A sample of dog breeds that are defined by disease.
The unending human fascination with novelty is seemingly unhindered by ethics all over the dog breeding world. Not only are there countless examples of breeders and leaders turning a blind eye toward inbred disease, out-dated appreciation of population structure and genetics and under-appreciative of health and longevity, there are more than a few dog breeds which are built around disease as their defining trait. There’s no easy fix for these dog breeds because they are defined by dysfunction and to fix them and bring them to health requires the breed to cease to exist in the form it does now.
We can’t just remove the gene that causes the defining trait — even though it carries with it a disorder, a disease, or some dysfunction — because it is universal and defines what it means to be a member of that breed. Breeders consider it necessary.
These traits are generally not things that any other breeder who considers themselves ethical would want in their breed should it not exist there already, just as any humane breeder would want to remove those same diseases in their breed if they appeared spontaneously.
There are breeds that are plagued with disease that are not defined by them, such as High Uric Acid in Dalmatians. If breeders could snap their fingers and remove it, most surely would. Likewise, Border Collies are in no way benefited by epilepsy or collie eye anomaly even those problems are marked in the breed. No breeders want them in our breed. We want them gone.
Sadly, there are too many dog breeds where dysfunction and disease are written in to the breed standard. No advancement in science will help these breeds, no DNA test will improve their future, because no one in those breeds want those diseases gone. Some breeders are so enamored with these diseases, they cull the puppies which are born unaffected!
Such disorders are sine qua non to the identity of the breed. If they didn’t exist, the breed would not exist. Unlike High Uric Acid or Hip Dysplasia or Canine Epilepsy or any of a hundred other endemic diseases in our breeds, removing a defining disease will require breed standards to be rewritten and minds to be changed instead of health and genetic testing with breeders who are already set against increasing or maintaining disease in their dogs. The major obstacle is political, not genetic.
Here’s a sample of defining diseases and the breeds they are inextricably linked to:
Chondrodystrophy
Abnormal cartilage growth causing short legs:
Basset Hound, Beagle, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Cocker Spaniels, Dachshund, Lhasa Apso, Pekingese, Pomeranian, Scottish Terrier
Dermoid Sinus
A neural tube defect inextricable from the “ridge:”
Rhodesian Ridgeback, Thai Ridgeback
Micromelic Achondroplasia
Abnormal cartilage growth causing short legs and trunk:
Bulldog, Corgi, some Jack Russell Terriers, Pekingese, miniature Poodle, Shar Pei, Shih Tzu, Skye Terrier, Swedish Vallhund
Polydactyly
Extra digits on the foot:
Beauceron, Briard, Great Pyrenees, Norwegian Lundehund
Pituitary (Ateliotic) Dwarfism
Boston Terrier, Chihuahua, Miniature Dachshund, Italian Greyhound, Maltese, Minature Pinscher, Minature Spaniel, Pekingese, Pomeranian, Pug, Shih Tzu, Toy Poodle, Yorkshire Terrier
Congenital Alopecia
Inherited baldness:
American Hairless Terrier, Chinese Crested Dog, Inca Orchid Hairless Dog, Mexican Hairless Dog, Peruvian Inca Orchid
Color Mutant Alopecia
Hair loss and breakage seen in “Blue” and “Fawn” coat colored dogs:
Blue Lacys
Brachycephalic Achondroplasia
Boston Terrier, Boxer, Brussels Griffon, Bulldog, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Japanese Chin, Pekingese, Pug, Shih Tzu, Yorkshire Terrier
Periodic Fever Syndrome
Fever, swelling, and Amyloidosis inextricable from the skin folds:
Shar Pei
Congenital Anurousity
Lacking a tail; associated defects of the spine and anus.
(Non-C189G mutation) Boston Terrier, English Bulldog, Miniature Schnauzer;
(C189G mutation) Australian Shepherd, Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog, Braque du Bourbonnais, Brittany Spaniel, Croatian Sheepdog, Mudi, Polish Lowland Sheepdog, Pyrenean Shepherd, Braque Francais, Schipperke, Spanish Water Dog, Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Although some of these conditions are minor in their severity and unlikely to cause major prolonged suffering, it’s still rather dubious that breeders in these breeds are so fixated on these dysfunctions being defining and demanded traits.
Other conditions are so severe that they demand we ask if they are defining of not only the breeds but of Torture Breeding. Is novelty and aesthetics in these cases really worth the suffering caused? Is mere tradition enough of an excuse to justify the continued breeding of these dogs?
I continue the discussion of these more severe defining diseases under the “sine qua non disease” category under “health and genetics.”
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Anton
Christopher
Lawrence Dillard
Lech
Stephanie
Essere
I was travelling around Rajahstan last few weeks and one of the things I found most fascinating were the animals. You can’t travel literally more than a few meters without seeing scores of dogs, monkey , cow, buffalo, camel, pig, horse, goat, sheep, elephant often all at once. Except for elephant these are all free roaming and are besides those in harness, being milked, driven to the fields etc. Like scenes from ancient paintings. Parallel universes drifting in and out of focus between, apart and together with humans.
The dogs are absolutely beautiful animals, racy sleek handsome animals seemingly owned by no one and by everyone at the same time. Ranging from tall to medium tall they do as they please hardly ever interacting with humans.
These are the Pariah dogs of India.
We travelled a great deal every corner of Rajahstan across towns, large cities, tiny villages, National Parks every four corners and I never saw anything but these dogs always the same generic dog. The only exception where two overweight beagles owned by our Maharani host in Jodhpur who still managed a blood curdling cry each time they took their afternoon waddle across the palace lawns.
I only saw one dog that looked unhealthy, it looked like it had been hit by a vehicle, all looked perfectly fit otherwise. I wonder why these stunning looking extremely well adapted dogs are not more popular around the world instead of pedigree mutts and mixes. I doubt any have ever seen a vet in their lives.
What I also noticed in one area were quite lot of dwarf feral cattle. They stood out quite sharply as they had normal bodies and heads but short stubby legs half the size they should be. I first saw one in silhouette at dusk and screamed for “Ladoo” our long suffering driver to stop the car. Screeching to a halt in the dust I couldn’t work out what it was, too small for a cow too cow for a buffalo too big for a goat and certainly not a camel, turned out to be a dwarf cow. After that one I kept seeing more the next day and each time the driver swerved off the “road” preparing to stop until I made it clear it was no longer necessary. They looked completely functional maybe a bit more sure footed than the average cow which seem a bit wobbly at the best of times.
Good stuff and relevant when deciding on what to fix, if possible, in breeds. Of course to fix these defining qualities has the possibility of either redefining their look and standards, or them becoming something new to become something better. We can hope for open minds on this issue but that is difficult for even average people to grasp, a corgi to most isn’t a corgi, without the short legs.
On a note, Shar Pei are not a micromeliac achondroplasic breed, they are not dwarfs at all. They have normal leg growth, normal leg bones in form and shape, lacking any signs of bowing or deformity seen in all achondroplasic breeds, including such as dwarf horses or munchkin cats. There is no issue of spinal IDD or extreme arthritis due to lack of proper cartilage and loose wonky joints. They are also not micromeliac as they are not small molossers or bullenbeissers but instead are, on average, the same medium size as most spitz such as Kai, Kishu, Shikoku, Chows, and Hokkaidos or even the Keeshond, Euraiser, standard American Eskimo, Elkhound, Finnish Spitz and Lapphund. Most Pei are just short of the Jindo and Siberian Husky and at or below most Laikas, with the taller traditional Pei nearing those breeds in size. Even the ‘toy’ Pei are only a few inches shorter than the standard which ranges from 18-24″ depending on the country and standard followed. Still, these ‘toy’ Pei are not dwarfs, just small stock chosen by breeders, and are still larger than say the Shiba. That all said, the breed still needs plenty of help, and not just because of FSF.
Also, this; http://www.xy-zoo.com/Achondroplasia.pdf, looks like it ‘borrowed’ your image from the ‘dwarf dog’ article.
Great article and link! However, this is a disorder of bone growth identified in humans as well as canines. It is the most common form of disproportionate short stature. It occurs in one in every 15,000 to one in 40,000 live births in humans.
Achondroplasia is caused by a gene mutation in the FGFR3 gene. The FGFR3 gene makes a protein called fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 that is involved in converting cartilage to bone. FGFR3 is the only gene known to be associated with achondroplasia. All people who have only a single copy of the normal FGFR3 gene and a single copy of the FGFR3 gene mutation have achondroplasia.
Most people who have achondroplasia have average-size parents. In this situation, the FGFR3 gene mutation occurs in one parent’s egg or sperm cell before conception. Other people with achondroplasia inherit the condition from a parent who has achondroplasia.
Common injuries to these dwarf dog with achondroplasia is a complex of thin, fragile growth plates that are already dysfunctional and the fact that the dwarfed breeds tend to be solid dogs that lands heavily on front legs, causing growth deformities as they crush the growth plate cells from my studies and spinal disc calcification frequently found in these breeds?
Inbreeding history seemingly reveals first documentation of methodical use of inbreeding for specific traits was by a Robert Bakewell born 1725, Leicestershire, United Kingdom. He called this protocol breeding “in-and-in” because careful selection of live stock bred a trait into a breed at each generation. He was attributed changing animal husbandry to make livestock more profitable. The system included incorporating locally occurring landrace strains. Where males and female mated freely. By segregating the males and using his “in-and-in” system, Bakewell controlled which traits were passed on to subsequent generations. This apparently began the popular sire, matador breeding in canines?
Apparently, the evolution protocol history of inbreeding were to only the best rams and bulls to their own daughters or granddaughters (backcrossing, inbreeding) to improve the next generation..
Seems conclusion: using free breeding mammals with selective breeding protocol?
Is this why we see dwarf Cattle species?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1953.tb03402.x/pdf
Im not sure “this is why we see dwarf cattle”. I think true dwarfism simply crops up in populations like it does in humans. One fascinating example is the dwarf elephant living wild in a Sri Lankan National park.
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/131124/plus/look-at-that-little-fella-74231.html
There are certainly diminutive cattle breeds but they are not true dwarves, just proportionally little in every way like Welsh ponies are to horses.
What I saw in India were true dwarfs, their heads looked huge for their stumpy legs, they weren’t domestic cattle. Im thinking they may have been helped as calves by people to survive as some might have had problems suckling. They may have been temporarily adopted. The dwarf elephants too would probably die soon after birth however elephants are resourceful mammals and it looks this dwarfs mother managed to bring it up as well as any other normal calf. Its the only one known to exist in the entire world and seems very healthy, already twenty something.
Great article!
You haven’t yet listed inability to free whelp. In the reading I’ve done, this highly prevailent (<80%) in a few breeds, notably Boston, Frenchie, pug and British bulldog. Is this part of another syndrome? Or some peculiar side effect of breed history? Seems odd, 'cause no breeder wants to have Ceasar after Ceasar.
p.s. given its rapid rise in popularity, I think it worth including the French bulldog in your breed lists. Longevity data (eg., in the Finnish KC database) indicate that the breed carries significant genetic curses.
I believe it’s mainly the big skull and narrow hips that causes that unfortunate complication. And unfortunately Bulldog breeders seem to just accept it as a fact that they need ceasar every time they want a litter.
Barbara Turpin started a FB page to address outside-the-box thinking on RRs. Not sure just how “outside” these people really want to be, but I did mention the topic of “If no one had really cared about the ridge and just used ‘African Lion Hound’ instead, would the dog be any less popular? Would the dog be any less handsome? Less functional? Less desirable? As with most breeds that are ‘not for everyone’ RRs certainly are not, but they do have some traits that I can understand liking. A build meant to create a moderation between speed and strength, stamina, watchfulness over person and property, loyalty and downtime ability; and a few are still used on hog hunts.
None of these have anything to do with a stupid ridge. The ridge is of no value. And most people looking at RRs for the first time are not even noticing the ridge and would not care less, were the breeders not making a point of it.
I actually saw a breeder proudly displaying a new business card for her breeder venture that only had a picture of the ridge itself! No dog! That truly symbolizes just how much fuss is centered around this abnormality.
If someone thinks it is some link to the Khoikhoi people and carries some romantic notion of proof of lineage, let them keep their paper records and pictures and move on from there. Lineage is known!
I believe it was on Pedigreed Dogs Exposed where a breeder in the UK said that it was believed ridged dogs made better hunters. That is BS to the extreme!!!
As if this weren’t enough, this trait is an autosomal dominant, and while that means that breeders could keep their ridgeless dogs and breed to them and thereby continue creating a lot of their ridged dogs while retaining more individuals for the gene pool, the ridgeless pups are instead culled. It doesn’t seem to matter if they are wonderful structural specimens in every other sense. No ridge. No breeding future. Sometimes no future at all. These pups have been routinely killed over the years for in fact, being completely NORMAL healthy dogs! The PDE documentary gave shocking proof to this. These days, more or most breeders have come to sell the dogs as pets. Still, they never get to pass any other qualities on.
I’d love to see a race of ridgeless dogs and phase the ridge out, but with the pervasiveness of the ridge, this would require a large number of breeders to agree. Otherwise you are going to have a small number of dogs to work with. The gene pool would be pretty small if you used only ridgeless dogs, so you could outcross with other breeds to start. If you did get some ridged dogs, that would be great. There would be lots of ridged dogs out there but at least if you had some Ridged x ridgeless crossings going you would have enough heterozygosity to create a small number of ridgeless dogs continuously.
Ultimately outcrossing to another breed would be needed. We could look at the breed’s history and the dogs used to help make those decisions. I have come across a few people who do now, use sighthounds or sometimes mastiffs ( Boerboel perhaps) and at least one bravely told me “What’s wrong with it if it keeps a dog healthy?”
I wish more people would be so open minded.
RR’s are such a disappointment these days especially American ones. I just have to have little rant. The ridge is the least of my concerns when looking at the breed as a whole.
I grew up amongst RR’s in Africa before their spread across the globe and it was a completely different dog, a much healthier dog and better at its job. I still see these types when I go back via South Africa where we have a beach cottage. They still breed this type there though not for showing, they are the preferred type for working, a much in demand job of security dog.
The show number has lost all substance and bone, its become very houndy which is not typical of the the originals. It still amuses me how this skinny thing is meant to bring down or even keep a lion at bay.
The original is an outward bold dog full of drive, not the sulky shy skinny aloof thing you see pacing across the show ring floor. It has good hard muscle mass and bone a head that resembles nothing like the show model which looks like a dachshund.
This is a farmers dog with or without a ridge and needs to be robust to do its job which is primarily as a homestead protection dog. It’s fair to say it is not much used as a hunting dog anymore.
One thing is for sure it was never a “hound” like almost all show breeding registries classify it as nor was it indeed a site hound or a retriever or bird gun dog these are all inventions created in the West . However it was always a very versatile general purpose dog that was used for hunting game as well as well as used as protection against wild animals and irrate natives. More a protection dog than nything. Game here doesn’t mean a pheasant shoot, but the shooting of African herbivours and occasionally problem predators like leopards or indeed in the past lion, sure it can flush fowl too maybe where a more tender European bred dog couldn’t or even survive the conditions.
Basically you get two types the show dog which has been bred to look more and more like a light hound and the working type which is sturdier but no less athletic, but which tends to be far more robust more towards a solid type but not a heavy mastiff type, that is without any exaggeration at all.
Ridges occur quite frequently in dogs in South Africa and Africa, these are similar to the pariah dogs of India in that they are semi domestic free ranging types. I suppose if they were not surviving because of the ridge it wouldn’t appear but appear it does.
So I suppose the link to indigenous dogs is there in the ridge but far more don’t have ridges and i beleive this was always so even without the introduction of pedigree dogs……KoiKhoi’s dogs is all a bit of romanticism, most imported dogs crossed with local dogs at some stage or other in the distant past.
Anton,
I met only ONE breeder on the east coast who told me that RRs around me are the victims of “east coast elitism.” She said that people in America don’t want to hear that the RR is basically a cur, an all-rounder as you said. Not a hound in the sense of other hounds.
I liked her for her honesty.
Do you mean there are more RRs without ridges than with in Africa, or dogs in general?
Not every ridged dog gets dermoid sinus, so it stands to reason to me some dogs could and would survive. But it does have a definite connection and increases risk significantly. So when people make keeping the ridge the focus of the breed and it’s “hallmark”. it becomes a real problem. It decreases dogs in the gene pool over something incredibly trivial.
If people appreciate historical accuracies, maybe they’d do better to put some variety back into the body types. Allow some robusts along with the racier dogs. Cookie-cutter dog mentalities only do harm. Genes and living organisms are plastic, to put it poetically. They were never meant to be identical or unchanging. Even the best preserved books and photos fade with enough time, if only ever slightly, but that’s okay for them. They do not feel the effects of their creators.
Many years later……..Researching something and came across Chris’s article and realised I never replied to you UCC.
Yes exactly, ridges are found in the general pariah type dog population. Which would be a connection to the RR breed itself having evolved in Africa. You see it in the Congo too and elsewhere in Africa.
Also people don’t generally euthanise ridgeless RRs unless they are showing breeders.
The demand for a fully functional “lion dog” type is high because of a very high armed and violent crime rate, the ridge is not seen as exactly of any importance to its prevention. Crosses with boerboels are also rather popular.
Strangely I do not see many pariah dogs left since I commented last here. Years flash by but It seems as though they’ve suddenly all but vanished. It used to be so and not long ago that you could drive anywhere in the rurals and cities and see many hanging around but this is no longer. There might have been a drive to remove them all, possibly because of rabies I just don’t know but have been meaning to find out.
Meanwhile Africanis became a pedigree dog (raises eyes to the ceiling) this is basically the same pariah dog of Africa that vanished. The Pedigree ones often have ridges where it’s considered normal. As pariah dogs they were known to have originally been repsonsible for passing this ridge on to the RR. Of course is this disputed by the showing fraternity.
Yes if only there was semblance of historical accuracy in most dog breeds people would hopefully embrace rather than fear outcrossing for example to prevent gnetic bottlnecks.
Hope you are doing well, I used to like very much reading your posts.
My views on this subject, outlined here – http://www.toothvet.ca/PDFfiles/Stop_Brachy.pdf – are not winning me many fans in the dog breeding world, but I could stay silent no more.
I don’t believe that Miniature Poodles are characterized by Micromelic Achondroplasia. I believe it can happen in the breed, but they are supposed to be a fairly square dog. Not dwarfish in any way, shape, or form.
Doing a Google search of “Congenital Anurousity + Schnauzer” only comes up with a link to your site.
I am curious where you are getting these breed specific conditions.
Hi Amity: As far as my personal research Chris resources are excellent.
What about Miniature and Toy Poodles? “DNA analysis indicates that Miniatures and Toys are not Standard Poodles made small. The smaller sizes appear to be genetically unique – as different from Standard Poodles as they are to a completely unrelated breed such as the English Setter. They also have a different DLA profile, carrying haplotypes not found in Standard Poodles that have been tested thus far. ”
In other words, the miniature and toy poodles are not Standard Poodles according to genetic studies of the immune system documented by the DLA profile.
Resource:
http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/poodles.html
Bone abnormalities in many toy and miniature breeds include small brain cage. Severe numbers of the Cavalier King Charles spaniel’s due to the back half of the skull typically being too small to accommodate all of the brain’s cerebellum, which may also be too large, and so it squeezes through the foramen magnum – the hole at the back of the skull – partially blocking the flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) down the spinal cord. The variable pressure created by the abnormal flow of CSF is believed to create the SM cavities – called syrinx – in the spinal cord.
Likewise, these breeds and other miniature breeds as Fraser Hale, DVM shares the jaw being mutated with unbalanced upper and lower jaw does not accommodate the teeth and bad denture too often resulting.
http://siriusdog.com/osteochondrodysplasias-leg-deformities-dwarfism
http://www.xy-zoo.com/Achondroplasia.pdf
http://siriusdog.com/osteochondrodysplasias-leg-deformities-dwarfism
“The non-pathologic selective miniaturization seen in Shar-Pei, Bull Terriers, Australian Shepherds, Poodles, and numerous other miniature and toy breeds and varieties probably should not be included in a discussion of dwarfism.”
That quote from the article states that this author, Mr. Lanting, feels that selective miniaturization (and outcrossing as performed in the mini Aussies with Shelties) is not related to true genetic and anatomical dwarfism. To answer your reply to me, Kathy, I have been aware of the FGFR3 is association with human dwarfism, not canine. The research for dogs comes from Parker, H. G. et al. in 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748762/ and is related to the Fgf4 gene being the cause of many of the canine dwarfisms, similar gene family but not exactly the same one. This research also found a strong haplotype bond of 19 breeds where the mutation arose once, and was chosen and propagated into those breeds by humans. So at one point a person bred a herding dog in Wales to a different dwarf breed with the Fgf4 mutation, got dwarf puppies, bred back to similar herder until the dominant gene stuck, the tall herders were culled from that breeding pool, and all that remained was dwarf herders now known as corgis.
Please allow us to ask or to inform Chris of possible errors in his work, which is at his discretion whether they are or aren’t. We are all admirers of his work, myself for years. There is no need to question our motives in not believing him or by citing sources that have stolen their information from BW blog itself. The Institute for Canine Biology is known for ‘borrowing’ Chris’ material and he has made specific note about this. As flattering as it is they do not choose to properly credit him and his work and this is not generally considered good etiquette in the scientific community. That ‘pdf’ homework assignment was also stealing from Chris’ work, although in this case, for what looks very much to be a lesson plan or assignment on genetics for students. Such assignments rarely cite pictures or even material sources.
I’ve asked Chris when he posted about this before. There is nothing authoritative I can find that indicates that Italian Greyhounds are pituitary dwarfs, or that Shelties are micromelic (by observation, they clearly are not). When I asked about micromelic Shelties, he pointed me to a link on Amazon to a single book about Dachshunds, and when I searched in the book could not find reference to Shelties and micromelic.
Considering the HUGE range of sizes you see in Italian Greyhounds (some are as big as small Whippets, in the 18-19 inch range at the shoulder) and the HUGE range of sizes you see in Shelties (11.5 inches at the shoulder has been the smallest I’ve seen, about 20 inches at the shoulder the largest) I don’t think you can say that any kind of dwarfism is a defining characteristic of these breeds. In other words, when does “small” become “dwarf?” Or when is small just, you know, small?
Also–Jack Russell Terriers are rarely larger than Italian Greyhounds. Are the ones that are not micromelic pituitary dwarfs also? (Italian Greyhounds went in to the making of both Jack Russells and Rat Terriers, which I don’t see listed here as pituitary dwarfs. So, like I said–when is small small and when is it dwarfism?
P.S. We are seeing more and more small Border Collies running Agility, some smaller than my Sheltie males (who are oversized at approximately 16.5 inches at the shoulder). Are these Border Collies dwarfs? Or small?
Interesting Q as I’ve heard of people breeding smaller kelpies for agility as well.
Considering they and BCs already had a fairly wide range in the “medium” category with a lighter side to the weight scale, I don’t even understand the real reason for this.
Conversely, I hear people are breeding kelpies BIGGER now too, for cattle work. Sounds stupid to me. Few dogs are better off bigger. So many structural issues to consider. Often times we find the harder they are, the harder they fall. And what’s another ten or twenty pounds anyway up against a steer that weighs in somewhere from 1400 lbs to two thousand? Or whatever?
Hi Chick: I totally agree the Border Collie stands supreme worldwide For its courage, tenacity, stamina and. finesse in herding.
All throughout the world there are breeds or strains of herding dogs bred solely for work, unrecognized by kennel club authorities.
The Border Collie until late had always maintained a size of medium. We note in comparison other breeds that are Bigger will lack the BC agility and stamina. Simply more is not better. Why would anyone desire to change a Breed in size that has proven…it is perfect? Guess these are the same individuals who want their dogs to be represented by coats of many colors instead of realizing it is only three colors, black, red, and yellow and shade differences are due to patterns of gene interactions?
Good herding specimens needs stamina, agility and versatility requires first well place shoulder, legs that are underneath the body for the reach and strong rear to drive it forward. Balance.
Hi Nora:
There is quite a market for “mini” versions of several breeds. There is the “mini-Aussie, teacup poodles and Chichuhuas, and yes now the mini Border Collie.
It is in my opinion and studies just another example of people breeding irresponsibly (and sometimes it involves cross-breeding with other miniature breeds to achieve the smaller sizes, like Border Collie and Papillion) for an unimportant trait that will make puppies sell well (and often at inflated prices) to a gullible and often selfish (that’s what *I want* and I don’t care what it takes to get it) public.
The breeding of runts that the breeder’s primary focus is size and not health and correct structure is unscrupulous with genetic knowledge today. Using another “toy” breed to create “miniature Shelties”. or miniatures of any breed has it health issues. One would think a chichuahua was small enough but have you seen the Tea cup Chichuahua?
The nineteenth century saw the Italian greyhound being miniaturized to grotesque extremes for example. They state Europe and Britain were at the forefront of this experiment. The results were very pathetic and often specimens were often sterile. This particular breed of dog suffered intensely in the days of the two world wars but after the war breeding efforts in Canada and USA MANY Italian greyhound bloodlines were stabilized.
It is my understanding that teacup Shetland Sheepdogs are produced by unethical breeders with a host of health issues.
Have we always not assumed that the Miniature Poodle were just smaller Standard Poodles? Seems just another case of phenotype not being the genotype. Now here is a surprise: About the course on Population Genetics of Poodles. it seems DNA analysis indicates that Miniatures and Toys are not Standard Poodles made small.
You bet there are miniature Jack Russell Dogs that began seeming around 15 inches high. However, as far as I understand a mini Jack Russell is not a pure breed it is a cross of a Jack Russell and Miniature Pincsher.
http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/poodles.html
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ccah/local-assets/pdfs/Miniature_Poodle_genetic_comparison_May-23-2012.pdf
15 inches measured at the shoulder (which is what I am talking about here) is not a miniature Jack Russell terrier–that would actually be a BIG Jack Russell terrier, as the JRTCA standard calls for a dog 10-15 inches at the shoulder (AKC standard for a Parson Russell terrier is 13-14). Italian Greyhound standard says “ideally” (indicating some wiggle room) 13-15 inches at the shoulder. U.S. Sheltie standard says 13-16 inches at the shoulder. You RARELY (or anyway, *I* rarely) see a JRT taller than about 13 inches at the shoulder, but it is extremely common to see Italian Greyhounds and Shelties running over–sometimes WELL over–their respective height standards, and sometimes in a single litter you will see that great of a variation. I just want to know if any ACTUAL studies have been done that have determined if pituitary dwarfism is a defining characteristic of any particular breed of dog. Or if small is just small–like the guy sitting a few doors down from me in my office right now–short guy. Not a little person.
Nora: Indeed we seem to see very short men in our society today. When I can at 5’4″ tower over a grown man it does feel quite strange. No signs of dwarfism, but who knows?
It seemingly however appears to be from Ethnic back grounds where men and women are short in stature? Being short in humans is one thing, but dwarfism is generally well recognized by out of portion arms and legs for example. In humans, dwarfism is sometimes defined as an adult height of less than 4 feet 10 inches. Dwarfism can be caused by about 200 distinct medical conditions and individual characteristics of dwarfism can vary greatly. Disproportionate dwarfism is characterized by one or more body parts being relatively large or small in comparison to those of an average-sized adult, with growth variations in specific areas being apparent. In cases of proportionate dwarfism, the body appears normally proportioned, but can be unusually small.
I believe this is quite an interesting topic because Dwarfism is a horrible incurable disorder which we should not wish to any dog. A dwarf has a badly developed pituitary , which means that certain hormones (such as growth hormones) are not or less produced. Due to the shortage of the production of the thyroid stimulating hormone, they have a slow functioning thyroid as I understand. Besides the fact that these dogs stay small, they are also haunted by various horrible side effects when they are not treated with medicines on a daily basis. Examples are: ( baldness, itching, inflammations, malfunctioning of the liver and kidneys, development disorder of cervical vertebrae, dental problems, metabolic problems, slow behavior, abnormal blood vessels )
It is my understanding like the Rough and Smooth Collies the Shetland Sheepdog for decades had two different height standards between the UK and United States. Two inches does not seem to be a lot but honestly when you look at the size difference that a male in the UK is the size standard of a female in the United States it is obvious …it is a lot. of difference. I recently saw a Rough Collie from the UK and another from Italy. We have Shetland Sheepdogs of normal accepted size larger and better conformation with good movement.
I understand it is quite frustrating for Shetland Sheepdog Breeders to have a beautiful Sheltie go over size, but seem to still excel in agility. I found the historical recordings of size in Shetland Sheepdogs most fascinating. Now if they started at 12 inches …? They crossed larger Collie breeds?
http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/size/size.html.
Seemingly evidence of failure to grow by two to three months with observational symptoms that include small stature compared to littermates, retention of puppy coat, hair loss, darkening of the skin, delayed eruption or absence of permanent teeth, a shrill bark, Small testicles and sometimes infertility in the male, Absence of heat cycle and sometimes infertility in the female
.
It seems especially today with fashion and fad in breeding for ever smaller specimens of a breed to be aware that Laboklin Labs has a test for this mutation of Dwarfism. Inhertiance: carrier to a carrier will produce 25% clear, 25% affected and 50% carriers. It likewise states that a carrier should always be bred to a non carrier but 50% of the litter will be carriers. We can see how a Breed if this mutation is present the gene pool could quickly be affected by this mutation.
I do wonder.
I am a lover of Pembroke Welsh Corgis, intending to breed them in the future, but the more I read, the more I realize I’ll have to make compromises in order to breed. I have already ruled out the bobtail – I’d never, ever have the heart to dock a puppy, and after reading more about it, I gave up the NBT as a viable means to obtain tailless puppies – and am currently looking for examples of good leg length to try and find a balance between the breed’s look and the dogs’ ability to run, jump and move like normal dogs.
It’s sad, now that I think of it, that I even use the phrase “normal dog” in contrast to a PWC. They’re not normal.
I’ve come to a point where I feel like I’m walking a very thin line between what could be considered a PWC and what would be any other slightly spitz-type herding dog. The dogs I’ve elected as an ideal standard, some of them living, some of them forefathers of the breed, are all definitely atypical in the eyes of the show folk. And I’m afraid of crossing the line. What would be the point of breeding a line of dogs with the intent purpose of making them not look like a PWC?
Most breeds now are considerably changed from what their forefathers were. If you look at historical photos of almost any breed, you will see few that closely resemble what they used to be. Such a shame, really.
As far as your corgi breeding scheme, if you decide to try to breed a more functional Corgi, you will have to be brave, and be prepared for a LOT of criticism from the breed purists (aka show breeders), because they (most anyway) will not be supportive.
I hope that you will be able to see it through, though, because it is really very sad to see a once happy little bouncy Corgi not be able to walk anymore due to degenerative disc disease or deformed, arthritic joints. I would love to see a taller, shorter backed Corgi.
Where it gets confusing for me is this, take the Beagle for example. To my eye and given the show standards 13-15 inches at the shoulder it is a dwarf hound.
However I read that within that population chondrodystrophy is a problem, in other words its not associated with every beagle just the odd one. Thats to say any specific beagle does or does not carry the gene for the disease.
So what makes them look all look like dwarf hounds anyway, if they aren’t all Chondrodystrophic?
Good thing our leaders aren’t purebred dog breeders, think what a mess the country would be in!
Hi Chris: I have given much consideration since you wrote this piece and reading comments and last post by Rose Turner turned me back to article likewise written by Pedigree Exposed.
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2014/04/akc-sticks-knife-in-to-itself.html
It reminded me of this quote:
“It’s funny how humans can wrap their mind around things and fit them into their version of reality.”
― Rick Riordan, The Lightning Thief
The controversy of American’s Number One Canine The Labrador Retriever which obviously Rose sees no parallels in the chaos of government? These are Dog Breeders- Readers!….saying No to Silver Labs. The prime example of the absurdity of the big picture facing all Pure Breed Clubs and Breeders. The controversies rage in most breed clubs I have researched. Why? Because all Pure Breed Breeders are low life? This is a reprehensible and unconscionable injustice.
http://notosilverlabs.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-dilute-gene-in-labrador-retrievers-considerations-for-decision-makers/
http://www.notosilverlabradors.com/endorsements2.html
http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/silverlabs.html
The problem AKC registers them as pure breeds. Why? Did the Breed Club make this decision collectively by majority vote? Seems NO? Should there be a registry for what we might call Legacy Breeders instead? This way the public could identify the difference between Breeders?
The AKC registered them because Breeders chose not to follow the standard of the Breed Club it would seem. Is this not a diversion of the absurdity of the creation of Breed Clubs under the Father 501c AKC Breed Clubs? Consider:
Those who are only interested in their own breed or against all dog breeders fail to recognize AKC has created controversy within breed clubs. A diversion rather than leadership to dog breed clubs in my opinion. Is it not time to distinguish good breeders from the fad and fashion whims of the narcissists?
Hi Rose: Sorry do not understand…Dog Breeders in America are under the Leadership of AKC which is nothing more than a micro-world of our American government chaos …Leadership in Dog Breeding World is AKC. Same problem ..Because…”A True Leader is one who is HUMBLE enough to admit mistakes.” Do you not believe that Obama Health Lack of Care is a BIG MISTAKE?
.
Seven Deadly Sins
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Science without humanity
Knowledge without character
Politics without principle
Commerce without morality
Worship without sacrifice.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
I have a Female JRT who is being diagnosed with Lens Luxation. It affects the eye, causing the lens to dislocate in one or both of the eyes. Earlier, I didn’t noticed the disease but then my vet told me about it. That time period was really painful for her and for me as well.
I just want to thank you for doing a going deed by posting such information for all dog owners. 🙂
Thanks Hans. Terriers are known for eye problems and it’s unfortunate that there’s not more being done to bring in healthy genes to dilute the disease genes for those issues.
Luckily, in a way, eye issues aren’t DESIRED in the breed, like many of the diseases I mention here. The only way these diseases go away is people figure it out and demand that they don’t want these features in their dogs.
No one WANTS eye disease in terriers. But then again, not really anyone is doing the work to that could rapidly remove it and bring in some heterozygosity (hybrid vigor), without losing anything that people actually love about the dogs (well, except the artificial concept of absolute purity).
Good luck to you with your Terriers.
Seeing a terrier today with same condition as Hans’ JRT remember his post. The owner of this Terrier was angry because she knew about this test for breeders to avoid this eye disease. So looked it up and bingo …she was right.
http://www.optigen.com/opt9_pll.html
Chris: Well finally they have the marker for epilepsy which includes more than just one breed. . https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170221110730.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fplants_animals%2Fdogs+%28Dogs+News+–+ScienceDaily%29
According to the Science Daily article, it’s not “the” marker but “a” marker.