>Neither giantism nor dog breeds can be taken as a "normal" extension of
>protein supply/ growth. Large dog breeds are purely a human "construct".
>Selective breeding for traits seen as desireable have removed them far from
>their original genetic "purpose". A Great Dane is no more of a "natural"
>size than a Chihuahua.
>  <snip>
>feeling scientifically stunted,
>Marisa

Just as a point of information, there was a giant breed of dog called the
Molosser in ancient Babylon, and they were used in about 2500 **B.C.** to
hunt lions in the desert. The dog looked like a lean version of a modern
English Mastiff (or, like a number of mastiffs did, pre-1850s, before
showing created a demand for wider, bulkier dogs.)  They looked even bigger
than they are now, but HUMANS were much smaller in those days, so to my own
eye, anyway, when I viewed the bas-reliefs of molossers carved on the palace
walls, it appeared that people have changed more in that time than the dogs
have.

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....  Better food, most of all.  If I am not
mistaken, Babylon and Assyria were the cradle of civilization because they
were the first to take up agriculture, thus making humankind "modern".

I am inclined to think that the giant dogs may have been ACQUIRED and KEPT
by humans for the value of their size, but that they perhaps evolved to
gigantism without human intervention.  Dogs big enough to kill large animals
could fend for themselves, but clearly also had value to people settling an
area for agricultural use, and fearful of predators.....

If all ancient dogs had been generic, and medium-sized, I would be more
likely to agree with you, but the presence of a breed of giant dogs over
4,000 years ago puts me more in mind of the giant timber wolf, which was not
made huge by humans.  Or the Aurochs, a (wild) giant bull already known in
the days of the early Molossers, but persisting in remote areas of Europe
till the 1700 or 1800s.

I have seen a lot of evidence that most especially since the mid-1800s,
humans have selected dogs for traits they like the LOOKof without
considering (or perhaps being capable of understanding) the consequences to
the dog.  So they exaggerate the DETAILS of dogs.  For example, some breeds
were originally bred for a short muzzle but are now bred for no muzzle at
ALL(I saw a Pug pup at the vet's this morning, nostrils literally more
recessed than his bulgy eyes! That much exaggeration is obscene, he does not
breathe well and has to have an operation to help him), but there WERE giant
and tiny breeds in ancient (early agricultural) times.

Relatively recent fad breeding does not alter the fact that both breeds you
cite have histories at least two to four thousand years old (the Chihuahua
was to the Mayans what the guinea pig was to the Incas, and what the Sunday
roast is to people of European descent, to bring this back to human eating).

laurie (Mother Mastiff)