Head Foxy in Shape and Appearance

This photo of an English Fox's head was taken around the year 1900. I found it in the book "Welsh Corgis" by E. Forsyth-Forrest copyright 1955. She uses it on her discussion of this very same subject - that "the description of all important head is, I think, for many rather misleading. Those who know the English Red Fox realize how much their heads vary in different parts of the country." And it must be noted again, that she is writing about the English countryside!

This goes back to what I have said over and over - that when the standards were written much was left out (like full dentition) because it was assumed that everyone at the time knew that it was required of all herding types and therefore did not have to be spelled out.

I further quote Ms. Forrest, "He" (the fox) "had a good big ear and strong muzzle and beyond the fact that the eyes are a little inside the line which, for perfect proportions in a Corgi, runs from nose, through the eye to the tip of the ear, it gives a pretty good general impression of what is required."

She goes on to say (quite interesting to me, considering the statement made by a prominent breeder from the UK at a judge's seminar given in California) "Most foxes have finer muzzles and smaller ears, and, on principle, I dislike and mistrust a dog - or horse - with very small pointed ears. However, the general effect of a Corgi's head should suggest fox. With this in mind there is no excuse for the coarse, untypical 'bull terrier' brand or the even worse elongated and exaggerated 'collie' type. With no aspersions on the respective breeds whose heads are in keeping with their build and proportions, these are not (ed. note - her emphasis, not mine!) correct in a Corgi, and breeders should make every effort to try and suppress them. In my opinion, heads, feet, hind legs and voices (again, her emphasis) are on the downward path, or rather the latter is on the upward, and has in all too many cases reached a horrible shrill yap!"

I found all of this incredibly interesting - from a book first published in 1955 - that we are having the same discussions today!

©2001 Stephanie Hedgepath, USA
Reproduced with kind permission.