Dominance Orders for furs, eyes & traits in Google Docs

[zivaah Resident]

this is something toi should take time to read thx

[Tashi Core]

*bump!* oops...

[Wytchie Resident]

Hi Saga
I'd like to take the time to thank you most sincerely for your lists and your dedication to keeping up with them. When I first started they were just a Godsend and even after these last few months have zoomed past since my kittycat addiction took serious hold, I ALWAYS have your 3 trait order pages open if my web browser is open. I just want you to know that what you do is valuable and such a great act of kindness to all the new people and the not-so-news too. You really ARE appreciated
Thank you <3

[Saga Felix]

(10-02-2012 06:59 AM)Wytchie Resident Wrote:  Hi Saga
I'd like to take the time to thank you most sincerely for your lists and your dedication to keeping up with them. When I first started they were just a Godsend and even after these last few months have zoomed past since my kittycat addiction took serious hold, I ALWAYS have your 3 trait order pages open if my web browser is open. I just want you to know that what you do is valuable and such a great act of kindness to all the new people and the not-so-news too. You really ARE appreciated
Thank you <3

Just returned from this year's (probably) last trip and saw this post
Thanks for that, Wytchie, I am as always very happy to hear that the charts are appreciated and that people often take their time to tell me, and to help update them with new info. Without that, they wouldn't be worth much

*Hugs* to you all,
Saga

[Sara Franco]

Can't thank Saga enough for her efforts but I got a question about the charts.

I get confused when it comes to the symbols > and < in the charts like For Foxie Auburn and Bengal Tawny for example.

The Foxie Auburn is written next to the Russian White like this:
Foxie Auburn* (>Burm.Plat)

I know the Foxie Auburn is dominant to Burmese Platinum, but I'm not sure about the relation to Russian White. Does the > symbol mean it is between Russian White and Burmese Platinum?

For Bengal Tawny it is written next to Russian Blue like this:
Bengal Tawny (<Ben.Silver)

Also here I know Bengal Tawny is dominant to Bengal Silver, but I see a < not a > so I'm very confused about the relation between the Bengal Tawny and the Russian Blue as it can't be that the 2 symbols, > and < give the same meaning.

Would someone explain it to me please? Thank you

[Kayleigh McMillan]

I believe as I recall < = less than ... and > = more than ...
For example as with the tails Big Boo Boo (> Curious) means Big Boo Boo is dominant to Curious.

[Saga Felix]

(10-18-2012 05:35 AM)Sara Franco Wrote:  .....
I know the Foxie Auburn is dominant to Burmese Platinum, but I'm not sure about the relation to Russian White. Does the > symbol mean it is between Russian White and Burmese Platinum?

-The cell that says "Foxy Auburn (>Burm.Plat)" simply means that that is ALL I know about Foxy Auburn. That's all the info I ever got, and that is why the Foxy Auburn is very, very estimated right now. It could be dominant to Red Tabby for all I know - only thing that is for sure is that Burmese Platinum is recessive to it.

(10-18-2012 05:35 AM)Sara Franco Wrote:  For Bengal Tawny it is written next to Russian Blue like this:
Bengal Tawny (<Ben.Silver)

Also here I know Bengal Tawny is dominant to Bengal Silver, but I see a < not a > .....
Would someone explain it to me please? Thank you

Sorry-sorry-sorry... My mistake! I turned the sign the wrong way the other night - I must have been tired.

It's corrected now, and thanks for letting me know :-)


-Saga

---

About the < and > symbols:

Think of it as crocodiles - that's what I learned in school ;-)

The crocodile ALWAYS wants the bigger part, so this makes sense: 1 < 2
Normally, this means "1 is less than 2" - or indeed if you turn it around: 2 > 1: "2 is more than 1".

-For the dominance orders though, I use "more than" to say "dominant to" and "less than" to say "recessive to".

So, like this:

Red Tabby > Bengal Snow = Red Tabby IS DOMINANT TO Bengal Snow
Bengal Snow < Red Tabby = Bengal Snow IS RECESSIVE TO Red Tabby

I hope this makes sense to everyone, as I can't really think of any better way to say this with just ONE character - which is the only way it'll fit into cells in the chart when needed :-)


-Saga

[Sara Franco]

(10-18-2012 11:29 AM)Saga Felix Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 05:35 AM)Sara Franco Wrote:  .....
I know the Foxie Auburn is dominant to Burmese Platinum, but I'm not sure about the relation to Russian White. Does the > symbol mean it is between Russian White and Burmese Platinum?

-The cell that says "Foxy Auburn (>Burm.Plat)" simply means that that is ALL I know about Foxy Auburn. That's all the info I ever got, and that is why the Foxy Auburn is very, very estimated right now. It could be dominant to Red Tabby for all I know - only thing that is for sure is that Burmese Platinum is recessive to it.

(10-18-2012 05:35 AM)Sara Franco Wrote:  For Bengal Tawny it is written next to Russian Blue like this:
Bengal Tawny (<Ben.Silver)

Also here I know Bengal Tawny is dominant to Bengal Silver, but I see a < not a > .....
Would someone explain it to me please? Thank you

Sorry-sorry-sorry... My mistake! I turned the sign the wrong way the other night - I must have been tired.

It's corrected now, and thanks for letting me know :-)


-Saga

---

About the < and > symbols:

Think of it as crocodiles - that's what I learned in school ;-)

The crocodile ALWAYS wants the bigger part, so this makes sense: 1 < 2
Normally, this means "1 is less than 2" - or indeed if you turn it around: 2 > 1: "2 is more than 1".

-For the dominance orders though, I use "more than" to say "dominant to" and "less than" to say "recessive to".

So, like this:

Red Tabby > Bengal Snow = Red Tabby IS DOMINANT TO Bengal Snow
Bengal Snow < Red Tabby = Bengal Snow IS RECESSIVE TO Red Tabby

I hope this makes sense to everyone, as I can't really think of any better way to say this with just ONE character - which is the only way it'll fit into cells in the chart when needed :-)


-Saga

Thank you very much for the explanation

But does this mean that the position of the cell, next to Russian white for Foxie and next to Russian Blue for Bengal Tawny doesn't matter?

[Saga Felix]

(10-18-2012 11:46 AM)Sara Franco Wrote:  Thank you very much for the explanation

But does this mean that the position of the cell, next to Russian white for Foxie and next to Russian Blue for Bengal Tawny doesn't matter?

Ehmm, well... In specific cases like these, where it's a brand new fur, but I know next to nothing about it, it's hard for me to decide where to put it on the chart. I like things to be correct when they're there, so I am tempted to not put it there at all.

-However, since it's brand new and fashionable, everybody will look for it... so if it's nowhere to be seen, I get endless IM's asking me if I forgot to put it there, or if I am absolutely sure I don't know anything, or telling me that someone THINKS that it MIGHT be dominant to this or recessive to that.

So well.. In short, you're more or less right. The position matters little, it's just put over the fur I know it's dominant to - or under the one it's recessive to - somewhere on the line.

[Sara Franco]

(10-20-2012 07:12 PM)Saga Felix Wrote:  

(10-18-2012 11:46 AM)Sara Franco Wrote:  Thank you very much for the explanation

But does this mean that the position of the cell, next to Russian white for Foxie and next to Russian Blue for Bengal Tawny doesn't matter?

Ehmm, well... In specific cases like these, where it's a brand new fur, but I know next to nothing about it, it's hard for me to decide where to put it on the chart. I like things to be correct when they're there, so I am tempted to not put it there at all.

-However, since it's brand new and fashionable, everybody will look for it... so if it's nowhere to be seen, I get endless IM's asking me if I forgot to put it there, or if I am absolutely sure I don't know anything, or telling me that someone THINKS that it MIGHT be dominant to this or recessive to that.

So well.. In short, you're more or less right. The position matters little, it's just put over the fur I know it's dominant to - or under the one it's recessive to - somewhere on the line.

Thank you for your reply and Thank you again for your continuous efforts