theoretical question;

what phenotype would the maximumally possible mongrelised dog assume;

speculate....

Floppy ears* of moderate length, moderate length snout? Probably small shepherd/lab looking, between 40-60 lbs. Probably black skin and black nose as I believe that red/blue/pink are all recessive. Mid-brown eyes. Mid-length guard coat with moderate undercoat. So anything that is a dominant gene is going to end up out there. Obviously something like rear dewclaws aren't going to be a predominant feature. Slight curl to tail but not overtly long tail.

*I read somewhere of a study of domesticated foxes that breeding for submissive/domesticated qualities resulted in a flop earred fox - it's plausible that it's so common because there is a similar link in dogs.
ETA: link of a picture that fits what I have in mind with a slightly longer coat. http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-381185/stock-photo-mongrel.html

Edited by Kristin Muntz (10/02/2014 03:45 PM)
Edit reason: image link added

I remember reading about the fox study.It was in Russia and they selected for friendliness to people. Along with the floppy ears, curled spitz-type tails showed up, as did merled coats. It took about 16 generations to go from totally wild animal to friendly and domesticated.

 Quote: Peter Cavallaro

theoretical question;

what phenotype would the maximumally possible mongrelised dog assume;

speculate....

The street dogs that I've encountered all over the world--China, India, North Africa, Caribbean--all have a certain "street dog" look. They are usually knee-high, 45 pounds, approximately as long as they are tall, mostly yellow-to-auburn coloring with white or black blazes, smooth double coat, prick ears, long tail without feathers, square snout of moderate length. They all are basically yellow lab x GSD, only smaller. That's what I imagine the world's "average" dog would look like.

sorta like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ca76rlhbgN0/UX2PYfoazTI/AAAAAAAATvI/U2vVWk948DQ/s1600/dog_2165.jpg

 Quote: Tracy Collins

 Quote: Peter Cavallaro

theoretical question;

what phenotype would the maximumally possible mongrelised dog assume;

speculate....

The street dogs that I've encountered all over the world--China, India, North Africa, Caribbean--all have a certain "street dog" look. They are usually knee-high, 45 pounds, approximately as long as they are tall, mostly yellow-to-auburn coloring with white or black blazes, smooth double coat, prick ears, long tail without feathers, square snout of moderate length. They all are basically yellow lab x GSD, only smaller. That's what I imagine the world's "average" dog would look like.

sorta like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ca76rlhbgN0/UX2PYfoazTI/AAAAAAAATvI/U2vVWk948DQ/s1600/dog_2165.jpg

AGREED -- Any population of "pariah/feral" dogs allowed to randomly mate indiscriminantly WITHOUT being Selectively Bred by HUMANS who purposely produce, establish & maximize Domesticated Mutations, will basically tend toward a homogeneous Dingo-Like phenotype, IMHO ... I expect the default Genetic Result would always revert to a "wild proto canid" appearance over successive generations BARRING any & all Human Manipulation of the gene pool.

so selective breeding is working against gravity/nature in a sense?

Of course selective breeding is working against nature. That's why it is called selective breeding. When humans select dogs (based on size, color, personality, hair coat, etc.) they are making a "selection" that nature would not. Nature makes selections only in ways that have to do with passing along genetics. An animal unable to survive long enough to reproduce doesn't get represented in the next generation.

There's no reason why nature would have dogs be as diverse as they are in size/color/type. Nature would also not have perpetuated dogs with intentional deformities--brachycephaly, achondroplasia, etc. Those were human selections because we thought they were cute.

Eta: "The Dog" as an animal was a co-creation between nature and humans. Nature created some wolves with a random mutation that gave them a short flight distance, enabling them to stick around and eat our garbage, which gave this sub-population of wolves an evolutionary advantage. But nature didn't care what those wolf-dogs looked like. The selective breeding happened when we started favoring the wolf-dogs that were the most tame, and later, selecting for physical characteristics that we thought were distinctive. (Every other caveman has a yellow dog, I'm going to pick this unusual white pup--or this spotted one, or this tiny one, or massive one, etc.)

 Quote: Peter Cavallaro

so selective breeding is working against gravity/nature in a sense?

Well, let's just put it this way, Peter:

NATURAL selection is what takes place in breeding populations where NATURE operates Apart From intentionally overt HUMAN manipulation of which Parents produce Progeny -- This results in most Timber Wolves (or whatever wild animal) looking incredibly SIMILAR to all other Timber Wolves ... But on the other hand, HUMAN "selective breeding" is the reason why a smooth-coated Chihuahua looks almost Nothing Like a rough-coated SAINT BERNARD, despite being the Same Species that will produce viable offspring when mated with one another (!) That's due to the fact of such extreme variations being caused by the PREMEDITATED establishment & maximization of Domesticated Mutations within a gene pool.

In other words, when people Overcame Gravity and took to the air, then to manned space flight, it did NOT happen by Natural Selection, nor would it EVER

 Quote: Tracy Collins

Of course selective breeding is working against nature. That's why it is called selective breeding. When humans select dogs (based on size, color, personality, hair coat, etc.) they are making a "selection" that nature would not. Nature makes selections only in ways that have to do with passing along genetics. An animal unable to survive long enough to reproduce doesn't get represented in the next generation.

There's no reason why nature would have dogs be as diverse as they are in size/color/type. Nature would also not have perpetuated dogs with intentional deformities--brachycephaly, achondroplasia, etc. Those were human selections because we thought they were cute.

Eta: "The Dog" as an animal was a co-creation between nature and humans. Nature created some wolves with a random mutation that gave them a short flight distance, enabling them to stick around and eat our garbage, which gave this sub-population of wolves an evolutionary advantage. But nature didn't care what those wolf-dogs looked like. The selective breeding happened when we started favoring the wolf-dogs that were the most tame, and later, selecting for physical characteristics that we thought were distinctive. (Every other caveman has a yellow dog, I'm going to pick this unusual white pup--or this spotted one, or this tiny one, or massive one, etc.)

YEPPERS, I didn't start writing before your posted, Tracy (LOL).

 Quote: Tracy Collins

sorta like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ca76rlhbgN0/UX2PYfoazTI/AAAAAAAATvI/U2vVWk948DQ/s1600/dog_2165.jpg

That is a cracking little dog!