Keeping in mind these pups are from a new import (an out-cross). I'd skip boy 2 and breed the rest to different lines (if possible). See what you get and select from there.
Just shooting off in a slightly different direction here, but what would you consider an outcross? How far back in the generations would the dog need to have no unrelated ancestors?
I'm just learning about genetics, so I'm not much of a help, but find this a very interesting discussion. I'd also be interested in the question of what if Girl 1 was bred? Would her pups have the extra toe? It would depend on what kind of gene caused it, right? If it is recessive, it won't show up unless she is bred to another dog carrying it, and even then it's only about a 50% chance, I think...(if all recessive genes work the same way, which I don't know, since I'm so new to this). But I believe all the pups in the litter would then be carriers, even if none of them had it.
But if it is not a recessive gene, then it would show up differently.
Interesting!
I'm also wondering about the outcross question....how far back do you have to go?
and yes, Brad, this reminds me of your thread, which is why it is also so interesting!
In a perfect world I'd say 8+ generations. In this case tho, since the gene pool is so small, I would consider any dog that is further removed from those common ancestors than what is currently in North America to be an out-cross.
*That's 8+ generations removed from only one common ancestor. Otherwise you end up with something like the Kai Ken in NA, where you have 8+ generation descending from just a few dogs.
This is totally not relevant to this discussion at all, but oh my god she has the cutest little puppy feet I've ever seen. The first one looks so ROUND.
...I had to interrupt with that. They're all awfully little, anyway... they don't really LOOK like anything to be worried about in pictures. (I can't really put my .02 in on the rest of the discussion though.)
I read a short arcticle on the Great Pyrenees; showing their breed standard actually requires a double dew claw on the rear. They have reports of some with double dewclaw on the front, and triple dew claw on the rear. The speculation is that at one time the additional dew claws were needed to improve balance and traction in steep mountainous terrain.
Not Shikoku specific; but I thought it an interesting note all the same...
@Calia I don't know if you're still considering getting the dew claws removed, but I have actual relevant information this time!
From a vet nurse I spoke to (and showed the pictures to): "If it's attached to the foot it will be like removing a finger. The dog knows it is there and will compensate for it in it's movements. Dew claws are very rarely a problem usually it's the dangly ones that are not attached to bone that are the problem not ones like in the dog here."
@Crispy -The front ones actually aren't attached and are just a nail, but since they've remained small I'll probably just leave them there and keep trimming them. They do grow significantly slower than the regular claws, and Tikaani keeps crunching off the rear ones (he loves grabbing ankle). It almost looks like one of the rear dewclaws is a hollow nail without a quick, though they do feel attached.
Comments
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/5115/how-to-ruin-a-breed-a-primer/
Keeping in mind these pups are from a new import (an out-cross). I'd skip boy 2 and breed the rest to different lines (if possible). See what you get and select from there.
----
But if it is not a recessive gene, then it would show up differently.
Interesting!
I'm also wondering about the outcross question....how far back do you have to go?
and yes, Brad, this reminds me of your thread, which is why it is also so interesting!
front paw:
Rear dewclaw:
...I had to interrupt with that. They're all awfully little, anyway... they don't really LOOK like anything to be worried about in pictures. (I can't really put my .02 in on the rest of the discussion though.)
Not Shikoku specific; but I thought it an interesting note all the same...
From a vet nurse I spoke to (and showed the pictures to): "If it's attached to the foot it will be like removing a finger. The dog knows it is there and will compensate for it in it's movements. Dew claws are very rarely a problem usually it's the dangly ones that are not attached to bone that are the problem not ones like in the dog here."