Thoughts about measuring, height vs. breed, etc.

[Robin1]

As far as the miniature horse industry is concerned I am a "nobody". That is fine, I don't have a problem it just makes it more fun to go in the ring and do well. Having said that, I mean NO disrespect to anybody and don't mean to offend, so please don't take this wrong. I just want to learn.

I have been around different breeds my entire life and have seen other breeds that measure for height and they measure at the withers, however they still have problems as any horse can be taught to "lower" itself. I believe a "good" solution in measuring would be to have every horse square up without allowing the feet to stand outside the width of the chest and hips, then use a laser level to measure. The horse wouldn't have anything to duck from. Just a thought.

Belinda said, her horses always measure within a 1/4" at each show, mine too. For me the reason is that I know the height of my horse and enter them in the proper classes. I am there to have fun and enjoy the work my horses and I have done together.

From what I have seen the Miniature Horse IS a breed. One of the standards of this wonderful breed is that they stand 34" and under for AMHA and 38" and under for AMHR. POA's have a height limit as do Shetlands so why is there a problem that the miniatures do to?

Once again, I mean NO disrespect. I don't know if it was Marianne or Robin that stated "by not using horses that have gone over we are breeding ourselves into dwarf dom." Can someone PLEASE explain to me how there is ANY difference in fighting dwarfism by using Miniatures that have gone over, when they have full siblings that are under. You can't say that the horses that are under 34" have a greater chance of producing a dwarf than their full sibling that happens to be taller. The genetics are the same, or do they change when they grow taller? The ONLY way I see it, to lessen the chances of dwarfs is to bring in "NEW" blood. So what breed of horse/pony should we bring in?

As far as breeding for one type, why? There are other breeds that have QH type, Hunter type, etc. I like to see the different types and cross them to get a horse with better conformation, and function.

Just my thoughts. I am probably forgetting something but I think I will just go put on my flame suit while the tar and feathers are being mixed.

Sincerely,

Robin

 

[Charlotte]

Robin

Very well thought out and very good points. Those who do not agree with you will try to find fault, but your points are valid.

"by not using horses that have gone over we are breeding ourselves into dwarf dom."

You are quite correct that statements such as this have no validity. Being 36" does not suddenly confer a whole new genome on a miniature horse if he comes from the same root stock as his 30" brother.

Sometimes there is so much emotion involved in a subject that it is difficult not to follow a strong leader....even if that leader is incorrect in their theories.

Charlotte

 

[Buckskin gal]

I sure was hoping that someone would bring up the point, "by not using horses that have gone over we are breeding ourselves into dwarf dom" because it doesn't make sense to me either. I just hadn't put it into words yet. A couple inches isn't going to keep anyone from not having a dwarf unless they have some secret formulation that the rest of us don't know about.

Mary

As far as the miniature horse industry is concerned I am a "nobody". That is fine, I don't have a problem it just makes it more fun to go in the ring and do well. Having said that, I mean NO disrespect to anybody and don't mean to offend, so please don't take this wrong. I just want to learn.

I have been around different breeds my entire life and have seen other breeds that measure for height and they measure at the withers, however they still have problems as any horse can be taught to "lower" itself. I believe a "good" solution in measuring would be to have every horse square up without allowing the feet to stand outside the width of the chest and hips, then use a laser level to measure. The horse wouldn't have anything to duck from. Just a thought.

Belinda said, her horses always measure within a 1/4" at each show, mine too. For me the reason is that I know the height of my horse and enter them in the proper classes. I am there to have fun and enjoy the work my horses and I have done together.

From what I have seen the Miniature Horse IS a breed. One of the standards of this wonderful breed is that they stand 34" and under for AMHA and 38" and under for AMHR. POA's have a height limit as do Shetlands so why is there a problem that the miniatures do to?

Once again, I mean NO disrespect. I don't know if it was Marianne or Robin that stated "by not using horses that have gone over we are breeding ourselves into dwarf dom." Can someone PLEASE explain to me how there is ANY difference in fighting dwarfism by using Miniatures that have gone over, when they have full siblings that are under. You can't say that the horses that are under 34" have a greater chance of producing a dwarf than their full sibling that happens to be taller. The genetics are the same, or do they change when they grow taller? The ONLY way I see it, to lessen the chances of dwarfs is to bring in "NEW" blood. So what breed of horse/pony should we bring in?

As far as breeding for one type, why? There are other breeds that have QH type, Hunter type, etc. I like to see the different types and cross them to get a horse with better conformation, and function.

Just my thoughts. I am probably forgetting something but I think I will just go put on my flame suit while the tar and feathers are being mixed.

Sincerely,

Robin

 

[Miniv]

Very well written.........and very strong points all around. I will be be interested in reading responses.

At the moment, I have no argument with anything you've said. A copy of it should be sent to both registries.

MA

 

[Becky]

No flames from me! Excellent post!

I simply do not understand the need to change where we measure. We have rules in place that tell us where and how to measure. They simply need to be enforced. Measuring at the top of the withers isn't any more likely to produce honesty than measuring at the base of the last hairs of the mane. I've seen it argued on this forum where the top of the withers actually are!

So what if we measure in a different location than other breeds? Are we not the most unique breed on earth anyway? So who says we have to be like the other breeds?

And yes, how can allowing horses over 34" into AMHA decrease the chances for producing dwarfs? If they are from the same gene pool, then does taller height make the bad genes go away?

I, for one, am looking for ways to improve the smallest of horses. Not a way to make them bigger.

 

[runamuk]

As far as the miniature horse industry is concerned I am a "nobody". That is fine, I don't have a problem it just makes it more fun to go in the ring and do well. Having said that, I mean NO disrespect to anybody and don't mean to offend, so please don't take this wrong. I just want to learn.

I have been around different breeds my entire life and have seen other breeds that measure for height and they measure at the withers, however they still have problems as any horse can be taught to "lower" itself. I believe a "good" solution in measuring would be to have every horse square up without allowing the feet to stand outside the width of the chest and hips, then use a laser level to measure. The horse wouldn't have anything to duck from. Just a thought.

Belinda said, her horses always measure within a 1/4" at each show, mine too. For me the reason is that I know the height of my horse and enter them in the proper classes. I am there to have fun and enjoy the work my horses and I have done together.

From what I have seen the Miniature Horse IS a breed. One of the standards of this wonderful breed is that they stand 34" and under for AMHA and 38" and under for AMHR. POA's have a height limit as do Shetlands so why is there a problem that the miniatures do to?

Once again, I mean NO disrespect. I don't know if it was Marianne or Robin that stated "by not using horses that have gone over we are breeding ourselves into dwarf dom." Can someone PLEASE explain to me how there is ANY difference in fighting dwarfism by using Miniatures that have gone over, when they have full siblings that are under. You can't say that the horses that are under 34" have a greater chance of producing a dwarf than their full sibling that happens to be taller. The genetics are the same, or do they change when they grow taller? The ONLY way I see it, to lessen the chances of dwarfs is to bring in "NEW" blood. So what breed of horse/pony should we bring in?

As far as breeding for one type, why? There are other breeds that have QH type, Hunter type, etc. I like to see the different types and cross them to get a horse with better conformation, and function.

Just my thoughts. I am probably forgetting something but I think I will just go put on my flame suit while the tar and feathers are being mixed.

Sincerely,

Robin

I will say my opinion/theory is not popular...but I agree that if the horses only under 34 are closed to any outside influence full blown dwarves will become far more common.

WHY

Because the main feature of all 200 documented dwarfisms is short stature. So it seems in my mind at some point horses are a dwarf....where the cutoff is I don't know BUT I highly suspect it is right around 28 inches or just below.

If we want to accept that dwarfism is NECCESSARY that is one thing but so many are against the idea that this is needed to get heights under a cut off point.

So many other species USE dwarfism to control height, yet in horses those with the super tinies deny deny deny.......so what if it is a component? Acknowledge it and figure out a way to minimize the negative effects. Closing the studbooks won't solve anything. Requiring DNA does nothing if AMHA isn't a breed, all it does is cost it's members money................whoopdeedoo. There is NO point behind DNA if those horses that are proven by parentage to be purebred are tossed aside due to 1/4 inch. At this point I doubt we have a real true count of how prevelant dwarfism is....many deny their dwarves to this day others hide them, they cannot be registered, so cannot be tracked........my suspicion is that it is far more prevelant than we think. I suspect that many horses declared non-dwarf truly are. I would love more than anything to be proven completely wrong. I suspect that will not be the case

 

[Viki]

Well said Becky!

Why SHOULD we be like all the other breeds? We're NOT like them! Our horses are the most unique in the world! In my ever so humble opinion!

Viki

 

[Charlotte]

Because the main feature of all 200 documented dwarfisms is short stature

Ummm, What 200 documented dwarfs?

I have personally had the VERY unfortunate experience of examining dwarfs of 35 & 36 inches.

where the cutoff is I don't know BUT I highly suspect it is right around 28 inches or just below.

EXCUSE ME! Do you realize how very insulting you are to the many fine breeders there are who focus on the smaller miniatures? Do I come on here and talk about your jug headed, ewe necked, slab shouldered, goose rumped over horses and shetlands? You know, the ones you DON'T see pictured in the magazines? No I don't. Do you know why? Because I accept that not everyone is fortunate to have only the best of any breed. And I respect their desire to have and breed what fits their life whether it fits your idea of what is perfect or not.

I can't imagine that anyone breeds with the idea of producing a dwarf. All of us breeding for the small perfect horses select for the best of characteristics just as those of you breeding the overs and shetlands try to do!

I think you owe some people an apology.

Charlotte

 

[Minimor]

she said 200 dwarfisms not 200 dwarfs there's a bit of a difference in the two

I think some of Robin's meaning--and I could be entirely wrong--is that if breeders live scrupulously by the 34" rule & discard any & all horses that go even 1/4" over 34"...oh never mind, you don't really want to hear it anyway!

What I've been trying to figure out is--what harm would it do to have a "breeding stock" designation for AMHA horses that go over 34"? what harm does this do to someone who is determined to have only 32" and under horses?? The breeding stock horses wouldn't be showing, so funds aren't being taken from the small horses to pay for the classes for the oversize horses. The small sizes aren't being eliminated in favor of the bigger sizes--everything will stay the same for those who only want smaller horses. Look at AMHR--they aren't the "over" division horses only--they have a HUGE under division entry at Nationals. I'm just curious what negative impact there is for you as a breeder of the very small horses? ("you" is general, not anyone specific.

 

[Becky]

I'm just curious what negative impact there is for you as a breeder of the very small horses?

I suppose that if a breeder were to use only the same horses for breeding generation after generation, it wouldn't be a problem for that one breeder as such. But it becomes a problem for the overall height in the registry. Again, think of it as a Bell curve with the smallest on one end and the tallest on the other. The average height in the middle. So if the smallest is say 28" and the tallest 34", the average would be somewhere around 31".

If the tallest end of the Bell curve were increased to say 36", then the average height would be 32". By increasing the upper end of the height limitations, you increase the overall average height of the breed. It would also increase the numbers of horses that are over 34". IMO, this is not what the founders of AMHA had in mind at its' inception.

I used to be for a breeding stock division for the oversize horses back in the early 90's. But as I have been breeding now for 18 years, I can see what having oversize horses can do to my personal breeding program in trying to keep the height under 34". More often than I care to see, even one 36" grandparent can cause a foal to reach a height I would never have thought possible! Fortunately (and smartly) for me, all of my horses are double registered with AMHR, so those that go over 34" have another registry that accepts and loves them. I, for one, however much prefer the under 34" horses as I wanted 'miniature' horses when I purchased my first one years ago. That is what drew me to this unique and special breed in the first place. That is what will keep me here.

 

[StarRidgeAcres]

So it seems in my mind at some point horses are a dwarf....where the cutoff is I don't know BUT I highly suspect it is right around 28 inches or just below.

This is a ridiculous statement. As my mom would have said "don't take your mouth out walkin' if you can't keep it on a leash!"

I'll take my many 28" and under dwarfs, and all their national/world top tens, anyday!

Oh yeah, I guess those judges that gave my mare her world reserve champion title should be informed they chose a dwarf. OH! Good lord, what where you thinking??

 

[Miniv]

I will say my opinion/theory is not popular...but I agree that if the horses only under 34 are closed to any outside influence full blown dwarves will become far more common.

WHY

Because the main feature of all 200 documented dwarfisms is short stature. So it seems in my mind at some point horses are a dwarf....where the cutoff is I don't know BUT I highly suspect it is right around 28 inches or just below.

If we want to accept that dwarfism is NECCESSARY that is one thing but so many are against the idea that this is needed to get heights under a cut off point.

So many other species USE dwarfism to control height, yet in horses those with the super tinies deny deny deny.......so what if it is a component? Acknowledge it and figure out a way to minimize the negative effects. Closing the studbooks won't solve anything. Requiring DNA does nothing if AMHA isn't a breed, all it does is cost it's members money................whoopdeedoo. There is NO point behind DNA if those horses that are proven by parentage to be purebred are tossed aside due to 1/4 inch. At this point I doubt we have a real true count of how prevelant dwarfism is....many deny their dwarves to this day others hide them, they cannot be registered, so cannot be tracked........my suspicion is that it is far more prevelant than we think. I suspect that many horses declared non-dwarf truly are. I would love more than anything to be proven completely wrong. I suspect that will not be the case

Rori,

Unfortunately I think people are just picking some items out from what you wrote and taking offense, without reading the whole.............

One thing I do not agree with is that dwarfism is a height thing. (You gave 28 inches as a possible cut off.) I just wanted to point out that other horse breeds also deal with dwarfism......I just read about Fresians having a problem with it as well! Personally, I like the leggier, taller minis, but I also appreciate the well proportioned teenies..........and they are out there, without dwarfy characteristics, and are being successfully shown.

I do agree that closing the AMHA registry does not solve anything. And doing the DNA testing doesn't solve a lot either, except now it can assist in parentage. However, once we DO have a valid test for dwarfism in place, I will say that with horses that have a DNA record in place, perhaps we will all be one step closer to finding an answer to the problem.

But until that research is done and a test is found, we are all going to sit here and be frustrated and SQUABBLE!!!!

MA

 

[rabbitsfizz]

Actually I agree in essence.

Once you are down under 28" (for example- we can go down to 26" if you like) a horse does exhibit more dwarf traits- this DOES NOT MEAN A HORSE IS A DWARF, NOR IS IT MEANT TO IMPLY AS MUCH- if you are going to quote these sort of statements please have the civility to quote them IN CONTEXT and not just take them out of context so you can have a hissy fit!!!

OBVIOUSLY some horses under a certain height will have more dwarf symptoms, and a lot- obviously the show horses, will not have ANY dwarf characteristics at all.

The main problem we have is that whilst it is easy as pie not to breed from a horse with minimal characteristics, if you own it, it is often a horse that displays NO characteristics whatsoever, and is NOT under 28" that produces the dwarfs!!

So we would discard horses with characteristics, whether they were dwarfs or not, because these are undesirable traits, but we are STILL not solving the problem.

I do not believe the gene pool is VARIED enough- it is certainly big enough- to warrant closing the book.

It actually makes no difference to me if the book is closed or not but I personally see it as a disaster for the AMHA only horses.

Unfortunately, what WE want will have little influence on what AMHA actually does!!

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

I could be wrong but I think what she is saying is that dwarf in and of itself simply means tiny I think I read somewhere there is a height in humans that below is considered dwarf for an adult and that is just what I am guessing she means when she picked a height of 28 in

Now that said while I dont breed for the tiny ones I guess I dont see how if in fact you believe your horses are more valuable due to there under 30 in size that having 35-37 in whatever horses in the registry as breeding stock would at all change your market or what you breed for?

If in fact you believe and are proven right that by allowing these horses in (which by the way are being bred EVERY DAY ALREADY it would just mean people would not have to lie about it anymore and hide them in the back pasture)Anyway lets go with your opinion that somehow it would raise the average height by 2 inches (again something that has not happened now so not sure how it would change) but for conversation sake lets say your correct...

Tell me how that changes ANYTHING for those in the smallest horse group? Your not going to go out and buy a 37 in horse for your program right? and if indeed you feel your horses are more valuable and a bigger asset to the breed due to their size how would that change? would it not keep the value the same or in fact increase it for those that are now and always will be interested in the small ones? In a registry allowing up to lets say 37 inches be it breeding stock or whatever... would that not make your under 30 in horses look even smaller then comparing them to a 34 in horse?

These are honest questions that I am asking trying to see your point in all of this not being argumentative honest.

I guess I dont see how legitimazing the horses that we all know are already being bred by making there owners "honest" is going to change anything from how it is today with the exception of having to admit that perhaps a 38 in horse is still truly a small horse

 

[Buckskin gal]

Lisa, Although I do not breed for the smallest of the minis myself, I do understand the desire for those who are in AMHA and want to breed for the smallest most perfect horse...that is the challenge that the Standard calls for!! And I happen to believe it is a challenge to breed for the SMALLEST most perfect horse. These people don't ask us to explain why we breed for the tallest of the minis even though that is not what the standard challenges us to do ....they just allow us to do what we like and I have never seen the smallest group have a hissy about it. It may be difficult for you, as a person who prefers the tallest of the minis, to understand why anyone would want to breed for the smallest most perfect horse but they do and that is their right and also what the Standard calls for. If there are people in AMHA that look at their work to be of value then they have that right....there are some who seem to want us to believe that all minis are, is small Shetlands if that is true then all the more reason to want something that may not be just another Shetland, by Shetland Standards. I may be incorrect and this is not their point of view but it is something that I think is possible. Mary

PS And in no way am i condoning the breeding for dwarfs!!!!

Nor would I believe that tiny in itself means dwarf. Many people are tiny but not dwarf. I believe something woud need certain other characteristics to be a dwarf.

I could be wrong but I think what she is saying is that dwarf in and of itself simply means tiny I think I read somewhere there is a height in humans that below is considered dwarf for an adult and that is just what I am guessing she means when she picked a height of 28 in

Now that said while I dont breed for the tiny ones I guess I dont see how if in fact you believe your horses are more valuable due to there under 30 in size that having 35-37 in whatever horses in the registry as breeding stock would at all change your market or what you breed for?

If in fact you believe and are proven right that by allowing these horses in (which by the way are being bred EVERY DAY ALREADY it would just mean people would not have to lie about it anymore and hide them in the back pasture)Anyway lets go with your opinion that somehow it would raise the average height by 2 inches (again something that has not happened now so not sure how it would change) but for conversation sake lets say your correct...

Tell me how that changes ANYTHING for those in the smallest horse group? Your not going to go out and buy a 37 in horse for your program right? and if indeed you feel your horses are more valuable and a bigger asset to the breed due to their size how would that change? would it not keep the value the same or in fact increase it for those that are now and always will be interested in the small ones? In a registry allowing up to lets say 37 inches be it breeding stock or whatever... would that not make your under 30 in horses look even smaller then comparing them to a 34 in horse?

These are honest questions that I am asking trying to see your point in all of this not being argumentative honest.

I guess I dont see how legitimazing the horses that we all know are already being bred by making there owners "honest" is going to change anything from how it is today with the exception of having to admit that perhaps a 38 in horse is still truly a small horse

 

[Marty]

A lot of you are looking at band aids and not a cure

Dilemma:

1. Find a 100% fool proof way to measure horses where no one can cheat since no one seems to be able to trust the human hand. That's sad but apparently fact.

2. Find a way to eliminate dwarfism in the breed

Until these two things can happen some way some how in our life times, you will always

be back to square 1.

Possible Answers:

1. Measureing: Get someone to build some kind of computerized measureing machine. If we can send people to the moon, we can get an apparatus designed to measure a horse. Check out the inventions at the Smithsonian Institute website that have been done by grade school kids - college students. Stranger things have been invented.

Dwarfism:

2. Research Research and more research. I believe it is Mr. E that is doing much research. Let's find out

more about what he needs to make a breakthrough. Also someone mentioned environmental problems that may be contributing to dwarfism. Let's explore more of that too.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Mary this has nothing to do with what I prefer or dont prefer at this point I dont have a breeding program so we can take that out of the equation.

I never said anyone was having a hissy fit I was just asking a honest question how breeding any size mini be it 34 and under or 36 and under or 38 and under how does that effect the programs they have now and couldnt it actually enhance its marketability?

We all need to first accept the fact that the reality is these size horses are already being bred wtih AMHA papers every day no matter what anyone says.. the sad fact is people are not honest heck how many of us have been sold those oversize AMHA horses and didnt know it till we got the horse so of course those same people selling them are breeding them or they would not have the papers anymore. So I guess I am not seeing the huge difference it would make in the genetics from what we have as of this moment in time is my question

I am not asking it to be right it is a honest question that I am asking in trying to see their point of view.

No matter what anyone else breeds they will still continue to stirve for there correct under 30 in horses I dont see that changing at all so I am asking what they truly see as the down fall knowing that these horses are being bred today anyway.

 

[Buckskin gal]

This is where different opinons come in, as far as I can see. I have seen you say you prefer the taller minis so whether you are breeding or not my understanding from what you have said previously is that you do prefer the taller minis and I was just poiniting out that those who prefer the smaller have that right. And I didn't say you said anyone was having a hissy fit...please read what I say and not add more to it than what was meant. Thanks, mary

Mary this has nothing to do with what I prefer or dont prefer at this point I dont have a breeding program so we can take that out of the equation.

I never said anyone was having a hissy fit I was just asking a honest question how breeding any size mini be it 34 and under or 36 and under or 38 and under how does that effect the programs they have now and couldnt it actually enhance its marketability?

We all need to first accept the fact that the reality is these size horses are already being bred wtih AMHA papers every day no matter what anyone says.. the sad fact is people are not honest heck how many of us have been sold those oversize AMHA horses and didnt know it till we got the horse so of course those same people selling them are breeding them or they would not have the papers anymore. So I guess I am not seeing the huge difference it would make in the genetics from what we have as of this moment in time is my question

I am not asking it to be right it is a honest question that I am asking in trying to see their point of view.

No matter what anyone else breeds they will still continue to stirve for there correct under 30 in horses I dont see that changing at all so I am asking what they truly see as the down fall knowing that these horses are being bred today anyway.

 

[joylee123]

[SIZE=12pt]I had posted this on another thread but thought I'd post it here too...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I feel it would be in the best interest of AMHA to re-instate oversized "breeding stock only" paperwork on our horses that go over 34". Only allow those under 34" to show. Realistically, losing a well bred "AMHA" registered horse and their pedigree because it goes over an inch is not of benefit to anyone. We have all experiance foals being born who's sires and dams are well under 34" (I had a 29.75" stallion bred to a 31.5 inch mare, both with tiny pedigrees throw a foal that matured to 35.25!) [/SIZE]

I don't believe anyone with AMHA stock is intentionally trying to breed for larger than 34" but it does happen and again, the reality is there are folks that will breed that over 34 inch AMHA mare because she has awesome bloodlines, conformation, color, intitial investment in the horse ect... and through careful selection will breed to reduce the foal of that mare.

Not knowing the true height of the dam of that foal doesn't benefit those who are adamant about only breeding the smallest perfect horse. Re-instating the "oversized breeding stock only" would give breeders the tools nessessary to truely know the sizes in the horses pedigree, and make an educated decision on whether they wish to purchase that foal, or breed that foal and if so, what size stallion would be more appropriate to use. If you want to show the animal who is over 34" , show in AMHR "B" division.

Just my 2 cent

 

[runamuk]

I will try this one more time........

If you were to remove the dwarfism gene from the breeding pool of basset hounds, dacshunds, corgi's etc you would no longer have any of those breeds.

If you were to remove the dwarfism gene from bulldogs, pugs, shih tzus, persians, etc......you would no longer have any of these breeds.

Dwarfism is part of breed type. It is accepted and neccessary to retain certain aspects of the gene to create these breeds. And to carefully breed away from the deletorious aspects of the gene.

If you take dwarfism out of rabbit breeds that weigh under 4 lbs you would no longer have rabbits under 4 lbs.

Again the gene is neccessary.

So I am not understanding why the huge hubub that it MIGHT be a neccessary component to keep miniatures under a certain size___________fill in the blank with whatever size you wish. I said under 28 because it seems to be the hardest size range for breeders to consistently produce......maybe I am wrong maybe it is easy to breed under 28 consistently. Wouldn't it be better to know and understand the mechanism to produce horses in this size range? I don't understand why it is so inflammatory in horses to even suggest this yet dog breeders, cat breeders, rabbit breeders all understand, study, and accept this idea.

from the LPA resourses

Dwarfism:
is a condition characterized by short stature. Technically, that means an adult height of 4 feet 10 inches or under, according to the advocacy group Little People of America (LPA).

can be caused by any one of more than 200 conditions, most of which are genetic. The most common type, accounting for 70% of all cases of short stature, is called achondroplasia.

can and most often does occur in families where both parents are of average height. In fact, 85% of children with achondroplasia are born to average-size parents.

here is an interesting article on the max factor gene and peanut causing gene in dwarf rabbits.

http://islandgems.net/maxfactor.html

Another interesting article on miniature/dwarf/midget cats

http://www.messybeast.com/dwarfcats-purebred.htm#dwarfbreeds