(Source for image. Link to another blog that links to this image.)
Jess got this one right.
These are Afghan hounds. They are e/e’s, probably BBee’s, just like virtually all golden retrieves. One pup on the bottom appears to be a brindle or a grizzle. You won’t find that coloration in pure golden retrievers
Like goldens, these pups have little white dashes on their heads, which often appear in neonatal puppies. They normally are around for only the first two to four weeks of the puppy’s life, and then they disappear.
So, these are Afghan hounds, not retrievers.
They grow up to look something like this:
Every Afghan I’ve seen and ever photo I’ve seen of them has shown a dog with the deeply intelligent expression that this dog clearly has.
I have no idea where Stanley Coren got that notion that they were stupid.
Granted, they don’t do well at obedience trials.
But as a derivative of a landrace of sighthounds that has been around for thousands of years before there were shotguns, they really don’t have to be like Western gun dog breeds.
They have to be intelligent to know how to hunt gazelles and hares without the assistance of a person with a firearm to back them up.
Historically they may have shown brilliance. But the three I have known were the epitome of beautiful but dumb.
We put a towel over the head of one to see if she would remove it. Apparently she thought night time had come and lay down for a nap.
That breeder had brindle pups out of an e/e bitch.
The white mark on the forehead is called the thumbprint of Noah. Afghans are the only dogs that were allowed on the Ark, you see. It’s called the kiss of Allah in Salukis. These are, of course, Western constructions, if you ask in the COO people will look at you funny.
White marks are often more extensive on brindle Afghans and will persist through adulthood.
Someone needs to tell the Afghan people that they appear in goldens.
They weren’t on the Ark.
Kent Hovind told me.
White marks on the dark pup in the back.
Working-type goldens.
That’s a nice picture of Gwyneth Paltrow.
I have a question/remark about calling this a litter of ‘e/e’ pups. I see Afghan pups in the top photo (particularly the one at the top with hands on it) that appear to have black in their coat – ear fringe especially. My understanding is that any black in the fur is an indication a pup has at least one dominant E allele at the extension locus. In age an E/e and an e/e can look identical, and all cream/gold, but as pups the black is the indicator of the presence of the dominant allele. The difference in alleles also has to be taken into account for expectations of what the dogs can produce in their own pups.
I’m wondering where the disconnect is here in regards to considering all these pups e/e. Are my eyes deceiving me? I’ve not seen a litter of e/e pups, before, with this much variance in shade in a single pup.
Kary
Kary is right in questioning that all these pups are ee-type yellows. The ones with black shadings are most likely a variant of the sable color pattern. The black shadings may, or may not, disappear with age; if they do, the adult dog may appear to be same as a true ee yellow.
You will never see these black shadings on a purebred newborn Golden Retriever; but, often on Basenjis that clear to red, and in the past at least, on an occasional Irish Setter.
Only one has black shading. e/e is a common color in Afghan hounds.
Actually the image is too poor quality to really tell. Afghans (and Salukis for that matter) are often very lightly sabled at birth, especially if they don’t have a mask, with only a few dark hairs on the ears that disappear quickly. These dogs may look e/e but they are not.
I wouldn’t necessarily call e/e common in Afghans (it doesn’t seem to be in Salukis, either.) Blacks or brindles from a breeding with an e/e parent are still unusual enough to be remarked on.
Of historical interest: Zeppo Marx imported a cream bitch, Asra of Ghazni, from the UK in 1931, and she produced a black pup with a gold brindle dog.
I noted that at least one puppy is a brindle. The majority are e/e’s.
Stanley Coren didn’t call Afghans “stupid”. What he did, some years ago, was compile responses from a number of obedience trainers regarding the trainability of various breeds. In this survey, Afghans came in low in the rankings. Whether this was due to a lack of “intelligence” or a lack of response to those trainers’ methods, or other factors, was not discussed.
I’ve known a couple of not-very-bright Border Collies and Goldens, for that matter.
I saw an interview in which he called Afghan hounds the Ringo Starrs of dog world– not very bright at all.
Coren has been extremely clear in interviews that he equates intelligence with biddability (is that a word?) and ability to learn to follow commands easily. Most sighthounds learn new things easily (whether you are teaching them or not) and are good problem solvers.
They are NOT biddable.
His book would have been fine if it had more clearly stated the thesis that there were different kinds of intelligence. He does so in the book, but on TV, he has always played up working and obedience intelligence as the standard.
I’m not in favor of these kinds of comparisons. Coren did find that Afghan hounds were great problem solvers.
Well, that’s intelligence.
The methodology he used for working and obedience intelligence was also a bit flawed– what obedience trainers who trained dogs for competition though.
Well, goldens, GSD’s, shelties, poodles and border collies were always going to be on that list.
OK, I missed the interviews and was only going by my recollections of his book (which I’ve not reviewed for some time).
And yes, “biddability” is a word, and often used by retriever people, at least. A quality that certainly does help differentiate retrievers from sighthounds!
I read the book, which has several “intelligence” lists–obedience being only one of them. Obedience has never been much of a criteria for intelligence–just look at humans!!!!! People that blindly do whatever they are told are rarely thought of as intellectuals! According to this type of “obedience intelligence”, wolves would be at the bottom, and anyone that thinks that wolves are dumb be tha dumb ones themselves!