Talk:Evolution of the horse

message: This article needs images and diagrams. Alexander 007 1 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
I agree. Got any? --DanielCD 2 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
:Nope. Alexander 007 00:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've drawn one. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The genuine horse? Is this term a scientific one, or is it just someone being ignorant and meaning the modern-day horse? The Singing Badger 22:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergence of the 'Genuine' horse?!

message: How about "evolution of horses"?  "The horse" with the definite article suggests there is something singular about what a horse is: a Platonic ideal, if you will.
This is of course not true: there are many horses (donkeys, zebras, as well as all the extinct horses): it is, after all, a "big bush" as someone else put it.  The notion of a linear progress upward towards the "genuine" horse was actually cited in by several books I've read as an example of past misunderstandings about evolution. --Saforrest 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually "Evolution of the Equidae" (or "of equids"). Dysmorodrepanis 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: Check out the times given for fossil taxa. These by no means add up:
Hyracotherium evolved in the early Eocene (54–34 million years ago).[...]For a span of about 20 million years, the Hyracotherium thrived, with few significant evolutionary changes occurring.[...]Approximately 50 million years ago, in the early-to-middle Eocene, Hyracotherium smoothly transitioned into Orohippus over a gradual series of changes.
Somebody please correct this. Much of it is contradictory because only the entire span of epochs and subepochs is given, not when precisely the distinct forms lived (for example, it is patently false that all Hyracotherium turned into Orohippus suddenly after 20 ma).
Also that stupid, 19th-century vintage diagram at the top should be banished to a discussion (see also Cope's rule and George Gaylord Simpson) way down below. It would be appropriate to Conservapedia as regards scientific merit. Better have no pic at the top than a misleading one. A better one could be built, but it's a slow and time-consuming process. Someone might want to build a new one from here. The relationships of the Neogene New and Old World branches as presented there are probably wrong; I have put a recent paper to this effect into the References section of an American equid article (IIRC) as an annotation (click "edit" there to check). From a scientific standpoint, the article (from what my limited experience with mammal evolution tells me) is as close to being complete content-wise as to being patent nonsense as regards the way the content is presented... Dysmorodrepanis 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, I suggest you read Horses: The Story of the Horse Family in the Modern World and Through Sixty Million Years of History by G.G. Simpson before removing that tag again... it was published as recently as 1951..... Dysmorodrepanis 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction warning

message: It has been that we make subcategories for the Category Evolutionary biology. Now I wish to place this along with human evolution, cetation evolution into their owncategory. The only problem is what ca it be called and should there be one? Enlil Ninlil 05:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Folks, the creation versus evolution talk can really go somewhere else, this has been debated over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Give it a rest.  This article is about evolution.  If you don't like evolution, argue about it someplace else.  Or start an article called "God's creation of the horse" or something.  Just take it ANYWHERE else.  Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God (if there is one) created the rules (if there are any).  Evolution just followed the rules :o)  End of? Yes? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, not here 

message: See here. It might be adapted for this article. This entry from the Pharyngula blog discusses horse evolution in detail; it is very useful for this article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool phylogeny diagram and stuff

message: An important issue with this article that needs to be settled before much more other work happens, is the question of its topic.  The article starts by wikilinking horse (Equus caballus) but a few paragraphs later defines horse as Equus, ie the entire genus.  Pardon the pun, but Equus caballus and Equus are two very different "animals".  --Una Smith (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go for the broader definition of Horse and include information on the other subgenera from Equus, such as Asinis etc...  I would also like to question the inclusion of the "Four foundations" "theory" (remembering that a theory is a tested and accepted postulate in science).  Is this an actually theory accepted in the scientific community or just a hypothesis and if so has it actually been published in a peer reviewed journal?.--Kevmin (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kevin that here the broader definition of the Horse as meaning "horse family" in the broadest sense is appropriate. Kev, the "Four foundations" is a domestication theory, the question being if there were four existing subspecies (or whatever you want to call them, radically different body types) that existed prior to domestication that formed the foundation of modern breed types, or if, as an older theory holds, there was a single horse subspecies that was domesticated and all body types were created after domestication.  I haven't had the time (nor do I at present, unfortunately) to look into how the question has been addressed in peer-reviewed literature, but the sources in this section go to published books by reputable authors (one of whom, Deb Bennett, has a PhD that I think is in Palentology).  It appears that any peer-reviewed sources for the single foundation theory are all quite old and may have been superseded by four foundations, but as I say, don't know what's in peer-reviewed lit and no time to look.  So that's what it is doing here.  If it stays, feel free to add tags if or as needed, but please be patient, it could be a long time before I can get to this.  If you decide this issue in total is not relevant to an Evolution article and want to toss it out, then can you be so kind as to park the text here on the talk page so it is easy for us to retrieve and move to some other articles?  Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the "Four foundations" content to Talk:Domestication of the horse.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With a few minor tweaks, I added it to the parallel section there.  Can you now clean up your work and check for any links about "four foundations" that direct to this article and redirect them to the Domestication article, seeing as how you were the one who removed the material here?  Just a link to the main article title is all that is needed, no need for a section link.  Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the same topic is covered at similar length on Horse and repeated also, but shorter, in List of horse breeds.  Are there a lot of links to all these locations?  If so, the topic should be an independent article.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's basically the same paragraph in both articles and a shorter summary on the list, a condensation of about five pages from Bennett plus some other books and web sites that provide similar information.  I'm fine with what is there now. No need to break out yet another stub until there is someone willing to really dig into the research.  Montanabw(talk) 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The title of this article creates indeed confusion. A donkey is indeed no horse, but belongs to the "horse familiy". When it is about the horse (Equus caballus / Equus ferus) I would say keep the title, but when it is about the horse as meaning the "horse family" a better title would maybe "Evolution of Equus". Or possibly two different pages, one for the horse species and one for Equidae. Peter Maas\talk 09:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the content of this article, I would simply move it to Evolution of Equidae or Evolution of the horse family.  Does anyone have a strong preference for one or the other?  --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evolution of the horse family" and "Evolution of Equidae" are awkward.  I propose Equine evolution or Equidae evolution or something equally simple if we must remove the name "horse" from the article (for which I suppose there is some argument to be made for doing so.)  Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of the ... what? 

message: I might be wrong, but I had heard that the straight-line evolution of the horse was rejected 90 years ago in 1920. Anyone wanna look into it? Mcoolister (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Straight-Line Evolution

message: Per the citation  on the Hyracotherium page, the earliest ancestors of the horse were more than twice (60 cm, 15 kg) the size of a 6 kg fox.
Changing the first sentence from fox-sized to small, dog-sized to regularize with the Hyracotherium article. Feel free to revert if you find more trustworthy source material.
Atcack (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: This information "Whether Duchesnehippus was a subgenus of Epihippus or a distinct genus is disputed" seems to be wrong according to Palepbiology Database
A possible confusion or dispute, if one wants to call it like that, only seems to exist in regards of the Orohippus and the Epihippus and that only for one or two species. I'd like to suggest to have this sentence deleted.--Amrbc (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's got a tag, the taxonomy sorts will undoubtably swing by in a few days and check it out.  I've learned long ago that this is an area where I shall just defer to those like Kim who actually know what they are talking about!  LOL! Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epihippus - laking information and possible mistake 

message: Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages 

message: :Maybe add a section about the vast colors of horses, maybe how domestication has increased the possibilities, especially in colors that may be considered less fit in nature. Also how horses were brought over to parts of the world they were not initially native to, and how they evolved to live there (either with the help of humans or not.) And maybe how the genome sequences are similar or dissimilar to the wild Przewalski's horse.
Grumblis.6 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't really evolution issues, but we have multiple articles on these topics and maybe we could improve the linking from this article to them.  Start with horse. Then see Domestication of the horse, Equine coat color, Equine coat color genetics, Horses in warfare, horse genome, and Przewalski's horse.  Montanabw(talk) 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions to Add?

message: >Both the NWSLH and Hippidium show adaptations to dry, barren ground, whereas the shortened legs of Hippidion may have been a response to sloped terrain
I thought much of this article was jargon-free but the above sentence and a few others won't be understood by those of our readers who aren't familiar with evolution in general.  "...a response to sloped terrain"  -- surely this could be written in plain English? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloped terrain 

message: As we are not an American encyclopedia and as my attempt to remove US centrism was reverted without addressing the issue I have put a neutrality tag on it. It is viital that this does not read like an article in an American encyclopedia. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which aspects are inappropriately US-centric?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The chronological order used in the history section places some American material in the first paragraph. However, this should not be construed as indicating emphasis. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the current ordering is chronological; the first fossils mentioned in the article's sources were found in 1807 in the new world.  If there are earlier sources we can cite, go ahead and add them, but I think it makes sense to cover the history of research in a chronological fashion, and at the moment the New World material is the oldest stuff we have in that section. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing particularly U.S.-centric about the first 3 sentences in the first paragraph, as they refer to equid populations in the New World as a whole. Given that the positioning of the 4th sentence is determined by chronology, I don't think the accusation of U.S.-centrism has any basis. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with  and , there is no neutrality issue, as the history of research section is organized oldest to most current.  As such the 1700's covered in the paragraph in question should be at the beginning of the section, not the end. --Kevmin § 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Most of the oldest fossils are found in North America.  The structure is chronological. No need to tag.  Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if most or all the sources were American, how would this exactly affect neutrality? Is horse evolution in any way a contentious issue between nations? FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Evolution of the horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829184554/http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherFossils/equus.php to http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherFossils/equus.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726122833/http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/ebooks/Hunt_Kathleen_Horse_Evolution.pdf to http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/ebooks/Hunt_Kathleen_Horse_Evolution.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224033913/http://app.pan.pl/acta49/app49-189.pdf to http://app.pan.pl/acta49/app49-189.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083344/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/ to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This might help. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  If there's an attempt to claim pre-Columbian Holocene horses 

message: In some sources it is said Eohippus had 4 fingers and 3 toes (Encyclopaedia Britannica), but this article says it had 5 in each leg. What is the correct figure? And in the article there is an image of a Hyracotherium leg with 4 toes.--Miguelferig (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be semantics. This article states that Eohippus had 4 toes on its forefeet and 3 on its hindfeet that touched the ground (the article on Hyracotherium states something similar). The question is, when you count toes, do you only count the functional ones that touch the ground, or also count nonfunctional ones? WolfmanSF (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not very clear. The article says: "The forelimbs had developed five toes, of which four were equipped with small proto-hooves; the large fifth "toe-thumb" was off the ground. The hind limbs had small hooves on three out of the five toes, while the vestigial first and fifth toes did not touch the ground." Some of the toes are vestigial but still present, but the image in the secction doesn't show these vestigial toes, and many reliable sources said it had just 4 fingers and 3 toes without refering to functional toes. I think this is an important issue and should have a good reference. Is there a difference in toes between Eohippus (in modern stricto sensu) and Hyracotherium leporinum?--Miguelferig (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I insist, the article horse contradicts this article. The article horse says: "The earliest known member of the family Equidae was the Hyracotherium, which lived between 45 and 55 million years ago, during the Eocene period. It had 4 toes on each front foot, and 3 toes on each back foot". Once again the difference between Hyracotherium and Eohippus is not clear because of their former synonymy in taxonomy.--Miguelferig (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of fingers 

message: Has this article been considered? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: New article about the evolution of the modern horse

message: See this. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient DNA Reveals How the Ancestors of Modern Horses Migrated