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