Editorial Standards & Corrections

A genetics claim on this site is expected to point to a source, and that source is expected to be a peer-reviewed paper, not a forum post or another breeder’s website. Each article lists the works it rests on, and each reference has been checked against the published record — the DOI resolves to the real paper. A citation the site cannot stand behind does not go in.

“Peer-reviewed” refers to the cited studies, published in journals such as PNAS, Science, Genes, and PLOS Genetics, which were reviewed by other scientists in the field prior to publication. It does not mean this site’s own writing has undergone formal academic peer review.

Where a widely repeated figure has no verifiable source behind it, we say so and decline to reprint it, even when doing so would make an article look more precise. The circulating “57% / 61%” CDDY frequencies are one example: no sample size, no method, no confidence interval, so we do not use the number.

Not everything in poodle genetics is settled, and pretending otherwise is its own kind of error. So every article carries one of four status badges rather than a single confident voice, shown at the top of the piece and explained again next to its references:

• Established — built on identified genes and validated tests. The claims are supported by the peer-reviewed literature listed with the article, or, for a handful of articles resting on settled, deterministic reasoning or a directly observable fact rather than a specific cited study, by that reasoning itself. The E, K, B, and D loci sit here.
• Supported but incomplete — credible evidence supports what the article describes, but the mechanism, the population studied, or its application to poodles specifically still has limits. Where the evidence stops short, the article says so rather than rounding up.
• Emerging evidence — based on current research that is still developing. The direction is supported, but details may be refined as more work is published.
• Working hypothesis — a proposal drawn from breeding observation, not a settled finding. There is no identified gene or validated test for what the article describes. Read it as a hypothesis to be checked, not a conclusion.

An open question is a legitimate, useful answer. It is not dressed up as a fact, and a fact is not hedged into an open question to seem cautious.

Some traits are not settled by the loci this site models. Red-spectrum shade is polygenic. Progressive greying has no validated test. How much white a parti carries is influenced by modifiers no panel reads. For these, the honest answer is that the science records what the breeder observes, and the tools here do not guess. The calculator methodology sets out exactly where that line falls for coat-colour prediction.

When the science moves, or when we get something wrong, the fix is visible rather than quiet. In practice that means:

• Every article carries a review date, so you can see how current it is.
• When a correction changes what an article claims, the article is re-reviewed and its date updated, and where the change matters the correction is stated plainly in the text rather than slipped in silently.
• Health-relevant data that drives a tool — the merle pairing matrix is the clearest example — is version-controlled and locked in tests, so a change is deliberate and recorded, never accidental.

We would rather a reader see that a page changed than be quietly handed a different answer than they were given last month.

If a statistic cannot be sourced, it does not appear here, however convenient it would be to have one. The site does not publish made-up percentages, fabricated sample sizes, or confident-sounding figures with nothing underneath them. Where a number is genuinely unknown — for instance the clinical burden of an inherited condition in poodles specifically — the site says it is unknown.

Poodle Genetics Lab is an educational resource. It is written by Xyon Marley, author of the Poodle Genetics series, and its purpose is to make the peer-reviewed science usable for breeders and owners. It is not a laboratory and does not run or sell DNA tests. It does earn a small affiliate or referral commission if you buy a kit through a link here — to Embark or Paw Print Genetics — disclosed plainly on the DNA testing pageand anywhere such a link appears. That commission does not change what the evidence says: the labs are compared on the science, and when the honest reading is “this test tells you little in this breed,” that is still what the site says, commission or not. We would rather lose the sale than recommend a test the evidence does not support.

None of this is veterinary advice. Breeding and clinical decisions belong with your veterinarian. See the full disclaimer.

If you believe something on this site is wrong, out of date, or missing a source, we want to hear it — especially with a citation. Getting the science right matters more than being seen to have been right the first time.

Send it through the contact page. The most useful reports name the page, quote the specific claim, and point to a source. Peer-reviewed evidence that contradicts something here will be taken seriously and, where it holds up, will change the page — with the review date updated to show it did.