pinto genetics

Not always, but it is a general rule.

They are [b]highly [/b]correlated with each other. As Jenks said it isn't infallible, as other things can mimic inkspots in Tobiano.

I have wondered recently if horses like unmarked breeding stock who test negative for Frame or Tobiano could still be called "Paint", even if only 'breeding stock' .... because if the genetics that the Paint breed is based on aren't there and it could never produce a Paint w/out outside (bred to frame/tobi) influence ... is it still a Paint?

Depends on if you think that the breed is a still a breed without the color. I find that that answer is highly variable depending on who you're talking to. A friend of mine throws an absolute fit over crop-outs now being registerable in QHs even though she is well versed in genetics and understands how they occur. To her, a QH is not meant to have white whether or not they carry the genetics for it.

I understand her perfectly, but at the same time can wear the other shoes.

[quote="Monsterpony"]Depends on if you think that the breed is a still a breed without the color. I find that that answer is highly variable depending on who you're talking to. A friend of mine throws an absolute fit over crop-outs now being registerable in QHs even though she is well versed in genetics and understands how they occur. To her, a QH is not meant to have white whether or not they carry the genetics for it.[/quote]

To me it is the complete opposite, Paint and QH are the same breed, the color on the outside does not change the inside of the horse. AQHA has completely got rid of its no white rule so if 2 QH's have and loud crop out paint it is now able to be registered QH, but it can no longer be registered with APHA because now APHA has a one paint parent rule. I think this is better just because at least they are not saying a QH is not one just because of its color and all the horses are being registered what the parents are. APHA still has it's solid bred rule but they do allow alot less white then they used to. As far as the Paints being able to be registed QH they have to go back and register alot of horses QH before the said paint horse can be registed QH so it is very expensive unless very near back in the pedigree the horses were QH anyway and the paint was a "old rule" cropout from QH parents.

[quote="colorfan"]Is it true that you can tell if a horse is a homozygous tobiano by the presence of bear paws in the coat?[/quote]

Very likely if you have the bear paw prints in the the coat the horse will be homozygous but the horse would still have to be tested to be certain, but I would say 9 times out of 10 but thats just my opinion.

I'm personally of the opinion that Paint is a breed, especially now that they don't allow cropouts. They are absolutely not the same thing as Quarter Horses.

[quote="accphotography"]I'm personally of the opinion that Paint is a breed, especially now that they don't allow cropouts. They are absolutely not the same thing as Quarter Horses.[/quote]

How are Paints not the same breed as a QH?, are 2 arabs, one that is bay and one that is gray not the same breed because one is a gray and one is a bay?
Paints and QHs have long shared the same bloodlines and still do there are many QHs that are genetically Paints and many Paints that have no Paint color gene, color is color and a breed is a breed. That is why QH finally got rid of their no white rule, and that many Paints can be registered QH. The fact of the matter is they have shared the same bloodlines since before either was a breed and the only reason APHA stated its own registry is because some old fart decided he didn't excess white on his QH.

Because there are bloodlines in the Paint breed that do not exist in the Quarter Horse breed. They did NOT all come from the same source.

[quote="accphotography"]Because there are bloodlines in the Paint breed that do not exist in the Quarter Horse breed. They did NOT all come from the same source.[/quote]

Yes actually originally they did, You are talking about Tobianos and they were excluded later. This is Painted Joe and at the time he was alive he was considered a Quarter Horse and raced against QHs before they were a breed, even Tobiano's today share the same bloodlines as QH's. So before either were seperate breeds [b]based[/b] on color QH's and even Tobiano Paints shared the same bloodlines.

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/painted…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They do NOT now. I'd be shocked if someone could find evidence of a Quarter Horse that traced to one of Tobais' horses.

[quote="accphotography"]They do NOT now. I'd be shocked if someone could find evidence of a Quarter Horse that traced to one of Tobais' horses.[/quote]

They do not now because they decided to exclude Tobianos, based on color not bloodlines, as well as anything they now classify within Overo ( which they now allow), but even if they don't trace back to Tobiano's on paper, the fact of the matter remains that AQHA and APHA started with the same horses and were only separated in the 60's, not even that long ago, based on [b]color only[/b], for no other reason were the 2 separated. The breeds are relitively young breeds compared to the worlds older breeds and are far less diverse from each other based on bloodlines than say a Polish Arab and a Egyptian Arab which are still both eligable for the AHR.
Paints and QH's still compete in all the same diciplines within in their own registrys but they used compete against each other not all that long ago (because they are the same breed).
Here is another Tobiano that my good old Paint Mare Mia traced back to, a Tobiano that won the 1964 NCHA championship competing against QH's before they seperated the 2 breeds.
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/rhett+b…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on the history book the breeds didn't separate... APHA formed to fill a need left by AQHA choices.

[quote="colorfan"]Is it true that you can tell if a horse is a homozygous tobiano by the presence of bear paws in the coat?[/quote]

[quote="Threnody"]They are [b]highly [/b]correlated with each other. As Jenks said it isn't infallible, as other things can mimic inkspots in Tobiano.[/quote]

There are heaps of homozygous tobianos without any obvious paw prints too. So as much as I agree that they are highly correlated with each other, there are enough exceptions that I wouldn't depend on it.

It's more likely to find a homozygote without paw prints than to find a heterozygote with them.

[quote="accphotography"]Based on the history book the breeds didn't separate... APHA formed to fill a need left by AQHA choices.[/quote]

Um ok how ever you want to word it but that need was there because some QH breeders did not want excessive white on their QH's so that left the QH's with the excessive white needing their own breed registry. Color is the only reason not bloodlines that need was there in the first place.......based on the history books......lol!

According to APHA the first horse they registered had no relation to Quarter Horses.

[quote="accphotography"]According to APHA the first horse they registered had no relation to Quarter Horses.[/quote]

No not true, the APHA was formed from 2 registrys the The American Paint Stock horse Association and the The American Paint Quarter Horse Association, which from my Paint horse history book I ordered from the APHA says from the pages of the book that. Many of the founders of the Association were owners of QH's and members of the AQHA. These founders who had a # of Paint horses produced by QH's parents on both sides, felt the animal deserved recongnition and that they were, in fact QH's with color. The charter for the new Association was obtained in Abilene TEXAS in 1961 under the laws of Texas. A trademark featuring a QH type horse with Paint markings standing on a map of the US was registered with the US government.

ok, thanks.

The APHA has a way to register 'solid' paints. They used to call them breeding stock but have changed the name.
Seems odd the QH would now be allowing cropouts when they wouldn't for so long which is why the APHA came to be.

"On August 11, 1962, Rebecca sat at her kitchen table and recorded the pedigree of the first American Paint Horse, a black and white tobiano stallion named Bandits Pinto owned by the Flying M Ranch of McKinney, Texas. "

At the very least he was a tobiano. Now what your opinions is of where tobianos came from and whether they were used in QH foundation breeding is what really comes to the forefront.

However I can see that neither of us are going to convince the other and it's a stupid argument anyway.

[quote="accphotography"]"On August 11, 1962, Rebecca sat at her kitchen table and recorded the pedigree of the first American Paint Horse, a black and white tobiano stallion named Bandits Pinto owned by the Flying M Ranch of McKinney, Texas. "

At the very least he was a tobiano. Now what your opinions is of where tobianos came from and whether they were used in QH foundation breeding is what really comes to the forefront.

However I can see that neither of us are going to convince the other and it's a stupid argument anyway.[/quote]

Yes Bandits Pinto a 1959 black tobiano stallion By Bay Bandit [b]QH[/b] and out of Flying M's Painted lady, so being that his sire was a QH how do come to the conclusion that this horse has no relation to a QH?
I wouldn't call it a stupid agument.

I got this information out of my signed copy of More than Color by Frank Holmes, but Bandits Pinto is also on allbreeds.

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/bandits…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quote="accphotography"]According to APHA the first horse they registered had no relation to Quarter Horses.[/quote]

I don't know who your source is but it certainly isn't APHA. Frank Holmes author of many Western horseman books including More Than color as well as the editor for Paint horse journal from 1995-1999.

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/bandits…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also I might ad that Painted Joe before he was registered Paint he was registered American Quarter Running horse, and he was a Tobiano.
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/painted…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I skipped a lot of the posts, but I have to say that if Paints were all QH's my paint would be eligible for the QH registry. But she's not because she's mostly thoroughbred. I see you are on to some other related topic, but there is nothing wrong with a healthy & respectful debate.

Weren't 2 seperate clubs joined at some point to form the APHA?

Did the JC not allow color? Or did they just not like color? I don't know about that.....

[quote="rodeoratdogs"][quote="accphotography"]According to APHA the first horse they registered had no relation to Quarter Horses.[/quote]

No not true, the APHA was formed from 2 registrys the The American Paint Stock horse Association and the The American Paint Quarter Horse Association, which from my Paint horse history book I ordered from the APHA says from the pages of the book that. Many of the founders of the Association were owners of QH's and members of the AQHA. These founders who had a # of Paint horses produced by QH's parents on both sides, felt the animal deserved recongnition and that they were, in fact QH's with color. The charter for the new Association was obtained in Abilene TEXAS in 1961 under the laws of Texas. A trademark featuring a QH type horse with Paint markings standing on a map of the US was registered with the US government.[/quote]

Yes Jenks, I quoted my comment on that so you could see the 2 registry's you are thinking of and why it was formed,
As far as the JC they have never excluded Paint colored horses out of ther registry. Any TB that is born with Paint color is still eligable to be registered with the JC but can also be registered Paint.
It is hard to express I think in a forum your stance so to speak, I'm not like mad or anything just I have had a love for QH's and Paints for pretty much all of my life, and researched both breeds and their origins in depth. That is why I know they are the same breed under 2 different registrys based on color only. I don't really see a problem with that except it does create alot on confusion based in people opinions and of what they might have heard, but you have to know the facts.
ACC quoted that the APHA first registered horse had no relation to a QH and that is simply not true, I have proven that so if I see somthing I know is not correct of course I'm going to give the correct info, I'm not argueing for the sake of agueing that would be stupid, but it is I think an important topic and interesting horse history.

I think ACC is kinda cool I like her, she has taught me alot of interesting paint genetic stuff, I just disagree with her on this
topic strongly.

[quote="Jenks"]I skipped a lot of the posts, but I have to say that if Paints were all QH's my paint would be eligible for the QH registry. But she's not because she's mostly thoroughbred. I see you are on to some other related topic, but there is nothing wrong with a healthy & respectful debate.

Weren't 2 seperate clubs joined at some point to form the APHA?

Did the JC not allow color? Or did they just not like color? I don't know about that.....[/quote]

As far as your mostly TB Paint not being eligable, it depends on wheather or not every horse that traces back in her registry traces back to a QH or a TB. Because of AQHA new rule where now they no longer exclude Paints born from 2 QH parents with color like the JC, but the problem is you have to go back and register every horse that is now eligable in the line before you horse can be registered and that is very expensive :shock: I have to say that money is a big motivator here, but always in APHA and AQHA, QH and TB blood is allowed. Like I could register Annie QH is I wanted to pay for it.

I didn't realize the AQHA had always allowed TB blood....I knew there was some in there....I thought that was a more recent allowance? With a certain number of performance points a TB could be registered as a QH?

I'm not real up on this - Sorry! LOL

I disagree strongly as well, but just don't feel the argument is worthwhile. It is what it is.

No, a FULL TB wouldn't get AQHA papers. However a 15/16+ appendix could.

[quote="Jenks"]I didn't realize the AQHA had always allowed TB blood....I knew there was some in there....I thought that was a more recent allowance? With a certain number of performance points a TB could be registered as a QH?

I'm not real up on this - Sorry! LOL[/quote]

No, but a QH or a Paint can be almost all TB it just have to have QH or Paint blood also. Both breeds have allowed TB from the beginning because before APHA and before AQHA it was race horse registered under American Quarter running horse, this was the fledgling AQHA. QH's and Paint were a first a speed horse before they were any of the things they are celebrated for now. AQHA and APHA has long recognized the importance of speed for versatility. If you look at my Colt Doc for instance he comes from a long line of cutting horses that came from the all important Doc Bar x Poco Lena cross that created a dynasty of cutting horses. Look at Doc Bars Pedigree.
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/doc+bar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quote="accphotography"]I disagree strongly as well, but just don't feel the argument is worthwhile. It is what it is.

No, a FULL TB wouldn't get AQHA papers. However a 15/16+ appendix could.[/quote]

How is it not worth while ACC, tell me do you still say that Bandits Pinto had no relation to a QH, when I have shown you that is not true? Where are you getting you information that you are clinging to, I would think as smart as you seem to be you would not be above learning somthing you actually didn't know.