|
What's in a name - the great BB debate. I'm not a
geneticists and only recently became a Shepard of BB sheep, but I could not
resist throwing in my 2 cents worth. It would appear, since there were only a
very limited number of original specimens imported into the US from
Barbados (and I would doubt that few if anyone could produce a legitimate paper
trail back to that flock), we all probably have some degree
of cross-breeding (either dominant or recessive) in our stock. 100 years
and roughly 200 "generations" is a long time to go without interbreeding
(intentional or not)Granted some of our animals appear more "pure" (or more
correctly - less influenced by earlier crosses) than others.
So, are the only true BB still in Barbados and do
some of those show signs of early crosses with St. Croix, etc.? Better yet,
let's follow the line back to the first boat load from Africa.
I would submit that the presence/absence of horns on BB
rams is no more/less indicative of another breed's influence on BBs than is a
white tip tail, or the presence of any wool, or smaller ears vs. larger ears;
none of which warrant a breed distinction. When polled Hereford cattle
were "invented" they did not create a new breed to distinguish between
horned and polled, they simply call them Herefords and Polled Herefords.
Sue remarked that there are other sheep breeds that have both polled and horned
stock, so why not BB. Labrador Retriever dogs come in short or tall, black,
yellow or chocolate models - but they are the same breed. Are men with
male-pattern baldness a different breed from those with an abundance of hair
(okay, maybe we are, but you get the point). The ram I have looks nothing
like the pictures of Barbado rams on the okstate website but are almost
identical to the BB pics I find, excepting the presence of horns. I acknowledge
that they show some influence from earlier crosses, but absent DNA testing
(against a valid referee specimen) I could not guess a percentage or fractional
value. At what point do you say: this animal is a BB and this animal is
obviously a BB cross -not eligible to be registered? This is not a unique
question for BBs. Other registries debate the issue all the time, usually
settling on some fractional indication of "other" (1/32, 1/16, etc.) in the
animal's background. Heck, even the Department of Interior had to decide how
much native American influence a person has to have to qualify as a native
American!
By the way, who the heck was the first person or
organization to call the BB crosses a separate and distinct breed, and under
what authority? It seems that the okstate website needs to be corrected (call
those funky colored horned hair sheep moufadoes or something); folks with polled
stock need to get over the fact that there are horned animals that probably are
just as true to type; both BB registries settle on the fractional
indication of "other influence" and other reasonable criteria for registration;
and let's get on with promoting the breed. If you want everyone of the
animals to be identical, we can call them Dolly.
John
|
