Puppy with weird head...anyone seen anything like this? - Page 9

My post has nothing to do with Jen's post, puppies or her breeding. It has all to do with the point of view from actual scientific/research angle:

Just because there are no papers published on a certain topic, does not mean the issues are not there..or vice versa. Research costs money A LOAD of money that has to come from somewhere. Usually this funds come from people, organizations that have some interest in figuring things out for "later down the road" advantage...tied to more money.

Back in a day, some colors were NOT favored because some things were seen phenotypicaly, something was expressed along the way and people (breeders) did not like it. Something was added, or missing to the phenotypic expression. In some breeds more than in others. Standards came from desired expression of genes. I would for myself love to read observations from the old timers (breeders) who made decades of notes concerning this type of (non molecular) observations, and their reasons why they liked or did not like certain patterns.
The work put into the actual molecular research... most people have no frigging clue as what time and money it takes. Reading papers on a topic that actually make it through review is only years of work sometimes..and just the tip of an iceberg that still needs to be looked into.
It is magic, until its science!

Martina

Good luck with your anarchist " reverse Mohawk" puppy!



 

Excellent points made, Pack!
Scientific research is not complete, so there are lots of weird, unexplainable things in the real world. Take it for what it is....blues are possibly not accepted for a good reason, rather than an arbitrary one. ;-)
The pup is still cool looking with all his swagger looks....

Well........................I hate to be the bearer of bad news.........................................but..............................................................................................

DRUMROLL...........
















.....................it appears it MAY be starting to grow in. I know, I know, I should be jumping for joy, but I've kind of gotten used to his trademark.   It's early to tell, but as he's getting more coat, it seems to have some stubble appearing. I guess that would make sense if the vets are right, and it's a simple congenital issue from the fontanel formation that caused some damage to those follicles along that line. The last pic is a week old or so. I'll try to get better ones when the rain stops. Puppies don't mind rain, but my nice camera does! ;-)  

BTW, he's so very flattered to have sparked such debate! He thinks he deserves nothing less than EVERYONE talking about him! 

One shot from last night. Sorry about weird color- messed up setting on camera. 

WHAT...No Cooties...how disappointing that will be to some!,
(would that be considered chippy?)

Well...we don't know yet. He may still have cooties. 

I can't tell; I probably look at him too much. You don't notice gradual changes when you're the one taking care of them. I was looking at pics thought it looked less starkly bald, so I looked at him, and it may just be that he's carrying his ears a bit different week to week, but the "part" seems to have stubble growing in; it doesn't seem as clean as it did. At certain angles, I've actually mixed him up with his brother, which has not happened in quite some time. The 3 with the crappy coats are losing their mole coats and getting better puppy coats and especially as the tan/red grows in, he's looking different. 

 

Well I think he's going to be very striking as a mature dog!

Council for Purebred Labrador Retrievers

THESE are the same issues that are involved with the color blue.....
    And the extremes those people involved in their breed will go thru to perpetrate fraud on others...
Just because you don't like something, don't make you right                               ks

Rebuttal to the 2012 LRC Statement against Silver Labradors

The Following is a position statement against Silver Labradors developed by Frances O Smith, DVM, PhD.  For many years, this statement was posted publically on Dr. Smith’s Veterinary Clinic website.   At the time, this statement was not the official position of the Labrador Retriever Club (LRC) on “Silver Labradors,” Dr. Smith included her LRC position as head of the Genetics Committee in the statement header causing some to assume that this was the official LRC position. 

In June 2012, the LRC voted to utilize this statement apparently to appease some of its more outspoken members who were offended that a “Silver” Labrador was allowed to enter the Potomac Labrador Retriever Specialty Obedience trial, at which the Silver Lab handily won “High in Trial.” 

This position statement is heavily laden with Dr. Smith’s personal bias against Silver Labs, (which is undoubtedly shared by other LRC members), as well as defamatory hearsay, and deliberate misinformation.  Either Dr. Smith is ignorant of Labrador genetics and historical facts, or she believes those that read this statement are.  The following critique of Dr. Smith’s statement demonstrates this truth to the reader.

“The Issue of the Silver Labrador

Frances O Smith, DVM, PhD Chair, Labrador Retriever Club, Genetics Committee

“It is the opinion of the LRC that a silver Labrador is not a purebred Labrador. The pet owning public is being duped into believing that these animals are desirable, purebred, and rare and therefore warrant special notoriety or a premium purchase price.”

       This introductory paragraph is an attempt to summarize the current position of the LRC regarding the “Silver” Labrador Retriever (which is contradictory to their original position set forth in partnership with the AKC, wherein they stated that there is “no reason to doubt that the dogs are Purebred Labrador Retrievers”).  However, Dr. Smith has taken liberty to speak for the entirety of the LRC in a non-factual way.  In the actual current position statement, the LRC does not directly state that they believe Silver Labradors are not “purebred.”  They do 1- question the genetic basis, 2- suggest that the “silver color” is a show disqualification, 3- discourage using the term “Silver” to sale or advertise Labs, and 4- oppose registering silver as chocolate.  They do not question the rarity of dilution; they do not challenge the supply and demand economics that drives the pricing of all Labradors, including Silver Labs; they do not state that anyone is “duping” the public.  Though they do imply impurity, they do not state it openly.  They are (or were) wise enough recognize that there is no actual evidence that supports the unfounded claim of cross breeding.  None at all. 

“Over the past few years a limited number of breeders have advertised and sold dogs they represent to be purebred Labrador Retrievers with a dilute or gray coat color—hence the term “silver labs.” The AKC has accepted some of these “silver labs” for registration. Apparently, the rationale for this decision is that the silver coat color is a shade of chocolate.  Interestingly, the original breeders of “silver” Labradors were also involved in the Weimaraner breed.”

       In this paragraph, the most glaring inaccuracy is the final sentence where Dr. Smith suggests that the “original breeders” of Silver Labradors were also in some way involved with Weimaraners.  The implication is that they bred Weimaraners.  This lie was propagated soon after the appearance of Silver Labradors at the Culo Kennel in the 1980’s by other Labrador breeders who employed this tactic to explain away these gray Labs that they, themselves, did not understand.  Ironically, after conducting an in-depth investigation into the Labs, their lines, and their breeder. the LRC and AKC jointly stated at that time that there was “no reason to doubt the purity of these Labs.”  Adding to this is the statement by the Culo Kennel owner that he never bred or owned Weimaraners, nor was he even aware of any within 100 miles of his home!  The kennel went as far to offer $100,000 to anyone that could prove there had been a misalliance involving a Weimaraner.  In over 25 years no one ever took that challenge. Because this history is what Dr. Smith is referring to it needed to be addressed in some detail. However, this is all irrelevant today due to the emergence of multiple other unrelated Labrador lines that also carry the dilution gene, capable of producing “Silver Labradors.”  Surely Dr. Smith does not wish to suggest that every one of these “original” Silver lines were produced by breeders who were “also involved in the Weimaraner breed.”  Until this critique, Dr. Smith likely was not even aware there were multiple DNA documented unrelated lines (as if she were, she would have been more careful in her defamatory remark as it includes many more people than the assumptive one).
       There are several partial-truths in this paragraph as well.  All AKC born Silver Labradors are accepted by the AKC for registration, which accounts for the vast majority of Silver Labradors.  The decision to include “Silver” as a shade of Chocolate was made by the same LRC and AKC investigation and statement mentioned above.  Hardly a rationalization!

“Although we cannot conclusively prove that the silver Labrador is a product of cross breeding the Weimaraner to a Labrador, there is good evidence in the scientific literature indicating that the Labrador has never been identified as carrying the dilute gene dd. The Weimaraner is the only known breed in which the universality of dd is a characteristic.”

       In this paragraph Dr. Smith now admits her presumptive statement in the earlier paragraph, concerning cross breeding with Weimaraners, is factually unfounded…a lie.  Here she establishes her belief that the Weimaraner breed is to blame for the dilution in Labradors simply because Weimaraners are always gray, nothing more.  Though it is true that Weimanares are gray due to the dilution gene, identified here as “dd,” Dr. Smith fails to acknowledge the dozens and dozens of other breeds that also carry this gene.  Furthermore, she would never bring to the reader’s attention that several of those breeds, known to carry the dilution gene, have historically been crossed with Labradors, some purposely so for “improvement” of certain traits.  This point is intentionally avoided as, by Dr. Smith’s treatment of the dilution gene, ALL Labradors would then be considered impure, her own Labs included. The last thing Dr. Smith would want the reader to understand is that the Labrador Retriever’s two closest genetic relatives also carry the dilution gene (the Newfoundland and Chesapeake Bay Retriever).  Dr. Smith should produce her “Scientific Literature” which indicates the Labrador has never been identified as carrying the dilute gene.  The irony that no cited “source” information for that scientific “claim” is not lost on the educated reader; convenient.  Dr. Smith here also omits that Labradors, whose color has been described as “Silver,” “Grey,” “Grey-Black,” “Bluish,” “Purpley,” “Mousy,” “Buff,” and “Ghost” have been noted by breed historians and authors Mary Roslin Williams, Dorothy Howe, Janet Churchill, Debby Kay and Lorna, Countess Howe.   

“From the website for Vetgen:

The D locus is the primary locus associated with diluted pigment, which results in coats that would otherwise be black or brown instead showing up as gray or blue, in the case of black, and pale brown in the case of brown. The melanophilin gene has recently been shown to be responsible, but not all of the dilute causing mutations have been identified yet.”

       This quote from Vetgen has a single subtle error, it is one that is critical to recognize.  In dilute coat colors, though the overall appearance of the coat is generally “gray” or “blue,” the true color of the pigment is not diluted.  The pigment remains brown or black, just the same as any non-dilute Labrador, which can be verified with basic light microscopy.  The effect of dilution is actually on the sparse arrangement of the pigment in the individual hairs, which results ultimately in the outwardly gray appearance.  Interestingly, it is pointed out that there are other mutations that can result in dilution.  From a scientific perspective, it is unwise to suggest that something like dilution in Labradors cannot be so when the root science behind the phenomenon is not fully studied nor understood.  It is disappointing that a PhD of Dr Smith’s reputation would speak in such definitive ways when the Science cannot corroborate. One must wonder what her ulterior motivations are to take such a risk. 

“Recognized coat colors for purebred Labradors are black, yellow and chocolate. No shadings of coat color are recognized for black or chocolate Labradors in either the Labrador standard or the current research into genetic coat colors. The shadings recognized in yellow Labrador Retrievers do not depend on the presence of the dilute gene dd but are modifiers acting on the ee gene. The identified coat color genes in the Labrador include:
  
       A              B              C              D              E              g              in              s              i

       |               |                |                              |                                | 

       a              b               c                              e                               t

 The omission of “d” and thus the impossibility of a dd dilute gene resulting from a pure Labrador breeding is certainly persuasive evidence that the silver Labrador is not a purebred.”

       In this paragraph Dr. Smith either clearly demonstrates her ignorance or she assumes the reader to be ignorant of the Labrador Coat Color descriptions in the breed standard.  Shades of Chocolate are indeed recognized!  The Standard reads, “Chocolate--Chocolates can vary in shade from light to dark chocolate!” One must wonder how a LRC committee Chair could miss that.  By appearance, Dr. Smith desired to intentionally mislead the reader regarding recognized shades of Chocolate.  This is very important in the Silver Labrador discussion because the joint LRC AKC statement about Silver Labradors determined in the 1980’s that they should be registered as Chocolate.  At the time the breed standard included the Chocolate shade called “Sedge,” which it was felt was the best descriptor for these Labs per the standard.  Today, Silver(or Sedge) would represent a very “Light” shade of Chocolate (which of course ranges from “Light to Dark”).  As for Black, it is true that there is no breed standard described variation in shade. However, variations of Black have been noted by some of the same breed historians and authors listed previously.  Terms such as “Leaden,” “Dullish,” and “Jet.”  All Shades.  In Yellows, fully dilute Labs go undetected to even the trained eye. It should then be of little surprise to learn that Yellow Labs are close behind most “Silver” lines.  “Current research into genetics” has been identifying and mapping many modifying genes responsible for color variations in canines (including dilution), and more research is underway.
       The gene diagram posted is grossly out of date and is incorrect.  This diagram based on the work of Clarence C. Little “The Inheritance of Coat Color in Dogs” from the 1950’s.  Since Little’s groundbreaking book in the 1950’s, the canine genetics world has moved light-years forward with DNA and genome understanding and technologies, sometimes proving and other times disproving Little’s coat color hypotheses. Although this kind of gene diagram is a nice way to visualize genes that may contribute to a characteristic, like coat color, the exclusion of any one gene does not mean it does not actually exist in the breed.  Genes may be excluded due to rarity and an insufficient sampling of the breed, or, as appears to be the case with Dr. Smith’s review, a bias against the potential existence of that recessive gene.  Recessive genes can be carried for many generations without being expressed.  Breed author Dorothy Howe tells of a Yellow Lab that she traced back 500 names before she could find a known carrier of the yellow gene!  Considering the relative rarity of the “d” gene in Labs, and that it is only completely obvious in the presence of another recessive gene (b), not only can one begin to understand why “Silver” Labs are uncommon but why someone might exclude “d” from such a diagram, intentional or not.  Yet, by simply excluding, it is no proof or evidence that the d gene is not natural to the Labrador breed.  Even Little’s book excluded listing recessive genes known to be in some breeds when that recessive was very uncommon (like the d gene in Chesapeake Bay Retrievers).
       If the LRC is insistent of using Little’s out of date gene diagram, perhaps they might be interested in what Little thought of uncommon colors.  He wrote, “…colors not sanctioned by the standard for the breed is no disgrace and no evidence of impure ancestry in the animals producing it.  It is, on the contrary, an event of real scientific interest and importance.”   Irony is again found in that the “Genetics” committee head of the LRC would be responsible for the reproduction of this out of date and inaccurate genetic diagram. 

“It's a bit of a problem when it comes to breeding because recessive traits, such as [recessives] and dilution, can remain hidden in lines for many generations, then suddenly crop up when a dog carrying the trait is bred to another with it (if the gene is very rare in the breed then it can be a long time until this happens, if it ever does). This is why breedings sometimes throw complete surprises, like silver (blue) Labrador puppies in a breed, which, to all intents and purposes, contains no silver at all. That one lone recessive silver gene (d, on the D locus) has been passed down from generation to generation, completely unknown to the breeders, until finally it's met another one. It might have come from a cross-breeding with another breed many years ago, which doesn't show up on the pedigrees and no longer has any effect on the look of the dog (so all the dogs in the line look exactly like normal Labradors, not a crossbred), but they still carry one gene left over from the cross-breeding). Such rare recessive traits can be impossible to eradicate from a breed, simply because you can't tell which dogs carry them.  However, in recent years, genetic testing has helped to identify the carriers.”

       This final paragraph is new to Dr. Smith’s statement as of 2012.  In its composition and structure it is more closely reminiscent of the writings of Sharon Wagner, trusted confidant to the LRC Genetics Committee.  Whether Wagner’s or Smith’s, this paragraph provides the most fair representation of the topic thus far.  It clearly explains how a rare recessive gene can remain in a breeding population for many years without being expressed and even be undetectable without modern DNA testing.  Such a gene could conceivably, and statistically, originate from the foundation stock upon which the Labrador breed was established, which is supported by dilution gene-carrying close relatives of the Labrador.  This statement, however, suggests that the gene may have originated from a cross breeding long ago.  If that were the case, then all genes that originated from non-Labrador heritage, now found throughout the Labrador breed would be considered impure, and by association, all Labs themselves would be impure; show champions and field champions included.  Like all “breeds,” genetically, the Labrador is a conglomeration of genes from multiple breeds; more genes from some breeds than others.  The idea that a rare recessive gene is the result of “impurity” is not only without genetic merit, but it demonstrates ignorance to the process by which breeds, such as the Labrador, are produced!       

To conclude, this Statement of Dr. Smith’s is rife with a personal vendetta against Silver Labs.  It is ironic that an individual of her position at the LRC would produce such a factually inaccurate and misleading statement.  It is more surprising that the LRC is now apparently supporting it.
The foregoing critique is protected by copyright and used by permission.
 

Webmaster: CPLR.publiccommunications@gmail.com

 

KitKat - yes.  LOL

Jenni, I hate to be a wet blanket but don't rejoice too soon, if its a follicle
 alopecia - of any sort, not just the Dilution problem - there may be some
permanent damage/weakness which always makes the hairs break off again,
once they are past the 'stubble' stage.  There was a point where Storm looked
as though he was getting new hair on his bald forehead, and indeed he does
[did?] have a very thin & weak all-over cover last time I saw him, but the coat
in that area has never been 'normal'.  Hope that's not the case with Einstein /
Mohawk !   May be differences due to the age-stages, dunno;   the 'research' 
I put in at the time I was working with his problem didn't really cover much on
puppy development as such, other than saying CDA frequently starts very early
in a dogs life.  But then, I was not looking for puppy references ...

GDSPACK:  how very true.