positions in space
new pup at the rescue

new pup at the rescue

cranialgames:

teapotsahoy:

vassraptor

coffeeandcockatiels:

Always make sure to start Wandows Ngrmadly.

#ia ia windows fhtagn
I don’t think this boot looks promising.


Wandows

cranialgames:

teapotsahoy:

vassraptor

coffeeandcockatiels:

Always make sure to start Wandows Ngrmadly.

#ia ia windows fhtagn

I don’t think this boot looks promising.

Wandows

charliedaymemes:

steal his look: charlie kelly

urban outfitters “horsin’ around” destructed tee ($78)
1989 gucci long johns ($690)
loius vuitton casual tube socks ($120)

i-was-born-backwards:

5 Centimeters Per Second (2007), Makoto Shinkai

awesomepeoplehangingouttogether:

Tom Morello and Adam Jones

awesomepeoplehangingouttogether:

Tom Morello and Adam Jones

comicsforever:

The Strong Women Of Comic Books // artwork by Jamal Campbell (2014)

adrilc:

Something inspired by Shadow of the colossus

adrilc:

Something inspired by Shadow of the colossus

Do you think pugs should be allowed to die out? Scottish folds? Are there any [other] breeds of dogs and or cats you think we should let go extinct?
Anonymous

koryos:

I think wording it this way is extremely misleading. First of all, dog (and cat) breeds are not individual species, or even subspecies (dogs themselves are a subspecies of the gray wolf, and cats are a subspecies of the African wildcat!). Since the biological definition of “extinction” refers to the loss of an entire species or subspecies, the disappearance of a dog breed isn’t extinction because the dog subspecies, as a whole, is going to be just fine.

I do understand that the common usage of “extinction” can be applied to the disappearance of most anything, that’s fine; I’m just trying to explain the broader context here.

Dog (and cat) breeds are not that genetically different from each other at all; their differences largely come from a series of mutations that have been reproduced by humans via selective breeding. That’s it. So if a breed were to “die out” all that means is that that particular combination of mutations aren’t showing up anymore in the species (or subspecies). Frankly speaking, it’d probably be possible to get most or all of them back in a few generations of crossbreeding other dogs- unless their traits are really really rare. (Rare traits often come with their own caveats, as with folded ears in Scottish folds.)

"Purebred" dogs and cats are kind of a paradox in and of themselves, and so are dog shows; all that purebred animals are is creatures bred in such a way that most offspring have the same set of desired traits that their parents have. The positives of purebred animals are more predictable looks and slightly more predictable temperaments, energy levels, and health issues; the downside can be, of course, those same health issues that can stem from excessive inbreeding.

So, okay, now that I’ve got that out of the way, let’s address your question: Should some breeds be allowed to disappear?

Again, it’s a matter of what ‘disappear’ even means. Consider, for example, the dalmatian-pointer backcross project.

All purebred dalmatians have a genetic defect that results in hyperuricemia (abnormally concentration of uric acid in urine, causing painful bladder stones). Unfortunately, the recessive allele that causes this condition is present in every single purebred dalmatian, and it is impossible to get rid of by breeding dalmatians with other dalmatians (unless a once-in-a-lifetime mutation occurs). This is one of the major risks of inbreeding or backbreeding: with the loss of genetic diversity comes the loss of protective alleles.

One dalmatian breeder decided to try and solve this problem in a very simple way: she bred a purebred dalmatian with a pointer, then bred the puppies with other purebred dalmatians for a couple generations. The result? Dogs that looked exactly like purebred dalmatians that didn’t have hyperuricemia thanks to the protective alleles from their pointer ancestor.

Despite this- despite the fact that they look exactly like normal dalmatians- there are many dog breeders who are outraged at the idea of even calling these dogs dalmatians; there has been a great deal of difficulty even registering these dogs in shows because of the single outcross they received- a dog named Fiona who was 13 generations removed from the pointer just barely managed to get registered to participate in Crufts.

"This is a dog that is not purebred. This is a mongrel. You can’t cross a Dalmatian with a pointer and say it’s a Dalmatian. This is unethical and I’d be disgusted if the dog won.” - actual quote from an actual dog breeder about Fiona

I guess the real question is, what defines a dalmatian? If we go far back enough, the ancestors of purebred dalmatians certainly wouldn’t look like dalmatians. Why does the breed have to be locked in to its own lineage? If we’re going to argue that real dalmatians have to be descended from “purebred” dalmatians (what does that really even mean?) than part of what defines a dalmatian is hyperuricemia. And that’s horrible.

And it just doesn’t have to be that way. Unlike show line animals, many working line animals do have what are known as “open stud books,” which means crossbreeding is permitted, and offspring will be classified as the breed of whichever parent they most resemble. This is, arguably, because working dogs need to be healthier than show dogs, and is a reason why working and show dog lines don’t usually mix.

Of course, there are some breeds with issues that can’t fixed with a single outbreeding. These animals have health issues that are caused by the specific physical traits that define their breeds: for example, the flattened shout of the pug causes, among other things, severe breathing difficulties, and the folded ears of the Sottish fold cat are caused by a cartilage disorder that also leads to debilitating arthritis.

But without the flattened snout or folded ears, these animals would arguably not be Scottish folds or pugs anymore. In that case, I say, that’s just fine. I am never, ever, going to value an animal’s physical traits over its health and well-being. If that means that there will be no more “pugs” or “Scottish folds” or any other manmade subgroup of cat, dog, et cetera, I’m perfectly fine with it.

And no, obviously I’m not advocating for immediate euthanasia of all members of breeds with severe health issues, or even that these animals never be bred (though some of them might be better off). I would just like some compassion for the animals we intentionally produce. Breed a pug to a beagle and you get a longer snouted-puggle; breed a puggle to something with an even longer snout, and you might actually get to a healthy dog. And isn’t that what we should all hope for?