AKC Breed Standard

General Appearance

Should be small, active and alert. The outline should give a well balanced appearance, slightly longer in body than the height at withers. Fault Coarseness of type.

Size, Proportion, Substance

Size Height about 10 inches. Body slightly longer from the point of shoulder to root of tail than the height at withers. Weight 9-15 pounds being ideal. Faults – – Long bodied or low to ground; leggy or square.

Head

Small in proportion to body and proudly carried, giving an impression of quality. Masculine in dogs but free from coarseness.

Eyes dark brown in color, oval in shape, bright and expressive, of medium size set fairly well apart but forward looking, giving an apelike expression. Eye rims black. Faults–Large full eyes; light eyes; mean expression,blue eyes, or eyes with blue marks.

Ears medium size, pendant, well feathered in the adult and set fairly high. They may have a slight lift from the skull, but should not fly. Large, heavy, low set ears are not typical.

Skull slightly domed, moderate width and length. Faults–Very domed or flat wide skull. Stop moderately defined.

Medium length of muzzle, blunt with cushioning, free from wrinkle. The chin should show some depth and width. Faults–Accentuated stop; long, plain down face, without stop; broad flat muzzle; pointed, weak or wrinkled muzzle. Black nose preferred. Faults Liver or putty-colored pigmentation.

Mouth ideally slightly undershot, the upper incisors fitting neatly inside and touching the lower incisors.

Teeth should be evenly placed and the lower jaw wide between the canine tusks. A level mouth is permissible, providing there is sufficient width and depth of chin to preserve the blunt appearance of the muzzle. Teethshould not show when mouth is closed. Faults–Overshot mouth; protruding tongue. Abite that is so severely undershot, that the lower teeth are exposed.

Neck, Topline, Body

Neck moderately short, strong and well set on.

Level back. Well ribbed with good depth.

Tail set high, richly plumed and carried in a gay curl over the back when moving. Should not be penalized for dropping tail when standing.

Forequarters

Shoulders well placed and firm. When viewed from the front, the bones of the forearms are slightly bowed to allow the front feet to fall beneath the shoulders. Moderate bone. Faults-Extremely bowed or straight forearms, as viewed from front. Dewclaws may be removed.

Feet – Small, hare foot. Fault–Cat feet.

Hindquarters

Well made and strong. Stifle well developed, showing moderate angulation. Hocks well let down and straight when viewed from behind. Faults–Straight stifle; cow hocks. Dewclaws may be removed. Feet as in front.

Coat

Double coat, silky in texture, smooth on face and front of legs, of moderate length on body, but lying rather flat. Ears and back of forelegs nicely feathered, tail and buttocks well furnished with longer hair. Neck covered with a mane or “shawl” of longer hair which is more pronounced in dogs than bitches. Feathering on toes, often extending beyond the feet. Should not be over-coated and bitches tend to carry less coat and mane than dogs. Presentation–In the show ring it is essential the Tibetan Spaniel be presented in an unaltered condition with the coat lying naturally with no teasing, parting or stylizing of the hair. Specimens where the coat has been altered by trimming, clipping, or by artificial means shall be so severely penalized as to be effectively eliminated from competition. Dogs with such a long coat that there is no rectangle of daylight showing beneath, or so profuse that it obstructs the natural outline, are to be severely penalized. Whiskers are not to be removed. Hair growing between the pads on the underside of the feet may be trimmed for safety and cleanliness. Feathering on toes must not be trimmed.

Color

All colors, and mixtures of colors allowed.

Gait

Quick moving, straight, free, positive.

Temperament

Gay and assertive, highly intelligent, aloof with strangers. Fault–Nervousness.

Approved May 11, 2010
Effective July 28, 2010

by Jean Carroll Wright © 2010

Introduction

America welcomed the Tibetan Spaniel to USA shores in 1968 and in 1984 The American Kennel Club (AKC) accepted the breed into full AKC recognition. With only a few additions, the Standard accepted for that recognition was a recreation of the 1975 British Standard. In the mid-90s the AKC asked the Tibetan Spaniel Club to reformat the Tibbie Standard to match other standards recognized by AKC and The Tibetan Spaniel Club of America (TSCA) Director’s Board was asked if changes would be made. The Club declined any wording changes but did reorganize the wording flow to match other AKC accepted breeds. The British Standard underwent revision in 1985 and most international standards are built upon that revision. For these reasons alone the Tibetan Spaniel in America must meet a different measurement Standard in the show ring than in any other country. Most judges, (both within and outside the USA) are confused because nearly the same language is used in all the Standards internationally. Yet, there are subtle differences in the USA version because the AKC standard is not derived from the British Standard of 1985. The message of this writing is relevant to both measurement standards because it explains their actual points of reference without prejudice. It is hoped this will allow the reader to understand both points of view and decide which method they wish to support.

Understanding the Measurement Terminology

Acceptable size and bite has always been paramount in Tibetan Spaniel assessment. The present AKC Standard retains the original measurement process and the tight bite requirements of the original 1959 & 1975 United Kingdom (UK) Standards. Thus the United States Standard predates all present English, European, Australian and other international Standards by some ten years. Rather than blindly following the revisions made to the English Standard in 1985, American fanciers decided to retain original wording and adhere to the original Standard as described by Phyllis Mayhew in her 1971 book on the breed. Unlike the United Kingdom and all International standards derived from it after 1985, only the American Tibetan Spaniel Standard retains original requirements for both bite and measurement process as derived from the 1959 English Standard and its’ 1975 revision. The development of which was actually participated in by Phyllis Mayhew. For this reason, the AKC Standard has become the last bastion of original post WW II Tibetan Spaniel type requirements worldwide. The most widely controversial aspect of both the UK & AKC measuring process is the use of the term “root of tail.” and it starts with the actual location of that term. The English Standard uses the term also, but as the present UK Standard uses the term, it is used in an entirely different context than the USA usage. Today’s UK and international standards use it with a topline location and not a side-view application. This was not originally intended by the original 1959 British Standard and certainly not described by the most careful work on the breed ever published (Mayhew’s 1971 edition explanation of the English Standard). Root-of-Tail terminology originated as a docking term for Boxers and like breeds in Germany. The “root” is the common name for the underside of the tail located at the first Caudal vertebra or for the circumference of the tail base from coup to butt. The root is the place from which one measures to determine the length of the tail dock. Thus, the “root” is the beginning of the tail at the anus, and the dock is the place where the tail is cut. In his 1982, Canine Terminology, Harold Spira clearly recognizes the term “root” in conjunction with the tail, but when he refers to “from butt to coup” as a location for tailset he seems to also refers to a circumference rather than a valid single point of measure for determination of length of body as both Mayhew or the 1985 UK revision describe it. Of the seven works studied for this writing only Spira mentions a root-of-tail. All efforts to tack down an exact location for root of tail as described by Mayhew point to the first caudal vertebra location as it lies superior to the anus on the side-view of the dog, or to a circumference of the base of the tail with no single point location. Not one reference locates it solely on the topline. Thus, for purpose of this discussion, root shall be considered to be located on the side view above the anus. The “TAIL-HEAD” is the most common term for the junction of the croup with the visible tail on the topline. In actuality, this location is the place on the topline where approximately the 4th to 6th Caudal vertebrae extend beyond the pelvis to become independent of the body torso and viewed as a tail. Thus, the term Tail-head is appropriate to apply. The present English Tibbie Standard also calls this location the “root of tail” . However to use this term for two separate locations is confusing for both author and reader, so from this point what other standards call the Root, will be referred to by the terms: Tail-Head, croup or topline-root while the term used by the AKC Standard will be called the perianal or side-view root.

Interpreting the present AKC Standard of Measurement

The present American Standard requires the Tibbie to be evaluated in a whole body measure of height to overall length from point of shoulder (articulation of the shoulder blade with the humerus on the side-view) to the side-view root-of-tail (occurring at the anus or butt). This measure is brought forth in the General Appearance & Size sections, and worded as follows:

• General Appearance: Small, active & alert. The outline giving a well-balanced appearance, slightly longer than the height at the withers.
• Size, Proportion & Substance: Height about 10 inches. Body slightly longer from the point of shoulder to the root of tail than the height at the withers.

In addition the Tibbie is expected to be conformed to perform gaiting requirements as follows:

• Gait: Quick moving, straight, free, positive.

and, display the body elongating features listed below as follows:

• Neck, topline & Body: Neck moderately short, strong and well set on. Tail set high, plumed and carried in a gay curl over the back in motion, ….

All present Standards list length longer that height as a general appearance feature. This aspect is well suited to the Tibetan Spaniel since it requires that any length of body measurement be visible at a distance. Thus it that distance cannot be so minute that it is only perceived on close table examination. This is a significant problem with altering the whole body measure to a topline only measurement. When a Tibbie is so long in topline that it is visibly so at a distance there is significant danger that he/she is also far too long overall. Therefore, Judges making assessments must be very visually astute and intensely familiar with the breed before they can make accurate decisions on length of back. Proponents of making a change in the USA Standard site that historically quality dogs range an average of 20% longer than high when measured. They feel a measure of only 10-15% along the topline better describes the “slight” standard requirement. They state they are not advocating longer dogs but trying to give breeders and judges a better visual point to measure from, but they forget to mention that a 20% overall measure results in a dog that is only two inches longer than tall. Therefore, still visually meeting the slight rule set forth in the present standard. The problem with this thinking is that a length of 10-15% in a ten inch dog translates to only 1″ to 1 ½ inches longer than high in actual distance and, without a measurement aid of some sort, this visually minute distance may not perceptible even on close table examination, let alone at a distance of 20 feet in the show ring. Given other factors discussed next, even table examination makes determining length via the topline alone difficult. In itself, there is nothing ultimately wrong in a topline measure. With careful deliberation it can be just as accurate as a whole body measure. What it does do is make assessment more difficult, require far more breed intimacy and encourage longer loin construction. Now breeders can create a faulty animal fully capable of winning in the show-ring under less familiar judges, and changing the entire direction of Tibbie heritage over time. Secondly, the body requirements for a high tail set and well set on neck make a topline measure highly inaccurate and visually misleading to all observers at a distance. The well set on neck places the withers well back onto the topline and increases the overall horizontal body length from wither forward to point of shoulder. Additionally, the high tail set falsely decreases the distance from hip to tail head (or topline root described in the British and International Standards) leaving an enormous horizontal distance between the tail head and both the point of rump and the side-view root of tail above the anus. Consequently a topline measure may not only be too minute, but erroneously constricts measuring distance and substantially increases the amount of body outside the measuring perimeter. Now the amount of body not being measured is truly a maximum distance. Thirdly, the Tibbie needs to perform the free, positive gait required by all Standards. The oft described floating, free and ground-covering gait that generates a huge amount of horizontal drive cannot be performed when the dog is too long in body. Given his ideal height, the Tibbie cannot display any overt length of loin and still perform this gait. With a free wheeling, long bodied gait the possibility of covering ground with a horizontally driven gait is negated and even when stride is well timed, it becomes inefficient. This dog often moves with too much vertical drive and usually has a go-no-where stride. If his shoulder is well built, he may look very pretty with a reaching step in front, but ultimately he fails to move out because of very limited under body reach behind. Even when his foot timing appears perfect, he fails to go anywhere. So is the USA judge being helped or hindered? Showing time constraints average 20 dogs an hour by AKC rules. This tends to eliminate the usefulness of this type of alteration for judges and may even prove to be a disaster for new breeders alike. One of the USA judges complaints about Tibbie judging has been that it takes an intimate knowledge of the breed and observation of many Tibbies to be proficient in determining body type in the show ring. Unfortunately this is usually not the case, particularly in inter-breed judging, and the problem is not alleviated by changing the measurement standard to conform to British and European Standards of today.

Interpreting the Mayhew Description

Phyllis Mayhew’s 1971 book titled, The Tibetan Spaniel, is probably the most oft quoted and consistently accurate describer of the Tibetan Spaniel worldwide. However, the dog described in this work is the 1971 Tibetan Spaniel and not the same dog as hat of the post 1985 UK Standard that changed bite and measurement process. Edited versions of her original work, printed after her death and the 1985 British Standard changes have been published but rather than clarify judging, these recreations have compounded an already murky understanding of her magnificent original work by exhibitors, judges and breeders alike who are new to the breed. Except the present AKC Standard, no other Standard includes Mayhew’s desire for a “rectangle-of-daylight” beneath the Tibetan Spaniel. However the USA version of her desire is listed under the presentation section of the AKC Standard and thus often ignored reading. This reads as follows:

• Presentation – ……..dogs with such a long coat that there is no rectangle of daylight showing beneath, or so profuse that it obstructs the natural outline, are to be severely penalized……

Phyllis Mayhew makes reference to a rectangle of daylight beneath the Tibetan Spaniel throughout her 1971 rendering. Most revealing is her use of it in describing Doma of Ladkok when she calls it the “requisite” rectangle. It is too bad her use of it transferred to such a small, insignificant description in the AKC Standard, and is not mentioned at all in others. Mayhew used the rectangle to describe balance, size and proportion. The rectangle shows at a distance. So without even approaching a Tibbie, it readily proves to any judge or breeder this animal is correctly proportioned longer than tall. The rectangle is created only when the topline measure is minutely longer than height at the wither. When overtly longer in topline, the rectangle becomes quite tubular, and when the animal is also too low on foreleg, it becomes triangular. So in addition to body length, it proves correct body depth, leg length and front to back balance. All in all, it is a decisive body assessment tool, and not just a method of deciding coating features. Mayhew uses the rectangle to effectively limit topline to a minimal longer than high measure without using minute measurements of a specific nature on the topline itself. Using whole body measurement requirements allows more accuracy, not less, because the Tibbie can be assessed at a distance as well as on table examination. In addition, faulty animals are quickly dispatched when the dog just looks overtly long and tubular below on even distant approach. Mayhew affirms the deceptiveness of both high neck and tail sets in body descriptions that specifically state this fallacy. Using terms like “bridled” neck carriage, a tail that “springs from the top of the back” and good use of shoulders in a low stepping, ground covering gait she describes a dog whose topline must appear nearly equal to height, but is actually a tiny bit longer as it is in most good racing gazehounds. She describes a correct Tibbie able to move out with “forelegs…thrown well out in front of the dog, making good use of the shoulders, [with] the head and neck carried proudly.” Her description of tailset warrants close study because it is the sole reference in her writing that indicates she was aware of the root-of-tail as a circumference rather than a singular point. While her use of the term in conjunction with point of shoulder indicates the visible first caudal vertebra above the anus (side-view root), her use of it to describe tailset appears confusing. But close reassessment of the text reveals a slight punctuation error that tends to muddy the intended emphasis and cloud her meaning. The context of the actual text appears as part of her gaiting description. With punctuation corrected and bracketed, it reads as follows:

• “…The ideal movement is light, almost floating, but quite firm and positive, the hind legs providing plenty of drive The root of tail should be set on {high. That is, it} should spring from the back and not start from a tucked under behind the rump position. The curl should be over the centre of the back on top of one hip. The tail should not be carried flat on the back or straight up the spine like the tail of a Pekingese or Pomeranian. …” pg 93, 1975 reprint.

How does this use of the terminology coincide with a side-view root-of-tail? Editorial correction of a punctuation error in the original (bracketed) text helps a lot with the actual intended phrasing. A missing period, capital T and comma suddenly reveal her true emphasis and meaning. Mayhew has not changed her viewpoint and is still referring to the posterior location of root at the first caudal vertebra, but because the dog is in motion, that location has elevated onto the topline. Also notice she refers to the altered flat croup of the Pekingese and Pomeranian and specifically states this is not the case with the Tibetan Spaniel. This fully supports a 30o on-the-horizontal pelvis set required of a horizontally driven, firm gaiting capacity that covers enormous ground with every stride and a free floating, long suspension trot. This is the same stride capacity as any good gazehound. When she says the tail springs from the back she declares the Tibbie tail comes out of the middle of the pelvis, not the after-portion behind the hip socket as it does with many flat-crouped breeds. This feature also artificially shortens the measurable distance on a topline only assessment of body length. Mayhew died before the 1985 changes to Tibbie Standards in England and other nations. She did not describe the same animal seen most frequently today. But her descriptions remain valid no matter what method of measuring is used.

The Case for Measuring Overall Body Length verses a Topline Measure

Measuring the Tibetan Spaniel with the current English topline measure does not include the whole dog, shortens the measurable body and lengthens the total length of body by at least four to five inches when the front and back of the animal are reintroduced into the measuring process. In comparison to the whole body measure several detrimental points are introduced by ungoverned lengthening the overall dog. The topline alone method does not, in itself, change the dog as much as it permits individualized long backs to become acceptable by the written Standards worldwide. First, the lengthening of body permitted by a topline measure significantly alters the body proportion needed for good horizontal impulsion and efficient rear-end drive. Secondly, the alteration may weaken the loin and encourage concussion injury to the lumbar area from constant vertical motion in the backline. When a back is lengthened, mother-nature does it through the loin Since other portions of the back are tied into associated skeletal and muscular structures the loin is the only area capable of absorbing an increase in length. The Tibetan Spaniel has always had these long backed types. However, once breeding numbers increased world-wide these types were rightfully relegated to pet homes. Today many are finding homes in the whelping pens of the ‘newbie’ breeder. Lengthening the loin without increasing height creates a situation where front & rear leg interference is falsely reduced. Animals with faulty reach or drive (or both) from defective front and/or rear assemblies are allowed to ‘free wheel’ because their rear legs cannot reach far enough under the body to cause locomotive interference. (Gilbert & Brown 1995) Thus, a multitude of badly constructed animals move without major foot timing interference, but literally “go no where” so that ground coverage and stamina are significantly reduced throughout the breed. (Gilbert & Brown 1995) Vertical drive may be increased in many of these animals and a bouncing gait will often be seen through the loin. Thus, Tibbies will eventually become a breed that can no longer cover ground in the free, driving manner they did in the past and all their standards require. Vertical concussion in gaiting is a significant stress on the spinal structures in the lower back. It causes stress problems in the vertebra and frequently leads to multiple concussion injuries. It is no wonder spinal problems rank in the top three problems ranked by USA breeders in a recent interclub pole. It should also be noted that spinal problems among our pre-1985 bred stock were nearly non-existent.

International Cooperation and Trade of Breeding Stock

There have been 24 years since the 1985 change in the UK Standard, and for that entire time the USA Standard has differed from all the standards that followed the 1985 UK changes. Yet there have been more importations and exportations both to and from the USA and other nations than at any other time in the entire history of the Tibetan Spaniel breed. To date no negative impact has been felt in the ability of Tibetan Spaniel breeders worldwide to share and exchange breeding stock. There is no reasonable expectation this open exchange cannot continue whether or not USA breeders continue to cling to original type in their AKC Standard. To state or expect otherwise is a foolish scare tactic rashly made by those attempting to influence and manipulate American breeders before they vote. Threats of this nature are theories without actual historic merit.

Conclusions and Recommendations

There is nothing inherently wrong in using the minute comparison of a topline measure in the manner of the present UK and International Standards. Excepting that topline measure does not allow a general appearance, at a distance assessment, and promotes judging error by requiring an intimacy with the breed that few all rounder judges and new breeders possess. However, one is now left with the question is this required to be the standard of measurement worldwide? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. The future of the USA Tibbie will be decided by vote of the TSCA membership in future months. It is this author’s sincere hope a whole body measurement will be retained in the United States. The rationale for this opinion is that change is unnecessary and the least amount of assessment error is provided by retaining the whole body measurement process. Supporting that measurement process with good, solid instruction and a better, clearer written and illustrated explanation of that standard are what is sorely needed. The continuation of this breed as one capable of performing a free, positive gait as also described in the USA Standard depends upon the prevention of long backed dogs creeping into the breeding pens. The retention of a whole body measure will go a long way to prevent these dogs being bred in the USA. No matter what this voting outcome decides for the USA Tibbie, the whole Tibetan Spaniel world should consider the seriousness of retaining the ambiguous, outdated term “Root-of-Tail” in any standard of the breed. Used as a synonym for tail-head, it is a misnomer at best. In any language, if one means ‘tail head’, then say it! If one mean ‘anus’ or ‘point of rump’, then say that, but in either case drop the “root-of-tail” reference because no one agrees on where it actually is located. It is this author’s belief that changes to the measurement process both in the US and the world at large have resulted more from judges not knowing the actual location of the reference point called “root-of-tail” than any other single factor so getting rid of that term internationally would be a boon to all countries.

by Jean Carroll Wright © 2010

Readers should note that Dogs are measured by actual external guideposts, not by a skeleton artificially imposed within a dog’s body as done in former USA publications and confounding United States judges and breeders to date.

Introduction

When I first began to study Phyllis Mayhew’s book on the Tibetan Spaniel (1971 edition) and the breed itself, I brought knowledge from my experiences in four other breeds from working, herding and non-sporting realms as well as the curiosity of a published researcher. I first thought of her use of the term “root-of-tail” as the circumference of the base of the tail but determined she referred to the underside, perianal portion of that circumference. However later, more specific, anatomical studies on my part changed my point-of-reference and opinion to that of the anatomical location of the first caudal vertebra as the specific location of the “root of tail” to which she referred. This work is an explanation of that study.

Historic Mythology of “The Root”

Paramount in Tibetan Spaniel judging has always been an assessment of acceptable size and body proportion. In the United States these features are sometimes bastardized by assessors more familiar with English and European judging because the proportion comparison of the American Tibetan Spaniel differs from most other current standards of our breed. This is because the present AKC Standard retains the original whole body measurement process and the tight bite requirements of the original 1959 & 1975 United Kingdom (UK) Standards and predates the present British, European, Australian and other international Standards by some ten years. Rather than blindly following the revisions made to the English Standard in 1985, the American fanciers decided to retain original type requirements and adhere to the original Standard as described by Phyllis Mayhew in her 1975 book on the breed. The most widely controversial aspect of both the UK & AKC measuring process is the use of the term “root of tail.” and it starts with the actual location of that term. The English Standard uses the term also, but as the present UK Standard uses the term, it is a misnomer with a topline location not originally intended by Mayhew’s work.

Origins of the Terminology

Root-of-Tail originated as a docking term for Boxers and like breeds in England and Europe. This author was taught the term by the German Boxer breeder who taught her to dock tails. Phyllis Mayhew bred Cavaliers and probably learned the term in the same manner. The “root” is the common name for the underside of the tail located at the first Caudal vertebra. The root is the place from which one measures to determine the length of the tail dock. The “root” is the beginning of the tail at the anus, and the dock is the place where the tail is cut. Thus, anatomically the “tail root” is located at the first Caudal vertebra which is only externally visible on the posterior of the puppy just above (superior to) the anus. Researching the actual location of this ancient common terminology is a challenge in itself. Harold Spira’s, Canine Terminology (1982) is about the most frequent resource. He synonymises all the terms relating to the tail under the large heading, “The Tail”, and he does so as follows: “…[That] final portion of the spine. Composed of caudal or coccygeal vertebrae, it commences at the root (syn. tail head, base, butt) where it joins the sacral region near the end of the croup. The junction of tail, butt to croup is known as the ‘set on’ at the level of the topline…” Spira, Canine Terminology (1982) p.130 Howell Book House, N.Y. Clearly Spira recognizes the term “root” in conjunction with the tail, but when he refers to from “butt to coup” as a location for tailset he seems to also refer to a circumference rather than a valid single point of measure for determination of length of body as both Mayhew and the 1985 UK revision describe it. Gilbert & Brown’s 1995 Structure & Terminology work contains 43 Tail references but none even mention a tail “root”. However, “G&B” clearly pictures the location of the first caudal vertebra as superior to the anus on the side-view of the dog. They also identify the rise of the tail from the fused sacral vertebra and pelvic arch and croup to be approximately the fourth to sixth vertebra (depending on breed and size), not the first. Donald Adams, in A Systemic Study of Canine Anatomy, (1986) demonstrates the same locations and anatomical references as the other studied resources. All efforts to tack down an exact location for root-of-tail as described by Mayhew point to the first caudal vertebra located superior to the anus on the side-view of the dog or to a circumference of the base of the tail with no single point location. Since docking seems to be prohibited in the UK, perhaps, the location of the “Root” has been obscured by generations of non-use. However, the fact remains that the only place the first Caudal vertebra is visible at all (on the entire exterior surface of the dog) is on the rear view in the perianal area immediately superior to (above) the anus. Even then it is only discernible on high tailset breeds such as the Tibbie. On many lower tailset breeds it is buried deep within the croup and pelvis, and not easily visible at all. The “TAIL-HEAD” is the most common term for the junction of the croup with the visible tail on the topline. In actuality, this location is the place on the topline where approximately the 4th to 6th Caudal vertebra extends beyond the pelvis to become independent of the body torso and viewed as a tail. Thus, the term Tail-head is appropriate to apply. The English and international Tibbie Standards also call this the “root-of-tail”. Whether or not this nomenclature is deserved is a point of contention. Perhaps these sources simply did not know what this ‘root’ terminology really meant when the term was assigned or perhaps they were just misinterpreting Mayhew’s earlier descriptions and trying to preserve her original intent ten years before. It has been said the UK breeders were influenced by pressure from English Kennel Club. The fact that many international standards followed suite by using the erroneous UK Standard as a basis for their own Standards has perpetuated and compounded the error. However, erroneous repetition does not provide any adequate endorsement of correctness. The origin of the common term; Tail-head is fairly obvious since the tail rises from the topline at the croup/tail juncture. However, when actual physical data is fully examined it is fairly obvious the UK and International Standards are erroneous in their assumption that “Root-of-Tail” is singularly located on the topline and synonymous with the term “Tail-head”. To date, only the American AKC standard uses the term “root-of-tail” in a side-view location, and even then, the illustrated booklet used by TSCA to educate judges appears inaccurate in it’s description of using this root.

The Anatomy (proof of the pudding)

The caudal vertebrae are the bones that form the tail. In all breeds the first six or seven (depending on breed and relative size) caudal vertebrae are the only ones that have a vertebral arch, foramen and spinal canal. This is because they are largely embedded within the croup’s attachment to the sacral arches the ligaments rising off those arches. Additionally, they vary in number, shape and size depending on breed and physical size. The reason for an arch in the first few caudal vertebrae is because important muscles attach to them. The fact they are attached to the fused sacral vertebrae and deeply embedded in the pelvic girdle is the reason the 1st caudal vertebra is only visible externally on the posterior side of the raised tail at the perianal area and not along the topline. By the time the tail rises above the croup, the actual root of the tail has long passed from view. Where the caudal vertebrae exit the pelvic girdle on the topline, it is the 4th to 6th caudal vertebra that is visible, not the “root-of-tail” at all, but the “tail-head”. Granted the common terms are similar, but they are not necessarily interchangeable. The sacral vertebrae consist of 3 fused vertebra. The Caudal vertebrae attach to the caudal end of the sacrum and form the upper edge of the pelvic girdle. In high tailset breeds like the Tibbie, the first caudal vertebra is clearly visible, but only from the caudal (rear) view just above the anus. In low tailset breeds it is far less prominent. Only when the dog is gaiting with his tail carried well over the back in a curl does the first caudal vertebra become visible on the backline, and then it is seen at the back of the tail, not forward at the tail-head and/or croup.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The whole Tibetan Spaniel world should consider the seriousness of retaining the ambiguous term “Root-of-Tail” in any standard of the breed. Used as a synonym for Tail head, it is a misnomer. If one means ‘tail head’, then that term should be used. If croup is where one desires, that term should be used. If one mean ‘anus’ or ‘point of rump’, then say that, but in any case all standards need to drop the “root-of-tail” reference because no one agrees on where it actually is located. Location, location, location… At worst, the “root” is the first caudal vertebra described by Mayhew on the posterior (side-view) above the anus and no part of the topline. At best, the “root” is a circumference and not a single point so could be construed to be on the topline. But in both cases, it is ambiguous, outmoded and quite literally a pain-in-the-butt for breeders and judges alike. It is this author’s belief that changes to the measurement process both in the US and England have resulted more from judges not knowing the actual location of this reference point than any other single factor so getting rid of the term internationally would be a boon to all countries.