# Colors



## TexanFreedom (Apr 2, 2012)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make to 'genetics whizzes', but I think they just care about calling a color by the correct name, not a slang or common name, or registering a horse as the wrong color, which happens too often. 

Creating a whole new thread just to rant and blow off steam was kindof pointless in my opinion. 

It's not complicated once you learn the basics and get the hang of it, then you don't want to stop learning about colors! I am still learning, and I make mistakes all the time guessing colors by pictures, but peope correct me politely and explain to my why it is this and not that, and what factors and clues make it a this. I love to learn more and expand my knowledge all the time.


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

I for one find it very interesting. I don't go around my barn telling people that they're calling their horses the wrong color, and I usually call brown horses "seal bay" or "dark bay" because that's what most people are used to hearing and I'm not out to educate the world on the difference between agouti alleles. I don't see anything wrong with teaching your daughter that a "yellow" horse with "white" mane and tail is a palomino, even if it is in fact carrying the champagne gene and not cream. Unless she wants to grow up to be a breeder, it may never interest her to know the difference.

BUT, since this is a color and genetics sub-forum, I think this is the right place to point out inconsistencies and misinformation.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm not sure what the big deal is either. Horse genetics are complicated. Back in the day, there was bay, black, dun, yellow (yes, they actually used to call palominos "yellow"), sorrel, and gray (or white, depending on what stage of graying they were in). Buckskin wasn't a recognized color for a long time and it was lumped in with the "duns". Grullo was called "silver" or "gray".

Knowledge has evolved since then. As the research finds more genes that influence color, then there are more colors discovered....and the newly discovered colors need names.


----------



## FeatheredFeet (Jan 27, 2010)

I don't think, busysmurf, that it is becoming complicated. The fact is, we as horse fanciers, are becoming educated. If one doesn't care to become educated, then it's up to them. Just like those who still put tiny children without a helmet, on horses. Some will never learn.

Lizzie


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

""For all of you genetics whizzes out there, please don't take this the wrong way, but...!""


The response so far is exactly why I put the above statement first!! 
I'm not trying to "make a point, rant, or blow off steam." Or even be a B*** I am asking honest to goodness question(s). Why is there a need to micro-name (for lack of a better term) the colors and then get sooo defensive about it? Yes, I understand there are variations within a color group, but whatever happened to the "basics"? It wasn't that long ago, that if you called a bay horse a "red bay" people (very well informed people I may add) gave you funny looks, and said "yep, that's a BAY horse, I guess he does look kind of red".

Granted, I may have over simplified my examples by saying a "yellow" horse with a "white" mane & tail. It's hard to type it out how it would sound being said, but... 

It's not that I don't find it interesting, because I do, I like seeing all the different variations these crazy animals pop out with. I just want to know why it's so.....picky (really can't think of a better word, sorry).

I've seen a lot of posts about this breed assoc doesn't know this or that about such & such color, but what about the "color breed" associations, why are ppl saying they (the breed assoc) are behind the times on what actually is the "color" pertaining to their registry? Didn't they define the color to begin with?

Who makes the final call that a purple horse is called periwinkle violet vs. aubergine rose? I am honestly curious!!! Why does someone say I'm wrong because I called my horse a blue roan, when I don't know where she came from and can't prove her DNA? A blue roan is a blue roan is a blue roan, right? Why are some "colors/patterns" still considered *just* colors/patterns and others are considered a different breed altogether, when a few short years ago there were "color" breed assoc and "breed" assoc?

Since I had those questions about colors, I thought it was fitting if I posted them on a color forum. 

What's the difference between a charcoal black and a slate black? What happens if it's 1/2 Arab 1/2 QH, and Arab ppl call it charcoal & QH call it slate?

Maybe I'm spitting it out wrong, or something....


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

The reason its becoming more complicated is because there is a better understanding scientifically what is going on on a genetic level and they realize that what used to be lumped together really aren't the same thing. Also there used to be a lot of misinformation or local names for things that were even known at the time to be something else but people called it a certain thing out of ignorance. Now we have the net and better information at our fingertips.

Honestly, not really all that important for the general horse owner who just wants to enjoy their horse - no matter if its really bay, wild bay or brown or palomino, flaxen chestnut, etc. But it IS important for those that are breeding to have a basic understanding of what color genetics is going on in their stock. And its important to those of us who just plain love genetics and the new research that is being done.

Now there are those who ask on here what their horses are and I think when they ask they are looking for the most accurate likelihood. Unfortunately for some colors that looks so similar we can make guesses but never really know for sure until a genetics test is done on that particular horse. But we are horse people and we love to debate.


----------



## MelissaAnn (Aug 26, 2011)

The "color whizzes" are just being specific because specific genes control color. So while some things are arbitrary such as "chestnut/sorrel", "red roan/strawberry roan", others refer specifically to their genes, which is cut and dry. Because so many people use this forum to ask questions and learn, it is best to use the correct specific information. It doesn't help anyone to pass along incorrect information! 

It's just like any other aspect of horses. You can say that a horse has bad feet, or you can talk about what the specific problem is. You can you a horse is tall, or you can say that he is 16.1 hands high. You can say that a horse is bay is in summer and black in the winter, or you can say the horse is brown.


----------



## MelissaAnn (Aug 26, 2011)

I would also like to add that a good horse is never a bad color!


----------



## busysmurf (Feb 16, 2012)

I didn't try to make it sound like a waste of time or it's not important!!!!!!! I just want to *learn* how/why/who/what.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> ""For all of you genetics whizzes out there, please don't take this the wrong way, but...!""
> 
> 
> The response so far is exactly why I put the above statement first!!
> ...



Okay - I saw this after I posted my last one. Are you asking why sometimes someone will call something for example - "mahogany bay" "dark blood bay" "light bay" etc? Variations within the very same genetic color?

If that is the case, honestly I see a lot less of that now than I used too. They used to divide up duns into claybanks, buttermilks, etc. Dark palominos, golden, etc. There is still a little of that going on, but it used to go on a lot more in the past and a lot of what you see now is more carry over of the old rather than new. 

Now if you are talking the debates that go around of bay vs. wild bay vs brown - well that is due to actual genetic discovery that has shown there is actually a difference on a genetic level between these. 

As to color breed registries - well they are behind the times and part of that is money driven. For example - If it has been genetically proven that a quarter of the horses they have registered as palomino in the palomino color-breed registry (defined as chestnut with a cream gene) has been determined to actually be a flaxen chestnut (no cream gene which defines a palomino) then would it really benefit the registry to toss those out even if they are not correct? Not at all - they would lose money. So they stay even if they are not correct.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Unfortunately, each and every "color" registry will have their own definitions about what color this or that horse is...same way with breed registries.

I think it's a Buckskin registry in either Australia or England that won't recognize a horse that is just a shade or 2 too dark than their pre-set description and standard of what a "buckskin" horse should look like.

For example, the RMHA will register silver dapple horses as "chocolate" when that isn't an actual color according to equine genetics.

Registering bodies (whether by color or by breed) are notorious for being way behind the times in regards to horse genetics. For example, not so long ago, full blood quarter horses were being refused registry as a quarter horse because they may or may not have some random white marking above their knees/hocks or behind a set spot on their head.

Here is an old thread that really discusses that in a lot more detail.
http://www.horseforum.com/horse-breeding/overo-quarter-horses-65719/


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

busysmurf said:


> ""For all of you genetics whizzes out there, please don't take this the wrong way, but...!""
> 
> 
> The response so far is exactly why I put the above statement first!!
> ...


This post kind of made my head explode. :lol: If you're referring to the forum about people getting defensive about coloring, I've personally seen none of that and I _live_ in the color/genetics section. It's simply just people debating over colors. Sometimes I'm wrong and people will correct me, then justify why. It helps to expand my knowledge. 

There's nothing wrong with knowing just the basics. If you are backyard hobby horse owner, then really it doesn't matter. But if say, you were in the horse industry, basic color knowledge is a must. I've had people in in my Equine classes been told to "go out and get Joey, he's the chestnut horse" and they'll bring back a bay. IMO it's embarrassing, and if I were an employer I would not want to hire someone like that.

Then you have others who are interested in genetics and into breeding, which color knowledge is very important to know.

It can be compared to something like math. You can get by knowing basic addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication, but some want to or have to take it further.

It's just how we advance as a society. We gain more knowledge and technology and learn more and more about particular things.

As for color breed registries, it's already been said, but they are mostly money driven.


----------



## TexanFreedom (Apr 2, 2012)

Bridgertrot said:


> I've had people in in my Equine classes been told to "go out and get Joey, he's the chestnut horse" and they'll bring back a bay. IMO it's embarrassing, and if I were an employer I would not want to hire someone like that.


This made me laugh 
But I agree with everything else you said completely.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

busysmurf said:


> Why is there a need to micro-name (for lack of a better term) the colors and then get sooo defensive about it?



Because some color genes are associated with serious genetic defects that could be avoided if people just cared more. That's why. 

And we didn't make it complicated, it became that way _because_ people started breeding for fancy colors. For example when the Morgan breed started the only colors in it were black, bay and chestnut... Not anymore.


----------



## Laineylou (Sep 26, 2011)

I think I know what the OP is talking about, I could be wrong, but if I'm right it actually has nothing to do with genetics per se, but with the names of colors.
For example, I used to breed rabbits. I bred New Zealand whites and REW Lionheads. These were different breeds but the exact same color with the exact same genotype. However there is no right or wrong way to refer to the color. Depending on the breed the rabbit will be white, red eyed white, or ruby eyed white.

If I'm right the OP is wanting to know why this can't be the same with horses? If the AQHA wants to refer to brown as "seal bay", the JC wants to refer to brown as "dark bay", and the American Warmblood Registry wants to refer to brown simply as "brown", why can't they do that? So long as people with dual or triple registered horses can understand that these colors are all one and the same is it really so wrong?

Just ignore me if I have it completely wrong, OP. I'm not entirely interested in the genetics debate, I just prefer to go with the flow and listen to the information I'm given.


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

I can understand that. Same circumstances as to why we need a metric and standard measurement systems lol Should just pick one. Lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ThirteenAcres (Apr 27, 2012)

I do think the differences in what a registry accepts makes it harder to correctly educate the majority. The problem I see often is between, even, different disciplines. Someone with a TB is going to be more form in their idea of bay vs. brown because they know a bay to be defined as any horse with black points and a reddish hue to be bay. 

Then it becomes a problem trying to educate differently on the genetic part of the equation when their registry says "that horse is registered bay no matter what!". 

If we were all on a uniform system, maybe there would be less confusion as to what is what.


----------



## Laineylou (Sep 26, 2011)

Bridgertrot said:


> I can understand that. Same circumstances as to why we need a metric and standard measurement systems lol Should just pick one. Lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


A point I agree with. We should pick one, there are just stubborn people out there and we'll have to put up with them until the world is better educated. Similar to America refusing to give up the imperial system for the metric system. The rest of the world just waits patiently for them to give in, meanwhile they're left in the dark as to how to even work the metric system. So in the end it is their loss and fault when they don't understand what the rest of the world is going on about.
(I should just point out here that I am an American myself, so any Americans shouldn't call me out on being ignorant about my own nationality, I know how offended we can get if anyone but us makes fun of us, lol.)


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Here's the easy answer - we use the different terms because different genes are causing the colour. Bay and brown are different genes for example - why would we call them the same if we know differently? 

As for the "colour" registries, yes, they are still outdated. The APHA (not a colour registry, I know, but one that has colour requirements for full papers) has numerous errors, misconceptions and lazy mistakes in their colour guidelines, mostly to do with the one colour type they want to specialise in - pinto markings. The American White and Cream only registers completely white horses (usually dominant white) and double dilutes - but not offspring of these horses that don't meet the same criteria... The PtHA has the same flaws as the APHA. The Palominos only register palominos, but if you breed your palomino and get a buckskin, you can't register there, you have to go to the Buckskin body and they will take you.


----------

