josebrwn
27th September 2004, 14:33
We learn in a paper on the "pseudo Presa" that Julian Celis bred Rocote from a female Bullmastiff.
While we are given the name and LOE number of this Bullmastiff, there are a few problems. First, we are not told anything about the other ancestors. Without that information, we can only assume they were wholly or in part, Presa type dogs native to Las Palmas. Second, we also are not told where the information regarding the Bullmastiff comes from. Usually, it is from "an informant". How reliable these informants are is unknown, but let's assume the information is accurate. Third, we are told in the same paragraph that Princesa was a sister of Rocote. But we know from Bill Jarvis that Princesa was a small, eight-week old puppy in May of 1989 when she was imported to the US, while Rocote was already the stud dog at Jardin Canario, and had been winning shows in Las Palmas since 1988. Therefore it is probably safe to assume the information is false, and she is not the same Princesa mentioned in the article.
It is said the dogs were "badly mixed", and produced little homogeniety. The former is an emotive claim with little substance or meaning. For the latter, we know from Jarvis' article that Rocote won the Presa show in Las Palmas in 1988 and Ebro won Exposition I in 1993. That is a reign of five years. It seems to suggest that there was some homogeniety in the dogs, and that they were desirable. There were not only desirable to the spectators and judges at these events for a period of five years, they were desirable to Mr. Jarvis, who made his decision to purchase a son of Rocote after living on every island in the Canaries, and spending 15 months researching the breed, and seeking out every breeder in search of the finest specimens available.
We are told that these dogs were represented and sold as Presas in first or second generation. Yet we learn in another article that Boby was perhaps half Presa, that Piba was not Presa at all, and that their offspring we bred with Grunon the English Bulldog, and Tipha the Spanish Mastiff, and this line made its way into most bloodlines today, because they too were sold, as breeding stock, to other breeders in an attempt to resurrect the Presa.
What is the implication of all this in the dogs of today? I will tell you how it affects my dogs.
Tonio and Princesa had two litters. If we assume what was said about Rocote is true, they would have one great-grandmother who was a Bullmastiff. One of these litters produced Jasmine, who begat Lladrio de Hiero (Brick) out of Banot de Haridian, who traces his lineage back to Piba and Boby in four generations. Thus Brick would have one great, great, grandmother who was a Bullmastiff, and he rest traces back to the Presa dogs of Las Palmas and Tenerife, and the kennel of Irema Curto.
Now in the fourth generation there at 16 ancestors so Brick Sr. would have 1/16 Bullmastiff. Brick Jr. would have 1/32 and his offspring 1/64, and we are now six generations from Brick Jr.'s offspring to the parents of Rocote.
Bessie traces back to Rocote in one more generation than Brick Jr. So now we have a line breed on Tonio/Princesa in generation 4 on the sire's side and 5 on the dam's side (4,5), and to the parents of Rocote it would be (6,7) and span a minimum of 18 years. The pairing also includes a line back to the original Irema Curto program of the late 1970's in 7 generations.
And this is how homogeniety is achieved. A pure breed of dog is one in which the characteristics of type and temperament are "homozygous" at the genetic level: aa, bb, AA, BB, and so on, if you remember from biology; at basically the same places on the same genes, throughout the breed, so that the dogs all look and act pretty much alike, and their offspring resemble the parents, and resemble each other. This is called "prepotency", and it is achieved through line breeding, and by no other way; it is genetically impossible to be otherwise.
So my position is this: the assertion that Jardin Canario dogs are "psuedo Presa" is moot and contradicts the goals of the original programs of the 1970's. The assertion that they were badly mixed, lacked temperament and type is false, as we know from inspection and first hand accounts. I think we can conclude that there was more homogeniety in the original Jardin Canario program of 1988-1993 than suggested in the original article (given their consistent success at Presa competitions between 1988 and 1993), and considering that the dogs have been linebred for an additional sixteen years, we should now be achieving a pretty consistent level of homogeniety in type and temperament.
In my case, I am seeking homogeniety in type and temperament represented by the dog Tonio del Jardin Canario. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is mine. And there are only two avenues available to this line: Medusa, and Jasmine.
I believe we should leave moot questions behind, and simply continue to breed the best specimens, seeking homogeniety in type and temperament. And I believe that is the most important thing we have to talk about.
While we are given the name and LOE number of this Bullmastiff, there are a few problems. First, we are not told anything about the other ancestors. Without that information, we can only assume they were wholly or in part, Presa type dogs native to Las Palmas. Second, we also are not told where the information regarding the Bullmastiff comes from. Usually, it is from "an informant". How reliable these informants are is unknown, but let's assume the information is accurate. Third, we are told in the same paragraph that Princesa was a sister of Rocote. But we know from Bill Jarvis that Princesa was a small, eight-week old puppy in May of 1989 when she was imported to the US, while Rocote was already the stud dog at Jardin Canario, and had been winning shows in Las Palmas since 1988. Therefore it is probably safe to assume the information is false, and she is not the same Princesa mentioned in the article.
It is said the dogs were "badly mixed", and produced little homogeniety. The former is an emotive claim with little substance or meaning. For the latter, we know from Jarvis' article that Rocote won the Presa show in Las Palmas in 1988 and Ebro won Exposition I in 1993. That is a reign of five years. It seems to suggest that there was some homogeniety in the dogs, and that they were desirable. There were not only desirable to the spectators and judges at these events for a period of five years, they were desirable to Mr. Jarvis, who made his decision to purchase a son of Rocote after living on every island in the Canaries, and spending 15 months researching the breed, and seeking out every breeder in search of the finest specimens available.
We are told that these dogs were represented and sold as Presas in first or second generation. Yet we learn in another article that Boby was perhaps half Presa, that Piba was not Presa at all, and that their offspring we bred with Grunon the English Bulldog, and Tipha the Spanish Mastiff, and this line made its way into most bloodlines today, because they too were sold, as breeding stock, to other breeders in an attempt to resurrect the Presa.
What is the implication of all this in the dogs of today? I will tell you how it affects my dogs.
Tonio and Princesa had two litters. If we assume what was said about Rocote is true, they would have one great-grandmother who was a Bullmastiff. One of these litters produced Jasmine, who begat Lladrio de Hiero (Brick) out of Banot de Haridian, who traces his lineage back to Piba and Boby in four generations. Thus Brick would have one great, great, grandmother who was a Bullmastiff, and he rest traces back to the Presa dogs of Las Palmas and Tenerife, and the kennel of Irema Curto.
Now in the fourth generation there at 16 ancestors so Brick Sr. would have 1/16 Bullmastiff. Brick Jr. would have 1/32 and his offspring 1/64, and we are now six generations from Brick Jr.'s offspring to the parents of Rocote.
Bessie traces back to Rocote in one more generation than Brick Jr. So now we have a line breed on Tonio/Princesa in generation 4 on the sire's side and 5 on the dam's side (4,5), and to the parents of Rocote it would be (6,7) and span a minimum of 18 years. The pairing also includes a line back to the original Irema Curto program of the late 1970's in 7 generations.
And this is how homogeniety is achieved. A pure breed of dog is one in which the characteristics of type and temperament are "homozygous" at the genetic level: aa, bb, AA, BB, and so on, if you remember from biology; at basically the same places on the same genes, throughout the breed, so that the dogs all look and act pretty much alike, and their offspring resemble the parents, and resemble each other. This is called "prepotency", and it is achieved through line breeding, and by no other way; it is genetically impossible to be otherwise.
So my position is this: the assertion that Jardin Canario dogs are "psuedo Presa" is moot and contradicts the goals of the original programs of the 1970's. The assertion that they were badly mixed, lacked temperament and type is false, as we know from inspection and first hand accounts. I think we can conclude that there was more homogeniety in the original Jardin Canario program of 1988-1993 than suggested in the original article (given their consistent success at Presa competitions between 1988 and 1993), and considering that the dogs have been linebred for an additional sixteen years, we should now be achieving a pretty consistent level of homogeniety in type and temperament.
In my case, I am seeking homogeniety in type and temperament represented by the dog Tonio del Jardin Canario. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is mine. And there are only two avenues available to this line: Medusa, and Jasmine.
I believe we should leave moot questions behind, and simply continue to breed the best specimens, seeking homogeniety in type and temperament. And I believe that is the most important thing we have to talk about.