Sumatra Thread!

[championsumatra]

I have been wondering are duns like chocolate sumatra's or not? They almost look the same. And how do you make the Khaki sumatra? Thanks for your help.

 

[Infnityhrt]

I have been wondering are duns like chocolate sumatra's or not? They almost look the same. And how do you make the Khaki sumatra? Thanks for your helTh

Duns are like blues and chocolate are sex linked recessive and right now, there are no chocolate sumatras that I know of, they are actually duns, and the dun works like blue when breeding to black, and if you breed two duns together you get 1/4 khaki, which is like splash.

 

[championsumatra]

Very interesting.

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

Black x dun = 50% each
Black x khaki = all dun
Dun x dun = 25% black 25% khaki and 50% dun
Dun x khaki = 50% each

That's the full break down. Same as blues. Khaki is the sport / splash version of a dun . Just a dun with 2 copies of dun. Just like splash is 2 copies of blue

 

[Coop Scoop Boogie]

Black x dun = 50% each
Black x khaki = all dun
Dun x dun = 25% black 25% khaki and 50% dun
Dun x khaki = 50% each

That's the full break down. Same as blues. Khaki is the sport / splash version of a dun . Just a dun with 2 copies of dun. Just like splash is 2 copies of blue

hmmmmmmm......I think I need to play around some with some duns

 

[championsumatra]

This is making me want some.

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

They are my favorite by far

 

[LTygress]

the possibility that you may be misinterpreting the Standard rather than "us judges" doing so.

This has forever been an issue of mine, since I first learned about dog shows as a child. Not the judges, but the standards.

No standard ever seems to be written in a manner easy for the beginner to understand. Dog shows, rabbit shows, poultry shows, it's all the same.

One example I came across with dog conformation shows, is the phrase "Shoulders should be well-developed". Okay, what exactly is "well-developed"? You want to see huge muscles? Do you think the shoulders should be a certain width? Height? How about long-haired breeds. How would you see "well-developed" shoulders on them?

And yet, something like that is so wide open to interpretation as well. One person might think well-developed means muscular. Another might think it means thin (as in, not overweight). And yet another might think it just means wide-set, and thick-boned.


While judges go through an apprenticeship, and have to take a test, words can far too often have totally different meanings. And as an apprentice, you mostly learn what the master judge before you has determined those words to mean. If he thinks well developed means thin, then the apprentice will think it means thin. And when asked how the shoulders should look in a test, you'll answer "well-developed".

I'm not faulting either of you about the issue here. I'm just saying the standard really is SO hard to match to a visual image, because its all a matter of interpretation. Perhaps the best answer, is just to get an artist's rendering of the "perfect" animal of that particular breed to compare it to, and then list the FAULTS and DISQUALIFICATIONS for each breed. I think that would be so much more effective than trying to describe a picture with inexact words.

 

[championsumatra]

Quote: good point.

 

[NYREDS]

This has forever been an issue of mine, since I first learned about dog shows as a child. Not the judges, but the standards.

No standard ever seems to be written in a manner easy for the beginner to understand. Dog shows, rabbit shows, poultry shows, it's all the same.

One example I came across with dog conformation shows, is the phrase "Shoulders should be well-developed". Okay, what exactly is "well-developed"? You want to see huge muscles? Do you think the shoulders should be a certain width? Height? How about long-haired breeds. How would you see "well-developed" shoulders on them?

And yet, something like that is so wide open to interpretation as well. One person might think well-developed means muscular. Another might think it means thin (as in, not overweight). And yet another might think it just means wide-set, and thick-boned.


While judges go through an apprenticeship, and have to take a test, words can far too often have totally different meanings. And as an apprentice, you mostly learn what the master judge before you has determined those words to mean. If he thinks well developed means thin, then the apprentice will think it means thin. And when asked how the shoulders should look in a test, you'll answer "well-developed".

I'm not faulting either of you about the issue here. I'm just saying the standard really is SO hard to match to a visual image, because its all a matter of interpretation. Perhaps the best answer, is just to get an artist's rendering of the "perfect" animal of that particular breed to compare it to, and then list the FAULTS and DISQUALIFICATIONS for each breed. I think that would be so much more effective than trying to describe a picture with inexact words.

You're absolutely correct in that there is a subjective element to judging any animal to it's respective breed standard. eg: "medium length back". What looks medium to me may well look short to you.
One point however: in the APA Apprenticeship program the prospective Judge doesn't work with one master judge but rather a minimum of 8 judges. Doesn't completely solve the subjectivity issue but it does broaden the base of experience.
Frankly I don't even remember the exchange you culled this quote from but I suspect it had something to do with a disgruntled [read unsuccessful] exhibitor attributing his/her lack of success to the fact that trained judges don't understand the Standard as well as s/he does.