Lilac merles?

[MrSnappy]

Is this colour possible?

 

We got a dog into rescue that was adopted by one of our foster homes. She was called a "BC X ACD" but she's not, she's all BC. She's a merle, and we thought she was just a pale blue merle, then we thought maybe she was a red merle, but now having seen her in person, she looks to me like she's lilac, but she's a merle.

 

Her nose leather is slate grey with browning around the edges. Her coat is a silvery brown with typical merling.

 

The other possibility might be that she is a dilute red merle, but since her nose is grey, I'm thinking lilac.

 

Does anyone know of this colour? We're just generally curious.

 

RDM

[WWBC]

Hi RDM

You may want to post this question over on a BC merle list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Merlebordercollies/

Someone over there might be able to answer this question.

 

Good Luck

WWBC

[Northof49]

Lilac is a dilute of red in Border Collies and is very uncommon. The only dogs that I know of personally of this colour are from show lines.

[MrSnappy]

Hi RDM

You may want to post this question over on a BC merle list.

Thanks! I've joined, and will ask as soon as I get approved. Assuming I get approved

 

Lilac is a dilute of red in Border Collies and is very uncommon.

I know it's uncommon, but she's definitely not a blue or red merle. I found this page http://www.mastamariner.com/border_collie_...rs_page-02.html that says there is no such thing as a lilac merle, but I've got to wonder then what Willow is. She sure looks lilac to me.

 

RDM

[Eileen Stein]

I don't see any genetic reason why there couldn't be a lilac merle, although it would be very uncommon.

 

Can you put up a picture?

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

I don't see any genetic reason why there couldn't be a lilac merle, although it would be very uncommon.

 

Can you put up a picture?

I've only got one, and in it she looks like either a red merle or a more discriminating sort might say blue merle because her nose looks black. It has something to do with the photo quality and the sun. But in person, she is definitely neither of the two colours, or at least, not like any I've ever seen and I've seen a lot of them. And he nose is definitely grey.

 

Here's the only photo we have currently, but her owner plans to take more photos soon : http://www.petfinder.com/pet.cgi?action=2&...preview=1&row=0

 

She is also little, at about 32 lbs, and lean like a whippet.

 

RDM

[SoloRiver]

There's an email group just for merle Border Collies? Egad.

 

Willow is gorgeous, whatever color she is.

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by SoloRiver:

There's an email group just for merle Border Collies? Egad.

 

Willow is gorgeous, whatever color she is.

I agree, she is absolutely beautiful!

 

Here is a photo of her, if that helps. It's somewhat more true to colour than her other photo, which makes her appear pink. Only problem is, it's very small.

 

[WWBC]

Yes Melanie and there is also a list for Border Collies of different colours from Black and white.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BCColours/

 

Enjoy

WWBC

[SoloRiver]

Yes Melanie and there is also a list for Border Collies of different colours from Black and white.

 

Why?

[wildairbc]

Hi,

In the first picture, she appears to be a sable merle. She looks like a blue merle in the second.

"Lilac" and "slate" merles are actually not unheard of in the UK. As already stated, dilute "red"(chocolate, brown, liver) is called "lilac" for some reason and dilute black is called blue, except when it's a merle, and then it is called "slate merle" to distinguish it from blue(dilute) and blue merle(black merle).

The dilute gene is fairly prevalent in ALL UK lines. I have seen it in many "working" lines in the US also.

Bonnie

[juliepoudrier]

WildAir,

I find what you say somewhat surprising since I have seen just one merle* dog in all the trials I've attended. Where are all of these working bred unusually colored dogs hiding?

 

*This means one dog who was bred strictly from working lines. I have seen plenty of merles from show lines, but I haven't seen these dogs competing at the trials I've attended.

 

J.

[wildairbc]

Hi Julie,

I said "working bred" as in some of the 20,000 registered by the ABCA. Many of these dogs work. TRIALING is a sport, not a job.

Sorry to be so vauge.

Bonnie

[SoloRiver]

I said "working bred" as in some of the 20,000 registered by the ABCA. Many of these dogs work.

 

There are a great number of ABCA-registered dogs who I would consider "random-bred" rather than "working-bred." It would be more accurate to say that the vast majority of working-bred dogs are ABCA registered, but the converse is not necessarily true.

 

All of the working merles I have ever heard of trace back to one UK kennel (Sadghyl). I have only ever seen one merle running in a sheepdog trial.

[Jodi]

Hi Melanie -

 

I've got a blue merle that I am just starting to run in USBCHA trials (novice). And, yes, I would agree that most merles I see do go back to show lines. Mine has a bit of show lines mixed in real recently, but it's a working pedigree for the most part with some very nice dogs in it. When I ran in a trial a couple of weeks ago, there were two blue merles there -- one running pro-novice and the other running nursery. If fact, the one that ran nursery just got qualified for the national finals. To me, it's like when you go out and buy a nice car that you don't see too often. Then you take it out on the road and see that it's not quite as original as you thought...

 

Jodi M.

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by wildairbc:

Hi,

In the first picture, she appears to be a sable merle. She looks like a blue merle in the second.

 

Sable merle has been suggested also. But if a sable merle, wouldn't she have sable hairs? None of her hairs are sable, ie, none are tipped in black or any other colour. All her hairs are one colour.

 

Her "black" or blue patches are actually a deep deep brown (not red), with a greyish hue. Not black or "blue". The rest of her, as I say, is a pale greyish pink colour.

 

At this point it's only become an obsession because we have never seen anything like her. Personally, I want to see her work. She's got the attitude for it, just needs some confidence. Lovely dog too!

 

Thanks

 

RDM

[KathyF]

Hi All-

 

I just wanted to add that I watched a very nice blue merle bitch WIN the first run of OPEN at the Upper Midwest Stockdog trial this past Saturday. She is a very nice working dog which has nothing to do with her color. It's like everyone keeps saying, color or coat doesn't matter, it's the working ability of each individual dogs that counts. I don't care what color the dog is, as long as it can work.

[juliepoudrier]

Hi Bonnie,

I wasreferring to working dogs, not just trialling dogs. Sorry to disagree with you, but merles simply do not make up a large percentage of working bred dogs. Merle is a recessive trait, so you pretty much have to breed for it, and as we well know, most folks who are breeding working dogs for farm or trial field are notbreeding for color. that's not to say that merles don't appear, as Jodi indicates, but I don't believe that it occurs in "many working lines in the U.S."

 

J.

[wildairbc]

Hi Julie,

I never said that merles make up "a large percentage" of working BCs. They do not make up a large percentage of BCs, period. But they do exist, in working AND show lines. I have no control over the color preferences of BC owner/breeders. Obviously, working folks seem to prefer black and black tri.

BTW, "merle" is a DOMINANT modifying gene. If one of the parents is not merle, than none of the puppies are going to be merle either. It cannot be "carried". (there are the rare cases of "phantom merles, which are simply merles without much pattern and are mistaken for solid colored dogs.)

Merles came into the breed through working dogs in the UK. If the farmers there did not breed to them for whatever reason, then they would become scarce and could theoretically easily be totally eliminated from the gene pool. Obviously, there were some that were bred, so the color reamins.

The so-called "Australian red" also originated in the working dogs of the UK and is still present today. There was a recent litter(sorry, I have lost the site, but will try to recover it) born to two ISDS dogs with NO "show" dogs behind them that produced two "Austrailian red" puppies, much to the breeders amazement.

Since "chocolate"(brown, liver) is also called "red" in the UK, as in the US, I can only wonder how many "Aussie reds" there really are that people are assuming are the "other"(chocolate) red because they are unaware of the differences.

The result is, that BCs come in many colors, none is "better" than another and for folks who go on and on about how BCs should NEVER be judged on anything other than ability, some people seem obsessed with criticizing the "looks" of others BCs.

Julie, I am NOT implying that YOU are one of these people. It just seems very prevelant.

Bonnie

[juliepoudrier]

Bonnie,

I simply think we have a difference of semantics here. I really do not believe that most working breeders in th UK (or anywhere else for that matter) *deliberately* bred for merle or dilute (blue or Australian red) dogs. Just as they didn't deliberately breed for red dogs. Yes, some exist, but they never existed in great numbers because they weren't being bred for. For that reason, I disagree that merle or dilute genes are prevalent in working lines. Red also used to be pretty rare, but now more folks are breeding for that color (at least here in the U.S.) and so you do see more red working dogs. I still think I am correct in my contention that the preponderence of merle (and other "designer"--that is, dilute--colors) is largely in the conformation bred dogs. I am not attacking folks with conformation bred dogs here, just making the observation that conformation breeders are more likely to use color criteria in their breeding decisions. Surely no farmer would discard a good working dog simply because it was a merle or blue, but likewise I don't think a farmer would deliberately breed his working dog in attempt to obtain such colors.

 

And by the way, no one is criticizing the looks of any dogs. Heck, my first dog, and aussie x border collie, whom I still have, is a blue merle and is pretty cool looking. But although I like the look of a merle, I wouldn't try to breed one or go on a search for a merle puppy just so I could have a working merle. What I'm criticizing is the habit that people have of making blanket staements of "fact" that really aren't fact. I don't disagree with you that merles and dilute genes probably exist in working lines, but I think it is a very tiny percentage and if that number increases, then the most likely explanation is because people are deliberately breeding for it (that is, they are breeding for the color, not for any other reason). If you look in the books like Barbara Carpenter's "Blue Riband of the Heather" or "National Sheepdog Champions" you just don't see merles/dilutes there. As these famous UK working dogs are the ones who were most bred from and whose progeny were exported to the U.S., it's just not logical to assert that merle or dilute is prevalent in working lines.

 

I believe the person to whom you are referring with the dogs called Australian red was Janet Beale of Astra sheepdogs.

 

J.

[Jodi]

Julie-

 

I see what you're saying about how farmers would not breed for color, and agree completely. It's interesting to see the different reactions I get from people when I am working my dog, and the comments that get made. I've heard many people say that the sheep don't take a white dog or lightly colored dog as seriously as they would a black and white, or dark red. I happen to think there is some truth to this, but I don't think it's as conscious a decision on the sheep's part as people make it sound. Does anyone know if sheep see in color? I would doubt it, but what do I know? If they don't see in color, it would mean to me that they see in shades of gray. If that's the case, a solid black dog would definately seem more intrusive to the sheep than a lighter colored dog. Therefore, in my opinion, there is some truth to the statement that the colored dogs need to make up in power what they lack in presence. So why would a farmer want to mess with this when they can just start with a black dog? It's a job enough to train a dog for the job at hand, no less having to also train it a particular way simply because of its color.

 

Now I don't know if any of this is true, and I am not trying to discredit any dog of any color out there. Just interjecting my 2 cents, assuming it's worth that much!

 

Jodi M.

[Deacon Dog]

Does the fact that there is a serious discussion about "lilac" merles on this board bother anyone except me? Especially since the board is hosted by an organization opposing the showing, judging, and breeding of Border Collies based upon their appearance.

[wildairbc]

Dear Deacon Dog,

This paticular forum is called "Health and Genetics", which, I assume includes ALL genetic topics including color.

No one is making a political statement here- that's another forum. We are simply showing curiousity about the color of a paticular dog and the colors included in the BC breed in general.

I know that a lot of people do not find genetics fascinating, but I do. So, please, do not take offense.

Bonnie

[Deacon Dog]

No offense taken and no problem with discussing the genetics behind what is ostensibly a rare coloration in working lines. Things just seemed to be getting close to a false syllogism:

 

There are working merles.

A lot of show dogs are merles.

Therefore a show merle = a working merle.

[Bill Fosher]

Bonny writes:

 

"Obviously, working folks seem to prefer black and black tri."

 

Not obvious to me at all. What most working folks seem to prefer is a well-bred dog that can get the job done. Personally, I could care less if the dog is pink with purple polkadots.

 

I think the reason that we associate odd colorations with show lines is that there are many show (and backyard and puppymill) breeders that are trying specifically for certain unusual colorations and will breed to try to concentrate the genes that produce these colorations without regard for the effect that these practices might have on working ability or even basic health of the pups.

 

Those of us looking for working dogs are therefore a bit leary when we see kennels that consistently produce red litters or merles and pride themselves on such.

 

These litters will generally be sold into the high-priced pet and show markets anyway. The risk-benefit analysis doesn't favor such pups for us. Buying a puppy is a risky enough proposition. You'll have a year of training, feeding, and vet care into any puppy before you have a good picture of how it will turn out. Why pay $1,200 for a blue merle puppy of dubious working heritage when you can get a plainer looking puppy for $400 to $600 with generations of top working dogs behind it? Even if we assume that both puppies have equal potential, the choice seems obvious.

 

It's not so much a perference for black and white or tri-colored dogs as it is a preference for good breeding.

 

If that well-bred puppy happens to be red or merle, well, that's fine with me. But unless you're actively breeding for the recessive traits these dogs are so rare as to be virtually non-existant.