Coming soon to the PBS² (Polemics Bashing Shoddy Science) channel, the second season of October 2011’s smash hit As the Toller Burns.
Last season on the mostly unscripted reality show staring PhDs documenting the genetic health of inbred dogs using Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers as the exemplar breed we met the two opposing camps: Team Apologist lead by Claire Wade and Team Reason lead by Katariina Mäki.
This Toller probably isn’t the product of a father x daughter mating, but the gene pool is so small, it has the same level of inbreeding.
In the first episode, For Whom the Dog Tolls, we learned that Tollers are one of the most inbred of dog breeds but that two recent published papers on them come to diametrically opposed conclusions regarding that fact.
Katariina Mäki looked at 13 generations of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers from all over the globe, over 28,000 dogs going back to the documented founding of the breed, and found fewer than 10 effective founders and an average inbreeding coefficient of over 25%.
Claire Wade looked at 4 generations of Tollers just in Australia, totaling fewer than 600 dogs, artificially created “founders” by truncating pedigrees of all imported dogs (hint: all Tollers in Australia are from imported stock), and declared 84 founders with 26 founder equivalents. Her COI calculation was less than 3%.
A pedigree chart of Claire Wade’s Toller “Burn” showing pedigree collapse
In the second episode, Pedigree Collapse, we learned why Claire Wade only wanted to look at 4 generations of Tollers instead of all available data. Her own Toller, named Burn, looks like a decently outbred dog if you’re only looking at the first three or four generations, but a complete analysis of his pedigree shows swift and profound pedigree collapse. There aren’t many forks in his family tree.
Claire Wade’s NSDTR “Burn” has a COI of nearly 30%. If you’re a fool (or trying to fool someone else) you might pretend it’s lower than that by looking at only a few generations.
In the third episode, COI: How Many Generations are Enough?, we learned how Claire Wade’s data was manipulated to show an inbreeding situation very different from the one documented by Mäki (whose numerical calculations are supported by empirical genetic testing). In brief, she only looked at the tip of the inbreeding iceberg and declared that it wasn’t very big while ignoring the rather substantial inbreeding indicated by looking at the rest of the data.
Biologist Claire Wade and her Toller “Burn” during an NSDTRC-USA Field Test.
In the stirring season finale, Academic Fraud in Toller Research, we laid out the case for the retraction of Wade’s 2011 paper by enumerating many of its serious flaws in logic and method. Suspiciously truncated data, spurious application of genetic principles, undisclosed conflicts of interest, deceptive language, counterproductive methodology, and suspect comparisons to other species were serious and repeated flaws which strongly suggest Academic Fraud and the intent to deceive.
Shoddy science makes this Toller puppy sad.
This season on As the Toller Burns, we’ll meet two Professors from the University of Cambridge, Sir Patrick Bateson and David Sargan who join Team Reason, cast further doubt on to Team Apologist’s “research” and extract key concessions from Claire Wade and Frank Nicholas.
Stay tuned to your vocal PBS² station.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Anton
Christopher
Lawrence Dillard
Lech
Stephanie
Essere
*is hooked*
Anna recently posted..RokGallery Template Integration
Nice post! Something to really think about, dont trust apologists.
From the first link, Analysis of the canine genome and canine health: A commentary:
“If homozygous regions are shared by all individuals of a breed, then clearly back selection against an undesired characteristic, or even against an adventitiously fixed gene will only be possible through outcrossing.”
One would think that this would be obvious to breeders, and variation would have been preserved. Guess not.
“We have examined the evidence about genetic diversity in dog breeds and its relationship to disease because breeders could be tempted into complacency by suggestions that inbreeding is slight or does not matter concerning their own current practices, and denial about the health problems in the dogs they breed.”
See this ALL THE FREAKING TIME. No clue what the cure for that is.
“Any thoughtful breeder of dogs should worry about the potentially ad- verse effects of inbreeding, but breeders are typically faced with a dilemma. They are aware of the effect of closed breeding in exclud- ing or even purging undesirable alleles, and in fixing desirable qualities, so that in considering matings of closely related animals, this desire for ‘purity’ often wins over any fears about inbreeding too much. The conflict between preserving desirable characteris- tics and avoiding the potentially unfavourable outcomes that may accompany inbreeding is real.”
This is not a dilemma if the dogs are considered first and foremost as DOGS, living beings.
Jess recently posted..2012 in Review
Wow, what a hugely deceptive research study! Thanks for highlighting this issue.
I am curious to what the standard COI is, or what it is for most breeds, or how many generations back is the ‘given’ for determining the COI? If you’ve written posts on this before, I’d love you to link them.
Tegan recently posted..DO SOMETHING! Make a submission!
The post titled COI: How Many Generations that is linked above is a good place to start.
Do you mean the average COI? This varies by breed. Both of ‘my’ breeds, Afghans and Salukis, have an average COI of about 20%, and that is over 20 or so complete generations. Average COI is useful in the sense that by working to lower it (by making sure their own breedings do not increase on the COI of the parents), breeders can slow the rate of gene loss.
Christopher’s article COI: How Many Generations (think I commented on that one 🙂 ) is really good, and generally I calculate until the number stops jumping. What is considered ‘ancient’ inbreeding that should be disregarded in dogs is debatable.
Jess recently posted..2012 in Review
When to cut off a “COI” generation study is always interesting. Is the cut off at the establishment of a studbook? Or 40 generations? Or at the point of domestication of the breed/species in question? Each will give different answers. Mere COI doesn’t address the issue of “enough time for genetic drift, mutations and selection” wherein a small pool of originating animals can establish a sound genetic population. The first “tiger” and several generations after was probably high COI. The difference is that in domestic animals, we can TRACK that and document it. The assumption is that human selection is ipso facto “worse” than natural. It is certainly different — humans select for what they want rather than what might best survive in nature, but that is “what we want”. In the case of the NSDTR, the coi is important for several reasons. 1. do all or a significant number of the dogs have or carry for genetic problems that we now consider detrimental (apparently so). 2. are there sufficent NUMBERS of dogs within the group to provide a means to eliminate the first issue without creating more problems (unknown, but probably not). 3. are the breeders willing to bring in new blood from outside the existing gene pool to resolve the problems (in some countries, apparently yes) and finally, 4. is there going to be any point to crossing? (ie, is the NSDTR going to be a unique breed at the end of this or simply some group of dogs with an NSDTR label) — unknown. Selection for health is admirable, but if that is ALL one is doing, then why not just add a 1000 or so dogs that more or less physically LOOK like a Toller and call them that? If there isn’t any intent to preserve what the dogs ARE as working or temperament or any other characteristics other than LOOKS, to me there’s little point in preserving them at all. Plenty of red & white “brittany size’ dogs can be found among the various bird dog crosses already. Why bother with labeling a batch of them as NSDTR if marketing is the only point?
Drift and selection don’t give you more genetic information, it can only increase the frequency of the new genes. I doubt novel mutations can compensate for the gene loss in a closed registry system.
Species don’t spontaneously appears. The parents of the “first tiger” are also “tigers” and there will be many other “tigers” producing “first tigers” offsprings.
If selecting for what we want creates unhealthy animals, then what we want is inherently worse, from the perspective of the animals.
4. Yes, you lose breed type by outcrossing. But that is only for the first generation. Cross back to the same breed and you get back closer to the original type.
You mean that drift and selection only increase or decrease the frequency of existing genes.
Mutations that are heritable, and are benign are not going to create the same kind of diversity that an outcross will.
What we are talking about here is heterosis. In any other domestic animal, the point would be moot; it is understood that continued breeding within a closed system results in increased homozygosity and to return to a heterozygous state and regain heterosis you must outcross, either to other lines or to other breeds.
The way dogs are bred now, it is almost impossible to maintain other lines, one cannot breed enough litters or keep enough dogs to maintain those kinds of numbers. Crossing to another breed is the way to go.
The fact that people who pride themselves on their ‘breeding knowledge’ do not know these things and quite simply refuse to understand them or accept them, is damning. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
Jess recently posted..2012 in Review
And, shame on me, I don’t much care about the minutiae of “breed type”. Does it have the general phenotype necessary do the job? Does it have the temperament, drives, etc.? Is it sound & healthy? Does it have flaws that will hinder its ability to do its job? Cool. Don’t care if the earset is a little off or the eyes are the “wrong” color.
Anna recently posted..RokGallery Template Integration
Not all dogs exist to do a job. In fact, most don’t–or rather, their “job” is to be companions, possibly sport dogs (which is, let’s face it, a COMPLETELY unnecessary function). And some people enjoy a general look which they find in certain breeds. AS LONG AS health is not compromised, why should we be dismissive of that?
Personally, I don’t care for dogs with pendulous ears and flews, or any wrinkling on the face. I would have said not too long ago that I didn’t like short-coated dogs either, but then I ended up with an Italian Greyhound and have succumbed to their many, many charms. They never really had any function other than to be a bedwarmer (though they ROCK at that job–put the heat at 57 on a winter night and you’ll still sweat with an IG under the covers) and they are actually pretty healthy, despite what you might hear from certain bloggers about them being “freaks on a leash.” (no, leg breaks actually aren’t that common. They are rather long-lived and healthy–teeth problems are much more of an issue).
The point of this is that people DO like a certain phenotype, which doesn’t necessarily correspond to any WORKING type. Outcrossing that preserves that phenotype should be done, and why not? Breed apologists should get their heads out of their asses in this regard. But don’t cite “does it work” as part of this, because most dogs do not, and do not need, to perform their “original” function (fairytale though that might be).
dodobird wrote: I doubt novel mutations can compensate for the gene loss in a closed registry system
=but essentially, that is what a species is- more or less a closed gene pool. Yes, we have evidence of human/neanderthal/devonian interbreeding, but not human/chimp. horses don’t interbreed with Zebra. The entire theory of evolution is predecated on the occurance of novel genes. In domestic animals, we have seen such genes occur (Booroola & CVM sheep for example). In dogs, the odds are that the mutation rate does NOT offset the COI if one considers most breeds. Does it do so in wolves (fairly small populations in comparison to say, German Shepherds)? It doesn’t appear to do so in cheetahs (either African or Asiatic) -yet one sees as much resistance to combining the two cheetahs as one does to “pure” studbooks in dogs. My question is if the NSDTR is as open as some livestock registries (where “grading up” is frequent), could they resolve their issues? How large a gene pool would they need? How many “outside” crossings would be needed? Could one preserve the essential unique characters of the NSDTR if one did this? If not, what’s the point? Yes the NSDTR has health issues (so do we, based on how evolution designed our upright stance). With FCI rules one can do the necessary crossings. Is it necessary to have the approval also in Australia? Is it worth it to try?
Species are a closed gene pool. And yet almost every species on the planet has more genetic diversity than individual dog breeds.
Dog breeds are not a species. All dog breeds are interfertile. Heck, you can still breed dogs to other canids. So why should dogs suffer like the most endangered species, which are basically dead animals walking?
Chris it seems that pure dog breeders can not jump out of the box to compare Endangered species knowlege to thier own breeding practices.
Most natural populations will have much larger population size and effective population size than most dog breeds. To say that because species breed within their own species, it is therefore just like breeding within a closed registry system is just dumb.
“The first “tiger” and several generations after was probably high COI.”
Dear god. This statement is EXACTLY why dog people simply cannot fathom that closed registries are shit. They are shit biologically, they are shit historically and culturally.
THERE WAS NO FIRST TIGER. In nature, there is no ‘first’ anything. Natural animals evolve from other natural animals through natural selection. DOG BREEDS DID NOT EVOLVE THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION.
The only examples we have in nature that are even close to modern ‘purebreds’ are isolated populations with a small number of founders, and even that CANNOT BE COMPARED TO DOGS because such animals, like the San Nicholas Island foxes, are subject to *natural and balancing selection.* Such populations often go extinct and that is the reason why those foxes and other such populations are of such scientific interest.
‘Unique breed’ is BULLSHIT. Tollers are dogs. Salukis are dogs. Greyhounds are DOGS. THEY ARE ALL DOGS. Canis lupus familiaris. If they have been developed by selective breeding they can be maintained by selective breeding, which includes CROSS-BREEDING. This is not rocket science.
Until the dog fancy pulls it’s fucking head out of it’s fucking ass and realizes that the VERY CONCEPT OF PUREBRED THAT THEY PUT SOOOOOO MUCH EFFORT INTO MASTURBATING OVER IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY BULLSHIT, and not only is it biologically bullshit, it’s cultural and historic bullshit as well. THE VERY CONCEPT OF DOG BREEDS AS CLOSED POPULATIONS IS ONLY ABOUT A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OLD.
How old is the dog? How old are the distinctive representations of different types of dogs? How old are the written accounts of different types of dogs? You want to balance that history of THOUSANDS OF FUCKING YEARS against the Victorian Toilet Science of the Purebred, which had *nothing to do with dogs at all* but with human tribalism, eugenics, and class bigotry? Oh, and don’t forget greed and ego. There is a reason that almost all of the people involved in the early development of ‘breeds’ were wealthy.
Bah. The dog fancy doesn’t deserve to lick a dog’s ass, if they are going to be so fucking stupid.
Jess recently posted..2012 in Review
Jess, I love you.
I do. If I were not straight, and you were not married, I would propose.
It’s so hard when you’re a dog lover, that loves dogs for what they are, and to have to deal with dog lovers who love dogs for what they perceive them to be.
an example, in another breed, of a reasonable approach to solving COI & health issues while maintaining “breed characteristics” Something the NSDTR and many other breeds ought to consider.
http://www.rauhaarige-kromfohrlaender.de/english/why-the-crossbreeding-project/
As I recall, the Chinnok has something similar in place, though with the AKCs frighteningly phobic reaction to cross breeding, I don’t know if the Chinoook breeders that are now showing in the AKC Miscellaneous class will be able take part in the the Chinook cross breed program, though it looks like they will NOT, as from a cursory investigation it seems the AKC parent club is the Chinnok Club of America and the UKC parent club is the Chinook Owners Association.
Two different clubs, and only ONE of them mention the Cross breeding program.
http://www.chinookclubofamerica.org/health.htm
http://chinook.org/xbreeding.html
Jess wrote: THERE WAS NO FIRST TIGER. In nature, there is no ‘first’ anything. Natural animals evolve from other natural animals through natural selection. DOG BREEDS DID NOT EVOLVE THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION.
=so? are you asserting that there was never anything that distinguished “tiger” from “lion”? Sure there was a “first” (as much as there was ever a “first” NSDTR, registered or not). Just as there was a first “dinosaur” (Dinosauria = all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and Neornithes (modern birds). Just as the NSDTR didn’t occur by spontaneous generation, neither did any other animal. You are presuming that Human selection is somehow fundamentally different from “natural” selection. I differ – selection is selection. Over time, a given criterion (be it the one imposed by nature or that of man), those animals which meet the criterion are the ones most likely to have offspring and pass on their genes. Darwin himself used human selection of breeds to understand & illustrate the way Nature does it. The difference is that with humans, the selection is usually FAR more rapid, far more intense and compacted in time. Selection for “life in the wild” is usually NOT part of it. Selection for OTHER characteristics (such as fine quality wool) is. But the principal remains unchanged. I never said dog breeds evolved thru “natural selection”. I specifically said they evolved via human selection. Yet they WERE selected and those that humans chose as “most desired” (“fittest” in Darwinian terms) were the ones that survived and passed on whatever genes they had. Humans haven’t caused mutations, but they certainly have taken advantage of them in their breeding programs.
*natural and balancing selection.* == The selection criterion in nature differs from that used by humans. So? It’s still a selection criterion. We are now at the point where it no longer suffices for a breed to be cosmetically pleasing (at least to those breeding it) but where HEALTH is being urged as a factor (and I agree that it should be). But health isn’t the only criterion if one wishes to retain anything else that humans have decided is desirable (be it wool, speed in a sighthound, the “tolling” characteristics of a NSDTR, etc).
The dog is apparently 40,000 or so years old – at least the point where a clearly DISTINGUISHED from the WOLF animal is known – which probably means that selection is older than that. I agree that the intensified system employed starting with the Victorian period has caused fragmentation of landraces into “breeds” and further reduced breed gene pools to a point where there are clear biological issues involved. But that has nothing to do with the fact that it was due to selection in the first place and that if one desires to keep a NSDTR, laissez-faire breeding isn’t what one does – so knowing WHAT one needs to correct, How best to approach correcting it and what a functioning, healthy gene pool should be for the NSDTR are all issues that actually ARE, scientifically, important. If you think that’s crap, that’s your privilege, but it isn’t born out scientifically.
If we go back to “landraces” selection is still in play. What breeders have to decide is what it is they want and the best way to approach achieving it. I think the FCI option allows for a good tool, if it is wisely used.
WUT?
You understand that evolution is about incremental changes over time right? And one generation is only slightly different than the next? If you follow each generation of tiger all the way back to 3.2 million years ago, when they , there is no single place you can draw a line and say that those to the right are all tigers and those to the left are not. Try looking up “ring species” and maybe “species problem”.
and does the same not apply to NSDTR? At what point did the NSDTR genetically differ from all other dogs such that one can (as is done with breeds) genetically identify them? (rather the same way one identifies the Siberian from the Indian tigers). As for ring species, yes, I’m aware of them.
Now if you are asserting that ALL dogs are genetically identical, i disagree. If humans vanished off the planet and some alien came by to look at the life on this planet, they would probably in fact classify DOGS as a “ring” species/ sub species. the Chi can’t interbreed with a Dane, but one can indeed “connect the dots”. The dane is closely related to other mastiff types — and LESS related to Pomeranians. HUMAN selection has replaced that of “nature”. If you don’t get that, then please re-read Darwin and note some of the early pigeon studies (pigeons being domesticated far later than dogs) which were used to illustrate selection in nature specifically because the changes could be tracked in time whereas the changes in Nature were less rapid. No one is disputing that “all” dogs are the same species. (so, for that matter are all tigers). However, breeds (or landraces) DO have unique characteristics that might be worth preserving. Consequently, while I support (Did you actually READ what I said?) bringing in outside (ie dogs not in the studbook), to reduce the COI and to resolve some of the health issues, I do NOT support doing it haphazardly. Have you READ the new FCI rules regarding interbreeding? Resolving genetic and inbreeding issues in dogs is NOT a matter of “either do this or the exact opposite and nothing in between”. I note that Christopher, despite his many posts regarding BCs did NOT breed his recent litter by going to, for example, a Dingo for one of the parents. He apparently desires the dogs he bred to have characteristics of the BC. Now he could have gone to Beardies, English shepherds, Aussies, Welsh Sheepdogs or even a kelpie and pretty much accomplished that while significantly changing the COI, but using a Dingo would have made preserving the general characteristics much harder. That’s why, in the Dalmation LUA project they used a breed that was SIMILAR. Or maybe you didn’t understand why they did that? Jess likes to tout how she uses COO dogs — fine. But if she were REALLY into “all dogs are the same and it doesn’t matter”, she would be crossing with Dingos or even a wolf to get that “least recently related” dog. That she doesn’t is because despite her slams regarding breeders, she wishes to preserve SIGHTHOUND characteristics. In fact, she doesn’t use greyhounds, Irish wolfhounds or S. Deerhounds, whippets or even Rhodesian Ridgebacks because she believes that the available dogs that she DOES use are sufficently healthy while bringing in the reduced COI. Why the heck can’t you folk acknowledge that others might have the same idea rather than slamming anyone who suggests that crossing should be done with some view to maintaining breed (or landrace, you did notice I used that term?) characteristics?
You understand that evolution is about incremental changes over time right? And one generation is only slightly different than the next? If you follow each generation of tiger all the way back to 3.2 million years ago, when they split with snow leopards, there is no single place you can draw a line and say that those to the right are all tigers and those to the left are not. Try looking up “ring species” and maybe “species problem”.
All dog breeds are is the suppression of undesirable phenotypes for the purpose of fulfilling human needs.
Speciation is something different. It undirected, unplanned struggle to survive by balancing energy conservation to energy spent. Every species has a drive to reproduce, no matter the cost. There is no precognitive future. There is no first or last since tiny mutations build up over time in spans of thousands or millions of years.
To compare dog breeds to species is truly a moronic comparison. At best, you can only say that dogs are wolves whose reproductive strategy is to live alongside human. The only thing which work in dogs’ favour is to propagate by appealing to human nature.
Dave recently posted..The Christmas Ham
so I guess this is “moronic” http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c6
The guy they are talking about here was “moronic” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14
From which I quote: “Selection of traits
In this struggle for existence, survival and reproduction do not come down to pure chance. Darwin and Wallace both realized that if an animal has some trait that helps it to withstand the elements or to breed more successfully, it may leave more offspring behind than others. On average, the trait will become more common in the following generation, and the generation after that.
As Darwin wrestled with natural selection he spent a great deal of time with pigeon breeders, learning their methods. He found their work to be an analogy for evolution. A pigeon breeder selected individual birds to reproduce in order to produce a neck ruffle. Similarly, nature unconsciously “selects” individuals better suited to surviving their local conditions. Given enough time, Darwin and Wallace argued, natural selection might produce new types of body parts, from wings to eyes.” Now kindly explain to me the difference between HUMAN selection of various pigeon breeds and HUMAN selection of various dog breeds as to how the one is a valid example of change over time (based on, guess what, SELECTION) and the other is, as you say, “moronic”. yes, “natural” selection isn’t “directed” — in that what survives isn’t based on some outside entity predetermining what should/shouldn’t go forward. However, selection IS selection.
apparently you think THESE folk are “moronic” because they discuss human made species: http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed
Only YOUR definition applies, apparently.
A breed is equivalent to a subspecies. It is created (by people) based on SELECTION. I quite agree that the selection in question is usually directed whereas in nature it is more or less based on environmental constraints which may not be consistent from one generation to the next and which are not applied by any outside intelligence. So what? The issue, which you apparently ignore, is “WHAT is a NSDTR?” is it just some red & white dog that is more or less 17–21 inches at the withers? Does it even matter about the size? Is any red & white dog a NSDTR? if the answer is no, then the question remains of what distinguishes the NSDTR from other breeds of dog or for that matter, Indian wolves. Are any of those differences worth preserving? if not, why bother to “save” or breed teh NSDTR? just let them die out and pick randomly 5,000 more or less red & white 45 pound dogs and call them the new NSDTR. You can use whippets, dingos, Brittany, Shelties, whatever. Don’t bother selecting them for anything except health. Voila! you have solved the NSDTR health issue. On the other hand if the above scenario strikes one as idiotic, then one has to decide WHAT characteristics one wants the “improved” NSDTR to have. Improved health, one would think. It isn’t COI becasue no one has yet stated what a reasonably COI ought to be in a breed. (I’ve brought this up before. There doesn’t seem to be any consensus). it just isn’t “what is there now.” So if every NSDTR bred their dog to something unrelated (say, Dingos or malamutes), would that suffice? Apparently not for some. So what would suffice? Stud books make an extreme constriction on a gene pool and I agree that the current policy in many dog registries is unrealistic. But neither is “just breed whatever to whatever and call it what you want” realistic. So again, WHAT are the criteria to be used regarding COI, what constitutes “reasonable” health, what constitutes a “realistic” stable gene pool and criteria for maintaining that? If you don’t have answers to these, or are unwilling to discuss them, then frankly, all you are doing is asserting YOUR position is better than THEIR position simply because you say so. If, on the other hand, one proposes that in any given breed, the dogs ought to have a COI of no more than 0.25 — based on the seeing eye dog program (see http://www.animal-science.org/content/82/10/2906.full). One proposes that no more than 5% of the breeding population will have any serious genetic disorder such as epilepsy, blindness, HD, etc (arbitrary % on my part). One stipulates that the dogs should “toll” and be able to retrieve. One stipulates that the dogs should be no more than 70 pounds and ideally red & white. THEN one can look at an “open registry” or a FCI type crossbreeding of related or similar dogs with a view of establising a breed that is reasonably sound physically, reasonably robust as to inbreeding, reasonably functional and unique as to “breed” (or landrace or whatever you want to call it). If you HAVE ZERO standards other than “don’t have a high COI”, then there is, IMO, no point. Just let the NSDTR become extinct.
Bravo. You didn’t even read what you linked to. And your best case is some synthetic organism created in a lab to fulfill a biological definition of a species. Pigeon-breeding and dog-breeding in Darwin’s and Wallace’s works is more comparative to Newton’s apple– nothing more. No, I am merely speaking of speciation as defined in textbooks.
And dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are already considered as a subspecies of wolves. Even then, the idea of a subspecies is controversial as there are many biologists who wish to abolish the concept.
So, how does the above deny Jess’s post or mine explaining why the tiger example is a bad example?
Subspecies
subspecies
A group somewhat less distinct than species usually are, but based on characters more important than those which characterise ordinary varieties; often, a geographical variety or race. (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species.The most precise classification of organism. Our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens is a prime example of a subspecies, which over time had diversified from Homo sapiens and respective common ancestors.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Breed
Breed
1. A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance. Twice fifteen thousand hearts of England’s breed. (Shak) Greyhounds of the best breed. (Carpenter)
2. Class; sort; kind; of men, things, or qualities. Are these the breed of wits so wondered at? (Shak) This courtesy is not of the right breed. (Shak)
3. A number produced at once; a brood.
breed is usually applied to domestic animals; species or variety to wild animals and to plants; and race to men
or here: (see final sentence)
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-breed-and-vs-species/
What is the difference between Breed and Species?
• Breeds are usually selectively bred animal or plant groups, whereas species are naturally selected groups of organisms.
• Crossbreeding of different breeds can produce fertile progenies, but offspring having maternal and paternal genes of different species are sterile.
• There are many different breeds of mainly domestic animals, and the number of those breeds is countable and known. However, the number of species in the world is unknown and unimaginably large.
• Individual variations inside a particular breed are lesser compared to the diversity inside one particular species.
• Species could be subdivided into subspecies or breeds but not breeds.
Read more: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-breed-and-vs-species/#ixzz2IeS2u0kH
I submit that the analogy holds. You are still avoiding the questions. Breed is the term used for human selection. Subspecies applies in nature. They are still both selection and comparison can apply quite easily. you have yet to answer what it is that you want the NSDTR folk to do. Reduce COI to WHAT? improve health to WHAT? maintain the NSDTR as some unique landrace (or breed) (which characteristics?) or not?
All you’ve done is argue that you don’t care for my analogy by aserting (note no references on your part) that you don’t like it.
So again, you assert the NSDTR folk are liars and deluded and should be doing something different regarding their breeding program, but other than “the coi is too high” you don’t say what would be acceptable. On the other hand, as I noted, the author of this blog opted to breed within BC gene pool — obviously believing that he could in fact select sufficently healthy, sound and (whatever level was acceptable to him) low enough COI — but not chosing the LOWEST POSSIBLE COI by chosing to breed outside the breed altogether. What’s to say that both are wrong? What’s to say who is right? You have no stipulated standards you are applying to everyone and it makes this article and your posts pretty much meaningless. Instead, one could have a MEANINGFUL debate regarding what the NSDTR (and other dog breeders) should use as a standard for good breeding practices.
Unfortunate.
I don’t recall Christopher saying that the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever should outcross to Border Collies. Historical evidences and scientific evidences show they are more closely related to the farm shepherd breeds or landrace than they are to British retrievers or British herding dogs. Based on these evidences, Christopher endorsed Alexander Dauber. You see, actually has evidences backing his stance.
In fact, the recommendations put forward by kennel clubs’ breeding committees, scientists, law-makers, writers of dog-literature, bloggers and “fringe breeders” are borrowed from agricultural practice. Yet the breeders choose to hold onto Victorian ideas.
You, on the other hand, continue to endorse the mythologies of dog-breeders– including pulling some nonsense about tigers having high COI over thousands of years of evolution when most dog breeds only came into registry within the last 150 years.
In fact, the only landraces of dogs you could draw an analogy with wild species are the aboriginal populations which exist outside of animal control laws, registries and modern medicine ie. East Siberia, Sub-Sahara Africa et cetera. There are very few places in the world which exist outside of registry or modern medicine.
If you want a meaningful discussion on the topic, don’t derail it with topics which are not relevant to the debate.
Dave recently posted..The Christmas Ham
Might I also point out that the definition of species is currently fluid and hotly debated, and from my perspective the concept of “subspecies” is nigh on useless.Generally the categorization of a population as a “subspecies” is quite harmful in conservation efforts because people artificially reduce diversity in trying to keep the subspecies “pure” (think of the case of the Florida Panther) just as they do with dog breeds.
Just because you think categorically doesn’t mean the world works that way.
Once again Peggy puts forth a nonsensical bullshit argument based on ‘laissez-faire’ breeding. This is a straw man. No one who advocates open registries says ‘breed anything and call it anything you want.’ NO ONE.
There are protocols in place in many species, now including dogs via the UK KC ‘b’ registry (which requires five generations, IIRC, before giving full registration to the eventual progeny, *hardly laissez-faire, see also the protocols for desert bred Salukis or Azawakh, or in fact, any breed with a COO population, or the Chinook outcross project, etc.) None of these protocols are laissez-faire. They have been proven over and over again in livestock. Canada even has a 7/8th RULE involving livestock registration.
Surprisingly, such protocols leave it up to the individual breeder to decide whether an outcross is in order, and why. Interesting concept, personal responsibility and dedication.
THESE ARE FACTS: you cannot go back in time and pinpoint the ‘first’ Border Collie. You cannot go back in time and find the ‘first’ Saluki, or the ‘first’ Afghan hound, or the ‘first’ West Siberian Laika. Dogs, even though they were SELECTIVELY BRED, were not developed from a small population of specific specimens, aka a founder population, like the modern ‘breeds.’ No one picked out thirty perfect specimens and said, “Lo, I have invented the Saluki, and all Salukis from now until forever shall be pure and descended from these animals only!” NO WILD ANIMALS EVOLVED THIS WAY. THIS IS WHY WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE SPECIATION TAKING PLACE IN WILD ANIMALS RIGHT THE FUCK NOW, via behavior, and DNA. NO SCIENTIST YELLS, “EUREKA! I HAVE FOUND THE FIRST OF A NEW SPECIES! ALL THE OTHER ONES WILL DESCEND FROM THIS ONE!” Why does no scientist EVER say that? Because the other biologists would laugh him out of the building. It’s biological bullshit.
When you have actually studied evolution, when you understand that although Darwin was quite fascinated by selective breeding and did consider it to be a useful, DOMESTIC, HUMAN-DRIVEN analogy for evolution, he was quite aware that it did not compare to NATURAL SELECTION, or change over time driven by SURVIVAL, ADAPTATION, AND REPRODUCTION, you may come back and spew some more nonsense.
Until then, I recommend that you go to the corner store, buy yourself a cheap lighter, set that straw man you keep on setting up (after you have been told repeatedly that disease incidence and COI are going to be a ‘breed thing’ because such things like GENETIC LOAD vary such a great deal, ie there is not going to be a one size fits all solution) ON FIRE, and shove that flaming straw man up your ass.
You are not worth my time, Dave’s time, or Christopher’s time. Your arguments are shit and are completely and totally unsupported by science, domestic breeding of other animals, evolution, or the development of the dog.
Just a note to Christopher: this level of what passes for ‘discourse’ amongst the dog fancy intelligentsia is why I can no longer deal with Facebook, or mailing lists, or the internet. I could feel my brain cells dying just reading Peggy’s posts, and frankly, compared to the Saluki, she’s an intellectual giant.
Ta.
Jess recently posted..Guest Post: Suzanne Phillips: Why dogs develop food allergies
Hear hear. It wears me right out.
I hate to sound like a cheerleader, but you go girl!
I don’t quite understand why Sargan and Bateson co-signed the statement. If Wade and Nicholas wanted to defend their work or clarify their position, they could simply issue their own statement. This made it seem like there were some huge controversy and disagreement between the authors.
That’s the interesting bit, no? Why are scientists even doing this?
Well, although I’ll cover this in more depth, the hack-job of the Australian Pedigree paper didn’t go unnoticed, especially the breeder status-quo apologia and the resulting distortion of the results.
Then Wade comes out with a DNA paper that continues the agenda of distortion, so Sargan and Bateson release a commentary that sheds light on the bullshit. You might consider this a much less irreverent version of what I did to the pedigree paper by calling it academic fraud. Bold move, which couldn’t go unchallenged. So then Wade wants to debate, furious emails fly back and forth and Sargan and Bateson get Wade and Nicholas to admit to some basic principles which their papers had tried to distort.
It’s actually a rather generous gesture by S and B to release another statement with the Aussie hacks who are clearly doing damage control.
I came across this account of a toller being worked in an issue of Forest and Stream which is dated to October 1917. The article includes an account of a man who gunned over these dogs in Nova Scotia. This is an account that “self-styled experts” who deny the history of this breed might not want to read. Tolling is real, and it is was used on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, it was used for decoy traps. In Nova Scotia, it was used for the gun.
I just want to point out that the above quote from Norman B. Morgan is a spammer (links removed) who is using Scottie’s content to spam my blog, which I find hilarious.
http://retrieverman.net/2011/09/23/the-tolling-dogs-of-nova-scotia/
LOL
Please write your own content.
It ain’t hard. It doesn’t even have to be good.
But write your own crap and don’t steal.
retrieverman recently posted..No Gods and Precious Few Heroes