It's not who influences a trait, it's who has the dominant genes that influence that trait and that could be either of them.
Physical trait question, inheritance
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Something else that may seem minor -
many show dogs when stacked for photos, have their flews put back in their mouth
I have headshots of rah where his flews are hidden, and its all about how the head is handled and positioned, the leash holding his head up (giving him a much cleaner neckline and underjaw, and making his flews virtually disappear!)
many show dogs when stacked for photos, have their flews put back in their mouth
I have headshots of rah where his flews are hidden, and its all about how the head is handled and positioned, the leash holding his head up (giving him a much cleaner neckline and underjaw, and making his flews virtually disappear!)
Something else that may seem minor -
many show dogs when stacked for photos, have their flews put back in their mouth
Oy, the talent of a handler...I noticed this during a show where a well known breeder's dog looked completely different headwise in ring than out.
A beautiful dog no doubt, but it had the pointy cone-head action of the occipital bone(?) going on that I did not notice in the ring. When the dog was angled ~just so~ that point was not noticeable, but out I was surprised to see it. I've seen it before in dobes, it makes me wonder if that is a fault, probably not?
This just makes me not trust side views that much less, but thank you Doberkim
Hi Dobebug,
It's been a lot of years since we've really had breeding lines that pretty much always produced good (as in, what the standard calls for) heads. In the 60's and to some degree in the 70's you could sort of count on going to some of the major breeders lines to improve various parts of the dog--most of Tess Hensler's Ahrtal dogs had pretty nice heads and a lot of people bred to Ahrtal dogs to get that feature.
At any given time (and it seems somewhat cyclical) you can find common head faults--short of going to see the dogs in the living flesh there isn't a really easy way of telling if a picture tells the truth. So you sort of have to rely on people who have seen the dogs in person and not just in pictures.
I can't argue with that, makes it hard tho when you find people who have smokin' dogs in the opposite end of the country that don't often show in your area=)
Which is why I'm asked, trying to reduce the surprise factor when the time comes
The occipital protuberance (bump at the back of the skull) should ideally be pretty flat in a Doberman head--the flat topskull the standard asks for makes that a given. And the planes should be parallel--one of the more common faults is found in heads that are downfaced or dishfaced (dip just before the muzzle turns at the stop to go up to the topskull). Stops too deep (making the heads look Dane like rather than Doberman like) are so common a lot of people think they are proper--they aren't. Eyes should be moderately small, dark and almond shaped and somewhat deepset rather than large, oval or round and doe like--and I hope that isn't what you mean by a doe like head--it's not correct.
LOL I hope that's not what I mean either. But if beady cubist eyes are the standard I'm going to need help with examples of what acceptable eyes are.
Bear in mind, I don't ever plan on breeding.
A lot of heads also lack underjaws and/or depth of muzzle--to such an extent for awhile I was seriously worried about the possiblity of loosing proper depth of muzzle (which is what gives you a wedge shape from the side) entrely.
As you see that was far from an easy question you asked.
Well if I was going to get that answer anywhere, this is a good place to start.
I don't know anyone in my personal circle who could tell me what dobes through time have transpired and I really appreciate your taking the time to give a thoughtful answer
It's much easier to answer what is dominant with some other points of conformation--the dominant front is actually pretty straight--somewhat set foreward and is what mutt fronts revert to--it's also why it is so hard to breed and retain a really good Doberman front as described by the standard--most of the individual parts are not dominant so what we regard as faults show up easily if you breed a pair where both fronts aren't equally correct--according to the standard.[/QUOTE]
Thank you (((Dobebug)))
This gives me hope=)
It's been a lot of years since we've really had breeding lines that pretty much always produced good (as in, what the standard calls for) heads. In the 60's and to some degree in the 70's you could sort of count on going to some of the major breeders lines to improve various parts of the dog--most of Tess Hensler's Ahrtal dogs had pretty nice heads and a lot of people bred to Ahrtal dogs to get that feature.
At any given time (and it seems somewhat cyclical) you can find common head faults--short of going to see the dogs in the living flesh there isn't a really easy way of telling if a picture tells the truth. So you sort of have to rely on people who have seen the dogs in person and not just in pictures.
I can't argue with that, makes it hard tho when you find people who have smokin' dogs in the opposite end of the country that don't often show in your area=)
Which is why I'm asked, trying to reduce the surprise factor when the time comes
The occipital protuberance (bump at the back of the skull) should ideally be pretty flat in a Doberman head--the flat topskull the standard asks for makes that a given. And the planes should be parallel--one of the more common faults is found in heads that are downfaced or dishfaced (dip just before the muzzle turns at the stop to go up to the topskull). Stops too deep (making the heads look Dane like rather than Doberman like) are so common a lot of people think they are proper--they aren't. Eyes should be moderately small, dark and almond shaped and somewhat deepset rather than large, oval or round and doe like--and I hope that isn't what you mean by a doe like head--it's not correct.
LOL I hope that's not what I mean either. But if beady cubist eyes are the standard I'm going to need help with examples of what acceptable eyes are.
Bear in mind, I don't ever plan on breeding.
A lot of heads also lack underjaws and/or depth of muzzle--to such an extent for awhile I was seriously worried about the possiblity of loosing proper depth of muzzle (which is what gives you a wedge shape from the side) entrely.
As you see that was far from an easy question you asked.
Well if I was going to get that answer anywhere, this is a good place to start.
I don't know anyone in my personal circle who could tell me what dobes through time have transpired and I really appreciate your taking the time to give a thoughtful answer
It's much easier to answer what is dominant with some other points of conformation--the dominant front is actually pretty straight--somewhat set foreward and is what mutt fronts revert to--it's also why it is so hard to breed and retain a really good Doberman front as described by the standard--most of the individual parts are not dominant so what we regard as faults show up easily if you breed a pair where both fronts aren't equally correct--according to the standard.[/QUOTE]
Thank you (((Dobebug)))
I'm just trying to do my homework here & figured it was much more an art in being able to tell these things than a science, if at all possible, for which I'm grateful for those who take time to give detailed answers to a novice.
If we're going to go to the trouble of researching & after that, are given the honor of spending a couple grand on a dog from a good line, I hope to reduce the surprise factor.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
