Talk:Mule

message: There's a section that compares how a mule is better than a horse, but it doesn't compare it to a mule except for saying that a mule is equally intelligent as a donkey, which in turn is more intelligent than a horse. I'd be interested to know how the strength of a mule compares with the stength of a donkey. A comparison of their speed would also benefit the article  - Owen214 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons need improving 

message: "The chromosome match-up more often occurs when the jack (male donkey) is the sire and the mare (female horse) is the dam."
I'm not a native English speaker but since "dam" seems to imply motherhood I find it kind of difficult to imagine it's not the mare but the male donkey that is the to be impregnated. It would also explain why the chromosome matchup only works this way! :) More seriously as a small nitpick the sentence contains duplicate information. It should simply be the male donkey  is the sire and the horse is the dam.
84.154.35.44 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this sentence make sense ? 

message: Is it just me? or is this article lacking a first paragraph?.
It starts with: "In its common modern meaning, a mule is decended from the latin "matule" meaning "stubbourn". The much rarer offspring of a male horse and a female donkey, is called a hinny. The mule, easier to breed[citation needed] and usually larger in size than a hinny, has monopolized the attention of breeders[citation needed]. The ch[...]"
So, shouldn't this say something like: "Is the name given to the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, commonly and artificially bred for agricultural work. Also known in popular culture for its temperament and alleged sterility".  Or something to that respect? English not being my first language, I wouldn't dare to edit the article directly. Please correct this, it starts at the second paragraph.Vizoso (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard, turns out somebody mangled the paragraph, I took the liberty if bringing it back from one of the previous versions, it has the same information, plus the prior needed explanation. Vizoso (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever works.  The article needs a lot of general cleanup, but no one seems to have time to do more than vandal patrol.  Feel free to dive in.  Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: In my opinion, this section does not belong here, as racism is not the topic. This isn't a dictionary. I'd note that another use of the term "mule" -- a person who carries illegal drugs into the country -- is not mentioned.
But if it stays, could someone explain just what is meant by "white african american"? The phrase would call to mind, say, an immigrant from South Africa of European descent.
Bob Kerns (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's rather erroneous. --Bentonia School (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: The article says all males are sterile.  I question this.  I've read that when male mules are almost always castrated, because if they aren't castrated they are very se
xually agressive.  I think this means that the fertility of male mules is never really tested.
The article says female hinnies are always sterile, but that almost all female mules are sterile.  I question this as well.  I've read that while mules are generally larger, there is no sure way to distinguish between adult mules and adult hinnies biochemically.  But that one can distinguish them by putting them in a paddock that contains both horses and donkeys.  It will go hang out with its mother's species.
I suspect that rather than almost all mules being sterile, all mules are almost all sterile.  I suspect that the chromosome match between the hybrid's gamete and the full-blooded horse or donkey's gamete is always problematic, without regard to the sex of the hybrid and the full-blood.  I suspect that what the article states -- that some rare female mules are fertile, and all the rest are sterile is incorrect.  Rather that all mules have the same slim chance of generating a gamete that can join with a full-blooded parent's gamete to make a viable offspring, and that we would be seeing male hybrids making the occasional baby if they weren't always all sterilized.  --  Geo Swan 03:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
==== Male Mule Anecdote ====
My father knew of a fertile male mule owned by a neighbor.  It may have been a freak, but it was apparently fertile.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrInitialMan (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since each gamete you produce includes half your DNA, isn't it inevitable that you'd produce one which perfectly mirrors the gamete that produced you? i.e. one with all the genes in question from one parent? That one would work fine, mated to another of the same species as said parent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sterility 

message: My father knew of a fertile male mule owned by a neighbor.  It may have been a freak, but it was apparently fertile.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrInitialMan (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since each gamete you produce includes half your DNA, isn't it inevitable that you'd produce one which perfectly mirrors the gamete that produced you? i.e. one with all the genes in question from one parent? That one would work fine, mated to another of the same species as said parent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male Mule Anecdote 

message: I think it should be mentioned that mules have 63 chromosomes, thus an uneven number unable to divide into chromosome pairs. I didn't really understand why mules weren't able to reproduce until I looked elsewhere.
:Here's the question though. A horse gamete has 32 half-chromosomes, a donkey gamete has 31... so how does the result not simply have 62 chromosomes plus one half-chromosome that doesn't know what it's doing? How do you instead get 63? Is the 63rd a half-chromosome? I realize there's some ambiguity here due to semantics, since 'chromosome' can either mean one complete double helix or a matched pair of double helices, connected in the middle making a little X shape..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  63 chromosomes 

message: I regularly refer to the Wikipedia in my practice as a Veterinary Scientist of Equine and Alternative Livestock. I am presently a fellow at an OMAF research installation (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food [formerly Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, OMAFRA]) which is actively involved in the study of both Mules and Donkeys. That being said, I feel as though I might provide some much needed information with regard to the matter of the Mule's primary sexual characteristics and, more specifically, his phallus in particular. Thus I present the following obiter dictum, as I hope my commentary will be of some use to those whom are debating this issue.
As a prior reviewer mentioned, it is common knowledge that Mules, Horses, and Donkeys (Equus asinus) indubitably share several prominent physical traits. Hence, since it is commonly accepted that Equus caballus (the common Horse) possesses a particularly large phallus, it stands to reason that the Mule, while physically smaller, may very well sport a comparatively sizeable penis. Both donkeys and mules, however, differ greatly from their Horse counterparts: in particular, their jugular furrow (the place where blood samples are taken or tranquilizers are given) tends to be substantially more cartilaginous that that of most other animals. Further, the cutaneous coli muscle is much thicker than in the horse and hides the middle third of the jugular vein. More over, it is easier to find the upper third of the jugular in a Mule than a horse. The nasolacrimal duct of the donkey is located on the flare of the nostril rather than the floor of the nostril as it is in the horse. Picayune difference such as these seem to fool the untrained eye- people grasp the apparent aspects of the Mule and Donkey much more readily than they might acknowledge these finer nuances of the beast.
There are several classes of Mules to consider before I attempt an answer. These appear below:
----
Miniature: under 36 inches
Small Standard: from 36.01 to 48 inches
Large Standard: over 48 inches and under 54 inches for females; over 48 inches and under 56 inches for jacks and geldings
Mammoth: 54 inches or over for females and 56 inches or over for male
----
Traditionally, the Mules we read about in books and see in television programs tend to fall into the category of "Large Standard." These specimines most ostensibly possess particularly large phalluses. It occurs to me that some of the animals I have treated have displayed sexual organs nearly 1/6th of their body length when sufficiently excited.
I should point out that mules measuring greater than 54 inches at the withers are particularly endowed specimines. The few that I have studied posess penises of a startling girth and length. Indeed, had these Mules not been sterile, they would not be capable of participating in coitus as their female counterparts would be too substantially pained by the massive size of the male's penis to entertain the practice of copulation. One of my co-workers had been so startled by one animal's erection that he grew uncomfortable and was unable to continue the work he had been engaged in. He has been practicing veterinary medicine for more than 10 years.
That said, I would certainly condone the statement that Mules have particularly large phalluses. Hopefully this brief discourse will be of some use.
--RobertStuartson 03:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for penis, since "phallus" usually denotes a "depiction" of the penis.
-----------------
I suspect the erudite essay above to be a spoof, especially because of the sentence "One of my co-workers had been so startled..." towards the end. --Bwiki 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the fact that he claims to be a vet, but can't spell specimen...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.100.88 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A professional opinion [?] 

message: Unless anyone cares to verify the mountain lion bit, I'll be removing it. VanTucky 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Citaion needed 

message: This article has so many pictures they're distorting the text. How many pictures of mules on grass does it need!? Bronzey 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We recently had the same problem with other such mammal articles. the problem seems to be only in those articles about animals that are kept as beloved pets. A maximum of five is what seems to work, and the more variation the better.  VanTucky 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO approximately one image per screenful is what works best.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Way too many pictures

message: Sometimes people let a stallion (male horse) run with a jenny (female donkey) for as long as six years before getting her pregnant.
I dunno, maybe my brain is punny, but it sounds to me like people get her pregnant...what does the sentence mean, anyway? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it means that breeders have let the stallions try to impregnate jennies -- and have waited up to six years for the stallion's efforts to succeed.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think this means what it sounds like 

message: This article really looks like it needs a few sources replaced. One even leads to what amounts to some sort of mule flea market with essentially no information. (http://longearsmall.com/) Nullav 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Input re mule saddles (both riding and packing) would be appreciated on Crupper.  Thanks.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mule saddles?

message: I'm no biologist, but I guarantee that the binomial name of a mule is not Equus mule. Equus mulus, maybe, but mule is not a Latin word. Rwflammang (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Equus Mule?

message: Does this sentence sound ridiculous to anyone else? Feeeshboy (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a more journalistic phrase than an encyclopedic one. Landroo (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rewrote this sentence a few months ago.  Today, an IP editor restored it.  I just reverted the change.  Comments from other editors would be appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Your version is better and less romanticized.  Probably the other was a copyvio cribbed from somewhere too. I'm with ya! Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "After World War II, mules fell on hard times" 

message: There should be a section on this. I don't know where it belongs in the article or how extensive it should be. I do know the mule is mentioned in Gilgamesh(Tablet 6), which means they were used more than 3,000 years ago. And they were common beasts of burden in the Roman Empire. Nitpyck (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be cool, all we need is someone with access to good source material (Per WP:V) to add what they can.  Basic thing will be to not repeat popular misconceptions or inaccurate myths.  I know there are also images of mules in ancient Egyptian art... Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The absence of a history section is made more conspicuous by the section entitled "The Modern Mule."Landroo (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of mules 

message: Why does this article have the category Donkeys, but not the category Horses? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, excess cat, tossed it.  Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category question 

message: Many W articles, including this one, include links that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, presumably in order not to be classified as orphans.  Why in the world does this article link to aficianado??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.225.134 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article link to aficianado?? 

message: In the see also section, I added a link to Johan Franzen, a hockey player whos nickname is The Mule, but it was instantly deleted. That's not fair. :( 68.69.130.86 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nickname not about mules. Lots of famous people nicknamed after mules.  Trivia lists not relevant here. Montanabw(talk) 06:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johan Franzen 

message: The English language variant for this article seems to have been established here ("colour"), and to have been changed subsequently. Does anyone object if I restore the article to that variant in accordance with WP:ENGVAR? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is a worldwide topic, we should use the variant the article started out with.  I agree though personally, I prefer American spellings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't entirely clear before. I would not normally suggest changing a consistent established usage even if it wasn't the original one. But this article contains a mixture (both "fetus" and "vigour"), which is why I looked back in the history. I'll give it a day or so before making the small necessary changes, in case there are other comments. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On one hand, I have no interest whatsoever in starting yet another round of tendentious arguments with JLAN.  On the other hand, I believe it is useful to standardize the article in US English. On a cursory glance, it looks to be mostly US English, to change everything to UK English is going to take more effor.  But more to the point, I have no stats on the relative number of mules in modern English-speaking nations, but I suspect that the USA has more than the UK and Australia combined.  The fact that mules exist worldwide is not relevant to this discussion, we are not writing in, say, Chinese.  On an article this old, who won the "race to the courthouse" for starting the article is irrelevant.  But I am also not going to waste more than another 5 or 10 minutes on the topic, so when a vote is called, I'll step back around.  Montanabw(talk) 18:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the large number of mules in China does not oblige us to write in Chinese (luckily, as I don't know how). Nor does the number of mules in any other country oblige us to write in the language of that country. This being Wikipedia, what we do here is follow the MOS, and specifically WP:ENGVAR. Is there anything in that bit of the MOS that might suggest that this article, which has no current established language variant, should not be restored to that of the first version? As for the work involved, it is minimal, and I have already offered above to do it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The best option is to use variant neutral words where possible, maybe coloration (same in both), and i'm sure vigour could be substituted with a synonym.  Fetus is more difficult, but you could go for 'in the womb' or 'embryonic' with rewording.  Failing that, ENGVAR says you go for the first use.  I can't be bothered to look, but if you say it is BrE, then so be it.  I dream of the day when the MediaWiki software supports language variants in the markup. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Owain that variant neutral wording is an elegant solution where possible and I support that approach.  However, there are words like color/colour where it may be awkward to avoid them totally.  The "race to the courthouse" standard is probably the best that can be done, but when an article was  a stub in one form, and then someone does a big expansion in the other form, where it stays for years, it seems absurd to go back to whatever was done in 2004 or whenever.  The truth is that ENGVAR also allows a consensus to be reached one way or the other.  But at the end of the day, this is the most ridiculous discussion for this article I can imagine.  So, at the end of the day, I'm not going to fight about this, but really, I suspect that JLAN is now going to be seeking out thousands of articles (especially equine ones) and every single one started in UK English he will want to change back, even if US English was used for the last half-decade.  So go for it, buddy, have it your way.  The rest of us have a life.  Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From the historical standpoint alone, using American English for this article makes sense. But, as always, I suspect that some Wiki-standard that bears no relation to the real world will eventually triumph. If one can't "own" an article, it doesn't make sense that whoever happened to type something first would by default set the standard language. But I'm learning that making sense is often a defect...Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language variant 

message: VOTING.  One vote per person, please.  No comments below, confine comments to the discussion above the line.  Sign your vote
US English Montanabw(talk) 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and I think votes on this sort of thing aren't usually constructive, as it usually just depends on whether more AmE or BrE editors watch the article in question. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is a bit short of perfect, "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety."  I have to admit even determining that default will be fraught with danger here:  It appears the very first edit was a direct import from the 1911 Britannica, and a stub or close to a stub, IMHO.  The first noticeable expansion adds US English.  Beyond that, we can figure out if the 67945 edit de-stubbed it, or if the verbatim 1911 import was or was not a stub, or whatever.   So Owain, vote anyway, what the heck.  I really will go with the consensus here, I just am very frustrated that we even are wasting our time on this.  Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote here

message: OK, call me stupid, but I did actually count the words.  I would say that the premise for this isn't great, as I can only find four AmE exclusive words in the article (estrus, fetus, plow and color) two of which are in the same sentence (one editor) and one of them was changed from BrE.  On the other hand there are two BrE words (draught (also the first variant word in the article) and grey).
On that basis the AmE 'stable' version is based on the action of two editors on an article written in BrE.  I think the policy is fairly clear, this should revert to original BrE.  Yours pedantically as usual. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and I think votes on this sort of thing aren't usually constructive, as it usually just depends on whether more AmE or BrE editors watch the article in question. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is a bit short of perfect, "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety."  I have to admit even determining that default will be fraught with danger here:  It appears the very first edit was a direct import from the 1911 Britannica, and a stub or close to a stub, IMHO.  The first noticeable expansion adds US English.  Beyond that, we can figure out if the 67945 edit de-stubbed it, or if the verbatim 1911 import was or was not a stub, or whatever.   So Owain, vote anyway, what the heck.  I really will go with the consensus here, I just am very frustrated that we even are wasting our time on this.  Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: normally animals don't want to copulate with another species. how do they get a male donkey to even want to copulate with a female hores?  (and historically how has this been done.)  I assume the process isn't, historically as well, artificial insemination.  If it is, how do they collect the male semen?  84.3.160.86 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Horses and donkeys are both genus equus, even if different subspecies.  Similarly, the domestic cow and the American bison can be crossed, resulting in a beefalo.  Coyotes and wolves can mate with dogs.  All the same sort of thing.  Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do they get them to mate? 

message: I added some vocabulary to the body, but after realized that it's defined differently than some vocabulary in the lead. I gave the source with what I added, but the info in the lead isn't sourced. I will keep my eyes open as I work on the article, and if I can correct this, I will. Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See the cleanup I did to hinny and (if I have time) here.  You are doing good work.  Read WP:LEAD - generally you don't source what's in the lead if it's sourced elsewhere.  In this cas, my suggestio is to improve everything else first, then rewrite the lead to matech thenew content -otherwise you are rewriting the lead every time you turn around.  Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some vocabulary in lead different from that in body 

message: I propose that we merge what's currently in the Biology section into the Characteristics section and get rid of the former. Some of the content is already redundant, and there's really more about mule biology in the Characteristics and Fertility sections. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal re Biology section 

message: In case I don't get around to it, or just plain forget, there is good content in the article currently in a source in the Biology section that could go in the Modern mules section about the Pakistan army's animal transport units (ATUs). 
--Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  To develop 

message: Are mules genetically modified organisms? Ababcdc (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  They are merely a biological hybrid. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: A question about mules

message: . This webpage shows the reason of recommending mules in an traditional agricultural perspective. Komitsuki (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rural Heritage - Why Mules? 

message: What's the difference between a female mule and a female hinny? They both have a haploid set of chromosomes from each species. They both have an X chromosome from a horse and another X chromosome from an ass. The only difference genetic'ly that I can see is that the mule would get her mitochondrial DNA from a horse whereas the hinny would get hers from an ass. Is that enough to make a difference? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is.  Also, gestation of horse mares and donkey jennies is different in duration, plus womb size of the dam can be a factor in the adult size of the animal.   Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  So is it always possible to tell a female mule from a female hinny (without testing their mitochondrial DNA)? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always, but as a rule hinnies are smaller and more "donkey" looking in their feet and bodies; mules tend to have more horse-like bodies and long ears; they are generally similar in size to their mare mothers. But sometimes a hinny out of a Mammoth donkey might look a lot more like a mule. The casual viewer might not be able to tell them apart.  Here is an article with more info:   Montanabw(talk) 03:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the difference between a female mule and a female hinny?

message: This phrase jumped out at me. It's part of a recent worthwhile commit. But it isn't clear what was meant. Is the idea that tourists think they're riding horses but they're actually riding mules, or ignorant because only a fool would ride a mule, or what? This could be worded better for sure 70.115.140.139 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorant tourists?

message: There is a note on this page which discusses the fur trade. It is not without interest, and clearly well-intentioned, but its connection to the subject is tenuous. I am not going to clean up its capitals and punctuation; rather, I am going to suggest its deletion. Regulov (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fur trade note 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mule. 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/20080515133147/http://www.aerc.org/AERC_Rider_Handbook110303.asp to http://aerc.org/AERC_Rider_Handbook110303.asp
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) 11:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: British Dressage changed its rules in 2018 to allow mules to compete. Wallace, a mule,  duly won his first contest . JezGrove (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dressage ability 

message: Created by insertion of two paired chromosomes of a horse inside the genome of a fertilized mule egg.
* It's crucial to select the correct pair of chromosomes.
* Most of the trials fail. You have to waste much time and money to achieve that.
* Once you achieve that you must create a population.
* After 20 generations, the stronghorse is genetically stable enough, with normalized possibility of genetical disorder as a normal horse. It is used as a fertile stronghorse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4118:5000:d63:1ab3:8d09:fd16 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, if you have something to contribute, provide reliable sources. Crotopaxi (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A genetically engineered mulehorse, mulohorse (fertile '''stronghorse''') 

message: How long have mules been around? You have a photo of a sculpture of a mule dating to about 2,000 years ago but there's no explanation regarding if this is the first documentation of a mule. When was the first mule documented? How long were they around before that? How did people discover that a mule could be bred? Was it an accident?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the mule 

message: I know it's sourced to the Mule Museum, but it doesn't seem to match up to the timeline in Domestication of the horse which appears to have horses (necessary for the creation of mules) arriving in Egypt ~ 500-1500 years later. 72.201.86.125 (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a double-check on the 3000 BCE date for Egyptian mules?