Dog, Fox, Wolf

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikis only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation.

See also Fer a Loup.

Illustrations:[edit | edit source]

Period:[edit | edit source]

Maltese-type, wolf & dog:[edit | edit source]

File:UnicornTapestryMaltese.jpg Livro
The Lady and the Unicorn Tapestry (Taste), late 15th Cent., Maltese Dog Livro de Armeiro-Mor 1506-1509, blue on green, green on red, black on red, complexity count of 11, dog & wolf

Dog in Hood:[edit | edit source]

Dog
Dog in executioner's hood


Dogs on ladder,[edit | edit source]

Siebmacher1605 dogs-on-ladder.jpg
Siebmacher 1605, dogs on a ladder, FB image courtesy of Rayne Evynwod.

Modern:[edit | edit source]

Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:[edit | edit source]

Vector Graphics:[edit | edit source]

Annotated Pennsic Traceable Art Project[edit | edit source]

Precedents:[edit | edit source]

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html
Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/ (to search the LoARs and Precedents)

Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.


Definition:[edit | edit source]

June 2021 CL - From Wreath: Foxes Proper[edit | edit source]

Examples found by Iago Boar showed that a period fox proper need not have sable socks. Additionally, period foxes also sometimes had argent chests as well as tail tips. These examples include:

Sammlung von Wappen aus verschiedenen, besonders deutschen Ländern, c 1600 German (München, BSB Cod.icon. 307), p. 164, https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020245/image_152

Donaueschinger Wappenbuch, c. 1460 German (Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Donaueschingen 496), f. 80r, https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:31-134228/fragment/page=6092982

Given this variation in period, we are amending the definition of a fox proper. The presence, or absence, of the sable socks and argent chest are unblazonable artistic details.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2021/06/21-06cl.html#8

March 2011 LoAR - mastiff vs Great Dane[edit | edit source]

Edmund Blackhound. Name and device. Argent, a mastiff statant sable and on a chief embattled vert two boars passant argent. The submitter wished to use the term "Great Dane" for this dog, and presented evidence, including a LoAR citation from 1992 that claimed that it was a period breed of dog. The article that precedent cites, from the Meridian Symposium Proceedings in 1982, does not list its sources for its claim that Great Danes are a period breed of dog. As it does not list sources, we will no longer rely on its unverifiable claims. The submitter provided a link to a painting supposedly called "Karl V with Great Dane". We have been unable to find any other site verifying that title for that painting, and the dog in the painting lacks many of the identifying characteristics of Great Danes. The Kunsthistoriches Museum, which owns the painting, by Jakob Seisenegger, calls it "Kaiser Karl V mit seinem Englishchen Wasserhund" - "Emperor Charles V with his English water dog." While the breed may or may not be period, there is no evidence that the name "Great Dane" is period. We will, therefore, no longer register "Great Dane" as a recognized breed of dog without new evidence, and will blazon such dogs as mastiffs...

July 2008 - wolf's teeth should touch or nearly touch at the base[edit | edit source]

The depictions we have found of wolf's teeth in period heraldry invariably have the teeth conjoined at the base. We encourage this depiction of wolf's teeth, but will accept emblazons where the teeth are not quite conjoined as in this submission. The wolf's teeth must still reach, or nearly reach, the per pale line. [Konrad Rickert, 07/2008, A-Atenveldt] Collected Precedents

June 2008 - tailless = defamed, mastiff vs Rottweiler[edit | edit source]

[#75] Caitriona inghean Sheamuis. Name and device. Per chevron gules and argent, a mastiff statant defamed argent and three thistles one and two vert, headed purpure. The dog's tail is not shown. While tail docking seems to be a modern custom, the fact that the missing tail can be blazoned makes it registerable: Parker's Glossary of Heraldic Terms, p.377, gives defamed as the term for a tailless beast (e.g., a lion). There is sufficient evidence of mastiff-type dogs in the Rottweil region of Germany during our period that this depiction of a dog is registerable; however, the term Rottweiler for the breed of dog appears to be a significantly post-period development. Therefore the dog has been registered as a mastiff defamed. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2008/06/08-06lar.html

January 2005 - wolf's teeth need to extend almost to center[edit | edit source]

[Sable, a bend gules fimbriated between a sun and three wolves' teeth issuant from dexter base Or.] In addition, there is a serious style problem with the use of wolves' teeth in this design. As recent precedent indicates, "The examples of wolf's teeth in the Pictorial Dictionary and in Siebmacher show that the teeth invariably extend almost to the center line; where teeth come from both sides they almost touch. Those on this submission do not come close. This is in itself grounds for return" [Dubhagán mac Ruairc, 5/04, R-Meridies]. Because of the nature of this charge, it is unsuitable for use in a design that prevents the wolves' teeth from being drawn correctly. [Iohannes Kynith, LoAR 01/2005, Outlands-R] Collected Precedents 2nd Tenure of Francois la Flamme

November 2002 - dachshund[edit | edit source]

[a dachshund] Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir's "May I Use a Collie In My Arms" (KWHS, Meridies, AS XVII, pp. 45-55) indicates that the dachshund is probably a period breed of dog. The dachshund is literally a badger-hound, bred to hunt badgers. The New Zealand Kennel Club (http://www.nzkc.org.nz/breeds/dacsh.htm) states that "Earliest records now available of dogs hunting badgers include several woodcuts in a book first published in 1560. These dogs had long bodies, short legs, medium length heads, pendant ears, short necks and sickle tails." This description matches the emblazon here. It seems reasonable to register dachshunds as period charges. If nothing else, the term for the breed is generic ("badger-hound") and closely resembles a period sort of dogused for hunting badgers. [Marie Boleyn, 11/2002], R-Middle]

October 2002 - fox proper[edit | edit source]

A fox proper in the SCA is "Red with black 'socks' and white at tip of tail" October 2002 LoAR

October 2002 - three-tailed fox (kitsune):[edit | edit source]

Abe Akirakeiko (Oct 2002, Atlantia): Per pale azure and vert, a three-tailed fox passant argent and in base three millrinds two and one Or. [The three-tailed fox is presumably meant to be a kitsune, Japanese shape-shifting fox.] October 2002 LoAR

September 1971 - wolf's teeth point downward by convention[edit | edit source]

Wolf's teeth are like little curved piles. When issuant from the sides of a shield they conventionally point downward. (HB, 20 Sep 71 [47], p. 5) [1]

Registerability:[edit | edit source]

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

May 2018 CL - On "Ululant"[edit | edit source]

SENA A2B4 defines elements which are a step from period practice under core rules... allows for certain charges and motifs which appear neither in European heraldry nor in the previously mentioned categories. These include elements such as paw prints, compass stars, and birds (other than an eagle) displayed. These are tolerated because they're remarkably popular and function effectively as armorial elements without causing undue confusion. However, inclusion or exclusion of these charges in past rulings was far more subjective, and such elements could cease being registerable if they became problematic.

It is with this background in mind that we come to the subject of ululant wolves. First appearing in the May 1982 LoAR, the use of ululant, or howling, wolves (and other canids) is long and broad, with just under 200 existing registrations of the term. The term and practice have no basis in period armory or art, but its use in post-period motifs (notably in the American southwest) has led to its popularity in the SCA.

As a head posture on a full or demi-beast, its use is not wholly remarkable. Due to period heralds being largely unconcerned with consistency in head placement and orientation on animate charges, the College of Arms doesn't grant any difference between beasts with heads guardant, regardant, or facing the same direction as the torso. In these instances, use of ululant had no impact on conflict, and was merely a note to artists to place the head in the preferred orientation for the submitter.

Heads as stand-alone charges, however, present an altogether different scenario. A head facing dexter gets a DC from either a head affronty or a head contourny, and (because SENA A5G7 grants a DC for orientation) also has difference from a head bendwise or palewise. However, ululant heads blur the distinction between orientations, with the angle of registered examples ranging from midway between fesswise and bendwise to fully palewise. This ambiguity in blazon demonstrates the problem with including this post-period motif in SCA heraldry.

Therefore, we will be discontinuing use of the term ululant in SCA armory and removing it from Appendix G. When used with a whole or demi wolf, a raised head will be treated as an unblazoned artistic detail and allowed as long as identifiability of the creature is maintained. Depictions of animal heads as stand-alone charges should have the heads in a clearly recognizable orientation, with the neck either perpendicular to the head (couped, erased) or parallel (couped close).

Pending documentation, submissions using ululant heads appearing on external letters after September 30, 2018, will no longer be registered.

http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/05/18-05cl.html#3

March 2011 - mastiffs[edit | edit source]

Edmund Blackhound. Name and device. Argent, a mastiff statant sable and on a chief embattled vert two boars passant argent. The submitter wished to use the term "Great Dane" for this dog, and presented evidence, including a LoAR citation from 1992 that claimed that it was a period breed of dog. The article that precedent cites, from the Meridian Symposium Proceedings in 1982, does not list its sources for its claim that Great Danes are a period breed of dog. As it does not list sources, we will no longer rely on its unverifiable claims. The submitter provided a link to a painting supposedly called "Karl V with Great Dane". We have been unable to find any other site verifying that title for that painting, and the dog in the painting lacks many of the identifying characteristics of Great Danes. The Kunsthistoriches Museum, which owns the painting, by Jakob Seisenegger, calls it "Kaiser Karl V mit seinem Englishchen Wasserhund" - "Emperor Charles V with his English water dog." While the breed may or may not be period, there is no evidence that the name "Great Dane" is period. We will, therefore, no longer register "Great Dane" as a recognized breed of dog without new evidence, and will blazon such dogs as mastiffs... [[2]]

August 2010 - talbot vs beagle[edit | edit source]

Iscelin Teague. Name and device. Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a talbot statant and in chief three roundels argent. ... Blazoned on the Letter of Intent as a beagle, sufficient documentation was provided to show that beagles were a period breed of dog. Unfortunately, the documentation did not prove that the dog in the emblazon matches the actual look of the period breed.

August 2007 - wolf's teeth with other charges on the field[edit | edit source]

[Per chevron inverted "azure" and vert, a cat dormant Or and issuant from dexter base three wolf's teeth argent] ...While the overall design of this device does not appear to resemble armory, the concept is registerable. Electrum looked for examples of wolf's teeth with other charges in Seibmach. He noted: "I found only one such example, on page 155 [folio 135], Keudel zu Schwebda, which can be blazoned as Argent, a fess vert and in chief six wolf's teeth, three from the dexter and three from the sinister, sable. Of note in the mode of depiction here are 1) the sets of three wolves' teeth on the dexter, and the three on the sinister are each conjoined at the base. 2) Each set of two from top to bottom (1 dexter and 1 sinister) are within millimeters of being conjoined on the palar line. Unfortunately, The Keudel arms were the only ones I noted." ... I will note that the example of Keudel does justify use of another charge with the teeth, and the forcing the teeth to chief or base as necessary... [Gytha Oggesdohtor, 08/2007, R-Æthelmearc] Collected Precedents

December 2006 - inverted wolf's teeth SFPP[edit | edit source]

Wolf's teeth inverted are identifiable; they are registerable but - pending period heraldic examples of such inversion - are considered a step from period practice. [Michael von Guttin, 12/2006, R-Atenveldt] Collected Precedents of the SCA]

May 2005 - bulldog[edit | edit source]

[Sable, on a bend sinister between two bulldogs statant respectant argent, four quatrefoils bendwise slipped to dexter base vert.] This device must be returned for lack of documentation that the bulldogs as depicted actually represent a period breed of dog. While the submitter provided documentation that the term bulldog was used in period, no documentation was provided and none was found indicating that the period dogs referred to by that term had the overly developed head and jaws shown on this device. In fact, such period pictures of bulldogs as we were able to locate showed a rather generic hound. Without additional documentation, this depiction of a bulldog is unregisterable. [Gaius Grattius Brutus, 05/05, R-Caid]

November 2002 - dachshund[edit | edit source]

[a dachshund] Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir's "May I Use a Collie In My Arms" (KWHS, Meridies, AS XVII, pp. 45-55) indicates that the dachshund is probably a period breed of dog. The dachshund is literally a badger-hound, bred to hunt badgers. The New Zealand Kennel Club (http:www.nzkc.org.nz/breeds/dacsh.htm) states that "Earliest records now available of dogs hunting badgers include several woodcuts in a book first published in 1560. These dogs had long bodies, short legs, medium length heads, pendant ears, short necks and sickle tails." This description matches the emblazon here. It seems reasonable to register dachshunds as period charges. If nothing else, the term for the breed is generic ("badger-hound") and closely resembles a period sort of dog used for hunting badgers. [Marie Boleyn, 11/2002, R-Middle]

June 2002 - blazoning the tail:[edit | edit source]

Helena d'{E'}vreux. Badge. (Fieldless) On a cushion gules tasseled Ora terrier sejant to sinister argent collared purpure. Some commenters felt that the terrier was hard to identify, but most were able to identify it as a dog. The particular terrier in this emblazon has a short muzzle with a long hairy "beard" or "mustache", which seemed to be the source of the identifiability issues. Similar small dogs were documented with the submission, from the Arnolfini Wedding portrait circa 1434 and from the Unicorn Tapestries circa 1500 (which dog resembles a West Highland terrier, except that it is tan colored). The period sources showed dogs with small fluffy tails, so the fact that this dog's tail is also small (possibly docked) does not require blazoning. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2002/06/02-06lar.txt

March 2000 - collies unregisterable[edit | edit source]

Collies as a breed originated after the 16th century, therefore they may not be used as a charge. [Aubrée Symonne de Ver, 03/00, R-Meridies]

August 1993 - blazoning breeds[edit | edit source]

To the best of our knowledge, period blazons did not specify an exact breed of dog; at best, they would describe a dog by its general characteristics (levrier) or for a cant (talbot). The SCA does permit known period breeds to be specified in blazon, but I consider the practice an anomaly or "weirdness"; another anomaly in the design ...might itself be sufficient grounds for return. (Jean Philippe des Bouviers Noirs, August, 1993, pg. 18)

March 1993 - wolf's teeth issuant from both sides[edit | edit source]

[Per pale, three wolves' teeth issuant from the dexter flank and three wolves' teeth issuant from the sinister flank, counterchanged.] Siebmacher's Wappenbuch of 1605 shows the arms of von Keudell (plate 135): Argent, a fess vert, in chief three wolves' teeth issuant from dexter and three issuant from sinister sable. The use of wolves' teeth from both sides of the shield seems acceptable, at least in a design as simple as this. (Talon Graymane, March, 1993, pg. 18) Collected Precedents

January 1993 - blazoning breeds[edit | edit source]

In general, period armory did not specify the type of dog used as charges, preferring to blazon them more generically (talbot, leveret, etc.). It's considered poor style in SCA armory, but permitted for known period breeds. (Tassine de Bretagne, January, 1993, pg. 29)

November 1980 - specifying species vs breeds[edit | edit source]

Genus and species need not be given for common animals where there is only one species involved. There is only one species of domestic cat. The same is true of dogs and horses. There are, however, many breeds, and these are what must be specified. WVS [30] [LoAR 28 Nov 80], p. 2

September 1971 - wolf's teeth known from 11th cent[edit | edit source]

Wolf's teeth are known from the eleventh century; there's a Hungarian family Bathory, meaning "wolf's-teeth." (KFW, 11 Jul 71 [19], p. 4) [3]

Conflict:[edit | edit source]

July 2008 CL - From Wreath Emeritus: Concerning the Heads of Dogs, Wolves, and Similar Beasts[edit | edit source]

In commentary on the submission of Clarissima della Chiesa (Ansteorra LoI of July 2007), the issue was raised on the difference to be granted between the heads of heraldic canines: wolves, foxes, and the various breeds of dogs. It tied in as well to the difference granted for the full-bodied beasts, but Clarrisima's submission required only a ruling on their heads. Generally speaking, when comparing two charges, our criterion has been whether the charges were distinguished by period heralds... or, perhaps more accurately, whether there's evidence that they weren't distinguished by period heralds. Lacking such evidence, if the charges being compared are both period charges, in their period postures, then we tend to grant at least a CD between them. (See the discussion on ravens vs. falcons, on the LoAR Cover Letter of February 2006; and the discussion on crabs vs. lobsters vs. scorpions, on the LoAR of February 2007.)

Most of the dogs, foxes and wolves in period armory were chosen for cants: the badge of Talbot will always be blazoned a talbot, regardless of how it's drawn. Once canting is discounted, there is still evidence that canine heads were drawn interchangeably, with the same arms sometimes depicted with hounds' heads and other times with wolves' heads. While this is strong evidence, it is not conclusive: we don't know whether the blazon evolved along with the depiction.

If Society armory limited itself to the very few breeds of dogs found in period armory -- the talbot or kennet, the greyhound, the alaunt, the mastiff, and perhaps a couple of others -- then we might see granting difference between those breeds and wolves or foxes. However, the Society permits a far greater variety of dog breeds -- any breed, so long as it was known in period -- and the confusion with wolves and foxes is thus increased many-fold. Given the documented examples of confusion between hound's heads, wolf's heads, and fox's heads in period, the added confusion with all these breeds makes it impossible to grant difference. Therefore, we here affirm the Society's policy of granting no difference for type of canine head: dog's heads (of whatever breed), wolf's heads, and fox's heads are treated as negligibly different. This was the specific issue with Clarissima's submission, which has now been addressed. We look forward to further arguments, based on period evidence, regarding whether difference should be granted for type of full-bodied canine (as opposed to merely their heads).

September 2007 - theow vs wolf[edit | edit source]

[#122] Erik de Tyr. Device. Gules, a wolf rampant and on a chief embattled argent three crosses barby fitchy sable. "...The submitted device also conflicts with the device for Æthelwulf Stealcere, Gules, a theow rampant and on a chief embattled argent four trilliums gules, barbed vert, seeded Or. There is a CD for the changes to the tertiary charges, but we grant no heraldic difference between a theow and a wolf. While the theow appears in period, the only period examples we can find are supporters. As such it is impossible to tell whether theows were considered different from canines in period as charges on the shield. With that in mind, we are left with visual differences. The theow is described as "A wolf-like monster but with a cow's tail and cloven hooves." (Brooke-Little, An Heraldic Alphabet). Other references agree. Since the only differences are the hooves and tail, there is not enough visual difference to give a CD between theows and other canines." http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2007/09/07-09lar.html

September 2003 - wolf vs enfield[edit | edit source]

"there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and thus, a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield are not obscured by other elements of the design"

June 2001 - greyhound vs wolf[edit | edit source]

Some months ago, I asked the College for their opinions on whether precedent should be overturned to give significant difference between a greyhound and a wolf (and more specifically, a greyhound's head and a wolf's head). The standard of RfS X.4.e, Type Changes, is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. Evidence was presented, which none disputed, that greyhounds and wolves were both period charges. However, responses substantially opposed the change, and therefore the precedent that all canines conflict will remain in place.

However, much of the commentary focused more broadly on issues of identifiability of these and other canines. Batonvert suggested that collars were an important identifier for dogs, but Argent Snail pointed out that in various period rolls of arms one finds more dogs without collars than with. Moreover, Argent Snail pointed out that in one blazon in the Dictionary of British Arms, there was confusion as to whether a specific depiction was intended to be a dog or a wolf. Others were concerned about how we would treat the various breeds of dogs that were not known in period heraldry, particularly those that blur the distinctions between the two. These concerns, while not unimportant, are outside the scope of the issue at question.

Just as we give significant difference between, for example, falcons and swans (when in postures period for falcons and swans), while giving no difference between either and a generic bird, we could easily for canines define a few types (wolf/fox, greyhound, and talbot, for example) each of which is significantly different from one another and a residual category (everything else) which is not significantly different from any of them. Such a plan would allow for a clear precedent regarding both depictions that blurred distinctions (they could be blazoned as generic dogs) and depictions of breeds that are not one of these charges (they would be treated as generic dogs for purposes of conflict). There is, however, insufficient support in the College so no such plan will be implemented at this time. 06/01, CL

December 1998 - piles vs wolf's teeth[edit | edit source]

[piles issuant from dexter vs wolf's teeth issuant from dexter] This conflicts [with] nothing for the curved line in the wolf's teeth. Just as we would give nothing for the enarching of three bars, we give nothing for the enarching of the piles. (Seumas as a' Ghlinne Easgaiche, 12/98 p. 12) Collected Precedents of Jaelle of Armida

Identifiability:[edit | edit source]

Collected Precedents:[edit | edit source]

The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [[4]]

In the Ordinary[edit | edit source]

(includes alaunt, beagle, bitch, brachet, canine, collie, cur, fox, great dane, greyhound, hound, husky, hyena, levrier, loat, mastiff, poodle, samoyed, setter, spaniel, wolf cub, etc.)

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Dog,_Fox,_Wolf&oldid=7501"