Talk:Dog breed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Which CKC?

The article claims the following: "…a breeding pair of Belgian Shepherds of the Groenendael variety can produce puppies of the Tervuren (brown) variety; the AKC considers the varieties to be different breeds and, therefore, the brown puppies are invalid and undesirable dogs, whereas the CKC considers them simply to be different color varieties of the same breed." The AKC link indicates the American Kennel Club, but the CKC link goes to a disambiguation page that indicates two distinct kennel clubs, the Canadian Kennel Club and the Continental Kennel Club. Which club (between Canadian and Continental) recognizes both Belgian Shepherd varieties as the same breed? Irishchieftain 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

"They are accommodated to certain natural and economic conditions and usually exploitation while differ from other breeds by exclusive conformation traits and working abilities."

dogs are cool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred#Purebred_dogs) in a paragraph detailing controversies, or perhaps on the Domestic Dog page.

This page is to explain how dogs are catagorized.

Hafwyn (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

"They are not accommodated to certain economic conditions and do not usually exploitation while differ from other breeds

Sorry, but I can't figure it out. Some mistake must have been made here. Could someone edit this who is familiar with the subject? zadignose (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great point, edits are meant to be for whoever is familiar with the subject.

Dog breed is unique in its way, because dogs of a certain breed have certain abitlities or looks. Some people breed them and sell them to other people, looking for either abilities (such as hunting) or unique appearance. Purebred dog industry is maintained by a cash flow.

"to economic conditions" means, that purebred dogs are sold for money only for as long, as there is a demand for the breed, and the demand is there only for as long as there are people looking for something certain. Or else, they will adopt a shelter pet.

If nobody willing to pay for a fighting APBT puppy, the breeder does not have an outlet to sell them. Eventually, he discontinues the breed.

"to natural conditions and exploitation" means, that there is usually a certain habitat the breed is matching, because it originated to match it. For example, a hunting breed that perfects in hunts at large open territories, such as Foxhounds. They are not ideal urban pets, because they are born to run in quantities and hunt; the Foxhound will be bored and miserable in a city apartment. Thus, we don't see that many Foxhounds in cities. And the less open land for hunting there is, the less popular is this breed. How about exporting them to Africa, to hunt local prey? One needs to know if they adjust to African climate before shipping them to savannah, because they come from colder climate, right ? This is another example of "being accommodated to certain natural condition".--Afru (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for translating, but it is still very unclear. Hafwyn (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It still will be unclear, until clarified. The breed constantly goes through certain stages of development. It originated for a purpose. Conditions change over time, so does the breed. --Afru (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Breed History

Reverted last edit; referring all dogs breeds establishing to KC appearance does not cover the issue. “The International Encyclopedia of Dogs” contains very superficial information. --Afru (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in general, dog compendium books are nothing more than cute pictures with fairly useless text; however, this one, "The International Encyclopedia of Dogs", has credibility. Anne Rogers Clark (now deceased) was a highly respected American authority on a very large number of dog breeds. The British coauthor/editor, Andrew H. Brace, has similar standing. Together (or separately) they compare more than favourably to the Saluki magazine publisher and the Labrador retriever judge cited in the 'history' section. "The International Encyclopedia of Dogs" is as reliable a source on breeds in general as is available, although other works may go into topics of individual breeds in more depth. Hafwyn (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Poms and mastiffs

Pomeranians are shown in the "mastiff" group, check the source reference -- (19. Genetics and the Shape of Dogs; Studying the new sequence of the canine genome shows how tiny genetic changes can create enormous variation within a single species. American Scientist (online) page 2, chart page 4. www.americanscientist.org )

Direct link to the chart is here: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetailNoFrame;jsessionid=aaa8n7B72M9HRB?assetId=55895

That's one of the strange - and interesting - things about the genetic studies!--Hafwyn (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

since someone edited the genetic information to suit their idea of what goes where several times -- missing the whole point -- I put the reference to the research in each section. Is there some way to repeat a cite (like "ibid") so that it doesn't repeat over and over in the reference section?--Hafwyn (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question

This is probably a stupid question, but a Chihuahua couldn't breed with a Great Dane, could it? If it couldn't, doesn't that mean that the Chihuahua is a different species from a Great Dane? thanks --GMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.134.233 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look up species. Hybrids (the cross between two different species ) are sometimes-not always-sterile (see the article Panthera hybrid as an example). Dogs are all of the same species, Canis lupus, so two dogs of different breeds can always breed; although Great Dane puppies in a Chihuahua bitch would probably kill her, and there might be logistic problems the other way around. It's not impossible. Just unlikely.--Hafwyn (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Horse breeds

Navigation of horse breed articles is being discussed on Template talk:Equine, for which the corresponding dog breed articles and other pages may be a model. Your insights would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Breed vs. Race

Hafwyn, I am going to continue to edit some of the changes you made, but seeing that this has gone back and forth a little, I thought we should bring it to discussion.

I can see that you're concerned about the moral equivalence of selecting for favorable traits in humans and dogs. I share that concern. The moral question should not be implied nor explicitly discussed, IMO. That would be way too off-topic.

I've included a sentence about the comparison of human race and dog breed for two reasons: (1) because "race" is a highly accessible, succinct analogy that can help the reader to understand breeds in a larger, scientifically valid context; (2) because the concept of breed stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific theory. To the same extent that "pure races" are a misguided concept, equally are "pure breeds."

Clearly, dogs are not humans, and so a comparison between eugenics in humans and selecting for favorable traits in dogs cannot be equated on moral grounds. And if you would like to add a brief paranthetical statement to that effect, I would have no problem. But as is, the article goes into great depth to make an argument that is way too long and goes way too off-topic. It isn't appropriate here. The simple facts of the matter need to be succinctly stated without a biased implication about the moral status of dog breeding.

Also, you're right that neither breed nor race are official taxonomic ranks, nor are they, in themselves, scientifically valid. In fact, they are really arbitrary, a point made elsewhere. But our current scientific understanding of biology and heredity draws no distinctions between race and breed. These terms are synonymous with subspecies: an interbreeding group of individuals that pass on a consistent and characteristic set of traits. Subspecies is a scientifically valid taxonomic rank. I agree that the old version was not clear, and was technically incorrect, but i think the current version needs revision as well.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia:Lead section, I have condensed the lead by moving the long discussion on race and science and breed names and etc. to its own section. I did not take out any of your stuff, it is in the section "Classification", which you may rename to suit. --Hafwyn (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Nagaziii.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nagaziii.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Groups of dogs mistaken for breeds

The example given of the Huntaway, is definitely a breed. It is a working breed that has been selectively bred for a particular style of work, driving stock by using its presence and voice, having stamina, and a sturdy medium to large size, and these traits do "breed true". Appearance is irrelevant to this and some other working breeds, but its irrelevance does not mean this is not a breed. OnHawkspur (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How can breeds be subspecies?

The claim is made in the article that "Breeds do meet the criteria for subspecies", although all dogs (domestic dogs, anyway) are all the same subspecies, C. l. familiaris. Please support or delete this statement.

Also, the article states that, "In biology, subspecies, race and breed are equivalent terms" yet Subspecies contradicts this with, "The differences between subspecies are ... more distinct than the differences between breeds or races"OnHawkspur (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Better source needed

The source cited in the History section of the article, dogs.spogel.com, is quite entertaining but completely the opinion and unsubstantiated notions of one person (persons?), who does not use his/her name, and does not cite any sources. This is not a useful Wikipedia citation (WP:QS). Moved to the External links, perhaps it should not even be there. --Hafwyn (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the cite has been replace in the article. Opinions on this site are not reliable, as the author gives no sources, so it is impossible to determine whether they are fact or opinion. As the author does not wish to give his name, it is not possible to determine whether he/she is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"; see WP:SPS. Promotion of this site appears to be some sort of advertising.

Not only is this the case, but the source website doesn't even say what the history section here says it does- the wiki article statesjust one of the theories listed in the source as fact, with no indication that it's only a one of a few theories, as is indicated by the source. Someone more knowledgable on the topic than me should really fix this up... Cheers, mj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, reading on, is this section even necessary? The same information seems to be given in a much better way by the development of dog breeds section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed link to the CKC, substituted FCI and Rare Breed Network

Under External links: Swapped out the Continental Kennel Club (CKC) link, which wasn't identified as such. The CKC is controversial (this is not a good place to get into THAT argument) and a poor choice of reference.

I have substituted the FCI dog breed page; the FCI registers 339 breeds in 78 groups from 84 countries (plus 10 provisional breeds) and is the recognized international dog breed authority. To cover everything else that may or may not be a breed, I added the Rare Breed Network breed list page, which lists a large and growing number of rare, local, and recently invented breeds along with recognized breeds that it considers "rare." The Rare Breed Network is an informational website and doesn't sell dog registrations.

Hafwyn (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, that's a better link. Still, the entire article needs a major edit --Afru (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, good idea, I will start with the "history" section since it has too much about pre-history already on the Dog page and other pages, and not much about breeds. Hafwyn (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The FCI link triggered a malware warning on my browser. Has anyone else had the same problem? 177.50.93.158 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of breeds

Is this really necessary on this page, considering we have the exact same content at List of dog breeds? I propose we remove it from this page and just leace access to the list as a see also link. I don't think we need two copies of what is essentially the exact same content.--TKK ^{bark !} 14:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to duplicate it here. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The lists are not identical. I haven't traced the history of the list in this article. To me it seems that the list is uniquely constructed on the basis of FCI breed-names in the language of the country of origin of the breed. As an international organisation, the FCI is multilingual and official Breed Standards are produced in a range of languages. However, Breed Standards and amendments are submitted to the FCI by the "home" club of the breed - always, usually, sometimes??? - so the original official version is in the home language. The Breed Standards and breed-names in other languages are not always straightforward translations. I do see some merit in the way this list is constructed (though it does need a tidy-up for consistency.) 49.181.236.154 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (formerly User:49.181.236.156)

If the lists aren't identical, this list shouldn't refer to the other one as the main article. I've also noticed that the 'English name' isn't always the one used in the article for that specific dog, which is clearly wrong. I'm also not sure why we have names with no articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Dog Breeds Task-force recommends, "The article for each breed shall be titled based on the apparently most-common official breed name from the major registries..." (this version) That's not a bad policy IMHO because it gives certainty of an accepted breed-name and Breed Standard. For example, the FCI recognises two distinct breeds — in English, the "American Akita" (breed no. 344) and the "Akita" (breed no. 255) both of which have their origin in Japan. Of course, editors come along with their own view of what they think a breed's name should be, and, if they can garner enough support from friendly editors and admins, they simply change things including article titles. In time, the structure of such articles fall apart from the top down because knowledgable editors are completely put off by what they see as persistent and wikipedia-accepted vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.130 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Landraces

It appears to me that the Dog Breed page has been hijacked by someone pushing Landraces. The leading paragraph consists of 3 paragraphs and is supposed to be about dog breeds. The first sentence is about dog breeds followed by the next two sentences about landraces with a conflicting definition. You cannot define a dog breed as the result of human intervention immediately followed by not of human intervention. It is based on one definition by Coppinger about natural breeds that has been manipulated to mean landraces. This is the only citation. More of this stuff is scattered throughout the article. A dog is either a breed or a landrace. Does anybody else share my concern? Regards, William Harris • talk • 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This matter has now been addressed. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dog breed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120609113828/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/A-11.2/bo-ga:s_30//en to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/A-11.2/bo-ga:s_30//en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog breed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203122640/http://www.herdingontheweb.com:80/dogs.htm to http://www.herdingontheweb.com/dogs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Groups of dogs mistaken for breeds

This section mentions the huntaway, as a type of dog rather than a breed, however, this is a NZKC recognised breed and working huntaways are selectively bred from other working huntaways, they are not random-bred. OnHawkspur (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)