Why are you breeding if you don't know basic facts about the variety you're working with? That rat is NOT a himilayan. Himilayans are born pure white and develop their points later. Siamese are born a creamy, beige or dark color with points. Check the AFRMA standards as well please. There's a very clear difference between the two. I don't even work with this variety and I know that.
Oh my God I am so fucking sick of this bullshit myth.
This baby is the result of a Siamese and Albino pairing. Unless there's some genetic fuckery I'm not aware of, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this rat to be Siamese. Why?
Siamese: c(h)c(h)
Himalayan: c(h)c
Albino: cc
Do a little punnet square in your head with the Siamese and Albino genotype. If you can't, I'll help. In every single square, it'll say "c(h)c" meaning... HIMALAYAN. Even if my doe is actually Himalayan, half the boxes would be "c(h)c" and half would be "cc". No babies would have the Siamese genotype of "c(h)c(h)".
This only way to know with 100% certainty what these rats are is by:
1) Test breeding by pairing a Siamese/Himalayan rat with an Albino. Produce even one, single albino? The rat is Himalayan. In a small litter with no albinos you may want to repeat the test breeding just in case. This is because as shown above, a Siamese x Albino pairing will have Himalayan fill 100% of the squares, but Himalayan x Albino allows for Albinos to be produced.
2) Pairing two confirmed Siamese together. The offspring will be 100% Siamese.
If you know your lines well you can also gage what they are with pretty good accuracy, but I also have seen people who were absolutely certain their rats were one thing, and then the offspring showed they actually had to be another. This can get especially complicated if you have blue point hiding in there that you weren't aware of, which can be mistaken for Himalayan. Marked Siamese and Himalayan can also throw people off. Or if you've only been breeding Siamese to Siamese, then you'll know 100% of the offspring is Siamese.
Anyway, Himalayans can start out with color, especially well bred Himalayans, but they don't HAVE to be well bred either to show color. It's just much more likely. Poor Siamese can start out white and develop points later on too!
Here, let me show you a few pics.
From left to right:
1. The Himalayan baby, where his creamy color is even more obvious. Remember, he's from a pairing of Albino and Siamese, he CANNOT be Siamese. He HAS to be Himalayan. This is not debatable.
2. Noodles, with her lone little dot on her nose being her only point. She started out white and didn't develop points until she was like 5 weeks old. I was barely able to tell she wasn't Albino when I picked her up, she just had the faintest bit of brown. Himalayan, right? Nope, she's Siamese. This is the Himalayan baby's grandmother.
3. Siamese and Himalayan, right? Nope! Seal point and Blue point Siamese. I had no idea I had this in my lines, and for a long time I assumed the lighter babies of this litter were Himalayans.
You. Cannot. Reliably. Tell. With. 100%. Certainty. Whether. They. Are. Siamese. Or. Himalayan. By. Appearance. Alone. So unless you have information about the rat's parents, it's incorrect to tell someone you know whether their rat is Siamese or Himalayan based purely on the way they look.
As far as the AFRMA standards? Those are standards, focusing on phenotype, not genotype. The ideal standard for a Himalayan according to them is being crisp white with dark contrasting points, and for Siamese to be beige with their points gradually and even shading. However, again, this is just the standard. That's the ideal. It doesn't account for things mismarks or poor examples of the variety. IIRC, it's even admitted that many rats shown as Himalayan are just poor Siamese!
"Siamese are born with color, Himalayans are born white and develop points later on. Himalayans are white with contrasting points and Siamese are beige with gradual shading from their points." is a loose guideline that only sort of works under certain situations. It is not absolute fact.
