In a message dated 10/12/00 5:47:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pyrsrgr8@yahoo.com writes:
<< we throw about medical terms that most people
are not familiar with. >>
Throwing around, as you term it, is simply quoting the scientists. Better
the words of experts as opposed to our interpretation of them such as:
<<The growth plates in the long bones don't like they should in the
xray. >>
When one reads the article you see that is far from exactly what they say.
When Padgett classifies the condition as: "disfigure, maim or otherwise
render an animal nonfunctional", you imply that he was incorrect in a
classification that would Maim or disfigure or leave nonfunctional. From our
anecdotal accounts, what would you say about the animals that are maimed,
disfigured to a degree that they are culled? We had one report on this list
already. There are many other reports. Would you be saying << the condition
no longer sounds very ominous.>>.
As far as the vertebrae are concerned, here is Bingel, et's all description
of the radiographs.
"vertebral bodies appeared poorly ossified, and cervical vertebrae had an
extension of the bone from the caudoventral aspect of the vertebral bodies.
All vertebral end-plates were thin, irregular, and incompletely ossified:
Vertebral physes were ragged and indistinct."
The article gives a picture of the radiograph with the following description:
"Lateral radiographic view of the cervical spine of an 8 week old
chondrodyplastic Great Pyrenees pup. Vertebral bodies were poorly developed
and ossification was delayed, compared with normal. The ventral border of
vertebral bodies was plicated, and there were bony projections at the
caudoventral aspect of the vertebral bodies. Ossification center of the
vertebral endplates were narrow."
Here is what I see in the words above. Poorly developed bony formation of
the vertebrae with abnormal bony projections in the cervical region (the
neck). The ossification of the bone is poor and abnormal (soft abnormal bone
development). That's also what is shown in the picture of the X-ray. Some
might also say soft bones with folded (plicated) irregular aspects of the
vertebrae that contains abnormal growth of bone not seen in normal vertebrae.
<<Before I go into any details, I just wanted to point out that this is a
logical necessity to create a smaller animal... >>
You believe the abnormalities in the vertebrae described by researchers are a
logical necessity of a smaller animal? Do we see these in the Corgi,
Bassetts, and other short legged animals?
One other finding in the Bingel, et all article relating to Pyrs was:
"Angular deformities were not evident on radiographs obtained when pups were
8 weeks old, but were seen on radiographs obtained when pups were 12 weeks
old."
I think this a fair discussion and people can choose to go with
interpretations and to second guess what people like Dr. Padgett really meant
to classify if they wish. But lets be clear and place the literature in
plain view and you (the reader) be the judge.
To me this is just not some harmless little deviation in the growth of the
long bones. There is a lot more going on here as we might suspect with the
hearing problems and the dramatic difficulty to reproduce.
Sorry for throwing around the words used by science, but better accuracy in
the words than some possible misinterpretation offered via lack of
understanding of the language. I think we can all understand the "poorly
developed and ossification was delayed, compared to normal" part.
<<In fact, the survey probably was not designed to
be of any scientific use, but rather a recruitment tool (for if it was
meant to be a scientific survey, it was sloppy at best).>>
I think it was interesting, but because it was done anecdotally it has no
pure objective value as any reference related to incidence, etc. No
criticism intended at all.
<<'deformity,' I think the
objections again related to how strong is that word.>>
I was not referring to the simple shortness of the limbs, but to those Pyrs
that have significant disfiguring deformities that apparently are not seen
except by the scientists and a few souls who either know about them or are
brave enough to verify their actual existence. I have to infer that DR
Padgett and other researchers recognize them as such because of his
classification of them as he does.
For now I must go with the best resource and information and I have to fall
in the camp of Dr. Padgett.
Any description that describes these short legged dogs as simply some non
serious aberration is not consistent with what I read and see in the
literature that is scientific based.
Joe