Talk:Pearl gene

New source

[1] Just putting it out here for someone (anyone!) to use. Countercanter (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you do not find a suitable image (Picture) that you can get permission to use, I'd really really like to try and make and illustration of a double pearl, pearl over palomino and/ or also pearl gene over black on bay or buckskin. I know Montana wanted a pic, but I have not seen a confirmed pearl that I can get a picture of myself yet. The above file that CC posted would be an exceptional reference for me to get a feel of the right tone and hue that has to go into the illustration to make it as accurate as possible. I was able also to get a hair sample from the palomino with blue eyes and light gray skin. perhaps that could go for testing, as she looks a bit like the palomino x one copy of pearl gene animal in the pdf file that CC posted Arsdelicata (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a photo can be of a horse that was actually tested, even if it wound up having multiple dilution genes, that would be ideal! Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the gene testing evidence should be best. I went to UC Davis site. It will cost $40 for red-agouti test, plus $25 for creme, plus $25 for pearl. Then to rule out champagne, $25. plus $25 to rule out silver. I'll see, but I don't think I can justify that much. Maybe I can convince the owners. Another option is sending hair to the person doing research on eye color, and hoping they share something of interest. Arsdelicata (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you test her for red and agouti? She is evidently red, which negates the need for a silver test and an agouti test. Countercanter (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe first test for pearl? If that's negative, then you are dead in the water and need go no further. If positive for pearl, then the question is what else is really needed, ruling in or out other things based on the actual horse and what its pedigree suggests may be in there. If eye color is not blue, then probably not a pseudo double dilute...? If no freckling, then probably not champagne...? As CC said, if there is no possibility of bay or black, then no need to test for agouti or silver, though I guess the $40 test is sort of a two for one price on E and Agouti, at that... but if no E, then no sense messing with silver or agouti.. ;-P Montanabw^(talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since she really looks a bit like the palomino pearl in material CC posted ( axcept she seems to be sooty palomino) I thought that has to be tested for ( both pearl and creme) because she might carry one copy for each. Now what stumped me on having to do a silver test is that this horse on wiki looks a bit like her Silver. What makes me think of doing the agouti red thing is that agouti is not expressed on a red but can still be there genetically, plus if she is a silver ( an I doubt it yet she does look a bit like what that silver pic looks like, she could actually be a black base coat. ) the reason for the champagne, and basically doing so many tests accept gray and tobiano ( and overo etc) is that I read MontanaBW say somewhere on wiki that people will want proof that trigger was a palomino. I really don't want someone to come along and make life hard by claiming "oh it's really a triple dilute silver pearl champainge, or palomino silver, or whatever...lol if you know what I mean. I do think I can handle doing creme and pearl tests. Arsdelicata (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Cream and Pearl may be enough to say "this horse has been tested and carries one copy each of the cream and pearl genes" -- or whatever. Yeah, someone COULD ask about the triple dilute whatever, and I actually can think of one editor who has been known to do that sort of thing, but I think the rest of us will back you! Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]