Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man  I don't think there could be any hypothetical genetic test that would have 100% accuracy on 100% of pure-bred dogs across all breeds. To me it would vary depending on 'purity' of any given pure breed.
In my way of looking at it, the purity of any given breed, genetically speaking, is predicated on the number of generations that it has been bred pure. There are many dog breeds, some having been bred for many years and some for only a short while. For instance the Pekingese's history goes back thousands of years while the Yorkshire Terrier only goes back 150 years or so. The 'modern' Yorkie goes back even less.
Testing by using genetic markers would show the Pekingese to be 'more pure' than the Yorkshire Terrier simply due to the Pekingese, by virtue of its history, being further removed from its mixed roots (foundation stock) than the Yorkshire Terrier. So the test would more likely show the Pekingese being pure, with no markers from other breeds and the Yorkshire Terrier to be less pure with vestigal markers of its mixed roots being apparent. This would result in a pure bred Pekingese always testing more pure than a pure bred Yorkshire Terrier. You would have to presume that accuracy for any given breed would vary, depending on the age of the breed.
All the above is hypothetical and I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this  . But for the little that I've seen about it, the Mars test is basically useless information for mixed breed dog owners and would likely be wrong information for many pure bred owners. I certainly wouldn't rely on it to make any decisions regarding breeding stock. It (the test) could lead to interesting things in the future but seems to be of little practical value today. |
One dog that I owned I had tested twice. The dog was some sort of a dalmation/australian shepherd mix. The first test came back as 75% dalmation, and 25% unknown. Six months later the dog tested as 35% labrador, 15% dalmation, and 50% Husky. Tests are completely bogus.