Have you ever looked at a pedigree and wonder "what does THAT mean?" Well, we are going to try to help.  This is by no means a complete list and if you have any corrections or new abbreviations to add, please email me and let me know.

ACA - American Cat Association
ACFA - American Cat Fanciers Association
AJCC - All Japan Cat Club (Japan)
BCC -  Beresford Cat Club
BEW - Blue-Eyed White
CCA - Canadian Cat Association
CEW - Copper-Eyed White
CFA - Cat Fanciers Association
CFF - Cat Fanciers Federation
CH - Champion
CPC - Color Point Carrier
DGC - Double Grand Champion (ACFA, TICA)
DGCA - Double Grand Champion Alter (TICA)
DM - Distinguished Merit (CFA)
EC - European Champion
EP - European Premier (FIFe)
FIFe - Federation Internationale de Feline
FR - Foundation Register
GC - Grand Champion (TICA)
GCA - Grand Champion Alter
GCCF - Governing Council of the Cat Fancy (UK)
GEW - Green - Eyed White
GIC - Grand International Champion (FIFe)
GIP - Grand International Premier (FIFe)
GRC - Grand Champion (CFA)
GP - Grand Premier (CFA)
ICC - International Cat Club (Japan)
IP - International Premier (FIFe)
JCA  - Japan Cat Assocation
JCAFO - Japan CFA of Osaka (Japan)
JCC - Japan Cattery Club (Japan)
MGC - Master Grand Champion (CFF)
NBCC - New Breeders Cat Club (Japan)
NCC - National Cat Club
NCC - New Cattery Club (Japan)
NKFV- Neterlandse Kattenfokkers Vereniging (Neatherlands)
NW - National Winner (CFA)
MFCC - Mount Fuji Cat Club (Japan)
MFCCK - Mount Fuji Cat Club Kinki (Japan)
OEW - Odd-Eyed White
OLCF - Osaka Longhair Cat Fancy (Japan)
PR - Premier (FIFe)
QGC - Quadruple Grand Champion (ACFA, TICA)
QGCA - Quadruple Grand Champion Alter (TICA)
SB - Stud Book
SBT - Stud Book Traditional (TICA)
SGC - Supreme Grand Champion (TICA)
SGCA - Supreme Grand Champion Alter (TICA)
TCC - Tokyo Cat Club (Japan)
TICA - The International Cat Association
 V- Volume, referring to studbook number

CFA Numbering System


The following is an partial quotation from an explaination I received from Paul Russell of LeBordo Cattery on the history of CFA numbering and how some of the abbrevations are used and why.

"For the first five CFA Studbook volumes, there were actually three distinct categories of registrations:  Studbook, Registry (later to become Foundation Registry), and Kitten Registry.  The Kitten Registry didn't seem to have much purpose, and in fact Volume 1 actually has a number of litters appearing as if they were individual cats, except where the name would be, you'll see "litter of five" etc.  Volumes 1 through 5 only have Kitten Registry cats listed in the index.  Volumes 6 and 7 have a separate "book" for kitten registry cats, but still only one line of info per cat NOT including sire or dam, and only year of birth, not birthdate.  The preface to the V7 Kitten Registry ends with the comment "Kitten Register Abolished 1921."

For the first 15 Studbooks, the -FR- and -SB- were not used.  In volumes 1 through 5, the cats appeared only with their sequential number,and the index referenced the "book" they appeared in as BB, R, or KR.  During this period, references to cats in earlier volumes would indicate CFA ### for Studbook entries, CFAR ### for Register entries, and CFAKR### for kitten registry entries.  In volumes 6 through 14, the Studbook entries, index and references to cats in previous volumes all used a prefix to indicate whether the cat was in the Studbook, Registry or Kitten Registry (*for Studbook, ** for Register, and *** for Kitten Register).  Volume 15 replaced all the asterisks with "x", so the x prefix referred to the Studbook, xx to the Register, and (with respect to references to cats in V1 - V7) xxx to the Kitten Registery.    So CFA 120, *120, and x120 would refer to the same cat, and CFAR 629, **629, and xx629 would refer to the same cat, etc.

Cat's were often "transferred" from the Kitten Registry to the Registry or Studbook (for example, when they sired or queened their first litter), or from the Registry to the Studbook (for example, when a previously unregistered parent was registered, completing requirements for Studbook eligibility; or when the cat earned a full championship under CFA rules, which was another route to the Studbook).  So ***201, xxx201, **201, xx201,*201 and x201 could all be legitimate numbers for the same cat. To simplify this a little, in my database, I always use "x" prefixes, never the "*" prefixes; so I mentally convert references to *nnn to xnnn before entering them into my database.

NOTE that, when viewing posts from the old Studbooks, you will see the term CFAR used in conjunction with registration numbers (for example, ACA25, CFAR 276, NCC 2756D).   Although it may LOOK like another association, remember that its just another way of referencing the CFA Register.   Again, for convenience and simplicity, I always make the association CFA and then mentally convert CFA 120 into CFA x120 and CFAR 121 into xx121.

Beginning with Studbook Volume 16, the Registry was replaced with Foundation Records (also referred to as the Foundation Registry).  And the numbering, while still sequential, now includes -SB- to indicate the cat was entered into the Studbook, or -FR- to  indicate the cat was a Foundation Record.  The new numbering began with cat number 13,190 -- which would appear as 13-SB-190 or 13-FR-190 depending on whether the cat was entered into the Studbook or the Foundation Register.  So through registration number 82,999, you could just remove the -SB- or -FR- and tell the numberical sequence of the cat's registration. (Note, however, that it was not unusual for cats from other associations to be registered by CFA long after some of their offspring were, so don't assume parents must have a lower number than their offspring. Certainly a possible flag that something "might" be amiss, but definitely not substantive proof that the pedigree is wrong.)

Through V17, the Studbooks contained varying numbers of cats -- from a low of about 450 (V1, V2 and V3) up to about 1500 in V16.  So to know what number appeared in which Studbook, you needed a cross-reference list showing each Studbook and which numbers it contained (for example V15 --12,301-13,189).  Volumes 18 through 30 each contained 1000 new entries (plus transfers from older volumes), with V18 containing 16,001 thru 17,000, etc. up to 28,001 thru 29,000 in V30.  V31 and V32 each contained 2000 records (29,001 thru 30,999 and 31,000 thru 32,999, respectively.  This set things "on track", so to speak, so each volume basically contained the 1000 cats beginning with the volume number (for example, V35 contained the 35xxx numbers).  Beginning with V45, someone recognized that each stud book contained one number that logically didn't belong there -- the one ending in 000.  So V45 only contains 999 records (45,001 thru 45,999), and beginning with V46, all volumes through V82 follow the -000 through -999 scheme.  These are the easiest books to find things in, since the first two digits of the cats number always tells you exactly which stud book to look in.

Beginning with Studbook 83, numbering went crazy, and I've never seen a good explaination of what was happening.  Volumes 81 and 83 were bound together, and Volume 83 is almost the identical same size as Volumes 81 and 82 combined.  Yet it has about the same number of cats -- roughly1850 vs. 2000 for 81 and 82 combined.  But V83 has 83-, 84-, 85-,86-, 87- 88-, 89-, 90-, 91-, 92-, 93-, 94- and 95- numbers in it.

Volume 84 (bound with 85) contained numbers with 83- through 99- numbers, PLUS added an additional complexity -- numbers of the format 57-xxxx and 58-xxxx.

My educated guess on what happened is that prior to V83, cats were listed in the Studbook when registered, so they could be listed sequentially. Then, beginning with Studbook V83, cats were registered sequentially, but only listed in the Studbook after they had sired or queened a registered litter. So the Studbook reflected a wider range of registration numbers based on the age of the cat when registered, the age of the cat when it first sired or queened, and how old the litter was when it was registered.  CFA was also in the process of converting to a new numbering system, and I believe the 57-xxxx and 58-xxxx numbers were transition numbers that reflected all cats registered in 1957 and 1958 respectively.  Volume 86 is the first Studbook containing cats with the new numbering system-- a prefix that indicates the breed, color and sex, initially followed by a four digit sequential identifier -- later expanded to 6 and now 7 digits.

So Volume 86 contained 83- through 99- numbers, 57-xxxx and 58-xxxxnumbers, and the new bcs-xxxx format numbers (where 'bcs' is the breed/color/sex registration prefix.)

PR1, PR2 and PR3 suffixes were first used in V86, and then only with the NEW numbering system.  The only other adjustment CFA has made to their numbering system.  When the new numbering system was first started, the sequential part of the number was sequential WITHIN BREED/COLOR/SEX, so 0100-, 0101-, 0102-, 0103, ..., 271-, 272-, etc., all had a cat with the sequential identifier 0001, 0002, 0003, etc.  Beginning with xxxx-050000 (or -050001, I'm not sure which yet), the sequential part of the number reverted to being independent of the breed/color/sex, so there is now only ONE cat with -050001 or -100100or -293756 or -1104566, etc.  So when I notice that two cats in mydatabase both have -051071, I know there's a problem with one of the numbers.  Based on the information in my data base (34,000 + persians only, with no Himmys or CPCs) I believe this change occurred with registrations received May 1, 1980 and after.  How high the by breed/color/sex sequential numbers got, of course, depended entirely upon how many cats were registered for each breed/color/sex combination.

For example, in my db:

        Numbers above           Only have these prefixes

        020000                         101,102,106,109,114,119,132,147,151,190
        030000                         101,102,106,114,119,132,147,151
        040000                         102,106,110,114,132
        048000                         102,114

There may well have been other prefixes assigned with these sequential number ranges, but it's obviously still only a small percentage of all prefixes being assigned.

Hope this provides you with a clear understanding of CFA's numbering over the years.  If you have specific questions, please feel freeto ask. "

LeBordo Persian Cattery
Paul & Linda Russell
Kettering, OH

GCCF Numbering System
by Mimy Sluiter


GCCF started in 1909 to number from 1 to appr. 250000, stopping around 1973. Cats that for one reason or another had no 3 generation of known or purebred ancestry got the number preceded by SR (meaning Supplementory Register ("Riex" in old FIFE numbers is comparable).

Then GCCF started over from 1 and moved to the New System, in short NS. These new numbers ran from 1973 until 1980 and then already the 300000 cat was reached again (since cat breeding of course had grown so fast). Cats that were again not 3 generation purebred received the SR but now it preceded the NS so the numbers were NS XXXXXX or SR/NS XXXXXX. In retrospect all old numbers from the first series were preceded on pedigrees by OS or SR/OS - OS of course meaning Old System.  Also all lower numbers were brought into 6 digits adding nils so a cat that formely was known as for example:

Ambalynx Daffodil, ruddy Aby, f, dob 13.04.59 with the registration number being 96003, now became OS O96003.

In 1980 the 3rd series started, called Current System, abbreviated as CS.  Again here the SR was there, but also now for newer breeds and newer colors there were abbrevations like REF (Reference register) and EXP (Experimental register) added but a little confusing they new were placed BEHIND the CS, so CS, CS/SR, CS/REF and CS/EXP. In 1981 GCCF bought their first computer, found out that the space for the numbers allocated was limited so deleted the dash / between the letters!

I am curious, since the CS also now is well into the 400000 numbers when and what they will do next...

So it IS important for UK queries/answers to mention time period and number as complete as you can and then register numbers well, as otherwise there will be three sets of numbers mixing up in your data base!

Mimy Sluiter