Jump to content

Talk:Breed registry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Closed stud book)

questionable wild animal registry

[edit]

In the section on questionable registries referencing "at least one" which claims to recognize wild animal breed/species clubs and register wild animal individual specimens, I didn't give the example -- which is the IPBA, through their IPEBA subsidiary. Three reasons: one, the IPBA wants to do this, but apparently has had no luck actually doing so; two, didn't want to target the IPBA because there's surely some other group(s) out with the same idea; three, to avoid attracting the IPBA's attention and possible revisionism. -- Lisasmall 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

registry not associated with a breed or kennel club

[edit]

For an example of a registry not associated with a breed or kennel club, the "Field Dog Stud Book" is a registry of field and hunting dogs that is maintained by a magazine publisher. (AKC recognizes FDSB registration for all sporting dogs except the Irish Setter.) --jdege 22:31, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Working dog registers use KP?

[edit]

.(!<--!I'm not sure whether or not this is completely true; do working dog registers use a KP? -->) I won't pretend to speak for all working dog registries. But among JRTC owners registry names and nicknames are often both used. My Bear's name is "Moose Cavern Kennel's Grizzly Bear", but we call him "Bear". That said, the registry names can't get as complicated are common in the AKC. The JRTC registry name is the kennel prefix plus the dog's name, and the name can be at most fifteen characters, including no more than one space. --jdege 22:19, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have been more specific--I was actually thinking more of sheepdogs and the like; where the dogs have to be called a simple, working name--and wondering if their registration papers contained KPs? Quill 23:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wait a sec--15 characters inc. one space? Then how do you end up with "Moose Cavern Kennel's Grizzly Bear"?? Quill 23:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With the JRTC, the name is 15 characters, and his name is Grizzly Bear. The Kennel prefix is separate and isn't included.
I don't think one can draw too many hard-and-fast rules, here. Bear's pedigree is full of names both simple and fancy: Lady Mabiline of Moose Cavern, Briarpatch Rio of Hines Hill, Paxton Tequilla, Bess, Gin, and Scrap. Different people do different things.
--jdege 16:56, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
As I said, I was thinking of herding dog registries, where it is stated in the rules that the names have to be no-nonsense. JRTs are an interesting case. Maybe update to include the fact that independent registries have their own rules? Quill 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More--gave it a tweak and think it's more comprehensive now.Quill 05:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ROM don't look like anything?!

[edit]

Wait a second! So I can take a koolie into the sheep trials of a Border Collie working dog registry and if it does well, register it as a Border Collie?

I seem to remember reading at one of those sites that you had to have some proof of ancestry for registering a working Border Collie, (both parents working BCs--might even have required two generations) and also health tests, and also that some clubs will not allow a registered show dog to compete.

The way the section is written now, one would believe that one could bring any well-trained dog in and register it as a sheep dog; I don't believe that is the case.

Rewrite needed!

Quill 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed the case that if your dog wins three National sheepdog trials (and passes some health checks) they will register it as a Border Collie. Doesn't matter if it is a poodle or a pug. However, to win the Nationals requires the right genetics, almost exclusively found in border collies. Training is important, but the dog has to have the genetics first. Only dogs bred from border collies are likely to have the right genetics, so only dogs bred from border collies have a chance of winning. The chance of even qualifying a poodle or pug for the a Nationals is zero. The extreme nature of the performance test takes care of eliminating dogs that don't look something like a border collie; you can't get the performance genes without getting the conformation genes as well.
It is the case for the ABCA that the Board of Directors must vote to register a dog on merit. There's no assurance that they would vote to register a pug, but there is no formal rule preventing it. In practice it is a hypothetical question, because form follows function. Dsurber 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the koolie page. Doesn't look that different from a BC. Given the herding background, if you found one that had a strong eye, the dog might do well in a Nationals. The sheepdog men I know would be happy to register such a dog.
A lot of people don't get ROM. These guys really don't care what the dog looks like. The only thing they care about is the dog's ability to work. For the most part they are always happy to breed to a strong working dog that is healthy. That really is all they care about. Pretty is as pretty does. Dsurber 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Define "Breed registry"

[edit]

I don't think a registry is identical to a stud book, as this article implies... looking up breed registry on the web, it refers to organizations that either oversee one breed or oversee many breeds; they may sponsor shows and whatnot. A stud book is a stud book; "Stud book" should be a separate article, I think.--Hafwyn (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A stud book is a tool for registry kept by a breed registry (organization). They are not one and the same. VanTucky 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, and have been meaning for a while to do something about this redirect, but ... not a lot of time! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could throw some verbiage in here to that effect as at least a temporary fix. I'd be curious to see if the original stud book article had much in it. If it sat around as a stub for ages, then it might have been appropriate to merge here. Another thought is to expand the section specifically describing stud books as a subsection of a breed organization until or unless it gets ong enough to break back out again. (though I could also argue that a horse is "registered" in a "stud book," and so there are some semantics that could be fussed over) I guess I'm in no hurry to take this one on, but have no objection to some language in the article clarifying matters a bit. Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the major problems with this article as is, is that it is too dog and horse specific. For horses the registry and stud book may be synonymous, but there are some animals that have registries and standards, but no stud book for individual animals. So separating the two is a factor in keeping the article from focusing too much on horses. VanTucky 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing stopping anyone from expanding the article. If the cat fanciers and whomever want to add to it, I see no problem with expanding the article to encompass various registries (there are cattle and sheep registries too), I just don't have the time or interest at the moment to do anything about it, personally. I noticed that the purebred dog article uses the term "stud book", but I don't know the dog world, so no clue if that's correct for them or not. "Stud book" is sort of colloquial within the horse world, pretty much all stud books are contained within a breed organization, so I am personally OK with keeping the term redirected here, but I also don't care all that deeply. I guess my feeling is that if other animals feel dissed, it's their responsibility to nag their owners to edit wiki and fix it! (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section merge from Purebred

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was undecided, no discussion for over a year. WikiWisePowder (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purebred#Pedigrees should merge in its entirety to Breed registry. While purebred animals are pedigreed, not all pedigreed animals are purebred (many are the opposite - crossbreeds or even domestic–wild hybrids). But pedigrees are, by definition, tracked in a registry, so it's a subtopic of breed registry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. while that paragraph there could maybe be incorporated here, I don't see the need to delete it there. You are correct that a pedigree chart can exist for crossbreds, but I dispute that all "purebreds" are tracked by a registry; in the modern world that is usually true, but, for example, many ancient breeds had pedigrees tracked but not an official registry (The Carthusian monks in Andalusia, for example) - registries such as the Jockey Club didn't really exist until the 18th century. Also, many of the oriental horse breeds were sworn pure and had pedigrees tracked via an oral tradition. So my take is that I don't really see why we have to make the concepts mutually exclusive. Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definitely should be incorporated here at least. However, I didn't assert that all purebreds are tracked by a registry. A written pedigree produced by an organization (including of monks) is tracking by a registry. A registry is that which maintains a register, i.e. (in this context) of pedigrees (not of purebreds, which are animals to which some but not all pedigrees pertain). We shouldn't confuse the function, the role, of producing and maintaining pedigrees, on the one hand, with the modern notion of an incorporated organization under the law, on the other. Analogy: Acting, including formal training in it, existed before the founding what we today call theatre companies.  :-) The very fact that modern pedigree databases have their origins in the maintenance of paper pedigree charts centuries ago is central to what this article is about, though such pedigree-writing for animals wasn't historically common, decreasingly so the farther back we go. Pure-breeding and pedigrees/registries really are separate topics; pure-breeding doesn't actually require pedigrees, at a small scale, just a good memory, and today not all pedigrees are for purebreds, so there's a lack of equation between the topics at both ends. If some material on pedigrees is kept at Purebred it should be summary material, pointing here, where the content on pedigrees is more topically germane.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  1:24 am, Today (UTC−7)
I don't see a need for a merge tag or discussion. I think that just working on both articles to improve them is the way to go and if a section merge occurs, so long as now article is not subsumed into the other, I don't see a need for a lot of debate here. Let's just write the articles. We also have pedigree, pedigree chart to consider in this too. Montanabw(talk) 09:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further thinking, some merging still needs to happen, as things like Pedigree (animal) redirect here, which makes sense, this being the main article on the topic generally (since many animals are pedigree registered without being purebred, e.g. "natural breed" foundation stock that are going to be used for purebreeding. But the Purebred article has material on pedigrees that's missing from here. So, if it's consolidated here, the material at the purebred article can be compressed to just that which is essential for the context over there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not do a complete merge from purebred, as the biological concept of a purebred is distinct from the legal/political aspects of an organization. While I do agree that "pedigreed" animals today are generally those in a registry, the concept probably needs at least some historic research into when the concept arose (in horse breeding, the first written pedigrees other than farm records trace only to about the 13th century). Also keep in mind that pedigree chart has stuff in it about human family trees. Montanabw(talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Breed registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Breed registry/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very good, comprehensive and complete article.


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Breed registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breed_registry&oldid=1213514719"