08-24-2009, 10:22 AM
| || |
I agree with smrobs. I'd say definitely a wild bay. The black is more restricted but it's still a bay, the cream gene to make buckskin would give you some definite indication of color change and he's clearly still the "bay color".
That case being, your only foal colors would be chestnut, bay or black.
If he WAS a buckskin, then yes, he could definitely sire a buckskin foal but the chances would probably be somewhat minimal. I believe 25%? He'd also be able to sire a palomino foal if he gave a copy of his cream gene and she gave the foal her chestnut. Smoky black could also be a possibility.
It also depends on the "zygosity" of his color. If he was homozygous for black, then he'd only ever sire bay and black foals (or some variation of each, if the mare had cream, etc.) regardless if the mare was chestnut.
But anyway, I definitely don't see any cream gene acting on him. If you look up pics of wild bays, they have the same color going on with the legs, almost a pale buckskin color due to the "fading" of the black.
EDIT - I also noticed you questioning why he was bay in a line of buckskins? Buckskin is just a bay horse with one dose of cream. So it's entirely possible for two buckskin horses to produce a bay. The chances are usuaully less, as you have two cream horses working on the genetics, but still possible if neither gave a copy of the cream gene. The resulting bay horse wouldn't be able to sire or throw cream either, since it's a dominant gene and expresses itself physically (chestnut is an example of a reccesive gene, as two parents who show no trace of chestnut can still produce chestnut foals).