Yup, I agree

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!! dont think i like the dogs in that second link, other than to look at, what can you do with them???????

if theres a big difference from grandparents to dax, makes me think someone is hanging papers, they just cant change that fast.

it takes 7 generations to breed 'true to form' that didnt happen

Ah yes you're right they are manipulated I think they were saying dogs change the fastest or something like that... I'm terrible at summarizing things it was a NOVA documentary on Netflix, The Science of Dogs I believe, if anyone wants to check it out. Talked about an experiment where they were domesticating jackals and in the process where they picked the most docile ones from the litters the jackals appearance started to change. It was pretty cool :)

the AST and APBt are not the same breed. originally the American Bully was a pitterstaff, but selective breeding for a larger, more docile less dog aggressive dog was what he was after. The link Rudy posted is a good one, you should take a look.

the original dog was what is considered the classic American Bully, there are MANY great looking American Bullies in all the classes. yes there are MANY horrible looking ones out there, but the same can be said about tons of breeds. The American Bully isn't unique on that end.

Almost ALL breeds have changed and evolved by selectively breeding them.


Let alone the "new" "breeds" that get created all the time.

I'm actually reading a book on animal genetics right now and I believe the experiment you are referencing was done using foxes. They were selectively bred to be calm and less fearful and in only a few generations they began displaying black and white coat patterns and their ears began to flop over.

Here's a link to the article about the experiment: http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...x-experiment/1

I'm wrong again ^_^; Yeah that's what they were saying happened, the changing coat patterns and floppy ears.

In actuality the APBT and AST *are* the same breed , same roots , same base stock.

And as I have previously pointed out there have been quite a number of dogs which have finished in *both* the AKC and UKC conformation rings.

As regards the " pitterstaffs" , it's a false and misleading term designed to cater to market forces. You're not coming up with something new by breeding the same genetic pool to the same genetic pool just registered under the auspices of a different registry.

Go to a UKC show , go to an AKC show you'll see the same phenotype of dog , you'll just be minus the red-noses at an AKC show.

I find it rather odd that folks crossed the UKC/AKC lines for years..........never called 'em " pitterstaffs " until the puppypeddling scum got involved.

I wasn't trying to point out explicitly that you were wrong. I was just recently reading about this though and I do find it fascinating how closely the genetics of behavior and appearance are linked.

And I misspoke somewhat. The aforementioned experiment lasted forty years so it was probably more than a few generations that it took for the phenotypes to change noticeably.

Oh I know you weren't doing that. Just ragging on myself a little bit for not remembering the experiment correctly. And yeah, it did take them a long time since they were only using the foxes. I wonder if a dog could breed with a fox? Would it come out like a wolf hybrid, half wild, if they could mate and have puppies?