Above: Mexican Pottery of the ancient type hairless dogs. Below: Ruthie, My hairless xolo.
I have mentioned Mexico 3-4k years ago in previous posts. I am speculating on possible uses of the foxi3 when it popped up. There is an AKC breed called “Xoloitzquintle” or Xolo, so I am specifically using small x “xolo” as a generic name for the original stock the AKC members used to create the purebred version.
For the purposes of my argument, let’s guess the dominant “H” mutation showed up first as a mutated allele in a normal short haired small Indian coated dog which is not known as the hh form of original xolos. As long as hairless Hh, has been bred to hairless Hh, 25% of the pups average out to be hh, the short, even slick haired, version of the xolo, and will not show the hairless trait. It is already “bred out” of the hairy line, so to speak, leaving a standard xolo, which version is rather overlooked as a breed in its own right. the coated xolo is the true breed and the Hh gene is a local ancient mutation The small coated dog has always been a landrace dog, bred for utilitarian purposes.
Hairless dogs did make difference around the house. The naked dogs might get bit by fleas, but they don’t carry them. The naked version could come inside and not make everyone miserable with fleas. In addition, when you pick the puppies up, they are warmer to the touch than hairy dogs. All dogs have an inner temp of about 101 degrees, but you can’t feel the warm skin through the hair. With a hairless pup, you have a dog-warmer, the second you cradle it or put it on your chest.
If the first hairless dog, was a male, 25% of his pups should throw hairless, by statistics, when bred to a hairy bitch. I am willing to bet that before the first female hairless was 6 weeks old, her caretakers, (usually women) were already plotting a small version of the dog, if the dog did not begin as a small one. Small dogs were very common in Mexico and it can be suspected, that small dogs were actively bred for their size. A small hairless dog (10 pounds or so) would be the perfect house dog. In any case, the hairless dogs were great around the house, whatever the size. Thus, the Hh gene was highly successful from the first moment it showed up.
I am sure it is proven elsewhere, that the Mexicans and indeed, most natives of North America, were discerning dog breeders for thousands of years, to say the least. They also had an infallible method of culling. Dog-based cultures eat the culls. In fact, there is a PhD thesis for the person who details the dog-eating ceremonies and rituals of a wide range of New World cultures.
*Weaving cultures often had long haired dogs, but I have not researched that at all. Another good PhD there.
The thing about the Hh gene is that in itself, it is not the breed, it brings the Hh traits to any type of breed. So, my big insight is that Debora Wood really created the Powderpuffs!– They are the true breed; the hairless variety is a variety of the Powderpuff and a very unstable one at best. The Powderpuffs are a fantastic breed. Intelligent, Loyal, a Perfect Companion that can sport a variety of hair-do’s or be shaved. I trimmed Ollie’s face and DH called him “a half/ghan”. Right now he looks like a mini-Saluki. This is the true, genetically stable, Chinese Crested breed, upon which the Hh gene was grafted for a really fancy, flashy, variation.
Unfortunately, only a proportion of the Hh Crested show the perfect Hh type. Statistics would indicate varying versions will also be born, yet they are not desirable specimens simply for their incorrect amount of hair. All the Hh are single-coated and have the different teeth. So that trait may to be linked to alleles that also determine the pattern and abundance of the single coat. Or it is possible that the Foxi3 mutation has a developmental stage in which switches on, for each pup and as the moment it turns on is during the time the hair and teeth are developing, it will determine how hairy or hairless the pup will be.