFERENT colours. Sure, they are mutations of the agouti gene, but they are DIFFERENT genes. For what it's worth, by your own logic, we should be calling tobiano and roan the same name. They are, after all, mutations of the same gene...


I think the message I was trying send on the chestnut pinto example was lost, please disregard it as that's not the meaning I intended.

I'm not saying that they're not different. I'm just saying that A, A+, and At are all modifiers of black, and since it's being caused by one of the versions of agouti, is under the umbrella of bay. I'll call a wild bay, bay, and brown/dark bay by their correct name, but they're all still under the bay/agouti umbrella. This is why when you add a creme gene into the mix, the horse is buckskin. Black+agouti+creme=buckskin. You can have a wild bay base, a (regular) bay base, or a brown/dark bay base. But it's still a buckskin. 

My thought process on this is simple:
Black+agouti+creme=buckskin. Period. And as I've said several times, describe it further if you want, but the horse still has a form of the bay base.


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Chiilaa said:


> "aa" is not an absences of allele at the agouti locus. It is the recessive allele. So if a horse is a/a, then they have two copies of the RECESSIVE allele. It's still there, they still have two alleles.


I said "that" allele, referring to an A allele. Where a horse is aa, there is an absence of an A allele. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

I don't think you actually understand what we are saying.

Different gene equals different colour. It's really that simple. Just like tobiano and roan are different colours, even though they are both mutations of the same gene, they are DIFFERENT genes. Same goes for brown, bay and wild bay. They are ALL THREE different colours. Not just variations of the same one. They are different genes, and thus different colours.


----------



## Peppy Barrel Racing (Aug 16, 2011)

But it's better to make a distinction for educational purposes. And brown and bay are different colors.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Bay=agouti not agouti=bay. Agouti and bay are not interchangeable, as you seem to be implying. Agouti is the umbrella term that bay falls under, as well as wild bay and brown.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

ponypile said:


> I'm not saying that they're not different. I'm just saying that A, A+, and At are all modifiers of black, and since it's being caused by one of the versions of agouti, is under the umbrella of bay.


No, they are under the umbrella of agouti. Bay may be the most commonly seen of the agouti mutations, but they fall under the gene agouti.


----------



## Kayella (Feb 11, 2012)

There is no "brown/dark bay" base. They are separate genes, like bay and wild bay. When someone asks me what color Henny is, I reply he's a buckskin. Then they ask, "So why is he that color?" which is when I reply, "Well, he's a brown based buckskin rather than a bay based buckskin, so he changes colors a lot and is darker." That gets the point across to people. I call him buckskin to horsey people because all the horsey people I know wouldn't know what a brownskin is. But that IS what Henny is, a brown based buckskin.


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Chiilaa said:


> I don't think you actually understand what we are saying.
> 
> Different gene equals different colour. It's really that simple. Just like tobiano and roan are different colours, even though they are both mutations of the same gene, they are DIFFERENT genes. Same goes for brown, bay and wild bay. They are ALL THREE different colours. Not just variations of the same one. They are different genes, and thus different colours.


Just to clarify, they aren't different genes. A gene refers to a unit of chromosome that codes for (a) specific protein(s). Alleles are the variations to that gene. A, A+, and At are all alleles of the same gene. So yes, they are variations (aka alleles) of the same gene. 

I have read articles/books before that will refer to agouti as the bay gene, and that there are 3 versions of it, and that is where I get my knowledge from. 

This is getting pretty redundant. We're arguing the same point. We both agree they're different, just how I learned that they were classified is different from yours. You (along with others) are classifying all the variants as different, separate colours. Where as I am classifying them more broadly by what the have in common, before specifying. But really, we do agree on the genetics of it.


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Kayella said:


> *There is no "brown/dark bay" base.* They are separate genes, like bay and wild bay. When someone asks me what color Henny is, I reply he's a buckskin. Then they ask, "So why is he that color?" which is when I reply, "Well, he's a brown based buckskin rather than a bay based buckskin, so he changes colors a lot and is darker."
> ...
> *But that IS what Henny is, a brown based buckskin.*


That's what I just said? I'm confused where the confusion is at. You say there's no "brown/dark bay" base, but then go on to describe you horse as a "brown based buckskin".


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

ponypile said:


> That's what I just said? I'm confused where the confusion is at. You say there's no "brown/dark bay" base, but then go on to describe you horse as a "brown based buckskin".


I think she meant that there's brown base and dark bay base, but that they are not the same thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> I think she meant that there's brown base and dark bay base, but that they are not the same thing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was under the impression that brown, seal brown, and dark bay were all the same thing (At). EDIT:But if they're not, I have no idea what's being called a dark bay then. Is it a bay (A) horse who just happens to be a little more on the darker side? (70% cocoa chocolate as appose to milk chocolate? lol)


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Dark bay is the same genetically as a regular bay (A). It's the same concept as different shades of chestnut. They're genetically the same, but some come out looking like a copper penny while others are so dark they almost look black.

A lot of brown horses are mistaken for dark bays, though. My best friend's Arab gelding is registered as a bay, but he's actually a brown.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> Dark bay is the same genetically as a regular bay (A). It's the same concept as different shades of chestnut. They're genetically the same, but some come out looking like a copper penny while others are so dark they almost look black.
> 
> A lot of brown horses are mistaken for dark bays, though. My best friend's Arab gelding is registered as a bay, but he's actually a brown.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well that's where some of the confusion is then. I have seen dark bay, brown, and seal brown used interchangeably for the same colour. By books (including one specifically on horse colour genetics), articles, registries, other forums/websites, and just spoken commonly. In fact my old horse (pictured in my avatar) who was a classic seal brown is registered as a dark bay in a few registries, and even under "dark bay/brown" on one document because that was the colour option (she is registered ISH, CSH, Half TB, Oldenburg, and Canadian Warmblood, and had a passport). So those are my sources.


----------



## riddlemethis (Jun 3, 2008)

a is NOT an absence of A. a is a MUTATION of A. 


Also dk bay and brown are NOT genetically the same as bay. Bay is A and brown/DK bay is the TESTABLE At mutation of A. COMPLETELY different than chestnut where there are NO genetic difference.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

ponypile said:


> Well that's where some of the confusion is then. I have seen dark bay, brown, and seal brown used interchangeably for the same colour. By books (including one specifically on horse colour genetics), articles, registries, other forums/websites, and just spoken commonly. In fact my old horse (pictured in my avatar) who was a classic seal brown is registered as a dark bay in a few registries, and even under "dark bay/brown" on one document because that was the colour option (she is registered ISH, CSH, Half TB, Oldenburg, and Canadian Warmblood, and had a passport). So those are my sources.


What book is this - the one specifically on genetics?

Also, registries are notoriously behind current research, and as such, should not EVER be used as an educational resource for colour genetics.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

riddlemethis said:


> Also dk bay and brown are NOT genetically the same as bay. Bay is A and brown/DK bay is the TESTABLE At mutation of A. COMPLETELY different than chestnut where there are NO genetic difference.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Dark bay and bay ARE the same thing genetically. It's brown that is different.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## riddlemethis (Jun 3, 2008)

I've never seen a dark bay that hasn't tested At.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

riddlemethis said:


> I've never seen a dark bay that hasn't tested At.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's probably because what most people would consider a dark bay is actually a brown (At). If you Google "dark bay horse," the majority are browns, not bays. So, of course, when someone tests their horse that they think is a dark bay (but is actually a brown), it will come back At.

Do you have pics of any of these dark bay horses that tested At?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

Chiilaa said:


> What book is this - the one specifically on genetics?
> 
> Also, registries are notoriously behind current research, and as such, should not EVER be used as an educational resource for colour genetics.


Just stating where my sources are from. Sorry, I can't remember what it was called off hand. I have it at home but I'm away at college right now, or else I'd try to find it. 

Does anyone here have reliable online sources on this subject? (Actual papers or online books?)


----------



## riddlemethis (Jun 3, 2008)

My point is that IMO there is no such thing as "dark bay." If it's dark enough to be called "dark bay" it will test brown.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

riddlemethis said:


> My point is that IMO there is no such thing as "dark bay." If it's dark enough to be called "dark bay" it will test brown.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then don't call it dark bay, call it brown (since that's what it is).

And FWIW, my best friend's Arab that's a brown looks almost maroon in the summer and was almost black a couple of winters ago. However, his light soft points still mean he's a brown, regardless of what color the rest of his coat decides to be.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## riddlemethis (Jun 3, 2008)

I don't call it dark bay. I DO call it brown. The ony reason I even use dark bay in my posts some times is because many people DO call it dark bay. It's interchangeable to many people and using dark bay/brown usually eliminates the confusion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

ponypile said:


> Just stating where my sources are from. Sorry, I can't remember what it was called off hand. I have it at home but I'm away at college right now, or else I'd try to find it.
> 
> Does anyone here have reliable online sources on this subject? (Actual papers or online books?)


Was it yellow?


----------



## ponypile (Nov 7, 2007)

I've seen one before that was yellow but haven't read it. The only I'm thinking of I think is dark blue or black.


----------

