Talk:Breed

Scope

Isn't this just a definition? --Tb 08:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, though in this case it seems to also serve as a disambiguation page of sorts to point to the various pages on cat/dog/etc. breeds. --Delirium 08:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm too new here to judge well all by myself. Seems to me that the right thing is to mark it as a disambiguation page and just turn it into one. But hey--is it really needed as such? (I recall a guideline that suggests not creating unneeded disambiguation pages, and this one seems kinda remote to me.) So if it's not needed, then it shouldn't exist.

Though perhaps there would be good content here that I just don't know yet, in which case, the creator and others should get a chance to add some before it is deleted or turned into a disambiguation page proper, right? --Tb 08:47 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not too sure either. There is some history of breeds that could be discussed, but I'm not qualified to write it. A link to selective breeding covers some of it. --Delirium 08:49 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good points. I didn't put the "stub" warning in because I modelled it on the cultivar article which has existed since January, and doesn't have one. Done now. Is there something about the cultivar article I've missed? I also take your point that a lot of what might go into this article is already in selective breeding. Perhaps this should become a redirect to there, and the definition moved to that article. We could then have a separate list of breeds which will surely grow with time. Andrewa 13:59 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is that better? I've now removed the stub warning. There's a lot more to be said, but with the links I think it's useful. The selective breeding article is a bit hard to read just because there's so much in it, so there's room for several articles on the topic I think. Andrewa 22:47 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Looks great to me! --Tb 22:48 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Looks ok to me too. I will be linking to this article page from several articles I'm working on. The page does need work though. I find that I disagree with the description given for a Strain. I'll start a different discussion below and give my interpretation of how the reference to Strain should read. Sting_au |

/"A breed is a domesticated subspecies or infrasubspecies of an animal"

This cannot be a definition! The breed term applies to domesicated animals only. Breeds are created by breeder , who intentionally mates domesticed animals to each other. --Afru (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. We need to change this somehow? A breed is a variety of a species created by breeder directed selection within a specific species genepool so that desired characteristics are homozygous for that variety. Tweak it around if you wish? We will eventually arrive at something that fits better. Sting au Buzz Me... 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bird Breeds

Can we not have a list of bird breeds too?

20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigeons and Chickens are birds. But I gather they were added after your comment? Sting_au | Talk 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Strain

Ok, my problem with the articles reference to a Strain is that it says this results from descendants of a single significant individual. I see a Strain coming more from a group or original Genepool of individuals of the particular breed. Another way of looking at a Strain is seeing it as a Family within the breed being discussed. Strains are generally known by the prominant breeder who put all the work into creating the strain. So for example people could say that is the Hughes Strain of Tippler pigeon bred by Gordon Hughes. I also disagree with the reference to "a strain may not remain entirely within a breed"? To my way of thinking once an individual of a breed (whatever strain) is mated outside of the breed then this automatically creates crossbreds and as such are no longer to be considered part of the original strain. What do others think about my comments please. Sting_au | Talk 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the connotation of a strain involves significant genetic mutation from the parent individual usually occurring due to an environmental stimulus, where a breed doesn't involve a genetic mutation at all. e.g. "strain" of the flu virus, which only has two significant "breeds" referred to as type A and type B. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Last edit

The breed is not exactly "homogenious", but is a group of animals undergoing constant changes, depends on enviromental and economy factors. that is reflected by changes to breed standard.

The vest majority of animals selected to establish a breed are initially chosen for working qiualities, and/or production, not appearance. Such as cattle.

The domestication happened thousands years before the breeds originated. "Breed" is a term that can possibly apply ONLY to a group of animals, that was ALREADY domesticated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afru (talk • contribs) 06:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you still need to define breed specific. Some mention of selective breeding with the appropriate wikilink needs to go back in there. The "breed" didn't just happen all by itself! You gutted the human connection out of the description. It's humans that make breeds via selection. That fact needs to go back in. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Entire selective breeding needs an major edit, and most likely a merge.

There is a professional description of what the breed is, and the effort is to write a desription of vital term charasteristics in a plain and simple language. term "breed" is mostly about selection and creating, thus this is not the easiest task.

Most breeds originated without human interference, while humans develop and maintain breeds the way they want. Humans selected certain domesticated animals that differ from others, for given example, a hairless cat. Than they try to breed her to other cats to get more hairless cats. Than they keep the most hairless, describe it in writing and call it "The-Unique-Hairless Cat BREED". Than they inbreed or outcross cats to each other, selecting the most hairless for further breeding stock aka "foundation stock" and spay the rest. For this reason using a term "homogenious" does not exactly fit.

--Afru (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Breeds don't originate without humans. In the wild species and subspecies evolve. Subspecies also known as varieties. Breeds are called breeds because they have been developed by breeders. Homogenous fits a breed pretty well in that the members of the breeds genepool are pretty much homozygous for the necessary genes that make up the breed milieu. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants please don't add plant information to this article. Add it to Variety (plant) where it belongs. Remember not plant breed but plant variety. Recent unhelpful edits are being reverted. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Variety (botany). Sting au Buzz Me... 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, plant variety and plant breeds are NOT the same thing, so retuning referenced material. Hardyplants (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Breeds do originate without human interference, such as Dingo or New Guinea Singing Dog in dogs, Texas Longhorn cattle, etc.

Speaking of origination, it has a "start", what is a point of appearance of certain trait within a specie or subspecies. The breeder does not make the breed from scratch; he does not shave the cat to make it hairless, he needs to find one to make it the breed foundation animal. Next, developing and maintaince. And sometimes The End, if and when there is either no demand for it, or it is overcrowded with inbreeding-caused genetic problems.

The breed is never a group of “same” or “identical” animals, but a population, consisting of complimentary groups (“lines“ or “strains“), undergoing constant changes, stages of development. It is fairly homogenous, but shall never be such to the point this term shall be used without detailed clarification, to avoid common misleading point. Differences between individual animals as well as between established “lines” within any breed are vital for its existence. Otherwise, there is a “dead end”.

OK, another attempt to clarify the definition. --Afru (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultivars are not breeds, breeds are a subset of cultivators ( which are just names for cultivated plants) that are produced in a very specific way. See thses google searches for the use of breeds in relation to plants: http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=i8J&q=%22plant+breeds%22&btnG=Search and Hardyplants (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants, please add specific plant details to Variety (plant) and/or cultivars, just provide a link to it from this article. Per Google search, term "plant breed" is used mostly in translated foreign articles. This is not an encyclopedic term --Afru (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Plant variety is a taxonomic rank and should not be confused with breeds which are purposely produced and maintained...cultivars is a large and divergent group of plants that share one thing- they are grown and named plants. I am going to add the information to plant breeding, which is a more developed page than this one. Look up corm or rice breeds, the term "Plant breed" is now mostly used by academics, and seems to also have a stronger historical usage. Hardyplants (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the term 'breed' for plants is less common in modern times, the usage still exists, and it provides needed functionality that the other available terms do not. I'm not saying you disagreed with this point, but I mean to emphasize it. 75.174.116.47 (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Followup, several year later: Agreed, if I'm reading you correctly. Cultivar is the conventional botanical/horticultural term for the concept of the breed, in plants; it only applies to domesticates or domesticate × wild hybrids (nothospecies with a culitvar ancestor), and some sources have used "breed" itself for this. I have yet to find any evidence they're not synonymous, and I've been looking for a couple of years now, off and on. Never once seen a botanical distinction between breed and cultivar, just a shift from the former term to the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hybrid animals

I removed this:

"Recently, crossbreed animals, especially dogs and cats, have also come to be referred to as hybrids as well, for unknown reasons."

First, it was not cited. Second, it was unencyclopedic (for unknown reasons). Third, it sounds like BS to me.

If someone can cite a source, go ahead and bring it back.

97.113.105.182 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Late note: What it (whoever wrote it) was trying to get at is that some things that certain registries accept as "breeds" are really domestic × wild hybrids, e.g. the wolfdog, and the Bengal cat. We're kinda-sorta covering this, with a source now, but only with regard to plants. Can be sourced in minutes, but I'm going to bed. Maybe tomorrow if I remember.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Merge discussion is consolidated at the other article here:Talk:Race_(biology)#Proposal:_Merge_to_Breed. Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

Paragraph one tells us that there is no accepted definition of a breed. Paragraph two, first sentence, gives us a requirement to be considered a breed. These two are the same thing. Paragraph one should have attempted to include some definitions - it is not as if these are hard to find, and the common ones look very much similar to the first sentence in paragraph two. This article needs a lot of work. William Harristalk 09:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Clutton-Brock 1987 definition added to underscore what is written in the second paragraph. Page number required on what is written in the first paragraph. William Harristalk 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Set theory

Hello @Jiaminglimjm: I'm surprised to see this text removed. It's obviously relevant to this article. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices The referenced source is relevant, which is why i didn't remove it from an earlier sentence, but I don't think the maths deserve a full elaboration in the lede as it seems more of a 'quirky' investigation rather than a reflection of the field and practiced scientific methods. Suggesting that pure mathematics and set theory is a legitimate method for studies of genetics and biology is not appropriate in my view. Just imagine it being applied to humans in areas like gender and race and the criticisms that follow. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jiaminglimjm: On second examination I'm even more confused by the edit. I agree that too much of anything is undeserved in the lede however surprise at seeing maths and set theory together with genetics and biology suggests a lack of familiarity with the subject – this would be normal and appropriate in the article body if we had a real source. Additionally I don't understand why the other mathematical text is acceptable if that would not be. Unfortunately in any case I now notice that the source is of unusably low quality. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 April 2022 (UTC)