Totally puzzled

[Honeybunny#2]

I wouldn't say he was a glitch... it is possible but I notice in his pictures he is slowly getting darker... and morphing into a seal brown... these color changes IRL take much more time... but I think this could be a example of how good HWO gene codes are, by following the real marvel of horses that change color dramatically late in life... I have owned IRL four seal browns that started in sorrel and changed to seal brown at 15-20... also he was a mealy liver chestnut... so since liver and brown are very closely related... it is super possible that he is not a glitch... I'm not sure only because I don't know the depth of HWO's color gene codes.

The reason why I think he's a glitch is because he was the same color that he is now at 4.04 years old and then he turned chestnut, which was his color when I bought him, and then at ten years old, he turned back to the color he was at 4 years.

Ok... I just saw that... I believe it is a bit of a color glitch... however... I can tell you this... I'm like 98% sure seal brown was his intended adult color... he was changing when you bought him most likely... mealy liver/ chestnut is a root for seal brown (most of them are either liver/chestnut or black at the start, and change by 4) him changing back to chestnut is a total glitch... but he changed back to seal... which is most likely his intended adult color.

[Silverine]

The stallion in question is most definitely a glitch, as is the Belgian you posted. Once a horse has turned one-year-old on HWO its coat will not change unless that horse is affected by one (or more) of four possible things - sooty, gray, champagne, and lp. None of those factors will turn a chestnut into a smoky brown (as is the stallion's actual color). If nothing else, look at the socks. The changing socks are a blatant indicator of a glitch. Socks do not change with age. The only thing that would change them is a glitch.

Here's a thread of AC Glitch horses:

http://www.horseworldonline.net/forum/v ... 0&p=100407

As for IRL, two chestnuts CAN NOT produce a palomino. It doesn't matter if they have sooty, or flaxen, or pangare, or roan, or anything else. If they are chestnut then by definition they do not have the cream gene. Palomino is caused by the cream gene. The cream gene can not hide on a chestnut (or bay or brown) horse. Therefore two chestnut horses CAN NOT produce a palomino. These genes are known and have been decoded for quite some time. There is no mystery to them. Yes, phenotype can change as a horse ages, but genotype is constant, and two chestnuts will never throw a palomino.

If you're having trouble IRL determining whether or not a horse is palomino, check its mane and tail. A palomino will never have red hairs in its mane or tail. They will always be white or, in the case of sooty palominos, ashy-gray or dark cream. Flaxen chestnuts will still carry red hairs in their mane, though there may not be a lot of them.

Here is some reading on what causes palomino:
https://www.horse-genetics.com/palomino-horses.html
https://www.horse-genetics.com/palomino ... eding.html

[Caramelapple3]

The stallion in question is most definitely a glitch, as is the Belgian you posted. Once a horse has turned one-year-old on HWO its coat will not change unless that horse is affected by one (or more) of four possible things - sooty, gray, champagne, and lp. None of those factors will turn a chestnut into a smoky brown (as is the stallion's actual color). If nothing else, look at the socks. The changing socks are a blatant indicator of a glitch. Socks do not change with age. The only thing that would change them is a glitch.

Here's a thread of AC Glitch horses:

http://www.horseworldonline.net/forum/v ... 0&p=100407

As for IRL, two chestnuts CAN NOT produce a palomino. It doesn't matter if they have sooty, or flaxen, or pangare, or roan, or anything else. If they are chestnut then by definition they do not have the cream gene. Palomino is caused by the cream gene. The cream gene can not hide on a chestnut (or bay or brown) horse. Therefore two chestnut horses CAN NOT produce a palomino. These genes are known and have been decoded for quite some time. There is no mystery to them. Yes, phenotype can change as a horse ages, but genotype is constant, and two chestnuts will never throw a palomino.

If you're having trouble IRL determining whether or not a horse is palomino, check its mane and tail. A palomino will never have red hairs in its mane or tail. They will always be white or, in the case of sooty palominos, ashy-gray or dark cream. Flaxen chestnuts will still carry red hairs in their mane, though there may not be a lot of them.

Here is some reading on what causes palomino:
https://www.horse-genetics.com/palomino-horses.html
https://www.horse-genetics.com/palomino ... eding.html

After researching on this and reading a few articles and stuff, I now have a better understanding of palominos, and when you say the cream gene cannot hide in a chestnut, I think that it would be worth to note that reason why this isn't possible is because the cream gene dilutes the chestnut, therefore making it a palomino. So a chestnut horse with the cream gene won't be chestnut (as you and Tjigra have already stated) It's interesting how genes work, though I sometimes have a hard time grasping the concept.

[Silverine]

After researching on this and reading a few articles and stuff, I now have a better understanding of palominos, and when you say the cream gene cannot hide in a chestnut, I think that it would be worth to note that reason why this isn't possible is because the cream gene dilutes the chestnut, therefore making it a palomino. So a chestnut horse with the cream gene won't be chestnut (as you and Tjigra have already stated) It's interesting how genes work, though I sometimes have a hard time grasping the concept.

Yeah, they can be difficult to wrap your head around at times. I started learning about them when I was quite young - around 12 or so - but am still learning new things. It wasn't until maybe four years ago that I finally understood how pearl and cream interact and it was quite illuminating when I did.

Simple cream things:

No cream means no effect. Red will be red, black will be black.
Single cream turns red into yellow but leaves black alone. (Chestnut -> Palomino, Bay -> Buckskin, Brown ->Smoky Brown)
Double cream turns red into ivory and black into creamy brown. (Chesnut -> Cremello, Bay -> Perlino, Brown -> Brown Cream, Black -> Smoky Cream)

Double cream will also turn skin pink and eyes blue.

But then once you understand what a gene does you also have to understand how its inherited. I always loved learning about inheritance in school (I was obsessed with Punnet Squares when we learned about them) so it was pretty easy for me to grasp that part, but I can see where it would trip some people up.

[Honeybunny#2]

The stallion in question is most definitely a glitch, as is the Belgian you posted. Once a horse has turned one-year-old on HWO its coat will not change unless that horse is affected by one (or more) of four possible things - sooty, gray, champagne, and lp. None of those factors will turn a chestnut into a smoky brown (as is the stallion's actual color). If nothing else, look at the socks. The changing socks are a blatant indicator of a glitch. Socks do not change with age. The only thing that would change them is a glitch.

Here's a thread of AC Glitch horses:

http://www.horseworldonline.net/forum/v ... 0&p=100407

As for IRL, two chestnuts CAN NOT produce a palomino. It doesn't matter if they have sooty, or flaxen, or pangare, or roan, or anything else. If they are chestnut then by definition they do not have the cream gene. Palomino is caused by the cream gene. The cream gene can not hide on a chestnut (or bay or brown) horse. Therefore two chestnut horses CAN NOT produce a palomino. These genes are known and have been decoded for quite some time. There is no mystery to them. Yes, phenotype can change as a horse ages, but genotype is constant, and two chestnuts will never throw a palomino.

If you're having trouble IRL determining whether or not a horse is palomino, check its mane and tail. A palomino will never have red hairs in its mane or tail. They will always be white or, in the case of sooty palominos, ashy-gray or dark cream. Flaxen chestnuts will still carry red hairs in their mane, though there may not be a lot of them.

Here is some reading on what causes palomino:
https://www.horse-genetics.com/palomino-horses.html
https://www.horse-genetics.com/palomino ... eding.html

The stallion is a glitch (I didn't see his socks LOL) Socks can never change so your right there... I still feel like he is meant to be seal brown... chestnut can't produce palomino... but... I have had this experience... I own a mealy "chestnut" sorrel mare (Mealy explanation for those who do not know) who's sire was a palomino and who has produced a palomino filly with a blond sorrel Sport Horse so a palomino is possible out of what is often called "chestnut" by people who do not fully understand the difference... and I honestly should have added more quotes around the "chestnut" term... so to clear this up:
A true chestnut is a strait RED color (some other highlights) that if bred to a chestnut will have a chestnut, bay or brown foal... chestnut offspring being predominate in a chestnut pair... don't be fooled by my wording mistake above that many make of calling all "red" horses Chestnut. (sorry Silverine... if I confused anyone... my brain when into basic mode I.E. remind me not to research snake illness, feed a toddler and write about horse colors at the same time ) Anyway... Caramel... here is my belief... you have a seal brown (mealy? I don't remember) stallion (glitched but intended to be seal) and a mare that has some of that seal lightness on her underbelly and appears to me to be a liver or just a plain sorrel (not chestnut) Also what I mean by genes being a mystery is this: Ask any IRL horse breeder and they will tell you about the times the bred two horses together with a understanding of color and got something weird at the end... the facts are... we think we understand genes until we get the fly-ball and are like.... WAIT... I JUST GOT A CREMELLO OUT OF A RED BAY AND A BLUE ROAN! (just a example) point is this... we have mapped the genotype but life is full of surprises and outside game "life" strange things happen and sometimes we never know why we ended up with that Cremello. (who later gives you chestnut foals when bred to another Cremello ) Anyway... whatever the * happens have fun and enjoy the flyballs that will hit you every now and then. They might only happen once in a lifetime.

[Honeybunny#2]

After researching on this and reading a few articles and stuff, I now have a better understanding of palominos, and when you say the cream gene cannot hide in a chestnut, I think that it would be worth to note that reason why this isn't possible is because the cream gene dilutes the chestnut, therefore making it a palomino. So a chestnut horse with the cream gene won't be chestnut (as you and Tjigra have already stated) It's interesting how genes work, though I sometimes have a hard time grasping the concept.

Yeah, they can be difficult to wrap your head around at times. I started learning about them when I was quite young - around 12 or so - but am still learning new things. It wasn't until maybe four years ago that I finally understood how pearl and cream interact and it was quite illuminating when I did.

Simple cream things:

No cream means no effect. Red will be red, black will be black.
Single cream turns red into yellow but leaves black alone. (Chestnut -> Palomino, Bay -> Buckskin, Brown ->Smoky Brown)
Double cream turns red into ivory and black into creamy brown. (Chesnut -> Cremello, Bay -> Perlino, Brown -> Brown Cream, Black -> Smoky Cream)

Double cream will also turn skin pink and eyes blue.

But then once you understand what a gene does you also have to understand how its inherited. I always loved learning about inheritance in school (I was obsessed with Punnet Squares when we learned about them) so it was pretty easy for me to grasp that part, but I can see where it would trip some people up.

SAME on the Punnet Squares!!!!! I love gene science... I wanted to take that more in depth but sadly life moved on and colleges didn't want my poor math boggled self... in the science zone I went for Acting and Equine management instead...

[Silverine]

Explanation of red genes for all involved:

Chestnut, palomino, and cremello are caused by a horse being homozygous (both alleles the same) recessive at the extension (red factor) locus. That means the horse is e/e, as we often see posted on HWO, rather than E/E or E/e. Because the horse is homozygous at extension for recessive red it does not matter what that horse has at its agouti locus, which is what determines if the horse is bay, brown, or black. Two red-based horses bred together will always produce red-based offspring. You will never get a bay, brown, black, or any variation thereof from chestnut bred to chestnut or any other combination of two red bases.

Genetically there is no difference between a chestnut and a sorrel. Some people differentiate chestnut and sorrel by saying that sorrel will have pangare where true chestnut does not. Others will say that one is more red than the other. Still others will say the difference is a flaxen mane and tail. For all intents and purposes, when talking about genotype, there is no difference between a chestnut and a sorrel simply because there is no consensus for calling one horse chestnut and another sorrel.

In real-life people are often surprised by foal colors because they have not color-tested the horses that were bred together. A horse labelled as liver chestnut may in fact be a very sooty bay, or vice versa. This does not mean that the genetics behind it is a mystery. All it means is that the people breeding the horses were uninformed as to their horse's genetic code.

For example - my gelding is registered as black, but both of his parents are registered as chocolate palominos. (My boy is rocky mountain horse for anyone curious. And yes - they were registered as chocolate palomino rather than just chocolate, the RMH shorthand for silver dapple.) Two palominos should not be able to have a black foal, though they could produce a very dark chestnut. I was curious, so I got my boy tested. He came back as a smoky black (black plus one cream - tested through VGL, full code: aa Ee CrN, negative for champagne, dun, gray, pearl, and silver), which means that at least one of his parents was labeled incorrectly. Being the person that I am, I got in contact with his breeder and had a conversation with them about my boy and his parents. They became curious as well and decided to test their horses. The dam was in fact palomino, but the sire was a silver black. If the parents' colors had been correctly identified from the start it would have been apparent where my boy had inherited his color.

For anyone curious, this is my boy:


And this is his sire (top) and half-brother (bottom):


I have a picture of his dam somewhere but can't find it right this second. I'll post it when I find it.

I also own a mare that I was curious about as I intend to breed her. She came from unknown parentage, but from appearances I was pretty sure she was brown with at least one copy of tobiano. Testing verified that. The stallion I want to breed her to is palomino and I was hoping for a chance of a palomino foal, but my mare's testing showed that she will only throw bay-, brown-, or black-based offspring. (The testing document even says as much next to her red factor test.) I did not test her for dilutions, though I could have just to be extra sure that she doesn't have them.

This is my mare (in all of her winter wooliness to show off the brown patch around her muzzle, behind her eye, and faint brown shading on her chest):


These are her test results:

Yes, chestnuts can throw palomino - but not when bred to other chestnuts. You yourself said that the sire of the palomino was palomino. I never said that chestnut can't throw palomino, only that it can't throw palomino when bred to itself. There has to be a source for the cream gene. I also knew a palomino filly out of a chestnut mare, but her sire was palomino.

Pinging you just in case.

[Tjigra]

Ask any IRL horse breeder and they will tell you about the times the bred two horses together with a understanding of color and got something weird at the end... the facts are... we think we understand genes until we get the fly-ball and are like.... WAIT... I JUST GOT A CREMELLO OUT OF A RED BAY AND A BLUE ROAN! (just a example) point is this... we have mapped the genotype but life is full of surprises and outside game "life" strange things happen and sometimes we never know why we ended up with that Cremello. (who later gives you chestnut foals when bred to another Cremello ) Anyway... whatever the * happens have fun and enjoy the flyballs that will hit you every now and then. They might only happen once in a lifetime.

If you get something weird, then the most probable explanation is that you've missed something from the beginning. Genes don't randomly appear out of nowhere (unless an extraordinary case of a new mutation). If you got a cremello out of a bay and a blue roan, and it later gave you non-cream foals, it is not a cremello, but something that only looks alike, and the most likely explanation is cream-pearl or a very light palomino mistaken for cremello. Cream can hide in a blue roan, as it wouldn't show on black, and bay can as well carry pearl (or not), as well as both parents being heterozygous for E and passing on the e to this offspring.

As to the glitch stallion that started this thread, he is in fact smokey brown and not mealy brown. Firstly, there is a distinct difference in the shade of the light areas of brown in HWO, and secondly, him being mealy brown wouldn't explain the palomino filly, as we'd still need her cream to come from somewhere.

Here is a mealy brown (a very strong mealy at that):


This one is a smokey brown. Note the much more yellow-ish appearance of the soft areas instead of tan in the first picture:

[Honeybunny#2]

Ask any IRL horse breeder and they will tell you about the times the bred two horses together with a understanding of color and got something weird at the end... the facts are... we think we understand genes until we get the fly-ball and are like.... WAIT... I JUST GOT A CREMELLO OUT OF A RED BAY AND A BLUE ROAN! (just a example) point is this... we have mapped the genotype but life is full of surprises and outside game "life" strange things happen and sometimes we never know why we ended up with that Cremello. (who later gives you chestnut foals when bred to another Cremello ) Anyway... whatever the * happens have fun and enjoy the flyballs that will hit you every now and then. They might only happen once in a lifetime.

If you get something weird, then the most probable explanation is that you've missed something from the beginning. Genes don't randomly appear out of nowhere (unless an extraordinary case of a new mutation). If you got a cremello out of a bay and a blue roan, and it later gave you non-cream foals, it is not a cremello, but something that only looks alike, and the most likely explanation is cream-pearl or a very light palomino mistaken for cremello. Cream can hide in a blue roan, as it wouldn't show on black, and bay can as well carry pearl (or not), as well as both parents being heterozygous for E and passing on the e to this offspring.

As to the glitch stallion that started this thread, he is in fact smokey brown and not mealy brown. Firstly, there is a distinct difference in the shade of the light areas of brown in HWO, and secondly, him being mealy brown wouldn't explain the palomino filly, as we'd still need her cream to come from somewhere.

Here is a mealy brown (a very strong mealy at that):


This one is a smokey brown. Note the much more yellow-ish appearance of the soft areas instead of tan in the first picture:

I know he isn't a mealy brown... Be is "seal" brown or smoky brown by definition but I was trying to remember if he was mealy or not... the palomino is not the least surprising since a fair number of Turk AC horses are palomino... somewhere her parents carry that cream gene and it pops up... I bred Turks in the beginning and that cream pops up pretty frequently... too frequently when you where like me trying to breed only black... The weird example I gave isn't real and yes it is possible to miss something... but take it from a horse breeders POV and get this... color is the hardest this IRL to get a firm grasp on... muscle and athleticism are easier to get a grasp on... early on I learned and the challenging thing is understanding the strange times when things happen... for example my friends 100% purebred Arab foal that is a true genetically tested cremello... out of 100% black and bay linage (distant not so famous relative to Rhapsody in Black) the furthest I have tracked back would be 7 greats back there was a mare that carried the cream gene. The parents where negative... neither have the cream gene. The vet believes it to be a mutation similar to the brindle horses and the brown and black tabino paint gelding that popped up (not white... look him up if you haven't seen him). Anyway... the stallion was brown the mare is liver (I think...I'm bad with liver colors ) ... the filly is cream *yawns* welp sounds normal to me... case closed.

[Honeybunny#2]

Explanation of red genes for all involved:

Chestnut, palomino, and cremello are caused by a horse being homozygous (both alleles the same) recessive at the extension (red factor) locus. That means the horse is e/e, as we often see posted on HWO, rather than E/E or E/e. Because the horse is homozygous at extension for recessive red it does not matter what that horse has at its agouti locus, which is what determines if the horse is bay, brown, or black. Two red-based horses bred together will always produce red-based offspring. You will never get a bay, brown, black, or any variation thereof from chestnut bred to chestnut or any other combination of two red bases.

Genetically there is no difference between a chestnut and a sorrel. Some people differentiate chestnut and sorrel by saying that sorrel will have pangare where true chestnut does not. Others will say that one is more red than the other. Still others will say the difference is a flaxen mane and tail. For all intents and purposes, when talking about genotype, there is no difference between a chestnut and a sorrel simply because there is no consensus for calling one horse chestnut and another sorrel.

In real-life people are often surprised by foal colors because they have not color-tested the horses that were bred together. A horse labelled as liver chestnut may in fact be a very sooty bay, or vice versa. This does not mean that the genetics behind it is a mystery. All it means is that the people breeding the horses were uninformed as to their horse's genetic code.

For example - my gelding is registered as black, but both of his parents are registered as chocolate palominos. (My boy is rocky mountain horse for anyone curious. And yes - they were registered as chocolate palomino rather than just chocolate, the RMH shorthand for silver dapple.) Two palominos should not be able to have a black foal, though they could produce a very dark chestnut. I was curious, so I got my boy tested. He came back as a smoky black (black plus one cream - tested through VGL, full code: aa Ee CrN, negative for champagne, dun, gray, pearl, and silver), which means that at least one of his parents was labeled incorrectly. Being the person that I am, I got in contact with his breeder and had a conversation with them about my boy and his parents. They became curious as well and decided to test their horses. The dam was in fact palomino, but the sire was a silver black. If the parents' colors had been correctly identified from the start it would have been apparent where my boy had inherited his color.

For anyone curious, this is my boy:


And this is his sire (top) and half-brother (bottom):


I have a picture of his dam somewhere but can't find it right this second. I'll post it when I find it.

I also own a mare that I was curious about as I intend to breed her. She came from unknown parentage, but from appearances I was pretty sure she was brown with at least one copy of tobiano. Testing verified that. The stallion I want to breed her to is palomino and I was hoping for a chance of a palomino foal, but my mare's testing showed that she will only throw bay-, brown-, or black-based offspring. (The testing document even says as much next to her red factor test.) I did not test her for dilutions, though I could have just to be extra sure that she doesn't have them.

This is my mare (in all of her winter wooliness to show off the brown patch around her muzzle, behind her eye, and faint brown shading on her chest):


These are her test results:

Yes, chestnuts can throw palomino - but not when bred to other chestnuts. You yourself said that the sire of the palomino was palomino. I never said that chestnut can't throw palomino, only that it can't throw palomino when bred to itself. There has to be a source for the cream gene. I also knew a palomino filly out of a chestnut mare, but her sire was palomino.

Pinging you just in case.

Thanks for the info above I'm a infoaholic Your horses are cute... I would post my newest baby pic... but I'm still figuring out how to insert it if it isn't on a online link... (I'm a little behind on tech) Also the palomino filly I have on the ground is sired by a Blonde sorrel... not a common color (found mostly in Swedish draft breeds and some heavy horses) he is a heavy Sport Dressage horse... blonde sorrel is deceptive (I think it has a more technical name) it looks Palomino but has a certain percentage of red/chestnut that it isn't palomino... their coat is a ruddy gold color to pale red with a flaxen to faded chestnut mane and tail some almost have a white mane... and look like a chocolate palomino except redder and with a mane bearing some red hairs... foals appear sorrel at birth. The joke with them the stud's owner told me is: Their palomino's that rolled in red dirt and rusted their manes