![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I did what looks like an extensive rewrite, but did not remove any prior contributions -- though they did get moved around a lot, in order to establish a reasonable flow of information with appropriate subheads. Added internal & external links & "see also" section to direct readers to closely related wikipedia articles on donkeys, mules, etc. Still needs more revision to achieve encyclopedic style and be fully wikified. Lisasmall 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Prodded by the unsigned note "Enough mule" below, deleted hefty portions of prior contributions because they were mule-specific without being sufficiently hinny-germane. Also was bolder about deleting repetitive material. -- Lisasmall 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
According to How They Do It, the reason hinnies are difficult to obtain is that jennies refuse to mate unless they are beaten, and stallions don't normally have to fight mares. - phma
I edited out this: "Nature prefers the chromosome match-up to occur ...." This is an example of the pathetic fallacy. See Bad Science: pathetic fallacy.-- Indefatigable 13:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to be a lot more about the mule than the hinny... a lot of references are for the mule rather than the hinny. Though you can make the argument that they're genetically the same, it's rather odd to read an article on the hinny based off mule information.
It's been a while since my genetics classses, but I believe the portion pertaining to the percentage of horse or donkey genes passed on is misleading. It states that the mule will pass on 100% maternal horse genes; however, due to recombination of DNA during meiosis, a certain amount of transfer between maternal and paternal genes occurs. This means that the largely horse based genetic material will have some characteristics from the donkey. This is how offspring obtain unique characteristics, and may more closely resemble close relatives other than their parents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halogenated ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
this is correct i am editing out the part about genetic because it is not at all correct, please do not edit about genetic if you dont know about genetics. there are no maternal or paternal genes just non expressed genes for different gender. the dna test part can also be taken aout as it is just repetetive as all a dna test will do is map genes on chromosomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.177 ( talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
In Morocco in 2003, a mule mare bred to a donkey stallion produced a male foal that was 75% donkey and 25% horse. as with my comments above completely incorrect these percentages are uneducated estimates with the crossover of genes the haploid egg cell could be as much as 0 or 100 percent horse (both extremes very unlikely). in conclusion the stallion would have a potential to be anwhere from 100 to 50 percent donkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.177 ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, English is not my first language so I may be misunderstanding this, but in any case it's confusing. If it means what I think it means (taken literally), it can't be true -- if equine offspring doesn't grow larger than the mother, then new equine generations would either be getting shorter or possibly (although improbably) maintaining the same size. If a male can't grow larger than his mother and females are usually smaller, this means they keep getting shorter. Am I missing something or this is completely wrong? PoisonedQuill 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's just missing a word -- "usually" or perhaps "approximately". Halfelven ( talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The hinny should NOT have a scientific classification. It is not a species because it is an infertile creature. If someone has any reason to call it a species, start explaining, because my college textbook (Essentials of the Living World/Chapter 12.4 ISBN 0-07-305238-8) says that according to the Biological Species Concept, the species need to be reproductively isolated. They are unable to interbreed, therefore not a species.
Like all documented crossbreeds, there are scientific classifications for mule and hinny. These are not the same as species names but involve two species names with an X in between. Many domestic plants are also hybrids between two or more species. Wheat, apples, oranges, rutabagas and several others. MUles and hinnies are not species but it is necessary to have a scientific classification for them in order to be able to talk about them in scientific papers and publish research. Halfelven ( talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
207.183.174.167 ( talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article have the category Donkeys, but not the category Horses?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thus, hinnies are smaller because donkeys are, for the most part, smaller than horses, and growth potential of equine offspring is influenced by the size of the dam's womb.
It's been a while since my time in a classroom, but this doesn't ring quite true.
Size of any individual would seem to relate to two things. The first is genetic; the size of the dam's womb cannot affect that. The second is environmental.
Assuming - and this may be off, can anybody shed light on it? - that the nutrition provided to a fetus by both mare and jenny are equivalent, then the only environmental factor is uterus size and that's where I get puzzled.
Take two identical fetuses, in different sized wombs. Once born, they eat the same thing (again, the dangerous assumption that mare's milk and jenny's milk are equally nutritious but certainly grass is grass). Same genetics, same nutrition - would the initially confined space (and what uterus is not confined?) be enough to overcome both genetics and subsequent nutrition?
Does anyone have info on respective gestation periods (viewing the hinny as a 'premie')? Is it possible that mules' digestive systems are more efficient, thus allowing larger sizes?
I think, at the least, some citation is required for this statement. I would be interested in an explanation from somebody whose science is more current than mine.
75.155.33.80 ( talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Female mules have been known to produce offspring when mated to a horse or donkey, though this is extremely uncommon. Since 1527 there have been more than sixty documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world. In contrast, according to the ADMS, there is only one known case of a female hinny doing so.
The insinuation would seem to be that female mules are more fertile than female hinnies (albeit both at a low level). OK, but the article also says that mules are far more common than hinnies. If they are, say, 10 times more common, then the statement above might be statistically significant. If on the other hand they are on the order of 60 times more common, then the insinuation is essentially meaningless.
Any insight on ratios?
75.155.33.80 ( talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
does it rhyme with tiny or with tinny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsamaBinLogin ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There was a sentence in the Fertility, sterility, and rarity section stating, "Dragon Foal's genes that she was a previously undocumented combination." A search found that the original sentence was, "Her chromosomes and DNA tests confirm that she is a previously undocumented combination." That claim itself is uncited and since genome sequencing was only first achieved in 1979, it is unlikely that DNA testing was performed on that individual, and certainly no comparison could be done with earlier subjects. Therefore, I removed the sentence entirely. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 11:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI: I am going to do a little improvement on this page. Just starting this discussion to keep some info while I work, and if anyone has question or comments for me.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)The LuckyThree site would normally raise red flags if you were to be challenged because it's a personal business site, though if you can independently establish that the author (apparently Meredith Hodges) is a notable person and expert in the mule world, it might fly, similarly to how horse trainers such as Cherry Hill or Mark Rashid (speaking of two other people from Colorado) have independent notability sufficient for their works to meet WP:RS, even if it's stuff off their web site. It's a cute page. That said, she doesn't have a lot to say about hinnies. ADMS will be RS for basic info, some history, etc. but not for claims of superiority, as they would be viewed as biased. Rural Heritage is probably pretty decent for a mainstream-type magazine. Should be adequately "third party neutral" for RS, anyway. Montanabw (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There really isn't an established format for dates in this article. The one reference that gives a complete date is in yyyy-mm-dd format. Is there any strong preference by currently active editors here? 2014-07-14? January 14, 2014? 14 January 2014? (I'd like to complete and standardize the citations currently in the article.) Lightbreather ( talk) 22:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
According to the ADMS, "The equine hybrid is easier to obtain when the lower chromosome count, the donkey, is in the male. Therefore breeding for hinnies is more hit-and-miss than breeding for mules."[1] ZFT ( talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The page states “hinnies and mules differ in temperament despite sharing nuclear genomes” without offering how they differ in temperament. Seems like it needs an explanation on how they differ. Kjpires ( talk) 13:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I did what looks like an extensive rewrite, but did not remove any prior contributions -- though they did get moved around a lot, in order to establish a reasonable flow of information with appropriate subheads. Added internal & external links & "see also" section to direct readers to closely related wikipedia articles on donkeys, mules, etc. Still needs more revision to achieve encyclopedic style and be fully wikified. Lisasmall 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Prodded by the unsigned note "Enough mule" below, deleted hefty portions of prior contributions because they were mule-specific without being sufficiently hinny-germane. Also was bolder about deleting repetitive material. -- Lisasmall 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
According to How They Do It, the reason hinnies are difficult to obtain is that jennies refuse to mate unless they are beaten, and stallions don't normally have to fight mares. - phma
I edited out this: "Nature prefers the chromosome match-up to occur ...." This is an example of the pathetic fallacy. See Bad Science: pathetic fallacy.-- Indefatigable 13:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to be a lot more about the mule than the hinny... a lot of references are for the mule rather than the hinny. Though you can make the argument that they're genetically the same, it's rather odd to read an article on the hinny based off mule information.
It's been a while since my genetics classses, but I believe the portion pertaining to the percentage of horse or donkey genes passed on is misleading. It states that the mule will pass on 100% maternal horse genes; however, due to recombination of DNA during meiosis, a certain amount of transfer between maternal and paternal genes occurs. This means that the largely horse based genetic material will have some characteristics from the donkey. This is how offspring obtain unique characteristics, and may more closely resemble close relatives other than their parents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halogenated ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
this is correct i am editing out the part about genetic because it is not at all correct, please do not edit about genetic if you dont know about genetics. there are no maternal or paternal genes just non expressed genes for different gender. the dna test part can also be taken aout as it is just repetetive as all a dna test will do is map genes on chromosomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.177 ( talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
In Morocco in 2003, a mule mare bred to a donkey stallion produced a male foal that was 75% donkey and 25% horse. as with my comments above completely incorrect these percentages are uneducated estimates with the crossover of genes the haploid egg cell could be as much as 0 or 100 percent horse (both extremes very unlikely). in conclusion the stallion would have a potential to be anwhere from 100 to 50 percent donkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.177 ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, English is not my first language so I may be misunderstanding this, but in any case it's confusing. If it means what I think it means (taken literally), it can't be true -- if equine offspring doesn't grow larger than the mother, then new equine generations would either be getting shorter or possibly (although improbably) maintaining the same size. If a male can't grow larger than his mother and females are usually smaller, this means they keep getting shorter. Am I missing something or this is completely wrong? PoisonedQuill 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's just missing a word -- "usually" or perhaps "approximately". Halfelven ( talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The hinny should NOT have a scientific classification. It is not a species because it is an infertile creature. If someone has any reason to call it a species, start explaining, because my college textbook (Essentials of the Living World/Chapter 12.4 ISBN 0-07-305238-8) says that according to the Biological Species Concept, the species need to be reproductively isolated. They are unable to interbreed, therefore not a species.
Like all documented crossbreeds, there are scientific classifications for mule and hinny. These are not the same as species names but involve two species names with an X in between. Many domestic plants are also hybrids between two or more species. Wheat, apples, oranges, rutabagas and several others. MUles and hinnies are not species but it is necessary to have a scientific classification for them in order to be able to talk about them in scientific papers and publish research. Halfelven ( talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
207.183.174.167 ( talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article have the category Donkeys, but not the category Horses?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thus, hinnies are smaller because donkeys are, for the most part, smaller than horses, and growth potential of equine offspring is influenced by the size of the dam's womb.
It's been a while since my time in a classroom, but this doesn't ring quite true.
Size of any individual would seem to relate to two things. The first is genetic; the size of the dam's womb cannot affect that. The second is environmental.
Assuming - and this may be off, can anybody shed light on it? - that the nutrition provided to a fetus by both mare and jenny are equivalent, then the only environmental factor is uterus size and that's where I get puzzled.
Take two identical fetuses, in different sized wombs. Once born, they eat the same thing (again, the dangerous assumption that mare's milk and jenny's milk are equally nutritious but certainly grass is grass). Same genetics, same nutrition - would the initially confined space (and what uterus is not confined?) be enough to overcome both genetics and subsequent nutrition?
Does anyone have info on respective gestation periods (viewing the hinny as a 'premie')? Is it possible that mules' digestive systems are more efficient, thus allowing larger sizes?
I think, at the least, some citation is required for this statement. I would be interested in an explanation from somebody whose science is more current than mine.
75.155.33.80 ( talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Female mules have been known to produce offspring when mated to a horse or donkey, though this is extremely uncommon. Since 1527 there have been more than sixty documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world. In contrast, according to the ADMS, there is only one known case of a female hinny doing so.
The insinuation would seem to be that female mules are more fertile than female hinnies (albeit both at a low level). OK, but the article also says that mules are far more common than hinnies. If they are, say, 10 times more common, then the statement above might be statistically significant. If on the other hand they are on the order of 60 times more common, then the insinuation is essentially meaningless.
Any insight on ratios?
75.155.33.80 ( talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
does it rhyme with tiny or with tinny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsamaBinLogin ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There was a sentence in the Fertility, sterility, and rarity section stating, "Dragon Foal's genes that she was a previously undocumented combination." A search found that the original sentence was, "Her chromosomes and DNA tests confirm that she is a previously undocumented combination." That claim itself is uncited and since genome sequencing was only first achieved in 1979, it is unlikely that DNA testing was performed on that individual, and certainly no comparison could be done with earlier subjects. Therefore, I removed the sentence entirely. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 11:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI: I am going to do a little improvement on this page. Just starting this discussion to keep some info while I work, and if anyone has question or comments for me.
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)The LuckyThree site would normally raise red flags if you were to be challenged because it's a personal business site, though if you can independently establish that the author (apparently Meredith Hodges) is a notable person and expert in the mule world, it might fly, similarly to how horse trainers such as Cherry Hill or Mark Rashid (speaking of two other people from Colorado) have independent notability sufficient for their works to meet WP:RS, even if it's stuff off their web site. It's a cute page. That said, she doesn't have a lot to say about hinnies. ADMS will be RS for basic info, some history, etc. but not for claims of superiority, as they would be viewed as biased. Rural Heritage is probably pretty decent for a mainstream-type magazine. Should be adequately "third party neutral" for RS, anyway. Montanabw (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There really isn't an established format for dates in this article. The one reference that gives a complete date is in yyyy-mm-dd format. Is there any strong preference by currently active editors here? 2014-07-14? January 14, 2014? 14 January 2014? (I'd like to complete and standardize the citations currently in the article.) Lightbreather ( talk) 22:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
According to the ADMS, "The equine hybrid is easier to obtain when the lower chromosome count, the donkey, is in the male. Therefore breeding for hinnies is more hit-and-miss than breeding for mules."[1] ZFT ( talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The page states “hinnies and mules differ in temperament despite sharing nuclear genomes” without offering how they differ in temperament. Seems like it needs an explanation on how they differ. Kjpires ( talk) 13:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)