Snidely is guilty of <mn.f09e7e81e0aa6d2b.127094@snitoo> as of
1/30/2024 2:38:27 AM
> Just this Tuesday, J. J. Lodder puzzled about:
>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Blake scribbled something on Saturday the 1/27/2024:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:14:07 +0000, Hibou
>>>> <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 26/01/2024 à 15:58, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While looking up hybrid vigor, as one does, I found an article with
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> title:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The myth of hybrid vigor in dogs...is a myth"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just going by the title, would you expect the author to argue that
>>>>>> hybrid
>>>>>> vigor does or doesn't exist in dogs?
>>>>>
>>>>> The title is clumsy and misleading,
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Besides "myth" being misleading, it isn't clear (at least not to
>>>> me) what "hybrid vigor" means.
>>>
>>> But that was Jerry's starting point, "hybrid vigor" is a thing that people
>>> who care about breeds or breeding programs think about.
>>
>> 'Hybrid vogour' is one of those simplistic generalisations
>> aimed at outsiders.
>> Real breeders, of dogs (or anything else) will know better
>> that to go by such simplistic rules,
>>
>> Jan
>
> The blog claims that dog breeders don't know better.

That is, they continue to in-breed and weaken the breeds.

There are papers out there saying it's too late for some breeds, and
that the number of genetic defects are too many to correct by
hybridization. I believe some of the bulldog breeds are in the worst
shape, but the list of damaged breeds grows longer ... chihuahuas,
German shepherds, labradors, ....

The blog also points out that it isn't just the obvious defects like
breathing problems, hip displacia, etc, but also smaller changes that
affect success of breeding, size of litter, viability of zygotes and
pups.

I admit that I haven't done a careful survey, but the number of inbred
populations that are genetically clean seem very small. That seems to
be true of both natural populations and those developed from human
husbandry. That Channel Island foxes were such a population was a
surprise to biologists.

Developing a breed often involves inbreeding to select for a particular
characteristic, but the longer the period of homozygosity the more
imnportant the undesired traits seem to become.

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/01/24 21:03, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > FYI, the Dutch: 'dempen de put nadat het kalf verdronken is'.
>
> Until I took that to Google Translate, I had a mental image of a drunken
> calf.

Old Germanic, Old Norse, Old and all that.
The special meaning of 'getting drunk' is modern, by comparison,

Jan

Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just this Tuesday, J. J. Lodder puzzled about:
> > Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ken Blake scribbled something on Saturday the 1/27/2024:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:14:07 +0000, Hibou
> >>> <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Le 26/01/2024 à 15:58, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While looking up hybrid vigor, as one does, I found an article with this
> >>>>> title:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The myth of hybrid vigor in dogs...is a myth"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just going by the title, would you expect the author to argue that
> >>>>> hybrid vigor does or doesn't exist in dogs?
> >>>>
> >>>> The title is clumsy and misleading,
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Besides "myth" being misleading, it isn't clear (at least not to
> >>> me) what "hybrid vigor" means.
> >>
> >> But that was Jerry's starting point, "hybrid vigor" is a thing that
> >> people who care about breeds or breeding programs think about.
> >
> > 'Hybrid vogour' is one of those simplistic generalisations
> > aimed at outsiders.
> > Real breeders, of dogs (or anything else) will know better
> > that to go by such simplistic rules,
> >
> > Jan
>
> The blog claims that dog breeders don't know better.

They are even dumber than their dogs?

Jan

Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snidely is guilty of <mn.f09e7e81e0aa6d2b.127094@snitoo> as of
> 1/30/2024 2:38:27 AM
> > Just this Tuesday, J. J. Lodder puzzled about:
> >> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ken Blake scribbled something on Saturday the 1/27/2024:
> >>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:14:07 +0000, Hibou
> >>>> <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Le 26/01/2024 à 15:58, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While looking up hybrid vigor, as one does, I found an article with
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> title:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The myth of hybrid vigor in dogs...is a myth"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just going by the title, would you expect the author to argue that
> >>>>>> hybrid
> >>>>>> vigor does or doesn't exist in dogs?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The title is clumsy and misleading,
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. Besides "myth" being misleading, it isn't clear (at least not to
> >>>> me) what "hybrid vigor" means.
> >>>
> >>> But that was Jerry's starting point, "hybrid vigor" is a thing that people
> >>> who care about breeds or breeding programs think about.
> >>
> >> 'Hybrid vogour' is one of those simplistic generalisations
> >> aimed at outsiders.
> >> Real breeders, of dogs (or anything else) will know better
> >> that to go by such simplistic rules,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > The blog claims that dog breeders don't know better.
>
> That is, they continue to in-breed and weaken the breeds.
>
> There are papers out there saying it's too late for some breeds, and
> that the number of genetic defects are too many to correct by
> hybridization. I believe some of the bulldog breeds are in the worst
> shape, but the list of damaged breeds grows longer ... chihuahuas,
> German shepherds, labradors, ....

Yes. As I said in another posting
genetic testing may be a large part of the answer.
Some of those puppies come nowadays with a long list
of all the genetic defects that they are known not have.
(by DNA testing) They also come with a corresponding price tag.

In addition, under EU animal welfare rules
breeding of some kinds of abominations is restricted.
For dogs for example there are some rules on snout length.
In general the idea is to forbid breeding of animals
that cannot lead happy lives. (by their genetic constitution)

> The blog also points out that it isn't just the obvious defects like
> breathing problems, hip displacia, etc, but also smaller changes that
> affect success of breeding, size of litter, viability of zygotes and
> pups.
>
> I admit that I haven't done a careful survey, but the number of inbred
> populations that are genetically clean seem very small.

A well known case is the Mauritius kestrel. (Falco punctatus)
It was saved from extinction from only four surviving birds.
(one female, three males)

> That seems to be true of both natural populations and those developed from
> human husbandry. That Channel Island foxes were such a population was a
> surprise to biologists.

There is a difference between small island populations
and massive herds on continents, it seems.
The small populations are relatively clean, genetically.
(all the bad things get selected out in the longer run)
A large continental population can support lots of bad recessive genes.
When a population bottleneck happens for some reason
the remaining population may not be genetically viable.

> Developing a breed often involves inbreeding to select for a particular
> characteristic, but the longer the period of homozygosity the more
> imnportant the undesired traits seem to become.

Yes, but it strongly depends on how many animals they started with,

Jan

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 6:08:54 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Snidely is guilty of <mn.f09e7e81e0aa6d2b.127094@snitoo> as of
> > 1/30/2024 2:38:27 AM
> > > Just this Tuesday, J. J. Lodder puzzled about:
....

> > >> 'Hybrid vogour' is one of those simplistic generalisations
> > >> aimed at outsiders.
> > >> Real breeders, of dogs (or anything else) will know better
> > >> that to go by such simplistic rules,
> > >>
> > >> Jan
> > >
> > > The blog claims that dog breeders don't know better.
> >
> > That is, they continue to in-breed and weaken the breeds.
> >
> > There are papers out there saying it's too late for some breeds, and
> > that the number of genetic defects are too many to correct by
> > hybridization. I believe some of the bulldog breeds are in the worst
> > shape, but the list of damaged breeds grows longer ... chihuahuas,
> > German shepherds, labradors, ....
> Yes. As I said in another posting
> genetic testing may be a large part of the answer.
> Some of those puppies come nowadays with a long list
> of all the genetic defects that they are known not have.
> (by DNA testing) They also come with a corresponding price tag.
....

The blog post specifically says it's not talking about known genetic
defects. It's all the unknown ones where homozygosity, either of an
unfavorable allele or where heterozygosity is an advantage, causes
short lifespans, unhealthy animals, and low fertility, as Snidely said.

And if your free-of-known-defects puppy was the only fertile survivor
of the litter, either because the others weren't viable (mentioned in the
blog post) or they had some of those known defects and were
sterilized or killed, I'd say there's been inbreeding depression.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:54:23 AM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:

[inbreeding]

> The blog also points out that it isn't just the obvious defects like
> breathing problems, hip displacia, etc,
....

Joke spelling of "dysplasia"?

--
Jerry Friedman

Jerry Friedman used thar keyboard to writen:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:54:23 AM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:
>
> [inbreeding]
>
>> The blog also points out that it isn't just the obvious defects like
>> breathing problems, hip displacia, etc,
> ...
>
> Joke spelling of "dysplasia"?

I wish I could claim that.

-d

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On 30-Jan-24 10:17, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken Blake scribbled something on Saturday the 1/27/2024:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:14:07 +0000, Hibou
>>> <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 26/01/2024 à 15:58, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> While looking up hybrid vigor, as one does, I found an article with this
>>>>> title:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The myth of hybrid vigor in dogs...is a myth"
>>>>>
>>>>> Just going by the title, would you expect the author to argue that hybrid
>>>>> vigor does or doesn't exist in dogs?
>>>>
>>>> The title is clumsy and misleading,
>>>
>>> Yes. Besides "myth" being misleading, it isn't clear (at least not to
>>> me) what "hybrid vigor" means.
>>
>> But that was Jerry's starting point, "hybrid vigor" is a thing that
>> people who care about breeds or breeding programs think about.
>
> 'Hybrid vogour' is one of those simplistic generalisations
> aimed at outsiders.
> Real breeders, of dogs (or anything else) will know better
> that to go by such simplistic rules,

And yet.

All the established dog breeds were produced by people who had nothing
other than rule of thumb to guide them.

--
Sam Plusnet