A breed standard is meant to convey an ideal. No dog can totally conform to this description but a well written standard provides guidelines to ensure that breeders and judges keep things moving in the right direction. It prioritizes primary breed traits and defines the differences between desirable and undesirable variations. Of course, reading a standard and comprehending it are quite different things.  This is sometimes described as developing an eye for the breed, the ability to evaluate an individual dog’s strengths and weaknesses of within the context of an ideal.

It’s human nature to rationalize and the fact that something is not explicitly stated in a standard may be interpreted as an allowance. It’s almost assured that any passage containing words like “slightly or moderately” will lead to extremes.

Toy judges frequently cite the current Chinese Crested standard as one of the worst examples of vagueness and contradiction. That’s inarguable but this ambiguity and wide latitude becomes puzzling when it is compared to the precise descriptions found in other versions.

Rather than clarifying the components of ideal type, it’s unique in the fact that it gave added leeway to faults. This intent is especially obvious when it is compared to the illustrated version that accompanied it. It’s hard to say whether these alterations were the result of negligence, ignorance or disinterest but they demonstrate the profound repercussions of a little tinkering.

Since this version was implemented in 1991, American Cresteds have fragmented into a myriad of types traceable to personal taste, fads and judges’ prejudices. Dogs in the show ring meet the criteria described in this standard but the big picture cannot be described as a coherent or improved. Be it accidental or intentional it’s not uncommon for breed standards to be victimized by standard committees. This is it is certainly an issue that deserves more airtime. Adding or deleting a few words, removing a dq or reworking a description may seem insignificant but in the long run these minor changes have a powerful and often negative impact on a breed’s evolution. AKC permits standards to be revised once every five years. However, this process has become increasingly lengthy, tedious and litigious.  A breed can change drastically and permanently before a poorly worded standard can be repaired.

The Crested standard is set in stone for the reasons just mentioned. That is unfortunate but the situation can serve as a valuable lesson for other clubs.

A few changes made in the 1991 version include

• replacing the size dq with an allowance for size variation
• creating an allowance for unusual eye colors
• removing the dq for undershot bites
• removing the fault for ewe neck
• revising the proportion description
• revising the topline description
• removing the body width description
• removing faults for unbalanced front and rear angulation
• removing faults for square or long bodied dogs
• removing the fault for hackney front
• removing faults for rubber hocks, slipped stifles, and cow hocks
• removing faults for alternate foot shapes and changing the foot description from extreme hare foot to hare foot
• removing faults for ring or corkscrew tails

When this version was implemented in 1991, the breed was in its third decade of development.  Contrary to popular belief, the Chinese Crested is not the product of an ancient Chinese heritage. Although it owes its hairlessness to an ancient breed, the Mexican Xolo, many other breeds made a genetic contribution to the modern Chinese Crested. Breeders had worked out the basic formula in the late nineteenth century. The Crested was in the works but didn’t make it to the production line until half a century later.

One of the breed’s true founders, the author and judge Ida Garrett, is primarily remembered for her contribution to Chihuahua development. She made no secret of the Crested’s true origin or the reasons for its misleading name. “Mrs. Ida Garrett of New York City has been hard at work on her volume on the Chihuahua which will contain much new and interesting material on the breed. Intensive study and research have disclosed proof, she says, that there never was a Chinese Crested or a Mexican Hairless, the former having come from Haiti, thence to Mexico and later to China. But it was never a true native of China.” (Popular Dogs, October 17, 1931)

Several Toy breeds originated in ancient China, the Pug, Peke and Shih Tzu. Their common ancestry is obvious but none of these traits appear in the Chinese Crested. Nor is there any historical evidence of dogs resembling Chinese Cresteds in ancient or modern China or verification connecting the breed to China. 

However, there is plenty of evidence describing the Chinese Crested’s evolution through experimental crossbreeding to Papillon, Yorkie, Chihuahua, Maltese and Poodle. The Chinese Crested had an eclectic start but it’s unfair to suggest that its current disjointed state reflects the intent its founders.  The Chinese Crested was created in the late 1950s and 60s from two foundation bloodlines, Crest Haven and Lee. Every Crested pedigree traces back to these two lines neither of which can be traced beyond the late 1950s. According to anecdotal evidence, the Crest Haven breeding program was constructed from eight dogs purchased from a defunct circus act in the late 1950s. Gypsy Rose Lee’s stock was somewhat better documented but equally eclectic in origin. Her foundation dog was adopted from a NYC animal shelter by Gypsy’s sister June Havoc. Needless to say, extreme variation existed in this gene pool and early versions of the standard accommodated this fact. For example the 1962 American Crested Standard describes the crest as follows: “Crest: flat, high or long-flowing, sparse crest acceptable, full crest preferred.”

Passages like this reveal the Crested to have been a work in development. By the mid 60s more breeders joined the ranks and type began to coalesce concurrently in the US, Europe and England. Cresteds produced from Crest Haven/Lee were first imported into England in the 1960s. Additional imports in the following decade were derived from the same bloodlines and breeding combinations. At that time, the worldwide Chinese Crested gene pool was extremely small, numbering less than 100 dogs. Photos and descriptions confirm that there was little difference in the dogs being bred in England, Europe or America for many decades.  By necessity, these dogs originated from the same bloodlines and breeders shared a common perception of correct type.

Although some breeds differ radically from country to country this occurrence is never viewed as desirable or normal. Regardless of small variations in standards every breed shares defining traits responsible for unified type. The Chinese Crested standard was revised several times from 1962 to 1991 demonstrating consistent efforts to tighten up requirements and define type. By 1984 it contained concise descriptions and several dqs. Within two decades breeders had made significant progress stabilizing type despite the challenges of working with a small closely bred gene pool. Chinese Cresteds not only displayed consistent hallmarks we associate with the breed, dogs from various bloodlines like Mordor, Staround, Moonswift or Kojak were instantly recognizable.

Even so, breeders openly admitted that problems existed. Major trouble spots, then as now, included size and eye color. In the 1930s Ida Garret described Crested weight as 6-20 pounds.  The lone Chinese Crested exhibited at the 1932 Westminster was compared in size and proportion to an Irish Terrier. A couple of decades later,  Debora Wood described her dogs in a 1959 letter as weighing from 4 to 30 pounds and stated that she has personally seen Cresteds weighing more than 30 pounds.

Size may have varied but all versions of the standard uniformly described the Crested as a rectangular dog.  “Body: should be medium to long.” (American Chinese Crested Standard, 1962) This is one of the most common types of body proportion found in purebreds in every group. It’s not extreme and certainly not unusual. It also has the advantage of easily incorporating good angulation into the desired proportion. Most traits of structure are polygenic and highly heritable, which makes them very easy to control. In this case the extreme variation found in Chinese Cresteds today is not due to the challenges of trying to establish an elusive trait. Rather, it’s the impossibility of correctly identifying what that trait may be.

The current standard describes ideal proportions as four inches longer than the height at withers, but this is an anomaly among Crested standards. Prior to that, every American version and all foreign versions asked for a body length slightly longer than height at withers.

The 1991 standard not only added measurement points previously unknown in the breed. This description was paired with a drawing of an extremely short backed, straight shouldered, ewe necked dog.  This was confusing but common sense and dog sense provides a way around it. Height is always measured from the top of the withers to the ground but the measurement points for body length can vary. According to Harry Spira this is generally refers to a measurement of total body length from point of forechest to point of buttock if no other measurement points are specified.

Evaluating Chinese Crested proportion does not require “looking for a rectangle under the dog”, a meaningless term unknown in any judging terminology. It’s possible to “find a rectangle” under a  cobby dog with no front or rear angulation and a short legged, long bodied dog,  but that doesn’t make either proportion correct or desirable. It is possible to “find a rectangle” beneath almost every breed recognized by AKC, including three legged dogs.

Because the current standard provides no comprehensible description of correct proportion, evaluating balance also becomes impossible. Long or short legs, long or short backs, and straight or correct angulation are all equally acceptable within this nebulous context. This, more than any other factor, explains the horrifying diversity seen in this breed today.

A level topline is completely dependant on balanced angulation. Structural faults in either end will affect everything going on in between. Except for the current American version, all Crested standards ask for a level topline. In this case it has been rephrased to the less concise description of “level to slightly sloping croup” opening the door to every imaginable variation, which by extension invites unbalanced angulation.

There is no denying the fact that straight shoulders are epidemic in Chinese Cresteds but this fault is prevalent in many breeds. It is also true that a wider shoulder angle is functionally correct in some breeds. However, it is a big stretch to apply that criterion to a breed where 45 degree layback is specifically mentioned in every version of the standard. It’s undeniably difficult to produce an ideal Crested front, combining extreme layback- long legs, and narrow shoulders. It can be done but these traits don't seem to be mutually compatible. The legs try to get shorter, the fronts become wider or the angles get bigger. This is the drag of the race.

But these pieces will fall into place if the ribcage is properly shaped. For example, shoulder angulation inevitably becomes steeper when paired with a round barrel shaped ribcage. The current standard omits the description of body width but it still asks for narrow shoulders and a brisket extending to the elbows. These requirements necessitate a deep oval ribcage. The slanting ribs producing an oval shaped ribcage also create a longer ribcage and a shorter loin. This combination sort of produces a domino effect of better proportions, despite deficiencies and discrepancies in the standard. Once again, dog sense and common sense can get you past the confusing bits.

Both the Kennel Club and FCI standards specify that the forelegs should be set under the body, thus requiring a long, angled forearm. The American standard fails to mention anything in this regard. This goes a long way to explain the restricted, hackneyed gait, ewe necks and unnaturally high head carriage that have become almost synonymous with American Chinese Cresteds. But if the rest of the pieces are put together properly, this problem also becomes self-limiting.

The Kennel Club, FCI and earlier versions of American standards were also specific about tail set and tail carriage. Only the current version omits any mention of tail set or designation of curled or twisted tails as a fault. There is a difference between “carried over the back” and “curled or twisted. Recently, a judge described the Cresteds in a recent assignment as carrying their tails “in perfect circles over their backs. Never even at rest did the tails come down. They looked like embroidery hoops stuck on their backs.” It is hard to imagine that this sad development didn’t result from omitting two words “curled or twisted” from the standard.

Crested tails have become problematic but no aspect of type has deteriorated worse than heads. Large, low set ears are specifically mentioned in the Canadian, English and FCI standards and versions of the American standard prior to 1991. However, in 1991, this was also amended to allow for more variation. The description in the standard is somewhat vague but its drastic intent isn’t obvious until it’s compared to illustrated standard that accompanied it. Reading both of these, it’s easy to see why American dogs now exhibit a tremendous range of ear types. Virtually everything is described as correct.

“The actual angle of the earset is not specified, just as long as the lower edge of the base of the ear is even with the outside corner of the eye. Therefore, some dogs can have a rather high ear carriage and it is still correct. When very alert, some Cresteds’ ears can come up so close as to almost touch and this is not a fault.”

I have never personally seen a Crested with its ears touching on top of its head but there have certainly been dramatic changes in ear set in the last decade. The most notable fault has been a trend to extremely small high set ears that are often shaved. This not only destroys the breed’s soft sweet expression it’s guaranteed that the breed loses its distinctive ear set and carriage. Breeding for a naturally large, low set ear is difficult. Ensuring that they are strong enough to support heavy ear fringe is even more daunting. In the long run it is simply easier to breed for small, high set triangular shaved ears. But in the process we are losing is a major hallmark of type.

Head type has also become extremely variable and the reasons for this can also be found in the 1991 illustrated standard. Under the heading of “Ideal Heads” we are told “this is not a head breed.”  This statement pretty much gave judges the green light to ignore head type. If that wasn’t confusing enough, within the same paragraph expression is alternately described as “alert and intense” and “soft and sweet”. Many head traits are genetically linked. Therefore if one part is wrong, it’s likely that quite a few things will be wrong with the head. Whether it’s a working dog or a companion, ever breed is defined by its head type. This is not an area where standards are traditionally generic or forgiving. But it certainly explains why Crested heads from snipey to blocky are now considered correct.

These are just a few aberrant traits that have become prevalent since 1991. Theoretically, judges are in a position to prevent and correct unwanted deviations in type. But many of today’s judges, exhibitors and breeders lack essential background and experience. A thorough understanding of type has become the exception, rather than rule, replaced by an overwhelming focus on superficialities.

This shift in priorities has been variously ascribed to a deficiency of educational resources, poor communication, or the average exhibitor’s short tenure in the sport.

Judges assume that exhibitors enter the ring with some concept of what they’ve got on the other end of the leash. AKC assumes that parent clubs provide constructive educational programs for breeders and judges. And parent clubs assume that breeders are diligently mentoring novices. These have all proven to be ill-founded beliefs.  In fact, a comprehensive education is not mandatory at any stage of the dog game and it is possible to rack up a substantial show record without one.

This problem has been with us since the beginning of dog shows, but has grown exponentially with the increasing number of shows, judges and champions. If anything, it is likely to get worse. The Chinese Crested standard definitely needs a bit of sprucing up but this alone will not solve the problem unless breeders begin understanding and prioritizing type. The fact that faults and deviations are widespread doesn’t make them desirable.  Blaming the entire mess on a poorly worded standard is simply a way to pass the buck. One of the world’s foremost Toy breed authorities summed it up perfectly nearly a century ago. "I notice that many of the people who talk most about soundness do not carry out their theories in the judging ring, and as long as they put up unsound dogs it is of no use for them to preach soundness."

(Lady Lytton In "Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors" published in 1911)