>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