Summary: Comparing DNA data and pedigree records shows that there is a error in the pedigree record somewhere between 1970 and 2009 (13 generations), affecting the pedigrees of as many as 10,000 Norwich alive today.
For many years I have been working on a Norwich pedigree database which currently has records of over 50,000 Norwich, see
This database contains data on the Norwich from all the major countries with Norwich: the US, the UK, Finland, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands - these are the countries where over 1000 Norwich have been born - plus other countries.
One of the things that genealogists do with such a database is look at the maternal and paternal lines of descent. (The maternal line of descent is just looking at the mother, then the mother of the mother, then the mother of the mother of the mother, etc. The paternal line of descent is doing the same with the fathers.) I did this several years ago and saw that all Norwich currently alive are paternally descended through one dog, "Whinlatter Allercombe Hiker" (born 1956). (Try this yourself. Start with one of your Norwich, look at his father, then his father, etc. Eventually you will get back to "Whinlatter Allercombe Hiker".) For the maternal line of descent, all Norwich alive today are descended according to my pedigree database (version 3.09) through one of 12 Norwich females.
I am also working on a Norwich DNA database. I currently have over 350 Norwich in the database, using DNA provided by owners and analyzed by Embark (embarkvet.com). When most people think of DNA, they think of the DNA in the nucleus of the cell. But the mitochondria in the cell, which generate most of the chemical energy used by the cell, also has its own DNA. (Interestingly, instead of the double helix structure of DNA in the nucleus, mitochondrial DNA is just a single ring.) The important thing to know about mitochondrial DNA is that it is passed down from a mother to her children. The father's mitochondrial DNA is NOT passed down. Also mitochondrial DNA rarely mutates. These two facts allow scientists and genetic genealogists to trace the maternal ancestry for thousands of generations, rather than just the few generations that written records provide. If you follow the maternal line of descent - just going back from daughter to mother repeatedly, all of them should have the same - or nearly identical - mitochondrial DNA. (The Y-chromosome, which is rather small and also rarely changes, allows one to do the same for the paternal line.)
Embark gives the maternal and paternal lines of descent in the reports that they provide. So far I have observed three different types of Norwich mitochondrial DNA, which must have come from three different maternal ancestors. Let us call them maternal ancestor "A", maternal ancestor "B", and maternal ancestor "C". I believe that all Norwich are descended from one of these three females (who predate breed formation).
Note that I am NOT saying that all Norwich are only descended from these three females and one male. There were others, but in the case of females their mitochondrial DNA did not get passed down (for example, by a mother having only sons). For males, a father only having daughters would stop his Y-chromosome from being passed down.
Recently I wondered how the three known maternal ancestors (from the genetic record) compared with the 12 maternal ancestors (from the pedigree records). I was curious what the pedigree record could tell me about the number of dogs descended from each of the three maternal ancestors.
I took each of the 206 females whose genetic maternal ancestor I knew (from the Embark reports) and traced each back through the pedigree records. For example, one of my dogs ("Shaksper Amanda Seyfried") is descended from genetic maternal ancestor "C". According to the pedigree record, her maternal ancestor is "Chidley Fiona". So I put "Chidley Fiona" under "maternal ancestor C". I did this for all 206 females whose Embark reports I have, and came up with the following (along with their dates of birth):
| A: | Allercombe Erica (1948) |
| Fardon Griselda (1952) | |
| Jericho Pickle (1958) | |
| Lady Starlight (1947) | |
| B: | Bargrange Struggler (1959) |
| Foxybrook Evelyn (1958) | |
| Upland Spring Magpie (1959) | |
| Lady Starlight (1947) | |
| C: | Chidley Fiona (1967) |
| Uppermeadow's Quaker Lady (1993) | |
| Outfoxed Dionis Dove (2004) | |
| Ringmer Fly (1949) |
But then I noticed a problem. "Lady Starlight" is listed under both maternal ancestor A and maternal ancestor B. This meant that I had a dog in my DNA database whose genetic maternal ancestor is A and another dog whose genetic maternal ancestor is B, but who both have the same pedigree maternal ancestor ("Lady Starlight") This can not be! Genetic maternal ancestors are distinct. I had a mystery!
Investigating further, I found that I have ten dogs in my DNA database whose pedigree maternal ancestor is "Lady Starlight" - four with genetic maternal ancestor A and six with genetic maternal ancestor B. This means that it is unlikely to be a lab error when the DNA was analyzed and the genetic maternal ancestors were determined. The more likely explanation is an error in the pedigree records.
I am not surprised that there are pedigree errors. When AKC started doing DNA parentage testing in the 1990s, they found that 10 percent of pedigrees were incorrect. Since then, the AKC estimates that the error rate has dropped to approximately 2 percent. DNA does not lie, whereas humans make mistakes. Pedigrees are currently based upon trust. We trust that the breeder tells the kennel club the correct sire and correct dam of each puppy. Sometimes this does not happen, usually because the breeder makes an error (but sometimes because of fraudulent activity). I want to emphasize that this pedigree mystery about which I am talking is most likely caused by simple human error. I am NOT implying or accusing anyone of fraud. I want my pedigree database to be as accurate as possible. So I am very interested to narrow down where in the pedigree records the error occurs.
I first double-checked that the recorded pedigrees for all ten dogs are correct, and that each has maternal ancestor "Lady Starlight". For all my pedigree data, I have photographic copies of the source material, and thus I can always check my data for accuracy.
I next looked for all daughters of "Lady Starlight" (since any sons are not able to pass down their mitochondrial DNA), looking for ones who have descendants alive today. There is only one, "Marygold Of Eildonbrae". I then did the same for "Marygold Of Eildonbrae". Again there is only one daughter with descendants alive today, "Whinlatter Cracker Of Turtillus". Fortunately "Whinlatter Cracker Of Turtillus" had two daughters with living descendants, "Whinlatter Coral" and "Whinlatter Charity".
| DOB | Name | ||
| 1947 | Lady Starlight | ||
| 1950 | Marygold of Eildonbrae | ||
| 1952 | Whinlatter Cracker Of Turtillus | ||
| 1957 | Whinlatter Coral | ||
| A (3 dogs) | |||
| B (2 dogs) | |||
| 1958 | Whinlatter Charity | ||
| B (5 dogs) | |||
Of the ten dogs whose DNA I have descended from "Lady Starlight", I have indicated through whom they are descended and their maternal ancestor: five through "Whinlatter Coral" and five through "Whinlatter Charity". Since there are dogs with maternal ancestor B in both litters, this means that "Whinlatter Cracker of Turtillus" had maternal ancestor B. And that the pedigree error happened in a litter of "Whinlatter Coral" or one of her descendants. Since "Whinlatter Cracker Of Turtillus" had maternal ancestor B, so did her daughter "Whinlatter Coral".
I next looked at the daughters of "Whinlatter Coral". Again there was only one with descendants alive today, "Whinlatter Candid". "Whinlatter Candid" also had only one daughter with living descendants, "Whinlatter Copy". And "Whinlatter Copy" only had one daughter with living descendants, "Thrumpton Whinlatter Caprice". But "Thrumpton Whinlatter Caprice" had three daughters with living descendants: "Thrumptons Lady Kate", "Little Princess Of Thrumpton", and "Thrumptons Lady Timberson".
| 1957 | Whinlatter Coral | |
| 1960 | Whinlatter Candid | |
| 1963 | Whinlatter Copy | |
| 1966 | Thrumpton Whinlatter Caprice | |
| 1968 | Little Princess Of Thrumpton | |
| B (1 dog) | ||
| 1970 | Thrumptons Lady Kate | |
| A (3 dogs) | ||
| 1972 | Thrumptons Lady Timberson | |
| B (1 dog) | ||
Since "Whinlatter Coral" had maternal ancestor B, so did "Thrumpton Whinlatter Caprice". We now see the first place that the error might have occurred: in the 1970 litter of "Thrumptons Lady Kate".
Next I started at the other end with the three dogs who have maternal ancestor A. I calculated their maternal ancestors up to "Thrumptons Lady Kate" looking for the common maternal ancestors they had in common. Somewhere in there is where the error occurred. Here is the list of common maternal ancestors.
1966 Thrumpton Whinlatter Caprice (had maternal ancestor B) 1970 Thrumptons Lady Kate 1973 Thrumpton's Lady Kara 1975 Thrumpton's Lady Penny Red 1979 Thrumpton's Lady Kandy 1982 Skyscot's Tealeaf 1988 Skyscot's Maharesred 1989 Skyscot's Water Witch 1992 Skyscot's Wags To Witches *** 1994 Dreamweaver Kitchen Witch 1997 Dreamweaver Right On Red 2001 Dreamweaver's Country Girl *** 2005 Countrygirl Feisty Fiona 2009 Country Girl Bon Bon (had maternal ancestor A)
For the three dogs with maternal ancestor A, they are descended from "Country Girl Bon Bon" by two different litters. So that means that "Country Girl Bon Bon" had maternal ancestor A.
In the hope of narrowing down where the pedigree error occurred, I looked for girls on this list with more than one daughter with descendants alive today. In this I was unlucky, as there are only two: "Skyscot's Wags To Witches" and "Dreamweaver's Country Girl". Sadly there was a long stretch between "Thrumptons Lady Kate" (DOB 1970) and "Skyscot's Wags To Witches" (DOB 1992) where there are no female descendant (other than the ones listed above) with living descendants.
So now we know that the error happened either between 1970 and 1992, between 1992 and 2001, or between 2001 and 2009. This is the best that I can say with the data available. We need more DNA data.
I have listed in Appendix 1, the descendants possibly alive today who are maternally descended from "Skyscott's Wags To Wiches" but not through "Dreamweaver Kitchen Witch". Appendix 2 has the descendants possibly alive today who are maternally descended from "Dreamweaver's Country Girl" but not through "Countrygirl Feisty Fiona". I have reached out to the breeders of all of these dogs, but I have not received any agreement to DNA test these dogs. (I am willing to pay for the DNA testing.)
How many Norwich does this mystery affect? Depending on where the error occurred, my estimate is that the pedigrees of approximately 100 to 10,000 Norwich will be affected, out of a possible 15,00 alive world-wide. My pedigree database has approximately 6,000 Norwich born in the last ten years (approximately 2500 registered to AKC which is almost certainly an underestimate of those registered to AKC). Some Norwich live longer than ten years of age, others do not. And there are dogs not in my database. So 15,000 Norwich alive worldwide today seems like a reasonable upper estimate.
Geneticists like to see full 10-generation pedigrees be available, if possible. This lets calculations of things like coefficients of inbreeding be as accurate as possible. Prior to discovering this pedigeee mystery, 1648 Norwich in my database had full 10-generation pedigrees. Now that the sires of the 13 females in the maternal line from "Country Girl Bon Bon" (DOB 2009) to "Thrumptons Lady Kate" (DOB 1970) are in doubt, only 538 Norwich in my database have full 10-generation pedigrees.
So how did this happen? Possibly, a breeder had two litters at about the same time. When it came time to register the puppies, the breeder could not remember who was the mother of some of the female puppies ... and guessed wrong. This type of confusion is not uncommon. Using DNA I have helped breeders determine the correct parentage of a puppy, when the breeder was unsure. Or possibly some sneaky stud dog got a girl pregnant without the breeder knowing about the tie. (This recently happened to me! I discovered the error when analyzing my dogs' DNA.)
Does this really matter? Should we care if the pedigree record is incorrect in the past? As Norwich terrier breeders, I think we should. The pedigree record is useful for several things. Here are three:
1. Calculating coefficients of inbreeding (COI). Research has shown an inverse relationship between the size of COIs and the size of canine litters.
2. Calculating estimated breeding values (EBVs). In the absence of DNA markers for polygenetic traits, using EBVs is the best way to improve on a trait.
3. Answering population questions of interest. Here is one of my favorites (with a practical application). It is known that more males are born to younger fathers than to older fathers. Does the same thing happen with Norwich Terriers? Should I be choosing older studs if I want more female puppies?
The accuracy of the pedigree record affects these calculations.
There is also the philosophical viewpoint that if one cares that the recent pedigree records of purebred dogs are correct, then why would one not also care about the historical record?
I highly doubt that AKC cares about past errors in the pedigree record. AKC's viewpoint is that once a suspect dog has been bred to three-generations of known purebred dogs then further descendants are considered purebred.
Can nucleic DNA tell us where the error occurred? Unfortunately, no. Nucleic DNA is only reliable for identifying cousins and specific ancestors for about 4-6 generations. Beyond this, DNA segments become so small and fragmented because of sexual recombination that they may not be inherited at all, or cannot be accurately linked to a specific ancestor.
What can be done to narrow the mystery? DNA from any of the dogs in the appendices below would help me narrow where the pedigree error occurred. For any that are female, DNA from any of their puppies would help. If anyone knows the owners of these dogs, please contact them and ask them to let me have some DNA of their dog. I will be happy to send the owner an Embark DNA collection kit (cheek swab). There will be no cost to them, and all results about their dog will be kept confidential.
As to the answer to my original query - how many Norwich are maternally descended from the three maternal ancestors - for the 15,254 Norwich from around the world in my database born in the last 20 years, here are the numbers from each maternal ancestor:
A: 4537 B: 8519 C: 2197
Of the 5,299 AKC Norwich in my database born in the last 20 years, the numbers are:
A: 2180 B: 2354 C : 764
So maternal descendants of ancestor C are the least common, while maternal descendants of ancestor B are more common in Europe than in North America.
Blair Kelly Shaksper Norwich shakspernorwich@gmail.com
Appendix 1
Maternal descendants of "Skyscots's Wags To Witches" who are NOT descended from ""Dreamweaver Kitchen Witch" (and their dates of birth).
20080427 Dreamweaver Foxy 20080427 Dreamweaver Tickled Pink 20110921 Dreamweavermoondanceserenade 20140330 Moondance Great Scott It's Nigel 20140330 Moondance This Girl Is On Fire! 20151008 Moondance That's The Truth 42 At Fox Run 20160509 Moondance Chewbacca 20160509 Moondance Sir Murray 20190223 Moondance Little Red Rider 20190223 Moondance Pocket Full Of Posie 20190223 Moondance Sir Rocky Of Granbury 20200714 Moondance Little Star 20200714 Moondance Star Bella
Appendix 2
Maternal descendants of "Dreamweaver's Country Girl" who are NOT descended from "Countrygirl Feisty Fiona" (and their dates of birth).
20080625 Dunbar's Here Comes The Bride 20080625 Dunbar's Runaway Bride 20090523 Dunbar's Dark Moon Rising 20090523 Dunbar's Jewels Of The Night 20090523 Dunbar's Lady Fergie 20090523 Dunbar's McDuff Thompson 20091211 Moonrock Carter 20091211 Moonrock Lunar Gravity 20091211 Moonrock Ursa Major 20100824 Dunbar's Brides Dowry 20110601 Dunbar's A Kiss To Build Dreams On 20110601 Dunbar's Indispensable Assets 20110602 Dunbar's Mini Cooper 20110602 Dunbars Royal Asset At Talisman 20110602 Dunbar's Timelass Reflections 20110602 Dunbar's Timeless Legacy 20121101 Dunbar's The Sky Is The Limit 20130621 Tnt's Midnight Rumble 20130621 Tnt"S Ready To Rumble 20140727 Moonrock Eagle Has Landed 20140727 Moonrock One Small Step 20140727 Moonrock Tranquility Base 20140906 Dunbar's Heiress 20140906 Dunbar's Texas Heiress 20140906 Dunbar Watermark Red Prince 20150326 Blackridges Doubled Down On Vegas 20150426 Dunbar's Bentley On The Road Again 20150426 Dunbar's Island Connection 20150426 Dunbar's Special Edition For Siete Villas 20160121 Dunbar's Ace 20160121 Dunbar's Gus For Luke 20160121 Dunbar's Party Girl 20160121 Dunbar's Pride And Glory 20160910 Casino Poker Face At M&M 20160910 Casino's Bet Or Check 20160910 Casino's Poker Star 20181201 Tnt's Feel The Thunder 20181201 Tnt's Going Balistic 20200415 Elfin Texas Princess 20201020 Casino's Odds On Little Archie 20201020 Casino's Pay The Piper 20201020 Casino's Poker Queen Bea 20201020 Dougie 20220518 Elfin Barnburner 20220518 Elfin Oklahoma Duchess 20220518 Toby Moreno 20240616 Elfin Autumn Empress