When the Burmese faithful weren't rending their garments over color, they were
working up a froth over conformation. Coincident with a big-time increase in the
breed's popularity, which increase began in the mid-1970s, there occurred a
transformation in the appearance of some Burmese. Noses became noticeably shorter,
skulls became increasingly rounder, and eyes grew obviously more pronounced. This
new fashion statement, known as the "contemporary" look, came to dominate the breed
by the 1980s; but "in some cases," wrote Gebhardt, this new look "carried with it
certain deformities." These included cleft palates, skulls that didn't close and
other deformities that affected the survival rate of kittens. Such defects were
virtually nonexistent in the soon-to-be-declassed, "traditional" Burmese.
The more sanguine among the new-look breeders claimed that Burmese problems could
be bred away or minimized through judicious outcrossing. Advocates of the traditional,
less extreme look maintained that only a dedication to the use of cats from
traditional bloodlines would solve the problem. The Governing Council of the Cat
Fancy in England, weighing in on the side of the traditional American breeders,
banned the registration of any Burmese imported from North America, in order to
prevent the introduction of "defective" genes into British Burmese catteries.
An article in the Cat Fanciers' Almanac for June 1997 assured everyone that "the
Burmese breed is not suffering from an unusually small or very restricted gene pool.
An early result of the Feline Genome Project currently being done by the National
Cancer Institute was the finding that the Burmese breed appears to have plenty of
genetic diversity."
Genetic diversity, however, is not the main issue here, so this assurance amounts
to an answer in search of a question. There was enough outcrossing done by Burmese
breeders, both before and after the breed's reinstatement by CFA, to ensure a
substantial gene pool. The problem is the suspected presence of rogue genes in
some Burmese bloodlines, and those breeders who worry about the effect of such
genes might point to a drastic decline in Burmese registrations as proof of
the legitimacy of their concern.
In 1989 there were 1,206 new Burmese registrations in CFA, and the breed stood
fifth among 35 registered breeds. Last year there were 844 new Burmese
registrations, and Burms had dropped to 11th among 37 CFA-registered breeds.
Considered in isolation, that 30 percent decline in registrations in less than
a decade looks imposing. To be fair, however, CFA registrations plummeted 23
percent across the board during that same period. Thus, the fact that Burmese
outperformed the market by 7 percent may or may not be significant. One hopes
for the sake of the cats that it is not.
