Following on from the thread about Northern Inuit dogs, and thinking about designer dogs and crossbreeds, has anyone come across the Silken Windhound before?

They look absolutely gorgeous, and seem to have been very carefully developed. Is there anything wrong in creating a new breed in this way?

I have heard of them. But that is the extent of my knowledge. :-D Sort of hairy sighthounds if I recall - haven't checked link. :-)

thy have been around a few years now.

I did a fair amount of research into them several years ago, and to be honest if I ever won the lotto I'd have a few. Yes, they started out as a cross breed but that's really where the similarity between them and inuits/utanagons ends. Very concise records have been kept with all stock being dna tested too.

I've heard people saying that there's no need to develop new breeds when there are so many existing breeds, something to suit everyone. However, I think the silken windhound does actually fill a gap for a small long coated sighthound. I will always love borzois, but will probably never have another one - my current Mr Beastly has taught me that they are far too big and strong for me. However I love the borzoi temperament and personality and believe that they've successfully kept that in the SWs.

All this coupled with the fact that I absolutely adore the borzoi lines behind them and the breed has me under their spell.

Edited to say they appear to be longer lived than zois too, but this still could be the result of hybrid vigour. Whilst zois are generally healthy dogs, free from genetic defects they aren't terribly long lived. I know several breeders who have never got one into their teens and indeed out of the 14 I've owned the oldest was 10....however Mr Beastly may well live forever :-D

I think they look gorgeous - I love all Sighthounds and once had an Irish Wolfhound, but they are too big for my present house, and these look perfect. Added to which, they seem to be carefully bred. I wonder if the KC would ever recognise such a breed? Maybe if they were first reognised in USA or by the FCI

> however Mr Beastly may well live forever :-D

ROFL!! :-D

I was just about to post to say you would be the best person to answer this!, I remember them being discussed before.
Stunning dogs (even more stunning when seen in action)

They look lovely :-D

Might want one one day when I've had enough of trimming the 'curly whippets' :-D :-D

Never heard of them!! They do look lovely dogs though! :)

Very concise records have been kept with all stock being dna tested too.

So is that what makes the difference between starting a new breed of dog and just having crosses mating with crosses so to speak?

> is that what makes the difference between starting a new breed of dog and just having crosses mating with crosses

That's one of the things that attracts me to these dogs. They really do seem to be at least well on the way to being a proper breed, with perhaps a lot more thought going into planning litters than many more established breeds!

I had never heard of them, but think they are absolutely lovely :) Divine name too.

I have heard of them but I also think I read somewhere that the stud book was closed? They are beautiful dogs :-) I'd like one myself!

> I read somewhere that the stud book was closed?

That's correct, the stud book was closed in 2000, which means that no more crosses are allowed. In reality though there hadn't been any first generation crosses for some years before that, but of course they had to officially close the stud book before they would ever have a hope of being recognised.

the name wasnt a good choice though. it gives an immediate image of a farting dog.

where is the rolling eyes smiling!

Now that never came to my mind, the impression it conveys to me is a fast hound, who runs like the wind and has a silken coat.

Anyway I wonder how many founder animals went into the gene pool, and what genetic advise the founder had re making the founders as wide varied as possible and what health surveillance has been done, to ensure the founders were as healthy as current knowledge can ensure.

> Very concise records have been kept with all stock being dna tested too.
>
> So is that what makes the difference between starting a new breed of dog and just having crosses mating with crosses so to speak?

pretty much.

every existing breed of dog is a cross of somekind that has been deliberately bred in order to serve a purpose, they are then developed in such a way to breed true to type. i'll use my breed to explain further (its a bit simplified but clears things up).

the bullmastiff was initially a 60% mastiff 40% bulldog (ish) cross that then was bred true to type. basically a bulldog and a mastiff were crossed and the pups that turned out nearest what was wanted were kept to breed from. these were still smaller than desired so they were then bred to another mastiff and so on till you got an approximate 60/40 split. when you had the dog you wanted you mated it to another dog of the same type and eventually they bred true giving you the bullmastiff. it takes a long time and requires very careful thought and analysis but essentially thats how its done. (i'd add obviously the first bullies were not health tested being that this look place when such tests were not around)

labradoodles, for example, could turn into an actual breed if a few breeders decided to try to breed specific type and breed true but they have not, these appear to have been.

hth :)

Also if you look back the bulldogs that went into producing your bull mastiff and the mastiffs themselves were not as distinct from each other as they are now, both being of the mastiff type, but the bulldog having achodroplastic tendencies, send was smaller, so really they were breeding for a middle of the road animal from similar types of dog.

A bit like how the different retriever and Spaniel breeds were originally a type of dog but variations became breeds.

A similar situation exists in the various hunts the foxhounds, Harriers, Fell hounds etc really are quite distinct and in France for example many of these types are separate breeds.

In UK the Foxhound is recognised as a breed but many of the hunt hounds are quite different.

I would say most breeds are not the result of crossbreeding but of refining existing types.

Some of the basic dog types were your Molloser type, Greyhound Type, Earth dogs and Spitz types.

> Also if you look back the bulldogs that went into producing your bull mastiff and the mastiffs themselves were not as distinct from each other as they are now, both being of the mastiff type, but the bulldog having achodroplastic tendencies, send was smaller, so really they were breeding for a middle of the road animal from similar types of dog.
>

very true. the bulldog of the period was certainly larger and more athletic than those we know today but was not large enough as a man taker. the mastiff by comparison was larger but was a bit, to be honest (and mastiff owners will probably agree lol) lazy for the job of gamekeepers dog so a dog inbetween was needed.

ita all about very carefully and concientiously aiming to acchieve something.

> I would say most breeds are not the result of crossbreeding but of refining existing types.

lol, far better put

On no Ive just had a real giggle with that one.......