Chestnut or Dark Palomino? also Satin Gene??

No different in what way? Letters on a piece of paper from a lab, or visual difference?

A red horse with a flaxen mane IS visually different than a red horse with matching mane and tail. I would venture to say that it is adding more specificity to call them different things. If my mom told me she saw a chestnut horse running loose near the house, I would know I wasn't looking for a red horse with flaxen mane and tail. It wouldn't be very helpful for me to have to keep in mind that she could have meant a red horse with a flaxen mane and tail OR a solid red horse.

I would also venture to say that they ARE genetically different. Perhaps the base color is the same, but something is going on in the genes to give some red horses lighter manes/tails while others are solid red.

Thus I assert that people are not "perpetuating a falsehood", they are stating the obvious as they perceive it in the immediate and tangible world.

I agree. There is something going on that changes the shade of red based horses. Same as there are changes in the shade of black based horses. I am not disputing that at all. However, sorrel and chestnut are ambiguous at best. You describe them as sorrel has a lighter mane and tail, correct?

How does this horse fit in?




What about these two?



They are fairly close in shade, but one has a flaxen mane and tail, the other doesn't. Are they different?

What about horses that are more flaxen in one season, but seem to have "normal" manes and tails in other seasons?

Overo and Tovero are even stated as different colors in ANY paint registry. APHA for instance Paint Horse Color Patterns

They are FAR from the same that is like saying a bald faced solid paint isnt allowed to be registered because it doesnt have any white in the body. The fact is you are trying to base your argument on half truths and science you obviously don't understand.
Or in another term you are saying that we shouldnt differentiate dogs because a Golden Retriever and a Labrador are technically genetically the same? And a QH and a TB are the same except for one has less arab in its genetics? Or that brunettes and auburn hair is really just different shades of the same gene? There are differences that need to be recognized.

I clearly don't understand genetics. Clearly. Yet you use the APHA rules to back up your argument. The APHA is decades behind in the way they register horses. Decades. We know so much more now than they did when they started registering horses, but they resist change.

Tovero and overo are stupid, out-dated terms that we should never use. I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. It is downright dangerous for the APHA and the AQHA to continue to register horses as either of these patterns. It is negligent. It is the reason that so many lethal white foals are born each year. People need to educate themselves, and the registering body should be at the forefront of this education. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Don't suggest again that I don't know what I am talking about without substantiating your claims. Eolith and I can debate as adults exchanging opinions without descending to nastiness. I respect her opinion, and hope she returns the respect for mine. Before you too weigh in, make sure you are versed in the current research on equine genetics. I know I am.

The entire realm of horse color of any kind is ambiguous at best. There's dark bays that look black, duns that look bay, dark chestnuts that might just be brown... etc etc etc

Not even genetic tests can flawlessly explain the multitudes of variation within the multitudes of shades that horses come in. So why should genetic tests tell us how to refer to our horses? As I said before, it's a matter of individual perception and semantics.

For the record, the pictures you showed would classify as a sorrel, a chestnut, and a sorrel according to my individual perception. Maybe they're all chestnut to you or two are chestnut and one is sorrel for another member of the forum... I don't mind either way, but in my community that is how they would be identified.

You clam to be able to argue as and adult yet you have TARGETED two of my color posts? The APHA AQHA and jockey club have all made changes to colors. The fact that people don't stud their horses Lineage is as much the problem as the Genetic color factors. They may have the same genetic indicators but they are not the same and applying paper to a genome is like saying someone who has been building houses all their life is not nearly as qualified as someone who has gone to college and only learned to draw a building.

Also back to your original argument about my first post I said "Not quite dark/dirty enough to be a true chestnut imo" emphasis on IMO I was not saying that in someone else's opinion it could not be a chestnut LIKE YOU ARE!!! This is an open forum for such opinions. I also said "Although with as light as she is in her clipped pic she might be a red dun" again the emphasis on MIGHT SO you obviously don't not have a RESPECT for others opinions or you would have read through my entire post and made not on the fact that I was not saying it as a Fact.

Back to my last point let me make a more clear analogy you saying there is no difference between colors of the same genetic marker is saying that a red and auburn hair is the same color or that there is no difference between a bee and a wasp.

I was not "targeting" you or your posts. I don't target posters. I don't care who posts what. I target inaccuracies. Look at the thousands of posts I have made. None of them are "targeted" at any one person.

Colour registries have always been, and will always be, unreliable places to do colour research. I could spend all day going through the inaccuracies of the three registries alone that you have pointed out, never mind the thousands of other registries that are also wrong.

It is reasonable to assume we are all here because of our love of horses. Each of us bring a unique interest to the field though. I would never claim to be an expert in dressage, or in reining, or driving, or breeding practices. I do, however, without any false modesty, have a very deep, current and accurate knowledge of horse colours, and the genetics behind them. When you say "IMO" something that I feel is incorrect, I am not "attacking" you when I correct it. Most of the time, I feel that I am doing something else I love - teaching (primary school teacher here, I can't leave it at work lol). If my responses seem abrupt at times, I apologise. Not only am I busy professionally, but I have three small children who all think the keyboard is something that will steal their mother's soul (can't say I blame them), which makes lengthy replies that cushion people's feelings often unfeasible for me. I apologise if you have felt victimised or anything like it. It was not my intention at all. Sharing my knowledge is the only reason I replied.

I apologize for taking offense so quickly. I know that sharing an emotion or tone over the forum is very difficult. I however do stand my point on the difference between Sorrel and Chestnut. Here they are marked as different colors although they do have the same marker. It is simply, for me, the ability to tell the difference in shades or patterns. For instance the main difference in my mind when you say Dun vs Buckskin is that a dun has a dorsal stripes and is darker were as a buckskin has a lighter coat and black points. They are based off of the same brown colors but they have simple difference.

Let me throw this monkey wrench in there... since you are determined that chestnut and sorrel must be called different things, do you insist on differentiating the different shades of bay as well?

BTW, I am 110% behind what Chiilaa is trying to get across. Until the genetics are proven to show what causes the different shades, there is no point what so ever in calling a red horse chestnut or sorrel. They are both red.

..what? Last time I checked, golden retrievers and labrador retrievers are two different dogs. Similar, yes, but different. As the owner of one of each breed, I can vouch for that.

But I'm with Nd and Chiilaa on this argument. We currently do not know what makes the shades of color different, so there is no reason to refer to them as different until some other discovery is made. What we know currently has proved sufficient for the most part in examining and predicting coat colors.

Hell, a boarder at my barn asked what color my mare is. Obviously a buckskin. She replied with saying she was too dark to be a buckskin, in her opinion.