# Bab's and Adamant's girls all grown up now



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

Here are a bunch of photos of some of the wildest and craziest looking tris I've ever produced. They are about four months old now.


----------



## Rhasputin (Feb 21, 2010)

That first one, with the light coloured head, and the black stripes, is awesome!


----------



## windyhill (Jan 19, 2010)

They are neat looking! 
Are they true tri's? (I always thought tri's had to have white)


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

The third, fifth, and sixth pix are of that same one. I think they all have a little white on them somewhere. The standard that was set is for clear patches of a single color surrounded by white. These are all non-standard...their dilutions a probably c^h and c^ch and combinations of those with c^e or c. I really don't know on some of them. You can see the traces of points on the noses of a couple of these.

I'm just now starting to sort out which meeces carry which dilutions. Like I said before, I figured out the c^e c^e was the optimum for the nice solid patches on a black background just about the same time as I found out that the standards had been set to that type. I've worked for three or four years in a total vacuum as far as info about what the tri factor consists of and how it works. I still don't agree with general thought on how or what the tri factor consists of. I don't believe there is a splashed gene or locus, just the effects of some other dilution, probably c^h and c^ch.

One could do it by making it a separate locus like with the gene for tan, which requires another gene in another locus in order to give the orange belly. The problem is in defining a locus as a dominant or recessive. it would be something like c^ch Spl/* with the splashed gene being part of the tri factor. Then there has to be another notation for what the other types of dilution require for expression. I just don't think it makes sense to separate the type by inserting another set of locus designations. It only makes sense to indicate the tri factor as a separate locus, like Tr/tr as a recessive locus which when combined with c^h produces splashed meeces. There is no evidence, as, far as I'm concerned, that there are more than one extra factor influencing the appearance of all the different types of markings. It's just the tri factor and the c locus dilutions; no more, no less. I agree that marking genes play an important role in where and how the tri colors are expressed, just the same as those markings when there is no tri factor involved.


----------



## Autumn2005 (Apr 21, 2010)

They are PRETTY! I just can't get over how beautiful your tris are, standard or non standard!


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## zany_toon (Apr 3, 2010)

They are so pretty!!! I love the first and second last one the markings are so pretty!


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

moustress said:


> I don't believe there is a splashed gene or locus, just the effects of some other dilution, probably c^h and c^ch.


Now you are just making yourself seem silly.

Splashed often shows on c^e/c^e and c^e/c, both of which are not c^h or c^ch. lol (I have proof if you need it.)

Please stop spreading misinformation!


----------



## Jack Garcia (Oct 9, 2009)

Tricolor has been bred by dozens of fanciers in California, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Germany, and now other parts of Europe, as well as NYC and of course Minnesota for years now. _Everyone_ who is educated about mouse genetics agrees that the following is necessary to produce a Splashed-based tricolor mouse:


Splashed (Spl/*)
Two c-dilutes which are not both PEW (such as cch/cch, ch/ch, ce/ce, cch/c, ch/c, ce/c, cch/ch, ce/ch, and so forth)
Some form of white spotting

Without all three "ingredients" occurring on the same mouse, the mouse will not be tricolor. Without splashed, it will be a white-spotted (broken, even, variegated) c-diluted mouse (such as a pied siamese). Without the c-dilutes, it will be a white-spotted black- or agouti-based mouse since splashed does not show up on mice who are not c-diluted. Without spots, it will be simply a splashed mouse. With only light spotting, it will be in-between a splashed and a tricolor (like yours pictured above).

As you see from your litters, some are black and white; some are splashed without white, and some are c-dilutes without splashes. The nature and inheritance of tricolor mice is perfectly predictable and knowable. There is nothing "mysterious" about it any more than there is mystery in how two black mice can produce a PEW baby. If you're uneducated about mouse breeding, I'm sure it can seem very confusing. Yet if you know the basic principles involved, it becomes much easier to understand.


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

I see no evidence of there being a separate splashed gene. Unless you're telling me that that is what the transgenic element is called. Sure; put it in it's own locus, it won't be the first time characteristics on the the same gene were separated. The presence of markings is only necessary to cause a degree of pooling of individual hues. Certain marking patterns, such as banding, are preferrable over others for good separation and pooling. As soon as folks make up their mind what to call these things, I have no problem, as long as it's clear that we are all talking about the same gene or locus.

So, if you are saying that the gene that causes ALL the different sort of tri-ish configurations is now called splashed, that is acceptable to me. It's in the c locus, just the same. Good, I'm glad that's settled. The tri factor has been given the designation of Spl/*.

I don't mind sounding silly if it causes a better definition and understanding of what we're all talking about.


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

You are obviously not understanding. It is not one gene that causes a "tri configuration" but a combination of genes. The many different types of tricolors are dependent upon which type of c-dilutes they are.

A mouse that is black, beige and white is genetically a beige mouse (c^e/c^e -- called Stone in the UK, I believe) who also has the splashed gene and a spotting gene. A mouse that is black, ivory and white is genetically an ivory mouse (c^e/c -- called Black Eyed Cream in the UK, I believe?) who also has the splashed gene and a spotting gene. A mouse that has dark colorpoints, black spots and shaded beige spots is genetically a siamese mouse c^h/c^h who also has the splashed gene and a spotting gene.

That is what Jack explained (very well, I might add). The look or variation of the tricolor mouse depends on what the mouse would be if it did not have the Splashed gene or spots. Make sense?


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

Arguing at cross purposes now. Without the 'tri' gene, whatever you call it, there are no 'tri' markings. In the absence of the 'tri' gene, whatever one calls it, the c locus behave according to whatever dilution is represented . The 'tri' or 'splashed' gene is only active in the presence of a c locus dilution. The c locus dilution is only a c locus dilution in the absence of the 'tri' or 'splashed' gene. White marking patterns induce greater pooling of hues in a mousie that carries both the 'tri' gene and a c locus dilution.

I don't see how you could misunderstand what I said. Many of the colors and markings in meeces are dependent on more than one gene, but require the that one specific extra gene of some sort in order to manifest at all. BTW, it is possible to see the effect of the 'tri' gene on a mouse with no white markings, but the colors do not pool in those cases.


----------



## Jack Garcia (Oct 9, 2009)

Right. There is no single "tri" gene. Read my post above to see how your tricolors are made. They involve three distinct elements. A mouse cannot carry a "tri" gene. If you mean splashed, a mouse cannot carry splashed, either (it is dominant and represented Spl/*).

Perhaps your lack of understanding is why you go periods of time not knowing if you'll get tricolor mice or not.



moustress said:


> BTW, it is possible to see the effect of the 'tri' gene on a mouse with no white markings, but the colors do not pool in those cases.


And that's called _splashed_. You and I have gone over this a hundred times. Two non-PEW c-dilutes combined with Spl/* but no white spotting is called splashed. You cannot simply invent your own words and phrases to describe what everybody else uses standard terms for. That would be like insisting on calling a poodle a _curlydog_ and talking about the _curlydog_ factor. While it may contain some truth in a very broad sense, it's deliberately confusing and leaves people who are not necessarily acquainted with mouse (or dog) genetics grossly misinformed.


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

The marking pattern does not have to be any specifically noted one, like banded or head spotting. and you are contradicting yourselves. C dilution and spotting will only yield marked c diluted meeces. Without the little extra something that the Splashed or tri or Factor X, there are no tris or splashing or different colors due to color reversion. It's the same as a marked tan which requires three separate factors, without the tan modifier, there is no tan. This is how the 'X factor' is. Without that one single factor, whither you call is genes or assign it locus and call it splashed, there are no splashed or tricolour effects to be seen.

Arguing about what to call it is pointless. It is one thing that drives the phenomenon. It is a genetic component, not a bunch of different things, just like with a tan mousie. Without the tan modifier, there is no tan. Without the genetic material that we argue what to call, there are no splashed or tricolour effects. what's so hard to understand about that? If you want to reserve the designation of tri only for marked mousies who carry the factor, or for only those individuals that are with in the purvue of the standard, that's OK with me. I will call my meeces transgenics or genie, or whatever.


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

That makes absolutely no sense at all. :lol:


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

I used the word 'carry' incorrectly again. So sue me. And if splashed is dominant, why haven't we seen it before the last ten years or so? Why haven't splashed or tri meeces shown up before spontaneously? It's obvious on the face of it that there is something added that wasn't there before. Where did it come from?

You can belittle me to your heart's content if it amuses you to do so. I won't agree if I think you are wrong. On the one hand you say splashed is a necessary part of creating a splashed or tri mousie, and then you deny it by your own argument. what is it about being that one thing that you can't get your mind to encompass? Without what you call splashed there are no splashed or tri meeces. It's as simple as pie.


----------



## Jack Garcia (Oct 9, 2009)

It came from a laboratory, where it was induced. Specifically, it came through the hands of Wanda Wilson of the LMC, who is now deceased. I knew Wanda, as did a few others.

Using words such as "carry" incorrectly is a big deal when you're talking about inheritance. It can totally change the meaning of a sentence or a gene code, and confuse people. It's not "simple as pie." You have to be clear about what you're saying.


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

Why didbn't you tell me this before? Are you sure it's not the Cattanach's Translocation as the Finns think?


----------



## Jack Garcia (Oct 9, 2009)

It's probably not the same thing (for chronological reasons), though it might be similar in action (which is why the Finns, who have never bred it, would think that). Those mice look like this: http://www.informatics.jax.org/greenboo ... /21-2H.jpg. Again, not entirely dissimilar to splashed mice.

It is up to you to research and educate yourself on the varieties of mice you choose to breed, their origins and their history as well as how they're inherited and what "pieces" are needed to create them. Otherwise, you will continue to spread incorrect information.


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

moustress said:


> On the one hand you say splashed is a necessary part of creating a splashed or tri mousie, and then you deny it by your own argument.


How did I ever deny it? I specifically said, as did Jack, that 3 "ingredients" are necessary for a tricolor or 2 "ingredients" if you just want a splashed mouse. The mouse must have the splashed gene, a non-full-color c-dilute and white spotting for tri or without white spotting for a splashed mouse. That's what I've been saying the entire time. Maybe you misread?

I'm sorry if my laughing offended you.


----------



## MarlaAlVutha (Nov 7, 2009)

Jack Garcia said:


> If you mean splashed, a mouse cannot carry splashed, either (it is dominant and represented Spl/*).


Actually I have found that splash is not dominant. I have had at least 4 litters where splashed has popped up. The most recent out of a broken recessive yellow and chocolate pairing. Neither of which are splashed. In the litter we got a beautiful very pale dove, a very sooty recessive yellow, a very yellow recessive yellow, one that looks as if it is trying to be champagne and a splashed.


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

That just means the parents were splashed but didn't have a c-dilute so it did not show. Ask anyone who is truly educated about Splashed (such as Mike Chiodo or Roland-- I use these examples because you know who they are) and they will tell you the same. Splashed is indeed dominant and I, along with others, have proof of such.


----------



## Jack Garcia (Oct 9, 2009)

MarlaAlVutha said:


> Jack Garcia said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean splashed, a mouse cannot carry splashed, either (it is dominant and represented Spl/*).
> ...


You're confusing Mendelian dominant inheritance with being visible or not (hypostasis).

Whether or not a trait is visible to the human eye does not determine its mode of inheritance. When most people think of "dominant" and "recessive," this isn't necessarily what they think of, though.

Think of it like this. A mouse who is a/a b/b C/C Spl/* is a chocolate splashed mouse who doesn't show splashed because he doesn't have the right C-dilutes. C-dilutes are one of the two/three "ingredients" needed for splashed/tricolor mice, without which, you won't see splashed. The splashed would still be inherited in a dominant fashion (like always): it would be hypostatic.

This is the same principle of a PEW "covering up" agouti "underneath." The agouti is still inherited as a Mendelian dominant (just like splashed). You just don't necessarily see it because of the affects of other alleles.

In other words, "dominant" and "recessive" refer to how a trait is inherited, not necessarily what you see on any given mouse.


----------



## Loganberry (Oct 24, 2008)

This is a really interesting conversation - this is what forums are for.

On the to'ing and fro'ing between one member and others, i think she see's things like pre-packaged chocolate brownie mix - whereas most mouse breeders understand that to make a tri mouse, or chocolate brownie, you need to mix the right raw ingrediants and combining those three ingrediants correctly makes a tri colour mouse, or cake, one breeder, against all other geneticists around the world, thinks that randomly a tri mouse comes out of a box marked 'tri'. Like magic. Like a kid that thinks bananas come from supermarkets, and can't associate them with trees, light and water. Still, makes it more fun!

Just so you know, i'm not into genetics - i've never had the urge to learn about it. But i know its importance, and respect people that learn all those little letters and how they work, so when i need to know something, i can can turn to them and ask them what i need to do. This is major area, and one that shouldn't be disrespected by people that think they can make it up on their own.


----------



## Jack Garcia (Oct 9, 2009)

I agree, Heather--this is what forums (and shows, and public discourse) are for!

That's a great analogy with the kid and the banana!


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

Why hadn't I seen splashed or tri meeces before I got my tri stock? I had diluted mousies...if the thing is dominant, there must be a recessive, are you saying that there was a locus Spl/* all along, or that all mousies have this locus and it was just recessive until someone 'induced' it to be dominant?

I'll be hanging out in the trees eatin' bananas while I wait for your answer.


----------



## WillowDragon (Jan 7, 2009)

It was discovered much the same as every other gene i imagine, through inbreeding or exposure to outside factors. Also it is a gene that requires other genes in order to show.


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

moustress said:


> Why hadn't I seen splashed or tri meeces before I got my tri stock? I had diluted mousies...if the thing is dominant, there must be a recessive, are you saying that there was a locus Spl/* all along, or that all mousies have this locus and it was just recessive until someone 'induced' it to be dominant?


What you're trying to say is the same as saying, "If brindle is on the A locus, I should have seen it in my mice because they have an A-locus!" Just using brindle(American) as an example but you can substitute any other dominant gene that you don't have in your mousery to represent the same point. Just because you didn't have Brindle in your mousery (for example) but you had mice with A-locus colors, doesn't mean the brindle gene was just "hanging around recessively until somebody induced it to be dominant." That is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while.

A gene cannot be recessive one minute, then be dominant another minute. Can you hear how crazy that sounds? We have tried numerous times to explain the gene and its behaviors to you but you are either not comprehending or refusing to see things logically. I'm not sure how else to possibly explain it as different folks have explained it different ways but you still don't get it.

Maybe you should just stick to eating the bananas. lol


----------



## moustress (Sep 25, 2009)

No, your protestations are absurd. It was not just discovered, it was created in a laboratory and added to the DNA of meeces. It may have taken some time to produce individuals that were healthy enough and bred more or less consistently.
Something like this isn't just 'there' waiting to be discovered. Ultimately, though where it came from is to a large extent a moot question. I understand what you are saying, but I think you're wrong in saying that it isn't one single factor that make's the difference. The very fact that there were no splashed meeces before a certain point in time and then there were splashed meeces mean that some one thing had to have occurred. That one thing was the addition of genetic material that causes the splashing and reversion in the presence of a c locus dilution.

I don't understand why you and Jack are so rabid on this subject. We all agree what the genetic components do, singly and in combination. It's just a matter of definition or order. We all know what c locus dilutions do all by themselves. We all know what markings patterns occur given a presence of that type of gene. And we all agree that the splashed phenomenon cause color reversion and/or splashing when there is a c locus dilution. Why are you having such a problem with that?


----------



## WNTMousery (Jun 2, 2010)

It is easier for me to give up at this point. May you be filled with bliss.


----------



## Loganberry (Oct 24, 2008)

WNTMousery said:


> It is easier for me to give up at this point. May you be filled with bliss.


----------

