![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I agree these things are probably correct and I don't have strong feelings bout the North American horses' palaeontological taxonomy but I would favour adding something on the ancient ecology of North America generally, and the extinct horses within that, as far as is known, to give some actual "context" to the section following. The following section should also mention some of the other changes humans have wrought on the fauna, flora, and climate, including the loss of bison (wolves are also briefly mentioned) and the gain of donkeys. GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I copied this over. To sum this all up: Domestic horses first began going feral in the Grassland Steppes of Texas and California. The horses brought over from Spain were well suited as the climate was very similar to what they were adapted to. They were taken north in the northern Great Plains, where most of the bison were, but the horse population didn't explode there, probably because there was significant die-off during the winters. They were killed off by the thousands when Texas was settled.
As the more arid part of the West was settled in the late 1800's ranchers developed water sources for their livestock. The lack of these sources had prevented large animals from occupying these areas, about the largest that was well suited was the antelope. (If you look at the blown up version of the Fremont-Gibbs-Smith map I have on my user page, Jedediah Smith had documented where he had observed "buffalo" and "wild horses" during his extensive travels in west in the 1820's; there is very little overlap to where mustangs currently occupy.) The ranchers also allowed their horses, which were a variety of breeds more from northern Europe than the Iberian Penninsula, to roam free, gathering and breaking them when they needed them. When the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, requiring ranchers to pay fees for grazing on public lands, the ranchers did not claim the horses, but continued to gather them as before. They also controlled their numbers, to keep them from competing with the livestock they paid to graze.
Burros have a different history. They are mostly associated with mining areas in the Mojave desert. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Domestic horses first began going feral in the Grassland Steppes of Texas and Californiacome from? It seems bizarre, given that the first European settlements were in Florida and (modern) Mexico decades before any European set eyes on California. Also, suitability or otherwise for the American climate is probably worth mentioning, if a source is available. For one thing, the idea bison and mustang ranges did not overlap in historical times (if true) is exactly the kind of thing I mean by talking about the ecology of the mustang and the extirpation of the bison. Ditto the burros, North America's other feral equine. Surely if the mustang is supposed to be the heir to prehistoric American horses, and the ranch cattle are heir to the American bison, then how come the cattle and horses are now competing for pasture, is bovines can't live where the equines can? (I take the point about water management, but still.) These things are very unclear, and while I know there is a separate article for feral horses in North America, these points relate to mustangs and the North American West specifically. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Domestic horses first began going feral in the Grassland Steppes of Texas and Californiacome from? It seems bizarre, given that the first European settlements were in Florida and (modern) Mexico decades before any European set eyes on California." J. Frank Dobie
@
GPinkerton:, here's my take: All of this is very interesting, but the reason the other editor's version hasn't been getting in is because some (not all) of it is POV-pushing or OR based on
straw man arguments no one has made. (I am interested in the books are finally coming out telling the real story
— citation needed, please?) I have been repeatedly frustrated at the misrepresentation of what I have been trying to do here to keep this article balanced between the cattle industry POV and the animal rights POV. I can guarantee you that "abuse" has definitely come my way, including off-wiki attacks and doxxing.
Montanabw
(talk) 21:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
But, that aside, to wit:
I could go on, but this hits some of the main points. Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
God American politics is weird! GPinkerton ( talk) 23:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Possible at present. I have contacted the administrator of WO on a couple of occasions, requesting the most inflammatory and most doxxing material be removed, and he has been gracious enough to do so. Montanabw (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You do need to AGF, I have made peace with other editors where we initially had conflict. People do not have to like or trust each other to collaborate effectively. In fact, disagreement can, if managed in a respectful and adult manner, result in excellent Wikipedia articles. I remember and value such collaboration when I played a very small role in the FAC for Richard Nixon. Montanabw (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion concluded
|
---|
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)
References
Horse Manes
|
I think we have consensus to move the prehistoric material to its present location. I think the first and last sentences of the section are mostly non-controversial (at least they haven’t been changed). However, the debate has gone completely into the weeds and so we probably need a reset on what to include. I shall ping the editors who have touched bases on this drama, as well as 1-2 past editors who worked on article content (as opposed to talkpage drama). Montanabw (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Hemiauchenia, GPinkerton, LynnWysong, as well as the peripherally interested and past editors with some interest, SMcCandlish, Tim1965, Atsme, Ealdgyth. If I have missed anyone, please add them in. Montanabw (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall, I think the way to fix much of this coat-racking problem, and the misleadingness problems, will be to pare down all the stuff that doesn't really pertain, including repeatedly dwelling on P.'s horse. So, something like this (after fixes to the material preceding this part): '... domestic or
wild-type. Thus, domestic horses are usually classified as a subspecies, Equus ferus caballus, of the only remaining horse species, though some
taxonomists would put both the domestic horse and the wild
Przewalski's horse separately each in a new species. A 2017 DNA study, done alongside tooth
morphology, confirmed that the North American caballines were closely related to domestic horses, and classifies them within the same species,
Equus ferus, as the domestic horse, but not the same subspecies.'
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so from what I seen, it's pretty well decided that all caballines are the same species. Right now they're divided into two species, E caballus and E. ferus, with domestic horses in the prior, and everything else in the latter. I expect that's going to change, and all are going to be listed under E. caballus as different sub-species. The question is, which one's going to be called the ancestral horse? It's not necessarily one that came out of North America, but may be one that came back to North America. We just don't know yet. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
But back on point, I’m thinking now that we may be wise to remove the discussion of the stilt-legged Harringtonhippus altogether, as it too is getting into the weeds, isn’t relevant to this article (beyond prehistoric extinction of all American equids, maybe) and is better discussed at wild horse or equus (genus). I think the best thing to do is for those who want to work on this simply all review the source material again and get an agreement on what researchers know and what they hypothesize. Then craft a brief narrative of what can be agreed upon about the journey of equus from America to Eurasia and then, 10,000 years later, back again. Montanabw (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. So, let’s wikignome this and see if we can get it cleaned up to put into the article and close out this round of discussion. Here’s the last version as edited by Littleolive oil above, I removed the tq formatting on what is agreed to, putting in any new wording with xt formatting. I also put the citations back in (can someone —- Hemiauchenia maybe? —check that I matched them up correctly?), added that caballine horses were equus, tried to clarify the issue Olive raised, and did a wee bit more work based on the comments of SMcCandlish ( though his edits were to the other version that we aren’t using now) Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 16:05, 21 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
known to bepresent in North America-Equus, also calledthe "caballine" or "stout-legged horse", and Haringtonhippus, or the "stilt-legged horse". [2] Recent studies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included the ancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horse. [3] [4] At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballines were extirpated from the Americas. This was possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters. [5] Thus, prior to the Columbian Exchange, the youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old. [6]References
- ^ "Equidae". Research.AMNH.org. American Museum of Natural History. Archived from the original on April 9, 2016.
- ^ Weinstock, J.; et al. (2005). "Evolution, systematics, and phylogeography of pleistocene horses in the New World: A molecular perspective". PLoS Biology. 3 (8): e241. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030241. PMC 1159165. PMID 15974804.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ Barrón-Ortiz, Christina I.; Rodrigues, Antonia T.; Theodor, Jessica M.; Kooyman, Brian P.; Yang, Dongya Y.; Speller, Camilla F. (August 17, 2017). Orlando, Ludovic (ed.). "Cheek tooth morphology and ancient mitochondrial DNA of late Pleistocene horses from the western interior of North America: Implications for the taxonomy of North American Late Pleistocene Equus". PLoS One. 12 (8): e0183045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183045. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5560644. PMID 28817644.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ 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.
- ^ "Ice Age Horses May Have Been Killed Off by Humans". National Geographic News. May 1, 2006. Archived from the original on June 26, 2006.
- ^ 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.
@ Montanabw: how about this? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC):
The horse
clade,
Equidae, diverged in North America 55 million years ago.
[1] By the end of the Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of the equine family known to be
present in North America: a "caballine" or "stout-legged horse" belonging to the genus
Equus; and
Haringtonhippus, the "stilt-legged horse".
[2] Recent studies of
ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses were closely related to and possibly included the ancestor of modern horses.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballines were
extirpated from the Americas. This was possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters.
[6] Thus, prior to the
Columbian Exchange, the youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas is dated to between ≈10,500 and 7,600 years
Before Present.
[7]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I'm also going to raise the issue that "7,600 and 10,500 years old" is not the same as "between ≈10,500 and 7,600 yr BP". "Present" does not mean "this year". It should probably just link to Before Present. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the phrase "were closely related to and possibly" as suggested by Hemiauchenia. Only Weinstock et al. (2005) make a "closeness" claim: They conclude Hippidion and caballines are "close", but make no claims about the relationship between other stout-legged horses and caballines or between stout-legged horses and stilt-legged horses. I do not find that any of the four cited articles (Heintzman et al. [2017], Barrón-Ortiz et al. [2017], Orlando et al. [2013], Weinstock et al. [2005]) in the suggested text making any claim that most recent common ancestor was caballine. The "closely related" claim made by Weinstock et al. (2005) seems superceded by Sakissian et al. (2015), [1] a research group which included Weinstock, Willersley, and Prieto from the Weinstock et al. (2005) research group. Montanabw (talk) has clearer text about the genus Equus and the genus Harringtonhippus. However, for clarity's sake, I suggest a comma in Montanabw's text after the phrase "stout-legged horse". GPinkerton raises an important point about dating, and the proposed text should reflect the nomenclature used in Halle et al. (2009) (e.g., years before present). - Tim1965 ( talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
References
OK, I think we are close enough to consensus that I’m going to put the more or less final draft into the article, with a few of the recommended tweaks, and we can do cleanup from there. Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |}
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I agree these things are probably correct and I don't have strong feelings bout the North American horses' palaeontological taxonomy but I would favour adding something on the ancient ecology of North America generally, and the extinct horses within that, as far as is known, to give some actual "context" to the section following. The following section should also mention some of the other changes humans have wrought on the fauna, flora, and climate, including the loss of bison (wolves are also briefly mentioned) and the gain of donkeys. GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I copied this over. To sum this all up: Domestic horses first began going feral in the Grassland Steppes of Texas and California. The horses brought over from Spain were well suited as the climate was very similar to what they were adapted to. They were taken north in the northern Great Plains, where most of the bison were, but the horse population didn't explode there, probably because there was significant die-off during the winters. They were killed off by the thousands when Texas was settled.
As the more arid part of the West was settled in the late 1800's ranchers developed water sources for their livestock. The lack of these sources had prevented large animals from occupying these areas, about the largest that was well suited was the antelope. (If you look at the blown up version of the Fremont-Gibbs-Smith map I have on my user page, Jedediah Smith had documented where he had observed "buffalo" and "wild horses" during his extensive travels in west in the 1820's; there is very little overlap to where mustangs currently occupy.) The ranchers also allowed their horses, which were a variety of breeds more from northern Europe than the Iberian Penninsula, to roam free, gathering and breaking them when they needed them. When the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, requiring ranchers to pay fees for grazing on public lands, the ranchers did not claim the horses, but continued to gather them as before. They also controlled their numbers, to keep them from competing with the livestock they paid to graze.
Burros have a different history. They are mostly associated with mining areas in the Mojave desert. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Domestic horses first began going feral in the Grassland Steppes of Texas and Californiacome from? It seems bizarre, given that the first European settlements were in Florida and (modern) Mexico decades before any European set eyes on California. Also, suitability or otherwise for the American climate is probably worth mentioning, if a source is available. For one thing, the idea bison and mustang ranges did not overlap in historical times (if true) is exactly the kind of thing I mean by talking about the ecology of the mustang and the extirpation of the bison. Ditto the burros, North America's other feral equine. Surely if the mustang is supposed to be the heir to prehistoric American horses, and the ranch cattle are heir to the American bison, then how come the cattle and horses are now competing for pasture, is bovines can't live where the equines can? (I take the point about water management, but still.) These things are very unclear, and while I know there is a separate article for feral horses in North America, these points relate to mustangs and the North American West specifically. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Domestic horses first began going feral in the Grassland Steppes of Texas and Californiacome from? It seems bizarre, given that the first European settlements were in Florida and (modern) Mexico decades before any European set eyes on California." J. Frank Dobie
@
GPinkerton:, here's my take: All of this is very interesting, but the reason the other editor's version hasn't been getting in is because some (not all) of it is POV-pushing or OR based on
straw man arguments no one has made. (I am interested in the books are finally coming out telling the real story
— citation needed, please?) I have been repeatedly frustrated at the misrepresentation of what I have been trying to do here to keep this article balanced between the cattle industry POV and the animal rights POV. I can guarantee you that "abuse" has definitely come my way, including off-wiki attacks and doxxing.
Montanabw
(talk) 21:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
But, that aside, to wit:
I could go on, but this hits some of the main points. Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
God American politics is weird! GPinkerton ( talk) 23:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Possible at present. I have contacted the administrator of WO on a couple of occasions, requesting the most inflammatory and most doxxing material be removed, and he has been gracious enough to do so. Montanabw (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You do need to AGF, I have made peace with other editors where we initially had conflict. People do not have to like or trust each other to collaborate effectively. In fact, disagreement can, if managed in a respectful and adult manner, result in excellent Wikipedia articles. I remember and value such collaboration when I played a very small role in the FAC for Richard Nixon. Montanabw (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This discussion concluded
|
---|
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)
References
Horse Manes
|
I think we have consensus to move the prehistoric material to its present location. I think the first and last sentences of the section are mostly non-controversial (at least they haven’t been changed). However, the debate has gone completely into the weeds and so we probably need a reset on what to include. I shall ping the editors who have touched bases on this drama, as well as 1-2 past editors who worked on article content (as opposed to talkpage drama). Montanabw (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Hemiauchenia, GPinkerton, LynnWysong, as well as the peripherally interested and past editors with some interest, SMcCandlish, Tim1965, Atsme, Ealdgyth. If I have missed anyone, please add them in. Montanabw (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall, I think the way to fix much of this coat-racking problem, and the misleadingness problems, will be to pare down all the stuff that doesn't really pertain, including repeatedly dwelling on P.'s horse. So, something like this (after fixes to the material preceding this part): '... domestic or
wild-type. Thus, domestic horses are usually classified as a subspecies, Equus ferus caballus, of the only remaining horse species, though some
taxonomists would put both the domestic horse and the wild
Przewalski's horse separately each in a new species. A 2017 DNA study, done alongside tooth
morphology, confirmed that the North American caballines were closely related to domestic horses, and classifies them within the same species,
Equus ferus, as the domestic horse, but not the same subspecies.'
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so from what I seen, it's pretty well decided that all caballines are the same species. Right now they're divided into two species, E caballus and E. ferus, with domestic horses in the prior, and everything else in the latter. I expect that's going to change, and all are going to be listed under E. caballus as different sub-species. The question is, which one's going to be called the ancestral horse? It's not necessarily one that came out of North America, but may be one that came back to North America. We just don't know yet. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
But back on point, I’m thinking now that we may be wise to remove the discussion of the stilt-legged Harringtonhippus altogether, as it too is getting into the weeds, isn’t relevant to this article (beyond prehistoric extinction of all American equids, maybe) and is better discussed at wild horse or equus (genus). I think the best thing to do is for those who want to work on this simply all review the source material again and get an agreement on what researchers know and what they hypothesize. Then craft a brief narrative of what can be agreed upon about the journey of equus from America to Eurasia and then, 10,000 years later, back again. Montanabw (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. So, let’s wikignome this and see if we can get it cleaned up to put into the article and close out this round of discussion. Here’s the last version as edited by Littleolive oil above, I removed the tq formatting on what is agreed to, putting in any new wording with xt formatting. I also put the citations back in (can someone —- Hemiauchenia maybe? —check that I matched them up correctly?), added that caballine horses were equus, tried to clarify the issue Olive raised, and did a wee bit more work based on the comments of SMcCandlish ( though his edits were to the other version that we aren’t using now) Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 16:05, 21 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
known to bepresent in North America-Equus, also calledthe "caballine" or "stout-legged horse", and Haringtonhippus, or the "stilt-legged horse". [2] Recent studies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included the ancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horse. [3] [4] At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballines were extirpated from the Americas. This was possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters. [5] Thus, prior to the Columbian Exchange, the youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old. [6]References
- ^ "Equidae". Research.AMNH.org. American Museum of Natural History. Archived from the original on April 9, 2016.
- ^ Weinstock, J.; et al. (2005). "Evolution, systematics, and phylogeography of pleistocene horses in the New World: A molecular perspective". PLoS Biology. 3 (8): e241. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030241. PMC 1159165. PMID 15974804.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ Barrón-Ortiz, Christina I.; Rodrigues, Antonia T.; Theodor, Jessica M.; Kooyman, Brian P.; Yang, Dongya Y.; Speller, Camilla F. (August 17, 2017). Orlando, Ludovic (ed.). "Cheek tooth morphology and ancient mitochondrial DNA of late Pleistocene horses from the western interior of North America: Implications for the taxonomy of North American Late Pleistocene Equus". PLoS One. 12 (8): e0183045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183045. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5560644. PMID 28817644.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ 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.
- ^ "Ice Age Horses May Have Been Killed Off by Humans". National Geographic News. May 1, 2006. Archived from the original on June 26, 2006.
- ^ 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.
@ Montanabw: how about this? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC):
The horse
clade,
Equidae, diverged in North America 55 million years ago.
[1] By the end of the Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of the equine family known to be
present in North America: a "caballine" or "stout-legged horse" belonging to the genus
Equus; and
Haringtonhippus, the "stilt-legged horse".
[2] Recent studies of
ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses were closely related to and possibly included the ancestor of modern horses.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballines were
extirpated from the Americas. This was possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters.
[6] Thus, prior to the
Columbian Exchange, the youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas is dated to between ≈10,500 and 7,600 years
Before Present.
[7]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I'm also going to raise the issue that "7,600 and 10,500 years old" is not the same as "between ≈10,500 and 7,600 yr BP". "Present" does not mean "this year". It should probably just link to Before Present. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the phrase "were closely related to and possibly" as suggested by Hemiauchenia. Only Weinstock et al. (2005) make a "closeness" claim: They conclude Hippidion and caballines are "close", but make no claims about the relationship between other stout-legged horses and caballines or between stout-legged horses and stilt-legged horses. I do not find that any of the four cited articles (Heintzman et al. [2017], Barrón-Ortiz et al. [2017], Orlando et al. [2013], Weinstock et al. [2005]) in the suggested text making any claim that most recent common ancestor was caballine. The "closely related" claim made by Weinstock et al. (2005) seems superceded by Sakissian et al. (2015), [1] a research group which included Weinstock, Willersley, and Prieto from the Weinstock et al. (2005) research group. Montanabw (talk) has clearer text about the genus Equus and the genus Harringtonhippus. However, for clarity's sake, I suggest a comma in Montanabw's text after the phrase "stout-legged horse". GPinkerton raises an important point about dating, and the proposed text should reflect the nomenclature used in Halle et al. (2009) (e.g., years before present). - Tim1965 ( talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
References
OK, I think we are close enough to consensus that I’m going to put the more or less final draft into the article, with a few of the recommended tweaks, and we can do cleanup from there. Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |}