Ms in a pet registry is almost certainly a data artifact: the honorific prefix entered in a name field by mistake, a form auto-populated with a human salutation, or a registration system that placed "Ms." in the name column. At rank 2360 with 40 registrations, it is not a deliberate pet name. It is paperwork gone slightly sideways.
What Actually Happened
Dog licensing forms typically have a field for the owner's name or honorific. When that field content migrates to the pet name column through form design errors, data entry mistakes, or legacy system quirks, "Ms" and "Mr" appear as pet names in the final dataset. This is a known artifact type in municipal pet registry data.
The Broader Data Quality Issue
Registry data at lower ranks is disproportionately composed of artifacts: honorifics, form defaults, clerical errors. The pet names dataset is cleaner at higher ranks where genuine preferences dominate, noisier at lower ones. Ms is one of the cleaner artifact examples: its non-name status is immediately legible.
The Counter-Reading: Could Someone Have Intended This?
It's theoretically possible that an owner deliberately named a female dog Ms as a feminist statement, giving a dog a title rather than a name and refusing the diminutive. The data doesn't distinguish intent. But 40 registrations is more consistent with repeated data entry error than with a deliberate naming trend.