Kassel: Hundeschau: Veterinäre verweigern Haltern von sechs Hunden den Zutritt

da haste auch recht, es gibt ja genug gesunde Tiere

Nowadays, our Rottweilers are seldom if ever born with such a stub-tail and all have tails of a “normal” length,
comparable to other known breeds. How can this be explained if a congenital stub-tail was supposed to be
naturally and breed characteristic? Should this not mean that the genetic information for the stub-tail would
even nowadays still be present in our breed and be reflected in its feno-type? Might the stub-tail in reality not
have been a genetic recessive anomaly that was lost when there was no longer the need to breed for such a tail
as docking was accepted or imposed to bring the tail to the wanted length? Was it really a characteristic of
the breed … or more likely a genetic “defect” that was deliberately bred in by selecting only dogs showing this
“anomaly” while they later could not show this anymore in their pheno-type because of the docking, thus
making a selection on the basis of the pheno-type no longer possible nor necessary … ? In “Rottweiler” by A.
Pianos, Auflage Helga Brökeland Verlag, Essen, 2008, p.209) one will find references to studies (done until in
the sixties) that led to the conclusion that the stub-tail was not caused by a recessive factor (in which case the
stub-tail appears in the pheno-type only if both parents are homozygote for this factor or with other words
carry no other genetic information and thus both have a stub-tail) but is caused by a dominant factor
(independent of the S.ex of the dog) with an incomplete penetrance, thus still allowing deviations in the
phenotype. In the homozygote dog (carrying only information for the stub-tail), this dominant gene was
found to be a lethal factor, implying only heterozygote dogs could survive, carrying genetic information for
both the normal as for the stub-tail and as such explaining why dogs could be born with longer tails. I’m
clearly not a scientist and certainly not highly educated in genetics …, but would this conclusion not mean that
this dominant factor, if still present in our dogs, should still have an important influence in defining the pheno-
type while in reality it hardly ever does? When and how this dominant genetic information was lost or was its
entrance so weakened? Might the most plausible explanation be that the number of pups with stub-tails has
always been smaller –and thus their influence on the breed much more limited- than suggested in the first
breed standards? Maybe one of your readers can enlighten us in a later edition of your magazine? In practice,
once docking was allowed and even imposed to bring the tail to the desired length, breeders of course no
longer had to pay attention to such questions: all tails were simply docked.

quelle: Another tale about the tail ……. Dirk Vandecasteel

thank you so much

immer wieder gerne, das übersetzen ist weggefallen

aber im kurzen: es ist ein dominantes gen was für den stummelschwanz verantwortlich ist, homozygot nicht lebensfähig, nur die heterozygoten können normale welpen bekommen, wer da ein bisschen "mendelt" und rechnet, dürfte zu keinem anderen schluss kommen, als das mann solche hunden aus der zucht nehmen sollte.

mendeln? cooles Verb