Brevi note sulla chiusura dental

Few notes concerning the dental closure

of the Cane Corso

(translation by Carlo from N.Y.)

Introduction

By the definition of the standard for the Cane Corso, two points in particular have been very debated and have been the subject of much controversy: the dental closure and the coloration of the coat.

In fact, the disputes have been concentrated even more on the first aspect, about which the different views seemed, at least up until sometime ago, not consistent.

These brief writings express a point of view regarding this topic, supported by considerations that start from conceptual and historical assumptions and that are based on evidence and facts easily verifiable also by the mere novice or admirer of the breed, that, puzzled by many speeches often of a sterile technical nature - difficult to understand if not by experts on the subject - require the necessity of a “reference point” clarifier.

To a better clarification and careful deepening of the exposed thesis, is clear our complete availability to add some elements of technical, historical, cynognostic …. etc., to the present notes.

None of the 14 Italian canine breeds, contrary to some of foreign breeds (for example, the Doberman, boxer, etc) has been consciously created by man through precise and planned cross breeding between subjects of predetermined different breeds.

This is valid also and especially for the Cane Corso, that, like all the Italian breeds, anchors its origins in past centuries.

It is of minor importance to the scope of this writing, the name or the appellative that our ancestors gave them (most of the time depending on the task of the subject): canis pugnax, mastino, Molosso Romano, Dogo, Cane da presa, Cane da Pagliaio, etc. etc. . One fact is indisputable: we are dealing about a dog generically defined for its particular morphological and attitudinal characteristics “Molosso”. To characterize it in its place of origin, we will do better to say “Italian/Roman Molosso”.

The Cane Corso, therefore, being a Molosso and with thousands of years of history, does not need to be “reinvented” or “engineered”, but simply recovered and restored through the knowledge of its past (how and why it once was!) and without absolutely resorting to generic defilement of forcing of any kind regarding the aspect of the character or the function of the breed.

“Through the knowledge of its past”, because, for example and to be very clear, it is completely unthinkable today to consider as a “model to be referred a today’s dogs” because it would be very risky to take away measures that are not specifically for the Corso but which come from a selection of other breeds that were used (look at “From SACC’s Convention” article on this web-site !).

So, let’s start again from the Molosso and refer to the Neapolitan mastiff besides, obviously, the Cane Corso.

Teeth bite

Neapolitan Mastiff:

for the standard the bite is categorically “a forbice” (scissors).

The debate begins and is supported by the fact that actually many subjects do not have this type of dental closure, but they keep what largely accepted before the definition of the standard: “level bite (tenaglia)” and “reverse scissor (forbice rovesciata)”.

Cane Corso:

for the standard the bite is categorically “slight undershot” (max. 0,5 cm.).

The debate begins and is supported by the fact that actually many subjects do not have this type of closure but they keep what largely accepted before the definition of the standard: “scissors bite (forbice)” and “level bite (tenaglia)”.

Let’s examine what follows, and then express a brief comment.

A. ENCI (the Italian Kennel Club) declares the standard approved on 2/28/1965 by the Societa’ Amatori del Mastino Napoletano, as follows:

Neapolitan Mastiff

“cane da presa” “cane corso”

B. The Great Master of the Cynophily Piero Scanziani in his book “300 Breeds of Dogs”, in the paragraph

dedicated to the Molossians writes:

o Molosso: Neapolitan Mastiff, Cane da presa, Cane corso.

o Nationality: Italian

o Functions (Use): excellent watchdog and personal defense dog, particularly suitable as a war or police dog, or as a sled dog, easily adaptable to any use, imposing and a devoted companion and walking dog.

o Height: from 60 to 75 cm.

o Weight: 45 - 70 kilos.

o Coat: short haired, shiny.

o Colors: black, blue, lilac, fawn. the color can be uniform or with streaking. normally, there are large white spots on the chest and feet

o Anatomy Characteristics:powerful, massive, reliable and kind hearted with friends, frightening and terrifying for the ill intentioned.

o Head: Molossoide.

o Teeth : Generally level-bite, sometimes slight undershot.

o Eyes: round, brown in the black breed, clear chestnut in the blue and fawn dogs, amber in the lilac dogs.

o Ears: Cropped very short.

o Body: Almost long, correct legs, tail cropped so that cover its genitals

o Personality: Courageous, stoic to pain, affectionable and loving to its master, a terrible adversary with enemies, stable, very intelligent, easily trainable for all aspects of a work dog.

C. C. ENCI, raises the values of Piero Scanziani, writing: “…… fortunately, Piero Scanziani, famous writer and cynophilist, seeing 8 specimens at the dog show of Castel dell’ Ovo the 12th of october 1946, was so impressed by one of the dogs - Guaglione 1° - that he fell in love with the dog and bought him, breeding him and rescuing the breed and initiating a vast movement with the goal of saving the Neapolitan mastiff, thus stabilizing the breed, improving and spreading it. Thanks to him and those who follow his example, attention has been increased, the Neapolitan Mastiff is well known and appreciated everywhere, also overseas, and boasts examples of exceptional quality”.

D. D. The research conducted by the Faculty of Veterinarian Medicine at the University of Pisa (Dott. Scimon Goldmann) to evaluate the morphological parameters of the Cane Corso, as consequence of the proposed standards, stated: (summary): writes:

o Head: skull facial parallel or slightly converging).

o skull/face axles: in many subjects resulted parallel and not converging as indicated by the standards, a slight convergence is noticed only in a few subjects.

o Skull: flat, spherical in some males. The lateral angles of the skull are convergent.

o Muzzle: lateral angles converged (cone trunk).

o Teeth: all of the subjects examined had complete dentures with incisors setting up slightly arched. About half of the subjects have a slight undershot (see the following points for a better understanding of what he meant whit “undershot”)

o Bite: Half of the dogs examined have a “level bite (tenaglia)”; only the subjects with a slight undershot bite have, on the contrary, a “riverse scissors (forbice rovesciata) bite.

For a better understanding, again,: in a ’03 interview on the Workdogs Magazine, Dr. Goldmann stated: “I saw some dogs in Puglia that had an undershot bite but they were very few; most of them had a level (tenaglia) or scissors (forbice) bite. How is it possible to decide that Cane Corso must have an undershot bite when for its cousin “Mastino Napoletano” - that has the same origins - the undershot bite is a defect?”

o Neck: the muscularity varies depending of the state of nutrition and genera] condition All of the subjects had a slight dewlap

o Height: the medium height at the withers, both in males and females, resulted more than the maximum of the accepted standard.

From the preceding points, it is evident that the Roman/Italian Molosso has three types of Bite:

● Scissors (Forbice);

● Level (Tenaglia);

● Reverse scissors (Forbice rovesciata).

If this is accepted for the Roman/Italian Molosso in the same way, it must also be for the Cane Corso !!!!!

Moreover, the same characteristics are present in another canine breed (even though not Italian), with a square face, short and con stop “accentuated”. This is the case of the Saint Bernard dog. Let us not forget that the Saint Bernard derives from those Molossi introduced into Switzerland, through the Alps, by the Romans (the Roman army occupied all of the Swiss valleys up to the Reno).

Concerning the dental closure, the San Bernardo Standard, says:

● Official Standard l FC.I. # 61 from 9/15/1981

The denture structure must be strong and, in line with the structure of the head, with only a slightly strong development. Are required the “Level bite (tenaglia), Scissors bite (Forbice), Slight undershot if the incisors still touch each other (i.e. = reverse scissors; editor’s note).

● Standard FCI #61, revisioned by the Swiss Club and by the SKG in 1993 Strong dental structure, even and complete, Scissors bite (Forbice) or Level bite (forbice). Accepted the reverse scissors bite (forbice rovesciata). The lack of P1 (premolar) is tolerated.

● Italian Saint Bernard Association - Official Standard F.C.l. #61: date of the publication of the current standard: March 24, 1993

The dental structure is regular, complete and very strong, with a closure that can be Scissors bite (Forbice) or Level bite (Tenaglia). The reverse scissors bite (forbice rovesciata) is permitted. The absence of the first premolar is tolerated.

___________

POST SCRIPTUM

Somebody, to support the undershot bite asked by the Cane Corso’s standard, refers to “some measurements” made during the last 80’s.

QUESTIONS:

● How many dogs were technically measured?

● Was the statistical sample really representative of the entire dog’s population and of the all the different bloodlines present in the whole south of Italy?

● During the measurement, have all the statistic techniques been correctly used? Were the results interpreted in their correct statistic meaning or were they used in an unsuitable way? (in the statistic science, for example, the only average value, if not correlated to other parameters is a very “poor” indicator!).

● The recommendations given by Dr. Morsiani to the SACC, about not using in breeding some dogs because they may have been dangerous for the sake of the breed itself, has been really accepted by SACC? Or …. does some of those dogs became actually founder of some lines ….. and then made famous?

● Does the pictures sent by SACC to the ENCI for the recognition of the breed were all of different dogs? Or many of them actually represented the same subject in different positions ….?

We will …….. also ……. write about it !!!

seen even

"traditional morphology"