Hershey's 2nd Litter

[ladysown]

all I know about genetics is what I observe in my herd. two lightly marked brokens will produce kits that are unthrifty, whereas medium to heavy marked brokens will rarely throw a charlie and generally give me mostly medium brokens. That's my herd though. So I breed according the rabbits I have and play around with any new rabbits I acquire to figure out what they will bring up.

 

[Buknee]

all I know about genetics is what I observe in my herd. two lightly marked brokens will produce kits that are unthrifty, whereas medium to heavy marked brokens will rarely throw a charlie and generally give me mostly medium brokens. That's my herd though. So I breed according the rabbits I have and play around with any new rabbits I acquire to figure out what they will bring up.

That makes sense. Thank you. I appreciate hearing about your herd experience. I do a lot of trial and error here. So much mixed information out there. I try to confirm what I read with my own herd if possible.

 

[Buknee]

Current photos of Hershey's kits. I love this litter!
They are 15 days old. All eyes are open. Healthy and lively.
The runt, photo 4, is the little black one. It only weighs 5 ounces. The largest weighs 9 ounces.
The harlequinized castor is beautiful. His/her colors are so rich.

Originally, we thought all the brokens were broken, harlequinized castors. But now the first pictured one looks like broken red. Thoughts?

 

[Buknee]

Kit 11 & Family Photo

 

[Alaska Satin]

Originally, we thought all the brokens were broken, harlequinized castors. But now the first pictured one looks like broken red. Thoughts?

From the photos, it still looks like the unevenness in color is due to harlequinization rather than smut.
The darker coloration on the ears of a smuttty red usually looks more like lacing, i.e. along the edge of the ear rather than in the middle. The variation in color near the eyes also looks more like harlequin than smut.


There is also variation in the color on the back that looks more like different colored spots than smut.

Given the ear coloration overall, I'd lean toward castor, but its nose and that spot on the back looks red. Since it looks like you might have wideband in the mix (judging from those gorgeous tort and red kits), it could be a wideband castor, which would look quite a lot redder than a normal castor.

Eventually you can look for ring definition to decide whether it's a red or a castor, but it still looks harlequinized to me.

In my Mini Rex, ring definition did not usually show up until they were quite a bit older...can't remember exactly but it may have been on the order of 12 weeks or so? It would show up first on the lower flanks, with the back being the last to show ring definition - not so helpful in a broken!

And I think you're right - that harlequin castor is stunning.

 

[ihatedarkroast]

This whole discussion is so interesting! I jad no idea there was so much behind the colors.

 

[Buknee]

This whole discussion is so interesting! I jad no idea there was so much behind the colors.

Makes my head spin! But, I am learning little by little.

 

[ihatedarkroast]

Makes my head spin! But, I am learning little by little.

Maybe this is why people don't like making pedigrees. Good luck!

 

[Scooter1A]

those are nice looking rabbits, are they mini Rex?

 

[Buknee]

those are nice looking rabbits, are they mini Rex?

Thank you. They are standard.

 

[Olbunny]

Eh, I see a very successful breeding program ! And a loving caring breeder

 

[Buknee]

Eh, I see a very successful breeding program ! And a loving caring breeder

Thank you so much!

 

[Buknee]

Here is an updated photo of one of the kits that was originally thought to be a broken harlequinized castor, but is it? To me it looks like a broken red.

LOL I know, I am no good at this color thing. That's is why I have my secret weapon, the RT Crew!

Also, I have this little guy that the pedigree states broken blue. Isn't he a broken chocolate?

 

[Alaska Satin]

Here is an updated photo of one of the kits that was originally thought to be a broken harlequinized castor, but is it? To me it looks like a broken red.

LOL I know, I am no good at this color thing. That's is why I have my secret weapon, the RT Crew!

Also, I have this little guy that the pedigree states broken blue. Isn't he a broken chocolate?

Oooof. Quite a run of color challenges I'm encountering these days (my own barn included). Good fun!

It looks to me like you're right about the first broken being a red rather than castor. I would still say harlequinized:

While the upper half of the rabbit looks red, the lower half looks more like castor, but that could very well be the result of the harlequinization. You can probably decide once and for all by looking for rings in the fur. Red will not have any rings at all, just an undercolor and the surface color. Castor will have at least some suggestion of rings; at this age they'll probably show up better lower on the flanks than on the back.

The second rabbit's pedigree should say broken otter:

Since all four color variations of otter are shown together, it's not technically necessary to specify which color of otter it is on the pedigree. I do it anyway, since I like having/providing the additional information.

On my screen the base color looks exactly in between blue and chocolate, but it's too dark to be lilac. Whichever it is, it's not an exemplary version of the color (at least on my screen)! Going by the shade of tan lacing the ears, it does not look like it's dilute, so I guess I'd lean toward chocolate.

 

[Scooter1A]

nice looking bunnies. super.

 

[Buknee]

Castor will have at least some suggestion of rings; at this age they'll probably show up better lower on the flanks than on the back.

Thank you. I will check him for rings.

The second rabbit's pedigree should say broken otter:

So what markings make him an otter?

 

[Alaska Satin]

Thank you. I will check him for rings.

So what markings make him an otter?

Sorry, I attached the marked-up photo but didn't say anything about it!

The tan at the nape and the tan lining on the ears indicate otter. It doesn't show in the photo but he's most likely also got tan around his nostrils, jaw and eyes (although sometimes the eye markings on otters can be very minimal). Most brokens don't have color on their feet, but if he does the markings will show there as well, and if his tail is colored it will be light underneath. Otters have basically the same markings as an agouti, it's just that their coat is self rather than having rings. Broken otters can be easy to miss because they don't have as much color to begin with.

Here is a photo of a chocolate otter (Satin) that shows some of the markings better, though the ear and nape triangle markings aren't obvious at this angle:


Just because it's interesting, here is an otter himalayan. Her nostril markings don't show in this photo but the ear lining, feet markings (A) and white underside to her tail (B) show:

 

[Buknee]

You can probably decide once and for all by looking for rings in the fur. Red will not have any rings at all, just an undercolor and the surface color. Castor will have at least some suggestion of rings; at this age they'll probably show up better lower on the flanks than on the back.

Once again, my bunnies break the rules. Amber?

 

[Alaska Satin]

Once again, my bunnies break the rules. Amber?

I don't really see rings, just lighter undercolor and red ends. There does seem to be a dark color underneath - which I noticed on the first photo as well (A) - but it does not look like ring color to me. Sometimes when agoutis are developing their color they go through weird phases as new fur is coming it. The other dark spots/areas I'm thinking are due to the harlequinization. Amber is a thought, but I don't see chocolate ticking, and the smut on his ears looks black instead of chocolate (B).
You'll probably have to wait until his adult coat comes in to make a final call, but I'm thinking it's a combination of baby coat + harlequinization making things this confusing.

 

[Buknee]

Broken Chocolate in question: