Reprinted with kind permission from the Author
- Jane Reif
A new Tibetan Terrier owner, bubbling
with enthusiasm, wrote me recently, Asking to "learn-everything about
the breed". At the time I was up to my ears in whelping, breeding,
club obligations, and that host of items that absorb our lives as breeder-exhibitors.
But, one of the question asked by this nice gal from Texas was a familiar
ones "Tell me the difference between the Lamleh and the Luneville
lines ?"
I didn't have time then (don't have
much more now), but I have been thinking about her questions while I watched
new puppies et al. It is a question I have heard many times: I remember
asking it myself. In many ways it is unanswerable for so little "pure"
Lamleh and "pure" Luneville is being bred today, excluding Lehlam
(formerly Lamleh) and Luneville in England, both still active and Kalai
in this country, based on Lamleh, and carried on after Mrs. Murphy's death
by young Ms. Tyrell.
The majority of all other Tibetan Terrier
lines or strains are the result of outcrosses between the two lines. After
these initial outcrosses, breeders seemed to swing heavily toward one line
or the other, based on what they perceived the breed to be.
To understand all this, one must go
back to the original lines starting with the Lamleh Kennel of Dr. A.R.H.
Greig in England (Latmah and Ladkok being the names of her mother's and
sister's companion kennels). These foundation Tibetan Terriers were brought
in, primarily by "Nancy" Greig from northern India and directly
from Tibet. Starting fairly early in the game (one must remember that Dr.
Greig came from a "doggy" tradition), she developed several important
strains within her own evolving Lamleh line, but the earliest dogs had
certain strong characteristics in common: a square, sturdy look, double
shaggy coat, high-set profuse tail, large, flat feet, a rather natural
canine head, and what appeared to be low hocks. Most of them were gold
or golden and white, although later so called parti-colors appeared as
well as some tri colors and blacks.
As she went along it did appear (again
judging from early photographs) that Dr. Greig refined her type slightly.
The dogs of the post war era did not always have the bold look of the early
dogs. And, one can trace her type by looking at photographs chronologically,
Jana of Lamleh, a Crufts winner of 1939, was a more "sophisticated"
Tibetan than was "Bunti", Dr. Greig's first.
About 1960, Connie and John Downey
of Luneville fame bred their Tibetan bitch, Luneville Lady Penelope, to
Ch. Kala Kah of Lamleh (a rare black of Dr. Greig's), producing the famed
stud dog, Eng. Ch. Luneville Prince Khan This was to change the breed in
profound ways.
Lady Penelope was the daughter of Ch.
Trojan Kynos, the F.P.U. (Further Particulars Unknown) dog found on the
docks by John Downey and verified as a TT by the Kennel Club. The Downeys'
Ch. Princess Aureus was, in turn, the daughter of Princess Chan, another
F.P.U. Tibetan, and of Ch. Pa San g of Lamleh owned by Dr. Greig.
After the breeding of Kala Kah to Penelope,
Dr. Greig fought the Downeys and Luneville with both increasing ardor and
bitterness, claiming the dogs were "impure". She sold her stock
to Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, the Unite States- but no longer to English
breeders. The Downeys continued to inbreed on their own stock and to set
their "type" firmly in the breed. Their dogs were presented in
the ring nicely groomed thus attracting a good deal of attention often
denied Dr. Greig's Lamlehs.
Yet this unfortunate turn of events
proved to be a boon to the United States for Dr. Greig sent excellent stock
to Dr. and Mrs. Murphy who founded "Kalai" in 1957. In essence,
England's loss was our gain. It was on this Lamleh stock sent her that
Mrs. Murphy put her own personal stamp, so that today, Kalai is really
a line of its own, based on Lamleh.
Now, how are they different, how alike?
In our Standard a great deal of emphasis has been put on "head",
and rightly so. To my eye (and not my ear) the Lamleh, Kalai, and Luneville
heads differ. In Kalai and Lamleh, the proportion is one-to-one with the
eyes (eye set) equidistant from the nose leather to the centre of the skull,
forming a square.
The difference between Lamleh and Kalai
is very slight, but the Kalai head is a tiny more wedge-shaped. The nose
leather on Lamleh is bigger, stronger looking, the head a bit bolder, yet
holding the same shape. The Luneville head, to me, is slightly more rectangular,
and the eyes are set closer together (not close, just closer). The skull
and muzzle lean to wards the Beardie look at times, occasionally with a
hint of romanizing on the muzzle. However, it is important to point out
that a GOOD Tibetan head of these lines more closely resembles a GOOD tibetan
head of the other two. In other words, excellence falls within true type.
(Even with minor variations, it is the same theme).
In addition to the head variations,
there are others. Early on, the Shahi-Taj line of Bill Walsh was forged
out of an outcrossing of Kalai and Luneville. Since Walsh was a professional
breeder, his influence was felt strongly. And while today, many of the
breeders who started with Shahi-Taj stock lean strongly one way or the
other to either of the founding lines, most of them have chosen Luneville.
Here we find a distillation of the English Luneville that is hard to put
into words, but is there nevertheless.
Many of these dogs do not have the
depth of brisket and the rounded loin of the "pure" Luneville
dogs. They mature rather early, carry beautiful coats lovely temperament,
have a tendency to smaller feet and straighter angulation in the rear.
They are very often quite small and have a tendency to "elongate in
proportion (carrying the slightly shorter leg) and to have too long a neck.
While Kalai is more sophisticated (more
polished?) in looks than early Lamleh, it does retain that "survivor"
look found in special breeds. The good Saluki, for example, has it, the
near perfect expression of form following function. So, most Kalai dogs
look as if they could survive. There is a "presence" about the
good ones. Physically, I have found the Kalai dogs vary quite a bit. They
range wider in size than the Luneville or Luneville based lines, and they
mature very late. My foundation bitch is a "pure" Kalai, granddaughter
of Shanak. While she is of moderate size (14-3/4") her "fighting"
mature weight is 25 pounds. Even weighing 28-29 pounds in full pregnancy,
her centre of gravity does not change much; she looks and acts about the
same. She possesses a lovely loin, a powerful body, great depth of brisket
and a strong, well muscled neckline, but true to Kalai, not always. At
12 months even at 18 months, she was a leggy, boney, elbowy youngster weighing
a mere 18 pounds. She happens to be my personal example of the later maturing
qualities of the Kalai line. She also represents two strains within the
five Dr. Greig told me she sent to this country. Other Kalai Tibetans are
light in bone, a bit rangier in look. But regardless of these variances,
one must have more patience to deal with Kalai and Lamleh, but then one
must have equal patience with fine wine.
Coat variance in Kalai is wide also,
ranging from the near straight to very heavy undulation (nearly curly).
All of these carry heavy undercoat.
Also characteristic of Kalai are large,
flat feet; low hocks; and, slightly wider rears and fronts. A flaw in the
line is the tendency to over angulation ion, just as a flaw in Luneville
is the tendency to straight stifles.
In order to fully compare the two lines
(and their strains) I suppose one would have to put dogs together in terms
of developmental age rather than chronological. It might mean something
as farfetched as comparing an eight month old puppy with a three year old.
From my point of view (and we are all
subjective) I prefer to stand in the middle. I admire the coats, temperaments,
high tail sets, and strong bodies of the English Lunevilles. Equally so,
I wish to retain the classic Lamleh head, proportions and "look";
the large feet (set in Kalai so well); and the strong rears of that line.
I do not mind waiting the-extra year or two for maturity. A slow maturing
Tibetan has great advantages (even if judges do not always agree). Devotees
of each line are very strong minded in Tibetans, perhaps more so than in
any other breed, so to try for the middle is sometimes difficult. I would
like to point out one last thing. GOOD Tibetans, regardless of line, have
far more in common than they have differences.
To look at a picture of Int. and Nordic
Ch. Chamar's' Chamar, bred by Anniette Ljoner-Larrson in Sweden, of pure,
old Lamleh stock and to look at another dog, English-bred, now living in
Germany, Int. Eng. Ger. Ch. Willowbrae Willow, pure Luneville, a son of
Eng. Ch. Luneville Prince Khan, is to look at two mature Tibetan Terrier
males who might well be litter brothers. When it comes to excellence, we
may not be as far apart as we think we are?