Dr. Bruce M. Cattanach

Q. What will the results of a white x solid (plain) breeding be?

A. There are no doubts about the expectations. The genetics is secure, all should be flashy.   I have done the mating twice in connection with bobtail and other tail inheritance tests.  There were in total 14 pups in these two litters; all the pups were standard flashy. The degree of flash should depend upon that in the background breeding, as degree of white markings seems to be inherited; it can be modified by selective breeding.

On a related note, an SB-L member mentioned that flashy dogs can have black faces.  He was defining flashy as genetic flashy and not using it as a loose descriptive term.  But he is perfectly correct.  The classic example in the UK was Pat Heath's famous Ch Ashgate Able Seaman of Seefeld.  Quite a number of his progeny showed the same attribute.  I had one, Steynmere Oh Susannah, dam of my current winning pair.  She had an almost a completely black mask with only a few white hairs along a line down between the eyes, but she had long white socks as well as the standard chest markings. Some of her grandchildren are similarly marked.  Clearly there is an inherited component here too.

Q. What is the amount of white that makes a dog "flashy"?  I have seen puppies that have a partial mask and white feet that are called plain.

A. The term flashy is just a dog breeder or Boxer breeder term and may therefore only represent what people see.  If there is a lot of white the dog is obviously flashy but if it generally looks "plain" then it is thought not to be flashy.  Used this way the term is purely subjective and means nothing genetically.

I have endeavored to apply a genetic meaning to the term and to relate this term to the boundary between flashy and solid/plain.  Based on the results of a survey, it seemed that a workable definition for solid would be "white on feet confined to toes."  This means that some solids may have some white on the face but a black face does not mean solid if the dog has white socks.  It is not an absolute boundary for all the old fashioned reasons.  Some "lines" are highly flashy and in these lines, the solids would be expected to show more white than defined. The reverse would be plainer flashy lines in which the solids might tend to be almost devoid of any white.  I had one such dog years ago before the fashion for flash got started.

Changing the topic a little towards all this talk of whites and gene pools: I think an essential point is being missed.  Whites do not have genes that their solid and flashy sibs don't have.  The only difference overall is that they have two doses of the white spotting gene, whereas flashies have one (plus a normal form for pigmentation) and the solids have only the normal form.  Just one gene.  So they are not liable to be any better or worse in any respect (but one) than their litter mates.  But one!!!  Here I refer to the risks of deafness but this is directly caused by the white spotting gene (in double dose) in whites.  With only one dose the risks are minimal, so breeding from whites in no way would increase the incidence of deafness throughout the solid or flashy members of the breed, but more whites would occur and therefore there would be more deaf Boxers.

All this highlights the crazy elements of dog breeding.  The white markings are seen as attractive to the point of becoming essential for the show ring.  But, in truth, it is not a desirable gene (deafness, susceptibility to sun burn, and potentially, a number of other ill effects).  But this is the SHOW scene where "beauty" is all.  And it is not specific to Boxers.  Trivial markings are seemingly important to some breeds, like the size of spots in Dalmatians, the Blenheim spot at the occiput of Cavaliers, the fine white blaze on the face of NS Duck Tolling Retrievers.  And these are breed points written into the Standards.  It is all just "fancy" breeding.  It has nothing to do with function, working ability or health.

Q. Is it conceivable that genetic plains can be selected for in either direction? Is it possible to breed an over-marked plain? One that would be genetically plain, but look flashy? To what extent can you select for either side (more or less white on a plain)? In other words, how much can the level of white on a (genetic) plain be manipulated?

A. One must expect that over-marked plains could be bred, as also, by the reverse selective breeding process, plains without any white.

The latter is not unusual in many dog breeds where white markings are not wanted.  And personal experience and observation confirms for me the "over-marked plain" idea.