Yes, and taking pictures like you're doing helps even more. The C-series and E-series genes are tricky to begin with, and when you put them together, they produce some pretty astonishing color and pattern changes.
Two steel genes produce what's called a "supersteel" which can look like a self. In my mind it's kind of the like the broken allele, which is additive in its effect (one copy = broken, two copies = charlie). Frequently, though not always, there are some clues to the supersteel's identity in that you'll often find little areas of slight ticking on a supersteel, and you really should never see anything like that on a self. Note my use of words like "not always" and "usually" and "often" and "should never" because as soon as you say something absolute about genetics, you'll find an exception!
Similarly, a steel that is also a self <aa> will often look like a self, with possibly some scattered white hairs or ticking - so, very much like a supersteel.
I agree, if your doe with agouti and chin alleles was also <Es_>, she would look like a steel instead of a chinchilla.
You make a good point about the chances of non-extension <e> which made me realize that I made an unfounded assumption about the buck being <EsE>. He could still carry an <e> as long as the doe does not; and vice versa, she could carry it as long as he does not. All you really know
for sure is that he is <Es_> and she is <E_>.
While the harlequin <ej> definitely has partial dominance issues, I haven't really found any evidence that non-extension <e> has any effect on the alleles further up the dominance ladder. Many of my coppers and chins have carried <e> (thanks to reds in their lines) and I've not seen it affect color or pattern when it comes in a single copy.
Steel <Es> extends the undercolor, non-extension <e> retracts it, but since steel is dominant, it would seem to me that there would be no effect on the steel expression when they're combined. (What say you,
@judymac?)
For correct ring definition, non-wideband <WW> is the genotype. Wideband <ww> of course messes it up by widening the middle ring. But I have noticed that coppers (chestnuts) that even carry one wideband allele <Ww> sometimes have subtly widened middle bands. It gives the color a very slightly brighter, slightly more reddish surface color than a normal copper, though not as much as double wideband does, so they can show well (depending on the preference of the judge).
Wonderful! The ABC book is by far the best beginner book I've seen, and of course referring to the SOP with its (copyrighted) descriptions of the colors will bring it all together. You'll also see that breeds have different names for the same colors, and even different preferences for colors that are genetically the same. For example, the tan pattern on a Tan rabbit is supposed to be cleanly delineated without ticking, while the tan pattern on an otter Satin is supposed to have distinct ticking.
I agree, chinchilla is one of the most stunning colors in rabbits. Your doe looks like a normal black chinchilla. If she was a pearl (which is non-extension <ee>) she'd look frosty and not have any ring color. If she was a dilute (blue agouti aka squirrel), she would throw both dense and dilute kits when bred with a dense buck.
She does, though, seem a bit light in color. The wider middle band could explain that, and I would suspect a wideband issue. Do you have any idea what colors are behind her?
Here is a good example of (black, not blue) chinchilla coloration and ring color. A squirrel (blue agouti) would have a lighter undercolor and blue ticking instead of black.
View attachment 34661View attachment 34662
Would you be able to get and post a photo of her ring pattern?
All I can see at this point is that the two solids are not phenotypic agoutis since they do not have light inner ear lining, though that's not to say they couldn't be steels having the agouti <A>. If they're selfs, maybe black and blue... although that black looks a little suspect to me, it could easily be the lighting. As far as the brokens, it's too early to tell whether they're agoutis or not - on one I can't see the inner ears, and on the other I can't really tell.
So, other than what you've already deduced about the REW being a broken, I can't add anything until there's more fur on those babies!
Incidentally, limiting fall-offs doesn't necessarily reduce the size of the litter. I've had does with a single fall-off have 8-10 kits. There are other things that enter into it, like genetic line, size, age and condition of the doe and the season of the year. I haven't been able to find them yet, but there were apparently some big studies that showed that breeding a doe, removing her from the buck, and then rebreeding her an hour later improves conception rates and litter size. I haven't done any experimenting but that is the method I use, and I have pretty good luck getting good conception rates and very large litters (regularly 8-16 across all ages in my barn).
Me too!
