# breed = not science



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

from what i can piece together science does not recognise dog breeds or cattle, horse....breeds???

standards for same breed can vary from country to country??

what were breeds called before a standard was written, standards can change with one swoop of a commitee, can a purebred dog become no longer a purebred?

opening a stud book contradicts purebred? cf that dalmation at crufts with pointer blood - is the concept of purity beneficial long term for dogs or just a licence to make money?

would the gsd suffer if there was no registries?


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

Alaskan huskies exist without a registry and they are doing great. 

Border Collies Bred Like Alaskan Sled Dogs?

Of course, they will have variable physical appearance and still suffer from genetic diseases so it's not a panacea. But I find the concept of breeding without purity in mind to be a very intriguing one.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

People's ego would take a giant hit....GS is more symbol these days for egos and emotions.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

well the true working dog folks would not even notice if the breed concept dissapeared, the ones i know think in terms of ol' bill's lines are good if you are looking for a dog to do ...., breed never gets mentioned, how many cops even know their k9 partner's sire/dam?


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Is the GSD breed thriving with all these registries? An AKC GSD means squat in terms of quality.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

doesn't mean squat in terms of puppy sales tho and neither does quality.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

here is a book that I have recommended many many times . X11 I think you might find it interesting. The whole concept of "breed" for dogs, cattle, horses, cats , is a relatively new concept of just over 100 years .

Prior to that , meaning a public registry , there were personal , private registries, kept every bit as well and as accurately to properly document the pairings and statistics on the progeny if only by footnotes. The dogs were bred for purpose (function) and as a replacement -- not for commercial gain.

Anyway , the book X11 and mycobraracr is Bred for Perfection Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and Arabian Horses since 1800: Amazon.ca: Margaret E. Derry: Books

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/university_of_toronto_quarterly/v074/74.1foran.html


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

x11 said:


> from what i can piece together science does not recognise dog breeds or cattle, horse....breeds???


To answer your original question, this is more or less correct. Even the borders between _species _are blurry. The Linnaean classification system which gives us Canis lupus familiaris is descriptive, not predictive. So what it does is it describes a population that has become different somehow from related populations. There are subspecies of wild wolves that would probably be regarded as separate "breeds" by most domestic dog breeders if they had to be classified. We have these classification systems because they allow scientists to group organisms together for study and observation. However, this does not mean that there is any point in time when one species suddenly "becomes" another. It's all a continuum.


----------

