Mutts no longer
JC
Ok. If Carmen gets to post side-by-side pictures of Mariah and the cowardly lion (lol), I get to post about mutts. Our animal counterparts. 
This article in the Fort Wayne News Sentinal talks about a new “breed” of dogs. I don’t know much about animals, so perhaps this isn’t really ground-breaking, but dogs and cats can be pregnant by more than one male at the same time. So…within the same litter, you may have very different looking dogs/cats since each will be a mix of its mother and [different] father. Now here’s the part that got my attention:
Even the name we call dogs of mixed heritage has changed. When I was a young boy on the farm in southern Idaho, or first started practicing as a veterinarian, we called them Heinz 57s or mutts. Now we refer to them as canine-cocktails or party-pups.
I guess there *are* some parallels that cross over between our human world and the animal world. These mixed dogs are all good times and fun (canine-cocktails?!? party-pups?!?)! Quite similar to our exoticness and “best of both worlds!” 
yikes. haha.
Note to self: when a story doesn’t fit into any of our MMW categories, that means it’s not MMW-NEWSworthy. 
I was looking for the “mixed animal identity” box, but I think we have neglected to add that [sound the corny sound effects here].
Danni wrote:
So, a few weeks ago I heard a story about a woman who was pregnant with twins from two different men. This was not a case of invitro. This was a woman who’d had sex with a white man, and then proceeded (within a short time period) to have sex with a black man, and concieved a child from each man that she was carrying at the same time….
I’m just sayin’…. (not really sure why…)
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 1:31 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Well, that can happen. *puts on bio hat*
Having 2 ovaries ovulate at the same time (instead of taking turns) happens more than people think, and a women generally won’t know or notice (until something relatively obvious like the above happens). Heck, women can even have ovaries that are really out of sync and ovulate 1-2 weeks apart (although I believe if a pregnancy has started, the second egg may not implant). That is actually the reason why the “Rythym Method” as a form of birth control is bogus and “fails” regularly. You think it’s one week and then OOPS it’s the week before. Thank God a few brave nuns taught us the real story in HS.
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 9:44 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
OK, that said I actually have something about the article. It’s funny that mutts aren’t looked down on in some circles (although I’ve met a few reallife die-hard breeders and fanciers that scared me - ever see Best In Show?)
But in this case, ‘hybrid vigor” may actually apply to dogs, since so many purebred breeds have inherited problems (due to the controlled genetics), like hip displacement, jaw. teeth, and breathing issues, organ trouble, tail too heavy for the critter that requires lopping off (UGH), etc.
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 9:47 am ¶
K9 wrote:
Well, “hybrid” is a misnomer because they were never separate breeds to begin with. All modern dog breeds are the result of humans’ selective inbreeding - from the same ancestral wolf-like stock. Such drastic inbreeding can cause some problems - but only because their gene pools have become so intentionally reduced to tiny puddles by their human breeders.
Posted 08 Dec 2005 at 12:36 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
K: You are right - hybrid usually refers to the offpsring of two species (or maybe subspecies as well). Since dog “breeds” can interbreed at random, the breeds really are not subspecies either. Maybe just genetic strains?
Of course, human physical traits are on a spectum too, and we artificially subdivide them into “races.”
But the general idea, I think, applies.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 1:59 pm ¶
K9 wrote:
Well, generally speaking, species can’t breed fertile young - hence they’re defined as different species (although it does still occasionally happen).
When organisms genetically diverge enough to where they can’t breed fertile young anymore, that is one leading indicator that they have formed a new species.
So, a dog “breed” would best be defined as just a “subspecies,” since all dogs can still interbreed fertile young.
My point is simply that the “hybrid vigor” in this case is actually more “original whole ancestral” vigor - recreating the dog’s original naturally-evolved state with more genetic diversity before human breeders intentionally bred it out in each breed.
Posted 09 Dec 2005 at 4:56 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
You’re not wrong, and your post absolutely defines why “hybrid vigor” for humans, esp. as used towards mixed folk, is hysterical, self-serving, and ridiculous….
Posted 10 Dec 2005 at 10:28 pm ¶