I don't think the Beagle referred to in Star Trek can sensibly be presumed to be Porthos, it would be a stretch for it to be same Archer, let along the same dog (given the significantly shorter life span). --8of5 23:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The producers have said it is Porthos at the following (link - post 864). Unfortunately, until they say so in the future, we don't have it onscreen. So it will need to stay vague for now (unless we start accepting the movie's creative staff's explanations on the website).--Lenonn 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall we quote that Q&A:

• Question: 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!)
• Roberto Orci: YES!

Well gee, that's not just humouring the questioner (and yes, that was very much sarcastic). And as you noted, the final product did not refer to Porthos, but a beagle. Which beagle we do not know, but the simple practical probability points away from it being Porthos. --8of5 02:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)