Tag Archives | Arabians

How I learned to stop worrying and love incorrect color terminology


Okay, maybe not love – but certainly stop worrying about it.

Like a lot of people who find horse color fascinating, I once spent no small amount of time online, spreading the Gospel of Proper Color Terminology. Surely if I just presented the facts in a convincing manner, I could save the world from people who were convinced they had palomino Arabians!

Fortunately for my own sanity, my career as a parent – begun just a few years after large numbers of horse people discovered the internet – got in the way of my missionary zeal. Toddlers do not recognize the need for uninterrupted bathroom breaks, never mind enough time to compose an extended explanation about why you really should not call your double-diluted cream an albino. Children also raised my threshold for the type of thing that required immediate action. I could live with someone on the internet being wrong; it was not like they had just painted on my bathroom walls with chocolate pudding.

Looking back, though, I see that my enforced absence from online discussions had unexpected benefits. For a researcher there is a significant downside to spending a lot of energy “correcting” wrong information. If you spend too much time telling people that some common misperception is wrong, you run the risk of having that response become automatic.  It makes it a lot harder to reassess your position, because it is a rare person that can argue a position for a long time without getting their ego involved in being proven right. From there, it is easy to overstate your case. “Your flaxen chestnut Arabian is not a palomino” becomes “there have never been palomino Arabians”, which then becomes “Arabians do not carry any dilution genes.”  The first is – or at least to date has been – true. The next statement is actually open for debate, and the last one is incorrect. (See also, here. Similarly diluted Morgans can be found here.)

And intriguing painting of the early Twentieth Century Turkish Arabian, Übeyyan. How accurate was this portrait? And what color was he?

The other downside to spending a lot of time correcting errors is that if you automatically dismiss something, it is really easy to overlook important information. Even when people are wrong, they may still hold a clue, a piece of the puzzle you are trying to assemble.

I sometimes get asked why I spend so much time with older documents when so much has changed in our understanding of coat color genetics. Why, for instance, spend time translating Valto Klemola’s 1931 paper on “Recessive Pied” when there are papers written just this year and last on what we now call Splashed White? Surely the new information replaces Klemola’s theory about recessive spotting in horses.

I am sure my husband also wonders why I need books about horse color published in 1912. After twenty years of losing more and more shelf space to them, he has given up asking.

But the fact is that Klemola – and many of the other earlier authors – were not entirely wrong. They were almost always working from a partial picture, but often the piece that they were seeing was not incorrect. It was simply incomplete.  Read with an understanding of the larger picture, what these older researchers have to say can still provide valuable information. The same is true for owners and breeders who may not have the same grounding in the latest scientific theories. They still have the potential to be valuable observers. It is worth being open to what they have to say, without being excessively concerned about the “correctness” of how it is said.

At the moment terminology – particularly the terms we use when talking about white patterns – are in a state of transition. We are struggling with words that do not completely fit our present understanding. I hope to tackle that in more detail in a future post. It is worth remembering, however, that the real reason for adopting a consistent set of terms is so that we may all communicate more clearly with one another. It may take a little more effort, and perhaps a few more words (and patience) than it once did, but that is ultimately the goal.

Continue Reading

Musings on blue eyes (again)


The blog here continues to be somewhat silent while I work on the next book, “Equine Tapestry – An Introduction to Colors and Patterns“. What began as a reissue of the front portion of Volume I, Draft and Coaching Breeds in color has (predictably) taken on a life of its own. The original text touched on the as-yet-unidentified pinto patterns, with an attempt to classify the different categories of sabino-like patterns visually. Since that time, quite a few more pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place, and that has lead me to do a major overhaul on that material.

One of the things that became clear to me with this new information was that the way I personally organize my files was leading to blind spots in my understanding. I have mentioned before that a huge part of my research involves massive notebooks with images and pedigrees. Because I am a visual learner, sorting things this way helps me make connections that I might otherwise miss.


I have organized information in notebook pages like these for more than 20 years. Soon after I began, I started sorting the information by breed. Because so much of my interest centered around which colors were present in which breeding population, this made sense. What I began to suspect, working on the new book, was that I needed to rearrange some of my notes by color groups, rather than by breed. The previous structure was great for seeing how some of the louder sabino patterning arose in the Arabian breed. Seeing how that worked convinced me that the louder horses were some kind of new mutation, and not just a more extensive expression of the existing “flashy white” in some lines. Laid out in a breed-centered notebook, it was clear how these louder horses – horses like Rhocky Rhoad – might come from flashy families (like Khemosabi), but their (numerous) relatives did not generally look unusual, while their own descendants most certainly did.

But this same structure made it harder to make connections about the colors themselves. The sheer volume of information – I have thousands of horses on file, and many times that number waiting to be included – made those connections more dependent on my working memory. Writing more has meant less time for musing, and with it the chance that I would make those mental jumps. When recent papers made it clear that my hunch about horses like Rhocky Rhoad were correct, I decide it was time to set up a parallel set of notebooks for the pinto pattern categories, starting with the W-series (W1-W20). I was hoping this would give me better insight into how the patterns within that group – the group previously called “dominant white” – worked. With luck, I might stumble upon the best way to present this very varied, and not-entirely-helpfully-nameed group in the new book.

I now have all twenty of the known W mutations, along with images of every known or suspected carrier, in a single notebook. The first thing that jumped out at me was something that has been a bit of a hobby horse for me for some time now. That was how many of these lines involved blue eyes. Of the twenty families, six have blue-eyed individuals. In some cases, like the W5 family member Sato (above), just have a blue segment. Others have a full blue eye, or even two blue eyes, thought that last is actually pretty rare.

This is not surprising to anyone who has looked at historical records of white-born horses. Blue eyes are not infrequently mentioned. They are mentioned in connection with some of the old European studs that previously bred white-born horses. Early researchers also comment on their occasional presence. Nowadays, a search on the internet will turn up any number of commenters that will tell you that this “obviously” means the horses carry a splash pattern. You can even find those who will assert that no KIT mutation ever produces blue eyes in a mammal.

That was part of why I included the image of the panda German Shepherd a while back. She has a newly-identified KIT mutation, and she most certainly has blue eyes.


Interestingly enough, most white patterning in dogs has proven to be caused by mutations to MITF – not KIT. In horses, MITF is the gene associated with splash patterning – and with blue eyes. For those familiar with dog coloring, the “extreme piebald” found in many sporting breeds, the “color-headed white” pattern in Collies and Shelties, and many forms of “Irish Spotting” have all been mapped to MITF. None of these patterns is associated with blue eyes in dogs. There is a MITF mutation in dogs – the one that produces white in Boxers – that produces blue eyes on rare occasions, to this is not an absolute, but generally speaking these MITF mutations are not associated with blue eyes. (For more information on the different MITF mutations in dogs, this a good site.)

The common theory in horses is that these W-series horses must have a splash mutation as well. And they may. Certainly there are far more mutations for white patterning than previous expected. I have long thought that the numbers of blue eyes on the dominant whites, particularly among the founder horses (ie., the horse that carried the initial mutation) were just too high for them all to happen to have a splash mutation as well. I did not have an exact number, though – just a sense that it was high. But the new sort gave me a number – six of twenty. That’s a lot, especially with breeds where there is no evidence of the presence of the one splash pattern (classic splash, SW1) known to remain cryptic in its heterozygous state. The other “new” splashes are dominant mutations, and a good bit more obvious in terms of phenotype.

What is interesting is that the one horse that is often asserted by online commenters to “surely be a splash” is the well-known Arabian stallion Khemosabi. This is based on the fact that he has multiple blue-eyed descendants. What became clear as I resorted these records was that yes, he does have a number of blue-eyed descendants. However, all those in my files are also members of the two W-series mutations that occurred in his line. One would expect, if Khemosabi carried a splash mutation (at least, as we currently understand the pattern), it would appear in more than two lines. He did, after all, sire over 1,250 foals. Finding it in two lines, which also just happen to be those that have formally identified white spotting mutations, seems to suggest that the blue eyes are part of the pattern and not some additional inherited trait.

There are caveats to this, of course. Blue eyes are notoriously underreported. When I began to suspect that the louder sabino expressions in Arabians were new mutations, I printed out the markings files for the families where they occurred. So in my files are the marking diagrams for all the first generation Khemosabi descendants. It is quite possible that there are horses in that group with blue eyes that were not part of the registration records. Blue eyes in Arabians are still considered a serious fault, so there is some incentive to overlook it when filing a description, especially for an eye that is not completely blue. (I am always looking for images and records of blue eyes in Arabians, if anyone has them, by the way!)  I cannot also be sure that some of the other lines – the fourteen that are not included as having blue eyes – might not also have blue. In many cases, eye color is not mentioned at all,  and there I have defaulted to the assumption that the eyes were dark. That is not the same as knowing the eyes are dark, though.

My next task is to assemble the even larger group of suspected dominant white horses into one notebook. When that task is complete, I should be able to do another post about the status of the blue eyes in that group as well.  Well, that and get a little closer to a finished book!

Continue Reading

The myth of ancient origins


If there is one thing that is consistent among purebred animals, it must be the desire for ancient – and preferably exotic – origins. The latest and greatest may be desirable with high tech equipment, but we seem to prefer our horse and dog breeds well-aged. In the past I have enjoyed giving a presentation that pokes a little fun about breed mythologies. I am fortunate that my audiences have, so far at least, all been good sports, because this can be a rather touchy subject for a lot of people.

That is unfortunate, because many of the accepted stories about the origins of various breeds have not held up to closer scrutiny. As geneticists continue to analyze different populations, it is becoming clear that some populations are not remnants of an ancient group, but rather relatively modern attempts to recreate those animals – or in some cases, a romantic notion of what those animals might have been like. For those that do not have a strong attachment to the original stories, the truth can be far more interesting.

That is certainly true for the research being done by the Village Dog Genetic Diversity Project headed up by scientists at Cornell University. They have been collecting samples from hundreds of semi-feral dogs in remote areas in Africa. Their findings have been somewhat surprising.

African village dogs are not a mixture of modern breeds but have directly descended from an ancestral pool of indigenous dogs

Meanwhile, modern breeds that have been thought to descend from African populations, like the Pharaoh Hounds (above, photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons) and the Rhodesian Ridgeback, clustered with Western breeds.

These results are consistent with [previous results] showing that Salukis, Afghan hounds, and Basenjis cluster with ancient, non-European breeds, while Pharaoh hounds and Rhodesian ridgebacks do not. Although this coarse sampling (3 countries) is suitable for detecting truly indigenous versus reconstituted ancestry in putatively African breeds, analysis including village dogs from more regions will be necessary to better localize the ancestral origins of these breeds.

What is interesting is that two of the three modern breeds noted as clustering with the non-European dogs – Salukis and Basenjis – still allow crosses to newly imported stock. (More information on that is available on the new Genetic Diversity page.)

This study is reminiscent of the one done a few years ago on the origins of the Arabian Horse. The author of that study, “Speculations on the origin of the Arabian Horse breed“, found persuasive evidence that the modern Arabian was as much a Victorian construct as it was a uniquely pure, ancient breed.

These results permit formulating the hypothesis that the Arabian horse breed was created from many different breeds and populations, and the concept of breed purity, might refer, at most, to the present population with a history that does not exceed two hundred years

Obviously there are not many ideas more scandalous in equine circles than Arabians being created “from many different breeds and populations” with a history that does not exceed 200 hundred years (ie., 1809). To imagine that carefully preserved purebreds are mongrels, while feral dogs bred without any human selection in the streets of Africa are free from outside “taint” and “pure” descendants of ancient ancestors, really does turn what we think we know about our animal companions on its head.

Edited to link to the full version of the Głażewska “Arabian origins” paper.

Continue Reading