When the FCI Newsletter’s Editorial Committee contacted him about the preparation
of the current FCI Breeds Nomenclature, Prof. Raymond Triquet, former member and
President of the FCI Standards Commission, was happy to explain the circumstances
in which he prepared this nomenclature and the criteria he used to achieve this
extremely important work, an almost universal classification system which has been
applied and duplicated around the world, to the extent that it is now THE benchmark
on the subject. It therefore gives us great pleasure to pass on to you in a few
lines the thoughts of Raymond Triquet, together with those of Doctor Yves Surget,
a major figure on the French and international dog scene.
Yves De Clercq
FCI Executive Director
Breeds Nomenclature
As we announced in these columns (SCC Informations), a new breeds nomenclature
was adopted by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale at its General Assembly
in Israel on 23 and 24 June 1987.
The former nomenclature, which my colleagues might vaguely recall skimming through
during the first year of their zootechnics studies had effectively become obsolete
and contained too many inaccuracies for the leaders of the Sociéte Centrale Canine.
Also, in 1979, the Zootechnics Commission was required by the Committee to update
the nomenclature in force at that time. Claude Roche was appointed a rapporteur
within the Commission. He very quickly appreciated the size of the task he had been
given and stated that it was not simply a question of making a few changes, but
rather of completely overhauling the classification of the breeds. However, his
trade union activities took up a considerable amount of his time and, therefore,
due to the significant amount of time and thought that would have to be devoted
to the successful completion of this task, Claude Roche requested that another rapporteur
be appointed. The Zootechnics Commission then turned to Professor Raymond Triquet
of the University of Lille III, the author of the indispensible and accomplished
“Dictionnaire de la Cynophilie - Dictionnaire anglo-français du Monde du Chien”
to carry out the task of reforming the nomenclature.
The former nomenclature included ten groups of breeds. The first group comprised
working and non-working sheepdogs and cattle dogs. The second group was composed
of guard and protection dogs (Molossoids, Bouviers, various Spitz breeds), both
working and non-working. The third group contained the Terriers, the fourth was
reserved for Dachshunds, while the fifth and sixth groups were devoted to scent
hounds for large game and scent hounds for small game respectively. The seventh
group contained the non-British breeds of hunting and pointing dogs, while the eighth
comprised the British breeds of Pointers, Retrievers and Spaniels. The ninth group
contained Toy and Companion dogs and the tenth group comprised Sighthounds.
This nomenclature was liberally sprinkled with canine heresies. For example, the
ninth group included some non-working Terriers or Spaniels, and some dwarf breeds
were incorporated into the breeds in the first two groups.
In addition, there were a number of errors, in particular the reference to the “Braque
du Puy”, as if the dog originated from the city of Puy, when it was actually known
as the “Braque Dupuy”, named after a breeder from Poitiers involved in its selection.
Raymond Triquet set to work in 1981 and, like Claude Roche, believed that it was
not simply a question of improving the existing nomenclature, but that it had to
be completely rewritten. He described his ethic and his conception of the nomenclature
in a number of articles, one of which, published in the third quarter of 1981, asked
the question, “what about breed standards after 100 years of canine organisations?”
and, as well as the inaccuracies contained in a number of standards, highlighted
the imperfections in the nomenclatures on both sides of the Channel. During the
third quarter of 1984, he made a case for “the use of an accurate terminology in
the canine field”. However, in the second quarter of 1983, he had written an excellent
paper entitled “Concerning a componential definition of groups, breeds and varieties”,
which resulted directly in the rearrangement of the canine breeds into logically
composed groups. He defined the group as “a class of breeds with a number of distinctive
transmissible characteristics in common”. This explains the appearance of a componential
division of the breeds into ten groups, based on their related morphological characteristics
and on similar aptitudes. There were, however, a number of administrative requirements
that needed to be taken into consideration. The catalogues for dog shows were prepared
using the nomenclature, and the College of Judges was formed in accordance with
the specialisations of certain judges, with others being qualified within a specific
group, and sometimes for an entire group.
While conducting his analysis, Raymond Triquet carried out a major consultative
enquiry, approaching all of the breed associations about this opportunity to classify
their specific breeds within the planned new nomenclature, asking for their observations
and requirements.
The business was, at the end of the day, ably and efficiently completed, for in
1985, the new nomenclature was proposed to the Zootechnics Commission, who adopted
it after making only a few minor amendments. This substantial and accomplished work
was based on a conception of the classification of dog breeds that was completely
different to what had gone before. It was difficult to isolate France in applying
the nomenclature which had just been adopted, and it was decided to present it to
the Fédération Cynologique Internationale in order to have it applied to all of
its member countries.
This proposed radical upheaval appeared to be truly revolutionary to the officers
of the FCI, who tried to avoid the problem. Nevertheless, discussions began which
led to a number of modifications. These included the allocation of Dachshunds, which
had previously been included in a sub-group of hounds, to a specific group in order
to accommodate Germany and take account of its wishes. A new dialogue was opened,
this time between the member nations of the FCI.
It was just as obvious that the 1985 General Assembly in Amsterdam was also avoiding
the adoption of the French nomenclature of Raymond Triquet. In July 1985, the Committee
of the SCC decided to implement the new nomenclature as of 1 July 1987. Then the
work of the FCI European Section in Vienna in May 1986 highlighted the fact that
most of the European countries were willing to offer their support, with a few minor
variations. Countries from other continents, particularly Japan, made it known that
they were also in favour. The FCI Committee was finally convinced and decided to
submit the nomenclature, which it had ruled out in vain in 1985, to the General
Assembly in Jerusalem in June 1987. The SCC Committee decided that it would be right
to do everything possible in order to promote the adoption it wanted to take place
and, with this in mind, it postponed the date of implementation of the new nomenclature
until 1 January 1988 so as not to put the FCI in the position of facing a fait accompli
on the part of the French.
The final adoption of the text in Jerusalem on 23 and 24 June 1987 constituted a
positive move and the recognition by the FCI of the value of the proposals of the
Société Centrale Canine.
The new nomenclature, which will be fully developed in this column, therefore includes,
after the inevitable concessions and modifications, ten groups of breeds. The groups
are divided into sections, within which the sub-groups are preceded by a capital
letter. The countries are classified numerically in accordance with the alphabetical
order of their names in French. When the FCI recognises varieties within a breed
(varieties which, of course, have no specific standard), they are classified in
alphabetical order and preceded by a lower-case letter. The name of the breed is
expressed in the Latin alphabet and spelt in the language of the country of origin,
with the French translation, if it exists, included in italics. The number in parentheses
following the name of each breed corresponds with the number of the standard allocated
by the FCI. Finally, the working breeds are indicated by the reference (TR)
in parentheses and in italics. The nomenclature is presented under the following
general headings:
- Group 1: Sheepdogs and Cattle Dogs – Section 1 = Sheepdogs; Section II = Cattle
Dogs (except for Swiss cattle dogs).
- Group 2: Pinscher and Schnauzer. Molossoid breeds, Swiss Cattle Dogs - Section I
= Pinscher and Schnauzer types; Section II = Molossoid breeds (mastiff types and
Mountain types); Section III = Swiss Cattle Dogs.
- Group 3: Terriers (large- and medium-sized, small-sized, bull types, toy Terriers).
- Group 4: Dachshunds.
- Group 5: Spitz and primitive types – Section I = Nordic dogs (Sledge dogs, Hunting
dogs, Watchdogs and Herders); Section II – European Spitz (German Spitz, Italian
Spitz); Section III Asian Spitz (Japanese Spitz, Chow chow); Section IV = Primitive
types.
- Group 6: Hounds and scenthounds - Section I = Hounds (Large-sized hounds, Medium-sized
hounds, Small-sized hounds); Section II = Scenthounds.
- Group 7: Pointing dogs - Section I = Continental (Braque type, Spaniel type); Section
II = British and Irish (Pointers, Setters).
- Group 8: Retrievers, Flushing dogs and Water dogs - Section I = Retrievers; Section
II = Flushing dogs; Section III = Water dogs.
- Group 9: Companion and Toy dogs - Section I = Bichons and related breeds; Section
II = Poodle; Section III = Small Belgian dogs; Section IV = Hairless dogs; Section
V = Tibetan dogs; Section VI = Chihuahua; Section VII = Dalmatian; Section VIII
= English Toy Spaniels; Section IX = Japanese Chin and Pekingese; Section X = Continental
Toy Spaniels; Section Xl = Kromfohrländer; Section XII = Small Molossian type dogs.
- Group 10: Sighthounds and related breeds – Section I = Sighthounds (long-haired
or fringed; short-haired, drop ears); Section II = Related breeds (Hunting dogs
with erect ears: Cirneco, Pharaoh and Podenco).
This quick table shows the consistency of this nomenclature. Only Group 9 contains
a number of sections including some breeds which could have been incorporated elsewhere
(for example, the Dalmatian with the Braques, the Poodle with the water dogs, etc.).
It was, however, apparent that in a number of different cases, on account of the
changes in our society, similar morphological characteristics no longer corresponded
with common aptitudes. For that reason, Group 9 contains sections which form relatively
logical and satisfying entities.
This nomenclature is easily memorised and undoubtedly worthy of being brought to
the attention of veterinarians, regardless of how it came to be created and of the
perspective from which it was drawn up. It is a real asset for the Société Centrale
Canine in that it demonstrates a greater scientific involvement in its approach
and serves as a tool for the relatively simple and perfectly logical classification
of dog breeds.
Dr (Vet.) Yves Surget
SCC Informations n° 17, 1e trimestre 1988
The personal, but not short, account of the breeds nomenclature
The SCC (French canine organisation) originally entrusted the task of updating the
breeds nomenclature to Doctor Roche. He passed the task on to me in 1981, with the
agreement of the Zootechnics Commission of the SCC. Before Doctor Roche, Doctor
Luquet had often criticised the famous “yellow sheet”, in other words the list of
breeds of the FCI.
I quickly realised that there was no point in simply updating the list, but that
it had to be completely rewritten from scratch. I believed that it was necessary
to sort the different breeds into groups and sub-groups using the distinctive traits
that characterise them. The purpose and nationality of each breed are no longer
the only criteria. Each breed has become what it is due to a range of distinctive
traits. This system was inspired by the phonetic classification of consonants. I
submitted an initial article, written in November 1981, to the Zootechnics Commission
of the SCC on 3 February 1982 (published in the Revue Officielle de la Cynophilie
Française no. 38, 2nd quarter of 1982): “Concerning a componential definition
of groups, breeds and varieties”. This article was preceded by a few thoughts on
the “revision of the nomenclature of dog breeds” (R.O.C.F., same number,
page 16).
I then wrote a report for the Zootechnics Commission of 20 April 1983 on a “draft
breeds nomenclature”, which appeared in the R.O.C.F. no. 42, in the 3rd
quarter of 1983 (distributed to the clubs by the SCC). After receiving feedback
that was “sometimes receptive, but always constructive”, I submitted the draft on
23 November 1983 (appeared in R.O.C.F. no. 44 of the 1st quarter
of 1984). I then pointed out that, using this method of distinctive traits, "this
nomenclature is not inflexible. Any dog not featured in it can find a place. Any
breed that appears to need removing can be removed. The only condition is that the
arguments should be based on more than passion alone.”
I went to Brussels to present my draft. It was rejected by the FCI General Assembly
in Amsterdam, and then discussed further. Its development was to continue through
1985, 1986 and 1987. I went to Vienna in May 1986 to explain its principles and
organisation. Through the good offices of the President and the SCC Committee, some
of the leading figures of the FCI offered their support. The FCI Standards Commission
discussed it further in Paris on 8 November 1986. After a number of email exchanges,
the draft submitted in Jerusalem on 24 June 1987 by Doctor Paschoud, President of
the Standards Commission, and by me was adopted by the General Assembly of the FCI.
The Société Centrale Canine then published it, but this was done without taking
account of the final modifications of the FCI. Some details had to be explored again
at Winterthur initially, then at Vienna on 5 and 6 October 1987. It was finally
given the seal of approval. The SCC published the nomenclature in January 1988 in
the "Règlements généraux de la Cynophilie Française" and decided that it
would come into effect at the latest on 1 June 1988 at all French dog shows. It
will be implemented in all FCI member countries on 31 December 1989 at the latest.
I hope that, through the sub-groups, it will provide dog shows with a fresh element
of competition. After designating the best dogs of each breed, we should be able
to have them compete with the best of other breeds within the sub-group.
Of course, I can already hear the objections: “we need more time and more judges”.
Yes, but what a spectacle to see truly excellent dogs competing with their “near
cousins” or “virtual lookalikes” in sub-groups or homogeneous sections rather than
seeing dogs slumped in cages for the entire afternoon. And the “Best in Show” would
be the perfect example of this. This “new idea” will perhaps catch on. I have sent
it to the SCC Committee, who have done me the honour of receiving me.
Raymond Triquet
Club du Bouledogue Anglais (English Bulldog Club), no. 3, 1988