Let us put this in perspective by once again bringing up the subject of how we conceive, understand and apply that entity which we commonly refer to as ‘type’. Over the years a whole lot has been said and written on this subject but yet, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, no commonly-held consensus on, or consistency in, how we use this term has ever been reached. It all still rather depends on one’s point of view. This matter, oddly enough, continues to remain an enigmatic one. How individuals visualize and comprehend this concept still appears to vary a great deal. Confusion then arises. Different people talk about different things when they think that they are on the same page but they are not. After all this passage of time we have yet to come to a situation where there exists a mutually-agreed-upon understanding of precisely what we mean when we talk about that which typifies. If one were to pose the question of whether or not a breed has but a single ‘type’ different responses might well be forthcoming. How come, you might say? Well, it all surely depends on definition. Some folks maintain that there can be only one ‘type’ within a breed, while others look at things somewhat differently. If by this we mean the sum of those characteristics by which a breed is distinguished from all others, there can, presumably, be only one such entity. This is a broad, classical conceptualization. If, on the other hand, we accommodate and recognize a range of variables within this concept, as indeed always exists within a given breed population at any one time, it logically follows that a diversity of types exist. ‘Forms’ or ‘styles’ are alternative words to use in this context. There shouldn’t really be any mystery about any of this. But then there is a more narrow way of applying the term ‘type’ when we refer to a certain level of perfection that approximates what is ideally visualized. A whole new dimension is opened up. When we say that a dog lacks ‘type’ what exactly do we mean? There are, presumably, degrees of this. Here again the question of what is correct for each individual breed comes up.

Given the diversity of form which inevitably exists within breeds it almost goes without saying that one has to be very careful indeed when it comes to expressing an opinion about this matter of ‘correctness’. Morphologi-cal nuances can be tricky things to deal with but we are confronted with them constantly. After all, a dog which truly and completely defines its standard has never really existed. Some perhaps come close but there is always that qualification. The distance between our idealized perfection and reality may vary from breed to breed but it is, nevertheless, seemingly always there. Reality never actually quite measures up to a fancier’s concept of the ideal. This is all rather complicated, of course, because there is a genetically-controlled dynamic at play here. Breeds of dogs change and drift over time, whether we like it or not. If we do not bear in mind the fundamental nature of biological processes, and the variability which inexorably exists, our perspective on such matters as what is or is not ‘correct’ in a given breed can readily become unduly myopic. Although the central purpose of each conscientious breeder is to preserve unique, defining characteristics, it is well to remember that absolute morphological uniformity is not only unattainable but may not even be desirable or in the best interest of a breed. Given this, some measure of form diverge within the entities which we refer to as breeds is to be expected and should therefore be viewed positively rather than as being a big problem. A good measure of morphological homogeneity is obviously very desirable and this is something which breeders have historically aimed at achieving. Success in this regard has been uneven and breed populations have drifted randomly over time without any unified, long-term control. Hence the condition of breeds as we know them today and the need to be careful with this ‘correctness’ bit.

The difficulty which always arises in this area of our activity is that through purposeful, selective breeding divergence is frequently consolidated and there arise within breeds variant forms, or differing types if you will. Some of the entities which we now call breeds have arisen this way. Then we exercise preferences for one or another. Then an argument ensues as to which is correct. It gets quite complicated and differing views are hard to reconcile. Where there is long-standing geographical isolation the divide has, historically, occurred almost by default. But some of this has surely to do with how individuals interpret breed standards and practice their personal understanding of what characteristics should typify a particular entity. A focus on the original purpose for which a breed was developed helps serve as an anchor but yet we allow ourselves the freedom to go whichever way we wish when it comes to style and taste. Witness the many divergences now extant and the justifications offered for their existence. This is, in fact, now a veritable area of contention in many breeds and it will be interesting to see in the coming years how much more drifting apart will occur and how we deal with the phenomenon. There will undoubtedly be some more splitting apart and a whole lot of argument surrounding same. Which brings us back to the question of whether or not it is a good thing to maintain and perpetuate different forms or types within breeds. From a biological-fitness perspective, there are built-in advantages to this state of affairs but tell this to those who take a narrow view of what is ‘correct’.

Variability within breeds has an uneven pattern. This is a legacy derived, in part at least, from breed ancestries, origins, histories, and degree of development. It is also, as alluded to above, a product of breeding practices, in terms of selection, over time and, in particular, the more or less total isolation of portions of breed populations. The dilemma which confronts us now involves the question of how we accommodate the changes which we are witness to. How does a judge decide what type to reward? I’m thinking in particular of the international dimension as well, in a few instances, of breeds with which I am familiar in this country. To what extent do we respect the form of breeds in their countries of origin? Or do we just go on with so-called development, oblivious of often-expressed concerns? There are plenty of people having something to say about this nowadays. Do we just recognize and name more and more new breeds as the drifting apart continues? Or do we try to hold the fort, so to speak? How do we deal with a situation where two or more distinct types exist within a breed? Does anyone have some meaningful control over this; does anyone have a solution which will satisfy everyone? The answer to this question should be perfectly obvious. So, again, how do we adjust our thinking to the continuing changes which we are seeing?

How is man’s continuing indulgence with the pedigreed dog to be viewed? The art and science of breeding better dogs has, as one of its central goals, the improvement and perfection of form. Selection for this purpose inevitably brings about change. Quite clearly the sophisticated fancier, be he or she a breeder or a judge, has to have a feel for diversity and variance while at the same time being cognizant of the essential characteristics and defining features by which breeds are differentiated. Breed variation in this or that regard will always exist but in the matter of delimiting where the boundaries lie, difficulty often arises. The amount, rate, and extent of change is where we run into concerns. When there is appreciable shift in make and shape of a particular entity, red flags are inevitably raised. There have been examples of this happening lately both in this country and eleswhere. Through the segregation and recombination of genes, an action intrinsic to the reproductive process, some random drift inevitably occurs. This is a fact which is easily overlooked but has profound significance. When attempting to particularize what is or is not correct it is important that some accommodation be made to biological reality. While we expect our breeds to conform to a certain idealized form, a kind of balance has to be set. Just how to conceptualize and define breeds has always been something of a challenge, but this is something that has to be met if we are to view our dogs with a rational perspective. So is this matter of breed type diversification of concern to you?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. He carries the title of Distinguished University Professor at Auburn University, where he has been a member of the faculty for thirty-five years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, six Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net