OF PEAS AND PUPS
PART VI
"QUANTITATIVE
CHARACTERISTICS"
INTRODUCTION:
Nose, run, intensity on
point, love of water, angulation, tail set, size and
the like....many of the really important aspects of our versatile Shorthairs,
come under the general heading of quantitative
characteristics. It is the heredity of these traits which hold the
greatest interest and offer the most for breed improvement. Unfortunately, they
are not only the least understood by science but also the most difficult to
elucidate.
In spite of the limited
data, progress has been made in all fields to which this scanty information has
been applied. Further knowledge will little help those who make no use of
present facts. Because of the
importance of these traits to our dogs, as well as to ourselves, a discussion
of the subject, in its most elemental form, cannot be omitted.
These Quantitative
Factors individually present a very wide range from one extreme to the other
with a myriad of minute graduations in between. They are often referred to as continuous measurable characteristics
and such a term agrees very well with milk production, eggs per bird per month;
seconds per quarter mile; bushels per acre; inches at the shoulder and so on.
But many other factors present a real problem for the dog breeder........
"Nose" is difficult of measurement,
since no "nose calipers" have yet been; our
only yardstick is one based upon human frailties. Even then, no record is kept
and we assign no numerical value to the keenness of this sense. This is a
mistake. The Germans grade nose: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4h being exceptional, better than
outstanding....Bulls, since they give so little milk, are assigned a most
useful numerical value, called a sire index, which is a
correlation between the milk production of the dams and daughters. From this
figure and that of a given dam, a reasonable accurate prediction as to the
production potential of the daughters can be made, before the mating. Would some such arrangement be
helpful in breeding dogs? "No, we don't want to know how much milk a bitch
will give!" "Is a dog a cow?" To such, I have no reply...no
printable reply.
Sadly, "He's got a
good nose" offers little upon which to base scientific progress. The breeder
must see each dog in action to determine for himself how good that "He's got a
good nose" really is.... The German "win
sheet" or trial record, provides an
index for some two dozen important characteristics from, nose to obedience, as
viewed by three judges. In the
One dairyman can say
proudly to another, "She's an 18,000 pounder!"
Meaning, the cow produces 18,000 pounds of milk a year, and he has the records
to prove it. The dog owner says, also proudly, "She's got a good
nose!", though he has nothing to verify it and the question is immediately
asked, "How good?" Most dog people, from experience, question the
accuracy of any statement about a dog from its owner. This is not because dog
people are an untruthful lot, but rather that most of us are afflicted with an
eye-condition, incurable by the finest opthamology.
The Germans call it "Rassefanitiker", figuratively, "kennel blindness".
It's not like night-blindness, carrots don't help. I've tried that. How good is
good? 15,000 pounds of milk per year is a good cow, but not so
good as an 18,000 pounder. If your imported bitch has
a "win sheet" which indicates a nose index of 24, she doesn't have
just a good nose (gut - 18)
she has a very good nose (shr gut - 24). There is a difference! The point
being made is that a figure is more definitive....it gives one something to
hang his genetic hat on...a base from which to work...a most valuable aid to
selection.
It is evident that
these more complex characteristics in which there are so many and such varied
Phenotypes, must likewise present more varied and complex Genotypes. There may
be hundreds of genes involved in the expression of some of these traits...some
producing so small an effect as to defy measurement, others creating a much
greater effect. It is also possible that the same or a similar Phenotype may be
the expression of a different combination of genes in different dogs, as 1 plus
2 plus 6 plus 2 equals 12, and 5 plus 3 plus 4 also equals 12.....Further, it
is not known with certainty if the joint action of the group of genes
controlling nose, for example, is arithmetic as 2, 3, 6, 8 or geometric as 2,
4, 8, 16.
Let us take the quantative form of a qualitative characteristic (coat color) and give it a whirl. Most Shorthairs (and Wirehairs)
possess the gene for dark brown or liver, in the Homozygous
state, EE. They also possess either T, for solid color
or its recessive allele,
t. tt operates by obliterating any color in certain areas of the coat...white being the
absence of all color. TT does not usually
produce a completely liver dog in combination with EE any more than tt produces a completely white doge. most
liver dogs have some white and most white dogs have some color
somewhere. S for small spots (not ticking, R) is dominant to s, for no small
spots, s has a high gene frequency in Shorthairs. In other words, most
Shorthairs are "clear" white, where they are white, tt, if they are not ticked, R, in those areas.....An EE Ttssrr dog would be liver and white, with no ticking. The
difference in the amount of white (which is usually ticked) between individual
Shorthairs, cannot logically be accounted for by a single t or even tt. With such variety it is thought that there must be a
like variety of genes involved, each with but a small individual effect. These
t1, t2, t3.....tn, modifying genes, acting on the ss (no spots), determine the amount of white. The degree of
ticking in the white areas, is probably determined by R1, R2, R3.....Rn. Actually, it is not known how many of these white
modifying genes there may be. They have never been mapped or identified, but
are usually grouped together as the "complex
of genes modifying the amount of white spotting". In spite of
the scanty knowledge concerning them, they respond to the various breeding
plans as do the individual genes we have already discussed. Regardless of their
names or numbers they follow the same hereditary laws which govern all genes. They function
with sufficient consistency to permit us, should the occasion demand, to
produce a strain of Shorthairs with white "saddles"
and/or "stockings" and the rest solid liver. Of course,
an attempt to breed such a strain would profit us nothing and might be actually
detrimental because of its single-purposeness. It
would necessitate discarding individuals which might otherwise have much to
offer.
NOSE:
More than 50 genes are
known to influence the development of the eye in the fruit fly. Could there be fewer controlling the nose
of the dog? The fruit fly has additional gene groups which effect normal health, growth, development,
stamina, et al. Should all the "good" eye genes work
together to produce a near-perfect seeing organ, yet the genes concerned with
normal health go awry, it is reasonable to imagine that the eye will also be
adversely affected. In other words, it is probable that every gene depends, to some extent, on every other gene for complete harmony
and normality in the organism.
There is little
question that the effects of individual genes vary greatly....that some single
genes produce a greater effect than some gene groups....Among chickens, there
is a dominant mutation, F,
which causes the feathers of that bird to be brittle and curly....even the dry
bird looks like the proverbial "mad wet hen". The strange appearance
of the bird, is as an iceberg, in that it tells but a
tiny fraction of the whole story. The defective feathers increase heat loss,
resulting in subnormal body temperature. This is natural, but would you also
expect to find the shape of the heart and the actual composition of the blood
changed because of "frizzled
feathers"?....To compensate for the
heat loss there is an increase in the metabolic rate. This necessitates
increased food consumption and heart rate; which results in the enlargement of
the crop, gizzard, intestines and heart. The volume of blood is increased, and
the shape of the heart develops abnormalities, and even the composition of the
blood itself is altered. There are anatomic, physiologic and psychologic changes, too numerous to mention...It is
sufficient to say here, that a single
defective gene has mad the entire
organism worthless.....NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF A SINGLE
GENE!
At the other extreme,
may be 100 or more genes each contributing but a tiny part to the over-all
effectiveness of the Shorthairs ol factory powers.
The individual scent-sensing-cells of the dog are not thought to be a great
deal more sensitive than those of man, but the dog has so many more of them.
Approximately 500 square millimeters of surface area
in man, compared with 7000 in the dog. The genes which control the development
and function of these cells, may be located in many
different chromosomes in the dog, as is the case with most organisms studied. In
contrast to this, genes influencing the same process usually lie close together
in the same chromosome of many bacteria. Illustrated below may be the way some
of these "Nose Genes" come from various chromosomes....(Figure
29)
HOMOLOGOUS
CHROMOSOMES
We shall now attempt to
demonstrate what may
be the genetic mechanism of 'nose'. We shall assume that some of the many differences in
this Quantitative Characteristic result from the action and segregation of the six allelic pairs
illustrated above. Each gene of which has a duplicate
and cumulative effect
but without complete dominance. Basically, this is the multiple gene hypothesis.
These twelve genes are used for simplicity and to be consistent with out other
beads for genes illustrations. They are not intended to represent all of the
genes influencing the nose factor. We shall imagine,
that with none of these genes being dominant, or even present, the dog will
still possess some nose. His smelling ability with none of these 12, would be
satisfactory for any non-hunting breed or for sight hunters (gaze hounds) like
the Whippet or Greyhound but entirely unsatisfactory for members of the
versatile breeds, Shorthair, Wirehair, etc.....For the sake of explanation and
not, of course, because they fall in any such definite order; we shall imagine
that the genes order controlling nose, go from A to Z. Those giving him his
basic scenting power run from A to P. We shall use Q, R, S, T, U, V genes to
illustrate the multiple gene
theory and still have W, X, Y, Z, which, if also properly aligned,
would give us a super-scenting-dog.
The dominants are each
valued at 2, while the recessives are of lesser value. We have arbitrarily
chosen these figures to coincide with the scoring system used in the Utility
Trials (Solms) (see Part VIII, Fig. 36) for the
Versatile Breeds as conducted by the Reich Association of German Huntsmen
(these trials are not conducted by the Klub Kurzhaar, probably to avoid "Rassefanitiker"!).
Grades run 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4h. The grade times the "importance factor", which because of
the great importance of nose, is 6, the highest, gives
the over-all index. Retrieving a beast of prey (fox or cat) for example, has
but an importance factor of 2. Note below that the "beads" are not on any "string"...they do
not represent a gene string because they came from different chromosomes and
are merely grouped together, because they affect a common factor, nose.
Remember also, that the mating diagramed, does not
necessarily match up the genes as indicated, because with the Crossing Over in
the individual chromosomes, all possible combinations can occur. (fig 30) All of the possible combinations would be too
numerous to list but a few are.....qqrrssttuuvv gives a "nose index" of 0
(insufficient (ungenugend) 0 X 6 equals 0) qqrrSsttuuVV gives a "nose index" of 6
(sufficient (genugend)
1 X 6 equals 6) QqrrSsTtUuVV gives a "nose index" of 12
(fairly good (zeimlich
gut) 2 X 6 equals 12) QqrrSSTTUuVV gives a "nose index" of 18
(good (gut) 3 X 6
equals 18) QQRRSSTTUUVV gives a
"nose index" of 24 (very good (sehr gut) 4 X 6 equals
24).
It would take no great
dog expert to recognize the difference between QQRRSSTTUUVV (24) and qqrrssttuuvv (0) whereas, an eye for a dog with 20-20
vision might be necessary to distinguish a QqRrSSTTUUVV
(20) dog and a QqRRssTTUUVV (18) dog. Note also that qqrrssTTUUVV equals 12 and QqRrSsTtUuVv
also equals 12. With many of these genes coming from different chromosomes, it
may well be, that some of them are linked with undesirable genes, which present
problems, when we try to align them all. This hypothetical projection is, of
course, an over-simplification of the problem. Environment has been
disregarded; only a few genes of the many involved have been considered, a more
realistic figure might be in the hundreds; each dominant gene was arbitrarily
assigned an equal value and their cumulative effect was made additive. This
explanation is not intended to be exact or precise, for such knowledge, is not
today available. Its purpose is to provide some insight into a problem which is
too complicated for direct analysis. The Multiple
Gene Hypothesis has been around for more than 50 years and has
under-gone some minor changes and modifications during that time, yet it still
remains the foundation for the understanding of the inheritance of these most
important Quantitative characteristics. It is not all theory, but has stood the
test of practical application in all instances where its validity could be
measured. We will not be too far amiss to imagine some such mechanism at work,
in the breeding of our dogs. In
quantitative gene action, it is more or less; not all or none.
Nose, we would imagine,
should approach perfection in the case of complete homozygous dominance, if
such were possible. It is my thought that homozygosis will bring us as close to
finite perfection, our ideal,
as we are going to get....There is no data available to substantiate such a
conclusion, however, it seems advisable to have some firm goal at which to
shoot and if it isn't homozygosis, what is it? This homozygosis to which I
refer is not, of course all dominant or all recessive and the proportion of one
to the other is not known. There have been experimental animals inbred to 99
plus percent, as the Wistar rat study. Did they
produce "super rats"? Who knows what makes a super rat? They were
above average in the measurable qualities of size, fecundity and longevity,
after 20 generations of brother-sister matings and rigid selection! Maybe, they
were as perfect as rats could be. Homozygosity, in
and of itself, is certainly not genetic perfection. it
is the homozygosity of the "right" dominants and
the "right"
recessives and the problem lies here. In aligning the proper dominants through
inbreeding, we are going to also align some improper recessives in the process.
When we outcross to bring in additional dominants to replace those we are
lacking, we will, in all probability, bring along some additional recessives
with which we are going to have to contend.....If some of the recessives we
wish to rid our animals of, lay close or adjacent to some of our desirable
dominants, linkage is working against us, for we get no helping had from crossing over. It may not be so difficult to
properly align 75% of the Shorthairs genes with thought and effort and a lot of
luck thrown in on the side....many of our duals may be such! The problem lies
in the final 25%. Each percentage point above that 75 comes
hard.....Like trap shooting, the beginner may start with 10-12 birds. A little
practice brings him up to 20 without too much effort. When he
reaches 22-23. That 24 and 25 take a good many cases
of shells. Bowling may be a bit closer analogy, because that 300, which
is perfection, is a rarity among the billions of lines bowled, yet it is common
compared to the perfect dog. It doesn't take a man long to average 150 pins per
line. A couple of years and he hits 175 but that's the dividing line between
the men and the boys. From there on up it gets really tough. The pros hit 250
occasionally but no one averages that...the point is, that the closer we get to
perfection, the steeper the climb. The hill gets steeper at the same time that
we get weaker. if we knew half as much at maturity, as
we thought we knew at 18, it would be a down-hill sleigh ride all the way.
In any event, it is
probably, just the right dominants and just the right recessives in the
homozygous state, that will help us approach our
ideal. In some cases, as possibly with nose, homozygous dominants,
will probably provide us with the best we can hope for. In other cases, the
ideal will depend upon homozygous recessives. In still other cases, a
combination of the two may yield our desire. In this latter regard; we would
certainly suspect that homozygous dominance of "size genes" would be undesirable.....I
once owned a Shorthair who probably had many of size genes homozygous dominant.
He was much hunted over, but we used him even more for fishing. He packed the
tent, stove, food, boat, fishing gear into the high back country for us. His
name was HERR JOHN L and at the weigh-in, he tipped the scales at 118 in
hunting trim....we never weighed him in the winter. He was my first Shorthair
and we called him DUSTY, though I can't remember why. He was big, friendly,
lovable, gentle cuss...soft-mouthed and the best meat-dog I ever owned. I often
get his picture out and look at it and remember the good times we had together.
I guess most of us remember our first Shorthairs and as the years go by, we
tend to attribute to them, many of the qualities we seek in our ideal. Dusty,
had no formal training, yet was staunch on the point from the moment he made
contract with his first bird, and he honored
instinctively. He retrieved naturally, David Michael Duffy, who claims there
are no natural retrievers, tot he contrary not withstanding. I will never
forget the time Dusty was returning with a nice cock pheasant in his mouth and
went on point; head and tail high. In those days, not knowing any better, I
usually approached the pointing dog and hollered, "Get him, Dusty!"
and let the dog do the flushing. This time that didn't seem quite right, so I
flushed. A cock an hen got up together in a shower of
feathers and a whirr of wings. With my usual calm and relaxed manner at such
moments, I placed the bead on the cocks tail feathers
and pulled. It was an easy-going-away-shot but not a feather fell. The second
shot produced the same results. Dusty was steady through all this, with other
cock still in his mouth. he had learned that it was
best to await the falling bird, for so often the bird did not fall at all, and
the efforts of the chase were wasted. Finally with the third shot, I managed to
cripple the critter, and he hit the ground running....To make a long story
short, Dusty,
returned shortly with Two-Fat Pheasants in his mouth.
RUN:
If a hundred or more
genes are involved in the expression of "nose", how many genes may contribute to
"run"? Run includes nose, and nose is just but a part of
it. Run involves many separate multiple gene groups of the type just discussed
and all must function in harmony to assure success. A brief discussion of run
seems indicated for several reasons.
First, it is one of the
most complex of the quantitative characteristics....Second, it illustrates so
well, the importance of environment in heredity, which has not received the
emphasis here that it deserves....Third, it is not only important, it is vital to the
Shorthair....Finally, it is much cussed and discussed....and by what one reads,
is not well understood by a few in the fancy. Some discussion might sharpen the
focus.
What is run? Such a question would seem to
require but a simple answer, but a little thought will demonstrate, that run is anything but simple.
In fact, without the factors which cumulatively make run, we would have no
hunting dog worthy of the name. Run
is many things...it is range, pattern, gait, intelligence, et al.....It
is basically hereditary and environmental. it would be
guessing to assign a certain percentage of the whole to either factor. We can
say that one is worthless without the other. We can say with equal certainty,
that the artistic ability to determine the proportions of heredity and that of
environment in the run of a given dog, will stand any
breeder in good stead. Environment is not just good food, exercise and a warm
place to sleep....It si so closely interwoven in the
whole fabric of the dog, from the meeting of the gametes to the happy hunting
ground (in descending order) that, it is impossible to separate the two. They
don't just go together like ham and eggs, because
there simply is not one without the other....they are inseparable. The genes
cannot express themselves without the proper environment, yet, the finest
environment, will not bring about the expression of genes which are not
present......Run is highly environmental; coat color
is highly heredity. Both are hereditary and environmental....The breeder must
be able to distinguish one from the other in choosing his stock. With the pups
he has raised this presents no great problem, but, when he looks elsewhere for
his studs, or brood bitches, his art had best not forsake him. We have
Shorthair trainers, maybe one or two, who can take a fair genetic specimen of
the breed and make a field champion of him. There are other trainers who can
ruin the finest breeding. We all know of ruined or near ruined dogs, who, upon being placed in competent hands, have had their
full potential realized. Many are cast aside as untrainable
or worthless, after showing as puppies and derbies they had every ounce of
natural ability to succeed. Since the breeder is after genetic quality, rather
than acquired quality, his selection is much complicated by these environmental
factors which cannot be inherited. Seeing two dogs in the field, he is
naturally drawn to the "class
dog"....thinking not if the class is hereditary or
environmental, but, only that it is there. The poorer appearing dog may carry
far more valuable genes to transmit to his progeny. Under such circumstances
the factor most often overlooked....to the detriment of the breed....are the
genes and environment of the trainer....who
considers the genetics of the trainer in selecting a dog?
What are some of these
run factors which depend on the genetics of man to reach full fruition. There
are two groups, neither of which is successful without the other. One is physical, the other, mental....One is ability, the other, desire....ALONE, BOTH RE
WORTHLESS....desire
is primarily mental, and is itself dependent upon the multiple gene groups
controlling such characteristics as
interest, intensity, intelligence...nose, drive, will to please, competitive
spirit, boldness, etc., etc...ability is
physical...anatomical. It includes general
health, vigor, stamina, etc. It includes conformation...musculature, angulation, gait, etc......If we have a dog
which we think is too wide, some would have us breed to a potterer
to cut the run. This is a sad mistake. A
natural potterer, lacks either the desire
or the ability or both, and that kind of "blood" we don't want. We always breed for the desire and
the ability to run....without it we have nothing! The run factors are composed
of nothing but good...take every drop you can get. With them, you can determine
for yourself, by environment, by training, exactly how much you wish to use. You can use only what is there.....When
you take a trip into the woods for grouse, you don't just put ten gallons of
gas in the tank because you are only going a hundred miles. You fill the tank, circumstances may require that you travel much further
than you originally planned. If the gas is there you may use it or not as you
choose...if it is not there, you're stuck! The parallel is clear. Don't be
deterred by some self-styled expert, who accuses you of trying to breed a
"second-rate pointer" by breeding to a "wide running
import". Such remarks, intended to be derogatory, are highly complimentary
to the art of the German breeder, yet, they demonstrate a total lack of
understanding of differences which separate the Pointer from the Shorthair.
Usually, the author of such a wild statement is breeding to the widest running
import he or she can find.
If you are fortunate enough
to get lots of ability
and lots of desire,
how the dog runs in the field will depend upon his training. He can be trained
to run just as wide as required to win. In reality, then it is the judges,
directly...and the Shorthair owners who choose the judges, indirectly, who
determine how much run a well-bred, winning Shorthair
must exhibit. This is no plea for a race-horse. it is
a strong appeal never to breed
against run. Since run
is desire and ability, you cannot breed against it without
weakening the entire mental and
physical fabric of the breed. From the standpoint of heredity, take
every drop of run you can get....let environment determine the range which best
meets your needs and desires.
The
Germans breed as the Americans breed...for
desire and ability to run. The Germans because of the nature and versatility
of their testing (trials), do not require the wide
range which suits us here. They breed in run even though they do not bring it
out by training. It is a fact and no wild theory, that
the same dog will hunt closer on his native soil because of his training, and
wider in the
In
brief...breed for run...train for range! Heredity...environment!
Range, of course, is
not our only concern with run, though it is an important one. We have made no
effort to explore run in detail, it is not the purpose of our efforts, however,
we must touch pattern
before concluding....Trailing,
yo-yoing, quartering, straight-lining and similar patterns in the
field have an hereditary-environmental basis and whether they are more
environmental than range is anybody's guess. An interesting study of coach
dogs, Dalmatians, by Trimble & Keeler (1939) sheds some light on the
hereditary phase of the problem. They indicate that the running position of
these dogs is an inherited characteristic. Some dogs prefer to run at the
horses heels; other under the front axle, still others behind the carriage or
beside the rear wheel...some had no interest in either the horses or the
carriage. it was found that those running at the
horses heels or under the front axle made the best coach dogs and produced the
best coach dogs. We can imagine an environmental factor, such as a young dog
being kicked by a frightened horse, which might cause a natural "heel
coacher" to become a "trained" "rear-wheeler". This
would naturally confuse the selection of the breeder who was unaware of the
kick. Is there a parallel here for the GSP breeder?
The influence of
training or environment to run is pretty obvious. There are other environmental
factors which, however, are not so obvious yet, whose effects are equally
far-reaching. Usually, for example, the kenneling of
two litter mates together from puppy-hood to adults,
rarely permits both dogs to realize their full potential. Similarly, such
circumstances often prevent the pup of a mother-pup pair,
from reaching full mental maturity....The psychological environment is
comparable to the human son, who remains tied to his mother's apron strings for
25 years. There are in-numerable other circumstances which tend to accent or
dull the results in such cases but these circumstances set the stage. We would
do well to make an effort to learn and understand the implications of such less
obvious environmental factors. "The New Knowledge of Dog Behavior" by Pfaffenbarger
(Howell Book House) can help us all.
In conclusion...breed for run, every gene you can
get....Train for range...the range which suits you best!
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Corrections to Part 12 & 13
Copyright 2001. Dr. James G. McCue, Jr. All rights
reserved. Postscript: And his legacy lives on in the German
Shorthaired Pointers of today. May they
always be healthy and bred with forethought and planning.
Return
Home