Do these Ragdolls really look like a Ragdoll?

[dolly08]

Hi there!

1.1.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 1, 2017

2.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 1, 2017

3.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 1, 2017

4.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 1, 2017

5.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 1, 2017

6.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 1, 2017

 

[Willowy]

They look more Birman to me.

 

[sivyaleah]

The are not Ragdolls.

I'm thinking more Birman also - but surely not purebred.

 

[StefanZ]

Im not ragdoll conneissseur.  So although I think they dont look as typical ragdolls, I dont see no real faults either.  They seem at least as well kept and in good shape.

Even beautiful in their way and fashion.

Birmans have white paws, socks, so even if there is some outer alikeness, they cant be mislabelled birmans.

 

[abyeb]

They don't look at all like Ragdolls. As other posters have mentioned, they look more like Birmans but have a longer face and body as well as lack the characteristic white socks of a Birman. I'd say possibly a Birman-Balinese mix. You have good reason to be suspicious. But they are undeniably pretty cats.

If you are interested in getting a Ragdoll, the best place to meet reputable breeders is at a cat show.

 

[1CatOverTheLine]

I hate to agree with everyone, but they're nowhere near the Breed Standard for Ragdolls as regards head conformation:

http://cfa.org/Portals/0/documents/breeds/standards/ragdoll.pdf

Nor do they agree with the Breed Standard for Birmans:

http://cfa.org/Portals/0/documents/breeds/standards/birman.pdf

Wildest guess of them all: these are the progeny of a Birman crossed to an Himalayan.  Birmans have no undercoat, and these cats appear quite strongly to have undercoats, which might be the genetic product of an Himmy-Birman cross.

.

 

[abyeb]

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be argumentative, but Himmies are brachycephalic with a cobby body. The cats in these pictures have a modified wedge shaped head and a more slender body than either Himalayan or Birman. That's why I think that there is some Balinese influence.

 

[dolly08]

Thanks for your help and replies! I've searched for some pictures of Balinese cats and I think some kind of Balinese mix has the biggest chance.
But the worst thing is that the pictures you see are from the owners and they're in the belief that they own a real Ragdoll, so they are defending the breeder like crazy

7.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 2, 2017

8.jpg

• dolly08
• Mar 2, 2017

 

[StefanZ]

Balinese,  here as a semi-longhair old type siamese, is the nearest to suspect.

After all, modern type balineses are much more alike modern type siameses, so how old type balinese did looked, its very few whom knows...

 

[1CatOverTheLine]

the cat appears to have an undercoat, which was the reason I mentioned Himalayans.  Since neither Birman nor Balinese are undercoated, it seemed the most likely Parentage to carry the undercoated coat genetics.

No argument as to the cat's whole appearance being closely related to the Balinese at all - and I might be wrong about the undercoat  - it's difficult to judge from a photograph.

.

 

[1CatOverTheLine]

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be argumentative, but Himmies are brachycephalic with a cobby body. The cats in these pictures have a modified wedge shaped head and a more slender body than either Himalayan or Birman. That's why I think that there is some Balinese influence.

Abyeb - given that Ragdolls, Balinese and Birmans all lack an undercoat, could the simple presence of the FGF5:M2/M2 mutation which is present in Ragdolls somehow account for the undercoat, as opposed to requiring specific genetics from a Parent who does have an undercoat, or is this trait always carried by the (still-hypothetical) Yuc gene?  I realise that its presence in York Chocolates results in cats having no undercoat, but is the reverse true as well?

.

 

[Willowy]

That's a good point about the undercoat. Probably they're just regular domestics mixed with some purebred to make them pointed, then she just continued her line and found that people will pay money just because they're pretty :/. They ARE very nice-looking cats. But if they have any purebred Ragdoll in them it's far removed from any show-quality cats.

 

[abyeb]

Abyeb - given that Ragdolls, Balinese and Birmans all lack an undercoat, could the simple presence of the FGF5:M2/M2 mutation which is present in Ragdolls somehow account for the undercoat, as opposed to requiring specific genetics from a Parent who does have an undercoat, or is this trait always carried by the (still-hypothetical) Yuc gene?  I realise that its presence in York Chocolates results in cats having no undercoat, but is the reverse true as well?

.

Yes, I'd say that an undercoat could occur. Note that the CFA breed standard for Balinese mentions a definite downy undercoat as a disqualifier, meaning that a undercoat must sometimes appear as a mutation for Balinese. If both parents are carriers for the Yuc gene, then the offspring could have an undercoat even if the parents do not. Yet, I don't think that an undercoat, or lack thereof, would be at all a concern for this breeder, as they are already claiming Balinese/Birman type cats as Ragdolls, so adhering to a show standard wouldn't be at all a priority.

 

[1CatOverTheLine]

Note that the CFA breed standard for Balinese mentions a definite downy undercoat as a disqualifier, meaning that a undercoat must sometimes appear as a mutation for Balinese. If both parents are carriers for the Yuc gene, then the offspring could have an undercoat even if the parents do not. Yet, I don't think that an undercoat, or lack thereof, would be at all a concern for this breeder, as they are already claiming Balinese/Birman type cats as Ragdolls, so adhering to a show standard wouldn't be at all a priority.

Thanks - I had to refresh my little knowledge to find that passage.

Sadly, I think you're right about the breeder as well; they appear to be pretty cats, but quite a long way from being Ragdolls.

.