Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding?

darrz.RemoveThis@earthlink.net
>Louis Dobermann made his Doberman Pinschers from mixing the Black &
>Tan (now extinct) terrier with the Rottie (or it's forbears), and then
>crossing that mix downward with the German Pinscher to refine it.

Um........noooooooooooo......here again little is known because Herr Dobermann
actually kept very few records on what he did. As many as 8 or 9 different
breeds are thought to have been possibly included in his "formula" not to
mention the possibility of a good mix of mongrels that were around during his
day. Weims, GSPs, Greyhounds, Pinschers, Manchester Terriers, GSDs,
Beaucerons. You name it, there's probably some reason for someone to think the
breed should be included. :-) Heck, he did his work in the mid 1800s and it
wasn't all that long after that, around the 1890s, that people were trying to
guess what-all had gone into the breed. Even after Herr Dobermann died around
1894 or so, there are records from breeders who were still adding in breeds,
mainly, it appears, the Manchester Terrier. But Herr Dobermann himself was a
very sloppy record keeper and didn't appear to confide in a lot of people as to
just what he was up to as regards specifics.

>The Irish Wolfhound was extinct. It was restored by crossing large
>Scottish Deerhounds with the occasional even larger, mastiff crosses.

It wasn't entirely extinct. At least in this breed, Captain Graham was pretty
darn open about what he was doing. He took the last remaining Wolfhounds, took
his Deerhounds and started a stiff and exacting breeding program. But he also
added in Borzoi and some Great Dane crosses. I've never heard of any mention
of mastiff crosses having been tossed in there tho. But Great Danes were still
being mixed in as late as the 1930s according to breeder records. Altho not by
Capt. Graham -- I think he died around 1909 or so -- unless he was dictating
from the grave, which I wouldn't put past 'im.

>Parson's Jack Russell Terrier was developed from basically one terrier
>which the Parson was terribly fond of. Crosses were brought in only to
>increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
>breed.

Here again, there was terrible record keeping. This "breed" is actually a
"type" or "strain". So nobody knows exactly what-all the gentleman bred into
the dogs to develop what was needed for the purpose the dog was to serve
because the gentleman's intention wasn't to develop a "breed", he was
developing a working "type" of terrier. The crosses really hadn't nearly so
much to do with health as they had to do with maintaining the physical and
mental structure needed in a "working terrier". Outcrossings are no longer
allowed however by the JRTCA.

Incidentally, one of the absolutely best breed magazines I've ever seen to date
(and this is just my own personal opinion) is "True Grit" put out by the JRTCA
(Jack Russell Terrier Club of America, which has absolutely no affiliation with
the AKC) -- I'd recommend a JRTCA membership (the publication comes with the
membership) to any/all JRT owners, even if their dog is AKC registered rather
than being from JRTCA parentage. Personally, I greatly prefer the JRTCA. To
me, it's a much more responsible organization towards the JRT than the AKC.
Puppies can't just be registered because the parents were registered. Pups
born from registered parents must be judged on their own merit once they've
become a year old and are then registered if merited (spayed and neutered JRTs
may be "recorded" but not registered). Conformation judges must actually work
their terriers to be able to be conformation jduges. And club competitions and
events can be a riot.

Dave, maybe you should jog on over to the Salvation Army and see if you can buy
your breed history books back. They just might still have them.

Cindy
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

darrz said in rec.pets.dogs.breeds:

> Australians Shepherds - developed in the U.S.. Cross-bred
> from basque native sheep herding dogs, Australians cattle
> dogs, and small Collies.

Another one of those breeds that has a heritage which has been
mostly lost.

My opinion is somewhat different from yours, though similar.
When I wax on with my opinions, however, I don't claim them as
fact.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:46:00 -0400, "sionnach" <rhyfelwr.TakeThisOut@msn.com>
wrote:

>
>"darrz" wrote:
>
>> Parson's Jack Russell Terrier was developed from basically one terrier
>> which the Parson was terribly fond of. Crosses were brought in only to
>> increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
>> breed.
>
> That's not correct. Small white hunting terriers were bred by many
>foxhunters, as well as by many who used them for vermin control. Rev.
>Russell did have a foundation bitch for his particular pack, but he did NOT
>"create" the breed. They were named for him because A. he was a flamboyant
>character who was well-known and had a good pack and B. he was one of the
>founding members of the British K.C. - though he didn't want his WORKING
>dogs anywhere near the breed ring.
> People who bred these terriers to hunt and kill vermin did as working
>breeders have always done down through the years: they crossed in other
>breeds as needed to enhance traits that the individual breeder wanted for
>the work s/he wanted to do with his particular dogs; it had nothing to do
>with "genetically healthy".
>

You call it: "crossed in other breeds as needed to enhance traits..."

I call it: "increase(ing) the gene pool".

You call it: "...did have a foundation bitch...had a good pack...one
of the founding members of the BKC..."

I call it: "...developed the breed."

I never said he developed it in total isolation, all by himself. And
yes, in my opinion, he developed the foundation stock for the PJRT.

And I'm sure you'll say "That's not correct..." again.

And I'll ask for a short list of 5 other breeders active before or
concurrent with the Rev. Russell, who were as responsible for the
development of the PJRT breed, as the good parson was.

And silence will reign.

Because there aren't any other breeders more responsible for the
development of the PJRT, than the parson, himself. HE developed the
foundation stock from the bitch that impressed him so much, and others
admired it, and of course, joined in.

And I'm not talking about ANY of the other small white hunting terrier
breeds or crosses.

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

On 22 Aug 2003 23:03:13 GMT, countdownto55.DeleteThis@aol.comnojunk (Countdown to
55) wrote:

>darrz@earthlink.net
>>Louis Dobermann made his Doberman Pinschers from mixing the Black &
>>Tan (now extinct) terrier with the Rottie (or it's forbears), and then
>>crossing that mix downward with the German Pinscher to refine it.
>
>Um........noooooooooooo......here again little is known because Herr Dobermann
>actually kept very few records on what he did. As many as 8 or 9 different
>breeds are thought to have been possibly included in his "formula" not to
>mention the possibility of a good mix of mongrels that were around during his
>day. Weims, GSPs, Greyhounds, Pinschers, Manchester Terriers, GSDs,
>Beaucerons. You name it, there's probably some reason for someone to think the
>breed should be included. :-) Heck, he did his work in the mid 1800s and it
>wasn't all that long after that, around the 1890s, that people were trying to
>guess what-all had gone into the breed. Even after Herr Dobermann died around
>1894 or so, there are records from breeders who were still adding in breeds,
>mainly, it appears, the Manchester Terrier. But Herr Dobermann himself was a
>very sloppy record keeper and didn't appear to confide in a lot of people as to
>just what he was up to as regards specifics.
>
You have the idea that a pragmatic tax collector (and a German one at
that!), would waste years of cross breeding, when the dogs he wants,
he needs, for his own protection on his travels, is available quickly
through common sense breeding techniques?

Maybe he wanted the Dobie to guard him in another lifetime? :)

If you want to play the "add a breed" game, why stop at 8 or 9? Sure,
we'll throw in long-hair breeds, maybe a hairless one as well?

If you know any German breeder's you'd know how funny this is. They
don't dance around the subtleties, contemplating all the nuances of a
project.

They cut RIGHT to the heart of the matter. Look at the Dobie - is it a
sighthound, a dog intended only to bark at a robber, a dog needing
very little endurance?

Nope.

Since Greyhounds lack endurance, lack the desired "bite" and
aggressiveness, I'm sure the Greyhound was used very little, if at
all.

Look at a Black & Tan terrier, a German Pinscher (or Manchester
Terrier), and a large Dane - like dog, and you'll see clearly where
the Dobie very probably originated.

No 8 or 9 breeds needed. No years of working out the unwanted gene
characteristics.

Right to the heart of the matter. He was a tax collector, not a Baron,
and would use his resources wisely.

>>The Irish Wolfhound was extinct. It was restored by crossing large
>>Scottish Deerhounds with the occasional even larger, mastiff crosses.
>
>It wasn't entirely extinct. At least in this breed, Captain Graham was pretty
>darn open about what he was doing. He took the last remaining Wolfhounds, took
>his Deerhounds and started a stiff and exacting breeding program. But he also
>added in Borzoi and some Great Dane crosses. I've never heard of any mention
>of mastiff crosses having been tossed in there tho. But Great Danes were still
>being mixed in as late as the 1930s according to breeder records. Altho not by
>Capt. Graham -- I think he died around 1909 or so -- unless he was dictating
>from the grave, which I wouldn't put past 'im.

My source gave the "true" I.W. as extinct, with the Capt. only able to
find some I.W. crosses, and sad examples of the once proud breed.

The point is, he recreated the breed using other well-known breeds,
not just mutts.

No 8 or 9 breeds, either. :)

>
>>Parson's Jack Russell Terrier was developed from basically one terrier
>>which the Parson was terribly fond of. Crosses were brought in only to
>>increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
>>breed.
>
>Here again, there was terrible record keeping. This "breed" is actually a
>"type" or "strain". So nobody knows exactly what-all the gentleman bred into
>the dogs to develop what was needed for the purpose the dog was to serve
>because the gentleman's intention wasn't to develop a "breed", he was
>developing a working "type" of terrier. The crosses really hadn't nearly so
>much to do with health as they had to do with maintaining the physical and
>mental structure needed in a "working terrier". Outcrossings are no longer
>allowed however by the JRTCA.

I agree with you about the PJRT being a "strain", but once it's
recognized as a separate breed by organizations like the AKC,
shouldn't one refer to it as indeed, a breed?

>Dave, maybe you should jog on over to the Salvation Army and see if you can buy
>your breed history books back. They just might still have them.
>
>Cindy

I think my point was made. New breeds have been, and usually are,
created from cross-breeding older breeds.

When mutts have been used to make up a new breed, it's because the
mutt has a particular characteristic that the breeder wants, and can't
find easily, elsewhere.

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

> >
> >"darrz" wrote:
> >
> >> Parson's > >> . > >
> > That's not correct. Small white hunting terriers were bred by many
> >foxhunters, as well as by many who used them for vermin control. Rev.
> >Russell did have a foundation bitch for his particular pack, but he did
NOT
> >"create" the breed. They were named for him because A. he was a
flamboyant
> >character who was well-known and had a good pack and B. he was one of the
> >founding members of the British K.C. - though he didn't want his WORKING
> >dogs anywhere near the breed ring.
> > People who bred these terriers to hunt and kill vermin did as working
> >breeders have always done down through the years: they crossed in other
> >breeds as needed to enhance traits that the individual breeder wanted for
> >the work s/he wanted to do with his particular dogs; it had nothing to do
> >with "genetically healthy".
> >
>
> You call it: "crossed in other breeds as needed to enhance traits..."
>
> I call it: "increase(ing) the gene pool".

Spare us the selective editing & rewording, please. This is what you
ACTUALLY said: "Crosses were brought in only to
increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
breed."

The old time breeders neither knew nor cared about creating "genetically
healthy dogs". They cared about the dog's ability to perform a function. And
if you really knew much about JRTs, you'd know that there are several severe
genetic defects that plague the breed, including deafness.

> You call it: "...did have a foundation bitch...had a good pack...one
> of the founding members of the BKC..."
>
> I call it: "...developed the breed."
> I never said he developed it in total isolation, all by himself.

Selective editing, again. This is what you really said:

"Jack Russell Terrier was developed from basically one terrier which the
Parson was terribly fond of."


Here's a quote from the official breed history:

"Jack Russell Terriers are a type, or strain, of working terrier; they are
not pure bred in the sense that they have a broad genetic make-up, a broad
standard, and do not breed true to type. This is a result of having been
bred strictly for hunting since their beginning in the early 1800's, and
their preservation as a working breed since. The broad standard, varied
genetic background based on years of restricted inbreeding and wide
outcrossing, and great variety of size and type, are the major
characteristics that make this strain of terrier known as a Jack Russell
(a.k.a. Parson Jack Russell Terrier®) such a unique, versatile working
terrier.

The Jack Russell Terrier takes it name from the Reverend John Russell who
bred one of the finest strains of terriers for working fox in Devonshire,
England in the mid-to-late 1800's. Rev. Russell (1795-1883), apart from his
church activities, had a passion for fox hunting and the breeding of fox
hunting dogs; he is also said to be a rather flamboyant character, probably
accounting for his strain of terrier's notability and the name of our
terrier today. His first terrier, the immortal TRUMP, is said to be the
foundation of John Russell's strain "
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

On 23 Aug 2003 03:32:15 GMT, Rocky <2pups.DeleteThis@rocky-dog.com> wrote:

>darrz said in rec.pets.dogs.breeds:
>
>> Australians Shepherds - developed in the U.S.. Cross-bred
>> from basque native sheep herding dogs, Australians cattle
>> dogs, and small Collies.
>
>Another one of those breeds that has a heritage which has been
>mostly lost.
>
>My opinion is somewhat different from yours, though similar.
>When I wax on with my opinions, however, I don't claim them as
>fact.

That's what I had just read. I never said:

=============================================================

**************** This is a FACT! ****************************

=============================================================

Everything I say is my opinion, belief, or thought at that moment.

What is fact, or fiction, is either:

1) Something only God knows
2) Something God has quit trying to figure out
3) Something you judge for yourself
4) Something you don't give a damn about

Or some combination of the above, including none of the above.

And that's a fact! <grin>

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

BTW, "darrz"- I'm interested in hearing precisely how long you've owned a
Jack Russell Terrier, how many terrier trials you've been to, how many JRTCA
judges and board members you're personally acquainted with, and how many
Jack Russell owners and breeders you correspond with on a regular basis.
While you're at it, how about translating the alphabet soup after my dogs'
names- WITHOUT doing any sort of web search or looking anything up? In
particular, I'd like you to define the last four entries on the youngest
one.

--
Sarah
Brenin, CGC, AD, O-EAC-V, O-EJC-V, EGC
Gwydion, Handy Cat
Morag Thistledown, Novice Triple Superior, S-OAC, S-OJC, O-OGC, EJC
Robyn Meezer, Inspector of Human Activity
Rocsi Cadarn, S-NJC, NAC, NGC, NGTG, OGTG, 1 leg of AG-I; 6th/75 NHT.
..
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

darrz said in rec.pets.dogs.breeds:

>>My opinion is somewhat different from yours, though
>>similar. When I wax on with my opinions, however, I don't
>>claim them as fact.
>
> That's what I had just read. I never said:
>
>=============================================================
>
> **************** This is a FACT!
> ****************************
>
>=============================================================

Very cute. Obfuscation through volume.

> Everything I say is my opinion, belief, or thought at that
> moment.
>
> What is fact, or fiction, is either:
>
> 1) Something only God knows
> 2) Something God has quit trying to figure out
> 3) Something you judge for yourself
> 4) Something you don't give a damn about
>
> Or some combination of the above, including none of the
> above.
>
> And that's a fact! <grin>

But what you said was:

> Australians Shepherds - developed in the U.S.. Cross-bred
> from basque native sheep herding dogs, Australians cattle
> dogs, and small Collies.

Opinion, perhaps, but presented as fact. You seem to do a lot
of that.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

sionnach <rhyfelwr RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
>"darrz" wrote:
>
>> Parson's Jack Russell Terrier was developed from basically one terrier
>> which the Parson was terribly fond of. Crosses were brought in only to
>> increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
>> breed.
>
> That's not correct. Small white hunting terriers were bred by many
>foxhunters, as well as by many who used them for vermin control. Rev.
>Russell did have a foundation bitch for his particular pack, but he did
>NOT "create" the breed.

And this, I think, is where Dave (and a lot of other people) are
confused. Prior to the late 1800s--actually, I would argue it was
actually later than that--there was no concept of "purebred" as
we know it. There were, however, definitely different strains
of dogs that were bred for distinct purposes and are properly
considered landrace breeds--not "breeds created through
crossbreeding."

"The Kennel Club" was named such because it was the first in
the world (1870); nowadays it's often referred to as the Kennel
Club of Great Britain. From their history:

"To quote 'THE HISTORY OF THE KENNEL CLUB', it was obvious
that some system of distinctive naming would have to be
introduced to overcome the confusion arising out of 'quantities
of Spots, Bobs, Bangs, Jets, Nettles, Vics, most of them
insufficiently described and none of them being well-known
dogs'.

"In 1880 the Committee introduced a system of 'universal
registration' which was strongly opposed at first, but the
advantage of reserving the use of a name for a dog was quickly
seen and accepted. Registration in 1880 was nothing more than
the registration of a name to avoid duplication in the Stud
Book, the pedigree was of little importance and only came as
an aid to identification at a later stage."

IOW, pedigree was not then seen as the defining characteristic
of a breed; however, at the very first dog show in the world
(some years earlier, 1859) the dogs were divided into "Pointers"
and "Setters". So at that time there *was a distinction between
dogs bred for different functions, but that distinction was
not based on pedigree.

In my own case, I have the advantage of having traced my
own breed (Briards) to the earliest registered dogs known.
The earliest such dog registered--in the 1884 Belgian
studbook--was a dog named Brisac (LOSH 307) who was born
in 1882 and whose breed was given as "chien de berger a
longs poils, de race francais" (long-haired French herding
dog). The following year, the French and Belgian long-haired
sheepdogs where grouped together ("chiens de berger a longs
poils de race francaise ou du pays"). One of the two dogs
concerned (Cadet, LOSH 715) is noted as "race francaise";
the breed of the other (Mouton, LOSH 716) is not given,
but his color is given as "fauve clair" (light tawny)
which appears often in Briards but not in the native
Belgian herding breeds.

Over the next few years, lumping dogs together in common
categories--rather than splitting them into separate
breeds--became even more pronouced. In 1887, the class
was labelled "long-haired sheepdogs of the continental
breeds", in 1889 it was "long and short haired sheepdogs
of the continental breeds", and in 1891 simply "continental
sheepdogs"--a group broad enough to encompass the origins
of many modern breeds, including the Briard, the Beauceron,
the German Shepherd, the Belgian sheepdogs (Gronendahl,
Tervuren, Malinois, and Lakenois), the Berger des Pyrenees,
the Puli, the Bergamasco, and probably a few others I've
forgotten about. It wasn't until 1901 that Briards
regained a distinct category of their own.

Based on this evidence, I would argue that during John
Russell's time, there wasn't much concept of either
"purebred" or "crossbred" at all--the very idea of
"breed" was somewhat fuzzy.

So I'm mostly in agreement with Sarah's argument. If
John Russell took existing terriers bred to hunt foxes,
and bred a distinct strain with certain characteristics,
and dogs with these characteristics became known by
his name--that is neither a breed created by one person,
nor a breed that was the result of crossbreeding. It
is the same kind of process that yielded many of our
breeds today.

Dianne
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

On 24 Aug 2003 05:49:23 GMT, diannes DeleteThis @u.washington.edu (dianne marie
schoenberg) wrote:

>sionnach <rhyfelwr DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote:
>>"darrz" wrote:
>>
>>> Parson's Jack Russell Terrier was developed from basically one terrier
>>> which the Parson was terribly fond of. Crosses were brought in only to
>>> increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
>>> breed.
>>
>> That's not correct. Small white hunting terriers were bred by many
>>foxhunters, as well as by many who used them for vermin control. Rev.
>>Russell did have a foundation bitch for his particular pack, but he did
>>NOT "create" the breed.
>
>And this, I think, is where Dave (and a lot of other people) are
>confused. Prior to the late 1800s--actually, I would argue it was
>actually later than that--there was no concept of "purebred" as
>we know it. There were, however, definitely different strains
>of dogs that were bred for distinct purposes and are properly
>considered landrace breeds--not "breeds created through
>crossbreeding."
>
>"The Kennel Club" was named such because it was the first in
>the world (1870); nowadays it's often referred to as the Kennel
>Club of Great Britain. From their history:
>
> "To quote 'THE HISTORY OF THE KENNEL CLUB', it was obvious
> that some system of distinctive naming would have to be
> introduced to overcome the confusion arising out of 'quantities
> of Spots, Bobs, Bangs, Jets, Nettles, Vics, most of them
> insufficiently described and none of them being well-known
> dogs'.
>
> "In 1880 the Committee introduced a system of 'universal
> registration' which was strongly opposed at first, but the
> advantage of reserving the use of a name for a dog was quickly
> seen and accepted. Registration in 1880 was nothing more than
> the registration of a name to avoid duplication in the Stud
> Book, the pedigree was of little importance and only came as
> an aid to identification at a later stage."
>
>IOW, pedigree was not then seen as the defining characteristic
>of a breed; however, at the very first dog show in the world
>(some years earlier, 1859) the dogs were divided into "Pointers"
>and "Setters". So at that time there *was a distinction between
>dogs bred for different functions, but that distinction was
>not based on pedigree.
>
>In my own case, I have the advantage of having traced my
>own breed (Briards) to the earliest registered dogs known.
>The earliest such dog registered--in the 1884 Belgian
>studbook--was a dog named Brisac (LOSH 307) who was born
>in 1882 and whose breed was given as "chien de berger a
>longs poils, de race francais" (long-haired French herding
>dog). The following year, the French and Belgian long-haired
>sheepdogs where grouped together ("chiens de berger a longs
>poils de race francaise ou du pays"). One of the two dogs
>concerned (Cadet, LOSH 715) is noted as "race francaise";
>the breed of the other (Mouton, LOSH 716) is not given,
>but his color is given as "fauve clair" (light tawny)
>which appears often in Briards but not in the native
>Belgian herding breeds.
>
>Over the next few years, lumping dogs together in common
>categories--rather than splitting them into separate
>breeds--became even more pronouced. In 1887, the class
>was labelled "long-haired sheepdogs of the continental
>breeds", in 1889 it was "long and short haired sheepdogs
>of the continental breeds", and in 1891 simply "continental
>sheepdogs"--a group broad enough to encompass the origins
>of many modern breeds, including the Briard, the Beauceron,
>the German Shepherd, the Belgian sheepdogs (Gronendahl,
>Tervuren, Malinois, and Lakenois), the Berger des Pyrenees,
>the Puli, the Bergamasco, and probably a few others I've
>forgotten about. It wasn't until 1901 that Briards
>regained a distinct category of their own.
>
>Based on this evidence, I would argue that during John
>Russell's time, there wasn't much concept of either
>"purebred" or "crossbred" at all--the very idea of
>"breed" was somewhat fuzzy.
>
>So I'm mostly in agreement with Sarah's argument. If
>John Russell took existing terriers bred to hunt foxes,
>and bred a distinct strain with certain characteristics,
>and dogs with these characteristics became known by
>his name--that is neither a breed created by one person,
>nor a breed that was the result of crossbreeding. It
>is the same kind of process that yielded many of our
>breeds today.
>
>Dianne

Dianne, you've done a superb post, indeed!

While I believe many specific hybrids of plants and breeds of animals
were known and bred, going back many years, for many people, all that
you've said above, is true.

I believe that the concept of "breed" was not fuzzy, however.

Remember, we had breeds of horses, cattle, sheep, goats, dairy cows,
and lots of plant hybrids, long before Gregor Mendel did his landmark
work on genetics. People saw, worked with, and ate products from these
"breeds", in their everyday life.

While many dog breeders simply wanted to breed to "type" and go on
with their business of hunting, herding, guarding, etc., others were
more interested in developing or maintaining a pure breed.

The fact that the Pharaoh dog looks exactly like the dogs inscribed in
the days of the pharaoh's, is NOT a coincidence, I believe.

For some, I'm convinced the idea of a purebred dog did come along
later, just as you stated above. For other's, I believe they've been
focused on this idea for a long time.

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

> Most of the incrossing, as I understand it, was done to adapt the
> breed to different terrain and/or different QUARRY, as needed.

I'm also willing to bet that "Darrz" can't name- unless he goes off and
does some more quickie web-searching- the quarry that Jacks are most often
used for in the U.S., and that conformation classes are divided up by
suitability to.
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:40:27 GMT, "Andrea"
<andrea.stone2 DeleteThis @NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:

>"darrz" <darrz DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote
><snip>
>> The fact that the Pharaoh dog looks exactly like the dogs inscribed in
>> the days of the pharaoh's,
>
>Well, that's arguable. I'm assuming you mean the Pharaoh Hound, not "Pharaoh
>dog".

Naturally.

>
>There's some contention about what "breed" of dog that is (with Pharaoh
>Hound, Ibizan Hound and Basenji fanciers staking claims. Others too, I'm
>sure), and the differing opinions are probably all wrong. Or all right,
>depending on how you want to look at it. It was probably a landrace. It may
>not've been, but it probably was IMO. No one really knows. But there's quite
>a bit of variation between carvings too, if you look.

The Ibizan I could maybe agree with, but not the Basenji, clearly the
egyptian dogs were medium to large, not small.

How do you mean "landrace". M-Webster gives it as a type of swine! :)

One entry found for Landrace.

Main Entry: Land·ra·ce
Pronunciation: 'län(d)-"rä-s&
Function: noun
Etymology: Danish, from land + race
Date: 1935
a swine of any of several breeds locally developed in northern Europe

I presume you mean it here, as a localized breed of dog?

Dave
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding? 

> Yes, I had "moved" Mendel 100 years back in time! <grin>
> However, since numerous breeds of cattle, horses, pigs, goats,
> chickens, etc. were already developed,
>
> CLEARLY, the old breeders had a good idea of what they were doing, at
> least some of the time.

Which still means that you were incorrect in asserting that
JRTs were developed from "one terrier which the Parson was terribly fond
of.", and that "Crosses were brought in only to
increase the gene pool needed for a genetically healthy purebred
breed."
 >> Stay informed about: Breeds Made from Cross-Breeding?