Okay, the question is odd. But Cecil just dismisses the example given that prompted the questioner to ask in the first case, i.e. the woman who contracted stud service for her pedigreed bitch and the dog delivered mongel puppies. She sued the male dog owner for ruining her ability to use the female dog for pedigree pups.
So why would that ruin her ability to use her dog for more pedigree puppies? IAN a dog breeder, but my impression is that because both dogs were supposed to be pedigreed, the delivery of mongrels calls both into question. In other words, if they can’t prove that non-pedigreed males were involved, then the female can’t be what is claimed.
Dog breeders are supposed to strictly control access specifically for this reason.
But Cecil just decides the woman is nutty rather than investigating. Sloppy work.
Frankly, that woman had her head up her own arse …
If she has the papers for her bitch, and the reputed stud is papered, I would be more inclined to believe the bitch got out and covered either at her home or the home of the stud. That is all.
Bitches and queens in heat are amazingly good at escaping … and just because the bitch had one batch of mongrels doesnt mean that they will always pop out as mongrels.
There was actually an old myth that the Aryan-supremicist types used to spread around in the rural South of the USA. It had to do with a woman who had a child with a dark-skinned man (don’t recall the exact ethnic background claimed for him), then married a caucasian man. She continued to have children who showed the dark-skinned traits after her marriage.
This was help up as proof that the woman retained some “taint” from the initial pregnancy. (As opposed to proof of the stupidity of her subsequent husband.)
Googling Aryan belief systems on my lunch hour is probably not the best idea, but I’ll try to enter a cite for this when I get home tonight.
I think this has more to do with the snobbery of the various Kennel Clubs.
A friend who was going to “get rich” breeding pure puppies found out something like this the hard way. If it’s not registered with national group A they won’t recognize the purebred - unless it can be certified by ome expensive examiner as having all the traits.
Register with national club A and club B won’t recognize your dog, and so on. You have to certify both parents, the breeeder has to be certified, etc. I assume all these certs cost serious bucks.
Meanwhile, IIRC, to get to the crux of the question - if the dog has litters that are not certified, then it cannot be used for certified breeding after that.
My guesses:
Probably, because they don’t want a breeder selling puppies that may be claimed to be the offspring of purebred but can’t be certified…
Maybe, the dog may not have the traits of a purebred if it can have pups that aren’t. After all, we’re assuming the mongrels are the fault of the wrong father. But it could be one or both parents are not purebred enough. The kennel club won’t allow the “wrong dad” assumption perhaps. When in doubt, refuse to certify.
Finally, if the dog could be “covered” by the wrong dog once, it could do so again. To avoid pedigree errors, anyone who shows they cannot control their dog properly will probably have that dog decertified for breeding.
Lastly, in a minor technicality Cecil is erroneous. There is now a paternity DNA test they do by extracting the fetal blood cells from a sample from the mother’s blood. (How? I don’t know!) So for a little while after birth, DNA from the father is still found in the mother’s blood stream. Of course, it has nothing to do with “ruining her” for the next guy.
Y’know, that reminds me I once heard that paternity tests are usually not done until a few months (six?) after birth because the child’s genetic profile is still in flux somehow. Don’t know if that’s true or not.
I would doubt it since paternity and genetic defects can be determined pre-partum via amnio and CVS, although since CVS takes placental cells, there is a chance for a mosaic result.
Although the original question was framed in a dog breeding scenario that was cornflakily dubious, the precise answer to the question, " Does a woman retain traces of her male partner after giving birth?" is actually yes. The underlying phenomena is referred to as “Microchimerism”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
This is well documented in the scientific literature. For example, the article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA. 2004 Mar 3;291(9):1127-31.)
The trace of the male partner is the genetic material contributed by the male to the fetus, as it is primarily fetal cells that are retained in the mother, even decades after pregnancy.
It’s not. Prenatal paternity testing can be done 13 weeks into the pregnancy, according to Wikipedia. You can take swaps for a paternity test the day the child is born.
Another way that the woman is changed forever is in case of Rh incompatibility. If the woman is Rh negative and the child Rh positive, the woman will develop antibodies against the Rh factor and retain them all her life. This can impinge on future pregnancies.
I have to say that Cecil blew the question off too readily. Surprising given the care he has devoted to dumber questions than that.
There’s [thread=508361]another thread[/thread] on this topic where I’ve already mentioned the Rhesus factor - doesn’t really matter because dmitri tupolev’s cite wins anyway.
I recall hearing the (discredited) theory of 'telegenics," but can find no online cite for it. Maybe I remember the name wrong? It’s pronounced with a hard G. Basically, any white woman who bears a black child will retain traces of its blackness and transmit them to any future children by a white man she may bear. It was mentioned on the local Pacifica radio affiliate, maybe ten years ago, on a phone-in show.
Not telegenics, but telegony. I first came across the term in a book by Bergen Evans (The Natural History of Nonsense, I think). Evans was one of Cecil’s college professors [cite] which is why I’m surprised Cecil didn’t use the term in his column.
It is not surprising that this sort of story would be common among animal breeders, inasmuch as organized animal breeding goes back to pre-civilized days, while scientific understanding of the process on any level is quite recent. (When spermatozoa and mammalian eggs were discovered with the microscope, there were wars for years between the “ovists” and “spermists” over which provided the genetic material and which was merely necessary for fertilization. Previously, of course, the theory was that the male provided everything and the female merely incubated.) So there were thousands of years for myths to arise.
Among humans, of course, the main drive was simply the desperate need of modern slave owners (and their descendants) to justify their barbarous behavior to the world and to themselves.
Replying to post from [thread=508361]other thread[/thread]
I thought the question was “Does a woman retain traces of her male partner after giving birth?”.
Are you suggesting that the baby (and thus its genetics) isn’t a direct consequence from a particular father, ahem, “leaving his trace”? Sure, luckily, the father’s residual immunochemistry won’t have any genetic effect on subsequent children. It “only” may cause the next baby to die. And since the entire baby comes from the woman herself, after all, this can’t possibly have anything to do with the first father, eh?
It’s not just a permanent effect left by pregnancy, it’s an immunisation against a specific type of antigens, depending from a particular father. Anyway, it’s likely that you’ll find fetal cell lines remaining in the mother. Half of their genetic information comes from the father. One father’s effects differ from another. You can tell one father apart from other men by identifying the changes they caused in the mother. I call this “retaining a trace”.
I am amused by the phrase, "If ignorance were cornflakes, John, you’d be General Mills. "
General Mills does not make cornflakes. They do have foods made from corn. Fiber One
is made from corn and wheat, Trix are made from corn but nothing of corn is made into
flakes.
