# Wolf ancestry in german shepherds?



## Cnel90

Sorry if this is the wrong section, if it is can you please move it to the right section?

Hi I was reading about the GSD lineage and what I found was this.



> Quote:Captain Von Stephanitz, of the German infantry, bought sheep-herding dogs (many of them field trial winners) from all over Europe in the late 1800's and early 1900's and bred them together to create his 'ultimate service dog'. He started a registry and stud book. His favourite dog, Hektor, he gave the first # (SZ 1). *Hektor was 1/4th wolf.* He was bred to every decent bitch around, and all the dogs originally imported to the UK & America were proudly traced back to him.
> 
> In the first decade of 1900, Von Stephanitz wrote a book (in German) about his loyal hard working dogs called "The German Shepherd in Word and Picture". In this book he documents the above heritage and pleas to the breeders not "to add more wolf blood" into his dogs as he had ALREADY found the IDEAL combination. In 1923, an American version was translated VERBATIM. Not many copies were printed and few still exist. [email protected] has a pricey (about $350) original and more may (?) be found by doing rare book searches. In 1932, an 8th Enlarged and 'Revised' (read 'Sanitised' !) version was financed by English speaking 'interests'.* All references to the positive wolf heritage were removed and most GSD fanciers have been denying RECENT wolf heritage ever since.*


http://www.asuperiorgsd.com/wolf-dog.html

First I'd like to say I have no agenda at all (I have to say this because I'm sure SOMEONE out there will think im trying to talk bad about GSD). I absolutely love german shepherds, I had one during my childhood and I will get one after my finish my school (or maybe before then, depending if I get married during then). I am just simply wondering what % of GSD are wolf? 

Also keep in mind that Dogs and Wolves are the exact same species (canis lupis, domesticated dogs are a sub species). By being part "wolf" I mean a recent ancestry with their wild "brothers" (past 200 years).

According to the link he came to this conclusion


> Quote:From the foregoing, and assuming that all present day dogs are mainly descended from an original 18 dogs in Stephanitz Kennels, it must be assumed that all German Shepherd dogs are from one third to one quarter RECENT wolf!!!


Thats 33 to 25%

Here is another source who talks about "hektor" and his mother.


> Quote:The German Shepherd Dog Mores Plieningen, SZ #159, who was bred to the first Stud dog, Horand Von Grafath (previously known as Hektor Liksrhein) and whose blood is said to be in the pedigree of every German Shepherd Dog in the world today, was the granddaughter of a wolf at the Stuttgart Zoological Gardens. Their son, Hektor Von Schwaben, SZ #13, figured heavily in the early German Shepherd Dog line.


http://www.shilohshepherds.info/101Wolfdogs.htm


----------



## JKlatsky

The Math sounds off...To me A dog that is 25% wolf is going to have a grandparent that is completely wolf. If you're having to go back to original foundation dogs for wolf heritage, and even those dogs were not pure wolf...well then I would say the percentage is much much smaller.

Sure GSDs might be closer than other breeds, but it still seems far fetched to start calling them "Wolf dogs". I mean if you go back 30 generations and find 1 relative whose Mom was from China, does that make you Chinese? 

(And yes I understand we're dealing with compounding linebreeding but every time you cross out it becomes more dilute)


----------



## GSDElsa

The math is TOTALLY off. If the male was 1/4 wolf to begin with (if true), and bred to "every decent bitch" that did not have 1/4 wolf in them, then right off the bat you have 12.5%. Say you take on of the boys from that litter and breed to another "decent bitch", then you have 6.25%. And with each breeding you get a little bit more dilute. You get the point. I'd get a decent, reputable book on the GSD and not some website. What they are writing doesn't make ANY sense. To even go from 12.5% (if true) to suddenly up to 25%-33%?!


----------



## Anja1Blue

This is the first time I've ever heard this, and I doubt that it's true.(Not that it would bother me if it were.....) Sounds like the person who wrote this has an "agenda". What does Max von Stephanitz say about Hektor aka Horand? Anyone have a copy of his book (which by the way isn't that hard to find, and you don't have to pay over $300 for it.) Reminds me to get a copy.....

________________________________________
Susan

Anja GSD
Conor GSD - adopted from this Board
Blue GSD - waiting at the Bridge


----------



## Cnel90

> Originally Posted By: GSDElsaThe math is TOTALLY off. If the male was 1/4 wolf to begin with (if true), and bred to "every decent bitch" that did not have 1/4 wolf in them, then right off the bat you have 12.5%. Say you take on of the boys from that litter and breed to another "decent bitch", then you have 6.25%. And with each breeding you get a little bit more dilute. You get the point. I'd get a decent, reputable book on the GSD and not some website. What they are writing doesn't make ANY sense. To even go from 12.5% (if true) to suddenly up to 25%-33%?!


Yeah but that is assuming the females werent part wolf themselves. But I was thinking 12.5% as well.


----------



## Cnel90

Here is a source that is more moderate (sorry about the first one, its the first one to come up in my search).

Please read this all.



> Quote:In 1899 the Verein fur Deutsche Schaferhunde (SV) held it's first specialty show at Frankfurt-am-Main and from that time the Sieger and Siegerin titles were started The Sieger of 1900 and 1901 was Hektor v Schwaben SZ13 who was the son of Horand v Grafrath, out of the bitch *Mores Plieningen SZ159. She was a bitch born in 1894, and according to Horowitz (1924) had wolf ancestry. He cited Otto Rahm of the Wohlen Kennels in Switzerland as claiming that this bitch was the result of mating a male wolf to a Shepherd bitch*. A record of a litter born in February 1901 by Woofram v Grafrath out of Wolfi v Wolfnest. Wolfi was the inbred Granddaughter of a dog called Wolf (presumably for reasons of colour, rather than ancestry). *Her maternal Grandam was Zamba-Saar which the Zuchlbuch records as a She-Wolf. (We can presume that wolves being refereed to in these records are European Wolves.)*
> 
> *Mores Plieningen had enormous influence on the breed and is the ancestor (many times over) of every German Shepherd Dog in the world today. If it is true that she descended from a Wolf, some 100 years ago, there is Wolf blood in the breed.* The Dutch Geneticist Hagedoorn (1950), who believed in the Wolf ancestry theory, argued that many of the excellent qualities of the breed, such as it's "unquestioned obedience, and it's exemplary master of self, stemmed from the Wolf." The fact that the breed may have had some Wolf blood a century ago is probably of no great harm, and possibly of some value. However since organized registration began, future opportunities for Wolf mixture have ceased.


http://www.steelcross-gsd.com/history.htm

"Mores Plieningen " being the mother of "hektor".


Also dont worry about terms like "wolf dog" etc thats not what im wondering about since technically everysingle dog even a yorkshire terrier is a "wolf". They are the same species. I was just wondering if GSD had more *recent* admixture with the grey wolves as part of the breeds history.


----------



## Cnel90

Hmm sorry for the triple post Im just trying to figure this out. I assume "grandam" means grandparent (it says maternal)? If thats the case, that would make Mores Plieningen 75% wolf and Hektor 37.5%. And assuming he was mixed with just plain shepherding "bitches" with no grey wolf admixture then modern GSD should be 18.75% wolf. Yeah no idea where the guy got the 25-33% from. He's way off lol. And thats even assumine Mores Plieningen was 75%, if she even had wolf ancestry it was probably only 50% or maybe even 25% (only grandparent).

So I think its safe to assume that if there was any admixture with grey wolves its 6.25% to 18.75% and no more of modern german shepherds.

I think the second source I posted is probably correct (and third one kind of backs it up). Her father being pure wolf is not proven, so at most she was a grandaughter of a wolf (as the second one says, which would make the number of wolf admixture in modern day GSD at 6.25% [hektor at 12.5%]).

Anyways if its true I think it's kind of cool actually . Dogs are already technically wolves but having a little bit of admixture with their wild "brothers" somehow makes them cooler haha. That wolfish look to GSDs may have some blood truth to it!


----------



## phgsd

If what you're asking is whether or not GSD's do descend from wolves - yes that is pretty well known. Would I call a GSD any % wolf? No, once you get so many generations out, I'd stop counting the wolf.

There are other breeds which have tried to create the wolfdog image by crossing various breeds (gsd's, huskies, etc) with wolves - several of them - and they all have reputations for being very shy, nervy, spooky dogs, most of which are not capable of doing real work. So yes in image it sounds "cool" to have a wolfdog, but dogs have been domesticated for so long for a reason.


----------



## Doc

I'm not sure you understand the genetics of breeding if you think that current day German shepherds still contain "wolf" blood. It just doesn't work that way UNLESS you are consistently breeding back to wolves or dogs that have a high percentage of wolf in their pedigree.


----------



## RubyTuesday

> Quote:Also dont worry about terms like "wolf dog" etc thats not what im wondering about since technically everysingle dog even a yorkshire terrier is a "wolf". They are the same species.


Wrong & Right. Although they are the same species, a Yorkie is most emphatically NOT a wolf. Sames species doesn't equal same 'breed'. All wolves are dogs...All dogs are not wolves. Kinda like 'all ponies are horses but every horse is not a pony'.

Wolves are a true wild dog. Even Huskies & Malamutes, which tend to have a wild side, are profoundly distinct from the wolf in some very important aspects. Those crucial differences are largely what make Sibes & Mals excellent companions for humans. Wolves very, very rarely make good pets, & only by experienced people in rigorously managed situations. Tragically, far too many people neither accept or nor understand this, usually to the detriment of the wolf.


----------



## Samba

Actually they aren't as close as species. I think they are the same genus, Canis.


----------



## crackem

I read the Stephanitz book and he didn't say to not add more wolf blood because he had found the right combination already. He said not to add wolf blood because the offspring were off in a totally different direction than what he wanted the GSD to be. He said wolves added no desireable traits to the breed.


----------



## GSDextrodinaire

According to my copy of the book, on page 138 it states,

"Horand's most famous son was Hektor von Schwaben, SZ 13, Champion of 1990/01, who was whelped from the Wurtemberg working bitch Mores-Plieningen, SZ 159. It was formerly reported that this bitch was the grand-daughter , or the great-grand-daughter of a wolf. This report was afterwards shown to be without foundation, and further enquiries proved the contrary. Neither Hektor nor his prgeny gave colour to this rumour in the external features or the charcters."

Stephanitz does discuss that there were breedings outside his program where the shepherd dog was bred to a wolf. However, he goes onto say, and I quote from page 46, "One has only to glance at the following picture to be convinced that there is nothing, positively less than nothing, to be gained be the infusion of wolf's blood for the purpose of adding to the "points" of shepherd dogs.


----------



## RubyTuesday

> Quote:Actually they aren't as close as species. I think they are the same genus, Canis.


At one time they were classified & considered different species. A lady I once worked for, argued this with me extensively for some months. She considered them different species. I was adamant that they're not. She eventually came to agree with me. The University of Iowa vet college also considers them the same species.

IMO the coyote is undeniably the same species as well. A truly ugly complication is that some environmentalists feel it will be impossible to legally protect wolves if they're recognized as the same species as dogs & coyotes. One should construct better laws rather than opting for muddy science.


----------



## selzer

There are idiots out there breeding GSDs to wolves. I met someone the other day that told me he had one that was half shepherd half wolf. This is NOT kool at all. 

Just because there are more than one account that suggests close wolf ancestry, does not mean that they were not all sprung from the same erroneous source. People are so quick to believe this and villianize the dogs for it. 

I would find it very surprising for the shepherds that raised the shepherd dogs that Stephanitz bought and used to start the breed, would have anything particularly close to wolves in their breeding. 

Their dogs are trained to fend off wolves, not befriend and breed to them. Also a dog that is 1/2 wolf might be a lot less apt to herd the sheep rather than kill the sheep. 

Yes it was the wolves herding abilities when hunting wild game that people originally wanted to use for stock. But it took a lot of breeding and work to produce a dog that would herd and not kill. 

Why any shepherd would go back to wolves would be a mystery indeed.


----------



## GranvilleGSD

> Originally Posted By: Cnel90 Also keep in mind that Dogs and Wolves are the exact same species (canis lupis, domesticated dogs are a sub species). By being part "wolf" I mean a recent ancestry with their wild "brothers" (past 200 years).


I think what the OP was getting at was that the GSD has more wolf in the pedigree RECENTLY (being in the past 200 years) than some other breed like a Yorkie or a Shih Tzu. And according to the fine folks at National Geographic, Domestic Dogs (no matter what "breed" they are), are all the same species, and have the capability of producing offspring. For example a lion could not mate with a cheetah, they are different species, but a dog could mate with a wolf.


----------



## GSDElsa

Actually, most of you are wrong. The grey wolf is canis lupus, the coyote is canis latrans, and the domestic dog is canis familiaris. Most of the debate is whether the domestic dog "originated" with the grey wolf or the red wold (canis rufus). 

Dogs and wolfs are absolutely NOT the same species! If domesticated dogs were simply a subspecies of a wolf, their name would be canis lupus XXXXXX. Canis familiaris is COMPLETELY different than a subspecies of canis lupus.

In fact, whoever told you that U of Iowa considers them the same species...absolutely not. Species are soooooooo unbelievably broken down! This is not at all a matter of remote debate. Wolves, coyotes, dingos, dogs...they are all their own species.

http://research.uiowa.edu/animal/?get=genus

This is like saying that the species withing the panthera genus are all the same (tiger, lion, jaguar, and leopard--I believe). Even different FROGS are different species. Chimps are different species than apes. Etc, etc, etc.

I will definitely "argue for months" about this topic. Sorry. No way. No how. They are different species!

Ruby...would you please explain your "muddy science" opinion there? I would really love this one to be explained away....


----------



## GSDElsa

As an aside, I spent an entire college career doing DNA and stable isotope research on one teeeeeeeeeeeennny little fish species who looked ooooh sooo muuuuch like all the other tteeeeennnny little fish species and just happened to be endangered. If that one teeeeeeeeeeeennny little fish species was different from all the other teeeeeeeennnh little fish species....dogs and wolves are no where close to the same....so I do have quite a bit of scientific backing here.


----------



## Ocean

GSDElsa, your college career may have been a few years back. Not an insult, gray hairs give you and me wisdom 

According to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, a government unit, Canis Lupus Familiaris (domestic dog) is a subspecies of the Canis Lupus species.
http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180596

According to wiki: "Subspecies in biological classification, is 1) a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or 2) a taxonomic unit, a taxon in that rank (plural: subspecies). 
The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species. The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation."

Furthermore: "Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different coding sequences of a peptide from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species. It is not possible to understand the concept of a subspecies without first grasping what a species is. In the context of many large living organisms like trees, flowers, birds, fish and humans, a species can be defined as a distinct and recognisable group that satisfies two conditions:
Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different coding sequences of a peptide, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernible. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.
The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and sometimes can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.
Note the key qualifier above: to be regarded as different groups rather than as a single varied group, the difference must be distinct, not simply a matter of continuously varying degree. If, for example, the population in question is a type of frog and the distinction between two groups is that individuals living upstream are generally white, while those found in the lowlands are black, then they are classified as different groups if the frogs in the intermediate area tend to be either black or white, but a single, varied group if the intermediate population becomes gradually darker as one moves downstream.
This is not an arbitrary condition. A gradual change, called a cline, is clear evidence of substantial gene flow between two populations. A sharp boundary between black and white, or a relatively small and stable hybrid zone, on the other hand, shows that the two populations do not interbreed to any great extent and are indeed separate species. Their classification as separate species or as subspecies, however, depends on why they do not interbreed.
If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps black frogs do not find white frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer."

There's a lot of recorded history that Canis l. familiaris and canis lupus lupus will interbreed very easily. In a doomsday scenario where all humans are exterminated, canis l. familiaris may morph into something different through free interbreeding w/ canis l.l.


----------



## Catu

> Originally Posted By: OceanGSDElsa, your college career may have been a few years back. Not an insult, gray hairs give you and me wisdom
> 
> According to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, a government unit, Canis Lupus Familiaris (domestic dog) is a subspecies of the Canis Lupus species.
> http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180596


True!


----------



## GSDElsa

Ocean,

Interesting info, and perhaps I digress and posted too soon without refreshing my information on the subject (indeed, other than the U of I google I was going primarily off memory). However, if nothing else, it is a hotly debated topic open to one's opinion. For instance, we'll go back to my teeeeeeeeeennny fish (and while I would love to point you to the publications on the genetics and food web info that was done on these topics, there is a certain level of anonymity that I would like have on the internet, so you will have to take my word for it...although the publications from this lab include Freshwater Biology, Evolution, Copeia, Molecular Ecology, etc). 

Take teeennnny fish A. Considered a endangered species. This species being on the endangered list severely limited certain individuals from tapping water supplies A was in. So, certain people thought that fish A should really be the same species of fish B, which was not endangered. Indeed, the only difference on the surface was slight color and dorsal fin shape. Take in mind, genetic diversity within fish populations is much smaller than what would be found in say, a human. In fact, genetic diversity if often all over the map because of how short-lived the life is and length of time from breeding to hatching. 

From a purely genetics based viewpoint, fish A and fish B were able to be kept as a separate species. Indeed, there is a lot to suggest that at one time these two fish DID interbreed with one another, and for whatever reason are not currently. Many people felt that because at one time, these two little fishes DID interbreed that they should be considered the same species. Luckily (or unluckily depending on your viewpoint of these fishes), they were kept as separate species. 

Indeed, it goes to question...would the domestic dog be the FIRST choice for a wolf in that doomsday scenario, or would other wolves be first in line to fulfill the need to reproduce? I don't know--perhaps the research has been done. What about the former (or current?) debate about the differences of the grey wolf and the red wolf and if they should be considered one species?

Or take the fact that, although the minority, some scientists in the past have considered the **** neanderthalensis to actually be a subspecies of **** sapiens. Or, take the doomsday scenario again. If few humans were left, would the "****" genus have a last ditch effort to save the remaining species and give a try to mate with the "pan" genus (ie common chimps).


----------



## GSDElsa

Oh, and certainly another point about the subspecies vs. species debate for dogs and wolves is the coyote and dog hybrids. Ahem, as far as I KNOW, coyote and the grey wolf are quite seperate species, yet it has been shown the dog can be breed quite readily with the coyote. In theory, if man was eradicated and dogs left to their own devices...they could always decide to breed more readily witih the coyote than the wolf.


----------



## RubyTuesday

> Quote:As an aside, I spent an entire college career doing DNA and stable isotope research on one teeeeeeeeeeeennny little fish species who looked ooooh sooo muuuuch like all the other tteeeeennnny little fish species and just happened to be endangered. If that one teeeeeeeeeeeennny little fish species was different from all the other teeeeeeeennnh little fish species....dogs and wolves are no where close to the same....so I do have quite a bit of scientific backing here.


IF one went by appearance, one would assume mice are simply small rats. Or that foxes are the same species as wolves, domestic dogs & coyotes. Or that donkeys & horses are the same species. Scientific arguments for classifying wolves & dogs as the same species aren't based on similarities of appearance. I don't see where the situation with the fish you studied has any relevance to the classification of wolves & dogs...Debates will continue as to what exactly defines a species. DNA research has intensified these discussions. Natural matings which produce fertile offspring indicate the mated individuals are the same species.



> Quote:If domesticated dogs were simply a subspecies of a wolf, their name would be canis lupus XXXXXX


The nomenclature is both inaccurate & outdated. The ability to produce fertile offspring is a more compelling argument than human labels & classifications.

The vet college at Ames is actually State U of I, not U of I which has the medical college, but no veterinary college. Sorry for the error! However, Ames is not alone in considering wolves & domestic dogs to be the same species.



> Quote:Ruby...would you please explain your "muddy science" opinion there? I would really love this one to be explained away....


I'm surprised this requires any additional explanation. I posted, _"A truly ugly complication is that some environmentalists feel it will be impossible to legally protect wolves if they're recognized as the same species as dogs & coyotes. One should construct better laws rather than opting for muddy science."_ There have been concerns that if wolves & domestic dogs are recognized as the same species it will be possible to have wolves removed from environmental protection lists. I strongly support protecting wolves, but I'm ardently opposed to scientific classifications being based on political expediency. 

There are those (including myself) that consider coyotes to be the same species as dogs & wolves. Many disagree with this which is why I posted _"*<u>IMO</u>* the coyote is undeniably the same species as well."_ Dogs, coyotes & wolves freely interbreed. What I've read, indicates offspring from coy/dog & coy/wolf breedings are fertile. IF I find that isn't true, I'll revise my <u>opinion</u> as to whether coyotes s/b classified as the same species.

As deer populations have exploded, coyotes in some areas have increased in sized & are found hunting in packs! Adept opportunists, it seems they're evolving to fill an ecological gap left by the loss of wolves. These observations have increased my personal conviction that they're the same species as wolves & domestic dogs. (Note that coyotes are even less successful than wolves as pets. While I believe wolves, dogs & coyotes are the same species I also feel that very, very few people can keep wolves successfully. Even fewer will succeed with coyotes.)

I've long understood that dingoes are feral dogs. I believe most biologists consider them to be the same species as domestic dogs & wolves.


----------



## Catu

> Quote:If domesticated dogs were simply a subspecies of a wolf, their name would be canis lupus XXXXXX


It is already that way. If you want to publish a paper in any science magazine, if you are even doing a pregrade papers, you have to say _Canis lupus familiaris_. The old _Canis familiaris_ is still used and accepted for historical and traditional reasons, but only in circles like this board.


----------



## dOg

Holy Cow, not this again!

Don't get me wrong, I love wolves, even met a few. Definitely a highlight on my life's resume!









But unless I find myself a hermit in the Northwoods far from others,
it won't be a wolf or a hybrid who hears me snore, but his much more managable and yet
already too often maligned distant relative, our beloved breed. 

<span style="color: #3366FF">A sane view of hybrids</span> 

There's enough misconception and silly romanticizing associated with the two quite
distinct animals and enough failed ventures into hybrids where we ought to have
learned more faster from our many mistakes, as a species so
arrogant to believe it has dominion over all others.

Not to say wolves can't teach us SO much about life, 
and life with our breed...they can, and do, but not in our
living rooms or city streets.


----------



## RubyTuesday

dOg, nobody in this thread is advocating wolves or wolf crosses as pets. The question is how much wolf there is in the GSD, or how much influence wolf ancestry had on the development of the breed. I'm no expert on GSD history, but I'd be amazed if wolves were used much at all in developing the breed. Info within this thread bears that out. Even the serious mushers want little to no wolf in their dogs (they lack the necessary work ethic). I can't imagine herders had much use for 'em.

I've met many people that hope to someday acquire a high percentage wolf cross. Ironically, not one of these people has even had a Husky or Malamute! Many of 'em have never had dogs!!! Overwhelmingly they have no idea what a wolf really *is* or even looks like. Cochise, my oversized Sibe was often mistaken for a wolf cross but never by anyone truly knowledgeable about wolves. (Another irony...his previous owner's sister did keep wolves & wolf crosses, but Cochise was NOT related to 'em. In fact his 1st owner didn't agree with keeping wolves & didn't permit his small children around 'em)

Numerous husky owners have told me their dogs were 'high percentage wolf crosses'. I didn't bother arguing, but these dogs had less wolf in 'em than I do. Criminy, they looked considerably less wolfy than Cochise, who didn't really look wolfy to anyone who knows what wolves actually look like. (There are some Huskies & Mals that look very wolfy & some wolves who appear rather doggy. These dogs weren't among those)


----------



## dOg

I know that...but the whole point brought up by OP yet one more time
about how much if any there may be perpetuates the myth, and it's hard enough to get folks from being fearful.

Did ya ever wonder why so many folks name their dog Bear versus Wolf?
Could it be so many youngsters were/are tucked into bed with the Big Bad Wolf, 
3 Little Pigs and Peter & the Wolf and a teddy Bear to help relieve the fear just created? 

How many threads pop up bemoaning that fear when it translates to fear of our pets and all the dumb stuff that causes? 

So ya, discussing how much wolf is in our pet's ancestors doesn't do
much for us....but what the heck, it's Halloween, maybe we're all part Werewolf.


----------



## RubyTuesday

btw, that's a killer link you provided. Thanks. 'Though I've been on their website several times I haven't seen that before.


----------



## TxRider

Interesting thread.

I was reading up on recent studies on dogs, dog behavior and wolves.

One study was a DNA study to try to determine the origin of modern dogs, I believe they sampled hundreds of dogs of many breeds and determined that all dogs save a few wild species came from likely a few gray wolves from Asia.

And as for wolf content they determined a few notable breeds, elk hound, GSD being two, had higher wolf DNA in their makeup, or shared more DNA markers, than any other modern breed, even northern breeds like Malamutes or Huskies that are more ancient and separated from wolves longer ago, or the Akita separated from wolves for 10,000 years or so.

Their determination was that wolf was likely crossed back into the dog lines in the German shepherd, or to create the German shepherd far more recently in history than all but a couple of other breeds.

Kind of backs up the theory of wolf being in the founding stock lines.

Interesting stuff, and I would wager in a couple of decades they will have dug even deeper and have a lot more conclusions.


----------



## darylehret

Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon provides this diagram in one of his 35 volumes composing the _Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière_ (1749–1788)










Keep in mind, this was written over a century before Stephanitz, in fact, approximately 100 years prior to Darwin's _Origin of Species._ Buffon appearantly himself, had attempted to experiment with wolf crosses, but with no success.

Natural History ~ The Wolf

Natural History ~ The Dog

There were also devoted chapters to Fox, and Hyena, though Jackals barely received attention in his works. What little was mentioned can be found under "The Dog". _Interesting to me was,_ there was no mention whatsoever of what we know today as "coyote", although he covered many other unusual species of the _New World._


----------



## Wolfheart

> Originally Posted By: SambaActually they aren't as close as species. I think they are the same genus, Canis.


The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of DNA sequence. The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. 
Not only their behaviour changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.

Because the family dog descended from the wolf, and are the same species, there is no definitive test to detect wolf content in dogs. 
Scientists are encountering difficulties when trying to differentiate between wolves and dogs. 

They are so closely related that the Smithsonian Institution reclassified dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) as a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus) in 1993.

(Taken from my notes from my Canine Genetics unit.)

Also, if a dog and a wolf breed, the pups will not all be 50% wolf and 50% dog. That is not how DNA distribution works. They could be any possible ratio of dog and wolf in between.


----------



## pupresq

> Quote:Also, if a dog and a wolf breed, the pups will not all be 50% wolf and 50% dog. That is not how DNA distribution works.


I'm not sure what you mean here. They will have 50% of their genes from each parent, so in that sense they will be 50% wolf and 50% dog. That _is_ how DNA distribution works. Now, how those genes are expressed may vary. As a person who just gave birth a child that looks exactly like her husband and nothing like her, I can vouch for that part!









One of the things I find most interesting is the way that domestication can alter allelic frequencies within a population to the point that the new animals are radically different from their ancestors. At what point do they become a different species? It's an interesting question.


----------



## Wolfheart

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Also, if a dog and a wolf breed, the pups will not all be 50% wolf and 50% dog. That is not how DNA distribution works.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. They will have 50% of their genes from each parent, so in that sense they will be 50% wolf and 50% dog. That _is_ how DNA distribution works. Now, how those genes are expressed may vary. As a person who just gave birth a child that looks exactly like her husband and nothing like her, I can vouch for that part!
Click to expand...

A lot of people think if they breed a wolf and a dog they will get half wolf and half dog, when in fact the amount of wolf in a wolf-dog can vary greatly. One puppy can be more dog-like and the other can be more wolf-like. The pups of a wolf and a dog can be all dog-like or all wolf-like, or anything in between.


----------



## Ribbons1220

pupresq said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. They will have 50% of their genes from each parent, so in that sense they will be 50% wolf and 50% dog. That _is_ how DNA distribution works. Now, how those genes are expressed may vary. As a person who just gave birth a child that looks exactly like her husband and nothing like her, I can vouch for that part!


Yes while offspring get 50% of their DNA from each parent they only get about 50% of that parents DNA and since each time a reproductive cell is producrd the genes are shuffled to produce a variant of the potential offspring the odds that any of the puppies will be wolf like are all completely different. The 50% of the genes have to include at least a bit of that .2% of genes that separate the domesticated dog from the wolf. If they don't get any of the genes that differentiate them then they'll be very dog like dogs. Additionally yes the gene expression afterwards will have determining effects as well.


----------



## Anubis_Star

The russian farm fox experiment proved that simple selective breeding produced a DOMESTICATED fox (not tame but truly domestic) in 14 generations. This caused physical changes - spotting, color change, curled tails, folded ears - and behavioral changes - the foxes barking being the biggest one. 

Essentially the creation of a sub-species much like a dog is to a wolf. And all that in only 14 generations. Roughly 30-40 years of selective breeding. 

A sub-species is NOT the exact same species. There are genetic differences.

Point is I don't think it matters how much wolf Hektor or any other founding stock had in them. Enough selective breeding has been performed to wipe out any "wild" wolf genetic and create a 100% domesticated animal. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anubis_Star

Production of offspring from different species HAS occured. Most noted with some dolphin hybrids.

As far as when a species becomes a separate species, that is a good question - there are now considered at least 10 "types" of killer whales amongst scientists, although there are only 4 largely accepted variations (types a, b, c, and d). It has been found that some of these groups have not mixed genetically in over 400,000 years. Yet are still very similar and as of now considered the same species

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Carlo

GSDElsa said:


> The math is TOTALLY off. If the male was 1/4 wolf to begin with (if true), and bred to "every decent bitch" that did not have 1/4 wolf in them, then right off the bat you have 12.5%. Say you take on of the boys from that litter and breed to another "decent bitch", then you have 6.25%. And with each breeding you get a little bit more dilute. You get the point. I'd get a decent, reputable book on the GSD and not some website. What they are writing doesn't make ANY sense. To even go from 12.5% (if true) to suddenly up to 25%-33%?!


Problem is: which trait is brought forward?


----------



## selzer

Carlo said:


> Problem is: which trait is brought forward?


Ok the breed started in 1898 over 120 years ago. So, if we suppose that each breeding pair, bred the next breeding dog at 4 years of age, that would be 30 generations of GSDs. IF you believe the original dogs were out of wolves which makes zero sense at all. 

Capt. Max bought the first dog, SZ1 from a shepherd. No shepherd wants recent wolf ancestry in their herding dogs. And. the founder of the breed did not want to add wolf into his breed, it would add shyness for humans and more of a game-killing streak toward animals. And the founder wanted a breed who would an all around guard for the animals on the farm, a sheep herding dog, and a dog that was safe with children. Later he included military and police work fearing that a herding dog alone would not survive the changes in how society was changing, so he introduced his dogs for military and police work. 

Dogs were domesticated from wolves thousands of years ago, and the ability to herd game while killing and eating them was probably noted, but for thousands of generations of dogs, the wolf traits were bred out and traits that made living with and being trained by humans were bred for. 

In the 30 give or take generations from Horand, why are we even worried about it. Each of the notable dogs since then had good bios and we know what a lot of these dogs produced. I like the German way of choosing their top dogs, particularly the progeny groups. It is just interesting. They want dogs that reproduce themselves in character and structure. I once proudly told a German breeder that my dog went back to Fanto. She immediately told me what she did not like about Fanto. And seeing another sieger in his pedigree she told me that he never produced very well. I learned a lot from that lady. The point is that wolf is way back a thousand years, and so many dog generations that it doesn't matter anymore. Furthermore they were, through the years, always selected for traits that were not typical for wolves. What is more concerning is the people who think owning a wolf hybrid is kool and deliberately breed GSDs to wolves and introduce the shyness and prey drive in there. Invariably some of these dogs or their ancestors are given papers by unethical breeders and that can mean that the dogs we have may have some recent wolf in them. My guess is that temperament issues, particularly fearful/shyness may be a part of that. Who knows? I think it would be less likely in the German show or working lines because they have tighter controls on breeding there.


----------



## Orphan Heidi

Rescue dog Heidi, of unknown parentage, when DNA tested by Embark was deemed 100% GSD but has a "wolfiness" score of 
0.6%.
Here's what wolfiness means according to Embark:





Embark with us!


Embark dog DNA test - Identify breed, ancestry, health and wellness.




my.embarkvet.com


----------



## Sunsilver

BTW, this thread hasn't been posted to since 2013, and it was started in 2009!


----------

