" I am a little too simple to follow that post! I just am not up to discussing dogs in that fashion.
But I can discuss what I see from a layman's point of view. I think
The point I made is that when looking at a dog, the "back" length in relation to the rib cage is different on the top than on the bottom. In this skeletal drawing, I am still seeing that. Maybe I am not saying it all correctly.
Susan said; "I do see how more of the length comes from the back than the loin (discussing the dog that I posted that I felt was long in back) I find my eye is more drawn to the bottom of the brisket and belly to help identify it though..."
My point was "your evaluation of back length based on rib position will change if you look at it from below as opposed to on top".
The "back" or thoracic vertebrae appear in this diagram to end mid rib cage on the top, while on the bottom the ribs are still under the lumbar vertebrae (or what I look at as the loin region).
Perhaps the three of us are all discussing something different? Happens on line sometimes. "
Here is my whole point...you pulled out a picture of a skeleton and proceeded to list where YOU thought things were located. Well, where you think things are located, or where the AKC thinks they are located does not make this correct. The fact is... that in Veterinary medicine, in Human Medicine and in Anatomical Canine and Human Terminology the terms used were incorrect.
Now, I'm sorry but the thoracic vertebrae are one set...you can't just divide them as you did *** "or thoracic vertebrae appear in this diagram to end mid rib cage on the top, while on the bottom the ribs are still under the lumbar vertebrae "*** these are bony landmarks meant to divide the body. The fact is that the spinous processes of each set of vertebrae are very different from each other and is why they are divided into the distinct groups they are in. This was incorrect and the regions you listed are also backwards in regards to ANATOMICAL terminology as well as placement. Your opinion is well regarded and trust me, I also listen when you say things and do research. Sometimes...opinions should be taken as just that...opinions. Our standard does not contain an illustration of a skeleton with reference to where the back is located in regards to the ribs. If it ever does...then I really hope it does clean up the language to make it acceptable in all facets, as well as use boney landmarks for what they are...boney landmarks. vertebral groups are just that "groups" and you can't divide them. My original point to you was that you were making reference to something as a rib that was in fact cartilage. The'yre not the same thing...I don't know how else to say it...again using boney landmarks incorrectly. The sternum is not a rib and it's not cartilage, no matter how you slice it the ribcage is not one continuous piece..it's three separate pieces. Sometimes some can be trying to make a valid point without trying to get egg on someones face. I thought the point of this was education, but instead of simply correcting mis-information...it appears you've taken this as a personal attack. This is not the case...I'm sure there are many times you have corrected me that is was meant as nothing more than a correction...or I could be wrong..lol
Posted on Jul 15, 2010, 6:32 PM from IP address 99.57.28.68
