A Certain Variance Factor

To read the complete article click here 72 – October, 2012

By Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones

One of the challenges which constantly seem to confront breeders, as well as judges, is the ever-changing condition of breeds and, in particular, the always-present phenomenon of morphological variation. Within each breed, in some much more so than others, depending upon their ancestral background and histories, there intrinsically and inevitably exists a degree of diversity and variance. Some are more stable than others. This is a biological fact of life with which we have to always contend. This is in the essential nature of things. Whether it be in such aspects as size, proportions, angulation, coloration, and so on, or in more breed-specific peculiarities, such as exact coat characteristics, there invariably exists a certain range, a certain variety. Very little is exactly static in this regard even though ongoing, concerted efforts are deliberately made to contain and limit differences. A certain constant is aimed at, parameters are set. Go beyond the boundary, so to speak, and there are disqualifications contained in the standards of many breeds. Despite this, fluctuations continue to be present and characteristic elements may oftentimes be variously aberrant, deviating from that which is considered typical. In the process of evaluating stock for breeding purpose, which ostensibly is still the central purpose of the dog show, it is obviously very important to be aware of the degree and extent of that which is permissible in this regard. Even in breeds where there are no disqualifications, quite clearly one has to be aware of what is or is not acceptable. All of this has become more and more apparent to this author in recent months since he has been judging certain Sporting breeds. When a breed becomes lower on leg and longer in loin than is traditional, how does one deal with the situation? Quite clearly one has to closely relate form to function in these dogs and there are certain limits and specifications which have to be strictly adhered to. Failure to do so and you begin to lose the breed.

When a particular entity is bred over many generations, differences almost inevitably arise. Certain breeders can, after all, fundamentally and almost unilaterally, if they so wish, alter the direction which a breed takes whilst others merely plod along and more or less randomly maintain the existing state of things. There have been plenty of examples of this. Impacts can be highly significant or they may be negligible and barely noticeable. A drift can sometimes be discernible or there may not be changes which are readily apparent. This is how selective breeding moves along or does not. There may be a certain dynamic at play which one may, or may not, be fully aware of. Where there is considerable isolation of breeding lines over time within populations of the same breed, quite obviously divergences will arise and type uniformity will thereby decrease accordingly. In considering the present day condition and state of breeds, one clearly has to take into account what has happened to them over time in their country or countries of development or in particular regions. Differences can and do occur. Some have remained largely unchanged, others have deviated a good deal from their original form. A countervailing force in the way of retrogressive breed drag may also have kicked into the equation. The aim and intent of breeding has, in many instances, not been the same and hence the focus of selection has varied. So we potentially, and sometimes actually, end up with a veritable mixture, a morphological potpourri if you will. In many instances, those anchoring instruments known as standards have had but a checkered effect, despite repeated efforts to increase their preciseness. A judge can still enter a ring and be confronted with an entry which is all over the place or one where there is significant uniformity of make, shape and type, and everything in between.

In the context of today’s dog show-related breeding activity, a fancier faces the central and considerable challenge of maintaining a breed’s inherent integrity whilst focusing, in part at least, on something which is oftentimes essentially and largely unrelated to original form and function. Let me amplify this statement. There can be an uncomfortable ambivalence in play here. A certain dichotomy of purpose can very well exist. Hence the notion that what is generic takes preference, in many instances, over that which is more traditional and breed specific. The idea being that a particular make and shape, a particular profile, outline or silhouette, a particular temperament or behavioral trait, supposedly renders an advantage in the ring. Increased competiveness becomes the mantra. So there exists a certain pull in one direction and this is not necessarily always compatible with maintaining and perpetuating unique characteristics and distinctions. This, in its turn, surely contributes to increasing variance since the movement in one way or another is, more often than not, highly uneven. So you see in-the-ring exhibits of a so-called older type side by side with some that are considered by some to be what one might call improved and better-developed, depending upon one’s perspective. Sometimes this involves exaggeration. I could mention breeds but I won’t. Is this where we are really at? This sort of situation oftentimes places a judge in a rather invidious position, one of discomfort, one that requires considerable awareness of the context, and where, even then, calls are not easily made. Each judge has to determine to what extent he or she is willing to go.

When all is said and done, however, we are well-advised to always remember that the existence of variation is what makes selective breeding possible. This is what gives rise to choices and options; this is in the very essence of things. It is within this biological context and reality that we have to function. The history of the pedigreed dog surely reflects this very fact. Without it, adaptability and development would have been impossible. Although the central goal of the conscientious and responsible breeder is, or certainly should be, maintenance of unique and singularly peculiar breed characteristics, it is always worthwhile to bear in mind that absolute uniformity is not in and of itself necessarily desirable. Purebred dog populations, despite our best efforts at purposeful control, do tend to drift, leading to divergence and even the emergence of novel forms. Witness how many of our breeds originated. As breeders we are oftentimes seemingly engaged in an ongoing struggle against all sorts of genetically-controlled challenges. Some of these we certainly win, others we inevitably lose because of the very nature and complexity of the processes of biological inheritance. What we try to constantly do is narrow the odds; sometimes things go in our favor, on occasion the hereditary headwinds cannot be overcome. This is why we have to exercise some flexibility in our thinking about this subject. The most important thing in all of this is to be fully aware of what we are dealing with and to accept that there are limits to our ability to regulate. When we try to unduly push those limits things can get difficult. Oftentimes when we breed for one thing we have to give up another. There is a certain element of give and take in operation.

It is, of course, vitally important to keep everything in historical context. That is why knowledge of a breed’s background and progressive development is essential in order to possess a proper understanding and appreciation of its present state. There has to be some meaningful awareness in all of this. Despite all of the isolation pressures and selection vicissitudes over numerous generations breeds have, overall, remained remarkably resilient. There obviously exist, however, many concerns going forward. With time and selective breeding most breeds have become modified and stratified to various extents and this is something we have to contend with. Moreover, the ever-present variance factor has to be placed in appropriate perspective. Where breeds are no longer used for their original purposes, or largely so, as is the case with many that are now predominantly bred for conformation dog show competition, the context is different and we have to accept the reality of this and all that it means. To do otherwise can well become an exercise in futility.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. Now retired, he carries the title of Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Auburn University, where he was a member of the faculty for thirty-eight years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, sixteen Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net.

Short URL: https://caninechronicle.com/?p=9755

Posted by admin on Oct 12 2012. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.