Talk:Wild horse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Przewalski is not merely a feral horse; the American Museum of Natural History reports that, unlike domesticated horse breeds which have 64 chromosomes, the wild horse has 66 chromosomes. However, the offspring of Przewalski and common horses are fertile, possessing 65 chromosomes. Are there sources for this? In general, in biology, uneven number of chromosomes provide serious problems for reproduction, so there is a need for good sourcing of this alternative. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I found this. --Merovingian {T C @} 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Some authorities feel strongly that the Przewalski horse is the ancestor of all modern breeds. Others point out that it is a different species from the domesticated horse, having 66 chromosomes as compared to the 64 of the domestic horse. They further point out that while crosses between the Przewalski and domestic horses result in a fertile hybrid, the offspring has 65 chromosomes. Subsequent crosses result in 64 chromosomes and bear little resemblance to the Przewalski.
- I always thought this was common knowledge, although I checked google and found this source: http://biobulletin.amnh.org/D/2/3/index.html
- the takhi is the only true wild horse left in the world. These dun-colored, black-maned equids have not been domesticated, and they remain genetically distinct from the common (domestic) horse. The takhi has 66 chromosomes instead of the common horse's 64. Because of this genetic distinction, some scientists recognize the takhi as a separate species from Equus caballus, rather than a closely-related subspecies. However, when the common horse and the takhi are cross-bred, the first-generation offspring have 65 chromosomes and are fertile. Harkenbane 03:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I went by my general biology knowledge, which is not always accurate on all details (there are to many). So, what about inserting Crosses between the Przewalski horse and domesticated horses are fertile, despite the difference in the number of chromosomes; Przewalski horse have 66, and domesticated horses have 64 chromosones resulting in offspring with 65 chromosomes[1]
- Some authorities feel strongly that the Przewalski horse is the ancestor of all modern breeds. Others point out that it is a different species from the domesticated horse, having 66 chromosomes as compared to the 64 of the domestic horse. They further point out that while crosses between the Przewalski and domestic horses result in a fertile hybrid, the offspring has 65 chromosomes. Subsequent crosses result in 64 chromosomes and bear little resemblance to the Przewalski.
- ^ The American Museum of Natural History When Is a Wild Horse Actually a Feral Horse?
-
-
-
- What do you think? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. We seem to have substantiated this claim. --Merovingian {T C @} 04:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, we can move it to the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Given the multiple spelling errors in the new edit, I reinstated the original edit, minus the mention of the American Museum of Natural History; the substantiation was better as a clickable reference. Harkenbane 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- One! The first sentence of your version seems funcky, that is why I wrote the above version. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Given the multiple spelling errors in the new edit, I reinstated the original edit, minus the mention of the American Museum of Natural History; the substantiation was better as a clickable reference. Harkenbane 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, we can move it to the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. We seem to have substantiated this claim. --Merovingian {T C @} 04:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- What do you think? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
How can a description of the differing number of chromosomes between wild and domestic horses be followed by a comment like this: "Nowadays we know that the wild horse and domestic horse belong to the same species...."? I understand that the taxonomy is debated, so such a statement is out of keeping with the rest of the article, and particularly jarring when it immediately follows what I would think to be quite good evidence that wild and domestic horses are not the same species. Edalton 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone just needs to look at the source of the debate, explain it, cite it and if it's done properly, both sides explained fairly, then all will be well. Unfortunately, yours truly is not one with time to do so...Montanabw 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see a source for the chromosome numbers has been added. Most scientists do now see the wild/domestic horse and the przewalski as the same species. The "chromosome" source also says why they are: "If parents can produce fertile offspring, according to systematic convention, it usually indicates that they do not belong to different species. Another factor suggesting that the takhi might be a subspecies of Equus caballus is that if a first-generation horse-takhi hybrid is bred with a horse, the second-generation offspring have only 64 chromosomes and bear little resemblance to the takhi ancestor." The domestic horse has certainly some Przewalki blood in it, at least some breeds, like the Heck horse. Peter Maas 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
