Ralph Beilby (1744–1817) was an English engraver, working chiefly on silver and copper.

He was the son of William Beilby, a jeweller and goldsmith of Durham who later moved to Newcastle upon Tyne to look for better opportunities. Ralph became a silversmith, jeweller, and seal-engraver under his father and elder brothers Richard and William junior. In addition, he became a copper engraver to meet the demand of the then North England market. His plate "Thornton's Monument" in John Brand's History of Newcastle shows his craftsmanship in that field. In 1767 Thomas Bewick was apprenticed to him. They became partners 10 years later.

The texts in Bewick's A General History of Quadrupeds (1790) and History of British Birds: Land Birds (1797) were drafted by Beilby and revised by Bewick. According to Bewick's account, Beilby wanted to have his name appeared in Land Birds as the sole author; however, upon Bewick's disagreement, neither of them was named as the author (Bewick, pp. 122-123). The partnership came to an end in 1797, after the publication of Land Birds. They were tentatively reconciled in 1800, co-operating again for some projects, including the publication of Figures of British Land Birds. Bewick came to Beilby's defense when the latter had been defamed in a supplement to the third edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica published in 1801 (Uglow, pp. 269-270).

 References

• Bewick, Thomas (1975). A Memoir of Thomas Bewick. Edited with an introduction by Iain Bain. London; New York: Oxford University Press.

Hi folks,

I’d firstly like to thank everyone for their excellent approach to this intriguing topic. Many kind things have been said about our litter, and I must say a great amount of respect has been shown for differing views on what has the potential to be a very contentious subject.
May slobber always be upon you.

I certainly agree that the pied colours could have come from the St Bernard crosses that were used to revive the breed after WWII, but I ALSO feel that genetic throwbacks to a more distant time are just as acceptable. My reasoning follows....

Whilst the application of Occam’s razor can be useful, for me it does seem to limit the continued questing for alternative and perhaps more valid answers. For one, I’ve never seen evidence that all things are equal. There is a tendency in human thought to want to trace things back to points of origin: “If we can trace it back to a point where we are sure, (surer), something happened then that must be the reason”. I think that the genetic timeline, (and even time itself, if you like), is not as linear or origin specific as we think. We tend to see only segmented parts that relate to our spheres of interest. Time is more like one whole piece. Humans are the ones that compartmentalise for convenience and understanding.
Case in point: Where did the Saint Bernard / Alpine mastiff get their colouring from?
Where did the Alaunts and their ancestors before them get it?
Ad infinitum.

It is sufficient in my mind to accept that it is an integral part of the canine genetic ocean. The genes are there, dormant or otherwise. Once I limit my thinking to one specific framework I see the danger of becoming blind to other truths that may be just as valid though not quite as apparent. Wearing blinkers is the phrase I believe and I just can’t bring myself to do it. This is not to say that the Saint Bernard theory is wrong: It is to say that it could be a reason, but I will not accept that it is the only reason.

All of this however is really beside the point. The fact remains that we have bred Mastiff to Mastiff.
And we have been gifted with Mastiffs!

If we start stepping back along the mating in our pedigrees what do we find at each step?
We find Mastiff bred to Mastiff. Generally we also find responsible breeders doing what they believe is right in an attempt to eventually produce their ideal specimen, (based on the Standard / requirements of the time). If you go back far enough, you will of course you find Mastiff to X (where X = other breed/type/etc). This is true of all modern breeds.
Because we have bred “non-standard colours” I don’t feel the need to categorise my Mastiff pups as 90% Mastiff / 10% other. Like it or not a Pied-Mastiff is still a Mastiff.

When breeding for a specific look one can, to a degree, limit and shape the outcome. If this was only affecting the look of the dog all would be well and good. However it does not. Too many factors come into play at a genetic level and we find that we are also affecting structure, movement, health, size, etc. This is the crux of one of Colonel Hancock’s statements: “What are we losing by not breeding from these dogs?”

Yes they have a “pied colouring” They may also have any of the following: correct rear-angulation, non-dippy backs, the ability to move freely and powerfully, classic Mastiff temperament: In essence, conform more to the “standard” than many other dogs that are being paraded around the show ring today. And winning might I add!

I’m not asking anyone to make a judgement based on the soundness of these pups. Time, nature and our rearing process will tell that. What I am asking for is the understanding that if these dogs grow to be fine physical specimens of the breed with points worthy of being bred from, why should a simple thing like an aesthetic preference stop them from being classed as Mastiffs. I guess the main issue I have is that of a Standard that discriminates on this basis. If “pieds” were bringing physical problems, (such as the visual and immunity problems associated with some types of albinism), I would certainly see the point.

When the “Standards” (and each revision), were agreed upon, it was not Nature that differentiated the colours that were “legal”, it was Humans. In short, it was our preference of the time in question.
I have not yet been presented with one clear or concise argument as to why the pied colour has been omitted from the Standards, other than a human preference for cosmetic value.
If this is indeed the case the standard can be changed again, because as we all know, preferences can change. Pieds are not allowed only because we have said so.

Warmest regards to you all.
Si 

Hi Cristin,

Thanks for the enquiry. We're not 100% sure at the moment....lol
To preface my answer though .....

We are subject to the Australian Standard as defined by the Australian National Kennel Club (Kennel Club London - Amended May 1997 FCI Standard No. 264).

Under the section 'Colour' it states:
Apricot, fawn or brindle. In any case, muzzle, ears and nose should be black with black around eye rims, and extending upwards between them. Excessive white on body, chest or feet is unacceptable

Under the section 'Faults' it states:
Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.

Given the above we would like to register the pups as Pied on the full register however this may be declined due to the specific delineation of ‘Apricot, fawn or brindle’. Our understanding is that they should be allowed onto the Limited register. If this is all we can get it is what we will do.!
Those of you who know us however will realise that this will be a challenge to which we will passionately rise. J

There are clauses in the Code of Ethics for our state controlling body -DOGS NSW, that allow for breeding of a dog not on the main register if
“i) such mating is for the health, welfare and/or the development of a breed or an aspect thereof,
and
ii) The member has obtained the prior approval of the Board of Directors.

We will most likely be following this path as we believe that these special pups came to us for a reason. They must have known that we would fight for them.
We are not out to develop a new type of Mastiff, we are simply trying to improve the breed from what it is sadly becoming. Any Mastiff worthy of breeding should be used in this process and surely not omitted for something as unimportant as coat colour.

Steve,
Just got your response. I’ll get onto that next

Cheers
Si

H

PS:

The look on your Mastiff's face is PRICELESS!

love that pic

Gidday Steve,

I love the perspectives you put forward as they certainly get my mind working overtime.
It was actually quite entertaining to read all the comments prior to your entrance into the discussion.
We all value your opinions, thoughts, knowledge-base and dedication to the breed, even if not all of us agree all of the time. Forgive me if I get too dry on a topic, as it means no disrespect for your views. I tend to remove, or isolate emotional repercussions, which may be the result of my blunt approach to a topic under review, so it is nothing personal and my wish is that it should always be seen as such!

A couple of points that I would like to clarify just to set a clearer view of where we are coming from....
Whilst I agree with the premise of your statement “To ignore a non standardized color, in any breed, moves away from the basic image we have acquired for breed type.”, I see the acquisition of breed type as being one set down on paper for a variety of reasons and not always valid ones for all ensuing times. I don’t believe a Standard should be a static device. Rather it should be one that is able to be changed when change is needed, (not when change is wanted). I guess the problem really comes down to who decides when the change is needed. Our case to the authorities will be based thus. As you may be aware, I've been an advocate for standard clarification (change) for more years than I care to remember! So I have no issue if certain changes are made, even those that may accommodate the pied as a recognized color. Until a DNA test is developed to detect the color,  introducing pieds en masse into the gene pool can have consequences. We can control fawns, brindles & apricots, but the pied is not predictable and due to that reality, should be restricted until such a DNA test becomes available. It is unfair to expose the totality of all Mastiff breeders to the pied gene, not because of a bias against pied, but rather because of the uncontrolled nature of the outcomes.

I can’t agree or disagree with an all-white or all blackDalmatian. I’m not an aficionado of the breed but if there was a need........ Need or not, a solid colored Dalmatian distorts type, even though it is just a cosmetic equivalent. Therefore, we should not discount cosmetic affect as it relates to aesthetics & current breed identity, despite ancient imagry and unproven theories of purity.

We certainly don’t plan on abandoning the Standard. Amending is not Abandonment! And I believe that Jen and I are experienced enough to profess that our reasons are not as base and simplistic as personal appeal. Yes I can see the danger that comes with this: Where do we stop? My concern is following a standard, even though we disagree with some of the tenets in that standard! If we all start doing our own thing, because we disagree with the standard, then the consequences can be the result of irresponsible actions. If we draw the lines, based on our own subjective rationalizations, even with strong beliefs behind those views, it still does not justify independent action especially if that action can affect others in the process.
Though should we also be policing differing “types” within the breed via the Standard?
I’ve seen Mastiffs that resemble Bloodhounds, Bullmastiffs, even Danes and Corsos.
Should we omit these dogs from being bred or even registered? Perhaps!

Pt2 to follow........................
 

I would like to see the pied colouring accepted into the standard. I also believe that judging at a show is the sole domain of the judge adhering to the standard and that a judge could not award a dog based on this. I do not have an issue with this. That’s showing!
Whilst not a judge, I do believe I know a good Mastiff when I see one.
I do not accept that colour imparts to or detracts from a specimen being a good dog. Aesthetics should not be discounted. I agree with you that a good dog is a good dog despite the color, but evaluating breed type must never discount color! 

I loved your comment –“But if we objectively see the pied as just another Mastiff with a different paint job, then we can make a choice as to the merits of breeding a pied back into the gene pool, or restricting a color that is at present unrecognized”.

I agree with this fully in its own context. It is what we have been saying all along. What I am saying is that the color must first be recognized, before we proceed with our rational conclusions.
I can’t comment on the “Dudley nose and faded mask” as regrettably I’m ignorant on the matter.
But objectively, I would have no problem breeding a specimen with such a trait if its desirable features outweighed a cosmetic “fault”.
I think the phrase “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” or “slobber cloth out with the slobber” would fit well here. Unfortunately, we see the repercussions of such thinking from Crown Prince (dudley) to Deer Run Jericho City (faded pigment). These traits span countless generations and are directly responsible for many of the poorly pigmented Mastiffs that crop up to this point in time. Breeding actions have long standing consequences, since genes don't die. So before we take unilateral actions in reintroducing, or expanding anomalies, even if just cosmetic, we should first explore all of the ramifications before acting.

(Please forgive the pedantic nature of my next.... I’m really not meaning to be argumentative but this seems like a circular argument to me Steve). Understandable!

1.“So we either follow a standard, or we don't!

2.If we change the standard to accommodate the pied, then we saturate the gene pool.

3.Not every breeder wants unpredictable pieds showing up in their litters”

1.Yes, we follow the Standard. It is the Standard itself and its flimsy and untenable prejudicial reasoning on colour that I have an issue with. No argument!

2.If we change the Standard we saturate the gene pool
We have a gene pool that is currently attaining a high level of saturation of dippy backs, a significant lack of rear angulation, appalling movement and generally unsound dogs.
Injecting different genes from dogs that are in ALL RESPECTS Mastiffs (pieds), may certainly saturate the gene pool with their coat colourisation, but may actually serve to revive some of the qualities that are evidently lacking. False reasoning! Wishful thinking. The pied is not the answer to better structural integrity in the Mastiff. Better breeding methods and a tighter standard is the way towards that end. The pied is not a messiah, it is a color anomaly.

3.As a breeder I certainly don’t anything unpredictable (such as physical deformities and defects) showing up in my litters. BUT THEY DO, THEY HAVE AND THEY WILL. If the pied colouring had been an accepted one in the centuries old Standard, this remark wouldn’t even be an issue. Unfortunately, it's not an accepted color, but once again, would only be considered a costmetic fault under the AKC standard. Therefore, a pied could win at a sanctioned AKC show. I would have no problem placing a pied over a fawn, if the pied were the better representative of the breed in all other respects!

My conclusion for the above argument is that to lock oneself into a Standard means that you limit oneself to the rigidity and pitfalls that are self-inherent in that system. Agreed!
Yes, I understand that this is the core of purebred breeding.
However, allowance for diversity and the betterment of the breed MUST take precedence over the socially accepted parameters. If we restrict our dogs based on this really unimportant feature I believe we are acting only out of our own desires and not that of our four legged friends. Perhaps, but the standard needs to be revised before taking unilateral action, based on your personal beliefs, even if others including myself, may agree with you on many counts!

If you ask me what is the value of amending the Standard to include the Pied colours
I will answer

Nothing. And Everything!

With greatest respect
Si

PS: I think Steve we both share the ideals of your apt signature on your posts.
“For the betterment of the breed”
The paths we follow may be different though the sought after destination remains the same.
I think where we differ is the reasoning behind defining a fault. I don’t believe that the pied colour is or should be considered as such. A fault in structure is certainly not desirable and a fault in cosmetics is never valued the same as a structural fault. That said, I still don't want to see brown Flamingos, even though it's just a cosmetic anomaly!

Hi Erika,

The Pied Mastiff is rare. We don't think we can fault it for that or hide the fact that the colour does exist in the breed.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who will try to capitalize on the breeding of purebred dogs: We don't believe we should have to hide anything about our own breeds just to deflect these types of people.

As for pieds becoming more popular than other colors, we don't really have an issue with people having personal preferences. A lot of Mastiff buyers prefer fawns over brindles. We do think though that anybody wanting a pied colored Mastiff might have to stay on multiple waiting lists for a very a long time...LOL.

Just as we Mastiff breeders have trouble accepting the emergences of new types of dogs, a lot  of dog enthusiasts around the world have trouble accepting the modern Mastiff breeder.  We believe this is because many breeders place the attainment of great size and 'True type' above the welfare of their own beloved dogs.  Many modern Mastiff breeders now consider it normal for a Mastiff to live to 6 years while the world around us weeps more tears about this than some of us do.

In England there are non-pedigree dog loving societies that get together for country shows and events. These breeders and exhibitors are becoming very well regarded in British society.  Humility, tolerance and truthfulness is perhaps just what we need a bit more of at this time.  The pied Mastiff is a truth. We have just bred pedigree Mastiff to pedigree Mastiff and now have three pieds, two gorgeous fawns, two brindles and one apricot. Pretty much a full house of colours inclusive of the three wild cards...LOL.

We would feel uncomfortable posting a copy our pedigree's on a public forum, (due to concerns of other breeders) but any forum member wishing to see our dogs' pedigrees, please just email us at mastiffs@gammonwood.net

We'll be happy send them in a reply email.

For anyone trying to avoid the pied gene, the only advice we can give is DO NOT acquire any Gammonwood dogs!  Every dog we own is related to our new young pieds.

We are not going to perform a DNA parentage test.

People can either accept what we share or not.

We really don't mind. 

We can guarantee though, that there was no fence jumping involved. Any amorous stray would had to have got past our other Mastiffs. NOT BLOODY LIKELY!
The only other possibility would be a mentally challenged sexually-frustrated Kangaroo. But we see no pouches on the pooches.

If DNA is needed from us for scientific study.... that's a different matter all together and we will gladly do whatever is in our means to be helpful in these endeavors.

Linda, thank you for your input. It's really good to hear from people who have had contact with pieds.

Kind regards
Jen & Si

Steve the Egyptian image is incredible and Janine your pic certainly looks like a Brindle Pied Mastiff, WOW!...I'm going to try that with our boy..LOL
If you are interested in any further reading material on coat colour, David Hancock has some excellent articles on his website

154 Colour Prejudice; Whites Only for a Breed
http://www.davidhancockondogs.com/archive_150_170.html
481 Colour Perceptions    
http://www.davidhancockondogs.com/archive_399_493.html
542 Breeding for Coat    
http://www.davidhancockondogs.com/archive_494_585.html
726 Putting Dogs Before Breeds  
http://www.davidhancockondogs.com/archive_685_728.html