Is there a genetic difference between Cockers and Springers?

[rednblack]

(This is a question which arose from the first episode of BBC2's programme "The Wonder of Dogs", where the man with a cockerpoo was told that his dog was cross between a poodle and a Springer Spaniel.)
 
I was wondering, since it's only about 100 years since Cockers and Springers were declared and bred as separate breeds, does anyone know if it is possible to distinguish Cockers from Springers on the basis of their DNA?
 
FWIW, my feeling is that it's a bit soon, unless one looked for the range of colour/coat pattern DNA, since Cockers come in a wider range than Springers.  Even size is a bit questionable, I have a Cocker boy who's the same size as a (small) Springer bitch in our neighbourhood. 
 

[Helen]

Firstly I think most dna tests are currently rubbish and I thought that this was definitely the case in the BBC programme last night.  The utter tripe about the chest flash indicating a springer also got my back up.

Cockers and Springers were the same breed originally - the breed was first split by size - the larger dogs became known as springer spaniels, and the smaller ones were cockers.

In recent years there has been some breeding of springers into the working cocker lines so it never surprises me if workers turn out more 'springery'.  If you get a copy of Hedley Millingtons "the Cocker Man" he mentions it in there.  There is a very strong rumour over the last few years that a very well used Ft Ch sire who appears on a huge proportion of pedigrees is said to be a sprocker - it really wouldn't surprise me but of course it has never been proved either way    It's not uncommon.

[Jan D]

Why are dna tests rubbish in your opinion Helen?

[Jane S]

I don't think Helen meant all DNA tests are rubbish - she's talking about the specific tests which supposedly identify a dog's breed ancestry. I have seen no evidence that these tests are accurate & I was quite surprised that the TV program last night gave the impression you could say exactly what a mix breed's grandparent was from a simple swab test From what I've read, these tests identify what breeds "could" be in the mix rather than which breeds are definitely in the mix I don't think the science is advanced enough to do what was claimed last night but no doubt the company marketing the tests are onto quite a nice little earner (probably why one of the most popular tests is owned by Mars)

[elaine.e]

I've read of a few people who have had their dogs DNA tested out of curiosity (usually rescue dogs that are crossbreeds of some sort) and had some surprising results. One example was a large dog that looked very much like a GSD cross but the DNA results came out something like dachshund/terrier mix . So I don't think they're very accurate at the moment.

[Helen]

I don't think Helen meant all DNA tests are rubbish - she's talking about the specific tests which supposedly identify a dog's breed ancestry. I have seen no evidence that these tests are accurate & I was quite surprised that the TV program last night gave the impression you could say exactly what a mix breed's grandparent was from a simple swab test From what I've read, these tests identify what breeds "could" be in the mix rather than which breeds are definitely in the mix I don't think the science is advanced enough to do what was claimed last night but no doubt the company marketing the tests are onto quite a nice little earner (probably why one of the most popular tests is owned by Mars)

thanks Jane - that's exactly what I meant 

[rednblack]

Thanks, Helen, Jane and Elaine - I rather thought that DNA testing in dogs was not far enough advanced to be that specific, but I try to suspend my natural scepticism until I get proof.  (It sounds rather like those DNA tests they do on humans where everyone's results come back with a small percentage of Native American  .)
 

Cockers and Springers were the same breed originally - the breed was first split by size - the larger dogs became known as springer spaniels, and the smaller ones were cockers.

Yes, knowing this was why I was surprised at the assertion that after only just over 100 years the DNA would have diverged sufficiently to enable the two breeds to be distinguished so easily, but I'm not a zoologist or canine specialist, just an interested owner, so am always aware that there may be scientific advances in this fascinating field of which I'm unaware  . 

[Helen]

someone on another forum mentioned the Native American syndrome with dogs - most of the DNA tests come back with Australian Shepherd somewhere down the line.  Given they're not a very common breed in the UK they sure do get around 

[Mudmagnets]

Certainly now seems to me that the presenters and producers should have done a bit more research for this programme. On the face of it, the information given seemed reasonable - but having read this, it does make you wonder about the facts put forward.
 

Another thing is that people who don't have access to such a forum as ours, will probably (as I did, till I read this) believe what is being put forward, as expert knowledge. (I've never really studied breed ancestory, etc.)

 Much the same as with training (thinking of the rough ones) because it is on telly new  owners believe that this is the right way to go about things - luckily for Minstrel - I do know the difference here  )

 

[rednblack]

someone on another forum mentioned the Native American syndrome with dogs - most of the DNA tests come back with Australian Shepherd somewhere down the line.  Given they're not a very common breed in the UK they sure do get around  

They sure do, Helen - one of Kate Humble's mongrels was DNA'ed on the progamme and the man said it had some Australian Shepherd in it   !
 

Certainly now seems to me that the presenters and producers should have done a bit more research for this programme. On the face of it, the information given seemed reasonable - but having read this, it does make you wonder about the facts put forward.

It's so good to have a programme about dogs, just a shame to spoil it by shoddy research and a rather 'cute and fluffy' feel . 

[Nicola]

My friend won one of those DNA identification tests in a raffle last year and sent off a swab from her rescue girl. Inca looks like a long haired black GSD but possibly has a smidge of lurcher type in there. The test came back saying 60% GSD but the rest was a combination of Pharaoh Hound, Great Dane, Welsh Springer and Manchester Terrier... Quite a size difference apart from anything else and Incs was found straying in Dublin and taken from the pound by a rescue - I doubt if there are all that many Pharaoh Hounds or Manchester Terriers in Dublin let alone ones that are able/allowed to impregnate the local GSD population!

[JamiesGirl]

Firstly I think most dna tests are currently rubbish and I thought that this was definitely the case in the BBC programme last night.  The utter tripe about the chest flash indicating a springer also got my back up.

I did a double take and had to re-wind the programme when he said that! Jamie's got a white flash on his chest and he's as pure cocker as cockers come! It's such a silly thing to say - now all dog owners with a dog with a white flash will be thinking oh he/she's got a bit of springer in him! 

[piph]

I have to admit that I love the programme (but then I love all programmes about dogs - I'm easy to please  ), but always take that sort of 'research' with a pinch of salt.  I suppose that if they got too scientific or admitted that research isn't as far advanced as they would like the public to believe, then it negates that whole section of the programme - it is after all, 'entertainment'!  How many times have we watched something, fiction or non-fiction, set in a world we know (hospital and police progs particularly!) when something happens that we just know wouldn't happen in 'real life'?

[Helen]

The thing is the general public don't see it like that or take it as 'entertainment' or with a pinch of salt - most believe everything they see or read .... 

[rednblack]

I thought I'd enjoy watching the programmes, since there's so little about dogs on TV (and so much about gardens, food, and houses!) but it's a very lightweight thing, so disappointing.  And yet they've got contributions from some good people .... 
 
Surely an audience which can cope with programmes by Brian Cox, Jim Al-Khalili and Ian Stewart could cope with more robust fare?