Talk:Mixed-breed dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Mixed-breed dog is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 26, 2004.
WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Hybrid vigor

The phrase 'hybrid vigor' was linked to 'hybrid'; I changed it to the more accurate 'heterosis' and expanded that stub. I realize that although heterosis is the correct term, (Webster's Collegiate still refers 'hybrid vigor' to 'heterosis') hybrid vigor is probbly the more familiar one. I bolded 'hybrid vigor' in the stub; is this sufficient to have it show up in the search engines? Anyone have another idea?

You forgot to sign again, Quill. :-) You'll get used to it. What you did is perfect so far; google *should* find that page (and the Mutt page) when you search for "hybrid vigor", although I tried it just now and it didn't seem to find the Mutt page, and it's had this text for quite a while. (There's definitely a delay of days to weeks.) I'd be inclined to also create an article titled "hybrid vigor" and make it a redirect to heterosis. To make an article into redirect, in case you hadn't already figured it out, type
#REDIRECT [[desired article name]]
Elf | Talk 02:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
um...um...okay, well, maybe I can figure it out. I'll give it a go in a couple of days--I'll be out in the country tomorrow, far from the nearest computer. I think that's a good thing.... Quill 11:19, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) (I signed it!!)

[edit] What the--?!

Is this what happens when an article gets nominated for 'feature article'? All kinds of unsubstantiated information gets thrown in? Interesting information gets tossed out?

This now needs a lot of help. Quill 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was pretty blown away, too. I did a bunch of work and also some bandaging on things I didn't get to--e.g., changed "most pet experts" to "some pet experts" but in fact there are a whole lot of issues involved in whether someone gets a mixed breed or purebred and I don't particularly like this statement at all. The whole dog sports thing got completely misconstrued somehow during someone's rewrite and I have my eye on that for later tonight. I've been trying to update it to correct the info, replace some stuff that was good that vanished, and add more info that's useful (& correct) but I don't have a lot of time right now. Elf | Talk 00:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Understood. If I don't go out of town, I'll help as well--or when I get back. Quill 01:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move to mixed-breed dog

I've wanted to do this for a long time--pretty much since I first split off mutt (dog) and started adding to it--and, now that it's possibly working its way towards being a featured article, I'd like to just do it. While following up on several topics in my reference books, I noted that every one of them had the primary entries under "mixed breed" rather than under "mutt", "mongrel", or any other term. And that's how this whole article talks about them. So unless someone screams about it in the next, oh, day or so, I'll go ahead & move this article to mixed-breed dog & leave Mutt as a redirect. Elf | Talk 03:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, even though it's too P.C. for my personal taste ;). We'll need to redirect 'mongrel' as well, I think. I'll check. Quill 00:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Editing progress

I've probably touched just about everything in this article now and it feels as if I'm started to spew random words & links & repetitious gobbledigook. It should be clearer (I hope) and more accurate. Confirmed a lot of what I put in with various resources. Might add a References list tomorrow. Or not. It definitely needs an edit now by someone with fresh eyes. Ta. Elf | Talk 05:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • There is a major edit notice on the article so I’ll note my observations here:
Names for mixed-breed dogs
‘Bitsas’ is a common term—may be restricted to the commonwealth. It is the most commonly-used term in Australia, a big dog-owning nation
‘Some American registries and clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities.’ Is that the reasoning? I’ve always thought of ‘All-American’ as referring to an opposite: the stereotypical blond/blue.
Appearance
Typo: German Shepherdss
Does this sentence make sense to the unitiated: ‘With each mix of breeds, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm’? I believe I know what it means—that the ‘genetic norm’ is what dogs would look like if they mated willy-nilly over serveral generations. Should that be explained, or is it clear as written? Maybe move up the final sentence?


Health:
Large breeds suffer hip dysplasia, not German shepherds. German Shepherds are a good example of a breed wherein the gene has been concentrated. GSD owners are also well-aware of the problem and testing for it in their lines.
I would say that ‘Large breeds, such as [[German Shepherd]s….’
I would add a final sentence to the effect that ‘By contrast, a large mongrel carrying the gene for hip dysplasia passes it on to his progeny in the same manner that a purebred does.’
Strike out ‘And’ from beginning of final sentence.


Mixed Breeds in Dog Sports
There’s a rectangular box with a couple of words in it.


In the final sentence of the piece, Border Collies link is in red. Format error?
Lovely work, Elf!
Quill 23:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on latest changes

Appearance

(I hope this is the right place to bring this up so that it may be corrected)

  • The final paragraph showing under "appearance" is a fragment which appears to be missing its beginning, and the final sentence in the paragraph is also a fragment. Whatever the paragraph should say, it appears this might belong under Advantages or Health instead of Appearance. I would just edit it myself, except the missing parts/needed changes are not obvious, so I hope the previous author can correct it. The final paragraph showing under Appearance now, in full, says: "carrier of the faulty gene with a dog from a breed not known to suffer genetic hip problems reduces the likelihood of producing offspring with the problem. On the other hand, breeding the Shepherd with another Shepherd whose ancestors do not have the genetic problem also has this effect. as rabies, distemper, injury, and infestation by parasites."

MadRabbit 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Some meanings were altered in the latest round of changes and they need to be addressed. I can do it, but maybe another editor has ideas on ways to make the meaning clearer so that it doesn't happen again.

  • The "57 Varieties" doesn't refer only to the Heinz ketchup--it refers to their entire product line. I don't think the ketchup even existed when they came up with the slogan. :-)
Health
  • The original "Because mixed-breed dogs have only one parent with these inherited disorders, they are somewhat less likely to inherit the problem" is clearer than "Mixed-breed dogs are less likely to have certain genetic disorders, as they draw from a more diverse genetic pool wherein detrimential recessive genes are rarefied." The latter uses rather lofty language (esp. "wherein detrimential recessive genes are rarefied") when what is needed is perhaps a better way to say that it is unlikely that both of a mixed breed's parents will have the same detrimental gene.
  • Changing "mating (the Shepherd) with a German Shepherd whose..." to "breeding the Shepherd with an animal unlikely to have..." misses the important point that the dog could be mated with a clear German Shepherd, thus still having a purebred and therefore avoiding the problem without resorting to mixing breeds.
  • The phrase "because it is more difficult to find homes for these dogs" added to why mixing breeds is discouraged is not one of the primary reasons given in my experience. Au contraire, mixed breeds are all too adoptable. The biggest cited reason is that there are already too many unwanted purebreds living in shelters or being euthanized and they should be given homes first (I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment...), and all those mixed breeds mean that the pool of unwanted dogs is much larger. Given a choice among, say, a Chow, a Greyhound, a German Shepherd, and a cute 30-pound mutt, many people would choose the mutt. I would. Someone living in an apartment and knowing not much about dogs would (when in fact the Greyhound might possibly be a better bet). An elderly couple with limited mobility would. Another primary reason is the one cited elsewhere in the article--that idiots and people uneducated in genetics and breeds shouldn't be mixing breeds (with the subcorollary that there are already plenty of perfectly good breeds out there without even knowledgable people trying to create more (I also disclaim agreement with this sentiment...)).
Types of mixing
  • Changing "Most dog breeds known today started out as crossbreeds or mixes among different breeds." to "It's important to note that many dog breeds are, to some degree, man-made creations:" loses the point (this being an article about mixed breeds) that, technically, pretty much all modern breeds started out as mixed breeds.
  • Also, "many dog breeds...to some degree" is just not correct; all breeds to all degrees are manmade creations. ...OK, I fixed this already.
  • Changing "until they arrived at a dog whose appearance or behavior matched their ideal" to "breeders usually sought an "ideal" appearance for dogs" is not correct; it's only been in the most recent century or so that some breeds (and still not all of them) were bred primarily for appearance--most were bred throughout history for their suitability for certain functions, and in many cases they still are--the more-or-less standard appearance just happened to go along with that.
  • Changing "and who bred true from one generation to the next" to "and, additionally, a crop of dogs whose offspring would also have that appearance" (besides "and additionally" being redundant) sort of makes the same point but in a much less clear and accurate manner. I'd revert to the original phrase.
  • Changing "when breeders are attempting to establish a new breed or to add or reinforce desireable characteristics from one breed to another" "due to breeders hoping to create new breeds" missed the point that existing breeds have often been enhanced by inserting new breed blood to correct defects or to strengthen already good traits. It's only been recently (VERY recently in many breeds) that closed-book breed registries forbade this practice--resulting in some of the nasty inbred problems that have to be solved within the breed rather than by trying to bring in genes to help solve the problems. But I don't want to get off into politics on this... it's just that it's NOT always simply to create a new breed that causes breeders to mix in other dogs.
Advantages...
  • Changing "it is more difficult to predict how a mixed-breed dog will react to training" to "it is more difficult to predict a specific training approach for mixed breeds" is not the same thing at all! (And in fact the latter isn't true anyway--you can never "predict" a training approach, and you can't come up with such until you know something about both the dog and handler, and that's true for *any* dog.) OK, I just changed this one to "trainability".
  • I changed "Tervuren" back to "Tervueren"; the AKC is about the only major kennel club that spells it without the middle "e".
  • Changing "Purebred puppies will more predictably grow into an appearance and personality readily recognized as belonging to that breed" to "The maturation of purebred puppies is more predictable" doesn't mean the same thing, either. "Maturation" means to grow up and display grown-up characteristcs. It's completely predictable that they'll all grow up!

[edit] Removed content

After some thought, it seemed that the following material was too detailed for this article, so I removed much of it and rewrote the rest:

Puppies of any breed do not look much like the adult dogs they will become, and with mixed-breed puppies it is nearly impossible to guess what they will look like as adults, although the coat color usually does not change. If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can certainly be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane. Some breeds tend to pass on their appearance more than others. Border Collies and some Spaniels, for example, often produce offspring with similar coats and ears. The crossbred offspring of German Shepherds usually have Shepherd faces and other characteristics.
Second-generation crosses can produce animals looking more like the original breeds than did their parents. For example, breeding two Terrier-Beagle crosses might produce some offspring that look more like a Beagle and some that look more like a Terrier than either of their parents did. Certainly breeding such a cross back to a Terrier or Beagle reinforces that breed's traits in the offspring.
If the dog's ancestry is unknown, even knowledgable dog observers find it difficult to predict the adult appearance of mixed-breed puppies or to guess the dog's parents. The offspring of two mixed breeds are even more difficult to predict because there is much more genetic variation than among purebreds. For example, two white mixed-breed dogs might have recessive genes that produce a black coat and, therefore, produce offspring looking unlike their parents. With purebred dogs, by contrast, the genetic variations are well-documented and a breeder has a fair estimation of what type of offspring a given pair will produce.
With each mix of breeds, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Extremes in appearance, such as the flattened face of the English Bulldog or the extremely curled tail of the Pug, seldom survive even the first crossbreeding. Mixed breeds also tend, to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm. Even first-generation crossbreeds are more likely to be primarily brown or black, often with a white chest and other white markings, no matter their parents' colors.
Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lbs). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers.

how can something be to detailed? we want as much eneresting and important informaion as possible, Right? - Jedi of redwall

[edit] Heinz 57--Not just ketchup!

People have twice changed this article to say that the "57 varieties" slogan is about Heinz ketchup. It's not! (wasn't, actually, since I don't think they use it any more) And it was intended particularly to forestall people thinking that they had only one product, which seems to be what's going on here. In fact, which products it refers to isn't relevant to this article at all and I'd rather leave the text as "the slogan of the HJ Heinz company", which is accurate and relevant. But now I'll change it to "H. J. Heinz company's condiments and relishes," which makes it sound even LESS relevant but at least it's accurate. Argh. No, I'm not going to do it, I'm just going to remove ketchup again. Elf | Talk 01:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I agree, just remove it. Will keep watching--ketchup out. Quill 01:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After this has been modified yet again (latest removed "57"), I've linked it to a new disambig page and listed some external web sites and stuff like that. Maybe people will leave the company, the name, & the slogan alone--I am just overwhelmed with despair that so many people have never heard of the slogan! How could this be??? Elf | Talk 20:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I explained why I removed the "57" in my comment after it had been put back in. The joke goes as follows:
Moe: What kind of dog is that?
Joe: He's a Heinz.
Moe: I never heard of that breed.
Joe: 57 varieties.
All laugh. Maybe this should be a quotation.
And, the slogan is a reference to 57 varieties of pickle, not relish, not condiments, just pickles. Heinz used to give out little pickle pins with a 57 on them. They had a lot of kinds of pickles and they thought "57" sounded like a good number, although the actual count varied. I am overwhelmed with despair that no one seems to know this, you know. Now I guess I have to go and fix the disambiguation page too. Busy busy busy. Ortolan88 00:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I was wrong, it was relishes and condiments as well as pickles. Never hurts to look things up, even late. But I did understand the reference, FWIW Ortolan88 00:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS Hope I didn't leave a sour dill taste in your mouth and that you will relish my mistake.

Don't worry, it just takes some people a little longer to ketchup than others. OK, if you have a straight man, you can run your routine as indicated above, but most people don't (including books & web sites), so they just use "Heinz 57" straight up. Elf | Talk 22:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed breed vs hybrid/crossbreed

Is crossbreed is a synonym for mixed breed? If so, should the article on dog hybrids and crossbreeds be merged into this one? Or is a hybrid/crossbreed a special kind of mixed breed? If so, this should be made clear. Nurg 05:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, they are not synonymous. This is why I like the term 'mongrel'--unknown parentage--but then, I'm strange. In a 'Crossbreed' the two breeds used in the mix are known.
It's clarified in the section Types of mixed breeding.
Quill 21:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly tautalogical question

Given that a mixed-breed dog is a dog that is a mixture of two or more breeds, is it true that a dog that is a mixture of two or more breeds is a mixed-breed dog?

I would think so. Your question must have been prompted by some line of thought--? Elf | Talk 22:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a joke, Elf. Point taken, but that's all in the nature of Wikipedia. Quill 00:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Feists

Yes, sometimes small mixed-breed dogs, but also a breed type, if I'm not mistaken. Quill 21:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, see UKC Curs and Feists page. I've been pondering what to do about that and not feeling ambitious. Elf | Talk 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well I never heard that, but it doesn't seem that Feists and Curs are breeds in the sense that, say, King Charles Spaniels or Bichon Frises are breeds. If I knew more about it, I might add to this article something like, "not all dog fanciers are obsessed with bloodlines. Breeds of hunting dogs in the South virtually boast of their mixed heritage and go by such names as Treeing Feists and Black Mouth Curs", but as I say, I don't know anything about it. The United Kennel Club looks pretty interesting too. Ortolan88 00:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tyke

"Tyke" is also a common word for a Yorkshireman and the Yorkshire dialect. Should this disambiguation be added? Matthew Platts

Good point--done--changed redir page to dab; see tyke now. Elf | Talk 05:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this, but the disambiguation page list lists mixed breed dog as the first hit for 'tyke'. I am surprised by this, as I think in modern English the word Tyke primarily refers to a young child. In my experience (New Zealand English), I am familiar with all other synonyms for mixed breeds except this one, which I think is archaic. I tried Google and various online dictionaries, and can't find any modern (post 1900) references to tyke as a mixed-breed dog. In comparison, tyke + child is common. For instance:

[1] 5,870 hits – first hit is Wikipedia, other top ten hits use the same synonym as Wikipedia

[2] 71,200 hits – top ten hits all use tyke in correct context – Wikipedia is not in top 10.

--gb

It might just be that tyke, dog, was the first entry, i.e. what the author was working on at the time. I agree that tyke, child, is more common usage, but not because of Google. I detest Google being used as the yardstick for everything. Lots of people on the planet have never even heard of google, except as an alt. of baby talk... At any rate, I'll go move 'child' up on the tyke page and see if anyone objects! Quill 08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 18:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed Breed Dogs

Rock! Healthy, loving, smart and deserve a chance.

Yeah, exactly! A couple of my friends sneered when I told them my dog is a mongrel. (she's really just a cross. She's only a mix between two breeds. Two of my favourite breeds in fact) What the hell's wrong with mutts?

I have a small feeling that this article is slightly patronising towards them.. The whole tone is "they're not all bad!" , they do their best. Treating them like the special needs kids of the dog world. But they're not! Who the hell says stupid pedigree dogs are better? What's the bloody difference? There's none to me, only stupid obsessed people who try and turn their poor dogs into prize winners are obsessed with a dog being pure breed.

Stop making mutts sound second rate. TetrisRock 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Tetris.

[edit] Please vote on deleting Maltipoo, Yorkiepoo, Schnoodle

Please go here to here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkiepoo) to express your opinion. Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References!

This article must show references if it wishes to stay a featured article; otherwise, someone may begin the removal process.KILO-LIMA 20:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added such. Elf | Talk 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That's great, but can you clarify how they were used? Can you say with certainty those sources agree with the facts in the article? - Taxman Talk 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I double-checked the content of the references with the content of the article and indeed info that I put in the article based on the content of those books is still consistent. So if you look up mixed breeds or mutts or whatever in those books, they will be consistent with the article content. Elf | Talk 18:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All existing dog breeds began as mixed breeds

I do not agree with this statement. While it is correct, that most of the modern dog breeds derive from mixing two or more dog breeds, this describes but one of several ways of arriving at a "breed", with dog breeds being no different from other animal species in this regard. Earliest and oldest "breeds" were not the result of crossbreeding/mixed breeding, they were - quite logically - created by basic domestication, geographic and climatic factors already influencing the wild species in that area.

When there are neither other breed populations (to connect to), nor any large genetic differences in the locally available strain, as was the case during a long phase of dog breeding in the beginning of domestication of the species, the only possible method of breeding is to select those most suited to the goal, job and situation.

Thus, if in any geographic region early humans kept domesticated wolves, slowly evolving them into a dog breed fitting their life and lifestyle, the way they caught/raised meat, the climate of that region and its landscape, they created a breed. And of course this localized breed is not the result of crossing/mixing breeds. Instead it's the result of continously choosing those individual animals for breeding which best suit the bill. There are quite a few of these basic breeds or dog types, some of which made it to modern days in relatively unaltered manner. The northern Spitzes e.g. count among these surviving basic types/breeds.

These early breeds can't be called Pariah or feral dogs as is alluded in the article. Early man chose the dogs it kept close and bred them selectively, just as he did with other animal species he actively domesticated. Already the closing of the gene pool, which is the result of placing a domesticated group of animals apart from the wild species, is selection and is active breeding. And that is a method employed in pure breeding, even if it then happened as per the very nature of the whole thing. Just as purposeful selection within a closed gene pool is another pure breeding method.

This all means that at the beginning, the breeding of dogs (or any domesticated animal species) started out as a purebreeding of a homogenous local gene pool for certain desired traits, which these gene pools offered as natural variants (= already available in the local wild animal of the basic species). Only when these localized purebred breeds met with each other through travel and trade over large distances, crossbreeding/mixed breeding became possible. Timelines show us that this did not happen in any meaningful way for a long time.

It appears to me to be an ideological approach, to insist on such a statement, rather than a neutral and scientific one, maybe influenced by modern day criticism of purebreeding/inbreeding and some of its negative effects in modern dog breeds. I don't think it belongs in such exclusivity into a neutral article however.

As an additional point regarding breeding methods: even today there is no need to crossbreed to create a "new breed". A simple change of standard and of selection methods can result in such important differences, that a new breed forks off a breed. There are quite a few examples of this happening in the past and currently.

Correct. Most dog breeds began when humans noticed a particular pup with a certain quality that they liked, and found another dog with a similar quality, and bred the two. Remember: Originally, all dogs were just ordinary dogs, i.e. members of a species like cows or tigers (subject to geographical variations). The first breeds began from a process similar to the one I just mentioned. After the first breeds were established, new breeds were frequently created or developed by mixing breeds already in existence. But in order to get a breed to begin with, some specialization of traits had to be selected from the homogenous gene pool. The only clarification I would offer to the above writer is that the first dogs to be used when the earliest breeds were being created were not themselves breeds, but ordinary dogs. Even if there were significant differences between the dogs found in Western Europe, for example, from those found in the Americas, those differences would connote a difference in species, not a difference in breed: The word "breed" connotes a sub-group created by human intervention, as opposed to one that evolved naturally, e.g. the 5 sub-species of Bengal Tiger. 66.108.4.183 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion
Agreed, in part. The moment a species attaches itself to humans and their habitat or humans attach it to their habitat and themselves, active breeding takes place, even if there certainly were no people calling themselves "breeders" in evidence. Selection immediately takes place, as animals not geared to whatever use or habitat they were kept close for were rejected (= selected). And it's mainly selection which is at the base of "breeding" and "breed". This means that the process starts at a very early stage, in fact it starts with the very first generation of domestication. [unsigned]
I think there's a confusion throughout the article between true mixed-breed dogs, landrace dogs, and breeds proper. The term "mixed breed" clearly implies that you took two or more existing breeds and mixed them up. However, this is not how pariah dogs or other landrace dogs arose. They arose from selection (both deliberate and natural) of earlier domesticated landrace dogs, and ultimately from captured or commensal wolves. A landrace's genes are those of the original wolf population, with those unsuitable for domestication sieved out, and of course some additional mutations added along the way. That is a very different thing from letting a lot of pure-bred dogs hybridise freely, when the resulting animals can only have a selection of the genes which were present in the contributing breeds. While mixed-breed dogs will have more variation than any of the contributing breeds, their gene-pool is unlikely to be as wide as that of a true landrace.
I don't know whether the article should be made to exclude landrace types (and so be restricted to dogs descended from pure-breds) or whether landrace dogs should be more clearly included as a separate type. Logically, perhaps the former, pragmatically, perhaps the latter. One or the other, though – and we definitely need a link to landrace.--Richard New Forest 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cluttered with Pictures

This article has gotten incredibly cluttered with pictures of mutt-owners posting up pictures of their own dogs with no regard to the aesthetic appeal and flow of the article. Is anyone in favor of creating a gallery for most of these pictures at the bottom of the page?

Sparsefarce 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - there are TWO cockapoodles, and the first one is a terrible underexposed photo. There is another page on hybrids/crossbreeds and so it would be more interesting to see photos of mixed dogs typical of different places around the world where mongrels are tending towards a local type. In my town for example, the current mongrel that can be seen overflowing at the SPCA is a medium sized short haired tough looking dog with widish head, maybe owing to popularity of breeds like staffy, boxer, ridgeback, labrador etc. (The picture at the top is a really good quality photo though).

Note: The poster is referring to Nap006b.jpg. This is a perfect header for the article. I've reverted it several times, when a lesser quality photo was substituted by someone trying to showcase their own personal photos. Mr. Shean 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The blurb on "generic dog" needs an update, a small one.

Currently, it reads: "The generic Canis lupus familiaris, seen in feral or pariah dog populations, where mixed breeding has occurred over many generations. These dogs tend to be yellow to light brown and of medium height and weight. This "genetic average" might also represent the appearance of the modern dog's ancestor."

This is technically accurate but for its leaving out the colloquial term for this, which is "yeller dog", commonly used in the southern United States of America and possibly in other places. (For example, I call them yeller dogs and I'm from the northeastern part of that country.)

I've also heard of them being called "generic third-world mutt", although that has more of a negative connotation where "yeller dog" is mostly descriptive of a light brown coat and (often) a hoarse voice in the middle of dogs' vocal range (a tenor?).


[edit] Edits to article

Just some notes about things I just edited in the article, in case anyone wondered:

  • never heard "bastard" as term for dog
  • rm unneeded ref to schnoodle (there's a whole article somewhere listing all these random mixed-breed names)
  • rm goldendoodles details from "terms" section--topic covered in general "types of mixed breeding"
  • correct info about obedience before 1980s--mb's were NOT allowed to compete in AKC before then (I was there, I tried)
  • replaced info comparing mixed breeds & purebreds in conformation; not sure why it was removed (sorry too much history to plow through)
  • replaced paragraph on breed club hold-outs to older version as the edits didn't make sense.

Elf | Talk 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, dont know much about the talk page, but i just noticed that the page was a bit pov, for example towards the end there wa s areference to dogs costing hundreds of thousands of DOLLARS and mongrels being a cheaper choice, as an irish man, the concept of dollars means nothing to me, and im sure that there is countries witha much bigger exhgage rate...etc so i feel it just distracts from teh whole article, maybe change it for something more generic about purebreds being expensive without any currencies being mentioned


[edit] Image

I do not think that the main image on this page up to par in quality such as the others. I would like to replace it with the image on the left, as I feel it is a better quality image, and show more of the actual dog than just the face. The current image might be helpful somewhere else in the article, just not as a main image. Omniii 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)omniii

[edit] Comments

The image of a mixed-breed already on the page is an excellent one, and has been commented on earlier on this page. The photo you propose is not a better illustration, and is of a cross-breed, not a true mix which is what this article is about. User:74.106.252.74 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. The original lead illustration is charming and is of a mixed-breed dog. Mister Gallagher 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"A mixed-breed dog (also called a mutt, crossbreed, mongrel, a bitsa, tyke, cur, or random-bred dog)" Is quoted directly from the wikipedia article, so please do not tell me that a cross-breed image is not acceptable. Omniii 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Omniii

I think the distinction you both are missing is the difference between an intentionally cross-bred dog, which is an attempt in some views to create a new breed or distinct type, and the accidental or haphazard cross breeding of dogs. This is image is much better than the other one, as the lighting, resolution and the composition (as it actually shows a whole dog) are all better. This isn't some $500 Puggle, it's a very uncommon, not commericially or intentionally cross bred dog. VanTucky (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


The original posters aren't "missing" anything. Your statement makes it seem as if mutts aren't good enough to be on their own page. "Very, uncommon cross-breed" indeed. The picture should be of a mixed breed or "mutt". The consensus, which I agree with, is that the original picture is better. The poster of the new picture is just trying to get his own photograph on the page. The original shot is much more representitive of a real mixed breed dog, the type that most people own. Nora Bayes 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since both parents of the dog in the picture of Omniii's dog are purebreds and known, then it would more properly belong on the page Dog hybrids and crossbreeds. I think it would be best to leave the picture of the mixed-breed dog, and put the cross picture on the proper page. There is only one photo on that page now and it isn't very good. JoKing 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to get my photograph on this page, I am trying to raise the quality of the extremely poor shots on the current page. But if it does not suit the correct category as a mixed breed dog, then I will not add it. Omniii 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Omniii


I think the problem is that historically, the dog and cat pages have had to cope with a bombardment of "pet" pictures. Also, that you have chosen to delete the best picture on the page in favor of your own. I have looked at the Dog hybrids and crossbreeds page and the poster is correct that it only has one small picture that isn't very representitive of the subject. I would second the motion that you put your picture on that page. Then your cross's picture would be used, and the happy picture of the mix on this page would stay. Seems an excellent compromise. 142.167.71.226 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See: Cluttered with Pictures (above) They are both nice pictures, but I tend to agree that a mix should be represented. ...and no Puggles. LOL 74.86.60.98 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I have chosen to delete the "best picture" is because the quality of my picture far surpasses that one, due to many of the reasons VanTucky stated. I go this got from a pound and they are not completely sure of the dogs breed of parents (though they have somewhat of an idea based on the dogs characteristics), so would it still fit under the crossbreed section? Omniii 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Omniii

The quality of each picture is good, A couple of people like one because it shows a whole dog, and the rest like the old one because it is more appealing, and welcoming for an opening shot. Omniii, you would probably engender less ire from the group if you didn't state your opinion like fact. You like the picture of your dog of course, we all love our own dogs and think they are beautiful. Hey, mayby we should take them both out and use a picture of MY dogs. :-)

Hopefully we can consider the discussion closed. Thanks for contributing everyone. JoKing 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Addition by 124.170.39.170

Can this be removed/rewritten? Bedroomheadroom (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not clear antecedent

 [...the Queen and her Corgi]..her sister's Dachshund,...

The sentence can mean two things: Which is it?

  • The Queen's sister had a Corgi, and the mating of which produced a mutt, or
  • The sister of the (Queen's) Corgi, ie the dog, mated with the dachsund.

This seems like an amusing question, but the sentence as it is really is ambiguous.

Shlishke (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)