Showlines and Workinglines are Genetically Different - Interesting Study - Page 8

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

aaykay

by aaykay on 08 March 2013 - 02:03

I think the "Pharoah hound" dogs in Egypt are of ancient origin.  The current day Indian Pariah's are not pure by any means, and  are a hybrid of all kinds of local and external dogs. 

by joanro on 08 March 2013 - 08:03

Aaykay, that's true. But pariahs are ultimate mongrels. They have mongrelized to the point that they all have same basic features....high saber to curled tail, prick ears, short coat. Mix different breeds of dogs together long enough and you wind up with basic, primitive dog. The dingo has same look, as does the Carolina dog, and the Basenji of Africa. It's like putting all breeds of dog into a paper bag, shake shake shake.....pour out Pariah dog.

darylehret

by darylehret on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

So, it looks like the question is developing into "should workinglines and showlines be made seperate breeds, since they can be significantly likened to seperate subspecies?"  There seems to be other seperate dog breeds that are more similar to each other than our working and showlines.  Are there other breeds that have such distinct branches that still are considered ONE breed?  My answer is yes, they should be seperate, but it ultimately only matters to those who hold great importance for the breeding RECORD, and it's various registries.  It's only purpose would be to eliminate the crossing over of the two branches, and alienating one division of the breed while the other keeps it's old namesake.  So while I say "yes" because they essentially ARE so genetically different, I would guess it's probably a bad idea.  I don't like the idea of interfering with someone else's liberties if they don't affect me personally.  But what about making the crosses something similar to how a thoroughbred and quarterhorse cross can still have "legitimate" recognition being registered as an appendix horse?

by Blitzen on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

Why not establish a separate registry for "workinglines only". You could define what it takes  to be designated a working dog, generate your own club rules, hold you own trials.

by joanro on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

Come to think of it, the Dingo of Australia and the Carolina Dog are more similar than the two GSD lines. The pariah dogs epitomize form follows function.

by joanro on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

Daryl, the QH and TB are separate breeds. That's why registering is 'appendix' when crossed. There could be the B/R GSD and the GSD.
Blitzen, I think you missed the point all together.

by Blitzen on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

NO, I think YOU missed the point, Joanro.

by joanro on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

What does that mean, Blitzen? I said I think you missed the point, you telling me I don't think you missed the point? LOL

by joanro on 08 March 2013 - 09:03

Blitzen, starting a club for WL only...they already exist. The differences between the lines are not arbitrary.

by Blitzen on 08 March 2013 - 10:03

There is a registry specifically for WL's?





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top