Quote Originally Posted by Bojacc357
This is very interesting. In reality this shows the cross within litters, lines, and families genetically. If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding.
I agree with this; well said.

There are plenty of time-proven bloodlines around males to show that, when the right bitches are put under him, the male's superior traits can be reliably and consistently passed on.



Quote Originally Posted by Bojacc357
Male and female equally give 39 chromosomes but with the larger X chromosone in females. The Y chromosomes of males carry less INHERITABLE MATERIALS.This makes picking a female very important. It shows why picking a solid family or line is important rather than just breeding peds. It seems after reading autosomes the other 37 chromosomes influence features. With just this info it's saying the 1/8th great grandmother behind the sire never has any influence nor 3rd generation grandfather on X chromosome. Only influence they have is appearance through autosomal DNA.
I would modify your first conclusion by saying picking solid individuals is more important than just breeding peds.

It would be my interpretation that autosomal influence is EVERYTHING, as far as ability and outward traits go, while the mitochondrial influence has more subtle influence "under the hood" of the basic fitness of the animal.

I would disagree with the statement that the 1/8th grandmother etc. "never" has any influence; I think she may, or may not, depending on the individual pup we're talking about. Again, this is where selection comes in.



Quote Originally Posted by Bojacc357
This means breeding heavy on individuals not aligned right in the ped renders there sex, reproduction, mental functions, muscle and a part of skeletal traits useless. This is cause the are passed by the X and Y chromosomes and these where they are located in this theory have no effect there. It is interesting and is heavily influenced by the fact that more is known about the female genetics and contribution on the X chromosomes. It only makes me want to know more bout the Y chromosomes and it limitations do to being small annd what it brings in function. It is called a theory and in fact has validity through science but It all still comes back to quality and culling.
What you just said is critical not aligned right in the ped. IMO there are basic, time-proven linebreeding patterns ... that repeatedly and consistently work, precisely because they line things up right ... but that also is dependent upon IF the right dogs are used in the equation

I would also say "culling" has nothing to do with breeding dogs at all; selection is what breedings are based on. For example, I could have 85 curs on my yard, that I never bothered to cull, but 15 truly world class animals, and so if I only select the truly world class dogs to breed, then I can keep breeding world class dogs, culling or no culling. That is one of the biggest non-truths repeated in the dog world: "hard culling = great yard." Nothing could be further from the truth. "Culling" creates nothing; it only destroys.

What creates great dogs is GOOD SELECTION, wise choices in mating pairs, and proper genetic alignment between individual ancestors (and a little bit of luck!), not "culling."

Case in point, perhaps the greatest dog produced out of Stone City's Ch Nico Jr. (Gr Ch Awesome Beast ROM) came from a breeding a woman made, who had never rolled (or culled) a dog in her life ... but she sure did her homework on bloodlines, and she sure did know how to line the genes up in her breeding choices ...

Jack