On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:48:45 +0000, Julian and Jackie wrote:
(message-ID<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> )
>>I asked earlier about the siamese & burmese being sleeker than other
>>colors, & they seem to me not to have as much undercoat as other colors. I
>>think that's interesting because it's the same way in cats: the Siamese &
>>Oriental Shorthair cats have no undercoat, so their fur lies close to the
>>body, & you can see all their muscles, and the swirl patterns at the
>>breastbone & elbow are very noticeable. The fur itself is also shorter than
>>"regular" shorthair cats. I am imagining long, lean, sleek, muscular
>>gerbils with short coats. Maybe I should breed for those traits.... =)
>
>I agree that Siamese especially can look very sleek. But I don't think
>they have a different coat. I can't say I have noticed a difference in
>texture or undercoat. I am interested in seeing if the GGG have seen
>anything as I know they have done some microscopic analysis.
>
No, I haven't seen a difference in hair types between siamese/burmese or
other colours. They surely do have an undercoat. The hair structure isn't
any different either. Like the silk mutation, where the hairs are hollow.
I think the appearance might be different because the burmese and siamese
colours have a very shiny coat. Blacks have a shiny coat as well, but they
have a dull undercoat beneath that, which, in my opinion is less obvious in
burmese and siamese.
>>Also, do rodents have baby or milk teeth?
>
>No. I don't think any rodent does.
No, not that I am aware of.
Karin.
--
===================================================================
Gerbil Information Page
Everything you need to know about gerbils,
also information on exotic gerbil species.
http://www.gerbil-info.nl.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ NUMBER (UIN) 1987257
>>>>> Karin van Veen <<<<<
===================================================================
