From the Barron article:
The name E. ferus was proposed by Gentry et al. [110] to differentiate wild caballines from domestic forms (i.e., E. caballus). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has approved this proposal [111, 112], and “implementation of the ruling means that names based on wild populations will continue to be used for wild species and will include those for domestic forms if these are considered conspecific” (p. 649 in [112]). We follow this proposal in the present study; however, we point out that there is still some disagreement about the status of E. ferus as a wild rather than a feral horse [113].
This is in conflict with what is currently in the article. Basically, it's pretty much stating that, E. ferus is not the same species as domestic horses, but that, by definition, it is the same species as Przewalskii's horse. It's also implying the E. ferus doesn't exist, because there's evidence that Przewalskii's horse is another example of a domesticated horse gone feral. So, we don't have three modern subspecies of E. ferus. And, if it becomes generally accepted that Przewalskii's horse is a subspecies of E. caballus, does that mean that we're going to get a new species name for the late Pleistocene North American horses, and will that name carry over to any early old world horses that may be ancestral to domestic horses? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- This source, which is from 2002, is off-topic. Heintzman 2017 is a very good study, particularly on the Stilt-Legged horse, Haringtonhippus. Weinstock is still good science on the caballine or "stout-legged" horse. The Barron study is solid as far as it goes, which is a morpological study of cheek teeth, again looking at the caballine and non-caballine lineages. Barron does not stand for the proposition that equus is "outside the ancestry of modern horses." Here's the point: "Based on the morphological and molecular data analyzed, a caballine (Equus ferus) and a non-caballine (E. conversidens) species were identified from different localities across most of the Western Interior. A second non-caballine species (E. cedralensis) was recognized from southern localities based exclusively on the morphological analyses of the cheek teeth. Notably the separation into caballine and non-caballine species was observed in the Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of ancient mtDNA as well as in the geometric morphometric analyses of the upper and lower premolars." It is clear that the caballine equids that inhabited prehistoric North America are the ancestors of the modern horse. To say otherwise is cherry-picking and misrepresenting the data for the purpose of some sort of claim that the modern horse is not related to its ancient ancestors. It's possible that this can be phrased more clearly, and given that GPinkerton seems to be following this discussion with a neutral point of view, I welcome further comments. Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also, to clarify taxonomy: I'm not a taxonomist, but when I was working on the GAN for [horse]] (which took a couple years to get done) as well as the wild horse and Equus (genus) articles, the editors on those articles discussed the question with some of Wikipedia's taxonomy editors. I became aware that there is a debate amongst taxonomists over how classification works and a couple different schools of thought. But the consensus on the horse articles was that we explained to the reader that e. ferus is the ancestral, no longer extant, wild horse. Its descendants include three subspecies that existed into the historic period: e. ferus caballus (the modern domestic horse) and e. ferus przewalskii (Przewalski's horse), as well as the now extinct e. ferus ferus (Tarpan). What is newly questioned is if, in fact, even the Przewalski was actually domesticated (they definitely tried), thus losing its long-believed status of being the "only truly wild horse left in the world." Which is a really interesting discussion (So now, do they preserve the Przewalski horses in the Gobi desert as a native species because they've been in the region for a long time, regardless of domestication status, or because someone tried and failed to fully domesticate them 6000 years ago, do they now call them an invasive species?) but also outside the scope of the Mustang article. So be careful of making overbroad assumptions.Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- This argument over taxonomy is completely irrelevant from where I'm standing. If there're sources on the relative ecology of these prehistoric horses and feral horses today, let's say so. Otherwise, whether or not this or that bone belongs to this or that scientist's idea of what constitutes a species in this context (there is no set definition and it's unlikely there ever will be) is completely irrelevant. The whole question of E. caballus/E. ferus caballus[/przewalskii] is completely semantic and the ICZN decision allowing the two separate names to be valid is just a compromise that means neither side is necessarily wrong or right. It also applies to nearly 20 other domesticated "species" of animals and their wild "ancestors". It can't be used to make a point about horses and North America, and it certainly doesn't relate specifically to mustangs alone. What's also interesting, in the context of North American grazing megafauna, is that while burros (but not their origin) are mentioned 30+ times on his page, and cattle are mentioned a dozen times, the word bison appears only once. Surely the disappearance of the bison from the mustangs' present range is worth noting as being infinitely more relevant to land-use issues and competition between herbivores in the modern Great Plains than is Haringtonhippus, which, extinct for a very long time, was probably greatly overshadowed by the bovine megafauna of America. The idea that "the caballine equids that inhabited prehistoric North America are the ancestors of the modern horse" is no less irrelevant that saying "the Tikitherids that inhabited prehistoric Pangaea are the ancestors of the modern horse". The direct ancestors of the mustang are Eurasian domestic horses. That's all that needs to be said here. To say otherwise is cherry-picking and misrepresenting the data for the purpose of some sort of claim that the mustangs are related to their (far-distant) ancient ancestors more than are other horses and feral horses of the Americas, which is of course not true. As far as LynnWysong's point goes, yes, it's commonly accepted that E. ferus [ferus] [i.e. true wild horses] do not exist and have not existed since the 19th century and probably long before. (Just like wild cattle.) It's worth noting that wild equines all have straight, stand up manes, and extinct North American horses were no different. Mustangs, descendants of domestic Eurasian horses, with their domestic horse-type manes, do not resemble wild horses. This glaring fact is omitted altogether in the article. GPinkerton (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Equus cedralensis was recognised as a junior synonym of H. francisci in a paper studying 336 teeth from Mexico, which found no statistically significant difference between the two groups, and the similarity between both groups had been noted before regardless. Heintzman et al, 2017 describes the North American caballine species as "highly variable" which has caused much of the taxonomic confusion, as the morphology of the Pleistocene caballine population were probably just as variable as contemporary mustang populations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- "It is clear that the caballine equids that inhabited prehistoric North America are the ancestors of the modern horse. To say otherwise is cherry-picking and misrepresenting the data for the purpose of some sort of claim that the modern horse is not related to its ancient ancestors." The "caballine equids" in question are the ones classified as E. ferus in the Barron article, and it is not clear they are the ancestors of the modern horses. It may be stretch to say they aren't ancestral, but I'm not the one that put that in the article, so I can't defend it. pinging ::@Hemiauchenia: to explain why they said that.
- Rather than engage with an edit war with MBW by taking out her equally inaccurate statement, I'm pulling the paragraph here, and suggesting a more accurate reflection of the Barron article:
- The taxonomic horse family "Equidae" evolved in North America 55 million years ago.[1] By the end of the Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of the Equine family present in North America, the "caballine" and "stilt-legged", which have been referred to by various species names.[2][3] One 2017 ancient DNA study tentatively classified the North American caballine horses as the same species (Equus ferus) as Przewalskii's horse, but with a caveat that Przewalskii's horse possibly should be classified with domestic horses, Equus caballus, indicating that the North American caballines are closely related to domestic horses.[4] At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballine was extirpated from the Americas, possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters.[5] The youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnWysong (talk • contribs)
References
"Equidae". Research.AMNH.org. American Museum of Natural History. Archived from the original on April 9, 2016.
Heintzman, Peter D.; Zazula, Grant D.; MacPhee, Ross D. E.; Scott, Eric; Cahill, James A.; McHorse, Brianna K.; Kapp, Joshua D.; Stiller, Mathias; Wooller, Matthew J.; Orlando, Ludovic; Southon, John; Froese, Duane G.; Shapiro, Beth (2017). "A new genus of horse from Pleistocene North America". eLife. 6. doi:10.7554/eLife.29944. PMC 5705217. PMID 29182148.
Haile, James; Frose, Duane G.; MacPhee, Ross D. E.; Roberts, Richard G.; Arnold, Lee J.; Reyes, Alberto V.; Rasmussen, Morton; Nielson, Rasmus; Brook, Barry W.; Robinson, Simon; Dumoro, Martina; Gilbert, Thomas P.; Munch, Kasper; Austin, Jeremy J.; Cooper, Alan; Barnes, Alan; Moller, Per; Willerslev, Eske (2009). "Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 6.
- First, See my above comment re E. ferus and E. ferus ferus (two different critters) that was inserted with an edit conflict
The direct ancestors of the mustang are Eurasian domestic horses Kind of. To be precise, the most direct ancestors of the modern mustang started with Spanish horses up to about 1700, at which point horses from other nations of Europe started to be added to the mix, and by 1900, everything but the kitchen sink was running around loose, crossbreeding at will, creating localized landraces, which we now call by the collective name "Mustang." Other feral horses of the eastern United States also started with various Colonial Spanish Horse ancestors, mixed with whatever came after. But no, we aren't (at least I'm not) making the argument that mustangs are related to their (far-distant) ancient ancestors more than are other horses and feral horses of the Americas Heck I'm making the opposite point: ALL domestic horses, descend from the same ancient ancestor, the caballine horses of the Americas. So, the real point of the dicussion is to examine the role of the Mustang in the western United States, and whether free-roaming horses in general should be treated as 1. (one extreme) invasive pests to be exterminated; 2. (Current law and middle ground) a protected class of animals, whatever they are (once-native or not), to be managed along with other aspects of the ecosystem in which they live; or 3. (the other extreme) A returned native species that should just run amok with minimal management. I hold to position 2, but think that the other positions need to be discussed because they are like the abortion issue, with very emotional advocates on all sides who don't like to see middle ground. NPOV and more NPOV. Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- You know, if you would just stick to the discussion and leaving out all the extraneous discussion and histrionics over NPOV, it would be a lot clearer and you would come off as more rationale.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Horse Manes
- Let me also be clear: the ancestral wild horse, e. ferus is NOT the same as the "Tarpan," e. ferus ferus. There actually is minimal if any evidence that e. ferus ferus was an ancestor of the modern horse (Hence the different trinominal name). As far as what they looked like, we can say how big they were and what kind of body build they had, but the rest is speculative. We know that the laid-over mane appears to be a consequence of domestication, but some so-called "Tarpans" in the 19th century appeared to have laid-over manes, and the historic Appaloosa breed was once noted (negatively) for having a scrawny, stand up mane and a "rat tail" (until they bred it out of them), as do most domesticated asses and donkeys. Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The difference in trinomial name is just an inheritance from Linnaeus and a concession to those would have caballus refer to domestic (and feral) horses and ferus to wild ones. The point of domestic donkeys having stand-up manes is irrelevant; we're talking about horses. The 19th century "tarpan" is very likely nothing but an Asian equivalent of the mustang, so not much can be drawn from its mane-type in late historical times. We know that 30,000 years or so ago, wild Eurasian horses had stand-up manes because that is the way humans 30,000 years ago recorded their appearance. We know the first domesticated horses 10,0000 years ago had stand-up manes because their descendants (i.e. Przewalski's horse) still have stand-up manes. I'm deeply sceptical about appaloosas with stand-up manes; what is the source for that and what would the explanation be? In any case, mustangs don't have stand-up manes, but we can be sure the extinct North American horse of yore had them, so that's one difference (among many). GPinkerton (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you about the 19th-century Tarpan not necessarily being a "true" wild horse. And I think the issue of stand-up manes is getting into the weeds. (See Bennett on the Appaloosa manes, but that was just a throwaway comment...I remember the old style Appies with very thin manes that were almost impossible to lay over because they didn't grow worth beans and just stuck up like a kid's cowlick. They used to just roach them. Their tails were short and thin.) Any thick and relatively short mane will stand up straight, like the domesticated Mongolian horse— they groom the Fjord horse that way on purpose. It's a primitive trait, agreed, but not "proof" one way or the other (see, e.g. the Heck horse, the Konik and other "recreated Tarpans." I've started a new section below Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The domestic horse likely descends from an ancestral tarpan population domesticated by the Yamnaya culture. I know that the initial population size for the domestic cow is suggested to be around 60 individuals so there is obviously a genetic bottleneck from the founder population of the domestic horse that will impact genetic results. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia, don't call ancestral wild horses "Tarpans." That's a misnomer. No proof the "Tarpan" of eastern Europe was the same horse as was domesticated in what is now Ukraine. Montanabw(talk) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Tarpan article itself seems to be unsure of the distinction, does "Tarpan" specifically only refer to 18th and 19th century horses in Eastern europe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The Tarpan article is poor quality and one of many I didn't have the time or energy to fix. It needs a LOT of work! Short answer is that people used to call the ancestral wild horse that was first domesticated a "Tarpan", but the 18th and 19th-century "wild" horses called "Tarpans" probably were not that subspecies of horse. Montanabw(talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Quick note that it was you that brought the word tarpan into discussion and now you're trying to take it out. Fine. E. ferus is fine. GPinkerton (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not sure precisely who started what, but the Tarpan article sure hasn’t been tackled by anyone for a long time, in part because of the confusing nomenclature. Montanabw(talk) 16:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
|