Old Kingdom Egypt was also governed successively by four different dynasties, if we take the traditional view of the Old Kingdom lasting some 500 years.Stretch that to a 1000 years and we’re talking 9-11 dynasties ( there were roughly 30 over the span of Egypt’s Pharaonic period, excluding the Ptolemies/Lagids ). So we shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming that Egypt represented 3000 years of unbroken rule by a single incestuous family :).
Certainly not. But it is not optimal.
On the other hand Nichol_Storm, as you noted some pretty violent action was undertaken by early, non-inbred Ptolemies/Lagids like Ptolemy Ceraunos ( who never sat on the throne of Egypt by the way, as he was disinherited and was instead involved with other factions of the diadochi, briefly gaining ther throne of Macedon before ultimately getting his head spitted on a Celtic spear ) and Ptolemy II Philadelphos. Whereas the last Lagid monarch, the inbred Cleopatra VII, is widely regarded as among the cleverest and most capable of her dynasty. So it is not necessarily a simple equation :).
Perhaps with housepets at least we could clarify the difference between inbreeding and overbreeding?
I am not a veternarian, but I understand that “production” breeding of favored (currently fashionable) breeds of Dogs leads to certian genetically based diseases which are undesirable. Today’s Shar-Peis are said to originate from just a few brought over from Hong Kong in the 50’s or 60’s. Shar-pei owners will tell you about the various health problems inherent in the breed.
Other breeds have genetic related problems that seems to be showing up more often these days. Maybe the key is “seem”, but someone with more knowledge can verify for us all here. I am thinking particularly of “Springer Rage”, which I hear of these days, but which was unknown when I had one back in the 70’s.
So perhaps the reason we have problems with some Dog breeds and not with thoroughbred horses is that the breeding of horses is done more carefully and with less emphasis on volume?
Anyway, I have to agree with Tarpal and Stockton and condemn the brother-in-law guy described in the OP. Let Ptolemey VIII Euergetes II Psycho I show him the error of his ways.
BTW, if you’re ever in need of a cat and in Southern DE, stop in Milton. It’s swarming with very nice cats in need of good homes. I got my boy (named Milton, of course) there.
Exactly right. I would argue that the reason that genetically linked health and psychological problems seem more prevalent with common breeds of purebred dogs than with thoroughbred horses is mainly due to the fact that thoroughbred horses are bred for performance rather than appearance. They have to serve a function and thus must be physically sound. Dogs that are bred for show just need to present the proper physical appearance and do not always need to prove their physical soundness. This is especially evident when you look at breeds of dogs such as greyhounds which are far, far more commonly used for racing than for pets or show dogs. People that produce racing greyhounds cull hard and only allow dogs that are physically sound and capable to reach adulthood and reproduce. Also, look at the golden retriever. On one hand, you have field strains which are used nearly exclusively for hunting. They are very high energy, slender, much thinner coat, and have far fewer health problems than the bench strains, which are drasically taller, heavier, much thicker coat, much mellower and tend to get fat very easily.
“Rare” breeds of dogs suffer from the fact that they have a smaller gene pool available, but they tend to stay in the hands of knowledgable breeders who care where their dogs end up–and not puppy mills or backyard breeders. You were right when you mentioned “production” breeding, genetic problems get way out of hand when breeds of dogs become the latest fad and everyone has to own one of those dogs from the latest Disney movie.
Incidentally, rage syndrome is evident in a couple of other breeds, but is most commonly seen in English Springer Spaniels and Bull Terriers. It seems to be a neurological problem closely related to epilepsy.
I would argue that the reason that genetically linked health and psychological problems seem more prevalent with common breeds of purebred dogs than with thoroughbred horses is mainly due to the fact that thoroughbred horses are bred for performance rather than appearance. They have to serve a function and thus must be physically sound. Dogs that are bred for show just need to present the proper physical appearance and do not always need to prove their physical soundness. This is especially evident when you look at breeds of dogs such as greyhounds which are far, far more commonly used for racing than for pets or show dogs. People that produce racing greyhounds cull hard and only allow dogs that are physically sound and capable to reach adulthood and reproduce. Also, look at the golden retriever. On one hand, you have field strains which are used nearly exclusively for hunting. They are very high energy, slender, much thinner coat, and have far fewer health problems than the bench strains, which are drasically taller, heavier, much thicker coat, much mellower and tend to get fat very easily.
“Rare” breeds of dogs suffer from the fact that they have a smaller gene pool available, but they tend to stay in the hands of knowledgable breeders who care where their dogs end up–and not puppy mills or backyard breeders. You were right when you mentioned “production” breeding, genetic problems get way out of hand when breeds of dogs become the latest fad and everyone has to own one of those dogs from the latest Disney movie.
Incidentally, rage syndrome is evident in a couple of other breeds, but is most commonly seen in English Springer Spaniels and Bull Terriers. It seems to be a neurological problem closely related to epilepsy.
Cleopatra VII was certainly exceptional, being both intelligent and determined. However, she certainly was involved in the execution of her sister, Arsinoe, and was possibly involved in the deaths of her two brothers/husbands, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV. Also, despite, all her attempts, the Ptolemies lost Egypt, which did not become a monarchy again for 19 centuries. A pretty dismal record for any dynasty!
The early Ptolemies weren’t spectacularily inbred, as you point out. Arsinoe I and Ptolemy Keraunos were the first sibling couple, and they produced no issue. But, as time went on and the marriages became ever more consanguinous, the decline of the dynasty becomes obvious. Ptolemy X Alexander I and Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysius were useless, and Ptolemy XI Alexander II was torn to bits by an Alexandrian mob! Cleopatra VII and, to a lesser extent, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Tryphon (who had a Syrian, not a Ptolemic, mother) were exceptions, but exceptions aren’t enough to keep a dynasty going.
And I still want to know what was the cause of Carlos II Habsburg’s problems, if inbreeding was not to blame. The poor man was in truly pitiful condition!