¿En qué momento los "estilos" se vuelven tan divergentes que deben ser considerados razas?
Nada puede ser más placentero que tener una raza que es coherente a nivel mundial, con todos los criadores luchando por el mismo ideal. Además, permite una gama más amplia de oportunidades para los programas de cría y la capacidad de exhibir a los jueces de todo el mundo. Los expositores son capaces de mostrar en todo el mundo y formar amistades a nivel mundial.
Sin duda un tema común entre muchas de estas razas ha sido la interacción a largo plazo con otros países. Vemos esta situación hoy con la mayoría de los Terriers, Labrador Retrievers, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Pointers, Caniches y Petits Bassets Griffons Vendeanos, por ejemplo.
Si el propósito de la cría de perros de raza es avanzar y promover la propia raza elegida, ¿este objetivo se ve comprometido cuando el concepto de "ideal" para una raza en particular varía de un país a otro? ¿Cuándo los "estilos" de tipo divergen hasta tal punto que sólo pueden ser racionalizados en razas? Ha habido, desde hace más de un siglo, desviaciones entre el "tipo de trabajo" y "tipo de exposición" en un gran número de razas, pero cuando el "tipo de exposición" se subdivide en una variación que pueda conducir a una "nueva" raza, ¿los criadores han fallado en su trabajo?
Encontré fascinante contemplar el estudio de diversas razas, y llegué a comprender algunos de los patrones que parecen dar lugar a estas diferencias.
He aquí un ejemplo que muestra que el Springer Spaniel Inglés probablemente no ha divergido tanto como muchos dicen. Un ESS en los EE.UU. es básicamente lo mismo que un perro de estilo británico. En la izquierda, Ch. Cerise Winsome Winter Rose de los EE.UU. (foto de Ruth Dehmel). A la derecha, Sup australiano. Ch. Kinsheran Darcy Dulton, un perro de estilo británico, a pesar de que es en realidad de Australia (foto cortesía Kendra Huber).
Desarrollo en el país original
Una de mis observaciones es que las primeras importaciones en los EE.UU. pueden establecer el "tipo" para las generaciones venideras, y mientras el país de origen de la raza puede continuar para desarrollar, modificar o perfeccionar sus perros, los perros americanos siguen siendo una reminiscencia de la población original.
El Corgi Galés Cardigan, por ejemplo, fue importado a los Estados Unidos a principios del 1930. Una de las primeras importaciones fue una perra llamada Cassie, que también fue una perra fundacional para la raza en el Reino Unido. América no podría haber empezado con más igualdad de condiciones. Por la década de 1970 hubo murmullos de "cardigan tipo Inglés vs. americano". ¿Los criadores estadounidenses habían llevado la raza en una nueva dirección, que divergía de las importaciones originales? De hecho, ocurrió todo lo contrario. En la década de 1970 hubo muchos cardigans cuyas genealogías se extendían a las primeras importaciones, y se parecían mucho a los primeros perros importados. Mientras tanto, los criadores británicos continuaron perfeccionando la raza, para hacer siluetas estilizadas con cuellos alargados y elegantes, pechos más profundos, cabezas más bonitas, huesos redondos y en total un animal más singular, más atractivo que los perros de trabajo originales. En última instancia, el problema se resuelve como varios kennels estadounidenses importando más perros criados de aspecto Inglés, y hoy el tipo de la raza es razonablemente consistente en todo el mundo.
Arriba: Esta tricolor es Ch. Domino Beau Jester, un Corgi ganadora en los EE.UU., nacida en 1963. Abajo: Ing. Ch. PARMEL Digger es récord de CC en el Reino Unido durante muchos años, también nacido en 1963
Una situación similar ocurrió con los Bull Terriers. Fundado sobre algunas excelentes importaciones inglesas, el Bull Terrier en América a finales de 1960 parecía notablemente consistente con los Bull Terriers de la década de 1930. El avance en los programas de mejoramiento de América de estas décadas parecía estar centrado más en la solidez estructural. Mientras tanto, los criadores ingleses hicieron "avanzar" la raza, la cría de más sustancia, más hueso y, sobre todo, más sofisticación en la cabeza: Más amplia, más llena y los perfiles con mayor arco En la década de 1970, el tipo Inglés se convirtió en el ideal después de un grupo de criadores comprometidos establecieran las prioridades usadas por los jueces del Reino Unido. Hoy América del Norte está hombro con hombro con los mejores criaderos de todo el mundo.
Los primeros Akitas fueron traídos a América en buen número por los militares que estaban estacionados en Japón durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Los ejemplares traídos a América desarrollaron líneas aquí, los animales produciendo bonitos perros que fueron la definición inicial del tipo de Akita para la mayor parte del mundo. Sin embargo, estas importaciones originales no eran ostensiblemente del tipo de Akita "original", habían sido el resultado de cruzar Akitas nativos con perros europeos para combate en torno al cambio de siglo. Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, los aficionados japoneses determinaron purificar la raza y, esencialmente, re-crear la raza, tal y como había sido conocida históricamente. El Akita Inu japonés hoy se parece mucho a otras razas de perro tipo spizt japonesas, mientras que el Akita americano ahora ha sido separado por la FCI como una raza aparte. Este es un caso interesante de tipo de revisión por el país de origen.
El Golden Retriever en Estados Unidos es un ejemplo de un tipo muy similar a las importaciones originales, mientras que los criadores ingleses han seguido caminos para embellecer el tipo de cabeza, y aumentar el hueso y sustancia. Un giro interesante es el tono dorado pálido frecuente en líneas de sangre europeas. Es la opinión de algunos de que el estándar de la raza americana podría interpretarse considerar el color dorado claro como indeseable. El tono de color añade una complejidad adicional para aquellos criadores que, de otro modo elegirían los esfuerzos de cría europeas para completas los suyos.
Adoptando las modificaciones del país
Un buen ejemplo de divergencia en la raza en el país que adopta es el caso del Cocker Spaniel, que dio lugar a la división del cocker spaniel en las razas americana e inglesa. El Cocker Spaniel en América fue criado como un tipo que se diferenciaba de las importaciones originales por ser más pequeño, con un hocico corto, stop más profundo y parte posterior del cráneo redondeado con una silueta más compacta y exagerada. Mientras fue considerado una sola raza, hubo defensores de ambos tipos, pero fue recomendado por el club a finales de 1930 no mezclar los tipos. En 1946, las versiones americanas e inglesas del cocker spaniel se separaron en dos razas por el AKC.
Cuando el Lowchen Club creó el estándar de la raza para la aceptación de AKC, el club tomó la decisión manifiesta de aumentar ligeramente el tamaño y cambiar la descripción de cabeza para permitir que el hocico igualara la longitud de la parte posterior del cráneo, en lugar de ser más corta, característica tan idealizada en todos los demás países. Estos cambios no tenían defensa histórica; simplemente estaban hechos para describir mejor muchos de los perros en los Estados Unidos en ese momento. Varios años más tarde, cuando me instaló como Presidente del Comité de Revisiónes del Estándar, nuestro objetivo era realinear el estándar de la raza al internacionalmente aceptado tipo de raza. La batalla fue larga y severa con la dimisión de la mitad de los funcionarios de los clubes, pero hoy en día el estándar permite que la raza americana este en consonancia con la opinión mundial. Creo que esto evitó la creación de la "American Lowchen", lo que habría sido un resultado devastador para esta raza muy rara.
Muchas opiniones se han emitido sobre si el Springer Spaniel Inglés en Estados Unidos han divergido significativamente del perro de estilo Inglés. El Springer Inglés en los Estados Unidos se vio afectado por los talentos de la talla de Julia Gasow (Salilyn) que desarrollaron la raza hacia un animal de gran estilo con una excelente solidez y forma. Se podría contemplar si esta dirección fue muy diferente a la de los criadores británicos que transformaron otras razas en estilosos perros de exposición, como con los Bull Terriers como se describió anteriormente. Mucho se ha escrito acerca de las diferencias de tipo global en la raza sin conclusiones decisivas, aunque mi estudio indica el tipo "ideal" es en realidad muy similar conceptualmente. Además de la preferencia en los perros americanos de ser claros de manchas, mientras que estas son frecuentes en líneas de sangre inglesa , parece que hay una mayor tolerancia para la variación en el tipo cabeza en los Estados Unidos.
Aún no está claro para mí cómo se conceptualizó el collie en América de manera diferente a la versión británica. Al igual que con muchas otras razas, excelentes ejemplares ingleses fueron traidos inicialmente a los EE.UU.; de hecho, se trataba de una raza de rigor en el cambio de siglo, con varias de las familias más ricas de los Estados Unidos que participan en la cría de los mejores collies. Hubo acuerdo en ambos lados del Atlántico que tipo de cabeza era una característica clave de la raza. La versión en Inglés es más suave y más en forma de cuña y, presumiblemente, no requiere los requisitos de la cabeza que los especialistas estadounidenses demandan. Para los ojos del inglés, la versión americana es extranjera, y las diferencias no parecen conciliables. Podría decir algo muy similar para el perro pastor de Shetland, los criadores en ambos lados del charco formulan la raza utilizando su versión del collie como el patrón ideal.
Hay, de hecho, varios ejemplos de la adopción de modificaciones por el país. El Brittany para la proporción, el border collie (a través de los criadores de Australia) para la proporción y hueso, y de la American Eskimo / Wolfspitz blanco alemán de proporción, no son más que algunos ejemplos más. Incluso en el Chihuahua, vemos una diferencia definitiva en la silueta buscada por los jueces europeos frente al ideal americano, que es un poco más corto de cuerpo. Y el tradicional Molera, que siempre fue reconocido como una característica histórica de la raza del Chihuahua, se ha convertido en inaceptable por la FCI.
Cuando los estilos se convierten en razas
Arriba: Una perra importante, Ch. Shady Miss, criada por Norma Chandler en los EE.UU. en 1966. Abajo: Ch. Shamrock Faith Hill fue Mejor de Raza en el Nacional en 2009. Nota cómo el tipo Cardigan cambió en los EE.UU. al comparar esta perra con PARMEL Digger. Foto cortesía Susan y Lennah.
Así que la pregunta sigue siendo: "¿En qué momento los 'estilos' raza se vuelven tan divergentes que deben ser considerados razas separadas?" Mi teoría es que cuando las características clave de la raza no están de acuerdo a nivel mundial, la divergencia es irreconciliable. En estos ejemplos es a menudo diferencias clave en la percepción del tipo ideal de cabeza lo que conduce a pensamientos de separación de estilos en las razas. ¿Pueden el collie Americano y el collie Inglés verdaderamente convertirse en uno cuando existe el desacuerdo principal en eltipo de cabeza, que es considerado como característica clave de esa raza?
Ciertamente, una parte de divergencia puede ser un resultado de la acción del stock fundacional de los primeros criadores. El Soft Coated WheatenTerrier desde sus primeros días en América lucía un manto que de ninguna manera se parecía a la, brillante, capa que fluye sedosay que es una característica clave de la raza en su Irlanda natal. Lo que se hace la norma a los ojos de América puede ser una aberración a los criadores en el país natal. La autoridad en Soft Coated WheatenTerrier y criadora Maureen Holmes fue crítica con los patrones estadounidenses y con los criadores americanos que fueron arruinando la raza. Sin medidas correctivas tomadas desde el principio, ya sean dirigidos por los propios criadores o por los jueces que juzgan la raza, es posible que una raza pueda ir por un camino que conduzca inevitablemente a convertirse en algo completamente distinto.
Ha habido argumentos que se pueden apreciar como excelentes ejemplos de tipos raciales diferentes. En la práctica, esto no es posible, ya que no se puede juzgar a los perros en el ring utilizando dos estándares de la raza y terminar con un resultado que merezca la pena. Como criador-juez de Cairn Terrier, me parece que es muy difícil de tratar de atenerse a un "tipo" cuando se enfrentan a animales de calidad que varían tanto en proporción. En un intento de poner el "mejor perro en general," el juez especialista puede así dejar de lado muy buenos ejemplares de un tipo que el juez no idealiza, y esto es poco satisfactorio tanto para el juez y como para el expositor.
La FCI ha convertido en el Kennel Club global, e identifica "país de origen" de una raza y utiliza el estándar de la raza de ese país como el estándar oficial de la raza. En esencia, esto debería funcionar para estandarizar una raza y no permitir que se fracture en los subtipos locales. Los shows de la FCI entonces podrían ser considerados en todo el mundo y seguirían utilizando los mismos estándares de la raza. Pero deben ser los criadores los que se unan para estandarizar una raza en todo el mundo. Esto se hace con mayor éxito a través del intercambio de stocks, así como jueces especializados en la raza. Esto implica ser comprometido y honesto y admitir que los aficionados a la raza de un país pueden haber salido del camino. A medida que trabajamos hacia no para sólo criar los mejores ejemplares de nuestras razas, sino también perros sanos, todos debemos ser conscientes de no cerrarla salida del pool genético de las líneas de sangre hacia el mundo.
El más reciente obstáculo a la continua integración de las líneas de crianza es la decisión por muchos países a no permitir el corte de rabos. Aunque no es una cuestión genética, puede dar lugar a la separación de las razas si los criadores permiten que se haga. Mientras que algunos aficionados, como los de muchas de las razas de spaniel, parecen estar aceptando las colas naturales o cortadas en el ring, otros están decididamente menos dispuestos a aceptar tal desviación de la tradición. El aficionado al Pembroke Welsh Corgi, por ejemplo, tiene una larga historia de dependencia de las importaciones y sin embargo parece ser poco receptivo para perros con cola natural en los rings de Estados Unidos. El tiempo dirá si el resto de los criadores del mundo estará dispuesto a exportar valores excepcionales a los Estados Unidos si a estos perros no se les garantiza ninguna posibilidad de exposición.
Nunca antes tantos criadores norteamericanos han competido por del mundo con sus perros criados por ellos mismos o trabajado de una manera global, intercambiando de manera recíproca líneas de sangre tan valiosas. Sin embargo, la divergencia en los estilos de muchas razas sigue sin disminuir. Será interesante ver donde esta década nos lleva.
Por Jon Kimes | Publicado: 03 de noviembre 2014
Variations in Breed Type
At what point do "styles” become so diverged that they should be considered breeds?
By Jon Kimes | Posted: November 3, 2014 10 a.m. PST
Tweet
Nothing can be more pleasurable than to have a breed that is globally consistent, with all breeders striving for the same ideal. It allows for a broader array of opportunities for breeding programs and the ability to exhibit to judges from around the world. Exhibitors are able to show worldwide and to form friendships globally.
Certainly a common theme among many of these breeds has been long-term interaction with other countries. We see this situation today with most terriers, Labrador Retrievers, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Pointers, Poodles and Petits Bassets Griffons Vendéens, for example.
If the purpose of breeding purebred dogs is to advance and promote one’s chosen breed, is the goal compromised when the concept of "ideal” for a particular breed varies from country to country? When do type "styles” diverge to such an extent that the styles can only be rationalized into breeds? There have been, for more than a century, diversions between "working type” and "show type” in a number of breeds, but when the "show type” further subdivides into such variation that they may lead to a "new” breed, have breeders failed at their job?
I find this a fascinating circumstance to contemplate when studying various breeds, and I came to understand some of the patterns that seem to result in these differences.
Original Country Development
One of my observations is that early imports into the US can set the "type” for generations, and while the breed’s home country may continue to develop, modify or refine its dogs, the American dogs remain reminiscent of the original stock.
The Cardigan Welsh Corgi, for instance, was imported to America in the early 1930s. One of the first imports was a bitch named Cassie, who was also the foundation bitch for the UK bloodstock of the breed. America could not have started off on more equal footing. By the 1970s there were murmurs of "American vs. English” type Cardigans. Had the American breeders taken the breed into a new direction, diverging from the original imports? In fact, quite the opposite occurred. In the 1970s there were many Cardigans whose pedigrees extended to the earliest imports, and they looked very much like the dogs first imported. Meanwhile, the British breeders continued to refine the breed, to make silhouettes elegant with reachy necks, deeper briskets, prettier heads, rounder bone and altogether a more singular, handsome animal than the original working dogs. Ultimately the problem was resolved as several American kennels imported more dogs and bred to the English look, and today breed type is reasonably consistent worldwide.
A similar situation happened with Bull Terriers. Founded on some excellent English imports, the Bull Terrier in America in the late 1960s looked remarkably consistent with Bull Terriers of the 1930s. The improvement in the American breeding programs over these decades appeared to be focused more on structural soundness. Meanwhile, the English breeders continued to "advance” the breed, breeding more substance, more bone and, most notably, more head sophistication: wider, more filled and profiles with greater arc. In the 1970s, the English type became the ideal after a group of committed breeders established specialties and used UK judges. Today North America stands shoulder to shoulder with the best kennels worldwide.
The Akita was first brought to America in numbers by servicemen who were stationed in Japan during World War II. The specimens brought to America developed lines here, producing handsome animals that were the initial definition of Akita type for most of the world. However, these original imports were ostensibly not the "original” Akita in type but had been the result of crossing native Akitas with European dogs for fighting around the turn of the century. After WWII, the Japanese fancy was determined to purify the breed and essentially re-create the breed as it had been historically known. The Japanese Akita Inu today closely resembles other Japanese spitz breeds, while the American Akita has now been separated by the FCI into a separate breed. This is an interesting case of type revision by the home country.
The Golden Retriever in America is an example of a type very similar to original imports, whereas the English breeders have continued to embellish the head type, and increase bone and substance. An interesting twist is the prevalent pale gold shade in European bloodlines. It is the opinion of some that the American breed standard could be construed to consider the lighter gold shade as undesirable. The shade of color adds an additional complexity for those breeders who would otherwise choose to take advantage of European breeding efforts.
Adopting Country Modifies
A good example of breed divergence in the adopting country is the case of the Cocker Spaniel, which resulted in the division of the Cocker Spaniel into the English and American breeds. The Cocker Spaniel in America was bred to a type which differentiated it from the original imports by being smaller with a shorter muzzle, deeper stop and rounded backskull with a more compact and exaggerated bodyline. While still considered a single breed, there were advocates of both types, but it was recommended by the parent club in the late 1930s not to mix the types. In 1946, the American and English versions of the Cocker Spaniel were separated into two breeds by the AKC.
When the Lowchen club created the breed standard upon AKC acceptance, the club made the overt decision to slightly increase the size and change the head description to allow the muzzle to equal the length of the backskull, rather than be shorter than the backskull as idealized in all other countries. These changes had no historical defense; they were simply made to better describe many of the dogs in America at the time. Several years later when I was installed as Chair of the Standard Revision Committee, our goal was to realign the breed standard to internationally accepted breed type. The battle was long and severe with half the club officers resigning, but today the standard allows the American breed ideal to be consistent with global opinion. I believe this averted the creation of the "American Lowchen,” which would have been a devastating outcome for this very rare breed.
Many opinions have been issued on whether English Springer Spaniels in America have diverged significantly from the English-style dog. The English Springer in the United States was impacted by the talents of the likes of Julia Gasow (Salilyn) who developed the breed into an animal of high style with excellent soundness and form. One might contemplate whether this direction was really any different than the British breeders who transformed other breeds into stylish show dogs, such as with Bull Terriers as earlier described. Much has been written about global type differences in the breed with no decisive conclusions, although my study indicates the "ideal” type is actually very similar conceptually. Besides the preference for American dogs to be clear of spotting and spotting being prevalent in English bloodlines, there seems to be a greater tolerance for head type variation in the United States.
It is as yet unclear to me how the Collie in America was conceptualized differently than the British version. As with many other breeds, excellent English specimens were initially brought into the US; in fact, this was a breed de rigueur at the turn of the century, with several of the wealthiest families in the United States participating in the breeding of top Collies. There was agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that head type was a key breed characteristic. The English version is softer and more wedge-shaped and presumably does not require quite the single-minded focus on every aspect of the head that American specialists demand. To English eyes, the American version is foreign, and the differences do not seem reconcilable. I might say something very similar for the Shetland Sheepdog, breeders on both sides of the water formulating the breed using their version of the Collie as the pattern.
There are, in fact, several examples of adopting country modification. The Brittany for proportion, the Border Collie (through Australian breeders) for proportion and bone, and the American Eskimo/White German Wolfspitz for proportion, are but a few more examples. Even in the Chihuahua, we see a definite difference in silhouette sought by European judges versus the American ideal, which is slightly more shorter-bodied. And the traditional Molera, which was always recognized as a historic breed characteristic of the Chihuahua, has become unacceptable by the FCI.
When Styles Become Breeds
So the question remains, "At what point do breed ‘styles’ become so diverged they should be considered separate breeds?” I theorize when key breed characteristics are not in agreement globally, the divergence is irreconcilable. In such examples it is often key differences in perceptions of ideal head type which lead to thoughts of separating styles into breeds. Can the American Collie and the English Collie truly become one when the main disagreement exists on head type, which is considered to be that breed’s key characteristic of breed type?
Certainly, part of divergence can be a result of the foundation stock of the early breeders. The Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier right from its early days in America sported a coat that in no way resembled the silky, shiny, flowing coat that is a key breed characteristic in its native Ireland. What becomes the norm to American eyes may be an aberration to breeders in the native country. Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier authority and breeder Maureen Holmes was critical of American stock and stated American breeders were ruining the breed. Without corrective steps taken early on, either led by the breeders themselves or by the judges who judge the breed, it is possible for a breed to go down a path that inevitably leads it to become something else entirely.
There have been arguments that one can appreciate excellent examples of differing breed type. In practice, this is not feasible, as one cannot judge dogs in the ring using two breed standards and end up with a worthwhile outcome. As a Cairn Terrier breeder-judge, I find it is very challenging to try to stick to "type” when faced with quality animals that vary so much in proportion. In attempting to put up the "best dog overall,” the specialist judge may well leave out very good specimens of a type that the judge does not idealize, and this is unsatisfying to both the judge and exhibitor.
The FCI has become the most global kennel club, and it identifies a breed’s "country of origin” and uses that country’s breed standard as the official breed standard. In essence, this should work to standardize a breed and not allow it to fracture into regional subtypes. FCI shows can then be held around the world and still use the same breed standards. But it should be the breeders who come together to standardize a breed worldwide. This is done most successfully through exchanging stock as well as judges who specialize in the breed. It comes from being committed and honest and admitting that a country’s breed fancy may have gotten off track. As we work toward not only breeding better examples of our breeds but healthier dogs, too, we must all be mindful of not closing the available gene pool off from worldwide bloodlines.
The most recent barrier to continued integration of breeding lines is the direction by many countries to no longer permit tail docking. While not a genetic issue, it can result in breed separation if breeders allow it to do so. While some fancies, such as many of the spaniel breeds, appear to be accepting of natural or docked tails in the ring, others are decidedly less willing to accept such deviation from tradition. The Pembroke Welsh Corgi fancy, for instance, has a long history of dependence on imported stock and yet seems to be unwelcoming to undocked dogs into the American ring. Time will tell if the rest of the world’s breeders will be willing to export exceptional stock to America if such dogs are guaranteed no chance for exhibition.
Never before have so many North American breeders competed around the world with their homebred dogs or worked in such a global, reciprocal way sharing valuable bloodlines. Yet divergence in the styles of many breeds continues unabated. It will be interesting to see where this decade takes us.
Variations in Breed Type
At what point do "styles” become so diverged that they should be considered breeds?
By Jon Kimes | Posted: November 3, 2014 10 a.m. PST
Tweet
Nothing can be more pleasurable than to have a breed that is globally consistent, with all breeders striving for the same ideal. It allows for a broader array of opportunities for breeding programs and the ability to exhibit to judges from around the world. Exhibitors are able to show worldwide and to form friendships globally.
Certainly a common theme among many of these breeds has been long-term interaction with other countries. We see this situation today with most terriers, Labrador Retrievers, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Pointers, Poodles and Petits Bassets Griffons Vendéens, for example.
If the purpose of breeding purebred dogs is to advance and promote one’s chosen breed, is the goal compromised when the concept of "ideal” for a particular breed varies from country to country? When do type "styles” diverge to such an extent that the styles can only be rationalized into breeds? There have been, for more than a century, diversions between "working type” and "show type” in a number of breeds, but when the "show type” further subdivides into such variation that they may lead to a "new” breed, have breeders failed at their job?
I find this a fascinating circumstance to contemplate when studying various breeds, and I came to understand some of the patterns that seem to result in these differences.
Original Country Development
One of my observations is that early imports into the US can set the "type” for generations, and while the breed’s home country may continue to develop, modify or refine its dogs, the American dogs remain reminiscent of the original stock.
The Cardigan Welsh Corgi, for instance, was imported to America in the early 1930s. One of the first imports was a bitch named Cassie, who was also the foundation bitch for the UK bloodstock of the breed. America could not have started off on more equal footing. By the 1970s there were murmurs of "American vs. English” type Cardigans. Had the American breeders taken the breed into a new direction, diverging from the original imports? In fact, quite the opposite occurred. In the 1970s there were many Cardigans whose pedigrees extended to the earliest imports, and they looked very much like the dogs first imported. Meanwhile, the British breeders continued to refine the breed, to make silhouettes elegant with reachy necks, deeper briskets, prettier heads, rounder bone and altogether a more singular, handsome animal than the original working dogs. Ultimately the problem was resolved as several American kennels imported more dogs and bred to the English look, and today breed type is reasonably consistent worldwide.
A similar situation happened with Bull Terriers. Founded on some excellent English imports, the Bull Terrier in America in the late 1960s looked remarkably consistent with Bull Terriers of the 1930s. The improvement in the American breeding programs over these decades appeared to be focused more on structural soundness. Meanwhile, the English breeders continued to "advance” the breed, breeding more substance, more bone and, most notably, more head sophistication: wider, more filled and profiles with greater arc. In the 1970s, the English type became the ideal after a group of committed breeders established specialties and used UK judges. Today North America stands shoulder to shoulder with the best kennels worldwide.
The Akita was first brought to America in numbers by servicemen who were stationed in Japan during World War II. The specimens brought to America developed lines here, producing handsome animals that were the initial definition of Akita type for most of the world. However, these original imports were ostensibly not the "original” Akita in type but had been the result of crossing native Akitas with European dogs for fighting around the turn of the century. After WWII, the Japanese fancy was determined to purify the breed and essentially re-create the breed as it had been historically known. The Japanese Akita Inu today closely resembles other Japanese spitz breeds, while the American Akita has now been separated by the FCI into a separate breed. This is an interesting case of type revision by the home country.
The Golden Retriever in America is an example of a type very similar to original imports, whereas the English breeders have continued to embellish the head type, and increase bone and substance. An interesting twist is the prevalent pale gold shade in European bloodlines. It is the opinion of some that the American breed standard could be construed to consider the lighter gold shade as undesirable. The shade of color adds an additional complexity for those breeders who would otherwise choose to take advantage of European breeding efforts.
Adopting Country Modifies
A good example of breed divergence in the adopting country is the case of the Cocker Spaniel, which resulted in the division of the Cocker Spaniel into the English and American breeds. The Cocker Spaniel in America was bred to a type which differentiated it from the original imports by being smaller with a shorter muzzle, deeper stop and rounded backskull with a more compact and exaggerated bodyline. While still considered a single breed, there were advocates of both types, but it was recommended by the parent club in the late 1930s not to mix the types. In 1946, the American and English versions of the Cocker Spaniel were separated into two breeds by the AKC.
When the Lowchen club created the breed standard upon AKC acceptance, the club made the overt decision to slightly increase the size and change the head description to allow the muzzle to equal the length of the backskull, rather than be shorter than the backskull as idealized in all other countries. These changes had no historical defense; they were simply made to better describe many of the dogs in America at the time. Several years later when I was installed as Chair of the Standard Revision Committee, our goal was to realign the breed standard to internationally accepted breed type. The battle was long and severe with half the club officers resigning, but today the standard allows the American breed ideal to be consistent with global opinion. I believe this averted the creation of the "American Lowchen,” which would have been a devastating outcome for this very rare breed.
Many opinions have been issued on whether English Springer Spaniels in America have diverged significantly from the English-style dog. The English Springer in the United States was impacted by the talents of the likes of Julia Gasow (Salilyn) who developed the breed into an animal of high style with excellent soundness and form. One might contemplate whether this direction was really any different than the British breeders who transformed other breeds into stylish show dogs, such as with Bull Terriers as earlier described. Much has been written about global type differences in the breed with no decisive conclusions, although my study indicates the "ideal” type is actually very similar conceptually. Besides the preference for American dogs to be clear of spotting and spotting being prevalent in English bloodlines, there seems to be a greater tolerance for head type variation in the United States.
It is as yet unclear to me how the Collie in America was conceptualized differently than the British version. As with many other breeds, excellent English specimens were initially brought into the US; in fact, this was a breed de rigueur at the turn of the century, with several of the wealthiest families in the United States participating in the breeding of top Collies. There was agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that head type was a key breed characteristic. The English version is softer and more wedge-shaped and presumably does not require quite the single-minded focus on every aspect of the head that American specialists demand. To English eyes, the American version is foreign, and the differences do not seem reconcilable. I might say something very similar for the Shetland Sheepdog, breeders on both sides of the water formulating the breed using their version of the Collie as the pattern.
There are, in fact, several examples of adopting country modification. The Brittany for proportion, the Border Collie (through Australian breeders) for proportion and bone, and the American Eskimo/White German Wolfspitz for proportion, are but a few more examples. Even in the Chihuahua, we see a definite difference in silhouette sought by European judges versus the American ideal, which is slightly more shorter-bodied. And the traditional Molera, which was always recognized as a historic breed characteristic of the Chihuahua, has become unacceptable by the FCI.
When Styles Become Breeds
So the question remains, "At what point do breed ‘styles’ become so diverged they should be considered separate breeds?” I theorize when key breed characteristics are not in agreement globally, the divergence is irreconcilable. In such examples it is often key differences in perceptions of ideal head type which lead to thoughts of separating styles into breeds. Can the American Collie and the English Collie truly become one when the main disagreement exists on head type, which is considered to be that breed’s key characteristic of breed type?
Certainly, part of divergence can be a result of the foundation stock of the early breeders. The Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier right from its early days in America sported a coat that in no way resembled the silky, shiny, flowing coat that is a key breed characteristic in its native Ireland. What becomes the norm to American eyes may be an aberration to breeders in the native country. Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier authority and breeder Maureen Holmes was critical of American stock and stated American breeders were ruining the breed. Without corrective steps taken early on, either led by the breeders themselves or by the judges who judge the breed, it is possible for a breed to go down a path that inevitably leads it to become something else entirely.
There have been arguments that one can appreciate excellent examples of differing breed type. In practice, this is not feasible, as one cannot judge dogs in the ring using two breed standards and end up with a worthwhile outcome. As a Cairn Terrier breeder-judge, I find it is very challenging to try to stick to "type” when faced with quality animals that vary so much in proportion. In attempting to put up the "best dog overall,” the specialist judge may well leave out very good specimens of a type that the judge does not idealize, and this is unsatisfying to both the judge and exhibitor.
The FCI has become the most global kennel club, and it identifies a breed’s "country of origin” and uses that country’s breed standard as the official breed standard. In essence, this should work to standardize a breed and not allow it to fracture into regional subtypes. FCI shows can then be held around the world and still use the same breed standards. But it should be the breeders who come together to standardize a breed worldwide. This is done most successfully through exchanging stock as well as judges who specialize in the breed. It comes from being committed and honest and admitting that a country’s breed fancy may have gotten off track. As we work toward not only breeding better examples of our breeds but healthier dogs, too, we must all be mindful of not closing the available gene pool off from worldwide bloodlines.
The most recent barrier to continued integration of breeding lines is the direction by many countries to no longer permit tail docking. While not a genetic issue, it can result in breed separation if breeders allow it to do so. While some fancies, such as many of the spaniel breeds, appear to be accepting of natural or docked tails in the ring, others are decidedly less willing to accept such deviation from tradition. The Pembroke Welsh Corgi fancy, for instance, has a long history of dependence on imported stock and yet seems to be unwelcoming to undocked dogs into the American ring. Time will tell if the rest of the world’s breeders will be willing to export exceptional stock to America if such dogs are guaranteed no chance for exhibition.
Never before have so many North American breeders competed around the world with their homebred dogs or worked in such a global, reciprocal way sharing valuable bloodlines. Yet divergence in the styles of many breeds continues unabated. It will be interesting to see where this decade takes us.