A Geneticists Viewpoint: Plains & Whites
Dr. Bruce Cattanach
Steynmere Boxers, UK
May I make three points about plains, but first agree that the word 'plain' is pejorative. 'Solid' is the more general term for dogs without white markings and has been adopted for UK Boxers which are free of the gene for white.
First point: the 'white on feet confined to the toes' definition for solid, with no other qualification, defines 99% of solids in the UK. But internationally this is a wobbly estimate as it is will vary according to what level of white is permitted/allowed/preferred in different parts of the world.
In the US it appears to me that flashy Boxers generally have far more white than here in the UK, no doubt accounting for the clearly higher incidence/acceptance of unpigmented haws. Some minor level of relaxation of the definition of solid MIGHT therefore be needed for equal accuracy.
Continental flashy dogs generally are almost solids, with pencil stripe markings on the face and white commonly being restricted to the feet, as opposed to the leg. All produce whites though. Here a tougher definition of a solid may be required.
Second point: classes for solids have been and still are offered at a number of breed shows and one all-breed championship show in the UK. I was an instigator of this, my hope being that this might encourage breeders to keep solids and exhibit them. Of now, I think it would be accurate to say this has not worked. Solids exhibited in these classes have most commonly been pets or working/agility/obedience dogs. Indeed on occasions
when breeders have had a solid of high enough standard to show, as I have found myself, the class has not been attractive. It rates as one for second class, and the choice is to go for where the real competition is.
Third point: there should be an objective for any action on splitting up a breed by colour. If one wants to develop different sub-breeds, as with solid and
parti-color Cockers, they have to be kept apart for breeding otherwise one gets the mis-marked dogs.
Parti-colors and solids both breed true, but not so our flashies. So it does not work at this level. But then if the objective is just to promote solid Boxers, it might appear from what I have described above, this does not really work either.
In the US you seem to be doing ever so much better for solids than here in the UK, so whatever you are doing cannot be far off the mark. Of course, on the Continent, the solid - flashy distinction is minor and there appears to be no colour discrimination. Maybe a majority of dogs at top shows appear solid. So Continental breeders are doing well too, if for different reasons. So, what is the practical solution for discrimination against solids? It is probably all in the hands of the breeders and judges.
On whites: whatever the official historical reason for making this colour a disqualifying fault, the white dog itself is no more liable to disease/defect or whatever than other white breeds of the same genetic constitution. These would include the white Bull Terrier, the Dalmatian to give but two of the very many examples. What we are left with is the
ridiculous situation in Boxers where we define white as a disqualifying fault and selectively breed FOR it - by
favoring flashy dogs for showing and hence breeding. There is no answer for this madness. It is in fact no more unethical to breed from whites than it is to breed from flashies. Both practices keep the white gene established in the breed.
If one adopted a genetical approach to this 'white' problem, one would extend the approved principle of looking for dogs and bitches that would complement each other, fault for virtue, to make a better combination. Applying the same to the 'white' issue in Boxers and
recognizing that one does not want to produce whites, one would first of all avoid mating two dogs that carry the disqualifying fault (white), so flashies would not be
mated together. But more directly and outrageously, one would breed whites to solids. In neither cross would one get whites but in the white x solid cross, all the puppies would be the seemingly desirable flashies. The flashy progeny derived from the latter cross would NOT differ genetically in any way from the flashies deriving from any other colour crosses (flashy x solid or flashy x flashy). They would certainly produce no more whites in later generations than their peers, as is commonly imagined. Obviously, it
would be silly to mate whites to flashies as one would then expect higher frequencies of whites (50% rather than 25%). However acceptance of flashy x solids crosses could give some better status to the white Boxer.
Just a geneticist's viewpoint!
Dr Bruce M Cattanach
Downs Edge, Reading Road
Harwell, Oxford OX11 0JJ
Tel/Fax (0)1235 835410
email bcattanach@steynmere.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.steynmere.com
|
