You're right, you're starting to tread on philosophical ground :) I
know Marika, my mom has a dog of her breeding. However, I have to
disagree with her. The so called differences that are supposedly found
in these populations is a case of nitpicking and those characteristics
overlap a great deal, witrh all characteristics found in both
populations.

I also have to disagree that inclusion would require making initial
distinctions. I don't believe there are such distinctions to be made
or that there would be a need for them. On the cobtrary, the
commonalities are the basis of the inclusionary attitude.

As for the mitochondrial study of Saluki/Sloughi, I'm one of the
people you mention who do not consider this proof of distinctions.
There are several points in the study that are open to interpretation,
not the least of which is the limited amount of data, particularly in
view of the vast geographical areas we are talking about. Another
problem is the definition of the dogs tested - I'm not convinced that
we can divide those into Sloughi and Saluki either, obviously, making
the premise slanted in the first place.

Peter Savolainen's study may enlighten us on the subject, or give rise
to new question. It also encompasses a much broader spectrum of
samples, geographically speaking. However, there is one more question
at the heart of this discussion, and that is whether any of it
matters. If "differences" are so obtuse that one has to resort to
genetics to attempt to find them, are they relevant? Particularly in
view of the inclusive historical perspective. More important to me is
that if they look the same, act the same and function the same, why
divide them? Often those in favour of exclusion insist that an
inclusive attitude would endanger the different types. I absolutely
disagree. Personal preferences will keep different types alive even if
we were to include them all into one breeding population, and that is
as it should be. It is also the way the types have endured for so
long.

Well, this is something we quite possibly will never agree upon :)
Which is okay, it often leads to interesting discussions, though at
this point I think we've hit a stalemate and if we continue I'm afraid
we will not contribute much beyond an "is not/is too"-type thing ;D So
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

Micaela