Quote:
Originally Posted by BxrMommieNAZ
I appreciate the technical version...
|
Well, it's not technical

Simply that a mask and white markings don't refer to the same thing, it's like describing different bits of anatomy.
That the vet and the microchip information are wrong (neither of which needs to know a thing about dog breeds, and can just copy down what has been written before) is no surprise. That level of ignorance (as in, lack of basic knowledge) by the boxer rescue is slightly more of an eyebrow raiser though... Not that there's actually any need to know a lot about boxers, or ever to have glanced at a breed standard (which indicates the difference between mask and markings) in order to join a rescue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyDivo
so am i to understand that if my dog doesnt have a full mask he proabaly isnt full boxer?
|
Not necessarily - and if you're refering to the puppy in your gallery, I would not question his parentage on the basis of his black mask. That is, his expression may not be so strong as to have an unbroken mask, but it is clearly present.
What is unusual (notwithstanding that the mask may be obscured by white markings on the face) is for a purebred boxer to have NO black mask. In the case of a dog that BOTH has little to no mask, AND doesn't look much like a boxer, I'd certainly question whether or not he really was one - since the mask is one of the first things to disappear when you mix with a breed that doesn't have that feature. Your puppy, however, does look generally like a boxer, so a weak (and its not
that weak) mask alone isn't enough to call his parentage into doubt.