Today’s Classic Column - a classic, indeed.
“If ignorance were cornflakes, John, you’d be General Mills.”
Best Cecil Slam Ever. This line most assuredly deserves to be enshrined in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.
“Must helpless man, in ignorance sedate,
Roll darkling down the torrent of his fate?”
Oh yeah? Well, if moderators were relatives of mine named after alcoholic beverages, you’d be … wait a minute… Hey!
And if administrators were Swiss heroes…
I remember reading an article some number of years ago which stated that the mother retains the dna of her children after birth.
I have no cite and I googled it for it a while to no avail, but has anyone heard of that observation to which I’m referring?
Not to say that this would cause a pregnancy …
Why and how would the mother retain the DNA of her children?
I would, however, like further information on the original question. The source of the confusion (besides John S. being a dolt) is this sentence:
John has apparently taken this to mean that the female dog has been corrupted. What is the cause of the loss of pedigree? Is this really a rule?
My guess is that because she was a registered pedigree and gave birth to a litter of mutts after breeding with another registered pedigree, that calls into question her own status. That’s why the pedigree was violated, not because she retained some feature of the male dog. But is this only the rule because the father was also supposed to be pedigreed, or is there some more subtle AKC rule about breeding purebreds and if she ever has a non-purebred litter, she’s off the rolls? And what about the stud dog?