The type within the
Saint Bernard | Biometrics |
General characteristics |
Head | Nose |
Bridge of the muzzle |
Flews and muzzle
| Jaws |
Dentation |
Strength of the dentature |
Skull |
Eye
| Ear |
Neck |
Body |
Back |
Front limbs |
Hind limbs
| Coat |
Skin |
Height at withers |
Weight |
by Nettunia Publishing House, Bologna, 2000 - Comments of Dr. Antonio Morsiani
Many exhibitors are baffled
by the fact our Saint Bernard is judged differently on shows, sometimes
even antithetically, according to the origin or the country the judge
is from, and ask themselves how could that be if assessment is based on
an only standard. It often happens that a dog, "eccelent" in his own country,
earns less points abroad.
To comprehend this phenomenon, we have to keep in mind the breed has been differentiating in different typologies in the last 35 years, accordingly to the country of origin of the breeder. Today, the old Swiss and German versions who gave the world some of the best exemplars in the history of the breed, are replaced by new typologies which express discrepant morphological characteristics (the new Swiss version, the new German version and the American version). We'll just say for now, that dogs of the peak of Saint Bernard breeding, of old Swiss and German type, during the so-called "golden era" (1920/1940), extended their blood-lines till the 60's, and then completly faded within the new versions.
The golden era dogs remain unexcelled models
and we should try to get back to those amazing typologies. These dogs
of the old Swiss and German type were basically alike, apart from a few
slight differences which were more of an incitement to improvement of
the breed through competition. For example Swiss dogs were better as far
as colour of the coat, in shining white markings, in nobleness and functionality,
whereas the German ones were more marked, with square and angular heads,
but differences were truly slight. The great Meta von Lotten, best at
the 1935 World Championship in Frankfurt, was not to different, in general
characteristics, from the famous German champion Leda von Taubertal, who
was born 7-8 years before, and the same goes for the famous Swiss Sieger,
Apollo Rongang, sold in the USA for an amount sufficient to by a residence
in the center of Zürich or Munich,
was morphologically close to Kavalier von Grossglockner, milestone of German breeding
in the 20's. Equally famous was Emir von Jura owned by Giavina and his
son Rasko von der Reppisch, who represented (especially the first) the
peak in the Saint Bernard breeding, were not to different from the contemporary
German champions Nelson von Falkenstein and Lütjer von Hemphorn. But there
is more: the Swiss champion Marco von Rigi was much alike to the best
German short-haired exemplars of the time.
This uniformity was due to different reasons. The first is the frquent exchange of dogs, the second is that judgement was similar in all European countries.
On the contrary, after the war, things changed a lot, different clubs of the breed shut themselves in a weird kind of autarchy which brought to the cease of dog exchange and the extinction of blood-lines, which had as a consequence a loss of vitality, reduction of size, dystrophy, expression of latent negative traits, and so on.
It might seem a paradox, but in an era of computers, supersonic aircrafts and interplanetary missiles, the world of the Saint Bernard, instead of becoming more international and enjoy progress, regressed. The old faults of chauvinism, provincialism and empiricism, we thought were over with, expressed again stronger than ever.
If we consider the history of breeding under the prospective of type, we can see the Standard had two compilations: the 1886 one adopted by SKG and the later one, approved on june 2nd 1887 at the International Congress. As stated before, both Standards were compiled having in mind dogs such as Dr. Künzli's and Schumacher's. If we confront those standards to the ones of other breeds of the same period we'll find they were ahead of their time.
Nevertheless, if the dogs who had inspired the Standard went, thirty years later, to a competition with prototypes of the golden era (which based themselves on the same Standard as well), wold be at risk of dismissal.
What does it mean? It means the Standard was already obsolete and inadequate to contain the breed within a sole typology by the 20's and 30's of the 20th century. Besides, all "18th-century" Standards became rapidly old, for they could not keep up with the progress zootechnic sciences had made.
For this reason the 1934 Munich World Cynologic Congress stated, based upon these sciences, steady rules in the description of canine breeds ethnic characteristics to which the countries members of the Congress would have had to abide. It was not felt by the SKG (Kennel Club Svizzero) , for the Saint Bernard breed, there was the need to allineate (or abide to the new typologies expressed by the "golden era"), so that the breed continued to progress til the 40's through the spontaneous updating applied silently to the standard by the great breeders of the period before the war. Unfortunately this Saint Bernard loving aristocracy had but few epigons, so that the entire tradition of selection and breeding could not be felt by the new breeders of the post-war period (mainly outsiders). Under these circumstances the lack of update within the Standard or the lack of an interpretational model of it, contributed greatly to this state of anarchy.
What are we to do to put an end to this chaos?
Should we compile a new Standard?
We most certainly should, as long as it is based on the criteria of the 1934 Munich Congress.
Unfortunately there are reasonable doubts this might occur, as the actual re-edited version of the Standard proves. Let's leave then the Standard as it is and try to interpret it through an appropriate research on the breed, basing ourselves on what cynotechnics has to offer us.
Everybody knows that compared anatomy allows us today to rebuild an entire animal from a bone, and that correlational laws exist regarding anatomical characteristics,
which allow to underestand the architecture of a whole body from the study on
a certain region of the body. For example: a very narrow head will always
have almond-shaped eyes and set on the side, whereas a very wide head
will have roundish frontally set eyes, therefore a skull with a very well-defined
stop will always present a convergency between the superior axis of the
skull and of the muzzle, and a short muzzle, on the contrary, a skull
which presents a receding or inexisting stop will have the aforementioned
axis deverging between them and a long muzzle.
These laws allow us to set the research on different canine breeds easily.
Not all Saint Bernard lovers know that most advanced canine breeds beneficiated from these kind of research. Let's just think of the American, French or Italian researches in this field on gallopers and trotters, on the observation of gait in the German shepherd (which potentiated the aforementioned breed), think of the studies of animal mechanics and cynematics performed on the boxer by Frau Stockmann in the 30's-40's (and later by others), which allowed a not jet seen progress in the locomotory system of this dog or, finally, analysis of the morphology and type of the Pointer and the Setter groups, which turned these breeds in true racing cars.
Many make the mistake of feeling the Standard is an encyclopedia which contains all there is to know on cynotechnics regarding a certain breed and not (as in our case) the sum of a particular moment in time of the transformation of a work-type dog into an exhibition exemplar.
"Durch Arbeit zum Typus": "through work we reach type", in zootechnics the thing that really counts is not only absolute beauty, the aesthetic one, but the beauty of adaptation or functional in which there is a perfect balance of external shape and the function the animal shoud perform. Therefore an animal is beautiful if it is useful, that is: all of his systems are perfectly apropriate to the task it has. For example: a dachshund is certainly aesthetically unpleasant, but regarded in his function, he becomes beautiful.
To draw a conclusion: in cynotechnics, beauty is not a "quid" which pleases the eye of an artist (as a greek statue or a Leonardo painting), but all of that that implicates a fair structure, a maximal aptitude to a certain function.
On the other hand we know breeds are not static entities, but groups that are constantly evolving. We have to ask ourselves if, as far as rescue tasks of the Saint Bernard dog, the evolution the breed had from Schumacher till present days is a positive or a negative thing.
This question is difficult to answer, because our breed had not have a functional employment for a very long time, it was not used, as many other breeds, for its specific work-purpose. As a matter of fact, at high altitudes, the Saint Bernard's work was not carried out by other breeds (as some could think), but by technology invented by man. Today's mountain work became a team-work in which the dog's role lost the 90%, if not even a 100% of its former purpose, so that can even be used for the same tasks breeds of no specific aptitude (such as the German shepherd), whose size is more appropriate for transportation by aircraft.
If we eanted to try out our actual dogs at work (training them since they were puppies) with the same methods the monks used, we couldn't find any more the proper conditions.
The prospective for defence or hunting dogs is much different, as they can still, thanks to their morphological assets, be frequently employed for their specific work trials.
The question we must ask ourselves is: is the Saint Bernard a modern breed who has lost the aptitude its distant ancestors had, as Hans Glockner stated in the far 1930, or is it an embellished work-dog, as stated by Gustave Giavina in the same period?
We strongly feel that dogs of the old German and Swiss version (the latter ones in particular) were potentially work-dogs and the few left over belonging to the same category still are.
On the contrary, I think almost all actual dogs (new Swiss, German and American version) can be considered excellet for guardship, but inadequate for work. As a matter of fact we can find today, on one side, very slow dogs, almost brachimorphus, of exceeding weight in relation to their size, of short limbs, short muscles with a digestive habitus, hypooxidative complexion (therefore tending to be hypothyroideous, at times even of hypogenital constitution) of the new German version. On the other hand, on the opposite extreme, the new Swiss version offers dogs that are too light, almost hypotypical, with thin limbs, respiratory habitus, hyperoxidative complexion, who resemble the cabine-dogs and in specific the Grosser Schweizer Sennenhund.
Now, it is certainly true that cattle-dogs and dogs generally held by farmers were crossed at times by the monks, with the old alpine mastiff kin, which represented the basic ground for the evolution of the Saint Bernard, but ia also true the monks always performed crossings aiming to fortify the breed, either by outbreeding with the kins belonging to the same valley of the alpine mastiff (present in aristocratic houses
of the Middle Ages), or by crossbreeding using either the Broholmer, or the English
Mastiff, or the Terranova or the Pyrenean. It was in fact of particular
importance for the monks to gain dogs of extraordinary stature and weight,
which are the basic characteristics that allow this breed to successfully
perform its taskse. It was also necessary to potentiate more and more
their sense of smell and in particular their teleolfactory capabilities,
which traces its basic physiology in the frontal sinuses. There are set,
as we shall see, true air-condensers which allow, as much larger they
are, to feel very distant smells brought to them through air. Their characteristic
frontal tuberositas, so well developed in the Saint Bernard, respond to
a very clear function. From this point of view, the frontal tuberositas
Rasko von der Reppisch and Apollo Rougang had, can be considered ideal.
His master, the aforementioned Giavina, wrote in 1941 he considered his
favourite dogs, the ones of the golden era, to be even better in performing
rescue tasks than their ancestors, as for the shape of their skull, as
for their whole body figure, potentiated in an athletic manner.
We must belive him, as he owned those fine dogs, although there had been no practical demonstration of their capabilities. It is certain these exceptional dogs embodied the Saint Bernard breed as the great breeders of the past intended to. On the other side, they are morphologically closer to the ancient alpine mastiffs represented by the paintings by Salvator Rosa (17th century) or by stone statues displayed at the entrance of the Castle of Belp, in the canton of Bern (late 18th century).
These dogs of the old Swiss and German version had a typical abalnced architectural shape. Their limbs were long compared to the distance elbow-shoulder blade (slightly exceeding in the distance elbow-ground). The shoulder blade was long and high, the back line was straight and slightly descending from the front towards the back, very strong bone structure, but perfectly husky. The shoulder blade had 30% length of the heigth at withers, horizontally well askew (50%) with an angle of 105/110° between shoulder blade and upper-arm, the croup was long, wide and almost horizontal (15/25°). The thigh was very well developed (equal in its girth to 70% of height at withers). With long and rather prominent musculature.
Top
To comprehend this phenomenon, we have to keep in mind the breed has been differentiating in different typologies in the last 35 years, accordingly to the country of origin of the breeder. Today, the old Swiss and German versions who gave the world some of the best exemplars in the history of the breed, are replaced by new typologies which express discrepant morphological characteristics (the new Swiss version, the new German version and the American version). We'll just say for now, that dogs of the peak of Saint Bernard breeding, of old Swiss and German type, during the so-called "golden era" (1920/1940), extended their blood-lines till the 60's, and then completly faded within the new versions.
 Three subjects of the "Golden Era" (From the left): Emir v. Jura, Rasko v. d. Reppish, Gerd Belmont |
 Another exemplar of the "Golden Era", Nero v. Emmenthal |
This uniformity was due to different reasons. The first is the frquent exchange of dogs, the second is that judgement was similar in all European countries.
On the contrary, after the war, things changed a lot, different clubs of the breed shut themselves in a weird kind of autarchy which brought to the cease of dog exchange and the extinction of blood-lines, which had as a consequence a loss of vitality, reduction of size, dystrophy, expression of latent negative traits, and so on.
It might seem a paradox, but in an era of computers, supersonic aircrafts and interplanetary missiles, the world of the Saint Bernard, instead of becoming more international and enjoy progress, regressed. The old faults of chauvinism, provincialism and empiricism, we thought were over with, expressed again stronger than ever.
If we consider the history of breeding under the prospective of type, we can see the Standard had two compilations: the 1886 one adopted by SKG and the later one, approved on june 2nd 1887 at the International Congress. As stated before, both Standards were compiled having in mind dogs such as Dr. Künzli's and Schumacher's. If we confront those standards to the ones of other breeds of the same period we'll find they were ahead of their time.
Nevertheless, if the dogs who had inspired the Standard went, thirty years later, to a competition with prototypes of the golden era (which based themselves on the same Standard as well), wold be at risk of dismissal.
What does it mean? It means the Standard was already obsolete and inadequate to contain the breed within a sole typology by the 20's and 30's of the 20th century. Besides, all "18th-century" Standards became rapidly old, for they could not keep up with the progress zootechnic sciences had made.
For this reason the 1934 Munich World Cynologic Congress stated, based upon these sciences, steady rules in the description of canine breeds ethnic characteristics to which the countries members of the Congress would have had to abide. It was not felt by the SKG (Kennel Club Svizzero) , for the Saint Bernard breed, there was the need to allineate (or abide to the new typologies expressed by the "golden era"), so that the breed continued to progress til the 40's through the spontaneous updating applied silently to the standard by the great breeders of the period before the war. Unfortunately this Saint Bernard loving aristocracy had but few epigons, so that the entire tradition of selection and breeding could not be felt by the new breeders of the post-war period (mainly outsiders). Under these circumstances the lack of update within the Standard or the lack of an interpretational model of it, contributed greatly to this state of anarchy.
What are we to do to put an end to this chaos?
Should we compile a new Standard?
We most certainly should, as long as it is based on the criteria of the 1934 Munich Congress.
Unfortunately there are reasonable doubts this might occur, as the actual re-edited version of the Standard proves. Let's leave then the Standard as it is and try to interpret it through an appropriate research on the breed, basing ourselves on what cynotechnics has to offer us.
Everybody knows that compared anatomy allows us today to rebuild an entire animal from a bone, and that correlational laws exist regarding anatomical characteristics,
 Xenos v. Taubertal, a winner of the "Golden Era" |
These laws allow us to set the research on different canine breeds easily.
Not all Saint Bernard lovers know that most advanced canine breeds beneficiated from these kind of research. Let's just think of the American, French or Italian researches in this field on gallopers and trotters, on the observation of gait in the German shepherd (which potentiated the aforementioned breed), think of the studies of animal mechanics and cynematics performed on the boxer by Frau Stockmann in the 30's-40's (and later by others), which allowed a not jet seen progress in the locomotory system of this dog or, finally, analysis of the morphology and type of the Pointer and the Setter groups, which turned these breeds in true racing cars.
Many make the mistake of feeling the Standard is an encyclopedia which contains all there is to know on cynotechnics regarding a certain breed and not (as in our case) the sum of a particular moment in time of the transformation of a work-type dog into an exhibition exemplar.
 Another exemplar of the "Golden Era", Lütjer v. Hemphor |
"Durch Arbeit zum Typus": "through work we reach type", in zootechnics the thing that really counts is not only absolute beauty, the aesthetic one, but the beauty of adaptation or functional in which there is a perfect balance of external shape and the function the animal shoud perform. Therefore an animal is beautiful if it is useful, that is: all of his systems are perfectly apropriate to the task it has. For example: a dachshund is certainly aesthetically unpleasant, but regarded in his function, he becomes beautiful.
To draw a conclusion: in cynotechnics, beauty is not a "quid" which pleases the eye of an artist (as a greek statue or a Leonardo painting), but all of that that implicates a fair structure, a maximal aptitude to a certain function.
On the other hand we know breeds are not static entities, but groups that are constantly evolving. We have to ask ourselves if, as far as rescue tasks of the Saint Bernard dog, the evolution the breed had from Schumacher till present days is a positive or a negative thing.
This question is difficult to answer, because our breed had not have a functional employment for a very long time, it was not used, as many other breeds, for its specific work-purpose. As a matter of fact, at high altitudes, the Saint Bernard's work was not carried out by other breeds (as some could think), but by technology invented by man. Today's mountain work became a team-work in which the dog's role lost the 90%, if not even a 100% of its former purpose, so that can even be used for the same tasks breeds of no specific aptitude (such as the German shepherd), whose size is more appropriate for transportation by aircraft.
If we eanted to try out our actual dogs at work (training them since they were puppies) with the same methods the monks used, we couldn't find any more the proper conditions.
 Left: Italian World Champ Kl. Sg. Marte II del Soccorso (owner M. Cecchini) and the female Italian Champ. Kl. Sg. Alba (owner Casagrandi) |
The prospective for defence or hunting dogs is much different, as they can still, thanks to their morphological assets, be frequently employed for their specific work trials.
The question we must ask ourselves is: is the Saint Bernard a modern breed who has lost the aptitude its distant ancestors had, as Hans Glockner stated in the far 1930, or is it an embellished work-dog, as stated by Gustave Giavina in the same period?
We strongly feel that dogs of the old German and Swiss version (the latter ones in particular) were potentially work-dogs and the few left over belonging to the same category still are.
On the contrary, I think almost all actual dogs (new Swiss, German and American version) can be considered excellet for guardship, but inadequate for work. As a matter of fact we can find today, on one side, very slow dogs, almost brachimorphus, of exceeding weight in relation to their size, of short limbs, short muscles with a digestive habitus, hypooxidative complexion (therefore tending to be hypothyroideous, at times even of hypogenital constitution) of the new German version. On the other hand, on the opposite extreme, the new Swiss version offers dogs that are too light, almost hypotypical, with thin limbs, respiratory habitus, hyperoxidative complexion, who resemble the cabine-dogs and in specific the Grosser Schweizer Sennenhund.
Now, it is certainly true that cattle-dogs and dogs generally held by farmers were crossed at times by the monks, with the old alpine mastiff kin, which represented the basic ground for the evolution of the Saint Bernard, but ia also true the monks always performed crossings aiming to fortify the breed, either by outbreeding with the kins belonging to the same valley of the alpine mastiff (present in aristocratic houses
 World It. Champ. Kl. Sg. Marte II del Soccorso (owner M. Cecchini) |
We must belive him, as he owned those fine dogs, although there had been no practical demonstration of their capabilities. It is certain these exceptional dogs embodied the Saint Bernard breed as the great breeders of the past intended to. On the other side, they are morphologically closer to the ancient alpine mastiffs represented by the paintings by Salvator Rosa (17th century) or by stone statues displayed at the entrance of the Castle of Belp, in the canton of Bern (late 18th century).
These dogs of the old Swiss and German version had a typical abalnced architectural shape. Their limbs were long compared to the distance elbow-shoulder blade (slightly exceeding in the distance elbow-ground). The shoulder blade was long and high, the back line was straight and slightly descending from the front towards the back, very strong bone structure, but perfectly husky. The shoulder blade had 30% length of the heigth at withers, horizontally well askew (50%) with an angle of 105/110° between shoulder blade and upper-arm, the croup was long, wide and almost horizontal (15/25°). The thigh was very well developed (equal in its girth to 70% of height at withers). With long and rather prominent musculature.
Top
Before starting a detailed exam of the Saint Bernard morphology, it is important the reader has clear a few biometric notions. For the morpho-functional evaluation of a dog, it is very useful to measure the heigth at withers, the length of the body, width, heigth and depth of the chest.
These measures will allow us to set the "morphological type" of the dog we're examined, that is if the subject is either "medium-lined" or a "mesomorphous" (with medium diametric proportions and of fast and strong contraction), or a "long-lined" or "dolicomorphous" (that is of slender shape towards the height and length, overwhelming the transversal diameters and extensional contractions) or of the "short-lined" or "brachimorphous" type (of very well developed transversal diameters and density with great intensity of contraction). All of this is expressed by indexes, in other words by the centesimal relation of a measure to another taken as reference. These indexes are basically two:
1) corporal index,
2) thoracic index.
It is given by the length of the body times 100 devided by the thoracic perimeter.
It is expressed by the following formula:
Length of the body x 100
Thoracic perimeter
Thoracic perimeter
A) Brachimorphismus = Corporal index 50/70
B) Mesomorphismus = Corporal index 70/85
C) Dolicomorphismus = Corporal index 85/100
We can desume from plenty of measurements we performed during a 30 years time on approximately a hundred subjects, the corporal index of the Saint Bernard dog is 80..
It is given by the width of the thorax times 100 and divided by the heigth of the thorax.
It is expressed by the following formula:
Width of the thorax x 100
Heigth of the thorax
Heigth of the thorax
A) Brachimorphismus = Thoracic index 90/100
B) Mesomorphismus = Thoracic index 60/90
C) Dolicomorphismus = Thoracic index 50/60
The thoracic index of the Saint Bernard dog is 70.
There are other zoometrical indexes which cannot be included for their complexity in the present work. Aside from the fact the indexes we stated are only approximative because derived from hypology. It would be desirable that a cynotechnitian presented more accurate ones in the near future.
To desume the morphologic type of the head we need to have as reference the relation between its width and its length. The value of this index (cefalic index) will part canine breeds in the three types of: brachicephalus, mesocephalus and dolicocephalus. Cephalic index is given by width of the head times a 100 divided by the length of the head.
It is expressed by the following formula:
Width of the head X 100
Length of the head
Length of the head
A) Brachicephalus = Cefalic index superior to 50
B) Mesocephalus = Cefalic index superior to equals 50
C) Dolicocephalus = Cefalic index superior to inferior to 50
The Saint Bernard is a brachicephalus for his total cephalic index equals 64/66.
As far as the head is concerned, comprehending it implies the notion of precise direction of the superior longitudinal axis both of the skull and of the muzzle.
The head of thr dog, depending on their breed, presents three kinds of profile: straight or orthoidal, concave or cheloidal, convex or cirtoid. These profiles refer to the direction of the superior longitudinal axis of the skull and of the muzzle (cranio-facial axis).
To evaluate the relation between these axis we must take in exam a superior axis concerning the skull and a superior axis concerning the muzzle. These axis are empirically drawn by the judge's eye in the ring, while their precise measure is given by caliper.
A) The longitudinal superior axis of the skull sets from the craniometric point "inion" (which lies on the peak of the protuberantia occipitalis externa) and reaches the craniometric point "nasion" (which lies in the point where the nasal bones close the junction with the frontal bones).
B) The longitudinal superior axis of the muzzle follows the profile of the nasal bridge from the nose to the stop. As we stated earlier, all canine breeds follow into one of the three categories depending on the direction of these axis:
1) Straight profile
The two axis never meet, they are parallel (parallelism). Dogs with this kind of profile are the alan, the mastiff, the Neapolitan mastiff, the German shepherd, the English Saint Bernard and so on.
2) Concave profile
The two axis meet forming an upper concavity. Prolonging the superior axis of the muzzle towards the back, it will always pass behind the occiput crest (convergency). Dogs with this kind of profile are the pointer, the boxer, the dogue de Bordeaux, the Saint Bernard, and so on.
3) Convex profile
The two axis meet forming a lower concavity. Prolonging the superior axis of the muzzle towards the back, it will always pass in front the occiput crest (divergency). Dogs with this kind of profile are the bloodhound, the borzoi, the bullterrier, the Italian bracco, the Saint Bernard of the old English version, and so on.
In the case of the Saint Bernard, the concave profile between skull and muzzle is a distinctive marking, and a necessary characteristic of typicalness.
CONVERGENZA = CONVERGENCY
Convergency can present itself in two shapes: A) monoconvergency (only the skull converges towards the muzzle, in other words the cranial axis converges on the muzzle axis); B) biconvergency (both skull and muzzle converge towards each other, in other words the cranial axis and the facial axis converge towards each other).
The Saint Bernard, the pointer, the bullmastiff, the dogue de Bordeaux etc. display a "monoconvergency" (only their hyper-types are at times biconvergent), while the bulldog, the boxer and so on, display "biconvergency".
|
Concave profile
(convergency in an ideal head) |
Straight profile
(parallelism, in the English type) |
Convex profile
(divergency, in the English type) |
 monoconvergency in a proper head |
biconvergency in a hyper-type |
Top
The Saint Bernard dog, as described by Paul Déchambre, is the most majestic and imposing of all dogs, it is a giant who dazzles with his athletic power and nobleness.
Nobility (only one of the distinctive traits) is essential to the breed, because is linked to the typicalness, it sets out of the shape of the body, the kind of gait and colour.
The Saint Bernard has a corporal index of approximately 80, and a body that exceeds of 12%-15% heigth at withers.
Therefore he is a mesomorphus whose body can be inscribed in a rectangle.
He is balanced as far as size but unbalanced as for profiles, since his head displays a concave profile, while his back is straight.
A rule observed by all experts is that the "head makes the breed", that means that the head must be regarded as decisive when determining a type.
Top
This fact is true for all canine breeds, but it has even more reason in the molossoid group in which dogs'
 Anton von Höfli, one of the finest Saint Bernards of all times |
The head of a Saint Bernard mezmerize for its power and nobility. Extremly imposing and regal, it expresses in a dominant way the ethnic characteristics of the breed, and therefore is to be held in great consideration when judging the type.
The whole cranio-facial area is angular and square is an architectural beauty of symmetry and balance.
From his expression traspires dignity, awareness of his own sterngth, reliability and intelligence.
The head is characterized by the convergency of the longitudinal superior cranio-facial axis (165ş angle), the head has a total length and a bizygomatic width of repectevly 39% and 25% of heigth at withers.
The bizygomatic width equals the length of the skull and the perimeter of the head, measured at the cheeks, is, in females too, more then the double of the total head length.
Total cefalic index is approximately 64/66 (clear brachicefalics).
|
Ideal head of a female
of the Italian type |
Ideal head of a male
of the Italian type |
Convergency within an ideal head
|
 The female Champ. Alba (owner Casagrandi) |
Top