>Just as a point of information, there was a giant breed of dog called the
>Molosser in ancient Babylon,

Pretty interesting stuff. Also now used as a group name for Danes/ Mastiffs/
bulldogs etc. Nifty page at http://www.molossermania.com/ .

>If the Molossers were huge solely by selection by humans, I wonder why the
>ancient Babylonians were not more advanced in other, more immediately
>rewarding forms of genetics....

I don't doubt that different canids developed different traits well suited
to their environment. Nor do I doubt that humans would be quick to take
advantage of this added "tool". However, I still think that today's large
breeds, with their relatively recent changes, can't really be used to
prove/disprove any ideas about protein and growth. (Back to where this all
started). :) IMO, while naturally large breeds may have been perfectly
healthy, today's breeds of many dogs are not even very much like they were a
hundred years ago. (We've done a good job at very inept tinkering, in some
cases.) The molosser site has a nice comparison of a Bulldog skull in 1890
and 1935... and frankly, from skull structure alone I wouldn't have
recognized them as the same dog breed (http://www.molossermania.com/origin/
).

As for the chihuahua........... I wonder if it tastes like chicken?? <VBG>

Marisa- who, having been cornered more by small dogs than large, finds them
eminently suitable for punting... and not much else.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com