Video of an undocked boxer and a rottie:
Let’s say that you live in Europe, where tail-docking has met resistance in terms of legal and ethical considerations. However, you are a boxer breeder, and you want to try to keep the short tail in the breed. Everyone who has seen an undocked boxer knows that their tails are quite long and rather whip-like. You know that the current boxer gene pool lacks any genetic basis for short tails.
However, you just happen to have a doctorate in mutagenesis and mammalian genetics and are a Fellow of the Royal Society, and your wife also has a background in biochemical genetics.
Such is the case with Dr. Bruce Cattanach and his wife Jo.
Now, because all normal boxers have naturally long tails, something must be added to the gene pool to get naturally short tails.
I would have guessed that they would have chosen the bulldog as an outcross. Bulldogs and boxers are closely related dogs. In fact, boxers contain the blood of a few imported English bulldogs early on in their ancestry. However, we know that bulldogs have several different tail types. One of which is a rather unattractive screw tail (which is allowed in the AKC standard but not in the KC standard). Sometimes this screw tail is really twisted. I don’t think one would want this in a boxer. Also, bulldogs have longer tails than the docked tails of boxers, and that might present a problem.
But that really limits the choices for the outcross. Only one other breed has a color that approaches that of a boxer and has a naturally short tail. The problem is that it is a small dog with erect ears and short legs. It also has a longer coat than a boxer, with a tendency to throw the odd long-haired pup. However, it is relatively common in the UK.
Of course, I am talking about the Pembroke Welsh corgi.
What?
Yes, this experimental outcross involved breeding naturally bobtailed corgis to boxers. Of course, the corgi was the dog in the breeding to prevent dystocia. The problems inherent in breeding a short-legged dog to a long-legged and somewhat larger bitch are rather obvious.
However, they eventually did get a successful mating, and the most interesting puppies were the result. Bobtailed puppies did result from this breeding, which were then backcrossed to the boxer. In this backcross, the puppies really varied in appearance.
It took four or five generations of breeding back to boxers to establish dogs that looked like boxers and had the natural bob tail. Even with that amount of breeding back, the coats occasionally were a bit long.
The problem had apparently been solved. Now the government could ban docking, but they had line of naturally bob-tailed boxers. However, the bob-tailed trait cannot breed true. If a dog has two copies of the gene for the natural bob tail, the animal will not survive to birth. Thus, one must cross bob-tails to dogs with naturally long tails, which means that one must be willing to accept the existence of at least some long-tailed puppies in the strain.
Now, the Boxer breed club in the UK and KC allowed these bob-tailed dogs to be registered and shown. However, their luck on the European continent hasn’t been so good.
Because most European countries operate under the FCI system, the parent club for a breed in its native country has a lot of power. The breed standard used by the FCI is that of the native country, as are the guidelines for accepting new blood.
The national club for the boxer in Germany opposed allowing these dogs with corgi blood into the registry, and thus, the dogs are not accepted into the FCI system. The last time I read, though, the dogs were still being shown in the UK.
Now, the reason why the UK’s boxer club and the KC allowed this outcross breeding is probably easy to explain. The breeders doing this outcross were experts (as in top of their field) in genetics.
And because you are dealing with experts, the KC and the boxer club were probably more willing to take the risk.
However, I find it a sad that one can outcross for a trivial trait like a bobtail, but one cannot outcross to reduce the incidence of a genetic disorder (see the Dalmatian Backcross Project).
Maybe one day we’ll get there, but for now, we can point to the bobtailed boxers as an example for using outcrossing to solve problems.
If you would like to read more about how the project, please visit the Steynmere site on genetics.
Update: In case you were wondering, here is a photo of a naturally bob-tailed corgi.
Well, it seems as if they used their position in the field of genetics to pull the blessing of the dog fancy clubs just to allow them to experiment with cross breeding, but not really altering Genes. Sort of like very extreme selective breeding???
Its a shame they’re dropped from the AKC, but maybe thats a good thing for them? If this is the way of the future to fix and correct for problems… the AKC might just see themselves in a situation where they are forced to change?
Great Post.
But it just shows what limited thinking is going on in the world of dogs. These genetic experts created a dog that is naturally bobbed tail, which if mated with another bobed tail boxer produces a dead dog (i.e. a dog that is such a monster it does not survive in the womb and is reabsorbed). Is that it? Woooee. Some success!
How about if we don’t go down that road, and allow tail-bobing at under age 5 days, same as we allow circumcision?
In a world full of ear piercings, nipple piercings, hair plugs, nose jobs, boob jobs, hair dye, circumcision, and dental implants, we are supposed to be concerned about tail docking which takes 5 second and does not harm and is no medical risk?
But we are supposed to salute MANDATORY sterilization of female dogs and large adult male dogs — both of which require some serious surgery?
How about instead of fancy genetics we salute simple and clear thinking and freedom of choice? Does everything have to be legislated, and does everything have to be done within the confines of a closed registry? Why not let freedom ring on all counts? If a dog LOOKS like a boxer, it’s a boxer. It’s not like the dog actually has a job in the modern world, right? Then it’s just a visual thing, and why not let the judge decided if it gets a ribbon, and let the owner decide if it gets a tail dock? From what I can see, that’s a win-win all the way around.
P
Now on all points Pai. I certainly agree, maybe its just that the thinking is far too simple for the administration controlling the registries to understand???
When Britain banned ear cropping (I think in the late nineteenth century), the bull terrier breed suffered. To breed erect ears, they had to heavily inbreed from those dogs that had them. That’s one reason why it is the most inbred dog in the registry. The English white terrier was cropped and had naturally floppy ears. Bulldogs don’t have erect ears. The Dalmatian and the pointer obviously don’t have erect ears. In short, the bull terrier had no ancestors with erect ears, and I am still trying to figure out how they got them. Hinks always sold his “white cavaliers” with cropped ears.
That’s why one must be careful in formulating policies such as cropping or docking bans. If a standard is changed, the amount of inbreeding necessary to create “proper” tails and ears is almost never considered. That’s why US boxers and dobermans have ears that look very strange when left intact. They’ve never been bred for the same kind of ear they have in Europe.
I think that standards should allow for natural ears and natural tails, simply because you have AVMA coming out against the procedure (http://dogshownewsnetwork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-591.html) and Banfield banning both procedures in its clinics (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-30-dog-tails_N.htm).
Now, while I’m sure the old-time breeders were good at DIY dewclaw removal and tail docking, I don’t know if I trust the average person doing these procedures without some training. Ear-cropping should be done by a vet.
But when the vets and the law refuse to allows these procedures, you will get lots of DIY procedures, and that, is more of an animal welfare issue. At least the vets have painkillers.
Last year, someone on the Charleston, WV, area got arrested for cropping his own dog’s ears.
When the news filmed his arrest, he shouted “Vote Obama! He’s for workin’ people!”
I appreciated the sentiments, but I doubt he got Obama any votes.
I guess I don’t see how this was successful. I think the whole thing is flawed and crazy from the get-go–Why is the solution to a ridiculous law to with dogs’ genetics as if they were simple Mendelian pea pods? Where is the weighing of how relevant the standard is to begin with? How is it a successful genetic project if it produces natural abortions? Why would these dogs be allowed in the breed ring if they were not viable as sires and dams (when mated with each other) to pass on the exhibited trait?
I’m pretty confused by the whole scenario, myself.
It doesn’t produce natural abortions. Homozygous pups either don’t implant, or are resorbed in the first part of pregnancy. It’s the same with homozygous Chinese Crested, Pai can explain that. Since dogs produce many, many eggs, only a portion of which implant, and a portion of those are resorbed in a normal pregnancy in a breed which does not carry a prenatal lethal, I don’t understand the hand waving about resorbed pups. all dog pregnancies result in resorbed pups.
http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES6.html
also see the previous page.
Thanks for the clarification–is resorption a natural abortion? I’ll leave that to someone else, but I appreciate the more precise term, which makes more physiological sense to me anyway.
I wasn’t really handwringing, though–it’s more of a logical concern. If it’s a trait that automatically results in resorption when homozygous, I still don’t see the point of it being part of a solution to a conformation “problem.” Makes me curious what other examples may be (the Chinese Crested is interesting–did not know that).
As for the Boxer… I just don’t get it, and probably never will.
abortion happens in the second half of pregnancy. The fetus is expelled early. It is possible for dogs to abort some fetuses and maintain the others until normal birth. Resorbtion occurs in the first half of pregnancy. The dog ovulates, and x number of eggs are fertilized, becoming blastocysts. These implant in the wall of the uterus around day eighteen after breeding. If they do not implant, they are broken down and absorbed by the body, or resorbed. a certain percentage do implant and are later resorbed (see my other comment.) There is some speculation that a lot of blastocysts implant and are later resorbed until the numbers are down far enough for the bitch’s body to support the pregnancy; I think it’s probably more due to the quality of placental attachment. a dog uterus is like a Y shaped tube, the placenta circles the pup like a belt, attached to the uterine wall. Poorly attached or badly placed placentas (too close to other pups, not enough room between placentas, etc) are probably resorbed. I imagine that very small and toy breeds probably have a greater number of resorbtions as a matter of course, compared to large breeds with a larger uterus. all dog pregnancies result in a certain percentage of resorbtion, whether there is a lethal gene involved or not.
The hairless gene in Cresteds is a dominant. all hairless Cresteds are heterozygous; homozygous embryos die before or soon after implantation and are resorbed.
Thanks–I will adjust my terminology when talking about dogs.
Interesting about Cresteds.
The South American hairless breeds (Xolo, Crested, Peruvian) are unique in the world. They’re the result of a natural mutation (unlike the American Hairless Terrier, whose hairlessness is a recessive), and they never required extensive inbreeding to ‘set’ the hairless pattern — because any cross to a coated dog would produce pups that displayed that ‘crested’ pattern. You’d actually have to work pretty hard to ‘eradicate’ their gene, and really, unlike Manx/Fold cats where breeding two individuals that display the homozygous-lethal gene creates deformed/dead offspring, there is NO possibility of creating suffering/dead puppies by breeding them.
People who attempt to paint the hairless breeds as deformed monsters speak more from ignorance than from a position of actual knowledge of their genetics. it doesn’t help that so few people really know much about them in general. There are even some -breeders- who think they can’t safely breed two Hairless Cresteds together and perpetuate the ignorance. I guess they fall into the same type who think Goldens are Russian circus dogs. =P
So the coated and hairless versions are both acceptable for these dogs, correct? That’s the only thing that would make sense to me.
I still don’t get the point of breeding a bob-tailed boxer, but I’m mulling it over–maybe I’ll reconsider.
Very interesting genetics–didn’t know this stuff–they’re not really my kind of dog–but it’s interesting. Thanks.
If I didn’t like retrievers so much, I’d go with boxers.
I can’t think of a nicer breed for a pet dog. They are really humorous, and they are easy to train– easier than you’ve been told.
@Flattie: Yes, the coated varieties are impossible to separate from the hairless, since all hairless are heterozygous. In Cresteds both types are shown side by side and are interbred freely. The reason a ‘hairless’ Chinese Crested has a crest/tail plume/socks at all is because the hairless gene only -partially- overrides the coated gene. Xolos are the same, though on average they have only short, sparse fuzz on those same points.
From a purely genetic perspective, they’re very fascinating dogs, even if they don’t appeal to most folks aesthetically.
It’s actually even better. Go look at the FCI standard for the Boxer. a dog with a ‘naturally’ stumpy tail has an ‘eliminating fault.’ That means a Boxer with a naturally bobbed tail is disqualified, but it’s littermate with the long tail, which also has Corgi blood somewhere way back there, is not. Seriously, I laughed hysterically when I read that. These are supposed to be dog breeders. Presumably they have at least some knowledge of genetics. Or maybe not. Look at all the standards that call for dark eyes in a color that is genetically linked with light eyes.
FWIW, fetal resorption is very common in dogs. In Beagle studies (Beagles don’t have any prenatal lethal genes that I know of), where the bitches were examined at 22-54 days post breeding, 11% of the fetuses (fetii?) were in some stage of resorption. another Beagle study showed 13%. In a study of stray dogs in Mexico, it was 42.9 %. I’m sure the average varies according to breed, size and lines. Technically, all breedings produce ‘dead dogs.’
Most of the dog fancy is religous, not scientific. In other words, they are indoctrinated into their breed and kennel club’s dogma and mythology, and place that ‘knowledge’ far above actual genetic education or facts.
Is it just me, but in the video, did the dogs’ tails–esp. the Rottweiler’s–seem unnaturally-difficult to “read”?
The Rottweiler’s tail in particular was very, um, unexpressive–and the boxer seemed to be just a-waggin’ and waggin’ and waggin’ without much nuance.
Or maybe I’m just not used to them having tails?
Breeding for a naturally bob-tailed dog, IMHO, is no different than breeding for extremely short muzzles or the coveted blue eyes. It’s still breeding for something eye-catching and appealing, while using the genetics as an excuse to say “Oh, it’s natural, see? So we can just keep breeding for it!”
As for the docking/cropping debate, I’m behind Patrick all the way. Leave it as a choice. I have never met a docked/cropped dog that was distressed from having no tail, just as I have never met a (indoor-only!) declawed cat that was depressed because it couldn’t scratch the couch. Neither the government nor the humaniacs are living with my dog…I am. The choices I make for my dog reflect on the quality of care I give it; certainly outward appearances are regarded as ‘first impression’ kind of things, but surely more people are focused on general health and vitality then “She has a docked/cropped dog, how utterly CRUEL she must be to have something like that.” I’m more apt to turn in someone with a walking skeleton on a leash than someone walking a fit, healthy docked/cropped dog (now, manners are another thing completely!).
I know of two gun dog breeds that sometimes have naturally short tails– both of them from France.
One is the familiar Epagneul Breton (Brittany), and the other is Braque du Bourbonnais (which is very rare and has some genetic diversity issues).
I think it should be a choice, but ear cropping should only be performed by vets.
Dewclaw removal and tail docking should be done on the second or third day of the puppy’s life.
I’ve even met gun dog enthusiasts who don’t want to remove dewclaws. (I’ve never actually had a dog with no front dewclaws. )
Now I’m laughing because it would seem some breed clubs that are stuck under the religious dogma aspect of the fancy and who are extreme about purity in breeds of dogs that have a history of other breeds within their DNA makeup are now trying to say not to outcross but in what looks to be a rather half-informed amendment to their sites apparently.
“Recent years have seen an increased popularity in deliberately crossed mixed breeds or so-called “designer dogs”. Some of these mixed breeds involve Flat-Coated Retrievers. Below is the Society’s position on the deliberate cross-breeding involving FCRS:
The Flat-Coated Retriever Society of America, Incorporated is dedicated to the health and welfare of the Flat-Coated Retriever breed while conserving the original breed function – that of a “working retriever.” A purebred dog offers to his owner the likelihood that he will be a specific size, shape, color and temperament. The predictability of a breed comes from selection for traits that are desirable and away from traits that are undesirable. When a breed standard or type is set, the animals within that breed have less heterozygosity than do animals in a random population.
The Flat-Coated Retriever Society, Inc. is opposed to cross-breeding of dogs and is particularly opposed to the deliberate crossing of Flat-Coated Retrievers with any other breed. These crossbreds are a deliberate attempt to mislead the public with the idea that there is an advantage to these designer dogs. The crossbred dogs are prone to all of the genetic disease of both breeds and offer none of the advantages that owning a purebred dog has to offer. ”
Apparently my spouse and I have gotten under someone’s skin. ;-)
I wouldn’t expect anything less of any breed club. In fact they go on to thank the Labrador Breed Club for the phase they took basically word for word.
Comparing the way the Labrador crosses were truly a fad and consumer driven disaster, I haven’t found anything to parallel this in Flat Coats. In Goldens Yes. In Cockers too, but not to the extreme of the other two that have become commercial cash cows in the designer dog industry.
It seems they are panicked that some unscrupulous people are exploiting their beloved breed. I have yet to find who they may be.
You are 100% right about the religiousness of some breed clubs. They largely under estimate the negative effects of their policies (like inbreeding). Look at this:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215931
Pedigree Dogs Exposed is awesome!
I’ve used clips of it before on the blog, but thank you for contacting me.
Why?
I read they did a bit of inbreeding to save them.
Is this true?
Dr. Cattanach did a wonderful work creating the bobtail boxer. Unfortunately in the dog world there is too little education about genetics and general animal breeding. And too much politics and power struggles.