GENETICS COMMITTEE REPORT – 2006 SEMI

TV – the TV is seeking acceptance of the New Trait color of white.

The Committee has concerns about accepting dominant white in the gene pool. This color/pattern could be masking any other color/pattern, and the resulting offspring may not meet the standard. The TV standard states “The breed is known for its distinctive pattern” – which would be violated by a solid white. In addition, there are 15 points on color/pattern in the TV standard. A similar distribution of points is found in the CX, a breed partially known for its distinctive color/pattern. We feel that the TV standard would need to have a serious revision, as 15 would be an excess of points for a trait which is no longer distinctive to the breed.

 In relation to their application, the rules state that they need ten cats registered in the last 3 years. Does cat #7 (Ballantyne Kartopu, SBT 010195 083) qualify?

TG – the TG is seeking advancement to Advanced New Breed status.

The Toyger Breed Chair, Judy Sugden, did not provide the full application to the Genetics Committee due to technical difficulties. So some information is still missing. The application author requests that one TG breed standard be used if the TG does NOT achieve ANB status, and a different TG breed standard be used if the TG DOES achieve ANB status. The Committee feels that a breed should be held to a single standard and evolve towards that one standard. We understand the need for standards to evolve as a breed evolves – however, this situation is unacceptable. One of the primary differences between the two standards is in the allocation of points for temperament. The author desires more points on temperament if the TG does not advance to ANB, and fewer points if the TG does advance to ANB. However, the Committee feels that points should not be allocated to temperament at all. Judges expect to be able to handle the cats in the show hall (“Temperament must be unchallenging.”) and this is EXPECTED (not recommended) from cats in TICA. Temperament should not be a deciding factor for which standard to use in a developing breed. We understand that the authors may be concerned with the previous history of Bengal development; in which many early Bengals in the show hall did not have good temperaments.

PD – the PD is seeking Championship status.

 The Committee is concerned with the acceptance of more than one coat type for Championship competition. This could have great implications for judging this breed. Roberts states “If preference is to be given to the hairless texture, then they should concentrate on that. Since this is an incomplete dominant trait (how sure are they of this?), careful breeding over the generations should be able to produce hairless cats which breed true. So should they strive for this?” Roberts also states “They state the brush-coated cats are essential to the PD breeding program - why? And just because they are essential does not mean they should be acceptable for exhibition (straight-eared Scottish Folds for example).” Picardello states that in most Russian clubs, brush coat is a DQ over two years of age. He further states “The Peterbald has been established as a mutation due to a new hairless gene. I do not think that it is reasonable to encourage a partial expression of that trait.” Crockett agrees that the PD should be a hairless cat, not a coated one.
 

Dwelf – seeking acceptance of a new breed called the “Dwelf” for Registration Only status.

This is a combination of three genetically-inherited traits in domestic cats: dwarfism, curled ears, and hairlessness. The author states that she has a single “Dwelf” cat which has already been registered in TICA (how did this happen?). The Genetics Committee was not presented with any data regarding the historical health of this proposed breed (which is not required of the author).

Chair Pflueger expressed to the author via phone conversations that she does not see any reason why these distinct genes should produce any detrimental effects in the proposed cats. Members Roberts, Crocket, Picardello, and Kajon express a concern that a gene causing achondroplasia (a dominant cartilage mutation, and the condition causing dwarfism in the MK/ML) could indeed cause a problem when interacting with the cartilage mutation curling the ears. Although the affected tissue in the ears is elastic cartilage, and the affected tissue which is ossified in long bones is hyaline cartilage, the two types of tissue arise from the same embryonic stem cells.

The author claims that breedings of AC/AL and MK/ML have occurred for years with no known detrimental effects; no data were included to support this. Roberts found a website reference to an experimental breed called a Kinkalow (an AC/AL and MK/ML cross) which is no longer bred due to a lack of interest.

An additional concern is the current proposal to accept the “Minskin.” In essence, the Dwelf would be a “Minskin” and AC/AL cross. So this proposal involves the use of a breed not yet recognized in TICA.

Chair Pflueger questions whether these would be new traits of the existing breeds, or new breeds.

The Committee proposes that TICA does not accept any proposed breeds for Registration Only status that do not exhibit novel mutations. The current mutations would be reserved for currently recognized breeds exclusively. This would end the seemingly endless applications for “munchkinized” new breeds, and deter the inevitable introduction of “rexed,” “bob-tailed,” and “poly-ed” everything else.

LP/LS – Concerns over new proposed outcrosses for the breed, and that the breed is not currently meeting requirements to maintain Championship status.

Picardello is concerned with adding too much genetic diversity into an evolving breed. He states “It makes (it) more difficult to have a breed that breeds true, and anyway a uniform morphology.” Members Roberts and Crockett agree. There is also concern with the reference to an AOV Maine Coon, the distribution of points on tail, and the lack of maintaining the requirements for Championship competition. Crockett expresses a concern of the Skookum, if the LaPerm cannot maintain its status due to lack of activity and inconsistent standard.

CU – the CU members seek the name change of color from “Silver Tip” to “Grizzled.”

Members Roberts, Crockett, Kajon, Pflueger, Picardello, and Lorimer agree with the proposed name change. Other mammals exhibit a “grizzled” coloration very similar to what is worked with in the CU. Picardello suggests that we do not limit this coloration to a single breed, but allow it in any breed that chooses to use it. He also suggests that the breeders perform test breedings between Grizzled CU and solid black. Kajon disagrees and states that she prefers that time is not wasted on such breedings, as the trait appears to be an agouti-based dominant. In addition, Kajon suggests that we keep the Grizzled coloration restricted to the use by the CU breed, and not acceptable in any other breed.

BB/BH – propose a move to category III status.
 Committee agrees that a move to Category I would be more appropriate because the gene pool is sufficiently large enough. This was suggested to Patricia Peters, who originally proposed a Category III move, but would prefer a Category I change.

 
 Roberts suggests that a more specific set of rules be put in place for acceptance of Registration Only cats. This concern is in reference to the high number of applications for new hybrid domestic breeds. The breeders are required to submit their application to the Genetics Committee, however there is really no pertinent information on which to comment. At this level in TICA, the only reason a potential breed can be denied Registration Only status is by a poorly-chosen name and/or incomplete paperwork. The Genetics Committee really does not need to give input in this respect. 
 Roberts suggests that some kind of timeline be put into place. Perhaps a potential breed may apply for Registration Status after (for example) 3 years of documented breeding, and a minimum of 30 existing cats? Health data would have to be submitted - along with veterinarian documentation verifying the health of the listed cats. THEN the Genetics Committee would have true input in the application process of a potential breed. As it stands, we have dozens of people wanting to make their "breeds" a true reality in TICA. Some are based off a single cat (the Dwelf). How can the Genetics Committee make a recommendation (either positive OR negative) off a single data point?
 The implication of providing data in the application concerning established breeding programs, number of cats produced, and genetic and non-genetic health data may also deter those breeders who are only temporarily enamored by TICA accepting the newest hybrid breed.
Picardello agrees.
 
CU/SV – ongoing inconsistencies in how foundation CU and SV have been, and will continue to be, registered.
From Chair Pflueger:

First, there is no consistency in how cats have been registered up until now.  Maintaining the status quo won't improve things because there are no consistent guidelines in place at this time.  Instead we need to implement clear guidelines on how cats are to be registered in light of the new category that has been created for species hybrids.  All registrations from now on should follow these guidelines and older registrations should be corrected when cats are transferred or otherwise come to the attention of the office.

Second, low generation crosses should not under any circumstances be called by the breed name.  Based on my experience with the Bengal, I feel very strongly that the breed name must be reserved for cats which do not have non-domestics or other non-domestic derived breeds in the immediate pedigree.  To call an F1 hybrid a Savannah or a Chausie or a Safari is a big mistake if we hope to be able to raise and exhibit these cats as a domestic species. I fought many battles over the Bengal with government agencies here in the US and Canada.  The biggest concern was establishing a clear distinction between what they considered potentially dangerous species hybrids and what we considered domestic pedigreed cats. If we are can claim that Savannahs and Chausies are cats registered in the stud book of the association (as distinguished from Foundation or Hybrid cats) and that stud book registration is limited to recognized domestic breeds, we have a good argument that wildlife and animal control agents can understand and thus far have been willing to accept in most cases.  But if we say an F1 hybrid is also considered a Savannah or Chausie, we have lost the argument.  (Although I did manage to convince one of the Canadian officials that we distinguised between Bengals in the foundation registry and Bengals in the stud book registry by using different codes and then taught him the registration codes and what they meant, this officer was already on our side. This was not successful with other agencies as they didn't want to expend any effort on an individual basis and wanted something very cut and dried.)

I would like to suggest using Hybrid for crosses with non-permissible outcrosses and Foundation Cat of Breed for crosses with accepted outcrosses.  These cats would be registered in the foundation registry rather than stud book and would no be eligible for championship competition.  Doing this would insulate and protect the stud book registered cats of the breed.  At the same time, it would make a distinction between cats with allowable versus unaccepted outcrosses. Those following the approved breeding program could use the breed name, but preceded by Foundation to indicate that cat is not yet what we would consider an established member of the breed. Although this would not protect low generation hybrids in those areas where a license for such is required, low generation hybrids are not what this association is about.  Not using the breed name for such cats is a small price to pay for the protection it affords for the higher generation cats.

(The following) is an outline of the breeding of non-domestic species hybrids to develop a domestic breed accepted for championship. Although this applies to all species hybrids, the Serval and Savannah are being used as an example for the sake of simplicity.

A cat with a Serval parent is a hybrid between two species from a genetic point of view.  However, if the outcross is one that is permitted, the resultant offspring may be registered as a Foundation Savannah.  If the outcross is not permitted, the offspring will be registered as a Species x Breed Hybrid (supplying the appropriate species and breed names).  If Hybrid is not felt to be an acceptable term, Cross would be an acceptable substitute.  (This gets around Experimental, which many breeders find undesirable, inflammatory, or offensive.)

A cat with a Serval in the pedigree and only permissible outcrosses would be a Foundation Savannah.  The use of Foundation indicates that the cat is part of the Savannah program but has not yet achieved studbook status.  But the breed name Savannah is allowed along with a designation indicating that the cat is registered in the Foundation Registry of the Association.

The S prefix is used as long as the Serval is within a three generation pedigree.  After that the usual N and P are used.

The generation status is code is assigned as for other breeds once the S is no longer a factor, using P and N as appropriate.  However, in counting generations, Foundation Savannah and Savannah are considered equivalent.  This is a compromise as it allows a cat with Foundation ancestors in the pedigree to make it into the Stud Book, as is true of recognized breeds with allowable outcrosses.  This modification is needed for the new species hybrid category because allowing only Savannah would require an additional three generations (and thus seven generations from the Serval) for a cat to be shown and would effectively remove these breeds from the ring for several years.

To be shown in Advanced New Breed a cat could have an allowable outcross at the great grandparent level (at least a C), would have to have Serval ancestry on both sides of the pedigree, and could have no non-permitted outcrosses or non-domestic species within the parent or grandparent generations.   

A cat registerd as a Hybid for Use in a Savannah Breeding Program is treated as a first generation Foundation cat with an A suffix in assigning codes.  This allows a loophole without penalty for those breeders who have produced first generation Serval crosses with non-permitted outcrosses.  The non-permissible cat will drop off the pedigree at the same time as the Serval and the subsequent breeding program will not lose generation status as long as only permissible crosses are used for subsequent generations.

Further crosses to non-permitted outcrosses will continue to produce A level Hybrids, but could also product B level cats of the outcross breed.  Thus a Bengal crossed to a Savannah would be a Bengal-Savannah Hybrid.  Crossing back to a Bengal would yield either a second generation B Bengal or another first generation A Hybrid. Crossing that cat to a Bengal would give either a C Bengal or another A Hybrid.  And the next generation could actually be a SBT Bengal or yet another A Hybrid.

Foundation generations: Examples

Serval x Bengal:  A1S(N)   Serval x Bengal Hybrid for use in a Savannah breeding program

Serval x DSH:  A1S(P)  Foundation Savannah

 (Serval x Bengal) x Bengal: A2S(N)  Bengal hybrid for use in a Savannah breeding program. 

 (Serval x DSH) x DSH: A2S(P) Foundation Savannah

 (Serval x Bengal) x DSH: A2S(P)  Foundation Savannah

 (Serval x DSH) x Bengal: A2S(N) Foundation Savannah x Bengal hybrid

 Foundation Savannah x Bengal: A-S(N) Foundation Savannah x Bengal hybrid

 Foundation Savannah x DSH: A-S(P) Foundation Savannah

Savannah x Bengal: A-N Savannah x Bengal  Hybrid

Savannah x DSH: A-P Foundation Savannah

 Foundation Savannah x Savannah or Foundation Savannah x Foundation Savannah:  Foundation Savannah or SBT Savannah (determined by pedigree)

Savannah x Savannah: SBT Savannah

Simplified Principles:

Allowable outcrosses result in Foundation Savannahs

Non-permitted outcrosses are Hybrids

All foundation generation cats with allowable outcrosses and a Serval on one side are Foundation Savannahs.

A Savannah must have Foundation Savannah or Savannah pedigreeon both sides with no non-permissible outcrosses or unknowns within three generations.

Savannah Generations:

The Foundation Generations program allows for foundation cats to be bred to reach the point of a fertile male. To be a Savannah, a cat must be registered in the stud book of the association as a domestic cat.

 The breed name Savannah alone cannot be used unless both parents are Savannah or Foundation Savannah (ie, a Serval must be on both sides of the pedigree and the pedigree must be free of non-permissible outcross cats and unknowns).

The product of two A's (either Foundation Savannah or Hybrid for Use in a Savannah Breeding Program), an A and a B, an A and a C, or an A and a SB cat would be a B. (This is a big loophole as it may in some cases allow a cat with an N suffix to be called a Foundation Savannah.)

To be shown in Advanced New Breed, a cat may have only Foundation Savannahs or Savannahs as parents or grandparents.  Such cats would need to be at least a C Foundation Savannah since this is the first generation that can product a stud book cat.

The product of two C Foundation Savannahs would be SB and eligible for championship.

This assumes that the breed is to be accepted for championship as Category I, which does not allow outcrosses within the three generation pedigree.  It does allow cats that are not stud book on the pedigree, however, which is different from the other category I breeds.  A distinction is made between allowable and non-permissible outcrosses in counting generations and in assigning the breed name.  A cat that does not conform to the breeding program is not considered a representative of the breed.  (This is consistent with the rules for other recognized breeds.)

However, breeders who have used non-permissible cats in the past may continue to use their breeding stock in their breeding program.  However, the non-permissible cat would need to be a grandparent before the progeny could be called a Foundation Savannah (ie, ¾ of the pedigree would need to be compliant) and the outcross would need to drop off the pedigree before progeny could be shown.