Jump to content

Talk:List of dog breeds/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

OK, with all those changes I think I ought to comment. All these breeds are recognised by one or more of: the Fédération Cynologique Internationale, the American Kennel Club, the Australian National Kennel Council, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Kennel Club (UK) or the New Zealand Kennel Club. I've listed the name most commonly used by those organisations. Where only the FCI recognises the breed (and so its not clear if the English name is commonly used), I did a Google to find the most commonly used version on English language pages. Which is why we have "Greek Harehound" but "Deutsche Bracke".

I've also checked the capitalisation of the names. In some cases "terrier", "hound" and so on are part of the breed name and so are capitalised. I used the same checks as above to decide whether it was part of the name or not. If not, I didn't include it in the name listed here ("Azawakh" rather than "Azawakh Hound" and "Maltese" rather than "Maltese terrier" etc.)

I'm not sure what to do about listing alternative names. Should we have something like:

or:

or:

I don't like the last option myself, It would make it look as though there are more breeds than there are.

Including variations would make the list very long, but perhaps more useful. It's possibly too long already, and doesn't yet include unrecognised breeds. Maybe it needs splitting already. Any advice or opinions welcome! -- sannse 20:39 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

What about making a genealogical tree of dog breeds? I always wanted to know how do they evolved from the wolf. What are the more primitive breeds? Do all terriers share a common ancestor? And... is it possible to make such a tree? Or is a megalomaniac job? Muriel Gottrop

Personally I wouldn't know where to start! I guess you could try and write some sort of tree, but the origin of many of the breeds isn't clear. And others are crosses of several breeds. But still, if you want to try.... ;) -- sannse 16:37 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds/General

Adding new breeds

What about adding breeds to the list? I'm new here, obviously, so thought probably I should ask before doing something like that. There are a lot of rare breeds around these days that are outside the AKC/CKC/FCI orbit: Shiloh Shepherd Dog, Olde Englishe Bulldogge, Seppala Siberian Sleddog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, and so on. What does Sannse think about this? Ditkoofseppala 23:34 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well it's not just down to me of course :) but here are my thoughts...
I've avoided putting these on the list so far, partly because I wanted to concentrate on the recognised breeds to start with and partly because it brings up the question: what is a breed? Many of these developing breeds could be seen as crossbreeds at this point, so should we have them as a separate list or on the "dog breeds" page?
At this point, I think my preferred solution is to list them all together and have an introductory paragraph explaining that not all the breeds listed can be considered purebred, then we can discuss individual issues on the article pages. That will reduce problems of which list a particular breed should be on and give us the most complete list possible. We could also have a separate list of developing dog breeds if someone is interested in the subject in the future (without removing them from the main list).
How does that sound? I think it will give us the most complete list while avoiding controversy (well, as much as is possible round here anyway ;) -- sannse 08:54 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The whole concept of "purebred" becomes quite a can of worms if you examine it closely, that's the problem. AKC, CKC and other big umbrella registries have few if any real controls on genetic input to their breeds, and there's a lot of cheating! Racing Greyhound Club of Australia instituted mandatory DNA microsatellite testing for parentage verification a few years ago, and found that most of their pedigrees were worthless.

In addition, there's a growing realisation that the rigidly closed stud books — in which breeding has taken place from a handful of founders (like, six or a dozen dogs in some instances) over sixty to a hundred years without fresh genetic input — are a genetic disaster for the dogs. They talk about the "genetic crisis in purebred dogs" — there sure is one, and it's all due to the closed stud book system. A gene pool is like a bank account — you can't go on making withdrawals forever without ever making a deposit. :) The "withdrawals" are automatic through inbreeding/selection and genetic drift, but the closed-studbook "breed purity" system forbids new deposits!

Rather than support the dinosaurs with their racist breed-purity fetish, I'd rather see us go with the spreading knowledge of population genetics and not penalise the newer breeds that ARE enjoying a little big of fresh genetic material by stigmatising them as "crossbreeds".

Would it be possible to make the distinction on another less judgmental level, refusing to open the "defining purebred" can of worms, and just classifying breeds as "traditional breeds," "new breeds," and "rare breeds," or something of that nature? The energy and interest in new and rare breeds these days often far exceeds what's found in the traditional breeds handled by the big umbrella registries. AKC and CKC have been forced to recognise this by adding quite a number of minority or rare breeds to their own rosters in recent years.

I agree with your overall approach of listing all together and discussing the issues in individual articles, but think maybe it would be fairer to say that some breeds are popular breeds with huge populations, some breeds are traditional breeds with century-long breeding history as registered breeds, some breeds are rare breeds with their own registries, and some breeds are new breeds that haven't been around as registered breeds for long and may still be in their developmental stages. Point being that "purebred" and "crossbreed," far from avoiding controversy, are actually rather judgmental terms. How does this strike you? Ditkoofseppala 19:16 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

OK, so the general approach should work, but the introductory paragraph needs work. I'll have a think about how to reword it, but if you can see ways to improve it before I get there, go right ahead :) You are obviously very knowledgeable in this area.
I think it's important to remember our overall policy of neutral point of view. We need to find a wording that doesn't support the "dinosaurs" or the "new-breeders" (to make up terminology as I go along ;). I think we need to mention the concept of "purebred", but indicate the limitations and problems of this terminology - and explain that we are using a wider, more inclusive definition of the term "breed".
I'll have another look at the introductory paragraph in the morning and see how I can improve it. -- sannse 22:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This weekend I went to the Tendring Hundred Show and took more than forty photos of various breeds - all with my camera on the wrong setting! Forty pictures I would have been really pleased with if they weren't completely blurred :-/

I gave the Wikipedia address to some of the owners who kindly allowed me to borrow their dogs. So if any of them come across this page while looking for their pictures - that's what happened. Many thanks for your help and I'm sorry it didn't work! Regards - sannse 10:47 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Finally found time to write the Siberian Husky article. I have removed the existing photo as it *isn't* of Siberian Huskies, but probably Greenland dogs (photo was credited to NOAA, who have used Greenland dog teams in the past). Would be nice if Sannse could put one of her tables on the page. Too bad about all those photos, Sannse; I know what a dreadful feeling it is to do that! Maybe I can find a public-domain SH photo; I know of a couple places to look. Trouble with writing a new article is: if you put the links in, then you see all those holes where other new articles are then needed!!! It could turn into a geometrically-expanding task, couldn't it! But that is one beauty of the Wikipedia system -- it sure does show you what you need to do next! BTW, sorry -- I left the site to search something, was absent-minded, didn't open my search in a new window, got back and failed to realise I wasn't logged in anymore when I placed the new article -- how do you fix that??? Ditkoofseppala 22:41 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Addendum: I've been messing with the list, Sannse, putting in a few extra breeds. I'll probably do others from time to time. Also I'm putting in links to registries beyond just AKC and KC (UK). FCI serves nicely to cover Europe, so probably we don't need to link LOE (Spain) or FCC (France) and others, but Oz and Ennzed probably yes. Also major alternative registries such as UKC and Continental deserve a link. If I can keep my momentum and don't get called away to something else I'm going to try to cover some red-linked breeds. If I don't know enough about them to do a definitive article I can at least stub a few. It's fun getting things fixed up. If you want a giggle, check out the Talk page for "Sleddog" ;-) Ditkoofseppala 03:41 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it still Jack Russell Terrier? I was watching a dog show on TV last week and they claimed that the new official name of the breed is "Parson Russell Terrier". RickK 03:50 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too, as I had just noticed both names in the list. I've just done a cursory search and on AKC's website appears: "Note: The name of the Jack Russell Terrier was changed to the Parson Russell Terrier effective April 1, 2003 as requested by the Jack Russell Terrier Association of America, which was changed to the Parson Russell Terrier Association of America." No idea of why, as I didn't search it in depth. Learn something new every day . . . Ditkoofseppala 04:34 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
But you left it in the "J" position when you corrected it, Rick! (Gotcha) ;-) Ditkoofseppala 04:56 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Whoops. But then, it got reverted, anyway.  :( RickK 05:00 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Sinn Fein strikes again! Ditkoofseppala 05:05 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are now two (or possibly three) breeds. The Parson Russell is recognised by the FCI and in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand. There is also a Jack Russell, sometimes called the Australian Jack Russell, which is recognised by Australia and New Zealand and has just been recognised by the FCI (as of May 2003). Then there are the good old-fashioned non-recognised dogs, also called Jack Russels (in the UK anyway, I'm not sure about elsewhere) that basically includes any Jack Russell-like little yappy thing. -- sannse 09:20 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW - I was wrong - there are three (possibly four) breeds. I've tried to expand the Jack Russell Terrier article to explain all this -- sannse 22:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 Some links need either removing or redirecting(Some, not all).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.37.98 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyrenees

There was no great pyrenees on the list, so I added it. 69.239.153.17 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How are cross-references to alternative breed names listed?

Here's what I've been doing:

  • Primary breed name (as above): alphabetized and linked, e.g.:
    * [[Chart Polski]]
  • Secondary name that's very similar to original and in about the same place alphabetically--don't list. E.g.:
    * [[Foobar Shepherd]] (don't list Foobar Sheepdog at all)
  • Secondary name that's in about the same place alphabetically but is notably different--include next to primary name in parens with no link. E.g.:
    * [[Bernese Mountain Dog]] (Berner Sennenhund)
  • Secondary name that's very different: Place in alpha order without linking and add xref to primary name. E.g.:
    * Polish Greyhound - see [[Chart Polski]]
    * Bouvier Bernois - see [[Bernese Mountain Dog]]

Elf | Talk 21:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Photo questions

  1. Can someone identify the breed in this photo? American Bulldog, perhaps?
  2. Does anyone know anything about the breed Kintamani, which is how this photo was identified?

Elf | Talk

  1. I think so; I'm not a bulldog person though
  2. Never heard of it, but going on looks alone, I want one! Swamped now, but if no response after this week I'll do a search if you remind me.
Quill 23:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. Could be an American Bulldog, but it might be a Boxer or Boxer mix.... it's not quite girthy enough to fix the usual AB standards....
  2. Couldn't find much info on them. A few pages found through google (very few), mostly personal pages and the like... seems to be a native dog in Bali. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Got email back from the original photographer who says it's a Boxer. Hm. I knew a woman who had what I thinkn she called an American Bull Terrier that looked a lot like this dog, but I'm lost in the morass of bulls and terriers and americans... But now that I look again, no, it doesn't look like that at all. Could be a boxer. Maybe I'll ask my boxer friends. Elf | Talk 05:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note that the article "Dog breed" does not have any link to another language until now. In German there is a REDIRECT from "Liste_der_Hunderassen" to "Hunderasse". I can not follow exactly where the other languages are supposed to point. Regards Gangleri 02:08, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Wish I spoke any other languages well enough to figure these out. Thanks for mentioning it; perhaps someone will be able to track them down. Elf | Talk 02:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I added a link to the spanish list of dog breeds. The french dog and cat pages only have a short list of breeds on them, with almost no articles... those are the only languages i even know the words for dog or cat in... [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 13:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Norrbottenspets

Another interesting spelling case. This is what our original researcher indicated was the most common name from English-language sources. I have found the following using Google searches of English-language sites:

  • Norrbottenspets (1660 pgs) (FCI spells it this way on its main page--but see below-- Oh, look CKC[1] spells it like this, too)
  • Nordic Spitz (2270 pages)
  • Norbottenspets (notice only one R) (2250 pages) (spelled this way in my main reference dog encycopedia and by the UKC, the only kennel club other than FCI to recognize the breed)
  • Norrbottenspitz (56 pages) (FCI spells it this way in its published breed standard, linked to by EN on this page [2])
  • Norbottenspitz (287 pages)
  • Norrbotten Spitz (38 pages)
  • Norbotten Spitz (18 pages)

There are norrbottenspets.org and norrbottenspets.net (both kennels) but none for norbottenspets, norrbottenspitz, norbottenspitz, or nordicspitz.

Elf | Talk 02:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I only looked at the most common name via Google if there was an even split between the breed associations or if just the FCI recognised the breed (in which case it is often unclear whether the native name or the English language name is most often used in English). I used the name most often used by the breed associations as first choice. In this case I would have chosen the name used by the CKC, especially as that was confirmed by the FCI (although I didn't notice the discrepancy in the standard - well spotted there!). I didn't look at the UKC at the time, which confuses the issue somewhat.
My inclination is to stick with the Canadian/FCI (main page) version as the main title, include the other versions in the table or article text, and ensure all the redirects are in place. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 10:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Elf | Talk 15:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Landseer (Continental-European type)/Newfoundland

The FCI considers the Landseer (Continental-European type) a different breed from the black and white Newfoundland. this is discussed a little at Newfoundland (dog) but is probably one of those cases where we will eventually need an article at Landseer (Continental-European type) describing the issue in more detail. I've set up the links to reflect this. Does it look like the best format? -- sannse (talk) 18:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's not "full" correct; in standard FCI is black and white newfoundland and people say: it's newf in landseer's "couleur", but is really newfoundland; and is also white and black dog - have another standard in FCI - landseer ect... Gr. --Andrzej z Helu 19:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that Landseer (dog) should be sufficient. I checked the FCI breed standards after reading preceding; indeed, it recognizes a black & white Newfie:
COLOUR : Black, white and black, and brown. ... White and black : This variety is of historical significance for the breed. The preferred pattern of markings is black head with, preferably, a white blaze extending onto the muzzle, black saddle with even markings and black croup and upper tail. The remaining parts are to be white and can show a minimum of ticking.
and a separate Landseer:
The Landseer should convey the impression of a tall, powerful and well balanced dog. The legs are comparatively longer than those of the black Newfoundland. ... COLOUR : Main colour of coat is a clear white with distinct black patches on body and croup. Collar, forechest, belly, legs and tail must be white. Head black, with white muzzle and white symmetrical blaze - neither too narrow, nor too wide - extending from muzzle over head to the white collar, being considered a definite breeding goal. Ticking still occuring in the white not to be penalized, but should be bred away.
The New Encylopedia of the Dog sheds a little light by saying: "Before the Newfoundland's breed std was written, it sometimes occurred in black & white...In the 1930s a group of breeders attempted to recreate that look. Their efforts eventually resulted in the Landseer."
And The Simon & Schuster Guide to Dogs adds "In the 1920s, the breed nearly disappeared, but German dog lovers 'reconstructed' it by crossing St. Bernards and Great Pyrenees." So it's not in fact the same breed. Huh. Interesting. Elf | Talk 19:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I moved this; just found this discussion checking the 'what links here'. Quill 10:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Griffon Bruxellois and Belgian Griffon

On Affenpinscher Elf raised the issue of the discrepancy between Griffon Bruxellois and Belgian Griffon.

'Belgian Griffon/Griffon Belge : only recognised by the FCI

Google:

  • 3,140 English pages for "Belgian Griffon"
  • 491 English pages for "Griffon Belge"

Griffon Bruxellois/Brussels Griffon:

  • AKC: Brussels Griffon
  • ANKC:Griffon Bruxellois
  • CKC: Griffon (Brussels)
  • KC(UK): Griffon Bruxellios
  • NZKC: Griffon Bruxellois

Google (although we would usually go on the above anyway):

  • 39,600 English pages for "Brussels Griffon"
  • 3,300 English pages for "Griffon Bruxellois"

Which is quite a discrepancy - but I still think we are doing the right thing in using the name used by three out of the five above KCs. this is a case where we will have to be very sure to get redirects set up though -- sannse (talk) 18:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone recognize this breed?

Image:Berry & brandy.jpg -- A new user has uploaded an image for his personal photo album. The album was deleted, but maybe we can use the dog picture. Since you're the local dog-expert, do you recognize/can use the dog in Image:Berry & brandy.jpg? Currently it is listed on Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 04:19, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) (Reposted by Elf | Talk 15:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) from my talk page.)

(shrugging) Long-haired GSD cross or Shiloh Shepherd cross? Quill 07:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Romanian Shepherd Dogs

(My, WP is sloooowwww this morning.) Someone just added 3 Romanian Shepherd Dogs to the list. Another set to decide what names to use. :-) They're legit breeds; according to this Tripod site they're about to be recognized by the FCI. But they have a bunch of possible names; see this site on Molosser-and-related breeds. The first site indicates that the 3 should be Mioritic (old name Barac), Carpatin (old name Zãvod), and Ciobănesc de Bucovina, not simply Bucovina (dog). Since they're rare breeds, guess we'll have to figure out which name to use--

  • For Bucovina: BUKOVINA SHEPHERD (Ciobanesc Romanesc de Bucovina, Ciobanesc de Bucovina, Romanian Bukovina Sheepdog, Bukovina Wolfdog, Bukovinac, Bucovina Sheepdog)
NOTE: Bukovina (and redir from Bucovina) is a place name, so it looks like Ciobănesc de Bucovina would be the better name to use for the dog link. (Other choice would be Bucovina (dog), which we can do also & put as a redirect, I suppose.)
  • For Carpatin: CARPATHIAN SHEPHERD DOG (Ciobanesc Romanesc Carpatin, Romanian Carpathian Shepherd, Caine Ciobanesc Carpatian, Carpathian Sheepdog, Carpatin, Romanian Carpatin Herder, Rumanian Carpatin)
  • For Mioritic: MIORITIC SHEEPDOG (Ciobanesc Romanesc de Mioritic, Romanian Mioritic Sheepdog, Mocano, Barac, Rumanian Barak)

Looks like it might also be worth having a page on Romanian shepherd dogs, although the Tripod site calls them Romanian sheep dogs. Thoughts? Also should have a page for Molossus (dog). (Hmm, not in the books I'm currently looking at but I know I've encountered that category of breeds many times before.) Elf | Talk 19:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New AKC FSS dogs

The Estrela Mountain Dog (Working group designation) and the Portuguese Podengo (Hound group designation) have also just been accepted into the AKC's FSS category. Elf | Talk 01:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Akita

Please review my proposed renames & moves on Talk:Akita Inu. Thanks. Elf | Talk 22:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of breed names

See discussion & closed vote at Talk:Airedale_Terrier#Move_requested:_Capitalization_of_dog_breed_names. Elf | Talk 01:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Polish Ogar/Hound

Per FCI: Ogar Polski - FCI Standard No. 052 (Brachet polonais, Polnische Bracke, Polish Hound, Sabueso Polaco); list earlier researched indicated that Polish Hound would be the most commonly used English name. Elf | Talk 23:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog

Tekana removed "new guinea singing dog" from list "as it is a wild member of the canidae family and not a domesticated pet".

According to Wikipedia the New Guinea Singing Dog can be (and is, I thought) kept as a pet. It is recognized as a breed by United Kennel Club (since 1996). So it looks as if it should be reinstated. Flapdragon 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed it from the list as i felt it should not be there, of course you will find some people who feel the need to take a wild animal and domesticate it, people do (illegally) keep wolves and other wild creatures as pets, would that class the entire species as a domesticated animal?
These are my views; and of course I may be wrong! If anyone else were to share your views i would gladly return it to the list. thank you Tekana | Talk 09:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog, Carolina Dog, and others

I've actually been trying to sort these out for a while, and it's not easy.

Bruce Fogle's The New Encyclopedia of the Dog (2000), which I've found to be a valuable breed references, lists a group of what he calls "Primitive dogs" or pariah dogs, which includes, among others:

  • Canaan Dog
  • Podenco Canario
  • Basenji
  • Xoloitzcuintli (Mexican Hairless)
  • Carolina Dog
  • Dingo
  • New Guinea Singing Dog

Most notable are the last 3. He mentions that all of these were kept at times as pets, guard dogs, etc. by indigenous populations. He also notes that the Dingo alone among these has some clear physical and genetic traits that might distinguish it from the domestic dog. It appears that Dingos and true purebred New Guinea dogs are most likely to be found (but not exclusively) in zoos now, which seems to be a distinguishing factor from other domestic dogs, but that's not true for the Carolina dog, which many seem to view as simply a long-time feral domestic dog.

The Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds by J. Cunliffe (UK, 1999) includes the NG Singing Dog as an "exotic" dog breed, but it doesn't include the Carolina Dog or the Dingo in its lists; it includes the latter among wild dogs like wolves and coyotes; it mentions "pariah dogs which scatter the world" as not belonging to any other category in the book but worth mentioning--but doesn't specifically list any breeds or groups of pariah dogs.

And, as mentioned above, UKC, which isn't entirely unreliable, includes NGSG as a regular breed of dog. SO--I believe that NGSD needs to be readded to the list.

Which brings me to the next question--Carolina Dog. Someone added "California-Carolina Dog (aka American Dingo)" to the list of dog breeds by country, and I'm wondering whether it should be there and/or here. On a web search, it looks like it's a single breeder that is developing this line from one Carolina Dog puppy and (some other) dogs. I'm on the fence about Carolina Dog and even more about Cal-Car Dog. Thoughts? (If you made it thru all that background...) Elf | Talk 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I dont agree with putting any of the above three on "the list". As I have mentioned, I dont believe how a few unscrupulous people ripping wild pups from their wild mothers and then classing it as a "pet" or "exotic breed of dog" is right, moral or even a true domestic dog. That just happens to be one pup that some person has reared and has made half domesticated. A wild animal is a wild animal, and as such will never be fully domesticated, no matter how they are reared or who with! I just fail to see how a few animals that have been forced to live along people can class the entire species as a domestic animal.
People keep tigers, would that class all tigers as domesticated creatures? Will we soon be seeing "Siberian Tiger" on the list of cat breeds? I somehow dont think so! Yet, what is the real difference between having Tigers in the cat breeds and wild dogs such as Dingoes and Coyotes on the dog list? There isnt any!
Of course, these are my views, and I do feel strongly about them, and I really dont want to have to see these "breeds" on the list. But for the sake of NPOV, I think the least that should be done is that if these animals were returned to the list, they should have a seperate article to their wild counterparts! Tekana (O.o) Talk 09:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


The difference between tigers, coyotes, and the NGSG is that neither of the former have ever been domesticated in any way, while the NGSG most certain has been and has lived with humans for a good part of its history, apparently; in addition, it's been recognized by UKC at least and is listed in multiple dog-breed books as a breed, not separately as wolf & coyote & dingo usually are. In other words, mainstream dog world appears to accept that NGSD is a breed of domestic dog. Elf | Talk 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

But listing with registries means practically nothing! The Dingo has a standard in the ANKC [3] yet it is illegal to "exhibit, breed or own" the dingo is most parts of austalia. Therefore, although it does have a breed standard, it is still recognised as a wild or feral dog and not a domestic one!

Shows what walking around upsidedown all the time does to the collective consciousness' mind! ;-) Elf | Talk 19:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Well, i have said my views, you have said yours, we need an answer to our arguement discussion ( ;-) ) so that things can be done. Can I just request that if they are returned to the list they have seperate articles to the wild counterparts, and preferably with a section on the fact that these are wild dogs and only a few of which have been domesticated (to a degree of domestication), they are not breeds that have been selectively bred by humans! Tekana (O.o) Talk 20:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I sort of agree with that. (See how easy I am, really?) I think you're suggesting that there be 2 articles each, which I don't think is necessary. We can probably just deal with that by having a separate section in the list for, um, I dunno, "semidomesticated dogs" or "feral dog breeds" or something. Elf | Talk 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thats great. I agree with that completely Tekana (O.o) Talk 14:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tekana's comment about the Siberian tiger is a red-herring. The fact that a tiger has been kept in captivity does not alter its taxonomy as a specie separate from domestic cats. No one seriously claims that a tiger is a domestic animal. The comparison of NGSD to Siberian tigers is distracting, not enlightening. According to the most prevalent taxonomic discourse of the last 10 years, aided by DNA research (not merely someone's description of observable similarities or differences) New Guinea Singing Dogs are members of the same specie as domestic dogs. For that reason they have fallen into disinterest among zoos who exhibit and breed "wild" species. Zoos keep breeding records enhancing the survival of rare species. Domestic dogs, dingoes, and wolves are the same specie (coyotes are a separate specie). People wishing to preserve the NGSD as a unique life form "lost the toss" of DNA-based taxonomy. If NGSD are the same specie as domestic dogs then they are not protected by endangered species laws, species survival plans, captive breeding programs of zoos, etc. Being in the Canus lupus specie, NGSD could rightfully be described as a sub specie (or in the terminology of dog registries - a breed). Breed registries also keep breeding records to ensure the survival and improvement of each breed. Certainly there are people who are still arguing that NGSD’s are a different specie. But for now (and probably in the future) they have been thrown out of the endangered species game. NGSD’s only hope for survival is as a breed of dog. And since more than one dog breed registry lists NGSD, then they are in fact a breed. There are several breeds of dogs considered to be primitive, meaning they came into being a long time ago. Examples are Siberian Husky, Saluki, Pharaoh Hound, and Basenji. These breeds were documented in their current form thousands of years ago. Most breeds are the creation of the last few centuries. There are also several breeds that are called "pariah dogs", meaning that they live on the edge of human civilization. These dogs can live as pets or as feral dogs. Examples are Dingo, Canaan Dog, Carolina Dog, Thai Ridgeback, and New Guinea Singing Dog. (Pariah dogs are considered by many to be in the same group as primitive dogs.) Natives of New Guinea were keeping these dogs for guards and hunting before modern zoologists arrived to incorrectly classify them as a separate canine specie. Now that we know they are the same specie, and we know that they are kept as pets by people, is see no reason not to agree with the United Kennel Club and the Continental Kennel Club and treat them as a dog breed. To say that they are a specie of wild animals is to disregard zoology, microbiology and taxonomy that use the concept of specie. To say that they are not a breed of dog is to disregard the dog registries who invented the concept of a breed. rbg

I think I agree with this and that the place to point out that they're possibly lacking in certain niceties of domestication that go with more "advanced" (vs. primitive) dog breeds is in the individual articles. That's not to say that we couldn't also come up with a list in pariah dog of these, as well, as the equivalent of a breed group. Elf | Talk 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_dog_breeds/Archive_2&oldid=949733913"