Is it still part of the breed?

Leonberger

Continuing here, not to hijack the other thread...

I agree with Brad about the pure bloodlines, but if thy start deviating from the standard systematically, they're going to go on a completely different path, potentially getting too different to still be considered part of the breed.
If you select a set of dogs to look a certain way and have certain temperament characteristics, and eventually that set of dogs will be considered a breed; by a sloppy selection that causes a heavy deviation from those characteristics might mean they're not part of the breed anymore.

Don't know if I made much sense..

dlroberts

Sure, it does make sense. Just look at the Japanese vs. American Akita. I think you have a perfect example there. Of course in that case, you don't really have intent to create a new breed, it is more of a by-product of socio-political and geographic considerations.

Are you asking about intentional variations or unintentional ones?

Leonberger

Both apply. I think they're kind of both the same thing, one intentional to create a different breed, the other just sloppy and that ends up "creating" "mutts with pedigree".
But on this case, I was going for the poorly bred pups.

tsukitsune

I think that you have to look at breeds whose origins are in the last 500 or so years.. like the McNab and Border Collie are just distinctively created deviations from their ancestor the smooth collie, or scotch collie. They are all collies but have been selected, most likely intentionally, and have become a 'different' breed because they are now much different from the original.

I don't really know.. that was the best example in favor of your arguement, other than Japanese vs. American Akita that I could come up with!! Actually, wasn't the akita a deviated breed, and not part of the original ancestor breeds of Japan, but now considered an original breed of Japan?