WExtremeG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses! Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiara Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 At some point I read something about the links between pigment and temperament (this article was specific to GSDs) and addressed the issue of dilutes in the breed. I can't find it at the moment but it was quite interesting.. the dark dogs typical of east German bloodlines seemed to be the basis of the article, having been known for their sound nerves and working ability. Anyways, on the issue of rare and unusual colours being integrated into standards.. I honestly don't see a real, solid reason for it all. I think the acceptance of unusual colours is the last thing most breeders should be worried about (Esp. in a breed like the GSD). When the most crucial aspects of the standard are being met by the majority of breeders then I can see why it's okay to push the inclusion of livers, partis, blues, tricolours and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
becks Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Parti poodles are very pretty dogs, but there are still good arguments for not breeding piebald dogs to each other. I tend to agree with puglver, old decisions shouldn't be overturned on a whim, because there are long-term consequences which will affect different breeds in different ways. That's like saying poodle breeders need to be controlled as they haven't got the sense not to mate 2 partis (if indeed that would cause a problem) when there are breeds out there that allow merle and parti colours within their own breeds and leave it up to the breeders to know what to do with them. It was said earlier, that some decisions were made in an era when they didn;t have the knowledge - so if we now know better about a colour not being a problem, then why not include it within the ranks of a breed? When we were getting the white minis accepted, it was amazing how many breeders thought that by whites getting into the breed (haha they are already in the lines from the begining!) that they would suddenly all start getting parti colour pups! :laugh: I wonder how many breeds actually had colour as a priority from the start of their development, or whether it was something that just got bias too later on? (sometimes with good reason if health or work ability became an issue, but sometimes for what??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses! Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? From what I understand there is a chance that these dogs could die shortly after birth due to deformities, it depends on luck of the draw how badly they are affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses! Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I think each breed needs to be looked at separately, because each will have it's own history and reasons for colour. I'm not in favour of breeding for colour at all, but I think it's fair enough to want to breed for strong pigment (really dark noses) and away from too much depigmentation, because there are pretty good reasons for pigment beyond the aesthetic. I think there is a lot of waste happening in breeds where a colour gene is allowed to be expressed in some dogs and not others. Even if these mismarked dogs are popular as pets, they are mostly removed from the gene pool of breeding dogs, and that is to the detriment of the breed. I don't think it is always personal preference that leads to decisions being made. Parti poodles are very pretty dogs, but there are still good arguments for not breeding piebald dogs to each other. I tend to agree with puglver, old decisions shouldn't be overturned on a whim, because there are long-term consequences which will affect different breeds in different ways. Firstly most people who breed other colours are not breeding for colour any more than someone is who actively breeds for recognised colours and never any other - its still breeding for colour. Secondly there is no proven problem with breeding parti poodle to pari poodle so there is no good reason for not breeding this breed which has the piebald gene and even if there were breeders are now able to DNA test and ensure only one dog has the piebald if thats what they want to be sure of anyway. The gene pool shrinks every day and that has been greatly influenced by the introduction of limited register in Australia with breeder protecting their bloodlines and preventing dogs which are perfectly suited for breeding including colour not able to be used for breeding and more recently greater restriction on what can be placed on the main register and able to be used for breeding even if the breeder thinks its the best conformed dog they have ever seen - even if its the only pup that doesn't have a genetic disorder that the breeder may be trying to breed away from. Did the original founders of the breed intend to only have dogs which could be shown used for breeding? Doubtful because if they did that would have been restricted for the last 100 years when in fact it isn't restricted still in most countries and has only been restricted in this country for around 5 years. If in fact breeders need to be controlled and given no opportunity to assess all of the variables they are working with and determine what is best for what they are working with then why not put restrictions on each breed and disallow certain combinations of colour genes. Eg no white boxer to white or flashy but O.K. for white with plain? Why not prevent anyone breeding flashy to flashy - then a white pup would never be born ? With calls for widening gene pools, and the push for not placing so much emphasis on how the dog looks leaving it as it stands simply adds weight for the critics and it isn't what is best for the breeds or the dogs. The really really crazy thing is that in the UK every stud book is open - someone can go to a pound find a dog that looks pretty much like a poodle and have it entered onto the pedigree and breed registered puppies and in 4 generations all dogs are again recognised as purebred - these puppies can be registered in Australia on the main register and used for breeding as long as they are a recognised colour - yet we yell about a purebred with a pedigree for a couple of hundred generations being used for breeding because its a non recognised colour! Even where in most breed's country of origin allows them to be used for breeding but not shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I agree Steve, colour and quality are not mutually exclusive, quality suffers when breeders don't have it a priority in their programs and that can happen whether they are breeding certain colours or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frufru Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Thank you Steve, wanted to post in the same vein but have been distracted as we are still isolated by floodwaters. We need a more diverse gene pool and allowing mismarked poodles with established pedigrees is much more preferable than an open stud book. I am aware of 2 breeders of parti standards in Aust (including the poster who started this discussion) and neither want to breed unregistered dogs. One was registered and has left ANKC taking their solid registered dogs with them. Poodle breeders are already breeding for colour as they believe that the best colour comes from breeding like to like and there are some colours that are not mixed eg brown and white/cream. Apricot/red and silver or brown. Being able to register and use mismarks would certainly open up the gene pool. Edited January 31, 2013 by frufru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses! Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. My bad- I thought the term 'lethal white' was given to dogs who were homozygous Merle/Harlequin- Must go and read into it a bit more... edit- Yep, what I originally thought- http://www.lethalwhites.com/lethalwhite.html http://www.australian-shepherd-lovers.com/lethal-white.html http://www.amazingaussies.com/What%20are%20Lethal%20Whites.pdf Edited January 31, 2013 by WExtremeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) I wonder how many breeds actually had colour as a priority from the start of their development, or whether it was something that just got bias too later on? (sometimes with good reason if health or work ability became an issue, but sometimes for what??) You will find that the UK Kennel Club's newest pure breed of dog, the 'Turkish Kangal' has colour as its priority. (English Kangal breeders are not au fait with basic colour genetics I guess) UK Anatolian Breed Standard UK Kangal Breed Standard The UK Kennel Club will also re-register some black masked Anatolians as UK Kangals Edited January 31, 2013 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses! Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. My bad- I thought the term 'lethal white' was given to dogs who were homozygous Merle/Harlequin- Must go and read into it a bit more... edit- Yep, what I originally thought- http://www.lethalwhi...ethalwhite.html http://www.australia...thal-white.html http://www.amazingau...al%20Whites.pdf http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lethal+gene lethal gene n. A gene whose expression resultsin the death of the organism, usually during embryogenesis. http://ghr.nlm.nih.g...ary=lethalgene0 Definition(s) Genes which result in the premature death of the organism; dominant lethal genes kill heterozygotes, whereas recessive lethal genes kill only homozygotes.Definition from: MeSH via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine Any gene in which a mutation will result in the premature death of the organism carrying it.Definition from: CRISP Thesaurus via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine A gene that in some (as homozygous) conditions may prevent development or cause the death of an organism or its germ cells -- called also lethal factor, lethal mutant, lethal mutation.Definition from: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary by Merriam-Webster Inc. Edited February 1, 2013 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Is there such a thing as lethal white in dogs? I've only ever heard of that in double overo horses! Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. My bad- I thought the term 'lethal white' was given to dogs who were homozygous Merle/Harlequin- Must go and read into it a bit more... edit- Yep, what I originally thought- http://www.lethalwhi...ethalwhite.html http://www.australia...thal-white.html http://www.amazingau...al%20Whites.pdf http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lethal+gene lethal gene n. A gene whose expression resultsin the death of the organism, usually during embryogenesis. http://ghr.nlm.nih.g...ary=lethalgene0 Definition(s) Genes which result in the premature death of the organism; dominant lethal genes kill heterozygotes, whereas recessive lethal genes kill only homozygotes.Definition from: MeSH via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine Any gene in which a mutation will result in the premature death of the organism carrying it.Definition from: CRISP Thesaurus via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine A gene that in some (as homozygous) conditions may prevent development or cause the death of an organism or its germ cells -- called also lethal factor, lethal mutant, lethal mutation.Definition from: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary by Merriam-Webster Inc. We wern't referring to the lethal gene???- but the term "lethal white" for dogs who are double merle (Homozygous Merle) or double Harlequin (Homozygous Harlequin). Homozygous Merles/Harlequins won't die at birth unless at the hands of the breeder. Edited February 1, 2013 by WExtremeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I wonder how many breeds actually had colour as a priority from the start of their development, or whether it was something that just got bias too later on? (sometimes with good reason if health or work ability became an issue, but sometimes for what??) You will find that the UK Kennel Club's newest pure breed of dog, the 'Turkish Kangal' has colour as its priority. (English Kangal breeders are not au fait with basic colour genetics I guess) UK Anatolian Breed Standard UK Kangal Breed Standard The UK Kennel Club will also re-register some black masked Anatolians as UK Kangals How bizarre lilli! I thought Anatolians were accepted in every colour, same as Kangals...didn't they decide they would be referred to as the same breed or something? I can never keep up :laugh: Edited February 1, 2013 by Aussie3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 We wern't referring to the lethal gene???- but the term "lethal white" for dogs who are double merle (Homozygous Merle) or double Harlequin (Homozygous Harlequin). Homozygous Merles/Harlequins won't die at birth unless at the hands of the breeder. Yes, I was wondering why these predominantly white, potentially deaf and blind dogs are referred to as "lethal white" when they do not, in fact, die unless put down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
becks Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 The really really crazy thing is that in the UK every stud book is open - someone can go to a pound find a dog that looks pretty much like a poodle and have it entered onto the pedigree and breed registered puppies and in 4 generations all dogs are again recognised as purebred - these puppies can be registered in Australia on the main register and used for breeding as long as they are a recognised colour - yet we yell about a purebred with a pedigree for a couple of hundred generations being used for breeding because its a non recognised colour! Even where in most breed's country of origin allows them to be used for breeding but not shown. Steve could you please find a source for that as I am not sure that is true. I would think that certain things like KC approval would be needed first to bring in a new dog that wasn't registered and various other processes needing to be followed. I wonder how many breeds actually had colour as a priority from the start of their development, or whether it was something that just got bias too later on? (sometimes with good reason if health or work ability became an issue, but sometimes for what??) You will find that the UK Kennel Club's newest pure breed of dog, the 'Turkish Kangal' has colour as its priority. (English Kangal breeders are not au fait with basic colour genetics I guess) UK Anatolian Breed Standard UK Kangal Breed Standard The UK Kennel Club will also re-register some black masked Anatolians as UK Kangals Isn;t that more because they can't decide how to split the breed into these 2 types? I'm not sure on the how and why, it has been quite awhile since i read anything about them and can;t remember if it was you in another thread or the dog papers here. It's not like someone said I'm going to start breeding the becks hound and they must be solid black, my foundation dogs can only be black as this will define the breed, they can only be black from now on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3672/23/5/3 Pilot scheme for registering dogs of unverified parentage A pilot scheme which could enhance genetic diversity has been announced by the Kennel Club. It will allow purebred unregistered dogs to be registered on the Breed Register on a case by case basis. This is a return to the position which existed forty years ago when similar rules were in force. Enhancing genetic diversity The move, approved by the Kennel Club General Committee last year, will if used, enhance genetic diversity by widening breed gene pools and allowing new bloodlines to be introduced within breeds. Under the new pilot scheme, every successful application will be admitted to the register with three asterisks next to its name. Asterisks will be applied for three further generations, in order to identify the fact that there is unknown or unregistered ancestry behind a dog. How to apply Applications will need to be accompanied by a letter of explanation of how the applicant acquired the dogand will then only be considered on the proviso that the dog: a) is verified by two Championship level judges appointed by the Kennel Club who should agree that the dog is representative of its breed. b) is DNA profiled. c) has relevant health tests (equivalent to that required and recommended under the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme) for the breed. Breed specific health requirements under the ABS can be viewed atwww.thekennelclub.org.uk/breedhealth. To ensure that only genuine applicants apply, strict requirements have been put in place that will need to be completed before an application is finally approved by the Committee, and in addition there will be an administration fee of £100 per dog. Every application will be considered on a case by case basis. Whilst the Kennel Club is keen to open up its register, it should be noted that there is no guarantee that dogs so registered (and their progeny) will be accepted for registration by overseas registering bodies. That will depend upon their local regulations. Application forms are available direct from the Registration Office on 0844 4633 980 and This My link Dogs of breeds already fully recognised, whose breeding is either impure or unverified, may be accepted for registration on the Breed Register. The registration certificate for a dog so registered will be annotated with an asterisk to indicate impure or unverified breeding. Such dogs will be similarly identified in the Breed Records Supplement. Edited February 1, 2013 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancinbcs Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 We wern't referring to the lethal gene???- but the term "lethal white" for dogs who are double merle (Homozygous Merle) or double Harlequin (Homozygous Harlequin). Homozygous Merles/Harlequins won't die at birth unless at the hands of the breeder. Yes, I was wondering why these predominantly white, potentially deaf and blind dogs are referred to as "lethal white" when they do not, in fact, die unless put down. If they had to survive in the wild they would certainly die therefore it is a lethal condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 We wern't referring to the lethal gene???- but the term "lethal white" for dogs who are double merle (Homozygous Merle) or double Harlequin (Homozygous Harlequin). Homozygous Merles/Harlequins won't die at birth unless at the hands of the breeder. Yes, I was wondering why these predominantly white, potentially deaf and blind dogs are referred to as "lethal white" when they do not, in fact, die unless put down. If they had to survive in the wild they would certainly die therefore it is a lethal condition. If that's the critera for 'lethal' then it would apply to pretty much all toy breeds, there are a lot of breeds that couldn't survive in the wild for all sorts of reasons. To me lethal means it dies as a direct result of the condition, failure to survive in the wild would be an indirect consequence and as I pointed out could apply to any number of characteristics so it doesn't make much sense to me to use that terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) We wern't referring to the lethal gene???- but the term "lethal white" for dogs who are double merle (Homozygous Merle) or double Harlequin (Homozygous Harlequin). Homozygous Merles/Harlequins won't die at birth unless at the hands of the breeder. Yes, I was wondering why these predominantly white, potentially deaf and blind dogs are referred to as "lethal white" when they do not, in fact, die unless put down. If they had to survive in the wild they would certainly die therefore it is a lethal condition. If that's the critera for 'lethal' then it would apply to pretty much all toy breeds, there are a lot of breeds that couldn't survive in the wild for all sorts of reasons. To me lethal means it dies as a direct result of the condition, failure to survive in the wild would be an indirect consequence and as I pointed out could apply to any number of characteristics so it doesn't make much sense to me to use that terminology. Lol I was just trying to visualize a pug attempting to run down... Well, anything, really.. Or some easily corrected things such as ectropion eye lids which could cause a dog to become blind and die "in the wild" or dogs with bad dentition like bad overbite or underbite... Are these all "lethal" conditions? Edited February 1, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puglvr Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 My pugs are lethal to chickens, they will run them down, kill and eat them. One has also run down and killed a rabbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now