Quote:
Originally Posted by Vectis Hamstery
The standards committee tend to take into account what other fancies (e.g. mice, rabbit etc) use for a similar colour if possible which may be where sable came from.
Umbrous is a recognised mutation so it is acceptable to show any umbrous colour which is also recognised e.g. umbrous golden - they are shown in nonstandard class if they don't have a standard. So they are 'approved'. An umbrous blue, however, would not be acceptable to show as blue isn't a recognised mutation, not because of the umbrous. Copper has a specific standard as do mink and sable. It takes a member to write the standard, present it to the committee and it be approved. If no-one does it then it won't have a standard!
Having a standard doesn't necessarily mean a colour has its own class at a show. The standards are set by the NHC; the classes are decided on by the clubs. If umbrous golden, for example, were to get a standard it could perhaps go into the AOC classes. Cream has its own classes as there are a lot of cream hamsters! It gets unwieldy to have classes of 20 or 30+ hamsters not to mention being a challenge for the concentration of the judge (I had 24 sapphire winter whites to judge at my first judging!)
|
While part of me smiles to think of all those W.W. the other half of me is boggled at how you even begin to judge all in a same color.
So it sounds like Judging standards aren't entirely linked with genetics. Which is an interesting thought on its own. But if a member has to write a standard for a new mutation, wouldn't that require a number of hobbyists with the gene to prove it's reproducible? Kind of the way you have to write out experiment procedures and then give to other scientists so they can either reproduce the results, or invalidate them?