Talk:Equidae

message: Isn't Somalian Wild Ass (Equus somaliensis) a valid species?--Menah the Great 23:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know it is still a subspecies. But if someone has research that says otherwise, please comment on this. Pmaas 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Somalian Wild Ass

message: I've changed this article and added some new information. Groves & Bell revised the Zebra genus Equus, subgenus Hippotigris in their 2004 publication in Mammalian Biology. Cape Mountain Zebra and Hartmann's Mountain Zebra are now seen as two separate species (Equus zebra and Equus hartmannae), and not as subspecies anymore. See the Mountain Zebra article for more information and references. And they revised the Plain Zebra's (Equus quagga) subspecies. Pmaas 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zebra Revision

message: The Wild Horse had some subspecies, although the total (valid for certain) number is unclear to me. I know only two certain valid subspecies at the moment, namely the Tarpan (Equus ferus ferus), and the Przewalksii Horse (Equus ferus przewalskii). They are not seen as separate species anymore. They can successfully interbreed and were once part of the historic range of the wild horse! See article for references! Pmaas 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual number is unclear to everyone. The Europeans, generally speaking, claim about 5 or 6 subspecies for the Horse, whereas most American biologists claim only three: Equus ferus ferus, the Tarpan; Equus ferus przewalskii, Przewalski's Horse; and Equus ferus caballus, all domestic forms. The domestic forms are where some Europeans disagree with the Americans. From what I've read, there's a bit of a common thought in Europe (and I think well-justified) that different types of domesticated horses may have sprung from seperate subspecies and been mixed back and forth over the years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunukia (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild Horse

message: I think the Zebra page is redudant, it covers some of the same information (although incomplete (species)), and together they would make a much better article. Objections? KimvdLinde 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I'm wondering about some of the statements about oestrus ('estrus', in US spelling). I'm sure these are true of horses, but is it certain that they're also true of zebras? Some of them live near the equator, where the day length doesn't really change, and there is no 'winter', as such. Of course, they do have dry seasons on the savannah, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they synchronise breeding with those, instead. But possibly not by length of day? Anaxial (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and I don't know the answer.  But, the original text was flat-out wrong to say equids were fertile only a few months of the year, so that was the problem I was fixing.  If someone has info on zebras (wonder if Zebra article helps?) it would be good to note, if different.  For that matter, the same question would apply to any equid living in equatorial regions, such as horses or donkeys living in Brazil.  Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oestrus

message: I note that the "see also" section has now been trimmed back (ok) to include only horse-based articles (not ok).  Is this a problem with links, or a problem with the titles of the other articles? (for example, perhaps the Evolution of the horse should be Evolution of the Equid).  This probably also ties in with the issue immediately above. FiveRings (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while I cannot really disagree, it's a tricky one, because no one has bothered to do up any articles on reproduction in zebras or wild behavior of donkeys, etc... when those people care enough to add in appropriate material, I see no problem with increasing the balance.  I haven't paid a lot of attention to how or if the evolution article explains how the modern species of zebra, ass and horse split off, though such a section is probably a good idea if someone has the expertise to add it.  That said, the vast bulk of research is on horses, so while there is a lot of weight to horse stuff, that is where the source material is, too. I don't really have a solution, other than to encourage those who care to develop appropriate material with appropriate sources. May be title issues, though hard to say without a review of all the articles.  I know that equine nutrition covers all domestic equids in various sections, though weighted toward horses (partly because donkeys are less fussy about feed). Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and on the "trimmed back" issue, what was trimmed was the list of all the species that were already listed in the section above.  What remains are related articles other than those about various subspecies...and while we are at it, an argument COULD be made (I'm not making it) that the subspecies section is ass and zebra-centric in its bias because there are more ass and zebra links (I mean that makes about as much sense.)  Just food for thought. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of reproduction, I did confirm from my sources that zebras (and asses) have the same gestation period as horses, have a foal every other year, and so on, so that much stands... I just don't know about the oestrus. I do certainly agree that this article, since its about equids in general, should strive to be general, where possible - the horse article can cope with the specifics of that species. As for Evolution of the horse, I suspect that most people who'd want to look it up would search by that title, or something like it, so that's not unreasonable. Have Evolution of the equids as a redirect, by all means, of course. It's 95% the same anyway, since the various species only branched apart in the relatively recent past, after all that interesting stuff with hooves had already happened. Anaxial (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to use the ref tags to add a bit about the every other year cycle in zebras, go for it, but DO add the footnote.  (I have noticed that "my sources" need specific cites and once they do, the edit wars usually stop).  As for the links to horse behavior and horse anatomy, people may be interested in more info on anatomy and herd psychology, that's why they are there, but it's not a huge deal either way.  There is wisdom to perhaps redirecting or renaming them as "equine anatomy" and, maybe "equine behavior" (except that I really haven't the time to research and properly source material on wild burros or zebras, to the extent that their behavior differs).  Maybe I can do a few redirects, and I will check with the editors of the anatomy article to see if anyone cares if I move it to Equine anatomy, as there aren't a lot of fundamental differences there, as far as I know...  Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just created a redirect named "Equine evolution" and another named "Donkey evolution."  I really doubt anyone will search for "Equid evolution" or "Equidae evolution", as you have to know a bit about taxonomy to even think of that term first, but I have no objection to the creation of any logical redirects to help people find what they are looking for. It most certainly isn't a moral issue! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The cite for 'every other year' is already there. Anaxial (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked it, as it isn't accurate for some wild horse herds.  Interesting. Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so page 112 in MacFadden one should probably forget about. E. caballus and the quagga s.str. closer to each other than to any other Holocene equid? Hardly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me somewhere in there.  Basically, I don't know what other articles on canine, feline, bovine, etc. cover, but the way I see this one is that we start with the modern members of the equidae family, explain all the branches of the family tree that exist in modern times, and to the extent that evolution of the horse doesn't dovetail into this article properly, build some text and links so that the two work together, whether it is text here or there.  All I can say is if you know this taxonomy stuff better than I do (and I believe you do), go ahead and tweak, but stick to what can be verified with footnotes; the evolution page has had some rather fierce edit wars in the past, and I also don't think this page needs to repeat the evolution article.  One problem I do see is the question of whether, say, the variety of equus caballus that became extinct in North America was a wholly different subspecies from the branch domesticated in Eurasia, and so on.  (You may also want to skim domestication of the horse too, big rewrite happened there within the last month or so.)  Anyway, I guess my thinking is to proceed with care but proceed... Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on Felidae, Bovidae, and so on deal primarily with the living members of the family, so it seems to me that Equidae is in line with all of those, and follows standard Wikipedia practice. In some of those cases, there is also a discussion of fossil forms and general evolution of the group - but here we also have Evolution of the horse, so it's less needed. So I'd certainly be careful not to duplicate anything - that's why the Evolution section here is so short - and to consider which page information on fossil species would best belong on. There may be a place for some this information here, but as Montanabw says, I'd proceed with caution. Anaxial (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Montanabw, there is no such thing as Equus caballus. That is a domesticated animal. The proper name is Equus ferus caballus - unless domesticated Horses somehow come from Zebras or Asses... Also, there is no consensus that Equus ferus ever set foot on the North American continent (before the advent of Europeans), though I personally believe Equus lambei may be a subspecy of Equus ferus. Thirdly, and most importantly, and I hope EVERYONE is listening here when I say this, Equus ferus caballus, the domesticated Horse IS NO MORE native to the North American west than Chihuahuas are to the Canadian tundra. Domestic forms are native NOWHERE. Period. The domestic Horse is RADICALLY different from it's wild ancestor. And Dysmorodrepanis, the reason all the Equine articles are so Horse-centric is because a very large number of vociferous (and outright foolish) people are unhealthily obsessed with horses. Unfortunately, many of these people also think themselves expert enough to declare a domestic animal native to a continent it never inhabited simply because they like to watch them run. Seriously, that's all it is. They like looking at them. It's certainly not an environmental issue. Horses are wildly destructive to their surroundings. They eat more than cattle! And an obscene amount more than the native Pronghorn (which, by the way doesn't trample its food to death like the Mustangs do with they're enormous, heavy-stepping hooves). The only argument the Mustang and Burro worshippers have to use (and they milk it good, let me tell ya) is the similarity of Equus lambei to Equus ferus. But, Equus lambei has not been proven to be synonymous with Equus ferus (though it is a possibility), and even if it were it would be more closely related, by far, to Przewalski's Horse than to Mustangs! E. lambei was tiny! It was like four feet tall at the shoulders! And all the other North American Equids are pretty well-known to not be synonymous with Equus ferus (including E. caballus). Not by a long shot. This is why the Horse Evolution page (and every other page dealing with equines) has been changed back and forth so many times. The people who know what the heck they're talking about try to add useful information and correct blatant lies or grievous mistakes and the people who like pretty ponies go back and try to convince the world that Spanish horses have roamed every continent including Antarctica, Mars and the Sun since before Dinosaurs walked on two feet. I made the ridiculous mistake of trying to add factual information to the Mustang article and, if I remember correctly, it was changed WITHIN THE HOUR. The person doing the changing even removed the scientific names I inserted! The Mustang article has absolutely no indication of what specy the Mustang belongs to now! I swear this endless struggle between the My Little Ponyites and REAL BIOLOGISTS is like the Evolution vs. creationism argument, only dumber. Like I said, these people aren't calling for us to turn our rotweillers loose into the nearest forest, but why not? I mean, it's the same specy as the Gray Wolf. Domestication doesn't matter, if you listen to these people. If that's the case then why aren't we restocking mature Oak forests with farm raised white turkeys? I mean, it's the same specy, after all. Oh. And this is my favourite. Where Wild Asses are actually native they're critically endangered. But I have not read ONE WORD from the Cult of the Mustang and Burro about saving them from ACTUAL extinction, but get this, they want to have the Mustangs and Burros in America declared endangered species. How's that for mentally inept and savagely hypocritical?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunukia (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse-centric bias? 

message: Because this page is not what the title says. It is about the genus, not the family, not even the tribe Equini. The information is strewn about here and in the evolution article and it's not really good from a systematic standpoint (if this is about Equidae, where is the redlink to Kalobatippus waiting to be done? ;-) (Is Kalobatippus still valid? Since when is it an equine?) ). In a nutshell, there is no serious taxonomic page on the entire equids before true horses. Equids are probably the only really well-known animals on Wikipedia for which no serious phylogenetic info exists at all. Not even a flimsy cladogram - which I'd advise against as it would probably be even more misleading in equids than in any other major group. The chokepoint Merychippus  blasts every attempt at a clean dichotomous tree to bits, and such trees are what today's software is designed to calculate.
If this is Equidae, the first genus in the list (basal) should be Hyracotherium. For Equinae (grazing equids), Merychippus. For Equini (horses and relatives) the basal polytomy, that is Protohippus, Pliohippus, Astrohippus and whatnot, versus the Equus proper lineage and its subgenera. For these, see above. The crucial point is that what we consider "horses (+zebras, donkeys...)" is essentially the Equini (of which only a single genus survives). Plains-living grazers who stand on 4 toenails, one per leg. Most of the Equinae, let alone the Equidae, was more like a large duiker than a horse. Megahippus must have been a totally zonked out critter. (This is also very interesting)
I suggest everyone interested in horses read Bruce MacFadden's opus magnus, or at least look at pp 99-100. It is (perhaps) in dire need of updating in some crucial points but from the general style of writing MacFadden seems to be pretty careful not to claim what was really unresolved 15 years ago. he might make some honest mistakes though; I know next to nothing about horse evolution, but what I do know seems pretty much in line with this book. It might be used as a general reference for Equidae and Equinae (Equini and Hipparionini might not yet be necessary, at least not the latter). These are is then easily improved by more current sources, which can e.g. simply be found by cite-tracking on Google Scholar.
Equini might really be about Hipparionini and the Merychippus radiation, whereas the Equini would well deserve their own article for the reasons above - it contains everything that ever lived that we today would have readily recognized as horses, if we knew that donkeys and zebras were basically sorts of horses too .
Does anyone know a reliable and current (post-2005?) online source on which the species/subgenera of Equus can be completed?
An easy-to-build structure would be to list the contained (genera mostly, and subgenera in Equini) and write a brief intro: age, range, notable features. Discuss subgroups in short sections, link to proper articles (if available, e.g. Zebra). For the higher-rank articles, a paragraph noting peculiar or evolutionarily important genera (/species?) is probably all that is needed as of now.
This way, there would be the basic structure in a nice and concise way for the entire Equidae, the zebralessness of this page would be eliminated, and the Evolution page could be expanded with the new information to tie it all together nicely. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so page 112 in MacFadden one should probably forget about. E. caballus and the quagga s.str. closer to each other than to any other Holocene equid? Hardly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me somewhere in there.  Basically, I don't know what other articles on canine, feline, bovine, etc. cover, but the way I see this one is that we start with the modern members of the equidae family, explain all the branches of the family tree that exist in modern times, and to the extent that evolution of the horse doesn't dovetail into this article properly, build some text and links so that the two work together, whether it is text here or there.  All I can say is if you know this taxonomy stuff better than I do (and I believe you do), go ahead and tweak, but stick to what can be verified with footnotes; the evolution page has had some rather fierce edit wars in the past, and I also don't think this page needs to repeat the evolution article.  One problem I do see is the question of whether, say, the variety of equus caballus that became extinct in North America was a wholly different subspecies from the branch domesticated in Eurasia, and so on.  (You may also want to skim domestication of the horse too, big rewrite happened there within the last month or so.)  Anyway, I guess my thinking is to proceed with care but proceed... Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on Felidae, Bovidae, and so on deal primarily with the living members of the family, so it seems to me that Equidae is in line with all of those, and follows standard Wikipedia practice. In some of those cases, there is also a discussion of fossil forms and general evolution of the group - but here we also have Evolution of the horse, so it's less needed. So I'd certainly be careful not to duplicate anything - that's why the Evolution section here is so short - and to consider which page information on fossil species would best belong on. There may be a place for some this information here, but as Montanabw says, I'd proceed with caution. Anaxial (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Montanabw, there is no such thing as Equus caballus. That is a domesticated animal. The proper name is Equus ferus caballus - unless domesticated Horses somehow come from Zebras or Asses... Also, there is no consensus that Equus ferus ever set foot on the North American continent (before the advent of Europeans), though I personally believe Equus lambei may be a subspecy of Equus ferus. Thirdly, and most importantly, and I hope EVERYONE is listening here when I say this, Equus ferus caballus, the domesticated Horse IS NO MORE native to the North American west than Chihuahuas are to the Canadian tundra. Domestic forms are native NOWHERE. Period. The domestic Horse is RADICALLY different from it's wild ancestor. And Dysmorodrepanis, the reason all the Equine articles are so Horse-centric is because a very large number of vociferous (and outright foolish) people are unhealthily obsessed with horses. Unfortunately, many of these people also think themselves expert enough to declare a domestic animal native to a continent it never inhabited simply because they like to watch them run. Seriously, that's all it is. They like looking at them. It's certainly not an environmental issue. Horses are wildly destructive to their surroundings. They eat more than cattle! And an obscene amount more than the native Pronghorn (which, by the way doesn't trample its food to death like the Mustangs do with they're enormous, heavy-stepping hooves). The only argument the Mustang and Burro worshippers have to use (and they milk it good, let me tell ya) is the similarity of Equus lambei to Equus ferus. But, Equus lambei has not been proven to be synonymous with Equus ferus (though it is a possibility), and even if it were it would be more closely related, by far, to Przewalski's Horse than to Mustangs! E. lambei was tiny! It was like four feet tall at the shoulders! And all the other North American Equids are pretty well-known to not be synonymous with Equus ferus (including E. caballus). Not by a long shot. This is why the Horse Evolution page (and every other page dealing with equines) has been changed back and forth so many times. The people who know what the heck they're talking about try to add useful information and correct blatant lies or grievous mistakes and the people who like pretty ponies go back and try to convince the world that Spanish horses have roamed every continent including Antarctica, Mars and the Sun since before Dinosaurs walked on two feet. I made the ridiculous mistake of trying to add factual information to the Mustang article and, if I remember correctly, it was changed WITHIN THE HOUR. The person doing the changing even removed the scientific names I inserted! The Mustang article has absolutely no indication of what specy the Mustang belongs to now! I swear this endless struggle between the My Little Ponyites and REAL BIOLOGISTS is like the Evolution vs. creationism argument, only dumber. Like I said, these people aren't calling for us to turn our rotweillers loose into the nearest forest, but why not? I mean, it's the same specy as the Gray Wolf. Domestication doesn't matter, if you listen to these people. If that's the case then why aren't we restocking mature Oak forests with farm raised white turkeys? I mean, it's the same specy, after all. Oh. And this is my favourite. Where Wild Asses are actually native they're critically endangered. But I have not read ONE WORD from the Cult of the Mustang and Burro about saving them from ACTUAL extinction, but get this, they want to have the Mustangs and Burros in America declared endangered species. How's that for mentally inept and savagely hypocritical?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunukia (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major tweaking?

message: I don't know how to do it, but I think this article could use a pronunciation at the beginning, see as the -ae suffix is not one commonly encountered in modern life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.20.28 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Overall, this article has greatly improved, kudos to the editors.  The sources and citations definitely move this out of start-class.  While mostly a well-written article, my only real complaint is the level of jargon/unexplained scientific terms.
*"Their legs are slender and end in a single, unguligrade toe, protected by a horny hoof."
**The link goes to the ungulate article which doesn't exactly explain how the term, unguligrade is being used here.  Is this just an adjective form of ungulate, does it mean that it's "protected by a horny hoof," or does it mean something else specific?
*"The dental formula for equids is:"
**umm... for those of use who aren't dentists, this needs a little more description.
*"Equids who are not in foal..."
**To the uninitiated this could mean either pregnant or rearing.
Other than this, perhaps some different links in the "See also" section, moving more links from out of "Sources" and into footnoted "References", and expansion of "Cross-breeds" - more prose to fill out the list. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  general comments 

message: I would propose to update the classification section to better reflect the relationships between the taxa, format the section a little better, and remove some false staements eg "vernacular names" for taxa which have been extinct for over a million years and are not commonly known. (Who here has heard of the "Brother horse" = Equus fraternus)
Here is the revamp I have worked up.  
As aside not this shows why Equidae should be a seperate article from Equus.  Two other subfamilies from Equidae, another Tribe and a genus not in Equini, and 7! other genera in the tribe itself that are not Equus.  None of which is adressed in this article.
--Kevmin (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This classification is to genus, except Equus is expanded to subspecies.  I fixed that by moving the Equus part to Equus (genus). --Una Smith (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: In Regards to to your comment that there has been considerable debate about the taxonomy in the article.  I have read both pages (here and a ev. of horses) and unless there are archives which I have missed, there actually is not that much. But to be on the safe side I posted the proposed change here first for comment.  You have mentioned several times that debate occurred as to where the redirects pointed but I have not not been able to find any records, could you point me to the appropriate pages so I may see what was said up to this point? --Kevmin (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the spat was more at the evolution page, but I honestly can't remember and lack the time to look (and also don't care that deeply, all I want are accurate articles).  All I will say here is that in the reorg scheme, if you DO add in the evolutionary forms, just be really careful to  distinguish the extinct ancestral forms from the modern forms because what is above is confusing and has too many red links.  Also, try not to contradict the structure of the evolution article (if they are wrong, then both articles need tweaks, the info should dovetail).  Like I say, taxonomy is not my area so I have to trust that you who are working on this also read WP:V and use recent research.  Maybe stop over at wikiproject Mammals to see if there is anyone there who wants to comment, also.  Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: "FOLLOW UP':  I think some of the spat was over Przewalski's horse and is at that page.  There is this big shitstorm (for lack of a better word) over whether those are equus caballus or equus ferus or equus ferus caballus or equus ferus ferus, or whatever.  Again, not being a taxonomist, I don't care which it is and wouldn't know the correct form if it bit me in the asinus, but it needs to be either the most recent, most official version or else "teach the controversy," stating something like "Expert X says it's this because a,b,c, but expert Y says it's that because of d, e and f,"  All I know is that it's a PITA (pain in the...) to deal with people fighting over this stuff and given that it's science, there must be a current "official" version out there and then, likely, a respected minority faction with a different view...  But anyway, proceed with caution when dealing with the true "wild horse" groups.  Please.  Also maybe contact Latebird, who watches the Pzrewalski article pretty closely...  Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked of the talk page for Przewalski's Horse and there wasnt much there either beyond a question  by one editor about whether this is E. ferus or E. caballus.  As regards the Evolution of the horse page, I agree with the editors who state that the linear time line presented in the article is quite outdated.  Re taxonomy in general there isn't such a thing as an "official" version,  rather there are hypothesis' put forth which gets debated.  For some groups the the hypothesis is accepted and becomes stable, in others it isn't and the debate continues with several different hypothesis competing.  Regarding this particular edit, I have not changed anything except adding the accepted subfamilies and tribes in to show the relations between the taxa better.  I dint change any of the extant taxa at all just plugged the whole section unchanged in the the Tribe Equini, thus the E. ferus vrs E. caballus isn't even touched. Im going to add the new taxonomy into the article and see if there is any more response.--Kevmin (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe check also tarpan and wild horse.  I just remember the equus ferus versus equus caballus spat, not where it was.  Your changes seem OK to me, but I don't know what other taxonomists on wiki would say.  I guess for now it's "proceed until apprehended." (grin)  Watchlist the article for awhile and we shall see what shakes out.  Montanabw(talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Unlike many mammal families, this family has a very extensive fossil record, so for it I would not use MSW3.  The MSW3 classification might be appropriate to use on Equus (genus).  --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Una Smith here.  This article only covers down too Genus level, with the subgenera and species info having been moved to Equus (genus).  This Family is composed of almost entirely extinct taxa and thus not even covered in MSW3. I think you will find that similar situations exist with the other Perissodactyla which are also largely composed of extinct taxa. --Kevmin (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article move and breakout may need to be reexamined in consultation with WP Mammals and WP:V.  If there is a consensus out there on how these articles are handled, I'm for using it.  I lack the expertise to know which sources on all this are considered the most modern and reliable, but whatever they are, that's what should be used. Just do it right, and if there is more than one "right" on this, then teach the controversy and explain both/all of the different approaches.  Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm there is not controversy what Tombstone is referring to in his post is just the section that was moved to Equus verbatim from this article.  MSW3 doesn't cover the upper levels of Equid taxonomy because it doesn't cover taxa that are not Recently extinct, thus it skips directly to the genus Equus.  This doesn't in any way mean that these levels are in debate, it just mean they are not covered. --Kevmin (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification section

message: Hi Kevmin and all.  First off I'll say from the get-go that I know next to squat about taxonomy, but I also know that those who care, seem to care a LOT and argue vehemently, and what's in there now seems to be the creature of considerable consensus, so please oh please, I strongly recommend that you talk to some of the others who have worked on this article or the taxonomy articles in general and be sure that you can source all your changes to the best recent research (I find overall that footnotes solve most edit wars) And, if there is debate over taxonomy, just explain how the different groups have different classification schemes or something.  See also what goes on at evolution of the horse, as I think there is overlap -- I think that article covers many of the extinct groups, and those were deliberately removed here after some earlier debate that I only peripherally followed...As for article names, "Equus" goes to a disambiguation page that covers everything from the play to the magazine. "Equus (genus)" redirects here.  Equus Caballus, I think redirects to the Horse article.  All of these, I think, occurred after considerable debate and arrival at consensus.  I'd hesitate to upset that apple cart without a real pressing need for it.  Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Regards to to your comment that there has been considerable debate about the taxonomy in the article.  I have read both pages (here and a ev. of horses) and unless there are archives which I have missed, there actually is not that much. But to be on the safe side I posted the proposed change here first for comment.  You have mentioned several times that debate occurred as to where the redirects pointed but I have not not been able to find any records, could you point me to the appropriate pages so I may see what was said up to this point? --Kevmin (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the spat was more at the evolution page, but I honestly can't remember and lack the time to look (and also don't care that deeply, all I want are accurate articles).  All I will say here is that in the reorg scheme, if you DO add in the evolutionary forms, just be really careful to  distinguish the extinct ancestral forms from the modern forms because what is above is confusing and has too many red links.  Also, try not to contradict the structure of the evolution article (if they are wrong, then both articles need tweaks, the info should dovetail).  Like I say, taxonomy is not my area so I have to trust that you who are working on this also read WP:V and use recent research.  Maybe stop over at wikiproject Mammals to see if there is anyone there who wants to comment, also.  Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: "FOLLOW UP':  I think some of the spat was over Przewalski's horse and is at that page.  There is this big shitstorm (for lack of a better word) over whether those are equus caballus or equus ferus or equus ferus caballus or equus ferus ferus, or whatever.  Again, not being a taxonomist, I don't care which it is and wouldn't know the correct form if it bit me in the asinus, but it needs to be either the most recent, most official version or else "teach the controversy," stating something like "Expert X says it's this because a,b,c, but expert Y says it's that because of d, e and f,"  All I know is that it's a PITA (pain in the...) to deal with people fighting over this stuff and given that it's science, there must be a current "official" version out there and then, likely, a respected minority faction with a different view...  But anyway, proceed with caution when dealing with the true "wild horse" groups.  Please.  Also maybe contact Latebird, who watches the Pzrewalski article pretty closely...  Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked of the talk page for Przewalski's Horse and there wasnt much there either beyond a question  by one editor about whether this is E. ferus or E. caballus.  As regards the Evolution of the horse page, I agree with the editors who state that the linear time line presented in the article is quite outdated.  Re taxonomy in general there isn't such a thing as an "official" version,  rather there are hypothesis' put forth which gets debated.  For some groups the the hypothesis is accepted and becomes stable, in others it isn't and the debate continues with several different hypothesis competing.  Regarding this particular edit, I have not changed anything except adding the accepted subfamilies and tribes in to show the relations between the taxa better.  I dint change any of the extant taxa at all just plugged the whole section unchanged in the the Tribe Equini, thus the E. ferus vrs E. caballus isn't even touched. Im going to add the new taxonomy into the article and see if there is any more response.--Kevmin (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe check also tarpan and wild horse.  I just remember the equus ferus versus equus caballus spat, not where it was.  Your changes seem OK to me, but I don't know what other taxonomists on wiki would say.  I guess for now it's "proceed until apprehended." (grin)  Watchlist the article for awhile and we shall see what shakes out.  Montanabw(talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on reorg

message: FWIW, I haven't been able to pinpoint what taxonomic source is used for the order Perissodactyla (admittedly, I have not researched the WP articles too much).  The rest of the mammal articles follow the taxonomy of MSW3 as per consensus at WP:MAMMAL, except for Perissodactyla, including the family Equidae. Note, MSW3 only deals with extant and recently extinct mammals, so it excludes prehistoric mammals. Here is the taxonomy for the family Equidae per MSW3:
*FAMILY Equidae
** GENUS Equus
*** SPECIES asinus – Ass
**** SUBSPECIES asinus
**** SUBSPECIES africanus
**** SUBSPECIES somalicus
*** SPECIES burchellii – Burchell's Zebra
**** SUBSPECIES burchellii
**** SUBSPECIES antiquorum
**** SUBSPECIES boehmi
**** SUBSPECIES crawshaii
**** SUBSPECIES kaokensis
**** SUBSPECIES zambeziensis
*** SPECIES caballus – Horse
**** SUBSPECIES caballus
**** SUBSPECIES ferus
**** SUBSPECIES przewalskii
*** SPECIES grevyi – Grévy's Zebra
*** SPECIES hemionus – Onager
**** SUBSPECIES hemionus
**** SUBSPECIES blanfordi
**** SUBSPECIES hemippus
**** SUBSPECIES khur
**** SUBSPECIES kulan
**** SUBSPECIES luteus
**** SUBSPECIES onager
*** SPECIES kiang – Kiang
**** SUBSPECIES kiang
**** SUBSPECIES holdereri
**** SUBSPECIES polyodon
*** SPECIES quagga – Quagga
*** SPECIES zebra – Mountain Zebra
**** SUBSPECIES zebra
**** SUBSPECIES hartmannae
Therefore, I would propose using the MSW3 taxonomy to become consistent with the remainder of the mammal articles on Wikipedia. Note, MSW3 was last revised in 2005, so any new research is not reflective in the above; if there is a deviation from the above, a reliable source should be quoted (and probably a consensus should be reached). Thoughts? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike many mammal families, this family has a very extensive fossil record, so for it I would not use MSW3.  The MSW3 classification might be appropriate to use on Equus (genus).  --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Una Smith here.  This article only covers down too Genus level, with the subgenera and species info having been moved to Equus (genus).  This Family is composed of almost entirely extinct taxa and thus not even covered in MSW3. I think you will find that similar situations exist with the other Perissodactyla which are also largely composed of extinct taxa. --Kevmin (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article move and breakout may need to be reexamined in consultation with WP Mammals and WP:V.  If there is a consensus out there on how these articles are handled, I'm for using it.  I lack the expertise to know which sources on all this are considered the most modern and reliable, but whatever they are, that's what should be used. Just do it right, and if there is more than one "right" on this, then teach the controversy and explain both/all of the different approaches.  Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm there is not controversy what Tombstone is referring to in his post is just the section that was moved to Equus verbatim from this article.  MSW3 doesn't cover the upper levels of Equid taxonomy because it doesn't cover taxa that are not Recently extinct, thus it skips directly to the genus Equus.  This doesn't in any way mean that these levels are in debate, it just mean they are not covered. --Kevmin (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MSW3

message: I came here looking for when the horse (in whatever variety) disappeared from the Western Hemisphere, presumably during a relatively recent ice age. But not here. Lots of arguments above, but no corresponding information in the article. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the horse article, since its more relevant to that particular species than to the family as a whole. Anaxial (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article a bit terse IMO

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:F John Series 2 Protorohippus card 5.jpg Nominated for Deletion