also "NoPro" rolls off the tongue quite nicely if i do say so myself 😎

You have liked this post!

Well, i’m not sure about the 1,000 one, obviously lions with that many cubs should be considered prolific, however that shouldn’t be our baseline. As DesertPard said, I agree with going off of heir count.

It’d be a pain to go through and determine how many heirs each king has (especially those with 500,600,700+ cubs) but at that point the amount of heirs doesn’t matter as much given the sheer quantity of cubs.

Maybe, lions with 500 and below who are prominent in lines we check their heirs. If something like 30% of his offspring are kings then he’s prolific?

Just an idea though

You have liked this post!

Like I said, cub count alone only means so much. Most cubs go into the grinder before they even grow up and a lot of the ones who grow up get chased.

I think the amount of Kinged Heirs should be the primary thing. However, we need to keep in mind that lions kinged for their looks will not neccesarily retain the same bloodline. For example, my King is a RLC spawn, but he's been lineage replaced and is no longer related to his birth parents.

Looks can be replaced. Stats and mutations are stuck on the base lion, which is why I'm more keen to call Statties prolific than say a RLC's cubs (which are likely to be lineage replaced).

You have liked this post!

I do agree with that because being high statted not only makes a lion much more desirable as a stud, but also people are more likely to know his name. Makes sense why he’d be labeled as prolific.

I think heir count is going to be our best bet here. For example, a lion could have 500 cubs but 85% of them being female, and the remaining 15% are dud boys. If we went based off of count he’d be prolific but in reality he produces duds.

As opposed to a lion who has 300 cubs, but 75% of them are males, with 50% of said males being kinged/heirs. I think that the second king is much more prolific than the first.

As someone else said, i’m not sure about going off of stats. While I think it’s a good idea in concept (seeing as how stats go hand in hand with # of cubs)but high stats don’t guarantee high amount of heirs/kings.

It’s hard to decide for sure though, given we all have different ideas of prolific. Maybe we base off of the original terms of clean? IE often used too many times=bad?

(Forgive me if I got that wrong lol, I am new to lioden and that’s just how i’ve seen the original idea behind “clean” used)

You have liked this post!

It doesn't garauntee it, but the correlation is high. We see that with Ysdaar. We see that with Valiance. All Four Big 4 lions were statters.

The throughline here is stats, both now and almost 10 years ago when the Playstyle was started. This is because stats cannot be replaced easily. If we don't "officially" include it into the Prolific classification, it should definitely be taken into strong consideration.

The reason I started Clean Breeding was the avoid incest. That's actually related to why we have an incest counter in the first place. It stands to reason that since Statter cubs are used as replacers or heirs, enough of them would produce the same incest issue as before and land the website back into a pre-Clean Breeding state with enough time (most lions being massively inbred).

Clean Breeders avoid this by lineage repping. If you're a statter, you would be less inclined to do this and therefore not refreshing your bloodline. You'd also be spreading it to other people, who king, then spread it more, ect ect.

You have liked this post!

Yeah that all makes sense.

What about if we make the “list” of considerations for prolific as follows

stats
# of cubs
# of heirs/produced kings

Stats seeing as how stats are often correlated to lots of cubs.

Lions with 400+ cubs then check off this second bit of the list.

Then # of heirs+kings produced, because this’ll show how far his lines may go.

Truth be told i’m new to Lioden (joined June of last year) so i’m not really versed in the whole history of CLF, but I do appreciate you explaining it a bit!

You have liked this post!

I think we should play it loose for the time being, though we are at least in agreement about Valiance's Bloodline. I don't think anyone onsite would argue with that assessment.

Like the original Clean Breeding style, everyone will have their slight twist on the rules (short gen, incest fine but no big 4, long gens, even gens, ect.) but generally speaking The Big 4 were avoided.

We're a small group, we can hardly decide what's going to be the case for the rest of the website since they're not here speaking with us.

You have liked this post!

Good point, I reckon i’ll just avoid the big 4 + Valiance.

I thinned out some of my pride today because of that, i’ve now got mostly very short gen lionesses.

For clean breeding honestly the best option is short gen, but I do find it cool when you can find super long gen’s who are clean.

You have liked this post!

what about folklore/symphonic melody/yorha? all are around the same stats + have 300-400 cubs, and most people stud for them for stats

i don't think symphonic is widespread enough though

You have liked this post!

If they have many sons kinged, yeah I could see them being avoided

You have liked this post!

I think enigma and plethegon at one point were a problem but not so much anymore too. I think since many people see how other prolific studs have gotten treated they tend to not king kings of popular studs as much.

You have liked this post!

Not in your clan (I don't define clean as strictly, I consider a lion clean as long as there's no inbreeding, I don't care if one of the big four is in a pedigree*) but, almost all of the lions you're talking about, I make special note of in the bios of my lionesses because they're the ones most likely to be in a stud's pedigree as well. They are the ones it's actually hard to avoid inbreeding with these days, so if you're looking to go more stringent and avoid additional big names, I'd say you're excluding the right ones. Ysdaar is currently the hardest to avoid for me, along with Folklore. I tend to stick to G1 studs for my lionesses related to them because it's a pain in the arse otherwise to find a compatible heritage, and avoid breeding lionesses with nice short obscure pedigrees to studs descended from them because then their cubs will be annoying to work with. It is that much of a drag and I don't have hours to look at pedigrees sometimes.

Ironically, some of the OG big four aren't hard to avoid inbreeding to anymore, because the living prolific studs aren't related to them! I have a line of lionesses that trace back to Boombah without any inbreeding and I have no issue finding mates for them, I can look at long gen studs for them without wasting my time.

*The ease of finding mates for non-inbred lionesses that trace to the big 4 compared to clean lions descended from living prolific studs is a big part of why I consider my Boombah-line girls just as clean as those descended from Valiance. They're relics of a different era when it was nearly impossible to work with lionesses from those studs, hence the blanket labeling of them dirty even if not inbred by strict convention, but the six+ years since clean breeding took off have changed the stud landscape dramatically. I was around when it was in its infancy before a big hiatus- it used to be hard to find studs all- I get to be so much pickier now LOL.

You have liked this post!

Boombah was one of the less prolific of the Four, so that makes sense. Keyser was probably the worst offender of being prolific (later made worse by Moby Dick who, ironically, I helped stat up back in the day lol).

But yeah, it's been nearly a decade of clean breeding and the Four aren't active anymore, so that tracks.

You have liked this post!

I did a quick count, and I think Symphonic Melody should definitely be counted as a Prolific because out of his 133 male cubs, 72 of them are currently kings and many more are likely heirs. That's 54 percent of his male cubs who are active kings. Definitely adding that to my studkeeping spreadsheet, then!!

You have liked this post!