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 | 

The nose must be angular and resemble the shape of a parallelipiped rectangle		Excellent angularity of the muzzle. The nose is resembling the shape of a parallelipiped rectangle. Nostrails wide and open, nostrail flaps not too fleshy
Excellent angularity of the muzzle, but small and roundish nose (two faults)		Head alltogether too narrow. Roundish nose (two faults)

  Seen from the profile, the upper edge of the nose must be in line with the nose bridge and form a straight angle with it. The front surface of the nose, as it bends, is positioned on the vertical plane of the front surface of the muzzle.
  The nose must not therefore, be upturned on the profile of the nose bridge or have the front surface inclining backward. In the hyper-type these two faults are combined, frequently accompanied by a miniature and round nasal front.
   The nose must be neither too low or over-hanging in the front (as it is frequently in the English type of divergent cranio-facial axis). The edge formed by the upper surface of the nose with the front surface is rather sharp, if roundish it is undesirable.

---

---

  The muzzle bridge is very wide and flat. A furrow, visible but not deep, runs through sagitally and continuously to the front furrow. The muzzlebridge has a straight-line profile, aside from a a sharp break near the nose at approximately 2/3 of the muzzle length. This breake, very well marked in female subjects too, is formed by a double fold of the skin subdivided by one or more sunken and parallel wrinkles.
   These etch crosswise the bridge of the muzzle and are lost as they descend vertically, into the side of the muzzle. Lack of these peculiarities leads to a declassification of the subject.
  Given the cuboid shape of the muzzle (which implies parallelism of the muzzle sides), the nose bridge maintains exactly the same width from the root to the tip. The nose bridge that tightens toward the tip (expressed in a cone-shaped muzzle) is disqualified. The side edges of the nose bridge are rather sharp.
  Sometimes the nose bridge has a very slightly curved out-line, and this imperfection (which is emphasized and combined with a very short muzzle, expresses hyper-typism) is allowed if restrained within narrow boundaries. Either way a round nose bridge takes away nobility from the subject and is therefore penalized.
  Objectionable is a nose bridge with a distinct mutton out-line (sheep nose or roman nose). This is frequently joined by a forward jutting nose and parallelism or divergency of the axis (English type). Often the nose bridge, even if not curved outward, has, at the halfway mark, a more or less accentuated hump which is never desirable. A tight nose bridge, a roof-shaped nose or a nose lacking of the length-wise furrow is a seriously faulty nose bridge.

(Left): parallelism of lateral sides (proper) (Right): convergency of lateral sides (cone-shaped muzzle, fault)

Mutton out-line profiles of the nasal bridge (faults)

Mutton out-line profile (fault)	Hump in the nasal bridge (fault)	Roof-shaped nasal bridge (fault)

Top

  The upper flews viewed from the front present in proximity of the nose, the well developed triangular plate and the well marked nose-labial furrow. Very abundant and thick, they form at their junction (which must be as far as possible from the nose) with their free edges a semicircle that approximate the shape of an inverted "U" (bucket handle).
   This particular shape contributes greatly in determining the squaredness of the lower part of the muzzle. When the jaws are not sufficiently wide (and consequently the dog's teeth are not well spaced) and the chin is lacking or narrow, the upper front portion of the muzzle appears very little flat and tends to curve or disappear on the side surface.
   In this case, if the upper lips are well developed but lacking sufficient support underneath them, their free edges form an inverted "V" rather than an inverted "U" (which, if narrow, is penalized).
  At times the point of disjunction of the upper flew begins too high, that is, too near the nose) and this type of defect alters the facial features of the dog..

Triangular plate of the upper-lips and reversed "U" disjunction (bucket handle)	The disjunction of the upper-lips nears the shape of a reversed "U" (bucket handle)	Tight, reversed "V" disjunction of the upper-lips (fault)

  When viewed in profile the thick upper flews, after a long vertical trail which follows the front edge of the nose, present a lower front and side edge having the shape of a perfect semi-circle (labial volute).
   The radius of curving this volute has must be more or less the same of the arc formed by the frontal profile of the cranium. In this way balance is maintained between the upper and lower lines of the head.
   We must stress out that an imaginary line drawn along the front surface at the lowering of the upper front edge of the nose and perpendicular to the horizontal nose bridge must always be touched by the nose itself and the upper flews (until they reach the point they separate to form a semi-circle). The length of the so-determined segment equals 8/10 of the muzzle length.

Tight reversed "V" disjunction of the upper-flews (fault)	Point of disjunction between the upper-flews set too high, that is too close to the nose (fault)	Upper-flews present a lower front and side edge having the shape of a perfect semi-circle, the radius of the curving of which must equal the radius of the arc formed by the frontal profile of the cranium

Head of English type (declassification)	Excellent head but slight disbalance between superior line (frontal sub-region) and inferior line (upper-flews): labial volute has not the same radius of curving of the frontal profile of the dog's skull	The superior line of the muzzle forms with the anterior surface of the muzzle itself a straight angle

  As we seen, the upper line of the muzzle must form, together with the front surface of the nose itself, a straight angle. Every deviation from this rule represents a defect. Tolerable is the obtuse angle no greater than a 100° (tendency toward hypertypism).
The acute angle, however, is always regarded as a very serious defect (subjects with angles less than 85º are disqualified).
  Flews that are little developed, pulled and receding (almost always expressed along with a cone-shaped muzzle) are to be banished. Flews which do not form a very full arc, even if deep, or flews that are excessively pendulous, spungy and flaccid are to be penalized.
  At the end of the 19th century, in the Swiss valleys and in particular in the Great Saint Bernard Hospice appeared dogs with strongly arched skulls and shorter upper-flews. These dogs were inappropriately named "Hospice-head dogs". Subjects with such deprecable characteristics can be still sporadically found today in kennels which apply indiscriminate imbreeding.
  The lower flews, moderately hanging, form with the upper-flews, a well-marked but never exaggerated junction (in the way the mucosa slightly shows in the junction gap). In general, when the upper-flews are, as desirable, very abundant and the lower-lips are not too pendulous, the gap in the junction is proper. In certain cases, a too pendulous lower-lip is bind to an insufficient upper-flew. When this occurs the junction shows too much mucosa and sacks are formed on the muzzle making the mouth slobbery. Such a defect is very serious. Lip-rims must be black pigmented.
   The junction, from a profile view and at the bridge of the muzzle, is positioned just a little further (orally) than the vertical lowering of the lacrimal caruncle (inside corner of the eye). It always represents the lowest point of the lower edge of the muzzle. This indicates that the lower front edge of the upper-flews must never descend (at horizontal nose bridge) lower than the level of the lip junction. Somewhat behind the lip junction, the zygomatic muscle determines a fold in the skin which runs upward creating a double curve shaping an "S" and ends approximately behind the outer corner of the eye. This fold must not be too marked.
  The sub-orbital region is not too well chiselled due to the considerable thickness of the skin,subcutaneous and muscular tissue, and also to the width of the zygomatic and upper-jaw bones. The accentuated signalling of this area that is sometimes bind to excessive aridity of the head, confers a fragile and emaciated appearance and is therefore to be penalized.

Tolerable is the obtuse angle even greater than a 100° (tendency toward hypertypism), if the nose is not too drawn-back		Subjects with an acute angle inferior than 85° must be severely penalized

Upper-flews not pendulous enough and receding. (two faults)	Upper-flews properly pendulous but receding (fault)	Excessive upper-flews (fault)	"Hospice- head"

  The muzzle must be short but not too short (3,6/10 of the total length of the head), extremely massive, full and wide (the crosswise diameter at the height of the of the proper molar 1, equals 6,2/10 of the bizigomatic width). Its anterior platform, created by the anterior surface of the nose, by part of the upper-flews and chin, is exceptionally wide, as far both length and heigth, flat and rigorously squared.

In a profile prospective, the junction is placed a little further from the lowered vertical line of of the lacrimal caruncle (inner corner of the eye)	Excessive chiselling of this area confers to the head an fragile and emaciated look (fault)	Sub-orbital region should not be chiselled

  Anteriorly, the above-mentioned distance between the upper-front edge of the nose and the point of junction of the upper flews corresponds to 7/10 of the nasal bridge length. Given the peculiar shape of the upper-jaw (which runs following the diverging set of upper canines) and the width of the lower-jaw, the lateral faces of the upper lips do not fall perpendicularly but slightly protrude outwards, so that the anterior platform of the muzzle tends to form (seen from a frontal prospective) an isosceles trapezoid with the larger side turned downwards.

(Above on the left):
the muzzle should be short but not too short (3,6/10 of total length of the head),
if too short (center on the left) = fault, if too long (below on the left) = fault.
Its anterior platform is exceptionally well-extended both in heigth and in width,
flat and rigorously squared (above in the center).
The anterior platform of the muzzle forms, from a frontal prospective, an isosceles trapezoid
(above on the right).
The muzzle of perpendicular lateral faces (below in the center) or converging
(below on the right) constitutes a fault.

  The maxilla (upper jaw) and the mandible (lower jaw) are thick, robust and of even length. The mandible is extremely strong and very wide (the bicondylar and bigoniac widths correspond respectively to 7,7/10 and 5,2/10 of the bizygomatic width).
  Viewed in profile it appears curved, especially at its branches. Approximating a straight line is to be banished. The angle of the mandible has a width of approximately 145°.
   The body of the mandible, given a very pronounced chin symphysis, is very massive and bulging. It is strongly arched in the front, such as to form a chin well defined but without creating an undershot bite.

Top

  The typical dentation is a pincer bite, powerful in relation to the size of the dog, it is complete, with canines a great deal spaced out for the noteworthy crosswise development of the maxilla. In the males the canines, measured at the apex of the crown, would need to have a distance between them of approximately 2,3-2,7 inches (7 cm), as much is the width of the nose.
  Incisors are as much as possible aligned. We have a pincer bite (even bite) when the upper incisors superimpose the lower incisors. According to some authors, the scissor bite (with placement either in antiversion or in retroversion) is preferable to the pincer bite due to lesser wear and tear on the incisors.
   We are not of the same opinion, because the scissor bite in an orthognatic subject as the Saint Bernard (having a jaw index below 98) implies a slant, more or less evident, of the incisors. The scissor bite in anti- or retroversion has equal value. We have a scissor bite with anteversion of the upper incisors when the upper incisors touch, with their internar (lingual) surface the external (vestibular) surface of the lower incisors.
   Such a type of dentition results for the most part in a vestibular inclination of the lower incisors. The lack of contact between the arches can indicate that the aforesaid characteristics are   combined or accentuated (which is not a serious defect). On the other hand it could also indicate that there exists a retroaction of the lower arch due to shortening of the mandible (overbite), which is a very serious defect.
  We have a scissor bite with retroversion of the lower incisors (inverted scissor bite: not to be confused with undershot bite) when there is an inversion of the vestibular-lingual relation between the incisors of the two arches. That is when the upper incisors touch, with their vestibular surface, the lingual surface of the lower incisors.
   Such a type of bite mostly results in a vestibular inclination of the lower incisors, rarely in the lingual inclination of the upper incisors. The lack of contact indicates that the aforementioned characteristics are combined or accentuated (slight defect), or that there exists a protrusion of the lower arch due to a shortening of the maxilla (that is an undershot bite - a defect exising in relation to the distance between the two dental spheres).
  The bite is alternated when, due to dislocation or abnormal direction of the longitudinal axis of some incisors, there is a vestibular-lingual inversion of these teeth with their antagonists.
It is not a serious defect but determined, however by the number of teeth involved. We are omitting the overbite due to dimensional modifications, sagittal, transversal, vertical (biprotrusions, asymmetries, empty spaces, etc.) of the maxillary arch, the torsion and postponements of the single tooth, the crowding, oligodontia, hypodontia, hyperdontia, macro and microdontism and so on.
   All of these anormalities are evaluated case by case and cannot, for lack of space, be treated in the present work. We shall only add that the absence of premolar 1 (PM1) on one or both arches isn't a serious defect as the Saint Bernard is a brachicephalic subject. Vice versa the lack of major premolars - always an expression of unusual shortening of the muzzle - carries very severe penalties (up to disqualification in cases of serious abnormalities). Various dogs show a certain lower prognatism (undershot bite) which, as seen, is always to be penalized.
   However, such a defect cannot prevent an extraordinary subject to access championships, as long as the space occuring between the incisor arches is less than 0,2 mm and does not modify the exterior shape of the muzzle.
  Numerous exemplars bear this peculiarity. It is necessary thus to distinguish inferior prognatism of dogs with very short muzzles (most cases) from lower prognatism occurring in dogs with a muzzle of normal length. In the short muzzled dogs (muzzle a lot shorter than 3,6/20 of the total head length) the defect involves also the upper jaw which becomes shorter than the lower jaw during its development (therefore practically assuming four defects: too short muzzle, too short upper jaw, undershot bite and protrusion of the lower arch).
   In dogs with a normal muzzle (that is without a shortening of the upper jaw) the prognathism can be given or could occur from an exaggerated forward projection of the mandible due to excessive development of the bone itself. It can also be due to an abnormal relation between the condyles and the glenoid cavity, occuring in some alterations of the temporal-maxillary articulation (practically therefore they assume two defects: prognathism and protrusion of the lower arch).
  It can also happen that the maxilla and mandible have an equal length, but, as seen, due to a rotation movement of the incisors around their horizontal axis, there occurs, with inversion of the vestibule-lingual relation, a more or less wide space between the two arches.
In this case (defined by some as a strongly inverted scissor bite) the prognathism doesn't exist and the defect involves only the teeth.
   Often the lower prognathism expresses itself from breeding subjects of muzzles of different length.

Top

   Even during the 18th century, with the evolution of work-type dogs towards exhibitional subjects, along with the reinforcement of the head, a regression in the strength of the dentature, so that the Standard, published in 1887, prescribed a "moderate development of teeth in relation to the volume of the head".
   Since then judges and breeders have always taken care to produce a proper adaptation of the arches and the correct alignment of teeth, ignoring completely their robustness. We still see today Saint Bernards of 198 lb. that have teeth smaller than a fox terrier. Fortunately, the S.K.G. has recently corrected the error stating in the latest edition of the Standard, published by the F.C.I. as well, that the dentature must be powerful and well proportioned to the structure of the head.
   It is the author's opinion that, in a giant molossus such as the Saint Bernard, a weak dentature, even if correct, is a defect worse than a mandibular prognathism. As a matter of fact, mandibular prognathism is almost never a sign of degeneration, and prognathic dogs not only have fairly strong teeth, but are frequently more vigorous than other dogs.
   On the contrary, dogs with weak teeth are sluggish, too refined, not very active, with a predisposition to illness. For these reasons in many short muzzled molossoids, from the Dogue of Bordeaux to the English mastiff, a slight lower prognathism is not considered to be a defect. This is without even taking in consideration the fact that a lower prognathism concurs with the squareness of the muzzle. It should also be added that the predisposition to lower prognathism is greater in dogs with converging cranio-facial axis (Saint Bernard) than in dogs with parallel cranio-facial axis such as the Dogue of Bordeaux to the English mastiff. These observations do not imply an underestimation of lower prognathism as a defect.
   They serve to signify only that there are many defects much worse and yet ignored by the judges. These range, for example, from atrophy of the dentature (often hereditary) to an overbite which is usually associated to degenerative signs. The overbite, or enognatism, occurs due to insufficient development of the mandible (and not to a lenghtening of the maxilla as commonly belived).
   It is compatible with the survival of the species, so that dogs affected by this very serious defect are to be excluded from reproduction. In checking the teeth, the judge must not limit himself to examining the incisors, but all teeth.
   In fact the dentature can sometimes appear weak only because the incisors are transversally eroded (as it is frequent with the pincer bite).

Top

Go to the third part of the chapter »»»