WHAT IS A BREED? 



Definition of Word Varies with Each Kind of Livestock, and is Based Almost 

 Wholly on Arbitrary Decision of Breeders — Some Strange Contra- 

 dictions — The Meaning of "Pure-Bred"^ 



Orren Lloyd-Jones 

 Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa 



IT IS the custom in legal documents 

 to achieve unmistakable clearness 

 of meaning by multiple repetition 

 of words, and synonymous words 

 and phrases. This method of securing 

 clearness is distasteful to the scientific 

 writer, and discussions and dissertations 

 aiming to define the scope and set the 

 limits of scientific words are numerous 

 and lengthy. Some classic biological 

 examples of terms of this sort are the 

 words: species, hybrid, race, variety, 

 etc. A kindred term which has served 

 its purpose long and well is the word 

 breed, and it may be worth while to give 

 this word further attention. 



The term "breed" is in such common 

 use that most persons, on invitation, 

 would be quick to explain its meaning 

 and even ready to offer an exact defini- 

 tion of the word. For those who take 

 pleasure in formulating terse, concise 

 definitions of common terms the above 

 word presents an interesting problem. 

 If the person is a scientist, he must 

 especially be on his guard, for it must 

 be remembered that this is a term which 

 arose among breeders of livestock, 

 created, one might say, for their own 

 use, and no one is warranted in as- 

 signing to this word a scientific defini- 

 tion and in calling the breeders wrong 

 when they deviate from the formulated 

 definition. It is their word and the 

 breeders' common usage is what we 

 must accept as the correct definition. 



This sounds simple enough, but 

 when we begin a search to discover 

 what the "common usage" is we are 

 dismayed at the varied and loose 

 meanings which the breeders have 

 given to this word. 



We find that a great divergence of 

 opinion, as to what a breed may include 

 before it must be subdivided, exists 

 between the breeders of different classes 

 of livestock. For instance. Shorthorn 

 cattle can be any of four colors, and 

 Percheron horses have a choice of half 

 a dozen, but each breed remains a 

 homogeneous unit without subdivisions 

 on the basis of color. With smaller 

 animals the lines are more finely drawn. 

 In case of poultry, for example, the colors 

 are kept separate, as distinguishing 

 features of a strain, under the name of 

 varieties, but several of these varieties 

 are grouped together as a breed. We 

 have white, barred, buff, or partridge 

 varieties of the Plymouth Rock breed, 

 and of Wyandottes I believe there are 

 about a dozen varieties differing from 

 each other in color, pattern, feathering, 

 or comb shape. 



Thus in poultry the breeds are com- 

 posite, made up of several subdivisions, 

 although the range of variation may be 

 no greater, or even far less, than that 

 found within a single breed of the large 

 mammals. Breeders of "pet stock" 

 rabbits, guinea-pigs, and especially of 

 dogs, use the word "breed" in a very 

 reckless fashion, and an attempt to 

 divine their exact understanding of the 

 term would be in many cases well nigh 

 hopeless. 



But to add to the confusion, breeders 

 of the same class of Hvestock in different 

 parts of the world do not always adhere 

 to the same usage. The case of the 

 Leicester sheep serves as a good illus- 

 tration of this point. 



In England there are two sorts of 

 sheep which are connected by a certain 



1 Presented to the Agricultural Club of Iowa State College in February, 1915. 



531 



