The X Factor

[Officially Retired]

Thanks for cleaning up a couple things which were exactly what I meant. Solid individuals in a family most def. Small yard means culling is a must for me to move on in selection and many others. Not in a barberian way. Just for need of the chainspots. Culling is simply removing them from the program.

Okay, good deal.

I understand limited space = limited space, and the need to keep dog numbers down. The point I was making was that you can "remove a dog from the program" simply by selecting a better dog to breed to. In other words, if a Dog X isn't what I want in a dog, but the one behind him (Dog A) is everything I want in a dog, whether or not I "cull" Dog X has no relevance to a program, but breeding to Dog A does ... and I can choose to breed to Dog A whether or not Dog X is there or not 8-)

The 1/8th grandmother if you notice does lend a X chromosome to male are female offspring in the X Factor. That would be the sire granddam on his sires side. She does however lend autosomal DNA which brings genes for appearances, color, and othe physical features. Her alignment doesn't let her effect sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal structure as those are left to the X Chromosome. Only the Y generation to generation is passed in males which leaves her out. Then in females only the sires dam X is passed alone with his mates to make XX.

Well, there was a statement made that the great-great grandfather (or mother) would have "no effect" on the dog in question, and I responded by "it may or it may not." I think if you look at the thread on Avila's Ouch!, if you follow his pedigree you can clearly see that Ouch! got his chocolate coloring from an unbroken string of chocolate/seal dogs in his pedigree ... all the way back to his great-great granddam Jessop's Pitfall.

I believe what Minute Man said is correct, namely that there isn't some progressive "diminishing" of an ancestor's influence; rather, I believe that the genes either pass/dominate to an offspring, or pass/recess to an offspring/or are LOST in an offspring. In other words, Ouch and Silverback aren't "watered-down" chocolate- and seal-colored dogs, respectively, they simply ARE chocolate- and seal-colored dogs respectively. This chocolate color trait either passes dominantly, or it does not pass. The red/rednose trait either passes dominantly, passes recessively, or it does not pass. The genes from both parents re-combine and are either THERE or are NOT there ... there is no "diminishing" going on with each successive generation.

And so it is with other traits, like being a head dog or a finisher. The propensity to be a head dog, or a true finisher, is either THERE and passed on, or it is NOT there and failed to pass-on (or, possibly, is there but is recessive). With Silverback, no dog I know of in his pedigree was a "true finisher" like he is, until you get back to the Ted Jessop blood. I promise you this desire to finish is not "diminished" in Silverback, after all these generations, it is simply THERE in him ... and like no ancestor I personally am aware of (which is a lot of them) until that pedigree point.

Thus I simply reject the idea that all traits "diminish by 50%" with each successive generation; I believe they are either passed on or they are not (albeit, sometimes passed on, yet remain recessive).

Also the mitochondria DNA and Y and X skeletal genes would be what allows ability. This is in the since of with form comes function and also the X chromosome gives mental function. With the mitochondria DNA helping build muscle building proteins most compatible with structure as part of its inner workings with the cells. Since autosomes allow the brain to connect with cells I can see your point.

Exactly, if the mental ability to "be quick and smart" isn't there, then you simply have a well-formed animal without the right control center. There are plenty of conformationally-flawless ADBA show champions ... that couldn't whip a puppy and would quit cold if they broke a nail in the carpet ... and there are plenty of undershot, cow-hocked animals that are multi-winners (Untouchable's Gr Ch Chewy comes to mind )

Still if it doesn't have the form how can it perform it limits abilities. I guess you are looking at the ability to do anything with helping cells and brain communicate and I myself am thinking of talent and other aspects of ability as in fluent motion. Atleast this is what I gathered.

It is my absolute conviction that talent starts in the brain, which controls speed, timing, reflexes, judgment, etc. Stormbringer, for example, was oddly-built ... and didn't have the body of Duke Nukem (who won the ADBA Nationals) ... but Stormy had 10x the pit-savvy, power, and desire to finish that Duke Nukem did. Duke even had the superior-conformed, long-winded Screamer for a mother, while Stormy had the stubby, short-winded Coca Cola for a mother.

The X Factors main focus is inheritable material genes wise on the X and Y chromosomes and the larger X has more inheritable material. I still think more needs to be none bout what inheritable material the Y Chromosome does posess.

I agree that more needs to be known, rather than theorized, but I do think it is fascinating to discuss 8-)

I won't sit here and try to pretend that I understand all of this stuff. However, I do see the value in attempting to do so!

I don't want to be stubborn, but my own experience leads me to believe that what MM originally said is true, meaning that (of the important outward performance traits) these are a combining of the male and female, where there is either a "mix" or where one dominates while the other does not. Again, I re-confirm my belief that the greatest value that my exposure to The X Factor has given me is the concept that mtDNA is matriarchal. This would explain the wide disparity of results that have been obtained through some of my poorly-structured bitches. Yet, even here, some short-winded bitches can produce longwinded pups, either by throwing what's "behind them" (recessive) or by having the male's influence dominate. (It's hard to say which!)

For example, my own Diamond Girl bitch had terrible body structure. She was cow-hocked, under-shot, and barrel-chested. The only good thing about her was 1) her pedigree was full of game dogs, and 2) the fact Diamond Girl was herself absolutely GAME TO THE BONE (although it took her till 3 years to get it straight). I bred DG back to Poncho, and got a bunch of game dogs that were better-structured than Diamond Girl, but likewise had bad ass-ends. I did the same thing with Phoenix and got the same thing again: game dogs with better structure than DG, but that weren't as athletic as I like my dogs to be. Therefore, even though she was a game bitch, I sold Diamond Girl because I did not want to inbreed on these physical traits ... I thought she would produce better as a cross-dog ... and, ironically to this discussion, Diamond Girl's new owner actually bred her to Stone City's own Ch Nico Jr.

Well, this breeding produced Slingshot Kennels' Ch Buster 4xW, who looked nothing like Diamond Girl and did not carry her physique at all. Now then, maybe this proves Stone City's theory that the Y chromosome of Nico dominated, and so the male's traits obtained, but I have had plenty of my bitches inherit 100% of their daddy's looks and style, even though they were bitches. Further, if all the skeletal formation was X-(bitch-)dependent, then Ch Buster should not have been built that way.

Thus, in the end, while this is absolutely fascinating stuff, I don't think everything is cut-and-dry at all about which side influences what in a performance dog :?

Cheers,

Jack