Occasionally (and almost always when we don’t have a definitive answer for a question), we’ll write something that amounts to a “stream of consciousness” post. In this case, the topic has to do with language we’ve noticed in several AKC breed standards that indicate (either specifically or tacitly) that females can or may be slightly longer than their male counterparts in their breed.

First, the “who:”

In the AKC breed standards of the Azawakh, Beauceron, Min Pin, Affenpinscher, Samoyed, Black Russian Terrier, Great Dane, Belgian Sheepdog,Berger Picard,Briard, Belgian Laekenois, Chihuahua, Chinese Shar-Pei, and Flat-Coated Retriever is language indicating that a bitch may be longer or slightly longer than their male counterpart.

Examples:

From the Beauceron standard: “Bitches can be slightly longer than dogs.”

From the Samoyed standard: “Bitches may be slightly longer in back than males.”

From the Chinese Shar-Pei standard: “The dog is usually larger and more square bodied than the bitch” (which we take to mean that a bitch is less square than the male);

From the Berger Picard standard: “Bitches may be slightly longer than dogs.”

The Affenpinscher’s standard reads: “The female may be slightly longer.” 

From the Black Russian Terrier standard: “Females may be slightly longer than males.”

The “why” is where things become a little murkier, at least to us.  We have assumed for many years (and we are not alone in this thinking) that in some breeds, females are given more “leeway” in their body length to carry puppies. Is that why the language is there?  One AKC breed standard sheds light on this. The Flat-Coated Retriever’s standard (under proportions) reads, “The female may be slightly longer to better accommodate the carrying of puppies.”

“Gail,” a friend of National Purebred Dog Day, pointed out that the FCI Standard for the Chihuahua also gives a reason: “Important proportions: Length of body slightly greater than height at withers. Desired, however, is an almost square body, especially in males. In bitches, because of the function of reproduction, a slightly longer body is permitted.”

Is it really true that a longer body is beneficial to pregnancy and whelping in the breeds that mention it in their standards? We’re told that there are breeders in the horse world who feel this is true.

And here is where the whole “stream of consciousness” thing enters the conversation. We posed the question to a few dog breeders and fanciers we know, and their comments ranged from the whole idea being an Old Wives Tale, to the viewpoint of “Chris” who asked rhetorically (and we paraphrase): Let’s say we have two bitches: One is square, and one is longer (but not longer than is allowed by the standard, so both are “acceptable” according to their breed standard). Are their uterui (uteruses) the same length? Let’s just assume they’re not, and let’s assume that the longer bitch has a longer uterus, and has more room *in the uterus* for puppies/placental attachments. Could that mean that whether she carries high in her rib cage or low in her abdomen,  there is better spacing for pups, and perhaps better nutrition? Does this mean room for more pups/placentas so that some don’t fail and get resorbed? 

We don’t know.

We add the comments of two AKC judges. “Nancy” wrote,  “I never bought into it and it has always bugged me that in square breeds suddenly they all don’t have to be square,” while Sherry’s comment is a good place to conclude. She wrote, “I noticed this when I became a judge and started studying other standards. A lot of them do make a similar statement. As a judge, I do try to keep it in mind but I also question the origin of this allowance. I also keep in mind just how the bitch is longer, i,e,, in the loin or in the rib cage, and try to reconcile that info with the rest of the standard. I think each bit of a standard must be taken in context of the total dog.”

The topic is open for discussion! If you’re a breeder, particularly of any of the aforementioned breeds, we welcome your views on the subject.

Image note: We didn’t suddenly become “fur parents” who marry their dogs to each other, but use the photo because it makes a visual, if not metaphorical point. Besides, yesterday was National Dress Up Your Pet Day…