- Nov 28, 2010
- 757
- 68
- 168
Quote:
Actually, designating a group of animals as a breed does not rely on having a written standard, it only requires that the animals are able to consistently reproduce 'copies' of themselves. In fact, pretty much every breed of animal or bird known to man developed without a standard; I can't think of one where someone sat down and wrote a standard first and then started to breed toward it, can you?
I'm talking about real chicken breeds defined by the APA standard. Not about general terms, or generally accepted definitions, or wild animal species/sub-species.
Natural species and subspecies have nothing to do with "breeds"; breeds are artificially created and must be artificially maintained. As far as the APA standard being the end all be all of what constitutes a "breed" of chicken, well, no, they aren't. The fact that something isn't in the Sop doesn't mean it's not a breed, it only means it's not been recognized by the APA because not enough people with that particular kind of bird have been interested in taking them to a poultry show. What makes a group of animals or birds a "breed" isn't what's written about them, or what organization "recognizes" them, it's whether they can reproduce themselves (their type) when paired with animals showing similar type.
Quote:
Having a vague idea in your head about what something should look like or how it should perform is not the same as starting out with a written standard and breeding animals toward it. Even Herr Dobermann didn't sit down and write out a standard before he started pulling dogs out of the local pound to use in his "project". First came puppies, then came more puppies, finally, puppies that looked similar without being directly related, and most importantly, were capable of producing puppies that looked like themselves. At that point, he had a breed, even if he was still only working from an idea in his head rather than a written standard.
Actually, designating a group of animals as a breed does not rely on having a written standard, it only requires that the animals are able to consistently reproduce 'copies' of themselves. In fact, pretty much every breed of animal or bird known to man developed without a standard; I can't think of one where someone sat down and wrote a standard first and then started to breed toward it, can you?
I'm talking about real chicken breeds defined by the APA standard. Not about general terms, or generally accepted definitions, or wild animal species/sub-species.
Natural species and subspecies have nothing to do with "breeds"; breeds are artificially created and must be artificially maintained. As far as the APA standard being the end all be all of what constitutes a "breed" of chicken, well, no, they aren't. The fact that something isn't in the Sop doesn't mean it's not a breed, it only means it's not been recognized by the APA because not enough people with that particular kind of bird have been interested in taking them to a poultry show. What makes a group of animals or birds a "breed" isn't what's written about them, or what organization "recognizes" them, it's whether they can reproduce themselves (their type) when paired with animals showing similar type.
Quote:
Having a vague idea in your head about what something should look like or how it should perform is not the same as starting out with a written standard and breeding animals toward it. Even Herr Dobermann didn't sit down and write out a standard before he started pulling dogs out of the local pound to use in his "project". First came puppies, then came more puppies, finally, puppies that looked similar without being directly related, and most importantly, were capable of producing puppies that looked like themselves. At that point, he had a breed, even if he was still only working from an idea in his head rather than a written standard.
Last edited:
these frizzled EE chickens!!!! Gonna have to start my own experiment... guess I'll need a frizzle first though!
