Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man  Perhaps parti breeders will choose to disregard the above quote? |
What exactly are we disregarding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man So how could white appear in the Yorkshire? |
Maybe white appeared through the Maltese which are mentioned over and over in early writings, as being in the YT makeup? Or Maybe through the Otterhound who was foundation in the Waterside breed, the Waterside were used in the YT makeup according to the YTCA? Otterhounds come in piebald, chocolate and golden. How about some of the cross-bred broken-haired scotch terriers that were very common during the early, mid and late 1800's? Dogs like Swift's Old Crab (cross bred scotch terrier) who was sire to Old Sandy who was great grandsire to Huddersfield Ben (Ben is acknowledged as being the foundation sire of this breed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man A likely hypothesis to me is that some of these "cross-bred broken-haired toy terriers" made it into the stud books as Yorkshires, due to outward appearance (carriers, possibly?). |
Another hypothesis was that some of those “cross-bred broken-haired toy (scotch) terriers” made it into the Yorkshire terriers bloodlines, long before the Yorkshire terrier became a breed (carriers, possibly?)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man While there were no 'pedigreed' dogs before the advent of stud books, there were 'pure bred' dogs. It's very easy to see how dogs other than pure bred could have been assigned a breed class and a pedigreed line begun even if that dog was not 'pure bred'.....'pure bred' meaning, in other words, a dog that will breed true to the standard. Of course, then, as now, a breeder should not have continued a line that didn't meet the breed standard. Early breeders understood this and I'm not sure why there would be confusion now on such a basic idea of breeding pure bred dogs. |
So, was cross bred scotch terrier Swift's Old Crab a purebred and did he breed true to the standard? How far back prior to the YT became a recognized breed, should we go to determine if a line produced true and where's the proof that they did or did not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man To put it a most basic way, here's a quote from Wikipedia. Now I know that Wiki is not the most authoritative source, but it does provide good basic info. And that's what is being talked about here....basic pure bred dog breeding in its simplest terms. Anyway, here's the quote....
"In the world of animal breeding, to "breed true" means that specimens of an animal breed will breed true-to-type when mated like-to-like; that is, that the progeny of any two individuals in the same breed will show consistent, replicable and predictable characteristics. A puppy from two purebred dogs of the same breed, for example, will exhibit the traits of its parents, and not the traits of all breeds in the subject breed's ancestry." |
I prefer this definition of purebred from the merriam-webster dictionary:
“bred from members of a recognized breed, strain, or kind without a mixture of other blood over many generations”
Early books tell us, that the dogs who began this breed were unknown, thus the genes they passed down were unknown too. It's the genes of those foundation dogs that are still showing up today in our dogs. The off colored yorkies may not "breed true" according to the current standards but they are "purebred" regardless.