My main point with these two articles was to pick an area where there is some good science (color genetics) and show how there is no correlation between reality and the rules in the standard. The standard is important because in Europe people are required to breed to the standard and win points in shows or they cannot get permission to breed.

Perhaps a better rewrite would be to eliminate color as a breeding point. I suspect the reasons for the existing color combination rules is political and about attempting to visually distinguish Azawakh from Sloughi.

Re-Rewrite Redux

Color: Any combination of colors is acceptable.

Breeding is both a science and an art. The science can be studied and even learned, but the art – unlikely. One breeder will paint like Picasso, another like Míro, a third – like Bart Simpson.

The perception, the eye, is an innate ability. One either has it, or one does not. Those who see eye to eye – *usually* have some commonality of aesthetic sense. Then there are those who won’t ever “see it”, even if they memorize each and every word of that well crafted “breed standard” and attempt to visualize a creation from it.

To me, the value of a “breed standard” is an exercise of frustration. Although both my academic background in biochemistry and my advance degree in immunology instilled disciplined thought processes in me, they never did help my breeding results until I learned to trust my eye and my intuition. So the anarchist in me was born afterwards.

Color is cosmetic. The study of color genetics at one time fascinated and consumed my interest. Now that too has passed. Head, expression, structure – they still intrigue me.

Sorry to butt in like this.