Talk:Heck cattle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the econd link not to be neutal to the subject. Just have a look at the cover of the book Aikhenbaum et al. published and you see the propagandistic aim of this book. Just the fact thst the Zubr is called a "POLISH species" says much about the neutrality of this link! How can an animal species, once widepread throughout Europe be polish? Anyway, read what the dutch say about Heck Cattle and it's role for the environment, and you will learn more about Heck Cattle than in the second link. Thre is much literature about Heck Cattle in other languages, but because americans don't botther to learn foreign languages all this information will be out of reach for you. You may mock about the Eurpoean enviromentalism and go on to destroy our own last untouched areas. One day, I hope, you will learn. 145.254.191.26 19:45, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This article could need some POV work.

1) This page seems to be very critical towards categorising the Heck cattle as "Aurochs". Fact is, cattle are one and the same species as Aurochs, so why is calling Heck cattle "aurochs" so bad and wrong? There is a similar project trying to recreate the Quagga. Their logic is that if you breed specimens of related subspecies that look like the quagga, you'll arrive at a quagga. Please, if the categorization is so erroneous give genetic evidence why the Heck cattle can't be called aurochs.

2)The article also seems to consider the Nazi background as VERY important. I doubt that many Heck cattle, and many of its breeders are active in the national socialist party. Wiglaf

The Aurochs is extinct. You consider the aurochs ande the cow as being the same species. They may be, but they are different subspecies at least. As such you may breed an animal that has the same exterior, but it is not the same animal. An animal is more than just an exterior. As to "genetic evidence" you ask for a bit much, please provide science with genetic material of the aurochs and it will prove you wrong.

As to the Nazi link, it is part of the story. As such it belongs in an encyclopedia. Historic info is not to say that present day breeders are Nazi's. The same logic would make all present day landowners in Louisiana slavers. GerardM 08:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Still, as a species it is hardly extinct, as cattle is widely regarded as deriving from the Aurochs. As a wild form, it is. Categorization is not an entirely objective process, and so I suggest the article be careful about considering the Auroch "extinct" as a species. You're right about the nazi piece. Wiglaf

Aurochs are universally considered extinct except by the small minority who support the Heck cattle. It is basically a fringe belief. Rmhermen 14:01, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Really? It is the first time, I meet this controversy, but I am not a biologist. Technically, we could consider cattle domesticated Aurochs, like swine is domesticated wild boars, right? Wiglaf

No they are classified as two separate species. And one is extinct. Rmhermen 20:00, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

You seem to believe in the possibility of creating new species in a few thousand years! You probably consider the dog to be a separate species from the wolf, the swine from the wild boar, the horse from the tarpan, etc. The neutrality of this page is contestable. By the way you can't compare with dinosaurs and birds unless you have very warped idea of time spans. There is NO distiction between species that fit this one. Sorry, but you're wrong.Wiglaf

Luckily, this page does not depend on the opinion of myself or you who admit to not being a biologist. It depends on the actually classifications made by actual biologists who classify them as separate species -just as they classify tarpan and horses or dog and wolves. Zebu and cattle are both species decended from aurochs. According to [1]

cattle and zebu "diverged some hundreds of thousands of years ago" based on genetic analysis. Rmhermen 00:26, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am back to fix this POV problem. Here is small list of links where cattle is called Bos primigenius taurus (i.e. the same species):

1) [2]

2) [3]

3)[4]

4) [5]

5) [6]

6) [7]

7) [8]

I am glad if we could settle this POV problem once and for all. This is Wikipedia after all. The same revised naming appears with dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and horses (Equus ferus caballus). Regards.--Wiglaf 11:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Rmhermen, concerning your last edit, explain to me why Bos primigenius taurus is unscientific and why you feel it is POV to have both names in the article. Do you think we should request an arbitration in this matter?--Wiglaf 17:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we are working on two different things here. You are trying to promote a view that aurochs and cattle are the same species (which I find hard to support given there are no complete specimens of aurochs and little if any DNA testing of the few remains.) I am trying to avoid the statement from the Heck cattle promoters that Heck cattle are a different species or sub-species from cattle, that they are truly reconstructed aurochs. The trinomial name you promote indicates that aurochs and cattle are separate sub-species, not separate species but does not imply that aurochs are not extinct. In that system, aurochs is bos primigenius primigenius. I also note many uses of Bos taurus taurus including by the Smithsonian' sNational Zoo. Modern cattle are not simple descendants of aurochs but are often hybrids of other species and sub-species depending on location. African cattle often have Bos indicus genes, some others are hydrid with Bos grunniens (yak) or Bos bison bison (beefalo). Rmhermen 18:11, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Note that I am not a breeder of Heck cattle, and I don't have an agenda of presenting them as one and the same. I do, however, have a certain expertise in categorisation theory and I think we should be careful with taxonomy concerning closely related species or subspecies. Especially when one of them is more or less derived from the other (this is why you're sure to find Bos primigenius taurus for cattle, Equus ferus caballus for horses and Canis lupus familiaris for dogs). Because of this, I don't think it is NPOV that the article categorically states that they are different species.--Wiglaf 19:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether they are distinct at the species or sub-species level is a different (and not entirely resolvable) matter than the fact that they are different. The fact that Bos taurus (or Bos primigenius taurus) is (depending on breed) partially to mainly (perhaps overwhelmingly) derived from Bos primigenius (or Bos primigenius primigenius) does not mean that they are not different. A lot of this has to do with the modern redefinition of the term species especially in light of genetic research. Rmhermen 20:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I should also say that some writers still consider Bos primigenius, Bos taurus and Bos indicus separate species. Others consider them to be species Bos primigenius, and Bos taurus with subspecies Bos taurus taurus and Bos taurus indicus. Other consider it Bos primigenius primigenius, Bos primigenius taurus and Bos primigenius indicus. It is not entirely resolved but it does not imply a lack of difference between the groupings. Regardless of the classification level, you can note from [9] that a 10,000 year or 200,000 year timeframe based on archeological or genetic results, respectively, is not considered an impediment to recognizing them as three distinct groups. Rmhermen 20:35, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am not surprised at all at what you tell me. Such disagreement is quite predictable when we have a number of "species" that can interbreed. I think that it is much better if the article states that there is disagreement on the taxonomy, than just to state that they are different species.--Wiglaf 20:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point I am making is that there is no practical difference between stating that they are different species or different sub-species in these cases. Many of these can and do interbreed even at the genus level. Species is not a magic word, just another level of classification. Adjusting it up or down a level doesn't change the level of difference between the groups. Rmhermen 21:10, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well it is a magic word for people who are not aquainted with the problems here. The basic distinction between a species and a subspecies is that crossbred subspecies can have fertile offspring whereas crossbred species normally cannot. I really don't understand why you're so determined to have it only one way. This is Wikipedia, it is supposed to be neutral and claiming that one version is sufficient is POV.--Wiglaf 21:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Count me confused because you have been the one insisting throughout this page that they be listed as the same species. Rmhermen 23:04, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I did not. Already in my second post I wrote that Categorization is not an entirely objective process, and so I suggest the article be careful about considering the Auroch "extinct" as a species. IIRC, you were bent on removing anything that did not say that they were different species period.--Wiglaf 19:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please submit some source that claims that aurochs are not extinct. Rmhermen 20:24, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Of course they are extinct, but an extinct subspecies is not the same thing as an extinct species, and in this case its status as a species is not set in stone.--Wiglaf 20:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No extinct as a sub-species is exactly the same as extinct as a species. Dead, gone, ain't no more and never will be. The same as an extinct genus, or family or order. No animal's status as a species is set in stone -have you read our articles on species and lumpers and splitters, etc. Rmhermen 20:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Actually genetic research may advance to Jurassic Park-level so "never will be" may be a bit strong. Rmhermen 20:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Actually genetic research may advance to Jurassic Park-level so "never will be" may be a bit strong. Rmhermen 20:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

You actually believe that I am a promotor of Heck cattle. LOL. Stop imagining things for God's sake. This discussion does not concern whether Heck cattle and Aurochs are the same subspecies. It concerns you dicatorial way of defining them.--Wiglaf 20:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I beleive you have never seen one (and neither have I) and care little about them (and neither do I). I do beleive you have some odd idea of the word "species" that you are trying to promote but I still don't fully understand what your definition entails. Rmhermen 20:53, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't. Explain to me what it entails. My odd idea about species is shared by every scholar who defines them as Bos primigenius taurus1)[10], 2) [11], 3)[12], 4) [13], 5) [14], 6) [15], 7) [16]Wiglaf 20:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First that is not universal or perhaps even common yet. Many still classify them as separate species. But your definition goes much further as you say "why is calling Heck cattle "aurochs" so bad and wrong";, "as a species it is hardly extinct, as cattle is widely regarded as deriving from the Aurochs". Aurochs is extinct, that is if you use Bos primigenius taurus, you must also use Bos primigenius primigenius, which is the name of the extinct sub-species, the aurochs. Modern cattle are not aurochs just because they are descended from them, any more than cattle are buffalo or goats are sheep. You have merely shifted the level from species to sub-species. Heck cattle are Bos primigenius taurus, not Bos primigenius primigenius. Actually Heck cattle are Bos primigenius taurus cross Bos prinigenius indicus with only a small proportion of indicus which resulted from interbreeding with the Watusi breed which is known to be about half indicus.Rmhermen 21:23, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I agree. However, you wrote "a different and extinct species (Bos primigenius)" and I hope that the article won't stay as categorical about their classification in the future. It is a question of NPOV.--Wiglaf 21:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many or even most scholars still treat them as separate species so it is not incorrect. If you are going to add qualifying statements to every species in similar situations, good luck. There are hundreds already in Wikipedia, if not thousands that will require changing. Rmhermen 21:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't need to. Serious articles usually note these problems, i.e. dog, cat and swine. Or the contributors are very sensible and you can discuss the matter with them without pulling it down to this level, e.g. perch.--Wiglaf 15:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other attempt to breed wild cattle?

Have there not been an other more scientific attempt to “breed back” wild cattle? I have heard of a project that used “Spanish fighting bulls and Corsican mountain cows”. (This is my own translation from Swedish. The breeds might not be called so in English.) The result bore a physical resemblance to the Aurochs depicted in prehistoric art. It might also be able to survive in the wild. Something Heck cattle can’t according to Swedish historian Peter Englund.

2007-03-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.