hahah okay
 

thanks which one is the one you priced for me?
and the email is whyte_mami@yahoo.com

Did anyone else notice that all of the adult Maltese were pictures of the same dog? Also, I've had a Maltese puppy (8wks) and a Malt/York mix (5wks) besides my Yorkie puppies. Her White Yorkies sure look like Malt/York soup to me.

opps
 

meant to post last post in message not on the thread sorry!

Yeah, I was thinking: doesn't look too 'original' to me. <smirk>

first of all i was talking about YEARS AGO when ALL dog breeds came about, they ALL come from the WOLF and are a mix of older breeds of dog that came from the wolf.
i know how the yorkie came about as i do have books about them and have had them over 20 years.
they have an IDEA of what breeds were used to make the yorkie but no one is sure what these breeds were its a guess.
also the point i make about none of us know if are yorkies are full blooded or not is that we trust the breeder, they say this is the father this is the mother but there is no prof of this unless dna is done.
yes if you breed a pure bred yorkie with another pure bred yorkie you will get pups that look like yorkies of course but as with the beiwer (sp) it is from a gene that crops up so all i was saying is it may be the same kind of thing, but i doult it as to me it looks like she just bred a maltease and a yorkie together.
as for a book from the akc i have books from the kc in the uk where the yorkie was first bred and shown so i do know about the breed and how they came about but thankyou for your suggestion.:)

the history of the breed is a guess as there is no true record of the breeds used, the kc in the uk who first allowed them to be shown will tell you this.
they were first know as scotch terriers but then bred with other breeds to make up the yorkie.
these were dogs of commen people who did not keep a record of what breeds were used and as they were common people no one really cared at the time to take note.
but thanks for the info:)

for breed history of the yorkie go to www.doggroups.com/breeds/item/32

or www.barkbytes.com/history/yorkie.htm

I deal better with references -- I think when people read and then try to remember they sometimes get things mixed around alittle. For instance.....
"The Yorkshire Terrier made its first appearance at a bench show in England in 1861 as a "broken-haired Scotch Terrier". It became known as a Yorkshire Terrier in 1870 when, after the Westmoreland show, Angus Sutherland reported in The Field magazine that "they ought no longer be called Scotch Terriers, but Yorkshire Terriers for having been so improved there."

It says improved -- it does not say that they bred other breeds to the Scotch terrier to get Yorkies. The broken-haired Scotch Terriers were just renamed Yorkshire Terriers as they were improved there. Improved means breeding the best to the best -- not mixing breeds for hybrids.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying what you meant and you are right, the origins of the Yorkie is not totally known.
Further you are absolutely right about registrations and purebreds. As the registering bodies, both AKC and Canadian Kennel Club will accept the paperwork of the breeder without question unless something comes up, a dog that could possibly be a mix will get registered as a purebred.
It is on the onus really of the buyer to be sure you are dealing with someone reputable. Which is sad as there is so much shady deals going on and misrepresentation.
I don't believe it has ever been totally proven that the Biewer indeed is a purebred Yorkie. I am of the school of thought as are many breeders, that it was actually derived from introducing a breed with the piebald colour patter such as the Shih Tzu or Papillion.
It doesn't really matter to me one way or another as I also consider them to be totally wrong colouring in a Yorkie anyway. If they were called Biewer Terriers leaving out the YOrkie part, likely myself and many other Yorkie show fanciers wouldn't object quite so much. I would never consider buying one, I would never use a stud dog or buy a Yorkie from someone that has them in their pedigrees or is dealing with them.
That being said, I have no problem if others decide this is what they want. I have a problem with them being sold as rare or desirable and for such unrealistic prices. Whatever prices people chose to buy or sell at is up them, but I do reserve the right to disagree and not be any part of it whatsoever.
Anyway, that's just my opinion which I am entitled to.

the scotch terrier IS A MIX OF BREEDS, thats how it came about, then when they got what they wanted they called it the yorkie.
and as you say bred the best of the best.:)
of which we see today.:)

i dont really know about biewers but i guess when they have been about for a few years they will then be a breed in there own right.:)

I am not sure barkbytes can be construed as an official reference. It also says until the 1930's Yorkies usually weighed 30 pounds! I have some books with Champions through history and I think I would doubt that too. One little champion was less than 2 pounds in the early 1900's! They had over and under 5 pounds classes til 1960, and I read one from 1860's that had an over and under 9 pounds. Another topic, but it goes to credibility of the site you gave.

Your reference says Maltese were a possibility -- I guess anything is a possibility but since the Maltese is a spaniel, I am doubtful. I think I will go with the YTCA official position -- no white in the Yorkie history. For one thing the Maltese were dogs of culture and aristocracy -- I have a hard time imagining the weavers in the mills or the miners owning them. The Yorkie's were bred for ratting, after all.

You have to be careful about which references you use. It is officially recognized as a reference for the UKC or AKC? One of your references mentions Joan Gordon and Janet Bennett -- they wrote The Complete Yorkshire Terrier -- in which the history does not include Maltese. There is a quote that I like from that book, " some of our authorities have attempted to throw a great deal of mystery about the origin of the Yorkshire Terrier, where none really exists."

I have no doubt over the years people have sureptitiously bred maltese into the Yorkshire terrier lines. :( But I am of the belief, that was not done before it was first shown in England or accepted into the AKC. But who really knows -- only the ghosts of a few old millers and miners, I guess. ;)

this 'white yorkie puppy' looks like it has a lot of poodle in him. actually, he looks more like a little poodle than yorkie...:rolleyes:

I feel like I am beating my head against a wall here.... of course the Broken-hair scotch terrier was a mix!!! -- isn't that what we are talking about?
You said, "they were first know as scotch terriers but then bred with other breeds to make up the yorkie." and I was trying to tell you the mix that wound up as the Yorkie and the mix that wound up the scotch terrier are one and the same!! They were being shown as broken hair Scotch Terriers and someone said, "Hey, let's rename them to Yorkshire Terriers" because they have really been improved in Yorkshire.

I think in another post here I quoted the whole passage from the AKC site which lists the breeds that went in to the Broken hair Scotch Terrier (AKA Yorkshire Terrier). Here it is again from the AKC site: "The Yorkshire Terrier traces to the Waterside Terrier, a small longish-coated dog, bluish-gray in color, weighing between 6 and 20 pounds (most commonly 10 pounds). The Waterside Terrier was a breed formed by the crossing of the old rough-coated Black-and-Tan English Terrier (common in the Manchester area) and the Paisley and Clydesdale Terriers. It was brought to Yorkshire by weavers who migrated from Scotland to England in the mid-19th century.

The Yorkshire Terrier made its first appearance at a bench show in England in 1861 as a "broken-haired Scotch Terrier". It became known as a Yorkshire Terrier in 1870 when, after the Westmoreland show, Angus Sutherland reported in The Field magazine that "they ought no longer be called Scotch Terriers, but Yorkshire Terriers for having been so improved there."
Maybe we are not debating -- maybe we are not being clear or understanding each other????????