More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Karen Hinchy
Apr 14, 2018, 12:13:48 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
Some additional information from the DNA tests on Chinook sirelines from the 90s has come in, and it is....puzzling. As noted previously, paternal haplogroups and type come solely from the sire. Dogs that all descend from the same ancestor (e..g, Perry Greene Riki 1968) in the sireline should have the same paternal haplogroup/type. So, based on our pedigrees we would expect ALL Chinook males to have the same paternal haplogroup/type as their pedigrees go back to Perry Greene Riki 1968.
Embark (who did the testing) confirmed that these results are evidence of multiple sirelines in the breed.... or in other words, our pedigrees are wrong and not all sirelines go back to Perry Greene Riki 1968. They further noted this evidence identifies at least three different sirelines in the dogs tested, as even those in the same haplogroup are ridiculously unlikely to have mutated in the twenty-odd years since the 90s.
The results/What it Means:
- The CPP pedigrees are incorrect - either in the last few generations (less likely) or somewhere further back in the pedigrees than the sirelines noted (more likely).
- North Wind Nome is not a full sibling to North Wind Kodiac & Kiska. North Wind Kodiac & Kiska have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a sire.
- Georgianna's Bonehead and Benjamin's Kuska & Tekoa are not full siblings - they are excluded from sharing a sire (currently noted as Singing Woods Nanook)
- Georgianna's Bonehead and North Wind Nome have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a sire /paternal ancestor.
- I can't think of a way to determine which of these sirelines actually goes back to Perry Greene Riki 1968, or if ANY of them do.
So. I leave this out for people to digest and ask questions, and some time later this week will steer towards a "so what do we do about it"? It sets badly with me that we KNOW the pedigrees are incorrect. We've long known this but been in denial with the NW pedigrees....this actually take it beyond that.
Mary Malkiel
Apr 14, 2018, 12:23:28 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Hi All,
Perhaps, since we now know that the pedigrees are incorrect, we just start from a place that (maybe) we know the pedigrees to be true and move forward from there?
Perhaps this also stresses the importance of using the Optimal Selection or Embark testing as a tool to help us choose our pairings even more accurately?
I'm not a genetisist, but rather that trying to figure out where things went wrong, maybe it is better to focus our time and energies to move forward from a point of accuracy.
If we don't know a point of accuracy that we can trust, then we just start now and move forward, and hopefully records will remain true.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head after reading this.
Mary Malkiel
On Apr 14, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Karen Hinchy wrote:
Hi all,Some additional information from the DNA tests on Chinook sirelines from the 90s has come in, and it is....puzzling. As noted previously, paternal haplogroups and type come solely from the sire. Dogs that all descend from the same ancestor (e..g, Perry Greene Riki 1968) in the sireline should have the same paternal haplogroup/type. So, based on our pedigrees we would expect ALL Chinook males to have the same paternal haplogroup/type as their pedigrees go back to Perry Greene Riki 1968.Embark (who did the testing) confirmed that these results are evidence of multiple sirelines in the breed.... or in other words, our pedigrees are wrong and not all sirelines go back to Perry Greene Riki 1968. They further noted this evidence identifies at least three different sirelines in the dogs tested, as even those in the same haplogroup are ridiculously unlikely to have mutated in the twenty-odd years since the 90s.
<image.png>
The results/What it Means:
- The CPP pedigrees are incorrect - either in the last few generations (less likely) or somewhere further back in the pedigrees than the sirelines noted (more likely).
- North Wind Nome is not a full sibling to North Wind Kodiac & Kiska. North Wind Kodiac & Kiska have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a sire.
- Georgianna's Bonehead and Benjamin's Kuska & Tekoa are not full siblings - they are excluded from sharing a sire (currently noted as Singing Woods Nanook)
- Georgianna's Bonehead and North Wind Nome have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a sire /paternal ancestor.
- I can't think of a way to determine which of these sirelines actually goes back to Perry Greene Riki 1968, or if ANY of them do.
So. I leave this out for people to digest and ask questions, and some time later this week will steer towards a "so what do we do about it"? It sets badly with me that we KNOW the pedigrees are incorrect. We've long known this but been in denial with the NW pedigrees....this actually take it beyond that.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Susan E Bragg
Apr 14, 2018, 2:12:04 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
THANK you, Mary. For even though I too am no pro geneticist; I for sure have studied all of these pedigrees for 20plus years already; Just to finally be able to say today-- REALITY is-
We can't even pave our way(s) correctly back to PG Riki 1968 now, let alone further back to/thru PGK 1950s to Old CHINOOK himself, agreed.
At least NOT via our SIRE lines as recorded & DNA ID'd to date, agreed.
(I WILL continue work on the also tenuous DAM line back to HONOEY G's passing, so we can also keep any real door(s) open in future if other 1950s GREENE source data arrives, yes. Unless and until we come up with 2nd/add'l DAM lines too, understood! I won't beg them, but simply say that too can still happen, understood!)
Anyway, moving forward pronto remains key, where the genome is indeed already collapsing via low Numbers as combined with low Diversity, still needing/bleeding for new founders forward too, etc.
So I too might suggest COA recommend we re-move to OPEN All Sires on All NW dogs (Kiska, Kodiac, Riki, Nome plus all NW females, including Hoonah & Tia), as well as on All Benjamin's & Georgianna's dogs even (which will include correctly removing SIRE of record for G Boney & Sheena finally; Not just sire(s) on B Ku and Toes). THEN At least we will have better peds again, thereby, exactly.
For I have no clue what happened, where or when. I only know we CANNOT REVISIT what indeed DID happen without also re-questioning some of the 1981 RESCUE pedigrees as well as the first/next Gen dogs they produced, exactly. I'm clear on this/that much. Thank gawd for DNA and also OS & Embark, therefore!
And personally, I've already 'been there done that' 'questioning' for same 21plus years; And have NO FURTHER INTEREST in CREATING further RUMORS alone with Out MORE DNA to prove ANY further posits/conjectures/rumors, agreed. I already feel EMBARK has HELPED up KNOW there is NO WAY to have further DISCUSSION even without involving all 3 Rescue kennels records-- AP, SW, Yokayo. Yet again, I'm not foolish enough to do this/that in 2018. So I too am still learning/growing. Give me DNA or nothing forward then! :)
For this hour, we already know there are sadly NO KNOWN sire line(s) back to Riki '68, unless others have in fact DNA to share on HIM or PRE Rescue dog(s) which can be compared within today's dogs as Embark(ed), I guess. But I don't think we NEED to reach back again in 2018; Where the genome which remains today is clearly further extincting this hour, sad but true.
What the LIVING NEED NOW are MORE CORRECT 6Gen peds, no more no less. FORWARD NEXT then is key, imho.
UNLESS someone has in fact DNA on PG Riki 68 himself, or of/on any of his PRIMARY or SECONDARY RELATIONS of record, in short.
For we are already in a BRAVE NEW WORLD of remaining CHINOOK genome, yep. And I STILL LOVE DNA, yep. It remains ONLY thing keeping me too sane this day, odd but true! :)
best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/14/18, Mary Malkiel <laughing...@comcast.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2018, 11:23 AM
noted as Singing Woods Nanook)Georgianna's
We can't even pave our way(s) correctly back to PG Riki 1968 now, let alone further back to/thru PGK 1950s to Old CHINOOK himself, agreed.
At least NOT via our SIRE lines as recorded & DNA ID'd to date, agreed.
(I WILL continue work on the also tenuous DAM line back to HONOEY G's passing, so we can also keep any real door(s) open in future if other 1950s GREENE source data arrives, yes. Unless and until we come up with 2nd/add'l DAM lines too, understood! I won't beg them, but simply say that too can still happen, understood!)
Anyway, moving forward pronto remains key, where the genome is indeed already collapsing via low Numbers as combined with low Diversity, still needing/bleeding for new founders forward too, etc.
So I too might suggest COA recommend we re-move to OPEN All Sires on All NW dogs (Kiska, Kodiac, Riki, Nome plus all NW females, including Hoonah & Tia), as well as on All Benjamin's & Georgianna's dogs even (which will include correctly removing SIRE of record for G Boney & Sheena finally; Not just sire(s) on B Ku and Toes). THEN At least we will have better peds again, thereby, exactly.
For I have no clue what happened, where or when. I only know we CANNOT REVISIT what indeed DID happen without also re-questioning some of the 1981 RESCUE pedigrees as well as the first/next Gen dogs they produced, exactly. I'm clear on this/that much. Thank gawd for DNA and also OS & Embark, therefore!
And personally, I've already 'been there done that' 'questioning' for same 21plus years; And have NO FURTHER INTEREST in CREATING further RUMORS alone with Out MORE DNA to prove ANY further posits/conjectures/rumors, agreed. I already feel EMBARK has HELPED up KNOW there is NO WAY to have further DISCUSSION even without involving all 3 Rescue kennels records-- AP, SW, Yokayo. Yet again, I'm not foolish enough to do this/that in 2018. So I too am still learning/growing. Give me DNA or nothing forward then! :)
For this hour, we already know there are sadly NO KNOWN sire line(s) back to Riki '68, unless others have in fact DNA to share on HIM or PRE Rescue dog(s) which can be compared within today's dogs as Embark(ed), I guess. But I don't think we NEED to reach back again in 2018; Where the genome which remains today is clearly further extincting this hour, sad but true.
What the LIVING NEED NOW are MORE CORRECT 6Gen peds, no more no less. FORWARD NEXT then is key, imho.
UNLESS someone has in fact DNA on PG Riki 68 himself, or of/on any of his PRIMARY or SECONDARY RELATIONS of record, in short.
For we are already in a BRAVE NEW WORLD of remaining CHINOOK genome, yep. And I STILL LOVE DNA, yep. It remains ONLY thing keeping me too sane this day, odd but true! :)
best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/14/18, Mary Malkiel <laughing...@comcast.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2018, 11:23 AM
Bonehead and North Wind Nome have the same sireline and
cannot be excluded from sharing a sire /paternal ancestor.
I can't think of a way to determine which of
these sirelines actually goes back to Perry Greene Riki
1968, or if ANY of them do.
So. I leave this out for people to
digest and ask questions, and some time later this week will
steer towards a "so what do we do about it"? It
sets badly with me that we KNOW the pedigrees are
incorrect. We've long known this but been in denial
with the NW pedigrees....this actually take it beyond that.
--
Karen
Hinchy
Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mary
Malkiellaug...@comcast.netwww.laughingmountainchinooks.com
cannot be excluded from sharing a sire /paternal ancestor.
I can't think of a way to determine which of
these sirelines actually goes back to Perry Greene Riki
1968, or if ANY of them do.
So. I leave this out for people to
digest and ask questions, and some time later this week will
steer towards a "so what do we do about it"? It
sets badly with me that we KNOW the pedigrees are
incorrect. We've long known this but been in denial
with the NW pedigrees....this actually take it beyond that.
--
Karen
Hinchy
Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Mary
Susan E Bragg
Apr 14, 2018, 2:50:29 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
re: prior DNA exclusion between NW Kodiac & dam of record G Sheena
Most conservative approach I guess would be to also remove his Dam to OPEN finally. Unless you think that beg's the question further whether to remove her as also Kiska's dam. Which in turn may beg to FULLY OPEN all Peds on all NW dogs, even on the further/later included Hoonah/G Sheena DNA inclusion, exactly. because that Inclusion was based upon a/the still pending Sire sample, yes.
So it may be sanest to WHOLLY OPEN all NW PEDS then, agreed. For they are a hopeless muddle now, without further DNA, also agreed. best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
Most conservative approach I guess would be to also remove his Dam to OPEN finally. Unless you think that beg's the question further whether to remove her as also Kiska's dam. Which in turn may beg to FULLY OPEN all Peds on all NW dogs, even on the further/later included Hoonah/G Sheena DNA inclusion, exactly. because that Inclusion was based upon a/the still pending Sire sample, yes.
So it may be sanest to WHOLLY OPEN all NW PEDS then, agreed. For they are a hopeless muddle now, without further DNA, also agreed. best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/14/18, 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2018, 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Cheryl Brown
Apr 14, 2018, 3:34:57 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Maybe this means we have more diversity in the breed than we thought :). Who knows who was bred to who! Trying to think positively
Cheryl Brown
Hi all,Some additional information from the DNA tests on Chinook sirelines from the 90s has come in, and it is....puzzling. As noted previously, paternal haplogroups and type come solely from the sire. Dogs that all descend from the same ancestor (e..g, Perry Greene Riki 1968) in the sireline should have the same paternal haplogroup/type. So, based on our pedigrees we would expect ALL Chinook males to have the same paternal haplogroup/type as their pedigrees go back to Perry Greene Riki 1968.Embark (who did the testing) confirmed that these results are evidence of multiple sirelines in the breed.... or in other words, our pedigrees are wrong and not all sirelines go back to Perry Greene Riki 1968. They further noted this evidence identifies at least three different sirelines in the dogs tested, as even those in the same haplogroup are ridiculously unlikely to have mutated in the twenty-odd years since the 90s.
<image.png>
The results/What it Means:
- The CPP pedigrees are incorrect - either in the last few generations (less likely) or somewhere further back in the pedigrees than the sirelines noted (more likely).
- North Wind Nome is not a full sibling to North Wind Kodiac & Kiska. North Wind Kodiac & Kiska have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a sire.
- Georgianna's Bonehead and Benjamin's Kuska & Tekoa are not full siblings - they are excluded from sharing a sire (currently noted as Singing Woods Nanook)
- Georgianna's Bonehead and North Wind Nome have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a sire /paternal ancestor.
- I can't think of a way to determine which of these sirelines actually goes back to Perry Greene Riki 1968, or if ANY of them do.
So. I leave this out for people to digest and ask questions, and some time later this week will steer towards a "so what do we do about it"? It sets badly with me that we KNOW the pedigrees are incorrect. We've long known this but been in denial with the NW pedigrees....this actually take it beyond that.
--
Mary Jo Crance
Apr 14, 2018, 3:52:12 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
The genetics test we have now show that the Chinook breed is not diverse, in fact. So even if the sireline pedigrees/paperwork are inaccurate, we still are no more diverse than the genetic facts we have.
It may calm a little those who think adding more diversity into the gene pool will ruin the breed...diversity was added in the past and the breed was not destroyed.
But I say start with pedigrees that we think are accurate and look to the future. You can always remain open to new information that might explain the past, but I doubt anything will come forward.
Cheryl Brown
Apr 14, 2018, 3:55:40 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
I understand genetics tell us where we are today. I guess I meant if the pedigrees were correct we could be in even worse shape genetically today :)
Cheryl Brown
Susan E Bragg
Apr 14, 2018, 4:21:41 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Where we stand today would already be a lot closer to 'extinct' without both MARS OS and Embark, agreed.
Regarding pedigrees, bear in mind how even within this sire line(s) review(s); at least 3 parts of it too are already extinct on the paw(s).
Ginger ended NW Riki sire line long ago already, if memory serves.
As well, I ended Nome sire line last year when T Fram died.
And Lander is alive but also well beyond any fertility range(s) going on 16yo, etc.
So we are already a LOT further DOWN this GENOMIC PIKE than most knew/know, including me until this sire line review.
And it too can change/grow. As can the dam line(s) yet, etc. SUFFICE it to say, therefore, I'm PLEASED Bashaba added the new SIRE line.
And I can only say how much I too feel new DAM founder(s) line(s) are sorely needed. So you can better 'distribute' remaining sire line(s) in real time genome now too, etc.
Anyway, making the 6Gen peds MORE CORRECT finally is in order HERE (within CPP/COA/UKC), imho.
Mary M said it best first then- Just focus on whatall we can give the remaining breeders TODAY, by better 6Gen peds finally.
For my own parts; I have already let go of my admitted disappointment(s) we have indeed lost the ability to ID sire lineage(s) back to Riki '68, let alone further thru PG 1950s to CHINOOK himself. Simply comes a day when reality is better than fantasy/myth, yup.
So the DNA based peds TODAY are the WAY FORWARD, agreed. This genome was indeed 'reset' again circa 2015. That also suits ME WELL in 2018 forward. For we can't ever go back in real time, as breeders/genetically. Even when we again looked back to aid the present set(s) dogs & their also ancestry, best we could/can.
Regarding pedigrees, bear in mind how even within this sire line(s) review(s); at least 3 parts of it too are already extinct on the paw(s).
Ginger ended NW Riki sire line long ago already, if memory serves.
As well, I ended Nome sire line last year when T Fram died.
And Lander is alive but also well beyond any fertility range(s) going on 16yo, etc.
So we are already a LOT further DOWN this GENOMIC PIKE than most knew/know, including me until this sire line review.
And it too can change/grow. As can the dam line(s) yet, etc. SUFFICE it to say, therefore, I'm PLEASED Bashaba added the new SIRE line.
And I can only say how much I too feel new DAM founder(s) line(s) are sorely needed. So you can better 'distribute' remaining sire line(s) in real time genome now too, etc.
Anyway, making the 6Gen peds MORE CORRECT finally is in order HERE (within CPP/COA/UKC), imho.
Mary M said it best first then- Just focus on whatall we can give the remaining breeders TODAY, by better 6Gen peds finally.
For my own parts; I have already let go of my admitted disappointment(s) we have indeed lost the ability to ID sire lineage(s) back to Riki '68, let alone further thru PG 1950s to CHINOOK himself. Simply comes a day when reality is better than fantasy/myth, yup.
So the DNA based peds TODAY are the WAY FORWARD, agreed. This genome was indeed 'reset' again circa 2015. That also suits ME WELL in 2018 forward. For we can't ever go back in real time, as breeders/genetically. Even when we again looked back to aid the present set(s) dogs & their also ancestry, best we could/can.
best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/14/18, Cheryl Brown <dogr...@comcast.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2018, 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Mary Jo Crance
Apr 14, 2018, 4:37:48 PM4/14/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
😀
Carie Taylor
Apr 16, 2018, 3:09:59 PM4/16/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
If DNA is showing these dogs have questionable parentage, then shouldn't the pedigrees be changed to show these dogs as having "open" parentage? No one likes having a big question mark in a pedigree but it is better than inaccurate information.
Carie Taylor
Moonsong Chinooks
http://moonsongchinooks.blogspot.com
chino...@hotmail.com
moonson...@yahoo.com
Moonsong Chinooks
http://moonsongchinooks.blogspot.com
chino...@hotmail.com
moonson...@yahoo.com
From: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 12:13 PM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 12:13 PM
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
--
Susan E Bragg
Apr 16, 2018, 4:39:21 PM4/16/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Questionable SIRE LINE(ages) are not quite SAME as questionable PARENTAGE(s)/SIRE(s), Carie.
POINT remains this hour, how ALL of these Sire line(s) remain QUESTIONABLE in RELATION to PG Riki 1968.
Which rather means we need to remove ALL SIRE LINE(s) of ALL MALE CHINOOK(s) at SOME linear point(s), agreed.
I yet suggest we do it at NW, Georgianna's/Benjamin's SIRE(s) levels, for starters (as outlined already in prior posts).
For as the Embark sire lineage(s) plus all prior DNA ID lineage(s) continue suggest;
There are AT LEAST 2 SW dogs in question still (Nanook and Cygnus); as well as
2 Georgianna's dogs in question (Bonehead & Sheena). That remains the short reality from where I too sit today.
Because Y CHEENA is also duly involved, as well as
VICTORS(essentially AP) female(s), as well as perhaps further BACKROADS dogs, & the REAL list of REAL VARIABLES does yet go on SINCE 1995.
So since there is NO WAY to go back to gain DNA on Nanook, Cygnus, Bonehead or Sheena themselves; let alone ANY WAY to in fact COMPARE it to REAL DNA of PG Riki 1968; what happened is we are sitting on a genome which we lost ABILITY to DNA LINK to 1968.
All the rest is conjecture.
NO SENSE having a GUESSING GAME WHICH (IF ANY) of these 3 REAL SIRE LINE(ages) indeed goes back to PG RIKI 68.
For it's all just shadowing one another again, which remains harmful, to both the breeders and the REALLY EXTINCTING GENOME finally.
It's truly time to let go of Riki 68/Chinook linkages, therefore. To also continue clearly float better peds for the new Embark/MARS OS matings tools, in short. That's plenty enough unless others come up with real Riki 68 Generation DNA. With those Matings tools, we don't need to KNOW more than the also continue Haplotype(s)/group(s), frankly.
For I am NOT GOING to even ASK those I know had dogs from 1968 gen(s) if they yet own their dog's posthumous skeletons.
Too gross a proposition for me still/even to ask folks to begin exhuming skeletons of their beloveds in order to gain further REALITY check pre & post RESCUE.
IF we had some of the also PENDING SW/Yokayo/AP DNA already, maybe.
But likely not even then would I be one to dig up old bones, let alone ask others to do so.
FOR I HAVE NO PROOF ANY of the RESCUE Kennels/PEDS too were accurate, is why. ZERO. In fact, even Joyce once suggested to me how she too wondered if SUKEE added a GSD, etc. HellifIknow. Joyce admitted she too was simply CONJECTURING!
So I think it's better to just admit what we DON"T KNOW and likely NEVER WILL KNOW NOW the Sire lines are already at 3 and counting, & NONE of them remains in fact traceable to Riki 68. Otherwise, it's just breeders bickering for the sake of bickering, imho. Again, been there, done that, sine 1997. As you can see- it too didn't much aid this genome, in fact.
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018, 2:09 PM
If DNA is showing
these dogs have questionable parentage, then shouldn't
the pedigrees be changed to show these dogs as having
"open" parentage? No one likes having a big
question mark in a pedigree but it is better
than inaccurate information.
Carie Taylor
Moonsong Chinooks
http://moonsongchinooks.blogspot.com
chino...@hotmail.com
moonson...@yahoo.com
POINT remains this hour, how ALL of these Sire line(s) remain QUESTIONABLE in RELATION to PG Riki 1968.
Which rather means we need to remove ALL SIRE LINE(s) of ALL MALE CHINOOK(s) at SOME linear point(s), agreed.
I yet suggest we do it at NW, Georgianna's/Benjamin's SIRE(s) levels, for starters (as outlined already in prior posts).
For as the Embark sire lineage(s) plus all prior DNA ID lineage(s) continue suggest;
There are AT LEAST 2 SW dogs in question still (Nanook and Cygnus); as well as
2 Georgianna's dogs in question (Bonehead & Sheena). That remains the short reality from where I too sit today.
Because Y CHEENA is also duly involved, as well as
VICTORS(essentially AP) female(s), as well as perhaps further BACKROADS dogs, & the REAL list of REAL VARIABLES does yet go on SINCE 1995.
So since there is NO WAY to go back to gain DNA on Nanook, Cygnus, Bonehead or Sheena themselves; let alone ANY WAY to in fact COMPARE it to REAL DNA of PG Riki 1968; what happened is we are sitting on a genome which we lost ABILITY to DNA LINK to 1968.
All the rest is conjecture.
NO SENSE having a GUESSING GAME WHICH (IF ANY) of these 3 REAL SIRE LINE(ages) indeed goes back to PG RIKI 68.
For it's all just shadowing one another again, which remains harmful, to both the breeders and the REALLY EXTINCTING GENOME finally.
It's truly time to let go of Riki 68/Chinook linkages, therefore. To also continue clearly float better peds for the new Embark/MARS OS matings tools, in short. That's plenty enough unless others come up with real Riki 68 Generation DNA. With those Matings tools, we don't need to KNOW more than the also continue Haplotype(s)/group(s), frankly.
For I am NOT GOING to even ASK those I know had dogs from 1968 gen(s) if they yet own their dog's posthumous skeletons.
Too gross a proposition for me still/even to ask folks to begin exhuming skeletons of their beloveds in order to gain further REALITY check pre & post RESCUE.
IF we had some of the also PENDING SW/Yokayo/AP DNA already, maybe.
But likely not even then would I be one to dig up old bones, let alone ask others to do so.
FOR I HAVE NO PROOF ANY of the RESCUE Kennels/PEDS too were accurate, is why. ZERO. In fact, even Joyce once suggested to me how she too wondered if SUKEE added a GSD, etc. HellifIknow. Joyce admitted she too was simply CONJECTURING!
So I think it's better to just admit what we DON"T KNOW and likely NEVER WILL KNOW NOW the Sire lines are already at 3 and counting, & NONE of them remains in fact traceable to Riki 68. Otherwise, it's just breeders bickering for the sake of bickering, imho. Again, been there, done that, sine 1997. As you can see- it too didn't much aid this genome, in fact.
best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4/16/18, Carie Taylor <chino...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: "chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com" <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018, 2:09 PM
If DNA is showing
these dogs have questionable parentage, then shouldn't
the pedigrees be changed to show these dogs as having
"open" parentage? No one likes having a big
question mark in a pedigree but it is better
than inaccurate information.
Carie Taylor
Moonsong Chinooks
http://moonsongchinooks.blogspot.com
chino...@hotmail.com
moonson...@yahoo.com
The results/What it Means:
The CPP pedigrees are incorrect - either in the last
few generations (less likely) or somewhere further back in
the pedigrees than the sirelines noted (more likely).
North Wind Nome is not a full sibling to North
Wind Kodiac & Kiska. North Wind Kodiac & Kiska
have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a
sire. Georgianna's Bonehead and
Benjamin's Kuska & Tekoa are not full siblings -
they are excluded from sharing a sire (currently noted as
Singing Woods Nanook)Georgianna's Bonehead and
The CPP pedigrees are incorrect - either in the last
few generations (less likely) or somewhere further back in
the pedigrees than the sirelines noted (more likely).
North Wind Nome is not a full sibling to North
Wind Kodiac & Kiska. North Wind Kodiac & Kiska
have the same sireline and cannot be excluded from sharing a
sire. Georgianna's Bonehead and
Benjamin's Kuska & Tekoa are not full siblings -
they are excluded from sharing a sire (currently noted as
Susan E Bragg
Apr 16, 2018, 4:55:56 PM4/16/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Basically, in further concise form-
UMO scientifically affirmed they had ZERO confidence in our PEDS as supplied within 1998/9 GSD.
Embark has scientifically affirmed we are looking at at least 3 distinct Sire line(s) for past 40 years or more, if I understand all correctly.
Those 2 pro gleanings remain degrees in sync, therefore. Which is the good news, imho.
Harder news is how to reset 6Gen peds on today's remaining Ref Pop. Because even if we OPEN ALL 1981 RESCUE PEDS too finally (as MANY have also suggested thru the decades for variant reason(s)); That too may not hit all the add'l REAL IDd variances at SW/Yokayo/AP DOWNLINE(s) levels, in short. Georgianna's/Benjamin's, etc.
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
UMO scientifically affirmed they had ZERO confidence in our PEDS as supplied within 1998/9 GSD.
Embark has scientifically affirmed we are looking at at least 3 distinct Sire line(s) for past 40 years or more, if I understand all correctly.
Those 2 pro gleanings remain degrees in sync, therefore. Which is the good news, imho.
Harder news is how to reset 6Gen peds on today's remaining Ref Pop. Because even if we OPEN ALL 1981 RESCUE PEDS too finally (as MANY have also suggested thru the decades for variant reason(s)); That too may not hit all the add'l REAL IDd variances at SW/Yokayo/AP DOWNLINE(s) levels, in short. Georgianna's/Benjamin's, etc.
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4/16/18, 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018, 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Susan E Bragg
Apr 16, 2018, 5:10:11 PM4/16/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
re: PG Riki 1968 DNA
To continue come perfectly clear-
IT WILL NOT BE ME which calls/emails Pete A to ask if he yet owns Riki's beloved skeleton; And if so, would he even consider subjecting it further to DNA extraction(s), even IF there is a lab which could work with him to also aid final Embark Sireline screening of DNA extracted, etc.!
So I still LOVE DNA, but I don't have that kind of audacity over bones as I do over the living, I guess. Especially as it's NO LONGER NECESSARY to the REMAINING LIVING in 2018; given MARS OS and Embark tools already available to Mate remaining Ref Pop, imho.
It's wasted time, energy, $, etc. The way I yet see it; there is damned little TIME left, NO $, & breeder energies growing also thinner by the litter(s), as the genome in fact extincts (as we knew it could since also same 1998/9 UMO studies, etc.).
To continue come perfectly clear-
IT WILL NOT BE ME which calls/emails Pete A to ask if he yet owns Riki's beloved skeleton; And if so, would he even consider subjecting it further to DNA extraction(s), even IF there is a lab which could work with him to also aid final Embark Sireline screening of DNA extracted, etc.!
So I still LOVE DNA, but I don't have that kind of audacity over bones as I do over the living, I guess. Especially as it's NO LONGER NECESSARY to the REMAINING LIVING in 2018; given MARS OS and Embark tools already available to Mate remaining Ref Pop, imho.
It's wasted time, energy, $, etc. The way I yet see it; there is damned little TIME left, NO $, & breeder energies growing also thinner by the litter(s), as the genome in fact extincts (as we knew it could since also same 1998/9 UMO studies, etc.).
best, seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4/16/18, 'Susan E Bragg' via Chinook Pedigree Project <chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018, 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Ginger Corley
Apr 16, 2018, 6:16:35 PM4/16/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Thinking about things logically, getting pedigrees opened by registration bodies (UKC and AKC) is like moving mountains. You **MAY** even open up the breeders and/or breed clubs to law suits. A lot of this was threatened back in the early 1990s when we had to open the pedigrees of the 40-some dogs (almost all of which were spayed/neutered, with the exception of I think about four) with UKC because they weren’t backed up by DNA when we first transferred our studbook. These dogs are now further back in our pedigrees so their impact is not the same as it was in the 1990s when we were breeding to them directly or to their offspring.
I think we need to simply flag these pedigrees in some way. I don’t know how but we need to come up with a way to do so. Is there a way we can do so in our whole breed historic database? For example, leave them as they are for now but affix a notation that these are proven incorrect by DNA and until we have more data the names in place now are simply space holders.
Susan made a comment that I ended the direct male line down from North Wind Riki of Bear Creek. I did not do so consciously and I hated to see it end. It ended when his only son from Rain Mountain Steele of Bear Creek (a monorchid male) was born completely cryptorchid. We did try breeding one of his sisters, Ch. Bear Creek Riki’s Echo of Rain, a very beautiful dog, but she produced about 50% dwarfism in her pups so I don’t think any were bred. It was heartbreaking to see this line have to end. North Wind Riki’s line continued through his daughter Jenna though but his male line just couldn’t keep going. As much as we want to retain as many genes as we can, sometimes we have to let go of those with deleterious genetic conditions as was the case with this male line via Steele. With 20/20 hindsight, I would have bred one of the other monorchid males from Steele’s litter (four of the five were and the fifth had Chinook seizures).
Ginger Corley
Rain Mountain Chinooks
established 1988
Susan E Bragg
Apr 16, 2018, 9:37:52 PM4/16/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com, Ginger Corley
The earlier hoohaa over those 43 UKC dogs was a combined confusion when Joyce/Marra/Rick S were still bickering over who the official COA REGISTRAR remained at the time of those submissions, aye. Old news/politics, long closed investigation, dead hoohaa #4495948.
Today, the studbooks may need to review too how to ethically proceed at least over Embark sire line results as compared to the single sire line foundation set(s) UKC & AKC. Dunno. I doubt if anyone needs to sue anyone else, however. Just so long as no one jumps up and suddenly claims publicly their stud is Riki 68 sire line. For that too is now clearly false advertising until proven (likely never).
re: NW Riki recap/update
Thanks for adding this detail, G. I didn't know or recall it all either.
Me too, doing a lot of 'hindsight(s) 20/20', yep. Can't be helped. best, seb
Today, the studbooks may need to review too how to ethically proceed at least over Embark sire line results as compared to the single sire line foundation set(s) UKC & AKC. Dunno. I doubt if anyone needs to sue anyone else, however. Just so long as no one jumps up and suddenly claims publicly their stud is Riki 68 sire line. For that too is now clearly false advertising until proven (likely never).
re: NW Riki recap/update
Thanks for adding this detail, G. I didn't know or recall it all either.
Me too, doing a lot of 'hindsight(s) 20/20', yep. Can't be helped. best, seb
Karen Hinchy
Apr 18, 2018, 1:50:51 PM4/18/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com, Ginger Corley
I tend to agree with what many have said - where we know pedigrees are incorrect we should open them. At least in CPP. Acknowledge where we simply don't have valid data, and to Mary Malkiel's point, begin to simply focus on the future. I also think we should notify the COA and CCA as well, but any action to change pedigrees with the UKC and AKC lie with them.
The question is.... where would be the right place to open the pedigrees. I would propose:
- North Wind dogs - There has long been controversy here, and unclear and/or conflicting transfers, etc. There is question both on the sireline, and on the dam side. I would propose we OPEN all North Wind pedigrees both sire and dam side.
- Benjamins/Georgianna's dogs.... OPEN sire line
I don't think there are many questions about breeding AFTER these dogs. What do people think?
Susan E Bragg
Apr 18, 2018, 2:38:32 PM4/18/18
to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com, Ginger Corley
AGREED with said proposal! seb
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
Cc: "Ginger Corley" <Gin...@hughes.net>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 12:50 PM
Susan E Bragg
Seppala Kennels & Atholl Chinooks
http://seppalakennels.com/
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/18/18, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
To: chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: More Updates on Genetic Testing and Historic Chinook Pedigrees
Cc: "Ginger Corley" <Gin...@hughes.net>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 12:50 PM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages