Talk:Mongrel/Archive 1

Tyke
"Tyke" is also a common word for a Yorkshireman and the Yorkshire dialect. Should this disambiguation be added? Matthew Platts
 * Good point--done--changed redir page to dab; see tyke now. Elf | Talk 05:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to this, but the disambiguation page list lists mixed breed dog as the first hit for 'tyke'. I am surprised by this, as I think in modern English the word Tyke primarily refers to a young child. In my experience (New Zealand English), I am familiar with all other synonyms for mixed breeds except this one, which I think is archaic. I tried Google and various online dictionaries, and can't find any modern (post 1900) references to tyke as a mixed-breed dog. In comparison, tyke + child is common. For instance:

 5,870 hits – first hit is Wikipedia, other top ten hits use the same synonym as Wikipedia

 71,200 hits – top ten hits all use tyke in correct context – Wikipedia is not in top 10.

--gb


 * It might just be that tyke, dog, was the first entry, i.e. what the author was working on at the time. I agree that tyke, child, is more common usage, but not because of Google.  I detest Google being used as the yardstick for everything.  Lots of people on the planet have never even heard of google, except as an alt. of baby talk...  At any rate, I'll go move 'child' up on the tyke page and see if anyone objects!  Quill 08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please vote on deleting Maltipoo, Yorkiepoo, Schnoodle
Please go here to here (Articles for deletion/Yorkiepoo) to express your opinion. Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Mixed Breed Dogs
Rock! Healthy, loving, smart and deserve a chance. ---

Yeah, exactly! A couple of my friends sneered when I told them my dog is a mongrel. (she's really just a cross. She's only a mix between two breeds. Two of my favourite breeds in fact) What the hell's wrong with mutts?

I have a small feeling that this article is slightly patronising towards them.. The whole tone is "they're not all bad!" , they do their best. Treating them like the special needs kids of the dog world. But they're not! Who the hell says stupid pedigree dogs are better? What's the bloody difference? There's none to me, only stupid obsessed people who try and turn their poor dogs into prize winners are obsessed with a dog being pure breed.

Stop making mutts sound second rate. TetrisRock 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Tetris.

Addition by 124.170.39.170
Can this be removed/rewritten? Bedroomheadroom (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not clear antecedent
[...the Queen and her Corgi]..her sister's Dachshund,...

The sentence can mean two things: Which is it?


 * The Queen's sister had a Corgi, and the mating of which produced a mutt, or
 * The sister of the (Queen's) Corgi, ie the dog, mated with the dachsund.

This seems like an amusing question, but the sentence as it is really is ambiguous.

Shlishke (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous Mutts section
I think it's odd to have this section with only three entries two of whch are animated cartoon charaters. I propose that either the list be expanded or eliminated. Comments or contributions? JoKing (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory meaning
A sentence has been deleted twice by IP users. The sentence says that all of the terms used to refer to mixed-breed dogs, listed in the introduction of this article, are derogatory. This is a factual statement which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED explicitly states that each of the definitions is derogatory. Its not an opinion. If you have a problem with it, please attempt a synthesis or justify your change. --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion. but I'd support the change. It's not really relelvant to kick off with a discussion of wherether or not a term is derogatory, especially since the opinion seems to be regional.  Nora Bayes (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Nora


 * Fair enough. I'm not sure how to reconcile the "opinion" issue, as it is stated in the next sentence that "mongrel" is used in the UK without derogatory intent. That may be the case, but the OED is the absolute standard for dictionaries, and in the definition of every single one of these terms, "derogatory" is included. I think the fact is important because it helps paint the historical picture of purebred breeds as perceived as being "of pure blood" and showing desirable traits, and mixed breed dogs being perceived as watered-down, undesirable stock. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics that arose with eugenics, but its been pervasive and is implicit in the language. But I'm not opposed to moving it, or changing the wording or emphasis. I agree that it is not central to the point of the section. --Thesoxlost (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Checked this out. The derogatory meaning applies to humans. It's off-topic and sets a poor tone in the first paragraph of the article. Perhaps a later section on perception of mixed-breeds would be appropriate. This could deal with the whole pure vs mixed debate (dog fancy), which in reality is only a little over a hundred years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoKing (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not true for "cur" and "tyke." Both of these words are derogatory according to the OED definition that applies to dogs. "Tyke" is defined as "A dog; usually in depreciation or contempt, a low-bred or coarse dog, a cur, a mongrel." But fair enough, the explicit "derogatory" tag in the mongrel definition is for humans and race-horces, though many of the examples are clearly derogatory. If you want to move it elsewhere, that would be reasonable.  Honestly, I don't know that the laundry list of terms needs to be included at all. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All existing dog breeds began as mixed breeds
I do not agree with this statement. While it is correct, that most of the modern dog breeds derive from mixing two or more dog breeds, this describes but one of several ways of arriving at a "breed", with dog breeds being no different from other animal species in this regard. Earliest and oldest "breeds" were not the result of crossbreeding/mixed breeding, they were - quite logically - created by basic domestication, geographic and climatic factors already influencing the wild species in that area.

When there are neither other breed populations (to connect to), nor any large genetic differences in the locally available strain, as was the case during a long phase of dog breeding in the beginning of domestication of the species, the only possible method of breeding is to select those most suited to the goal, job and situation.

Thus, if in any geographic region early humans kept domesticated wolves, slowly evolving them into a dog breed fitting their life and lifestyle, the way they caught/raised meat, the climate of that region and its landscape, they created a breed. And of course this localized breed is not the result of crossing/mixing breeds. Instead it's the result of continously choosing those individual animals for breeding which best suit the bill. There are quite a few of these basic breeds or dog types, some of which made it to modern days in relatively unaltered manner. The northern Spitzes e.g. count among these surviving basic types/breeds.

These early breeds can't be called Pariah or feral dogs as is alluded in the article. Early man chose the dogs it kept close and bred them selectively, just as he did with other animal species he actively domesticated. Already the closing of the gene pool, which is the result of placing a domesticated group of animals apart from the wild species, is selection and is active breeding. And that is a method employed in pure breeding, even if it then happened as per the very nature of the whole thing. Just as purposeful selection within a closed gene pool is another pure breeding method.

This all means that at the beginning, the breeding of dogs (or any domesticated animal species) started out as a purebreeding of a homogenous local gene pool for certain desired traits, which these gene pools offered as natural variants (= already available in the local wild animal of the basic species). Only when these localized purebred breeds met with each other through travel and trade over large distances, crossbreeding/mixed breeding became possible. Timelines show us that this did not happen in any meaningful way for a long time.

It appears to me to be an ideological approach, to insist on such a statement, rather than a neutral and scientific one, maybe influenced by modern day criticism of purebreeding/inbreeding and some of its negative effects in modern dog breeds. I don't think it belongs in such exclusivity into a neutral article however.

As an additional point regarding breeding methods: even today there is no need to crossbreed to create a "new breed". A simple change of standard and of selection methods can result in such important differences, that a new breed forks off a breed. There are quite a few examples of this happening in the past and currently.
 * Correct. Most dog breeds began when humans noticed a particular pup with a certain quality that they liked, and found another dog with a similar quality, and bred the two. Remember: Originally, all dogs were just ordinary dogs, i.e. members of a species like cows or tigers (subject to geographical variations). The first breeds began from a process similar to the one I just mentioned. After the first breeds were established, new breeds were frequently created or developed by mixing breeds already in existence. But in order to get a breed to begin with, some specialization of traits had to be selected from the homogenous gene pool. The only clarification I would offer to the above writer is that the first dogs to be used when the earliest breeds were being created were not themselves breeds, but ordinary dogs. Even if there were significant differences between the dogs found in Western Europe, for example, from those found in the Americas, those differences would connote a difference in species, not a difference in breed: The word "breed" connotes a sub-group created by human intervention, as opposed to one that evolved naturally, e.g. the 5 sub-species of Bengal Tiger. 66.108.4.183 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion
 * Agreed, in part. The moment a species attaches itself to humans and their habitat or humans attach it to their habitat and themselves, active breeding takes place, even if there certainly were no people calling themselves "breeders" in evidence. Selection immediately takes place, as animals not geared to whatever use or habitat they were kept close for were rejected (= selected). And it's mainly selection which is at the base of "breeding" and "breed". This means that the process starts at a very early stage, in fact it starts with the very first generation of domestication. [unsigned]


 * I think there's a confusion throughout the article between true mixed-breed dogs, landrace dogs, and breeds proper. The term "mixed breed" clearly implies that you took two or more existing breeds and mixed them up.  However, this is not how pariah dogs or other landrace dogs arose.  They arose from selection (both deliberate and natural) of earlier domesticated landrace dogs, and ultimately from captured or commensal wolves.  A landrace's genes are those of the original wolf population, with those unsuitable for domestication sieved out, and of course some additional mutations added along the way.  That is a very different thing from letting a lot of pure-bred dogs hybridise freely, when the resulting animals can only have a selection of the genes which were present in the contributing breeds.  While mixed-breed dogs will have more variation than any of the contributing breeds, their gene-pool is unlikely to be as wide as that of a true landrace.


 * I don't know whether the article should be made to exclude landrace types (and so be restricted to dogs descended from pure-breds) or whether landrace dogs should be more clearly included as a separate type. Logically, perhaps the former, pragmatically, perhaps the latter.  One or the other, though – and we definitely need a link to landrace.--Richard New Forest 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article has trouble because it's trying to talk about two different referents at the same time, as you say: the basic landrace meaning, which, as the article states, is a misnomer and results from an inverted understanding of how many non-purebred dogs came into being: first there were dogs of no partiular breed (and these are still here with us), and all breeds derive from them.  Second, there are dogs who are literally a mix of breeds, (in which case the term is not a misnomer) such as cross-breed dogs or dogs resulting from pure-bred dogs crossing with what I'lll call for lack of a better term "never-bred" dogs.  As I see it, the article has to clarify the problem better for the reader and in a more up-front way, and that it should make it clear at all times which of these two quite different kinds of dogs that it's talking about at any moment, or whether a particular statement (or sets of statements) applies to both referents equally.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics of never-bred dogs
Sorely missing from this article are the characteristics of never-bred dogs. Wikipedia does seem to know some things about them, and populations of never-bred dogs such as Stray_dogs_in_Bangkok, the Bali Street dogs (referenced in the article Kintamani (dog)), Indian Pariah Dogs, and so on; Australian Dingoes, the original Canaan Dogs, Carolina Dogs, New Guinea Singing Dogs, and so on -- all these articles say that these dogs don't make great pets. They are survivors from a tough world who do not by nature expect much from humans and don't tend to look to us or trust us or emotionally bond with or need the attention of humans, even when they are taken as puppies. They probably do as well as in the role of a pet or working dog as my Cocker Spaniel would do trying to survive on the streets of Bucharest, Moscow, Delhi, or Kinshasa (not well). It is in this aspect that much of what is said about true mixed breeds in this article is just not true of so called "mixed breed" primitive dogs - they are good at surviving off civilization and in competition with each other, but true mixed breeds may make as good a family dog, working dog, or lap dog as any breed (even better at times!), and in this way this article is about two (at least!) completely different things at the same time. I have tried to separate them and make this clear tonight as I am able, but I have to say I think that until the never-bred dog gets its own separate article, this article should do a better job of describing them instead of saying a bunch of things about true mixed breeds that seem to but don't apply to never-breds and omitting important facts about never-breds. Chrisrus (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a mixed breed if we don't know that it's not a pure breed?
The article says a dog is a mixed breed if we don't know what the breed is. This makes no sense. Even if the sourses say this specifically, I don't think we should say it. Just because we don't know what breed this dog is doesn't make it mixed. For example, a dog might be a rare or unknown breed and you get it from a shelter and don't know that it is a Norwegian Elkhound or something. It's not a mixed breed just because we don't know that it's a pure breed. Our knowledge doesn't have anything to do with it. It is what it is whether anyone knows it or not. Chrisrus (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that a dog is referrred to as a mixed-breed if the breed is unknown. - Jo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.202.68 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. But we are talking about mixed breed dogs in this article, and also never-bred dogs, so you want us to add a third thing, pure-bred dogs that are called "mixed breeds" out of ignorance?  If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and add it back in, but I think it's silly. Chrisrus (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The blurb on "generic dog" needs an update, a small one.
Currently, it reads: "The generic Canis lupus familiaris, seen in feral or pariah dog populations, where mixed breeding has occurred over many generations. These dogs tend to be yellow to light brown and of medium height and weight. This "genetic average" might also represent the appearance of the modern dog's ancestor."

This is technically accurate but for its leaving out the colloquial term for this, which is "yeller dog", commonly used in the southern United States of America and possibly in other places. (For example, I call them yeller dogs and I'm from the northeastern part of that country.)

I've also heard of them being called "generic third-world mutt", although that has more of a negative connotation where "yeller dog" is mostly descriptive of a light brown coat and (often) a hoarse voice in the middle of dogs' vocal range (a tenor?).


 * You may be right, but see also Canis lupus dingo. It's confusing. In her latest book, Temple Grandin says that most familiaris landraces tend to be black or brown with white, but not yellow.   I'd say if your area's landrace is mostly yellow, it's probably from that second evolution of the dog, the southeast Asian dog, Canis lupus dingo.Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

References!
This article must show references if it wishes to stay a featured article; otherwise, someone may begin the removal process.KILO-LIMA 20:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added such. Elf | Talk 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, but can you clarify how they were used? Can you say with certainty those sources agree with the facts in the article? - Taxman Talk 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I double-checked the content of the references with the content of the article and indeed info that I put in the article based on the content of those books is still consistent. So if you look up mixed breeds or mutts or whatever in those books, they will be consistent with the article content. Elf | Talk 18:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, could we have some in-line citations please? Very little of this seems cited otherwise, and someone is going to come along and start deleting most of the article and there's going to be nothing we can do about it.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hunt for the Tiger Slayers
Mixed-breed dogs carry parasites, leaches and pests into pristine European countries. Equatorial bacteria are attracted to mixed-breed dogs and spread into unspoiled wildlife preserves threatening noble tigers. By culling mixed breed dogs, rare tigers can clean up their habitat and protect their young from mixed breed dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.3.82 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Can you cite that? Chrisrus (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Evil Pureness
"This term (along with the term purebred dog) stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics and misinterpretation of Darwinian theory.[1]" An anonymous editor (not me) removed this sentence without saying why. Somebody else put it back, asking "What's wrong with this statement?"

Since you ask, here's what I think is wrong with it: it's an opinion. It makes a statement about the ideological origins of these two terms. It's a statement that might have some basis in reality, but I think it's safe to say that most people wouldn't accept it without an argument &mdash; if they'd accept it at all.

This argument might be worth mentioning in an article that had something to do with social prejudice and word origins. It has no place in an article about dogs. Even if it did belong here, stating it as a simple fact goes against Neutral point of view. Isaac R (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better explained as a vocabulary problem (not yours, the world's). I have a problem with the statement that there is a fundamental misunderstanding without elucidating what, exactly, that misunderstanding is. Without that, the sentence is confusing and sounds a little petulant, to boot. I will revise it to try to accommodate the point that you want to make, while attending to Mr. Rabinovich's very astute criticism. See if either of you care for the new version. Roregan (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement needs to be pulled completely. It's not about dogs, it's about the sociology of the word "pure". Isaac R (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement isn't put well, and should be modified but not excluded (albeit this will mean rewriting it at this late date). It's a statement of fact, not of opinion. The 19th century concept of a "pure" breed is certainly a misunderstanding of Darwinian theory and is flatly contradicted by modern genetics. The very concept of a mixed-breed dog comes from this usage, so a discussion of this issue definitely has a place in an article about such animals. Cf inbreeding versus outbreeding in livestock, and the article on heterosis. I would dispute both points made by Mr Rabinovitch - neither make any sense, and appear to reflect some ideological prejudice in their own right. --damian (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed content
After some thought, it seemed that the following material was too detailed for this article, so I removed much of it and rewrote the rest:


 * Puppies of any breed do not look much like the adult dogs they will become, and with mixed-breed puppies it is nearly impossible to guess what they will look like as adults, although the coat color usually does not change. If one knows the breeds of the parents, some characteristics can certainly be ruled out; for example, a cross between two small purebreds will not result in a dog the size of a Great Dane.  Some breeds tend to pass on their appearance more than others. Border Collies and some Spaniels, for example, often produce offspring with similar coats and ears. The crossbred offspring of German Shepherds usually have Shepherd faces and other characteristics.


 * Second-generation crosses can produce animals looking more like the original breeds than did their parents. For example, breeding two Terrier-Beagle crosses might produce some offspring that look more like a Beagle and some that look more like a Terrier than either of their parents did. Certainly breeding such a cross back to a Terrier or Beagle reinforces that breed's traits in the offspring.


 * If the dog's ancestry is unknown, even knowledgable dog observers find it difficult to predict the adult appearance of mixed-breed puppies or to guess the dog's parents. The offspring of two mixed breeds are even more difficult to predict because there is much more genetic variation than among purebreds. For example, two white mixed-breed dogs might have recessive genes that produce a black coat and, therefore, produce offspring looking unlike their parents. With purebred dogs, by contrast, the genetic variations are well-documented and a breeder has a fair estimation of what type of offspring a given pair will produce.


 * With each mix of breeds, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm. Extremes in appearance, such as the flattened face of the English Bulldog or the extremely curled tail of the Pug, seldom survive even the first crossbreeding. Mixed breeds also tend, to have a size between that of their parents, thus tending eventually toward the norm.  Even first-generation crossbreeds are more likely to be primarily brown or black, often with a white chest and other white markings, no matter their parents' colors.


 * Dogs that are descended from many generations of mixes are typically light brown or black and weigh about 18 kg (40 lbs). They typically stand between 38 and 57 cm (15 and 23 inches) tall at the withers.

how can something be to detailed? we want as much eneresting and important informaion as possible, Right? - Jedi of redwall


 * Note that the rewritten version was lost following instance of vandalism, which was never properly reverted. The information is not present in the article at all anymore currently, except the information from last paragraph, which is found in the section "Appearance". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical
This sentence in the Health section doesn't even make sense "The declining overall health of many purebreds is also leading to a decline in the popularity of mixed-breed dogs..." If no one objects within the next few days, I'll edit it out. JoKing (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read in, it does make sense. It seems to have originally referred to crossbreeds. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I don't understand why you deleted those parts in that edit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, is the edit where the quoted part was inserted. Note that the second sentence you removed was already there at the time, and you did not remove all the additions from that edit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also noticed you took the para about the popular belief of purebred bitches being "tainted" through mating with mixed-breed dogs out in . --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious problems with the term "mixed breed dog"
The term ‘’’mixed-breed dog’’’ is a problematic term. It should be simple: a dog which is a mix of breeds! But it’s not simple, and that causes problems for this article.

Mixed breed vs. cross breed
According to my best dog reference book, deliberately mixed breeds are not called “mixed breeds” if they are mixed intentionally to be crossbreeds or designer dogs such as the incresing common maltipoos and such you'll see rivaling in numbers or even outnumbering the purebreds in petstores around here nowadays. They can't sell such dogs easily if they're called "mixed breeds", so the term is a problem.

Mixed breed vs. developing breed
Nor are those dogs that are a part of new breed development programs called “mixed breed dogs”. Many, if not most, purebred dogs were created by deliberately mixing breeds, and when a new breed is in development, the dogs are not a breed yet but well on their way toward that goal, but they are not called "mixed breeds" according to Morris. He says that the oldest of these terms for mixed breed dogs, “Mongrel,” was often used to refer to the offspring of accidents when some neighbor dog or some such gets into the yard and impregnates a breeder’s dogs. Now, we see that obviously such accidents would be a real threat to their endeavors so they had to take careful and perhaps difficult or costly precautions to avoid such undesirable “mongrel” dogs, so this is the important difference: the dog mixed intentionallly vs. the mongrel, mixed by accident.

Mixed breed vs. unbred dogs
But such accidental crossbreeds were never the majority of “mixed breeds”, or even a significant percentage, because in this world there are very many, legions, of unbred dogs with no breeds at all in their ancestry, and these are also known as “mutts”, “mongrels”, or “mixed breeds”. As this article and Morris say, while they may at times be a literal mix of breeds, most free-ranging dogs, especially in Africa and Eurasia, are not descended from purebred dogs; it’s the other way around! So to apply the word “mixed breed” to such dogs is in these cases is confusing and a misnomer and basically wrong, and that may be why Morris favors “mongrel”. We should follow suit in this article and move it to Mongrel, based on WP:PRECISION.

Mixed breed vs. naturally selected breed
Then, just to complicate the question further, there are such things as naturally-occurring breeds, such as the Canaan dog and such. It seems in certain areas natural selection has produced something very like an artificially selected breed: a distinct group of genetically related dogs with characteristics that breed true, but the dogs themselves are feral and random-bred and therefore not the result of artificial selection. These dogs are breeds even though they are not the product of artificial section, and so dash any hope of defining mixed breeds as any random-bred dog.

Mixed breed vs. purebreds without papers
You might want to define the term “mixed breed” as simply “no breed”, but it will be difficult to do so, as this article insists on defining them in part as "any dog whose ancestry is not known". This, I’m trying to understand. Take my dog, Casey, for example. I got him at the shelter and no one knows who his parents were. Is he therefore a mixed breed dog? Because everyone, including you I’m sure, has no doubt when they see him that he's an American Cocker Spaniel. Surely, a dog either is or isn’t a mixed breed dog regardless of whether his ancestry is known. So I ask myself why I can’t get this idea out of this article. I came up with this theory; let me know what you think: I ask myself, who might call dogs like Casey a “mixed breed” against the evidence of their own eyes? Who would insist on the paperwork? It would have to some kind of International Society of Spaniel Breeders or something. For such people, if it cannot be absolutely proven with paperwork that a dogs is purebred, they will not accept it into their official list of American Cocker Spaniels despite all evidence. They might even label Casey a “mixed breed dog” from their point of view. But really, does this mean that this article should have to follow suit? Is not a beagle still a beagle regarless of whether people even know that he exists? Anyway, the point again is, the term “mixed breed dog” is very problematic in this way as well.

Morris uses “mongrel” without insult to the dogs
Experts such as Morris have shown that the word “mongrel” can be used as a technical term, without the negative connotations, and the term “mixed breed” is therefore unnecessary simply to avoid such feelings. In fact, he speaks of their good qualities and at times with great sympathy. So, if written properly, the negative connotations of the word can be properly addressed and don’t have to be a problem if we write the way he does about them.

Thoughts?
Chrisrus (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you know?
Did you know that WP:SOCKPUPPET? Chrisrus (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Folks, just a reminder that this page for discussing the content of the Mixed-breed dog page. Please take off-topic discussions to a specific user's page. Thanks. 65.121.228.201 (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pariah Dog Picture
This is the Indian pariah dog:

This is the reason I'm swaping the pictures tonight. Chrisrus (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The substituted picture is not appropriate because it isn't of a generic pariah dog. Indian Pariah Dogs are different. And the photographer of the original is from Ontario, not the dog (learn to read attributions). Removed photo until an accurate one can be sourced. (Also, "swaping" isn't a word.) —


 * With regard to your ironic statement "learn to read attributions", the picture you removed says "INDog/Indian Pariah Dog, photographed in a village in Central India, June 2008. The dog belonged to a farmer." the "original" as you call it says ""Typical mixed-breed or feral or "Pariah Dog" type dog". The picture you removed is exactly the thing we want to show.  I'm putting it back.  Do not remove it again without responding here with actual evidence and reason. Chrisrus (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Chrisus, there is no "we". There's only you. If you want to make a change, you're the one who needs to present "actual evidence or reason" which you haven't done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.251.82 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I said we because you also seemed to want to show a picture of an Indian pariah dog. Now, you seemed to want to show only literally mixed breeds.  You are right, there are already very many pictures in this article, but all of them seem to have purebred ancestors.  It's not really necessary to show so many picture of that kind of dog, but it seems to me that you were right before that we need at least one picture of one of these "unbred" or "neverbred" dogs that the article talks about.  So I'm going to replace one of the pictures with a picture of an Indian Pariah dog based on the "attributions" you were talking about. Chrisrus (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, why not log in? When people log in before making edits or whatever, great benefits come to all. Chrisrus (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The main issue here is that there shouldn't be a graphic of an indian pariah dog. That's not what this section is about. I think the text stands fine on its own, and if there isn't an agreement on a an appropriate graphic, the compromise is that it should be left out. Chrisrus - On a personal note, there's really no reason to be rude to other posters. From what I can see most people here are trying to be fair and equitable. Just because someone doesn't entirely agree with an edit, it doesn't mean they are wrong. Not everyone has an account, and that doesn't mean their opinion aren't worthy. . I understand the impulse to lash out when you want your own way, but the best solution is often a compromise. And thanks to everyone who contributed to this section. JoKing (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The main issue here at first was whether the graphic of the indian pariah dog should be changed. Just today, it suddenly became whether there should be any pictues at all of one of these "neverbred" or "unbred" dogs, or only many, perhaps too many, pictures of dogs that are literally a mix of breeds, and no pictures of "unbred" dogs such as the INdog at all.  If you scroll up and please re-read the section carefully, as well as the edit summaries and such, you will notice that there has been at least one person in this converation that has not once said absolutely anything rude at all in this converation: me.  Everything I have done as been absolutely proper and correct.  Please also notice that I did neither say or imply that a person who does not have an account does not have worthy opinions.  Neither did I "lash out" in any way whatsoever.  Please before accusing someone of being "rude", "lashing out" or saying that someone's opiions are not worthy based ont whether they have accounts, please do check carefully that these accusations are true and not absoluetly false.  Thank you for your interst in improving this article, but revmoving the only pictue of these "unbred" dogs from this article does not seem to constitue article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "pariah dog" is a problematic term. Chrisrus (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times different people have to say this, but "pariah dog" is a generic term. Indian pariah dogs are pariah dogs, but pariah dogs are not necessarily from India. If the original graphic wasn't up to your standards, it's fine to remocve it. However, the substutute is just no improvement. It seems that the concensus is that it's better to have no graphic than a poor or dubious representation. The only person insisting that this change be made is you. 65.121.228.201 (talk)


 * You seem to be saying that File:The Indian Pariah Dog.jpg is "a poor or dubious representation" of an Indian Pariah Dog (as opposed to a generic "pariah-type dog" or some other definition).  Why? In what way is File:The Indian Pariah Dog.jpg a poor or dubious representation of an Indian Pariah Dog? Chrisrus (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. The article talks about "mixed-breed dogs" that are not literally a mix of purebred dogs, but are rather shall we say "neverbred" or "unbred" dogs, known in a generic sence, somewhat unfortunately perhaps, as "pariah dogs", so named for the original pariah dog, the Indian Pariah Dog, which is sort of the quintessential original archetype, if you will of pariah dog after which all pariah dogs get the name "pariah dogs".  There are many, perhaps too many pictures of literally mixed dogs but no picture of these unbred dogs at all. It seems to me logical that the indian pariah dog can easily stand for all pariah dogs, so it should do so as we have an excellent picture of one with good Provenance that lets us get a very good look at one.  If you have another such picture that you would like to argue better typifies the pariah dog better than the indian pariah dog photo we have here, I will agree to substitute it.  However, simply having so many pictures of literally mixed breed dogs in this article and not having at least one picture of these "unbred" dogs the article keeps talking about cannot seriously be considered article improvement.  Exactly how would not providing even one picture of an unbred dog be an improvement over having an excellent one?  There is no doubt that an indian pariah dog is a good example of a generic unbred pariah dog, and Kanha1.jpg has good provenance, is used in many places on Wikipedia where no one has any problem with it, and approximates the ideal dog photo preferred for dogs, full profile so we can get a clear look at the dog.  Therefore, I don't know how you can argue that its removal and non-replacement.  Here we can discuss only one thing: article improvement, so provide an explanation how removing and not replacing this photo would constitute article improvement or please end your efforts to do so. Chrisrus (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting to the point where a complaint may have to be registered. Chrisus, please leave the page alone. All explanations have been given in the above text. If a graphic can't be agreed upon by ALL (not just you) then having no graphic is appropriate. 156.34.231.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I believe Wikipedia has a policy against bullying. Shall I check it out? I checked Chrisrus talk page, and there are other similar complaints from users of other pages there. Thanks. 50.7.10.34 (talk)


 * First, it is pretty much impossible to know whether several users want only pictures of literally mixed breeds, or if it is only you, because you don't sign in. Why is it that you don't sign in?  In order to prove that there are really a group of people who want only pictures of literally mixed dogs in this article, CheckUser would be needed.  Do you agree to have checkuser performed on you to prove that there is really more than one user that wants to have many pictures of literally mixed breeds but not even one picture of a unbred "mixed breed" dog?


 * Second, why don't you want to have any picture of an unbred "mixed breed dog"? How does it constitue article improvement for you to, as you have done today, removed the only picture of an indisputed unbred "mixed breed", and instead replace it with one more of many pictures of literally mixed breed dogs?  So even if it turns out that there are more people arguing that this article should contain very many pictures of literally mixed breed dogs and not even one little picture of one humble non-bred "mixed breed", I am in the right because  wikipedia is not a democracy and what matters is who is putting forward coherent logical arguement using evidence and reason and who does not.  I will wait the appropriate period before once again replacing one of the many picture of literally mixed breed dogs with at least one picture of an indisputably unbred "mixed breed" dog.  You should not have made this edit without explaining how it constitutes article improvement to make the edit you have made today.  If as you say the explanation has been made before, you could have just copied that and pasted it as a reply, but I think you will find that no arguement has yet been made to explain how replacing the only unbred "mixed breed" with one more literally mixed breed constitutes article improvement.  So I will wait the appropriate amount of time has passed for you to explain why replacing our only picture of a one of these unbred "mixed breed" dogs that the article keeps talking with one more of picture of a literally mixed breed dog.  You must explain how this constitues article improvement.  If you do this, I will stand down.  If you stonewall, ignore the substance of what I've said, hand-wave, or otherwise do not explain why replacing our only picture of the unbred "mixed breeds" the article repeatedly talks about with another picture of literally mixed breed dog, it still doesn't matter if you have all the usernames on Wikipedia on your side, you will be in the wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, enough time has gone by now, so I'm about to return the article to the way it was in that at least one of the pictures in the article is a picture of one of these unbred "mixed breed" dogs that the article talks about and not just a lot, maybe two many, pictures of dogs that are literally a mix of purebred dogs. Before you undo, as I suspect you will, please explain why having only pictures of literally mixed breed dogs and no pictures of any unbred "mixed breed" dogs constitues article improvement.  Please do not discuss anything else except how having one more picture of a literally mixed breed dog is better than replacing just one of them with a picture of an unbred "mixed breed" constitutes article improvement if you plan to make that change. Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

50.7.10.34 - sorry don't know your name. Please do check out the bullying policy. This user is just not getting it. He keeps insisting on this change despite the fact that several regular contributors have explained why it isn't appropriate. (Are we maybe dealing with a kid here? Not being facetious, but the incalcitrance and poor spelling seem to indicate this.) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.228.201 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's not right. You have to explain, as I do, why your edit constitutes article improvement.  The merit of an edit is not judged on things like that and such rhetoric will not succeed.  The merit of an edit is judged on whether and to what extent it constitutes article improvement.  That is all.  If you would like to discuss things such as me, there are places for that.  This is a place to discuss whether edits constitute article improvement or not.
 * So explain why this edit you have made today constitutes article improvement. Why does removing the only picture of one the unbred "mixed breeds" the article talks about, and replacing it with one more of many pictures of literally mixed breed dogs; why does that edit improve the article for the reader.  Do that or undo the edit.
 * I will wait the appropriate amount of time for you to respond appropriately before putting it back the way it was. Chrisrus (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Indian Pariah dog is a PURE BRED dog. It says so the first thing on the Indian Pariah dog page (which I notice you have edited to try and support your point.) This is about mixed-breed dogs. Honestly, Chrisus. You just don't seem to get it. Not sure what else the regular contributors to this page can do about this bullying except register a complaint. 65.121.228.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to review, the purpose of the picture is to show the characteristics of a pariah-type dog. The Indian Pariah dog exemplifies these. It is not purebred in the literal sense any more than it is a mixed breed in the literal sense.
 * Do you have a suggestion for another picture to illustrate these "unbred" dogs that the article keeps talking about? Chrisrus (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording of the caption a bit in the hopes of satisfying your objection. I've also reacted on the dispute resolution board.  The question has to be which picture to use, not whether to use one.  Chrisrus (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've posted this issue to arbitration. Please refrain from any edits to this section until it's resolved. Thanks contributors. 65.121.228.201 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The compromise to have no picture at all of such dogs is not acceptable for reasons given. We can discuss other compromises.  I understand your basic objection is that the reader will misunderstand the difference between the Indian Pariah dog and the pariah "type", the general physical features and lifestyle named after the IPD, correct? Chrisrus (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mixed breed vs hybrid/crossbreed
Is crossbreed is a synonym for mixed breed? If so, should the article on dog hybrids and crossbreeds be merged into this one? Or is a hybrid/crossbreed a special kind of mixed breed? If so, this should be made clear. Nurg 05:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, they are not synonymous. This is why I like the term 'mongrel'--unknown parentage--but then, I'm strange.  In a 'Crossbreed' the two breeds used in the mix are known.


 * It's clarified in the section Types of mixed breeding.


 * Quill 21:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Note that a hybrid is a cross between two species, not between two breeds of the same species. Isaac R (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Crossbreeders will be quick to point out that a dog the result of intentional artificial selection is not a mongrel, mutt, or "mixed breed" even though they are obviously a literal mix of breeds. Purebreeders will disagree at times calling crossbreeds "mixed breeds".  It's a problem.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly tautalogical question
Given that a mixed-breed dog is a dog that is a mixture of two or more breeds, is it true that a dog that is a mixture of two or more breeds is a mixed-breed dog?
 * I would think so. Your question must have been prompted by some line of thought--? Elf | Talk 22:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's a joke, Elf. Point taken, but that's all in the nature of Wikipedia. Quill 00:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A dog can be a "mixed breed" without being a literal mix of breeds because as the article says when so used it's a misnomer, as when we call cavies "Guinea pigs" despite the fact that they are not from Guinea and are not pigs. A crossbreed is an example of a literal mixed breed which for which the term is not preferred because they are the result of intentional artificial selection. Chrisrus (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to mixed-breed dog
I've wanted to do this for a long time--pretty much since I first split off mutt (dog) and started adding to it--and, now that it's possibly working its way towards being a featured article, I'd like to just do it. While following up on several topics in my reference books, I noted that every one of them had the primary entries under "mixed breed" rather than under "mutt", "mongrel", or any other term. And that's how this whole article talks about them. So unless someone screams about it in the next, oh, day or so, I'll go ahead & move this article to mixed-breed dog & leave Mutt as a redirect. Elf | Talk 03:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this, even though it's too P.C. for my personal taste ;). We'll need to redirect 'mongrel' as well, I think.  I'll check. Quill 00:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wish this hadn't been done. "Mongrel" would have been a better choice if Mutt was not favored, as it's used by experts in dog reference books in a neutral, matter-of-fact way.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution board
I realize initial comments have been posted but I would like to hear from 65.121.228.201 to clarify what I think the dispute is about. If he is not able to post then someone representing the complaint should respond in his stead. It appears there are more areas of dissension than that but I'd like to start there then move forward. Thank you. Jobberone (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Move Pariah Dog section
It's been brought up on another page that the neither the Indian Pariah Dog, nor the generic pariah dog is actually a mixed-breed dog. The Indian Pariah Dog is recognized as a purebred, and the pariah dog is a naturally occurring "breed or landrace". There have been a number of suggestions for where this section could be moved. Does anyone who hasn't commnented yet have a suggestion? The Dog, Pariah dog, Landrace, and Indian Pariah Dog pages have been suggested as possible sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.231.88 (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why you chose to use the passive voice when you said "it has been brought up". Chrisrus (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pretty clearly stated in the article that neither the Indian Pariah Dog, nor the generic pariah dog is actually a mixed breed dog. There is no evidence I have seen that the Indian Pariah Dog is recognixed as a purebred, although there is some indication that they may one day be one.  The pariah dog morph is a frequetly recurring morph of dog which appears in subsequent generations of mixed-breed dogs and in mongrel landraces.  The logical split would be along the lines of these two clearly different referents, but there is a problem with the available vocablulary English offers for these dogs.  One article about literally mixed breed dogs and another about mongrels that are not literally a mix of breeds.  One article could be called "mixed breed dog" and the other "mongrel".  One problem is, to do so might be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS or another kind of Original research.  When the name of an article is a misnomer one of the article's main jobs is to clear up the confusion.  There is also WP:commonname.  The article Guinea pig doesn't violate WP:commonname because they aren't pigs and aren't from Guinea, even though Cavy is the term many experts use and recommend.. A solution might be to convince the English language to stop using the term "mixed breed" dog when it is not accurate.  The problem with that idea is that's impossible; we can't tell the English language what to do.  I might support moving this article to "mongrel".  The problem with that idea is that not everyone uses it like dog reference books do, as a technical term without negative connotations.  Most people react to the term "mongrel" as an insult, and that's probably why the term "mixed breed" is preferred.  I don't.  I love the term "mongrel" and don't assume everyone who uses it views them negatively; it depends on the context.  The terms "unbred dog." and "neverbreds" are as far as I know terms of art original to me.  Chrisrus (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the information in the article, the topic of this article is more about non pure bred dogs rather than just about actual mixes. The section on dog sports is about non pure breeds rather than just mixes, so is the section on studies re: mixed breed/mongrel health. I don't think there is a need to narrow the scope to exclude "unbred" dogs. Proper definitions and misuse of terms can be sorted out in the terminology section. (side note: the book Dog by Susan McHuge uses the term "non-breed dog".)--Dodo bird (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. This probably has implications in other areas, but have you noticed the move proposal in number 8.1, above?  It would probably be best in a certain way if we moved it to "non-breed dog", but that will probably have to wait for McHuge's term to obtain wider usage, don't you agree?  Chrisrus (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to "Mongrel"
moved. And Mongrel moved to Mongrel (disambiguation). I note that there has been on discussion about primary topic but no sense in getting bogged down. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Mixed-breed dog → Mongrel – --Relisted Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Redoing header for technical reasons (not getting listed at RM). Original reason follows. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Reasons detailed below; including WP:PRECISION and expert WP:COMMONNAME Chrisrus (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While the move from "Mutt" to "Mixed breed" may have constituted article improvement at the time (See above), another move, to "mongrel", is in order:

Reasons:
 * 1) The idea that the article should be titled "Mixed-breed dog" instead of "Mongrel" because "mongrel" is generally derogatory does not take into account expert usage. Many experts use the term "mongrel" as a technical term, and it is the preferred term of many enthusiasts, admirers, and defenders.
 * 2) While entitling it "mixed breed dog" may conform to WP:COMMONNAME; it violates PRECISION, and "mongrel" also conforms to both WP:Commonname and WP:PRECISION.
 * 3) There is evidence that "Mongrel" conforms better to WP:COMMONNAME in expert useage. (See "points of fact", below.)
 * 4) "Mixed breed dog" is a problematic term. It has turned out to be the cause of great misunderstanding, confusion, and conflict. (see below).

Points of fact:
 * 1) "Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1,000 Dog Breeds", by Desmond Morris does not use the term "mixed breed dog". It uses only "Mongrel."
 * 2) Morris's entry confirms that the word orignially and popularly has carried negative connotations in contexts he describes. However, he uses it exclusively throughout the article in not only a neutral, scientific or matter-of-fact way, an encyclopedic way, but he also at times uses the word in an admiring, positive way when it speaks of the positive characteristics of mongrels. He cites the following books:
 * 3) "Lovable Mongrel", 1954, published in the USA by "All-Pets" written by Maxwell Riddle.
 * 4) "Intelligent and Loyal, a Celebration of the Mongrel" published in London in 1981, written by Jilly Cooper.
 * 5) "The Mongrel" by Angela Patmore and published in London in 1985.
 * 6) "Book of the Mongrel" was published by HarperCollins in 1997, written by Kay White.
 * 7) Please check what your references call them and add more points of fact.
 * 1) Please check what your references call them and add more points of fact.

Chrisrus (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Either way is fine by me. I have trouble finding sources that explicitly talks about definitions, and use and misuse of terms. But from context, books and academic articles seem to use both mongrels and mixed breeds to refer to non-pure breeds. The UK study cited in the article(Longevity of British breeds of dog...) even uses the term "cross-breed". ("Mongrel" is used in the abstract but "cross-breed dog" is used in the body of the article.)
 * (This move request is not listed at Requested moves. I think the bot failed to pick it up because you did not create it in a new section.) --Dodo bird (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, geez, that's not good. What should we do now to get it listed? Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. In the U.S. at least, "mutt" is the more commonly used term. But everyone knows what a "mongrel" is.  I don't think it matters much, but on the criteria, I think "Mongrel" beats the current title on naturalness and conciseness.  I think it's a wash on the other criteria.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled comments from 4 October 2012‎ or earlier
Move to Wiktionary? Jwrosenzweig 20:12 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is my quote from Zackary's book too long or out of context? Joi 08:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not out of context. It feels a little long (esp for a disambig page), so I'm wondering whether it could be summarized with only a couple of key quotes? But I don't feel strongly either way. Elf | Talk 15:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I love that quote so much it's hard to refactor. ;-) Another question... why is this word ambiguous? Doesn't it always basically mean "mixed"? Joi 23:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I'd just leave it. Sure, it means mixed--but remember that disambig pages in Wikipedia just mean that there could be more than one article to which this phrase might logically lead.  That's the main reason that it feels long here; typically these pages are just a list of links with explanations.  But in this case, there's not really an article (yet?) about "mongrel (people)"-- so-- I don't know where else it would go! :-) Elf | Talk 00:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I like that '(yet?)', Elf! There probably should be an article, to discuss this and the word 'mongrel' used as an insult in Commonwealth countries.  Quill 23:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should mention be made of the popular Irish magazine named Mongrel? Mongrel site -SMB

The article is a bit messy as is. It should be split up into Mongrel for the primary meaning and etymology, and Mongrel (disambiguation), Mongrel (software) etc for the rest. (Because it does have one primary meaning, so it feels more natural if Mongrel itself isn't a disambig.) Currently the links are totally out of context, especially the uncommented link to mongrelx.org where you have to navigate around to even find out what it is (apparently some kind of media project).--87.162.45.42 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the Midwest Institute in Kalamazoo through a google search, and I'm not sure this Richard character is real. Furthermore, a look through a text book from a History of English class reveals that in fact there are a very large number of polysyllabic words: winter (winter), hræfn (raven), galan (to sing), bringan (to bring), gecoren (chosen), giftian (to give a woman in marriage), stigrap (stirrup), dragan (to draw), hogu (to care), folgian (to follow), sunu (son)...and so on. Taken from The Origins and Development of the English Language (4th edition) by Thomas Pyles and John Algeo. Thus, I'm deleting that last section on etymology. 72.1.219.192 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The pic is all wrong - it is unusual and does not properly show what a mutt is likely to look like. There are several types of typical mutts/mongrels for dogs, generally by size - large medium hair (from feral packs interbreeding german shepherds, labradors, goldens, and other large dogs likely to win the right to breed), very large longhair, small shorthair, and generic small&curly (appears to have the traits of a german, a poodle, and a terrier). Anyone living in a big city will surely notice that local feral dog populations tend to homogenize into one of these types after just a couple of generations. Same thing happens to domestic populations that haven't been neutered and are allowed to breed freely during walks. Hence, an image of a typical mongrel would make sense! 128.195.186.86 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu

The pic of the red dog is not wrong - it is a true mongrel in which not a single contributing breed is identifiable. I agree that mongrels in particular cities converge on a type and the red dog type is common in South Auckland, New Zealand. Which was stated on the caption originally and so should've been of interest, especially to those Northern hemisphere-centrics who think a typical mongrel is as described in the comment above. The mongrel population will not always converge on those types - it will reflect the breeds popular at the time with people who don't neuter, which is often staffies rather than german shepherds and poodles. And so I am reinstating the original red dog, instead of the black lab cross which has appeared in the interim even though it is already present over on the mixed breed page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.134.22 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic band-spam doesn't belong in an article in the pets category. 24.175.140.6 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The opening, IMO, needs to be expanded. Jobberone (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Health Section
Seems like about 3 paragraphs of unnecessary prefacing that could be edited down, summarized, and linked to relevant entries. Also the references aren't formatted. The tone seems wrong but then again I'm not a wikipedia baller.

67.171.229.147 (talk)147 —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeating things, saying them more than once, and reiteration
Geez, this article is repetitious. It's also very redundant. Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to fix this a bit tonight, but there is still a lot of repetition. Please have a look and see what you can do. Chrisrus (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Laika, first dog in space
Laika the first dog in space was a mongrel, but there is no mention in the article to her, it might be a good idea to add her in.

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC))
 * Perhaps; but this would require a reliable source stating as such. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Artwork?!
May „Spotted dog from Kalimpong, West-Bengal, India“ be artwork? See commons. Anka Friedrich (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

unbalanced article?
Is it just me or does the advangages/disadvantages section seem heavily biased towards mix breeds? SPCA agenda perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.162.146 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. People work on articles they feel passionate about. We should look around for something appropriate that makes points in favor of purebreds.  I think it was maybe Desmond Morris as I recall who pointed out that,  pointed out that its not always true that purebreds are unhealthier, and  without the inbreeding that anti-purebred pro-mongrel experts so deplore, we would not have all the remarkable physical features, temperaments, and skills and capabilities that we enjoy and benefit from today. I'll see if I can find the quote. Would that serve to balance it out somewhat?  Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This section also seems to ignore the fact that purebred dogs have a highly predictable set of temperaments. It slightly references this fact but seems to imply that breed temperaments are not so easily predictable. That's blatantly incorrect; certain breeds are much less prone to defensive biting, while others are bred to be more aggressive. Golden retrievers are widely popular due to their tendency towards being friendly and highly trainable. Sure, show dogs are typically bred for looks and other showing-related traits, but most dog breeds are designed for personality, utilitarian ability (e.g. herding sheep, aiding humans with disabilities), and the like. The lack of genetic diversity in these dogs concerns me, but that's exactly what allows for them to have dependable traits, which is why mixing breeds can introduce unforeseen side-effects (worst case scenario such as unpredictable aggressiveness) with the added diversity. Due to this, I'd personally be wary of adopting a mutt if I had a family. So yeah, I just exploded onto an unnecessary group of tangents, but my point is that mixed-breed dogs aren't an entirely universal improvement over purebreds, in terms of their usefulness to humans, which is why humans began breeding dogs for specific traits. However, for the sake of dogkind, mixed-breed dogs are likely better for the species in terms of health and general wellness, as years of observation and theorizing in biology and genetics has proven genetic diversity to be extremely beneficial (large gene pools>small gene pools). Therefore this section could certainly use some extensive editing. Sorry for the excessive text. --Monsieur Mercury (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you make some good points. Have these points been made somewhere citable?  Chrisrus (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not well-acquainted with Wikipedia's guidelines in terms of sources, but here's some stuff I found: Purebreds are predictable, purebreds predictable again though this one seems to ignore the underlying closed gene pool issue, concise details on why PB behave predictably and MB don't, Petco providing some reliable basic info on the matter, specific info on how purebred gene pools work, explanation of gene pools for the uninitiated,reliable source with definition of gene pools, and the problem with small gene pools. Hopefully some of these work. --Monsieur Mercury (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence of Disorders Recorded in Dogs Attending Primary-Care Veterinary Practices in England

 * However a 2014 study conducted by the Royal Veterinary College involving almost 150,000 dogs concluded that pedigrees were as healthy as mongrels.

This is not an accurate reflection of the study. From the study:
 * Purebreds showed significantly higher prevalence values for 13 of the 84 (15.5%) disorders and syndromes evaluated. No instances were identified in which prevalence values were significantly higher in crossbred than in purebred dogs. These results provided moderate evidence for higher disorder prevalence in purebreds compared with crossbreds.

Please don't use shitty press releases and news articles that misreport this study to claim that mixed are as healthy as pure.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995–2010)
Same as study above. Shitty press releases and news articles misrepresents it to claim pure are as healthy as mixed. Out of 24 conditions, purebreds had higher prevalence for 10, mixed had higher prevalence for 1. This is weak evidence that mixed are healthier.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongrels
I'm restoring some recent changes because, as Morris explains on p. 696, it's important to distinguish between:

a) Dogs that are literally a mix of breeds but are a still the result of artificial selection, such as those the result of "deliberately planned cross-matings of carefully selected breeds" like crossbred dogs, and

b) Mongrels which ARE the result of natural selection, like most pariah dogs and village dogs and street dogs all others that are the result of "accidental crossings"; unplanned or unintended matings. Many of these do not have any purebred dog ancestry at all.

The former are literally a mix of breeds, but not "mongrels", because the word "mongrel" implies that no one has bred them, that they "bred" themselves.

The later are mongrels but not always literally mixed-breed dogs. There are countless millions of mongrels the world that are NOT literally a mix of breeds, with no breeds in their ancestry, but are still mongrels because they weren't intentionally bred and that's what "mongrel" means.

This is why such experts don't use the term "mixed-breed dog". It's a problematic term! Chrisrus (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Such mongrels as the INDog are not a mix of breeds
WP:RSes on the topic of the Indian pariah dog leave no room for the idea that it or other such dogs result from different dog breeds mixing. [Here's an example of one such WP:RS, an article from the NYT.|http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/world/asia/india-stray-dogs-are-a-menace.html], for example. It says that INDogs are are believed to have originated in prehistoric times from wolves that gave up hunting in favor of scavenging human trash.

INDogs may be mongrels because they're naturally, not artificially, selected. But they are not literally "mixed breeds" because their parents were not dogs of a breed; they were other INDogs, as were their grandparents and ancient ancestors.

The idea that such mongrels as the Indian Pariah dogs could possibly be literally "mixed breed dogs" like the other dogs in the photos in this article makes no sense.

They are only "mixed breed dogs" if that term is just a recent polite euphemism for "mongrel" that doesn't take into account the fact that not all mongrels result from the mixing of breeds. Chrisrus (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mongrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metamorphixinc.com/faqcanher.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of a common usage
Where a term has multiple uses, the lead often distinguishes these or they are identified in a hatnote or etymology section. Could you explain your removal of the common usage of the term "mongrel" for people?
 * Removed text:
 * The terms "mongrel" and "mixed-breed" are also applied to people of mixed ancestry.
 * --Bejnar (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The referent of this article is a particular type of dog, so that's off-topic. Chrisrus (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, brief cross-references to other uses of a common term are a question of navigation and it is not a question of being "off" or "on" topic. Where a term has multiple uses, the lead often distinguishes these or they are identified in a hatnote or etymology section. --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you do that to, I donno, for example, the article Pig or Tiger?
 * I mean, have pig say "...also means disgusting person"?
 * I mean, have tiger say " ....also means a go-getter"? Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of what you said was true:
 * "Where a term has multiple uses, the lead often distinguishes these or they are identified in a hatnote or etymology section."
 * Leads don't, but you're right about hatnotes. If you wanted to go that route, that'd be different. Chrisrus (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If a hatnote is more to your liking, then let's go that route. But I bet you would be surprised by the number of lead sections that contain similar scope limiters. --Bejnar (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Watch grammar and style please
Some of this article has been rewritten very poorly. Not much content as changed though. Please editors DO NOT use the word "literally" as an intensifier. Dogs can never "literally" be mixed. I cleaned up the poor usage to put material back in encyclopedia style. 99.251.202.68 (talk)

Agreed. This should be in the right style. It's not a magazine article. Also there's a problem with POV (point of view) statements. Please make sure additions are objective and add citattions when possible.


 * Signed and timestamped for archiving purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder
Just a friendly reminder to new Wiki members that the header photo on this page has been discussed and reviewed a number of times already. It is not acceptable to delete it or other longer-use photo on the page in favor of your own pet pic. (See discussions from 2006 - 2007)


 * Signed and timestamped for archiving purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Cluttered with Pictures
This article has gotten incredibly cluttered with pictures of owners posting up pictures of their own dogs with no regard to the aesthetic appeal and flow of the article. Is anyone in favor of creating a gallery for most of these pictures at the bottom of the page? Sparsefarce 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - there are TWO cockapoodles, and the first one is a terrible underexposed photo. There is another page on hybrids/crossbreeds and so it would be more interesting to see photos of mixed dogs typical of different places around the world where mongrels are tending towards a local type. In my town for example, the current mongrel that can be seen overflowing at the SPCA is a medium sized short haired tough looking dog with widish head, maybe owing to popularity of breeds like staffy, boxer, ridgeback, labrador etc. (The picture at the top is a really good quality photo though).

Note: The poster is referring to Nap006b.jpg. This is a perfect header for the article. I've reverted it several times, when a lesser quality photo was substituted by someone trying to showcase their own personal photos. Mr. Shean 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image
I do not think that the main image on this page up to par in quality such as the others. I would like to replace it with my image on the left, as I feel it is a better quality image, and show more of the actual dog than just the face. The current image might be helpful somewhere else in the article, just not as a main image. Omniii 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)omniii

Comments
The image of a mixed-breed already on the page is an excellent one, and has been commented on earlier on this page. The photo you propose is not a better illustration, and is of a cross-breed, not a true mix which is what this article is about. User:74.106.252.74 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. The original lead illustration is charming and is of a mixed-breed dog. Mister Gallagher 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"A mixed-breed dog (also called a mutt, crossbreed, mongrel, a bitsa, tyke, cur, or random-bred dog)" Is quoted directly from the wikipedia article, so please do not tell me that a cross-breed image is not acceptable. Omniii 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Omniii

The original posters aren't "missing" anything. Your statement makes it seem as if mutts aren't good enough to be on their own page. "Very, uncommon cross-breed" indeed. The picture should be of a mixed breed or "mutt". The consensus, which I agree with, is that the original picture is better. The poster of the new picture is just trying to get his own photograph on the page. The original shot is much more representitive of a real mixed breed dog, the type that most people own. Nora Bayes 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since both parents of the dog in the picture of Omniii's dog are purebreds and known, then it would more properly belong on the page Dog hybrids and crossbreeds. I think it would be best to leave the picture of the mixed-breed dog, and put the cross picture on the proper page. There is only one photo on that page now and it isn't very good. JoKing 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to get my photograph on this page. But if it does not suit the correct category as a mixed breed dog, then I will not add it. Omniii 03:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Omniii

I think the problem is that historically, the dog and cat pages have had to cope with a bombardment of "pet" pictures. Also, that you have chosen to delete the best picture on the page in favor of your own. I have looked at the Dog hybrids and crossbreeds page and the poster is correct that it only has one small picture that isn't very representitive of the subject. I would second the motion that you put your picture on that page. Then your cross's picture would be used, and the happy picture of the mix on this page would stay. Seems an excellent compromise. 142.167.71.226 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See: Cluttered with Pictures (above) They are both nice pictures, but I tend to agree that a mix should be represented. ...and no Puggles. LOL 74.86.60.98 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I have chosen to delete the "best picture" is because the quality of my picture far surpasses that one. I got this got from a pound and they are not completely sure of the dogs breed of parents (though they have somewhat of an idea based on the dogs characteristics), so would it still fit under the crossbreed section? Omniii 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Omniii

The quality of each picture is good, A couple of people like one because it shows a whole dog, and the rest like the old one because it is more appealing, and welcoming for an opening shot. Omniii, you would probably engender less ire from the group if you didn't state your opinion like fact. You like the picture of your dog of course, we all love our own dogs and think they are beautiful. Hey, maybe we should take them both out and use a picture of MY dogs. :-)

Hopefully we can consider the discussion closed. Thanks for contributing everyone. JoKing 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing progress
I've probably touched just about everything in this article now and it feels as if I'm started to spew random words & links & repetitious gobbledigook. It should be clearer (I hope) and more accurate. Confirmed a lot of what I put in with various resources. Might add a References list tomorrow. Or not. It definitely needs an edit now by someone with fresh eyes. Ta. Elf | Talk 05:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a major edit notice on the article so I’ll note my observations here:


 * Names for mixed-breed dogs


 * ‘Bitsas’ is a common term—may be restricted to the commonwealth. It is the most commonly-used term in Australia, a big dog-owning nation


 * ‘Some American registries and clubs that accept mixed-breed dogs use the breed name All American, referring to the United States' reputation as a melting pot of different nationalities.’ Is that the reasoning?  I’ve always thought of ‘All-American’ as referring to an opposite:  the stereotypical blond/blue.


 * Appearance


 * Typo: German Shepherdss


 * Does this sentence make sense to the unitiated: ‘With each mix of breeds, the offspring move closer to the genetic norm’? I believe I know what it means—that the ‘genetic norm’ is what dogs would look like if they mated willy-nilly over serveral generations.  Should that be explained, or is it clear as written?  Maybe move up the final sentence?


 * Health:
 * Large breeds suffer hip dysplasia, not German shepherds. German Shepherds are a good example of a breed wherein the gene has been concentrated.  GSD owners are also well-aware of the problem and testing for it in their lines.


 * I would say that ‘Large breeds, such as [[German Shepherd]s….’
 * I would add a final sentence to the effect that ‘By contrast, a large mongrel carrying the gene for hip dysplasia passes it on to his progeny in the same manner that a purebred does.’


 * Strike out ‘And’ from beginning of final sentence.


 * Mixed Breeds in Dog Sports
 * There’s a rectangular box with a couple of words in it.


 * In the final sentence of the piece, Border Collies link is in red. Format error?


 * Lovely work, Elf!
 * Quill 23:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notes on latest changes

 * Appearance

(I hope this is the right place to bring this up so that it may be corrected)
 * The final paragraph showing under "appearance" is a fragment which appears to be missing its beginning, and the final sentence in the paragraph is also a fragment. Whatever the paragraph should say, it appears this might belong under Advantages or Health instead of Appearance. I would just edit it myself, except the missing parts/needed changes are not obvious, so I hope the previous author can correct it. The final paragraph showing under Appearance now, in full, says: "carrier of the faulty gene with a dog from a breed not known to suffer genetic hip problems reduces the likelihood of producing offspring with the problem. On the other hand, breeding the Shepherd with another Shepherd whose ancestors do not have the genetic problem also has this effect. as rabies, distemper, injury, and infestation by parasites."

MadRabbit 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Some meanings were altered in the latest round of changes and they need to be addressed. I can do it, but maybe another editor has ideas on ways to make the meaning clearer so that it doesn't happen again.


 * The "57 Varieties" doesn't refer only to the Heinz ketchup--it refers to their entire product line. I don't think the ketchup even existed when they came up with the slogan. :-)
 * Health
 * The original "Because mixed-breed dogs have only one parent with these inherited disorders, they are somewhat less likely to inherit the problem" is clearer than "Mixed-breed dogs are less likely to have certain genetic disorders, as they draw from a more diverse genetic pool wherein detrimential recessive genes are rarefied." The latter uses rather lofty language (esp. "wherein detrimential recessive genes are rarefied") when what is needed is perhaps a better way to say that it is unlikely that both of a mixed breed's parents will have the same detrimental gene.
 * Changing "mating (the Shepherd) with a German Shepherd whose..." to "breeding the Shepherd with an animal unlikely to have..." misses the important point that the dog could be mated with a clear German Shepherd, thus still having a purebred and therefore avoiding the problem without resorting to mixing breeds.
 * The phrase "because it is more difficult to find homes for these dogs" added to why mixing breeds is discouraged is not one of the primary reasons given in my experience. Au contraire, mixed breeds are all too adoptable. The biggest cited reason is that there are already too many unwanted purebreds living in shelters or being euthanized and they should be given homes first (I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment...), and all those mixed breeds mean that the pool of unwanted dogs is much larger. Given a choice among, say, a Chow, a Greyhound, a German Shepherd, and a cute 30-pound mutt, many people would choose the mutt.  I would. Someone living in an apartment and knowing not much about dogs would (when in fact the Greyhound might possibly be a better bet).  An elderly couple with limited mobility would.  Another primary reason is the one cited elsewhere in the article--that idiots and people uneducated in genetics and breeds shouldn't be mixing breeds (with the subcorollary that there are already plenty of perfectly good breeds out there without even knowledgable people trying to create more (I also disclaim agreement with this sentiment...)).
 * Types of mixing
 * Changing "Most dog breeds known today started out as crossbreeds or mixes among different breeds." to "It's important to note that many dog breeds are, to some degree, man-made creations:" loses the point (this being an article about mixed breeds) that, technically, pretty much all modern breeds started out as mixed breeds.
 * Also, "many dog breeds...to some degree" is just not correct; all breeds to all degrees are manmade creations. ...OK, I fixed this already.
 * Changing "until they arrived at a dog whose appearance or behavior matched their ideal" to "breeders usually sought an "ideal" appearance for dogs" is not correct; it's only been in the most recent century or so that some breeds (and still not all of them) were bred primarily for appearance--most were bred throughout history for their suitability for certain functions, and in many cases they still are--the more-or-less standard appearance just happened to go along with that.
 * Changing "and who bred true from one generation to the next" to "and, additionally, a crop of dogs whose offspring would also have that appearance" (besides "and additionally" being redundant) sort of makes the same point but in a much less clear and accurate manner. I'd revert to the original phrase.
 * Changing "when breeders are attempting to establish a new breed or to add or reinforce desireable characteristics from one breed to another" "due to breeders hoping to create new breeds" missed the point that existing breeds have often been enhanced by inserting new breed blood to correct defects or to strengthen already good traits. It's only been  recently (VERY recently in many breeds) that closed-book breed registries forbade this practice--resulting in some of the nasty inbred problems that have to be solved within the breed rather than by trying to bring in genes to help solve the problems.  But I don't want to get off into politics on this... it's just that it's NOT always simply to create a new breed that causes breeders to mix in other dogs.
 * Advantages...
 * Changing "it is more difficult to predict how a mixed-breed dog will react to training" to "it is more difficult to predict a specific training approach for mixed breeds" is not the same thing at all! (And in fact the latter isn't true anyway--you can never "predict" a training approach, and you can't come up with such until you know something about both the dog and handler, and that's true for *any* dog.)  OK, I just changed this one to "trainability".
 * I changed "Tervuren" back to "Tervueren"; the AKC is about the only major kennel club that spells it without the middle "e".
 * Changing "Purebred puppies will more predictably grow into an appearance and personality readily recognized as belonging to that breed" to "The maturation of purebred puppies is more predictable" doesn't mean the same thing, either. "Maturation" means to grow up and display grown-up characteristcs. It's completely predictable that they'll all grow up!


 * Signed and timestamped for archiving purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits to article
Just some notes about things I just edited in the article, in case anyone wondered: Elf | Talk 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * never heard "bastard" as term for dog
 * rm unneeded ref to schnoodle (there's a whole article somewhere listing all these random mixed-breed names)
 * rm goldendoodles details from "terms" section--topic covered in general "types of mixed breeding"
 * correct info about obedience before 1980s--mb's were NOT allowed to compete in AKC before then (I was there, I tried)
 * replaced info comparing mixed breeds & purebreds in conformation; not sure why it was removed (sorry too much history to plow through)
 * replaced paragraph on breed club hold-outs to older version as the edits didn't make sense.

sorry, dont know much about the talk page, but i just noticed that the page was a bit pov, for example towards the end there wa s areference to dogs costing hundreds of thousands of DOLLARS and mongrels being a cheaper choice, as an irish man, the concept of dollars means nothing to me, and im sure that there is countries witha much bigger exhgage rate...etc so i feel it just distracts from teh whole article, maybe change it for something more generic about purebreds being expensive without any currencies being mentioned


 * Signed and timestamped for archiving purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

New lead - feel free to edit
Mongrels, also called mixed breed dogs, mutts, and many more regional or slang terms, are dogs that belong to no recognizable breed and are not the result of intentional dog breeding. They are contrasted with crossbred dogs, which, like purebred dogs and unlike mongrels, are the product of artificial selection. {cite Desmond Morris}. While many mixed breed dogs are literally a mix of breeds, many mongrels have only purbred ancestors, a fact leading some experts to suggest distinguishing such mongrels from literally mixed-breed mongrels with the term "unbred dogs." {site Susan MacHugh}

While many mongrels are beloved family pets, many more are feral and not properly cared for.{morris} While terms such as "mongrel" have long carried negative connotations, and while mongrels do not have the skills and ablities of some highly purpose-bred dogs nor some of the appealing characteristics of conformation bred dogs {morris}, naturally selected dogs they tend to be relatively free from physical and mental problems associated with the inbreeding necessary to create purebred dogs{cite Conrad Lorenz and/or Bruce Fogle}, and so are favored by fans who praise such qualities and speak of "mongrels" with admiration, pride, sympathy, and affection.{Cite several books}


 * Signed and timestamped for archiving purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Gallery
Which pictures illustrate the phenomenon best?

Genes from purebred dogs can cause a population of mongrels to exhibit a wide variety of forms.


 * Signed and timestamped for archiving purposes only. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)