Template talk:Primitive dogs
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Primitive dogs
[edit]Primitive dogs - so what does this term mean and what is the definition for inclusion under this classification? Currently it lists a number of "breeds", some of which date back only 200 years to their creation in the Victorian era. Others have been shown to be genetically divergent - that does not make them "primitive" nor in any way "ancient". William Harris • (talk) • 11:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The introductory paragraph to Bruce Fogle's The encyclopedia of the dog[1] chapter on primitive dogs states:
- "The label "Primitive" is an arbitrary one applied to a small group of dogs, mostly ancient, isolated breeds, that share a common "natural" or "feral" look. Some members of this group, such as the Dingo and the New Guinea Singing Dog, are genuinely primitive, in that they are at an early or at least an arrested stage of domestication. Others, such as the Xoloitzcuintli (Mexican Hairless Dog) and Basenji, although they are descended from the same stock, have been dramatically affected by human intervention in their breeding."
- It then lists the following breeds:
- Dingo
- New Guinea Singing Dog
- Canaan Dog
- Podenco Canario
- Basenji
- Peruvian Inca Orchid
- Inca Hairless Dog (Miniature)
- Carolina Dog
- Standard Xoloitzcuintli
- Miniature Xoloitzcuintli
- Toy Xoloitzcuintli
- Pharaoh Hound
- Cirneco dell'Etna
- Ibiza Hound
- Podenco Portuguesa Grande (mentioned in text of Medio)
- Podenco Portuguesa Medio
- Podenco Portuguesa Pegueño
- Inca Hairless Dog (Grande)
- Inca Hairless Dog (Medio)
- Further, the FCI has two primitive dog sections, Group 5 Section 6 - Primitive types and Group 5 Section 7 - Primitive Types - Hunting dogs.
- Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC).
- Genetic analysis has proved most instructive since the cited 2009 book - none of the American dogs listed predate Columbus.[2] Regarding the Pharaoh Hound and Ibiza Hound, the two breeds have been recreated in more recent times from combinations of other breeds,[3] we knew that in 2004, long before the book was published. The myths and legends of breed clubs - "there are depictions of (place breed name here) on cave walls dating back 8,000 years" - does not stack up against science. William Harris • (talk) • 08:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Added links to refs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC).
- I suppose it depends on the purpose of the navbox. I see the above is within the bounds of the broad groupings generally accepted by various breed organisations/societies (I am in no way advocating we adhere to their classifications) and literature on the topic, with several additions or more obscure, unrecognised breeds (and so likely unsullied by the showbench crowd). Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC).
References
- ^ Dr Bruce Fogle, The encyclopedia of the dog, DK Publishing, New York, 2009, ISBN 978-0-7566-6004-8.
- ^ Ní Leathlobhair, Máire; Perri, Angela R; Irving-Pease, Evan K; Witt, Kelsey E; Linderholm, Anna; Haile, James; Lebrasseur, Ophelie; Ameen, Carly; Blick, Jeffrey; Boyko, Adam R; Brace, Selina; Cortes, Yahaira Nunes; Crockford, Susan J; Devault, Alison; Dimopoulos, Evangelos A; Eldridge, Morley; Enk, Jacob; Gopalakrishnan, Shyam; Gori, Kevin; Grimes, Vaughan; Guiry, Eric; Hansen, Anders J; Hulme-Beaman, Ardern; Johnson, John; Kitchen, Andrew; Kasparov, Aleksei K; Kwon, Young-Mi; Nikolskiy, Pavel A; Lope, Carlos Peraza; et al. (2018). "The evolutionary history of dogs in the Americas". Science. 361 (6397): 81–85. doi:10.1126/science.aao4776. PMID 29976825.
- ^ Parker, Heidi. et al. 2004 “Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog”. Science 304, 1160