I'm glad Archer has Porthos, and I'm surprised that more pets have not been on the future ships, such as in TNG and VOY, because pets are very good for people. They seem to be notably lacking in the idyllic future world, at least among Star Fleet officers. --<unsigned>

Actually several officer's had pets on ships. Data had his cat Spot, Picard had his fish, O'Brien had a spider for a time (he also later inherited Bilbly's cat in "Honor Among Thieves"), and Janeway had a dog (she was left behind, perhaps because Voyager's original mission was only meant to last a few weeks). Lt. Aqiuel Uhnari in "Aquiel" had a dog (though it later turned out to be an alien creature in disguise).
A useful resource here is the article named Pets -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Porthos in "Twilight" Edit

Although we saw Porthos in "normal time" during "Twilight," supposedly there were scenes with him in the segments that took place 12 years later. Make-up artists added grey streaks to Breezy's fur to make Porthos look older. From what I've heard, these scenes were cut, and I was disappointed to see they were not included on the DVD.

Actually, we never even saw Porthos anywhere in the episode. In fact, I don't even think he was mentioned. It would have been cool to see him, though. I, too, was disappointed that no deleted scenes or commentaries were attached to that episode. I was also surprised, since that was one widely considered of the best episodes of the season. --From Andoria with Love 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to correct myself. We saw Porthos briefly on Archer's bed in the episode. My bad. :/ --From Andoria with Love 14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Age Edit

I find it rather hard to believe that Porthos was still alive by 2161. The dog was already at least a couple years old by the time Enterprise was launched on his mission, and beagles don't normally live much longer than 12 years. With all the cheese that Archer always fed him, it's hard to imagine that Porthos didn't develop serious health problems after a while. Perhaps Porthos's presence in "These Are the Voyages..." can be attributed to Riker taking liberties with history? I dunno, just a suggestion...--Antodav 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is believeable or not, the episode shows Porthos being alive, and that is what is therefore canon. It is more likely that veterinary science had developed enough to keep dogs alive longer. After all, Dr. Phlox was able to replace one of Porthos' organs with one of a reptile, something I believe is impossible today. Also, some breads of dog live longer than others. My own dog, for example, is 14 years old, and will probably live to be 18. --OuroborosCobra 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Porthos was probably around 16 years old at the time of "These Are the Voyages..."; possibly a bit older. As OuroborosCobra stated above, there's no reason to believe that veterinary science hasn't improved along with Human medicine. If many humans can live past the age of 100 in the 22nd century and beyond, I see no reason to believe why dogs can't live over 20 years. --From Andoria with Love 05:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archer never stated Porthos' Age. He just told us, about his birth in that Porthos ep from the Second season, but he didn't give his age. Beagles are a small breed, and small breeds do reach 14-16 years nowadays already. Even if Porthos was 4 years by the time of Enterprise's launch, we have reason to believe he lived to the Founding of the Federation.

How many dogs played Porthos and his mirror version? Edit

For that matter, were they male like Porthos was supposed to be?--Will 06:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As the article states, Porthos was played by three dogs: Prada, Windy, and Breezy. --From Andoria with Love 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, there is a seperate article for Porthos (mirror), so this should have been on the talk page for that article. I'll go and do that now. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There is really no reason why this should have been removed, since a minimum of three dogs played this Porthos and only one is known to have played the 5 second cameo of the mirror Porthos. --Alan del Beccio 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. When I read the comment, my brain only saw "How many dogs played mirror Porthos". Guess I really need this vacation more than I thought. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I must of missed the part about the names of the dogs that protrayed him. Because multiple dogs were used, I have to believe that a sharp-eyed person should be able to spot changes in the Portho's coat. The article on Data's cat, Spot had people believing that Spot was a shape changer. (No pun intended.)--Will 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Useless Information + Incorrect References + Porthos's Age Edit

I think the *detail* of this article is ridiculous. "Captain Archer rubbed him behind his ears and continued his log" - I like Porthos as much as the next enthusiast but I think the level into which this article delves as a running commentary on Porthos's every appearance is crazy. This is an encyclopedia about canon Star Trek information not a complete commentary on a characters every movement on screen...Please tell me this level of detail is meant as a joke!

Also the information about T'pol's nasal numbing agent is incorrect. It was not given to her to prevent the pet smell it was to combat the stench of the humans to the Vulan's nasal glands as "Vulcan females possess a heightened sense of smell -"Broken Bow" - Proof that it is not in relation to the dog can be found in "The Andorian Incident" when the Vulan elder asks T'pol how she can stand the smell of the humans.

Porthos's appearance in "These Are the Voyages..." is nothing more than the Producers placing a character who was seen in the first episode, a fan favourite in the plot for the final hurrah. Although I understand the community's interest in speculation there is no reason for it. It was the finale and they didn't have to worry about breaking any rules anyway because it wasn't coming back next week for fans to complain about.--SebastianProoth 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Admiral Archer's beagle Edit

I think that it's appropriate to mention the business about "Admiral Archer's prize beagle" in the "Background" section of this article. Yes, in-universe it's highly unlikely that the beagle that Scotty beamed into oblivion was Porthos, as he would be at least 108 in 2258 (that's 756 in dog years!). But out-of-universe, the line is a nod to Porthos. It wouldn't be appropriate to say this, but I don't see what's wrong with this. —Josiah Rowe 17:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: See post #864 here. I'm sure that Orci isn't completely serious in his answer, but here it is:

Forget with it was Admiral Jon Archer (as it obviously was!): is the beagle mentioned Porthos? Has veterinary science advanced so much? (Please say yes!)

Given that, I'm going to put a mention back in the "Background" section. —Josiah Rowe 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was called a joke. The guy asked him to say yes, so he did. But... whatever. :-P --From Andoria with Love 02:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. I did say that Orci wasn't being completely serious. But since people had been consistently removing any mention of the "Admiral Archer's beagle" line from this page, I thought that a citation to the screenwriter connecting the line to Porthos would be useful, even if the remark was made in jest. —Josiah Rowe 05:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Porthos in 2009 film Edit

Should there be any mention of the fact that in the 2009 movie, Scottie has been punished because of a transporter accident where he lost "Admiral Archer's" prize beagle? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

We don't know if it's the same beagle. Chances are very high that it wouldn't be, since dogs don't live a hundred Human years. See the section immediately above this one. -- sulfur 23:55, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
It's implied that it's the same dog. His prized beagle. The wiki should at least acknowledge the reference to him 03:50, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Thats why the reference is acknowledged in the background section. --Pseudohuman 06:02, March 1, 2012 (UTC)