This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mustang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 61 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay, I went in and made the discussed changes. I know that a big taxonomic discussion is beyond the scope of this article, this article conflicts with both what is said in Mustang and the Wild horse article. Basically, the 2017 Barron study re-classifies Equus lambei as Equus ferus. Based on this, I think we should diverge the lambei into the Wild horse article.
OK, without all the footnotes, which are above, lets’s address the issues and the content.
The original version is reproduced below, with the changes in the “wrong” version (LOL) Interspersed using talkquote
formatting, with the disputed wording of the original in Italic text, so it’s easier to see. My recommendation is that we get out of the weeds about the “non-caballine” equids and focus just on a history of equus. This probably means rewriting the whole thing and going back to the soirces to figure out what the best scientific consensus is.
Montanabw
(talk)
16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The taxonomic horse family "Equidae" evolved in North America 55 million years ago.[1] By
the end ofthe Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of theequinefamily present in North America, which recent DNA studies now indicate belonged to the two different genera: Equus, also known as the “caballine” or “stout legged horse”; and Haringtonhippus, the “stilt-legged horse”.[2]the "caballine" and "stilt-legged", which have been referred to by various species names.[2]Two DNA studies published in 2017 reached conflicting conclusions: One indicated that the prehistoric caballine horse was closely related to modern horses, the other study classified it as Equus lambei or Yukon Horse.[3][4]One 2017 ancient DNA and tooth morphology 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]. However, at the end of the Last Glacial Period, Haringtonhippus went extinct and Equus was extirpated from the Americasthe 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 prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6][7] [a]
So, I think that one issue is the weight to give the “stilt-legged horse”, which was not of genus equus and is now extinct. The second issue is all the language about the Przewalski horse, which is (IMHO) irrelevant because the two horse lineages separated 45,000 years ago and no one is claiming the Przewalski is a Mustang ancestor. We also have to clarify which ref sources what. So, onward? Montanabw (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
LynnWysong said she was "happy with this version" before adding way too much to it. This version is the most simple and clean and avoids getting into the weeds.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] Recent ancient DNA studies suggest that the North American caballine horses were closely related to and possibly the same species ( Equus ferus) of the ancestral horse that gave rise to the three modern subspecies of horses, but are outside the ancestry of living horses. [3] [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 7600 and 10,500 years old. [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Littleolive oil: Done. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't gone through the source material yet, but for just wikignoming, I think we can use the Harringtonhippus and "stout-legged" names, they seem to be supported by the 2017 studies (I think). I don't want to get into the "many names" stuff. Let's use the current science, and if it changes (again) we update. But my biggest concern with that version is the phrase "outside the ancestry of living horses". That's totally wrong: The horse evolved in the Americas, so SOMETHING in America was its ancestor! So here's how I'd say it:
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" or "stout-legged horse" and Haringtonhippus, or the “stilt-legged horse”,
which have been referred to by various species names.[2] Recentancient DNAstudies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included thewere closely related to and possibly the same species (Equus ferus) of theancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horsethree modern subspecies of horses, but are outside the ancestry of living horses.[3][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 prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6]
Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
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" or "stout-legged horse" and Haringtonhippus, or the “stilt-legged horse”. Recent studies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included the ancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horse. 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 prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6]
I've reposted, above, the paragraph with out the strike out content so its easier to read. I included a few possible copy edits. The only concern I have is that the last sentence seems disconnected from the other content. The lay reader would probably need a clear connection (to the paragraph beginning, "The taxonomic horse....").
Several months ago I looked at the content and its sources and found that this is an incredibly complicated subject (no news to anyone here). The lay reader needs to see a clear progression from the lineages of the ancient horse to the modern horse. If they need more information the article has sources which points the way to more material. What we shouldn't do in my opinion is veer off into content that explores the various theories on the Mustang lineage a confusing discussion for those readers who don't have expertise in this area. Some thoughts. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I left out the endnote about the fringe theory that horses never became extinct. We don’t have consensus to include it, and it was part of what started this round of drama. So I’m opening a new thread just on the question of whether, and if so, how, to handle it. I think every single person here agrees that it’s nonsense, but it happens to be nonsense that’s out there on “teh intranetz”, and rather than dealing with the occasional but persistent drivebys who want to put it in, I think it is a preemptive strike to note it and dispose of it. There’s basically two versions, one being the goofy “ancient legends” stuff, and the other being those who question the science. Opening discussion... Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE:
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.
Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories.
Given that this theory isn't mentioned by any mainstream sources it should not be included at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
the material under discussion
|
---|
In 1991, ethnohistorian Claire Henderson put forth a theory based in part on Lakota Sioux oral history that Equus was not completely extirpated from North America, but that the northern Plains Indians had domesticated and preserved horses prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Deb Bennett, a vertebrate paleontologist who, at the time was on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, expressed skepticism about Henderson's theory, but conceded that "there may have been isolated pockets of grasslands untouched by the glaciers of the Ice Age in which horses could have survived." [1] However, it is generally accepted that, at the beginning of the Columbian Exchange, there were no equids in the Americas. [2] References
|
If you reach a consensus not to include the fringe theory, you can always pin a Consensuses reached section to the top of this page explaining and pointing to this discussion (you pin a section by simply not including a timestamp). That allows you to point any advocates to it and it's easy for an admin to enforce. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
And, back to the idea that the "fringe theory" should be included. I feel it should, because I watch the discussions of mustang history off wiki (facebook groups mostly), and I've seen it discussed enough that it should be debunked here. But, even before facebook, I knew one old-timer that was promoting the theory. The information on where the theory originated, and that it was disputed at the time as reported in the Chicago Tribune does not give it undue weight is useful to people coming here to try to find information on what they are hearing from less reliable sources. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Can't be off wiki for long, it seems. OK, so here's my take. On the core issue of whether non-extinction happened, none of us disagree: it didn't and the theory is fringe. But when the question of including the footnote about non-extinction was taken to the Fringe Theories noticeboard by Hemiauchenia, one of their regulars, GPinkerton came over here and joined our conversation and offered some useful insights. Per above, once we got the other stuff sorted out about the taxonomy (after the article was locked down), and a consensus was reached, the one thing we hadn't sorted out was the footnote. So, I raised it for discussion. For now, it's out because it appears the consensus was to do so. My primary concern was that this is a perennial issue and an occasional topic of driveby edits and so I wanted something to acknowledge that we've considered it, but our answer is no. So, the question of whether to put it in a talkpage note here was proposed as a possible solution. Thus it's a simple question for consensus:
Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
#2 GPinkerton ( talk) 00:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve been tracking the discussion on the three noticeboards where Hemiauchenia posted, and those folks seem to hold the view that it’s best left out of the article. So, with some reluctance, I have to give a nod to Littleolive oil’s comment that overriding a general guideline that is applied across Wikipedia could “come back to bite you later on.” Maybe the way to go is #2, to create the talkpage notice, incorporating the endnote and its sources, then later, if there’s some new uproar about the issue (outside of Facebook social pages, wild horse chat forums, and the stuff about the Book of Mormon angle that Hemiauchenia found — that was quite interesting and something new to me, hadn’t run across that one), we can just pull the talkpage notice language and pop it back into an endnote if needed? Any objections? Montanabw (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is an interesting place to plop some of the debunking, perhaps. jps ( talk) 01:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The article states:
"Mustangs are often referred to as wild horses, but because they are descended from once-domesticated horses, they are actually feral horses."
Okay, we humans call them "feral" horses.
But how much do they really differ from wild horses? Obviously the gene pool of these horses was mainly that of Spanish horses. But after enough years of living in the wild without human intervention, some amount of natural selection and also what I will call "de-domestication" will take place.
I am curious to what extent these horses still show characteristics of being the descendants of domesticated horses, and to what extent they are almost indistinguishable from wild horses.
If someone is knowledgeable about this, I hope they will add a section addressing these questions. 216.161.117.162 ( talk) 16:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
mustangs are wild if you go to the outer banks you can see all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C60:6400:C2BE:990E:E36E:FEDC:F5FD ( talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mustang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 61 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay, I went in and made the discussed changes. I know that a big taxonomic discussion is beyond the scope of this article, this article conflicts with both what is said in Mustang and the Wild horse article. Basically, the 2017 Barron study re-classifies Equus lambei as Equus ferus. Based on this, I think we should diverge the lambei into the Wild horse article.
OK, without all the footnotes, which are above, lets’s address the issues and the content.
The original version is reproduced below, with the changes in the “wrong” version (LOL) Interspersed using talkquote
formatting, with the disputed wording of the original in Italic text, so it’s easier to see. My recommendation is that we get out of the weeds about the “non-caballine” equids and focus just on a history of equus. This probably means rewriting the whole thing and going back to the soirces to figure out what the best scientific consensus is.
Montanabw
(talk)
16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The taxonomic horse family "Equidae" evolved in North America 55 million years ago.[1] By
the end ofthe Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of theequinefamily present in North America, which recent DNA studies now indicate belonged to the two different genera: Equus, also known as the “caballine” or “stout legged horse”; and Haringtonhippus, the “stilt-legged horse”.[2]the "caballine" and "stilt-legged", which have been referred to by various species names.[2]Two DNA studies published in 2017 reached conflicting conclusions: One indicated that the prehistoric caballine horse was closely related to modern horses, the other study classified it as Equus lambei or Yukon Horse.[3][4]One 2017 ancient DNA and tooth morphology 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]. However, at the end of the Last Glacial Period, Haringtonhippus went extinct and Equus was extirpated from the Americasthe 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 prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6][7] [a]
So, I think that one issue is the weight to give the “stilt-legged horse”, which was not of genus equus and is now extinct. The second issue is all the language about the Przewalski horse, which is (IMHO) irrelevant because the two horse lineages separated 45,000 years ago and no one is claiming the Przewalski is a Mustang ancestor. We also have to clarify which ref sources what. So, onward? Montanabw (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
LynnWysong said she was "happy with this version" before adding way too much to it. This version is the most simple and clean and avoids getting into the weeds.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] Recent ancient DNA studies suggest that the North American caballine horses were closely related to and possibly the same species ( Equus ferus) of the ancestral horse that gave rise to the three modern subspecies of horses, but are outside the ancestry of living horses. [3] [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 7600 and 10,500 years old. [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Littleolive oil: Done. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't gone through the source material yet, but for just wikignoming, I think we can use the Harringtonhippus and "stout-legged" names, they seem to be supported by the 2017 studies (I think). I don't want to get into the "many names" stuff. Let's use the current science, and if it changes (again) we update. But my biggest concern with that version is the phrase "outside the ancestry of living horses". That's totally wrong: The horse evolved in the Americas, so SOMETHING in America was its ancestor! So here's how I'd say it:
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" or "stout-legged horse" and Haringtonhippus, or the “stilt-legged horse”,
which have been referred to by various species names.[2] Recentancient DNAstudies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included thewere closely related to and possibly the same species (Equus ferus) of theancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horsethree modern subspecies of horses, but are outside the ancestry of living horses.[3][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 prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6]
Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
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" or "stout-legged horse" and Haringtonhippus, or the “stilt-legged horse”. Recent studies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included the ancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horse. 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 prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6]
I've reposted, above, the paragraph with out the strike out content so its easier to read. I included a few possible copy edits. The only concern I have is that the last sentence seems disconnected from the other content. The lay reader would probably need a clear connection (to the paragraph beginning, "The taxonomic horse....").
Several months ago I looked at the content and its sources and found that this is an incredibly complicated subject (no news to anyone here). The lay reader needs to see a clear progression from the lineages of the ancient horse to the modern horse. If they need more information the article has sources which points the way to more material. What we shouldn't do in my opinion is veer off into content that explores the various theories on the Mustang lineage a confusing discussion for those readers who don't have expertise in this area. Some thoughts. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I left out the endnote about the fringe theory that horses never became extinct. We don’t have consensus to include it, and it was part of what started this round of drama. So I’m opening a new thread just on the question of whether, and if so, how, to handle it. I think every single person here agrees that it’s nonsense, but it happens to be nonsense that’s out there on “teh intranetz”, and rather than dealing with the occasional but persistent drivebys who want to put it in, I think it is a preemptive strike to note it and dispose of it. There’s basically two versions, one being the goofy “ancient legends” stuff, and the other being those who question the science. Opening discussion... Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE:
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.
Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories.
Given that this theory isn't mentioned by any mainstream sources it should not be included at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
the material under discussion
|
---|
In 1991, ethnohistorian Claire Henderson put forth a theory based in part on Lakota Sioux oral history that Equus was not completely extirpated from North America, but that the northern Plains Indians had domesticated and preserved horses prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Deb Bennett, a vertebrate paleontologist who, at the time was on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution, expressed skepticism about Henderson's theory, but conceded that "there may have been isolated pockets of grasslands untouched by the glaciers of the Ice Age in which horses could have survived." [1] However, it is generally accepted that, at the beginning of the Columbian Exchange, there were no equids in the Americas. [2] References
|
If you reach a consensus not to include the fringe theory, you can always pin a Consensuses reached section to the top of this page explaining and pointing to this discussion (you pin a section by simply not including a timestamp). That allows you to point any advocates to it and it's easy for an admin to enforce. -- RexxS ( talk) 00:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
And, back to the idea that the "fringe theory" should be included. I feel it should, because I watch the discussions of mustang history off wiki (facebook groups mostly), and I've seen it discussed enough that it should be debunked here. But, even before facebook, I knew one old-timer that was promoting the theory. The information on where the theory originated, and that it was disputed at the time as reported in the Chicago Tribune does not give it undue weight is useful to people coming here to try to find information on what they are hearing from less reliable sources. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Can't be off wiki for long, it seems. OK, so here's my take. On the core issue of whether non-extinction happened, none of us disagree: it didn't and the theory is fringe. But when the question of including the footnote about non-extinction was taken to the Fringe Theories noticeboard by Hemiauchenia, one of their regulars, GPinkerton came over here and joined our conversation and offered some useful insights. Per above, once we got the other stuff sorted out about the taxonomy (after the article was locked down), and a consensus was reached, the one thing we hadn't sorted out was the footnote. So, I raised it for discussion. For now, it's out because it appears the consensus was to do so. My primary concern was that this is a perennial issue and an occasional topic of driveby edits and so I wanted something to acknowledge that we've considered it, but our answer is no. So, the question of whether to put it in a talkpage note here was proposed as a possible solution. Thus it's a simple question for consensus:
Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
#2 GPinkerton ( talk) 00:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve been tracking the discussion on the three noticeboards where Hemiauchenia posted, and those folks seem to hold the view that it’s best left out of the article. So, with some reluctance, I have to give a nod to Littleolive oil’s comment that overriding a general guideline that is applied across Wikipedia could “come back to bite you later on.” Maybe the way to go is #2, to create the talkpage notice, incorporating the endnote and its sources, then later, if there’s some new uproar about the issue (outside of Facebook social pages, wild horse chat forums, and the stuff about the Book of Mormon angle that Hemiauchenia found — that was quite interesting and something new to me, hadn’t run across that one), we can just pull the talkpage notice language and pop it back into an endnote if needed? Any objections? Montanabw (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is an interesting place to plop some of the debunking, perhaps. jps ( talk) 01:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The article states:
"Mustangs are often referred to as wild horses, but because they are descended from once-domesticated horses, they are actually feral horses."
Okay, we humans call them "feral" horses.
But how much do they really differ from wild horses? Obviously the gene pool of these horses was mainly that of Spanish horses. But after enough years of living in the wild without human intervention, some amount of natural selection and also what I will call "de-domestication" will take place.
I am curious to what extent these horses still show characteristics of being the descendants of domesticated horses, and to what extent they are almost indistinguishable from wild horses.
If someone is knowledgeable about this, I hope they will add a section addressing these questions. 216.161.117.162 ( talk) 16:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
mustangs are wild if you go to the outer banks you can see all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C60:6400:C2BE:990E:E36E:FEDC:F5FD ( talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).