This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Ceph on 14 February 2008 - 03:02
I didnt realize there was a seperaton that far back.
There are illustrations of Collies (or something clearly related) in his book on pages 97/129/130.
It's not something I have ever seen pop up in the GSD or related breeds, but it has been found in German Shepherds - that much I was able to gather. And it's not something you really want to breed...kind of one of those better safe than sorry events I suppose.
There has been annoyingly little research done on this in any of the big journals 
~Cate
by pod on 14 February 2008 - 09:02
I've probably got a different edition from yours.... there's just continental herders and drover's dogs on those pages. I'll trawl through when I've got a couple of hours to spare 
Yes, it's annoyingly difficult to find any more on this. I know I did read somewhere that it has only been found in a white GSD with the suggestion that it may not have been purbred, but I can't for the life of me, remember where I read it.
by Ceph on 14 February 2008 - 12:02
If a WGSD can have it so can a colored one....they throw whites all the time and have been for 100 years. I'd love to see the data backing that one up.
My edition is the first english translation published in 1924.
~Cate
by pod on 14 February 2008 - 13:02
I think the insinuation was that this dog in particular may not be purebred, not whites in general. If this is the case then the mutation could have come from Collie lines not in the general GSD population. Sorry, I wish I could find where I saw this.
Yep, my edition is 8th.
by Ceph on 14 February 2008 - 13:02
lol - you were prolly smarter than I...I paid through the nose for mine and I treat it like gold cause it is faaaaalling apart!
~Cate
by pod on 14 February 2008 - 15:02
I got mine for a fiver in a 2nd hand shop many years ago
It is falling apart too though.
by allaboutthedawgs on 14 February 2008 - 17:02
This is the second time I've noticed a fairly radical different interpretation of the book attributed to the edition. Was there a second "version"? Or is it a translation difference or maybe even just a different assumption of the meaning?
Just curious.
by Ceph on 14 February 2008 - 17:02
The editions are different...as it progressed things were removed and added. As far as I know the edition published in the mid 30s is different than mine...and the one after it. It's why I wanted an original.
~Cate
by pod on 14 February 2008 - 19:02
The 8th, published 1950, says "Revised and Enlarged Edition"
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top