The Great Lhasa Debate

Since the 1940's there has been a division among Lhasa breeders revolving about the importation of seven English Shih-Tzus, and their subsequent registration as Lhasa Apsos. Today, in fact, we have the anomalous situation of Lhasas and Shih-Tzus both claiming the same ancestor as a registered purebred of that breed. What is less well known is that nearly the same situation obtains among "Hamilton" dogs. Neither the Hamilton nor the Non-Hamilton dogs have any claim to "pure Tibetan" ancestry.

Hamilton Farms registered a number of imports from Tibet. In researching the records of the early registrations in the AKC studbook, we found the following:

Ch. Hamilton Bidgy (Bitch)
Tsingtu (Bitch)
Phema (Bitch)
Hamilton Chusul (Dog)
Sarong (Dog)
Tundu (Dog)
Tsaring (Dog)
Ch. Le (Dog)

Of these 8, only 6 had any descendants to speak of. Phema never produced any offspring and Tsing-tu only produced two puppies of which I can find any record - Hamilton Tsing-Tu II born in 1939, and H. Norbhu II born in 1944, neither of which contributed to the line themselves. This unfortunately left Hamilton Farms in a very inbred situation with only one producing import bitch as mother of the entire line.

It was probably for this reason that Hamilton Farms used two bitches, imported from Shanghai, China, by some Americans stationed there just before W.W.II. These two related bitches were named Lhassa and Shanghai. At least one of these appears in every Hamilton pedigree I know of today. Without the genetic material contributed by these two animals, it is doubtful whether the Hamilton line could have survived. These two were considered by the Suydham-Cuttings to be Lhasa Apsos, they were registered by the China Kennel Club as "Tibetan Terriers", and in some people's estimation, most probably Chinese Shih-Tzu. What they really were, no one knows at this late date.  Suffice it to say that the Suydham-Cuttings, who had contact with the Lhasa Apso in it's country of origin, considered these two bitches representative of the breed.

Two other animals, a dog and a bitch, from the same kennel as Shanghai and Lhassa, were imported around the same time, but found their way into the NonHamilton bloodlines: these were Ming-Tai and Tai-Ho, ancestors of Everglo Spark of Gold.

In the late 40's into the early 50's a group of dogs were imported from England with export pedigrees stating that they were registered English Shih-Tzu. Their pedigrees attested to that fact - most were from championship stock in England. Their US importer told the AKC that the Shih-Tzu and Lhasa were the same breed. She led the AKC to believe that Lhasas were not recognized in England, but what they called Shih-Tzu in England were in fact, Lhasas.

I quote from a letter from John C. Neff, Executive Vice President of AKC, dated September 26, 1955:

"Some years ago several dogs came to this country with export pedigrees issued by the Kennel Club in England which described the dogs as Shih-Tzu . The pedigrees were presented to the American Kennel Club with the representation that Lhasa Apsos were not registerable in England and, of course Shih-Tzus were not registerable in our stud book but that the two were, for all practical purposes the same. Our registration department studied the matter and adopted a policy of accepting for registration in our stud book as Lhasa Apsos, dogs which came to us from England with export pedigrees showing them to be Shih-Tzu.

Some time later, we started hearing from the Shih-Tzu people in England. They represented that, indeed there was a distinct difference in the breeds. . . Our committee re-studied the subject and recommended that our policy be modified. . . "

The AKC could not have studied the matter at all, because one inquiry to The Kennel Club in England would have revealed that the Lhasa Apso had been a recognized breed, with championship status since 1907, and had its standard recognized in 1934. What seems to have happened is that the AKC was negligent and failed to check the facts. Mr. Neff also failed to mention the outcry by the Lhasa breeders, who for years tried to convince the stubbornly ignorant AKC of its mistake.

Of the seven English Shih-Tzu that were registered as Lhasas in the late 40's to 1950, only three of these made any major contribution to American Lhasa Apso bloodlines: Mai-Ling of Boyden, Fardale Fu Ssi and Ch. Yay Sih of Shebo. None of these English Shih-Tzu appear in "Hamilton" pedigrees.

Several other dogs were imported from England, which trace directly back to dogs originally imported from Tibet and Nepal, by the Baileys, the Greigs, and other early British aficionados. These dogs are not accepted by "Hamilton" purists either, and are not used for breeding "Straight Hamilton".

As can be seen, the most genetically restricted group is the "Straight Hamilton".  This group of dogs has only eight founders - two of which are from coastal China. The "Hamilton/Tibetans" have at least 10 founders, two of which are the same ones from China. The Non Hamilton group is in the best shape from a genetic diversity point of view, with more than 15 founders, 4 of which came directly from China, and three of which were registered English Shih-Tzu.

On a percentage basis, the greatest Chinese influence is in the "Non-Hamilton" group, where close to 50% of the founders were Chinese. The "Straight Hamilton" group is next with about 25% Chinese founders; the actual percentage probably being even higher than that, because 2 out of three bitch founders were Chinese. The "Hamilton-Tibetan" is last, with less than 20% Chinese foundation.

What is the conclusion from all of this?  Well, not very much.  It is obvious from the forgoing, that no dog in the USA can lay claim to "Pure Tibetan Blood"! They are all mixtures of Lhasa Apso and Shih-Tzu (or Chinese "Tibetan Terrier") stocks in varying proportions.  Any claims of superiority of one line over another based on supposed "purity" is arrant nonsense. So what is all the argument about?

After debunking the "purity of the blood" notion, what we are really left with is a disagreement about type.  Now, having studied 25 years worth of old photos, personal communications and writings on the breed, as well as specimens brought recently from Tibet, I am convinced that western Lhasas are increasingly divergent from the original, and still authentic, type.  I wholeheartedly advocate a return to the real Lhasa Apso, but not one based on mistaken ideas about pedigrees.  The choice of a particular "bloodline" is like the wood a cabinetmaker chooses to use - it is only the raw material. The beauty and perfection of the finished furniture will depend on the skill and choices of the craftsman. The choice of raw material is insignificant in importance compared to the selections one makes when breeding for type.

Since no modern "bloodline" holds the patent on pedigree based "authenticity",  breeders need to study the correct type, as set forth in the Standard and in the written tradition and photographic record of the breed.  Then, using whatever bloodlines they feel give them the best chance of accomplishing their goal, breed to the Standard!  The fact that a breeder uses one "bloodline" more than another, is nothing more than a personal preference based on his or her experience.  The goal of breeding should be the conservation and perfection of authentic type.  How you get there is whatever works for you!

C.Marley, 1997