Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

WirSindGeschichten t1_irzi8zs wrote

Similar story with the Norwegian Lundehund. Down to just a couple of breeding dogs at one point. Coincidentally, like the Shiba Inus, Lundehunds are super flexible and bend their head all the way back to touch their back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Lundehund

169

SumoNova t1_irzjbkr wrote

The article says they were near extinction until preservation found breeding pairs. Wouldn't you be able to "work backwards" and re-breee them from scratch by going back to whichever combo made them in the first place? Or would this make a "new" breed? I guess you'd have to be SUPER selective with the breeding and strict about which traits you keep? It's probably not as simple as I imagine.

57

GiantIrish_Elk t1_irzobom wrote

Some breeders are and have done this with breeds that have recently gone extinct but these have been breeds that were created in the last century and we know or have a fairly good idea of the original breeds used to create them. For dogs this old the one or more of original breeds used to create it are most likely extinct.

58

wallabee_kingpin_ t1_irzt61y wrote

>bend their head all the way back to touch their back

All dogs can do this.

Source: I had to do this to my mixed-breed dog every day to make sure she wasn't having a recurrence of inflammation in her spine. The vet said it's abnormal if they can't do it.

20

The_Mdk t1_is0o9c0 wrote

Show me a pug that can do it, I double dare you

28

JayGold t1_irzcbg8 wrote

Isn't each breed descended from a single dog of that breed?

89

MikemkPK t1_irzf9np wrote

No. If you breed together A & B to get C, you can just do that a few dozen or hundreds of times to get the gene population without resorting to incest. If the new desired breed doesn't happen every time, simply don't allow that line to reproduce again.

68

asshair t1_isjwt5i wrote

Except that's not how it actually works. Pure breeds end up with very specific "desirable" traits that can only be brought out repeated in breeding. So father to daughter breeding, then father to granddaughter, then father to great grand daughter etc.

1

winklesnad31 t1_irzjht6 wrote

Well all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor.

16

leojava t1_is2qz30 wrote

Are you telling us we're all incestuos cannibals?

2

TheDrGoo t1_is0anfv wrote

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic but that’s not what common ancestor means

−12

Dragmire800 t1_is0hn3q wrote

Um, yes it is. The one lifeform that diverged into all modern life is indeed the common ancestor of all life.

All life is descended from a common ancestor. Otherwise, there would have to have been two completely separate instances of the formation of life, both of which have survived until now

12

XenaWolf t1_is0krvh wrote

It's a species, not a single individual.

−1

Dragmire800 t1_is0l45w wrote

No, it’s a single individual. One individual lifeform came to be in the primordial oceans of earth, which multiplied and branched out. A whole species didn’t pop out of volcanic vents and start breeding, it was one little guy

Maybe other individuals were also created, but they weren’t the same species, they didn’t evolve, they were formed. They don’t factor into our evolution, only one individual ended up as us

12

XenaWolf t1_is0ly0d wrote

Most recent common ancestor

In biology and genetic genealogy, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA), also known as the last common ancestor (LCA) or concestor, of a set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all the organisms of the set are descended.

Common descent

The possibility is mentioned, above, that all living organisms may be descended from an original single-celled organism with a DNA genome, and that this implies a single origin for life. Although such a universal common ancestor may have existed, such a complex entity is unlikely to have arisen spontaneously from non-life and thus a cell with a DNA genome cannot reasonably be regarded as the “origin” of life.

​

Edit: I didn't read close enough, you're right, it is individual.

4

Cohibaluxe t1_is01qjg wrote

If you go back far enough, sure, but then it wouldn’t be the same breed every time.

3

rangeo t1_irzadgz wrote

Now if they can only cover their assholes.

29

dogsdomesticatedus t1_irznxb3 wrote

And this is why pure bred anything is inbred and deeply problematic. Strays for the win.

20

No_North_8522 t1_is0iaim wrote

Nothing is stopping a purebred from being a stray

41

Clavis_Apocalypticae t1_is1qa92 wrote

Fences.

Leashes.

Doors.

Windows.

−11

No_North_8522 t1_is8h6m3 wrote

My point was they were likely talking about mutts and not strays, but even if you missed that point your comment is pretty telling.

1

Clavis_Apocalypticae t1_is8kv3z wrote

Nah, I was just trying to be silly, but apparently this crowd takes itself pretty seriously.

2

sprint6864 t1_irzj6xc wrote

I have 5, interesting to know they all have a single ancestor like this

7

Nikamba t1_is0a7e8 wrote

In the town where Ishi lived there is a statue of him. It's likely possible to go visit that town.

8

l-_-lSmoke t1_irzxofe wrote

I mean technically you can say that about every breed of dog.

7

Tashus t1_is216xc wrote

Going even further, every living thing sends to be descendant from some single ancestor common to all.

3

Tvmouth t1_is1072b wrote

they have their own currency AND religious historical record?

6

_pleasesendhelp t1_irzsbui wrote

i wonder how these things are confirmed

1

Mr_Mojo_Risin_83 t1_irzukmo wrote

this is only one human lifetime. we have pretty detailed records of everything going back to 1930

4

Riderrod77 t1_is0wpbg wrote

so we had asexual dogs back in the days? you know with all this info at our finger tips we're not suppose to be getting dumber

−8

Tsujimoto74 OP t1_is18ydu wrote

You're right. It helps to click on articles and read them. If you had, you wouldn't have left such a dumb comment.

8

Law_Doge t1_is01zj2 wrote

Explains why they’re such shit dogs. Generations of inbreeding

−15