[Don Thomsen]

Ok....here we go. I know all genetic traits are passed on from generation to generation. But what are some traits we may mistake as being genetic? for example, marking, lining manners, vocalization,non-vocalization, on/off switch. And , although training can enhance some characteristics, I do not believe training helps to a huge degree.....for example, marking.....I have had many dogs who I considered "fair" markers. These dogs passed on being "fair" markers. Now, maybe it was training program I was using, but personally I have never turned a "fair" marker into a "good" one. Just some food for thought here. PS....if you can understand this, you have a very IQ!!!

 

[Gerry Clinchy]

If "fair" marking were "dominant" over "good" marking, then it might be possible for two "fair" parents to produce a "good". Ff X Ff = 75% fair, 25% good. FF X Ff = 0% good.

However, if "good" marking is recessive to "fair", then a pair of "good" parents could NEVER produce a "fair" marker

With marking, as with other traits it is very likely that the mode of inheritance is NOT that simple. It could be multi-genetic or involve modifier genes. Just like we can get dysplastic hips from two "excellent" parents.

In both cases, our problem is that we can only go by "phenotype" in making our choices (not to mention the subjectivity & emotional that creeps into it). We are NOT able to see the "genotype" ... actual genetic makeup of the dog.

Obviously, we see some generational relationship between good markers and not-so-good. You are asking: "Why is that so?"


Eyesight in humans differs. Why not in dogs? Maybe marking has more to do with physical eyesight than we realize?

Maybe a smarter dog can adjust for what he lacks in eyesight? So, marking could be a combination of eyesight capability and intelligence level? However, if eyesight were so bad that the dog literally cannot see the bird at long distance, all the intelligence in the world will not be able change that.

Memory of some sort plays a role in long marks. When a dog runs through cover & change of terrain on its way to a mark, how does it remember where it's going? I could not do what some (a lot!) of these dogs do! They must have some kind of internal GPS to stay on line in such situations?

How much does "personality" influence the scenario? Some dogs (and humans) seem to be inherently more "intense" in everything they do.

Just food for thought ... as I've also wondered what magical combination of genes it takes to make some dogs so good at this; and others not very good at it.

 

[Dux-R-Us]

If "fair" marking were "dominant" over "good" marking, then it might be possible for two "fair" parents to produce a "good". Ff X Ff = 75% fair, 25% good. FF X Ff = 0% good.

.

sounds like you once took an introductory course in genentics. I was impressed you used the term phenotype.

likley all the traits that make up a good gun dog are not simply inherited (1 or two genes), but are quantitative (many many genes combined with environmental effects, gene interactions, ...). else it would be easy to breed dogs with desired characteristics. and if it were that easy you could produce a litter of puppies that were all alike. that never happens does it?

there is virtually nothing known about the inheritance of these traits in dogs.

 

[Gerry Clinchy]

Yes, Kevin, rudimentary pretty much describes my knowledge of genetics!

As a psych major in college, and fascinated by the "inheritance" aspect of human personality. To me it would seem that we inherit our neurological "wiring" much like we inherit the color of our eyes and hair. The neurologic "wiring" is likely part of our intelligence and our emotions that play a role in our "personality", plus many other factors that make up the overall personality, such as touch sensitivity, sound sensitivity, and then innumerable environmental influences which are processed through our neurological wiring. There would be infinite combinations as to how all these factors interact.

Even the closest linebreedings (inbreedings) will show some individual differences.