Op/Ed Feedback – Caulfield

Andrew Caulfield responds to Dan Liebman’s Op/ed, which ran in the Feb. 3 edition of the TDN.

I have to agree with Dan Liebman that the phrase three-quarter brother is somewhat imprecise, and possibly means different things to different people. But then I can remember being puzzled as a youngster as to why the phrase half-brother is only ever applied to the progeny of a mare, and not to horses sharing the same father (unless the word paternal is added). Not very logical, but everyone understands. 

I am happy to own up to being a user of the phrase three-parts-brother – and I intend to keep on using it. This is simply because I think it’s a valuable and succinct means of indicating that two horses have more bloodlines in common than simply sharing a dam. I use it when a mare has foals by a stallion and a son of that stallion. For example I would say that Frankel and Bullet Train are three-parts-brothers – both are out of Kind and one is by Sadler’s Wells and the other is by a son of Sadler’s Wells. I also use it when a stallion has foals out of a mare and a daughter of that mare. Certainly the phrase “closely related” could be substituted here, but that simply begs further explanation. 

Dan asks what if full sisters were bred to the same stallion? For that I use the phrase brother- or sister-in-blood, as the progeny share the same four grandparents. The same applies when a mare has progeny by brothers, such as Flatter and Congrats. 

Sorry if it bothers Dan, but we all have our pedant crosses to bear. I personally prefer the traditional spelling of chesnut, without the first t, to the more widespread chestnut, but I try not to lose sleep over it.