The illustration above comes from Richard Lydekker’s The Royal Natural History, Volume 1 (1894). Lydekker describes the bulldog as follows:
This dog is distinguished by its hideous appearance, its ferocity, and its low degree of intelligence. Its head should be square in shape, and as wide as possible, while the skin on the forehead should be well wrinkled. The indentation between the eyes, technically known as the “stop,” should be of great depth and size; while the eyes should be dark, rather prominent, far apart, and set horizontally. The cars, which vary somewhat in shape, are required to be small, and placed high on the head, although not at its summit. Breeders also attach importance to the shortness of the upper as compared with the lower jaw, this being an essential feature when the dog has to seize large animals. Needless to say, the tusks should be large and powerful, and the incisor teeth ought to form a regular series. The shape of the body and limbs is admirably adapted for the attainment of the maximum strength and power. A male should not exceed 50 lbs. in weight, while the female should scale about 10 lbs. less. The coat should be close and fine, the favourite colours being either pure white, or white marked with brindle, fallow, or red; while uniformly coloured brindle, fallow, or red dogs come next in estimation. Entirely black or black-andwhite bull-dogs are less valued ( pg. 538-539).
This type of bulldog strongly resembled a Tasmanian devil, especially when the dog’s ears were cropped!
Not unlike our own dear staffordshire. With friends like the person who wrote its description this dog needs no enemies
Very similar to a Staffie.
It was commonly believed that bulldogs were least intelligent of all dogs because they had smaller brains in proportion to their body size.
Not wishing stray too far off topic, but we get large numbers of staffies on the chiltern ridgeway – and they are ALL on the strongest leads money can buy – they eat shih tzus for breakfast!
En su base o tronco de “Molosoide” está el perro “Alaunt”-> “Alano Español”-> “Buldog”, el perro de la ilustración está más próximo de “Alaunt” que de “Bulldog”.
Un saludo.
“Needless to say, the tusks should be large and powerful, and the incisor teeth ought to form a regular series.” Have you ever seen a bulldog with any kind of scissor bite? Its a wonder they can chew anything.
This is a show/pet type Bulldog derived from crosses with the Pug. This is no real Bulldog. In the last few centuries, such crosses with Pug and other Chinese crap has ruined our Mastiff breeds. These crosses also add to the stupity of these breeds. I’ve seen plenty of American Bulldogs that were as dumb as a bag of rocks. Real Bulldogs and Mastiffs are rarly found in the show/pet rings. As I have said many times, the ruinisation of Bull/Mastiff breeds came from crossbreeding – not inbreeding.
The pug may or may not be Chinese. Genetically, they are more closely related to terriers.
I don’t agree with you at all on this.
Inbreeding is a destructive force, a deluded destructive force.
There is no evidence at all that these mastiff type dogs were created from inbreeding. They were instead derived from large mountain dog types which evolved as a landrace to protect stock from wolves, hyenas, bears, and lions. This fits the Alaunt theory beautifully.
Read Mark Derr’s latest book on the subject How the Dog Became the Dog.
What you’re saying isn’t wrong– crossing with the pug did eff the bulldog up. But crossing them with terriers didn’t. Crossing English mastiffs with St. Bernards and bullmastiffs saved them from extinction.
Your most sustainable breeds are those that are derived from larger number of founders and have had very little inbreeding in them: border collies haven’t had much inbreeding until the rise of sheepdog trials. And they are by far the most successful working breed in the world today.