Talk:Evolution of the horse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images[edit]

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)[reply]
I've drawn one. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergence of the 'Genuine' horse?![edit]

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)[reply]

50 million years ago?[edit]

Was anybody here actually around 50 million years who could tell me if horses really 'evolved' from those stubby things, or if there just used to be more species of horses around back then, that aren't around now? There isn't exactly a complete fossil record, I always found this sort of speculation silly--Horse master 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of nonsense belongs in Intelligent Design. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think we should go around presupposing things that aren't certian--Horse master 04:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So any history older than the oldest person alive is speculation? Now that's silly. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Moved American Revolution to Alleged American Revolution: -compromise for NPOV" --Aquillion 14:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this is a place to discuss objections against evolution. KimvdLinde 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of these "stubby things" around 55-50ish mya. And indeed "stubby things" they were. For a long time subsequently, i.e. until maybe 20, 15 mya, these thrived and more and more diverse forms (larger, better adapted to running) are known from fossils. No actual horse fossils are known from that time. But only one of these lineages shows a clear connection to modern horses. The first animals that could really be called "horses" instead of "equids" or "horse-like animals" (that had legs a bit like a slender tapir and lived more like duikers than horses apparently) are only known some 15 mya, a bit earlier perhaps. And from there on, there were several lineages of true horses, the remaining stubby things disappearing during that time. It's not that the horses "took over" from them, both lived in different habitat if one consults fossil plants, pollen etc.
And even with proper horses (with three toes still), there were different lineages, for example there were American horses, American "donkeys" (one of which, IONO which one, had very elongated legs, it looked like on stilts), zebras, African donkey, Asian donkeys and the "typical" (Asian) horses. As regards horses proper, only the Asian ones survived to today, and even there, it was one single gene pool. Humans discovered die utility of horses as domestic animals in the end. It is not too improbable that if they hadn't, there would be no real horses alive today, only donkeys, zebras etc.
What to make of this is one's own decision. But these different lineages of equids and later on of true horses form a neat pattern in space and time, and by now, so many are known that the case for an evolutionary model gets better and better and better.
You might want to check out what a guy called George Gaylord Simpson wrote about it in the mid-20th century. He was the one who dispelled the myth that there was this single lineage that became gradually larger and lost its toes. Of course, in his time much was simply prediction of unknown fossils that had not been found, and some details are not considered correct anymore today (e.g. regarding the relationships of American horses and donkeys). But by and large, his model has been vindicated, the missing links have been found. I know of no more recent basal equid, proto-horse, primitive, American or true horse that does not tie in neatly with a model along the lines of what he part guessed, part promoted based on his interpretation of the material evidence. Dysmorodrepanis 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there always are fossils that can say. But I heard it was 60 million years ago.Squirrelflight9 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
do we know whether the diagram presented in the article does in fact show the same discredited single lineage? it seems to suggest just that, but this is just a question. Let me expand on this. I believe the objection to such charts is the suggestion that one leads to the other, while as far as anyone knows, the lower equids shown may have been dead ends without descendants. Yet we have such a chart; is it really OK? (maybe it is). Also I note the section "history of research" possibly disparages " modern evolutionary theory" ... to me anyway, this seems like taking a shot. I feel I have a neutral point of view on this; do all the authors in the article?Carlw4514 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

I was thinking a bit about the structure of this article, and I think that this article should describe the broad overview, and preferably not deal with seperate species. There are articles for most of the seperate species, and that are much better places to deal with those. That would lead to a more concise article, and is easier to structure to describe the big line. What are the opinions of other about this? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, go for it! The Singing Badger 09:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the evolution of the horse is not a "big line", it is a "big bush", with numerous branching-off points along the way that end in dead ends. Also note that the article currently does not have separate sections for any species: its sections, such as Hyracotherium and Equus, refer to biological genera, not "species" per se. However, I understand your gist, and I agree that most individual equid genera should not have sections in this article: Orohippus, Epihippus, Kalobatippus, and Pliohippus are all great candidates for merging into larger sections, for example. On the other hand, I must disagree with your suggestion that we not have separate sections for any genera: to not have sections for Equus, or Mesohippus, or Merychippus, for example, seems bizarre to me, considering how broadly important they are (though the Merychippus section still needs major expansion: I haven't gotten to it yet in my rewrite and expansion of the article, so most of the important information about the evolutionary significance of Merychippus is still absent).
However, it doesn't hurt to experiment with new ideas, so feel free to attempt whatever restructuring you see fit. I recently attempted (briefly) a few possible reorganizations of the article, such as a periodal one, but haven't implemented any large-scale attempts yet.
A caveat: Although I fully support any attempts to remove trivial, non-relevant information (of which there are certainly at least a few examples) from this article to their appropriate specific articles, I am concerned with any attempts to remove significant information from this page that is based on exaggerated worries over page size, rather than on specific analysis of what information is or isn't significant to the evolution of the horse. If you are more interested in making this article brief than in making it a comprehensive source of useful and relevant information on the topic in question, then I have no interest in further improving the article. No point, if the effort will be wasted when we supercompress the page into a noninformative blurb accompanied by "see also" links. Wikipedia is not paper: we are bound by size constraints only in terms of whatever dimensions will make the information most accessible to readers.
With that in mind, feel free to make your changes! The easiest way to discuss the various options is to see them presented to us so we can determine whether or not they work in practice, not in theory. -Silence 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I was not clear. I used the big line as in the overall picture. My aim for a concise articles is not motivated by the size of the article, but by the desire to lead people to the corner of this article, the evolution of the horse. At current, the article reads as a collection of species/genus descriptions, with limited synthesis. The section on Hyracotherium at this page is larger than the article on this genus Hyracotherium, and that does not make sense to me. Anyway, I will first work on all the genus/species articles and bring those up to par before doing a larger scale restructering here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?[edit]

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)[reply]

It is actually "Evolution of the Equidae" (or "of equids"). Dysmorodrepanis 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction warning[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments on endless debate[edit]

The endless debates by individuals offering zero constructive edits and no citations or actual work on the article to support their views are rather tiresome. Grammatical edits to improve flow and quality are fine, but to slap a contradiction tag on an entire article for a minor one sentence inconsistency is silly. I am not a palentologist, so I leave it to those more familiar with the material to fight out the details, but the bottom line is that Dysmorodrepanis' only real gripe appears to be grammatical, and the grammatical glitch that was commented upon was not in fact a contradiction, especially when the "contradiction" occurs three paragraphs away in a wholly different context. I will not argue that the article might benefit from a little copyediting for better flow, but to rant and rave on this topic without a willingness to offer constructive, verifiable, CITED edits is wasting everyone's time. Montanabw(talk) 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not a palentologist" - Me neither, but I discuss paleontology with paleontologists as often as I can, which helps. You might want to start off by reading this; if you compare figure 2 to the first image in this article you'll know what I'm bickering about.
"but to rant and rave on this topic without a willingness to offer constructive, verifiable, CITED edits is wasting everyone's time" - what do you want me to do? Waste 2 weeks of my time on that and then get barked at by you? Get actual.
Things could be MUCH improved by asking some horse expert to draw up a phylogeny that is consistent with 21st-century knowledge to replace that 19th-century leading picture. I tried to look up info for a friend's high school project and there is no good modern overview on Wikipedia. The article is like someone nicked a summary by Cope and expanded upon it a bit.
I gave you citations; take them or leave them. Taking the PLoS article and references 13-15 from them would seem a good start. But don't fault me not to do an edit when you have no idea how much work is involved. Dysmorodrepanis 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this debate "endless"? It's not even a debate! It's me getting upset at some major faults with an article and later again, when I see that you RV'd me with not even showing the grace not to dis me about my remarks, let alone comment on the subject or change a specifically mentioned fact. Dysmorodrepanis 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You prove my point, You can present sources here and rant for paragraphs, but can't be bothered to actually write solid content with a few footnotes even though you apparently know more than anyone else here. (I'm a "horse expert," but only for living ones, I repeat, I am no palentologist) If you write awkwardly, it can be wordsmithed by others. (That's where I am of some use here) The image isn't that bad, it's basic, that's all--problems can be gently noted in the caption. In other words, if you have the sources, then put 'em up. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

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)[reply]

No discussion of problems?[edit]

There are many problems with this. According to Exploring Creation With Biology, by Dr. Jay Wile, there is no geographic site where this "macroevolutionary" sequence can be observed in one spot, instead, these fossils are gathered from several different continents. Secondly, all these creatures lived at the same time. Thirdly, the skeletons(excluding the leg bones and skulls) do not show any discernible pattern. Furthermore, even Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History and a believer in macroevolution, says, in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, p. 78, "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs[in ''his'' museum] us the exhibit on horse evolution prepared 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable..."

Uh, Jay Wile is a creationist. Misleading people is his business. That Eldredge quote, in particular, looks like a classic quote-mine: the sequence of horse evolution was rearranged way back (as the article explains, in "History of Research"). So, yes, an old-style exhibit should not be displayed: but not for the reason Wile is implying. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if Wile really did say "all these creatures lived at the same time", the explanation is quite simple: Wile is lying. A species can coexist with a descendant species (especially if they're living in separate geographical locations: that is how speciation frequently occurs), but they weren't all living at the same time. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if this sequence really is a macroevolutionary sequence, should this sequence not be found with all the animals at least on the same continent? Furthermore, I don't think it is fair to dismiss someone as "lying" or "in the business of misleading people" simply because they take a more logical viewpoint.Lordofthemarsh (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creationists are accused of lying and misrepresentation because they continually do so. I wish it weren't true, but it is. That all these transitional horse species "lived at the same time" is a misrepresentation. Also, logic is not on the side of creationists. The ToE does not in any way expect horses to evolve in the same spot. In fact for a highly mobile animal the opposite would be expected.
Others have pointed out to you the pages on Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ. Please take the time to read them. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is unfortunately too often the case for creationists when they attempt to discuss science and scientists, Wile and Sunderland are grossly misrepresenting the facts.

Sunderland's misleading quote-mining of Eldredge was so bad that Eldredge himself devoted six pages in one of his own books to discussing Sunderland's mendacity, including the very same quote that "Lordofthemarsh" repeats above. See Niles Eldredge's "The Triumph of Evolution (and the Failure of Creationism)", (2000), pages 129-134. Excerpts:

Earlier I said that creationists are poor scholars at best and at worst have been known to distort the words and works of scientists.
[...]
It is worthwhile taking a look at what Sunderland is up to here, and I'll do so by picking out the most egregious thing he has me saying -- or has to say about me. [...] I will single out here the worst case -- one that creationists are still using in their writings and debates (including on the Internet), and one that has defenders of evolution wondering if I really said what Sunderland has me saying in his book. The issue once again, is gaps -- the supposed lack of intermediates in the fossil record -- and revolves around what I purportedly said about horse evolution, or rather, about an exhibit on horse evolution that had been on continual display at the American Museum of Natural History for many years.
[...]
The dead horse that Sunderland and all other creationists beat is, of course, not stasis versus gradualism, but the existence of anatomical intermediates, especially if they exist in perfect stratigraphic order. I am here to tell you that my predecessors had indeed unearthed and mounted a wonderful series of skeletons, beginning with the Eocene Hyracotherium (the so-called dawn horse), with its small size, four toes on the front feet, five on the back feet, shortened face, and generalized perissodactyl teeth suitable for browsing, not grazing. Climbing up the Tertiary stratigraphic column of the American West, we find the horses becoming progressively bigger, with fewer toes (modern horses have but one on each foot) and more complicated teeth. The horses of the Pliocene are essentially modern.

This is not a made up story. Those fossils are real. They are in the proper order, and they are a spectacular example of anatomical intermediates found in the exact predicted sequence in the rock record. They are every creationist's nightmare.

[...] to imply that the old museum curators deliberately misled the public by arranging the order of these horse fossils as they saw fit is a damned lie.

[...]

Creationists hear what they want to hear because they believe what they want to believe. They think that all is fair in both love and war, and they see this as a culture war. But somehow I persist in the apparently quaint belief that lying, cheating, and distortions are inherently unchristian.

(Italics in original)

Eldredge explains (see the cited pages for details) that what he was trying to explain to Sunderland, which Sunderland misrepresented, was not that the museum display at that time (it has since been updated) was wrong, nor that the intermediates shown in the display were not actually intermediates (they were), but merely that it gave a simplified "steady straight line" impression of evolution, when in fact evolutionary progress is "bushier" and more sporadic, with variable rates of change.

This is far, far different from what Sunderland tried to misrepresent Eldredge as saying. --Ichneumon (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that 50 year old exhibits made mistakes, however, I doubt very much anyone would have missed such errors in this article. Having looked into it further, it does seem that some pretty dishonest representations of the history of the horse existed early on and perhaps showed up in textbooks even; otherwise what would there be for Simpson to have protested against? Additionally it seems clear that the history of the horse is a particularly sensitive topic, since those opposed to the teaching of evolution have thus (with Simpson's undisputed points) been given something solid to expand upon. It is unconscionable to have an article that would give any hint of dishonesty. It seems like the main problem with the article is the juxtaposition of the top of the article and the adjoining image which would seem to be similar to what has been discredited in the past as a misleading diagram. I do note that the image does not claim to represent a simple lineage, from lower equids to ultimately our modern horse, but the suggestion is distinctly there. Now you might be able to argue that for those new to the concept of evolution this is just as well, but I think, to the contrary, there must be no element of such over-simplification, subject to the charge of misrepresentation, in this particular article! At the very least, I would like to see the juxtaposition changed, and I don't think it would hurt to say the the image should not be construed to imply a straight line lineage. For a more accurate diagram see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html Carlw4514 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lordofthemarsh: When you say that you want to see all intermediates "in the same spot", what do you mean -- stacked up directly on top of each other like a layer cake? That's an entirely unrealistic expectation, given the rarity of environmental conditions suitable for good fossilization, coupled with the rarity of any individual animal dying in a situation where its remains will be well preserved for subsequent fossilization (most carcasses are eaten and scattered or otherwise destroyed long before they have a chance to fossilize, you can observe this fact even today). Plus we can only retrieve fossils from strata that have been later uplifted and exposed by erosion or other processes. We're lucky enough to get the few snapshots of history that we have, a few here from one era, a few there from another era, etc. Don't expect the impossible -- not every animal that ever lived has left fossils in every region and era they ever lived in. The evolutionary fossil record is about as complete as we have any right to expect it to be, given the longshot statistical nature of fossilization and fossil discovery. Even so, every year new transitional fossils are fortuitously found that fill predicted evolutionary lineages. Imagine that.

As for the claim that some horse fossils are found on other continents, sure, that's to be expected as well. The course of horse evolution covers many millions of years, and horses are very mobile. Some of the branches of the horse family will of course have traversed continents -- primitive humans spread across most of the whole Earth in only about 30-40 thousand years. Horses could easily cover the same distance in millions. Plus note that most of the horse fossils are found in North America and Asia, which at the time was connected by a land bridge (that's how the original native Americans got here) and were effectively one extended continent. Surprise surprise, animals move around -- I think that even creationists acknowledge this. Finally, as Eldredge mentions in the above cite, most of the horse evolutionary sequence can be found in the American West alone, which is pretty much "one spot".

You say that the skeletons don't show any discernable evolutionary pattern. First, where are you getting this claim, and second, what kind of pattern would you *expect* to see? Or more to the point, what pattern do you think ought to be observed if evolutionary biology (the real thing, not the creationist cartoon version) is true?

You also say that "all these creatures lived at the same time". No, not by a long shot. You really ought to read, at a minimum, the Wikipedia article itself before you attempt to "improve" on it. The article itself documents that these animals didn't live all "at the same time", but in many cases tens of millions of years apart.

Finally, you imply that it's Wile and Sunderland (or perhaps creationists in general) who "take a more logical viewpoint". Not that I've noticed, frankly, especially if the current assertions are the best examples (e.g. how is it "more logical" to forget that horses roam around, and how is it "more logical" to misrepresent when the fossil horses lived?) But if you can provide anything else from the creationists which actually proves to be a "more logical viewpoint" after being fact-checked and analyzed for fallacious reasoning, I for one would be glad to consider it. --Ichneumon (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlw4514: It seems to me that the last paragraph in the "History of Research" section of the article already addresses your concerns. After reviewing that, is there anything more you still feel needs to be added? --Ichneumon (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ichneumon: I added to the description of the image; if it must be juxtapositioned at the beginning of the article, I think this change is needed. As far as "History of Research" goes, I think something more might be said along the same lines, perhaps I can add something later.Carlw4514 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the publisher of Exploring creation with biology - Apologia Educational Ministries. I don't believe this is an academic press, I'm pretty sure it's a creation press, if not self-published. For a reference to be considered on this page, particularly for a criticism of that magnitude, it would need to be published in an academic press, mainstream peer-reviewed journal, textbook (again university press or otherwise possessing a history of fact-checking and oversight). There's always WP:RSN if you'd like an independent confirmation. WLU (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To WLU's last comment: Then unless a publisher that supports evolution says it, its's not reliable? There are many groups that support evolution, you consider them reliable, but not the ones that support creation? To Ichneumon: You claim that descendants can coexist with their ancestors. And to a certain extent that seems logical. However, when you consider the number of species "between" Eohippus and Equus, and the fact that according to the theory of evolution, the only way these changes would last is if the descendants had a survival advantage, you would think that Eohippus would be extinct by the time of Equus. Lordofthemarsh (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to Ichneumon: When I say discernable evolutionary pattern, I mean a smooth progession like we see with the jaw and feet. Why does the number of ribs and vertebrae vary widely for no apparent reason?Lordofthemarsh (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LordoftheMarsh: WLU did not in any way say that a publisher has to support evolution to be reliable. What he did say is that is that the publication you cited was not published in "an academic press, mainstream peer-reviewed journal". He is suggesting that you stick to sources which are properly vetted and reviewed by experts in the relevant fields, not a publication in which lacks those safeguards against blatantly erroneous or fallacious material.

Also, you said that I claim that descendants can coexist with their ancestors. While it is true that this can occur, I was not the one who wrote that here. Please read more carefully.

Furthermore, your comment about descendants coexisting with ancestors seems to be based on an incorrect assumption. You say that "you would think that Eohippus would be extinct by the time of Equus". Well, indeed it was; by the time of Equus, Eohippus had been extinct for tens of millions of years. Did you think that these two groups coexisted? They didn't, and a careful reading of the article would have made that pretty clear.

The article does mention that Miohippus and Mesohippus coexisted for a while, about 4 million years, but that's a much shorter time period, and not an unusually long time for competing species to both coexist for a while, if they even competed at all -- they may well have each specialized in different diets or ecological niches and not directly competed.

As to your question of why "the number of ribs and vertebrae vary widely for no apparent reason", the short answer is that a) while they did vary, it's an overstatement to say that they varied "widely", and b) rib and vertebrae counts are more easily variable than you might think.

The amount by which they actually varied isn't large. You probably learned of this variation from various creationist sources, which are fond of trying to make a point about it, as if they think it might be hard for evolution to explain (it isn't). A typical example is this quote from "Answers in Genesis":

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly 'intermediate' stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

Actually, that's not any kind of "serious genetic problem" at all. Rib count and lumbar vertebrae count is variable even within modern horses domestic horses, a single species. See for example [1], in which modern horses were found to have between 17 and 19 ribs (most having 18), and between 5 and 6 lumbar vertebrae (most having 6).

  1. ^ Stecher, Robert M., Anatomical Variations of the Spine in the Horse, Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 43, No. 2, (May, 1962), pp. 205-219

Furthermore, AiG sort of "forgets" to inform its readers that there's usually a trade-off between the two. "Losing" a rib causes a thoracic vertebrae to be counted as a lumbar vertebrae. So AiG tries to make the fluctuating rib/lumbar numbers look like two separate issues, when it's really just different sides of the same coin.

Furthermore, the number of "body" vertebrae (thoracic plus lumbar) can similarly fluctuate without any change in the total number of vertebrae, because a few more or fewer vertebrae can be incorporated into the sacrum (the section of fused vertebrae which "anchors" the spine to the pelvis). In general the more vertebrae in the sacrum, the fewer in the lumbar portion of the spine. Again, see the Stecher paper I cited above -- even in modern horses, there are anywhere from 4 to 6 sacral vertebrae, depending on how long the pelvis is, basically.

So even in modern horses, and certainly in different ancient horse species, it's "easy" (and certainly common) for the number of ribs, and the number of lumbar vertebrae, to vary. Nor is there any "serious genetic problem" in explaining this, as AiG very falsely claims. The extent of rib growth is controlled by the hox11 genes, and if they are disabled ribs can be induced to grow along the entire length of the spine, as you can read here: Why We Lack Spare Ribs. Clearly, minor changes in theh DNA sequence of these genes, or especially their promoter regions (which determine how strongly they are expressed) will cause the number of ribs to increase or decrease in the developing mammalian embryo. This is not a "serious genetic problem", it's pretty well understood. AiG sort of "forgot" to mention that as well.

Similarly, a simple increase or decrease in pelvis length (another easy genetic change -- growth rates are common targets of evolutionary change) will alter the number of lumbar vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum.

Finally, if your concern is over why the numbers might go up and down, instead of simply steadily up or steadily down, remember that contrary to the cartoon-version of evolution described in creationist literature, real-world evolution does not always proceed steadily in only one direction. Changing conditions, changing competition, conflicting necessities, or good old genetic drift can cause some traits to fluctuate first one way and then another, instead of just always moving in one direction. --Ichneumon (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the proposal to simply replace the article with a statement that the horse hopped off the Ark and the other fossils represent the species that didn't make it on the Ark, as in the legend of the unicorn? This is not a general forum, but a place to say "this is what I want to change in the article and why." Carlw4514 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Ichneumon, you hit my point on the head with a nail. Or something. Anyway, there is more evidence of editing towards the truthtm, Lordofthemarsh, please review the FAQs that have been pointed out to you - any creationist sources that discuss evolution as being 'in crisis', 'false', or protected by conspiracy will not be represented on any page on wikipedia, except as the opinions of creationists on articles about the social phenomenon that is creationism's political efforts to cast doubt on evolution. The misconceptions and outright lies of creationists about evolution are well documented, talk.origins is an excellent resource on this, but wikipedia is not a place to debate. Find reliable sources, refer to the FAQ, then suggest changes because otherwise you're wasting the time of yourself and other editors. This has been dealt with repeatedly and universally the creationist perspective is considered scientifically value-less. WLU (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you show a ridiculous level of bias for a place that claims to be neutral. It seems to me that if 90% of the mainstream scientists jumped off a cliff, you would write that it was a good idea, never mind the fact that they died. You refuse to consider other evidence or allow other viewpoints to be discussed. To CarlW: I am not requesting that it be changed to that, merely that the main issues brought up by creationists be addressed. Even David Raup, a PHD and college professor, said: "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated." To WLU: Reliable sources seems to be defined entirely on the basis of whether they agree with you. It is clear that evolution is protected by a conspiracy. Why are you so afraid to allow alternate ideas?

And finally, my question to Wikipedia: Do we seek the truth, as shown to us by logic and the evidence and expounded upon by arguments, or do we seek the opinion of the majority, whether they are right or not?Lordofthemarsh (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here but us ghosts! I might have more sympathy with your position than you might imagine, lordofthemarsh, for example I think paleontology as a science has problems, including being subject to being hoaxed, piltdown man hoax being notorious, and more recently the field got hoaxed by some Chinese "fossils" purporting to be a rare transitional form for a bird/dinosaur link (it was written up in National Geographic ... treated as authentic!). A#1 the inability to get DNA from the fossils is a real shortcoming. Nonetheless, I would want to see you specifically say what portion of the article should be changed to what. Carlw4514 (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"And finally, my question to Wikipedia: Do we seek the truth, as shown to us by logic and the evidence and expounded upon by arguments, or do we seek the opinion of the majority, whether they are right or not?" - Neither. Per Wikipedia policy, what we seek is the opinion of the majority of experts in the field, as recorded in peer-reviewed scientific publications. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine "the truth," as though our editors were somehow smarter than the entire rest of the world; rather, it is Wikipedia's job to report on the scientific consensus where it exists within peer-reviewed literature, and report on scientific controversies where they exist within peer-reviewed literature. -Silence (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wikipedia does not seek truth, only verifiability, so take your truth to conservapedia. People who do seek truth here often get blocked. Bring up reliable sources, or leave, because continuing this discussion is a waste of time. Read the policies and pages you have been referred to before attempting to counter-argue. And if you'd read the NPOV FAQ, you'd have realized that neutral does not mean we have to discuss every crackpot, value-less, non-empirical ridiculous theory. If 90% of the scientists jumped off a cliff, hopefully the remaining 10% would continue their evidence-based approach rather than believing what a 2000 year old book said, just 'cause it's old.
Regards Piltdown, it weren't the creationists who discovered it was false. It was the scientists. The only thing that has come out of creationist involvement in evolution is quote mining; I've never seen their efforts result in a more solid hypothesis or disprove any of the assumptions of evolution, though they are quite good at ignoring their critics. Every single creationist argument I've ever seen on wikipedia has been dealt with already, and can all be found here. What other red herrings you gonna bring up, abiogenesis? Information theory? Complexity? Tautology? Peppered moths?
Your comments make it very obvious that you have not read any of the pages or policies you've been referred to, and there's no point discussing until you do. WLU (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to wit, archeoraptor Carlw4514 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
more scandals: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-03-21-hobbit-usat_x.htm http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2639 Anyway, I guess maybe there is room for another topic at paleontology about a history of hoaxes and scandals? ... but not here in this article. So if anything in the article is to be changed, it won't be suggested by me. Definitely seems that "evolution of the horse" has become a focus for dissenters to the teaching of evolution and I would advise contributors to be aware of that. I have made my point that the heading and the first image are juxtapositioned in a manner I think is a mistake, on the basis of the sensitivity of the subject, but I will not personally try to change that. Carlw4514 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, falsification occurs in paleontology just like other scientific fields, but it is the scientists who discover these frauds, not creationists. The hobbit problem isn't one of falsification, it's that the bones being broken made it virtually impossible to work with them to determine if they're a new species of homo or a subspecies of homo sapien. Though the idea of a list of evolutionary frauds isn't a bad idea. I'd say the horse has been focussed on because of the potential for quote mining based on some comments made by Neil Elridge (?). All teaching techniques are by necessity far simpler than what's actually happening - think of the common perception of an electron as a little ball whizzing around the nucleus, when it's more like a probability field. Simplification in teaching is the norm because the specifics of the cutting edge of research requires to much foreknowledge on the part of the audience. WLU (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, not here[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No support for racial memory of horses by native americans[edit]

I've added a not-in-source tag to the first paragraph of the article's "Return to the Americas" section. The referenced source doesn't claim that the natives had any race memory of the extinct horses of the Americas. The notion of race memory seems out of place in what is otherwise a scientifically themed article. The source also doesn't claim that any tribes had legends that the "the grass remembered them." It merely uses this as a poetic way of saying that the Americas were an ideal environment for the returning horses. Kommers (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. While put poetically in that source, there are other sources for this, but in print, and I will have to do some digging to find them. The point is that there is also the theory that human hunting contributed to the demise of the horse in the Americas, and hence racial memory may be possible. But if you would be so kind as to allow me a while to do the research, several other WPEQ brushfires are ahead of this one. (smile) Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the extinction of the NA horses was due to hunting. I'd be surprised, but not dumbfounded, if the natives still had legends of horses after so many thousands of years. I'd be extremely skeptical of any genetic memory of horses in NA natives. I would be very surprised to find modern scientists supporting the notion of genetic memory. This is an article on evolution, and I don't think there is much (or any) support in current evolutionary theory for the imprinting of one generation's memories into the genes passed to the next generation. For this reason I think it's important to accurately source this claim if it remains in the article. It's important for the readers to know whether this comes from recent research or from a non scientist or a scientist from a century ago. Kommers (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to verify my own "ancestral memory." LOL! The info I recall comes from the "Seeds of Change" materials the Smithsonian put out during the Columbus Quincentennial in 1992. They are buried, probably somewhere in my garage =:-O Once I find that stuff, I can look at its sources, see what's science and what's myth, and rephrase or whatever if needed. I also have a memory of a Native American speaker talking about this at some conference too, but again, whether it was in the realm of myth or legend or genetic memory...these folks also have flood stories consistent with some Ice Age events in the Northwestern United States, so I cannot discount it. As far as the hunting bit, though, I believe that is footnoted here already -- to a different article...and if not, let me know and I can get the footnote out of another article that has it. Anyway, if I don't get to this eventually, give me a shout and I'll put other brushfires aside in favor of this one... Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the term "folk memory" is preferred today. But they did have stories of animals resembling elephants in North America. Then there are things like the biblical paradise and Göbekli Tepe... suffice to say that - at least with the benefit of hindsight -, folk memory is often amazingly accurate for 10.000 years.
"I don't think there is much (or any) support in current evolutionary theory for the imprinting of one generation's memories into the genes passed to the next generation" - there is by now support for a lot of things being passed on by imprinting (eating habits and so on), but not memories. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how that should work in any case. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folk memory works for me. I'm not arguing for memes or genetic imprinting. Basically, I need to dig up some sources to back the old Indian tales of the "sacred dog" and such, the "grass remembered them" thing...I have other fish to fry at the moment, but when time permits, I'll see what I can dig up. The flood stories in Native American myth, at least in the Pacific Northwest, can be closely tied to a bonafide geologic event at the end of the Ice Age (draining of geologic "Lake Missoula", resulting in weeks on end of flooding), so "remembering" that there were things here like Mammoths and Horses isn't all that farfetched. Bigfoot, on the other hand...well, no! (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool phylogeny diagram and stuff[edit]

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)[reply]

Evolution of the ... what?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I moved the "Four foundations" content to Talk:Domestication of the horse. --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

For consistency with articles like "evolution of mammals", "evolution of dinosaurs", and "evolution of cetaceans", the name of the article should be "evolution of horses". —Lowellian (reply) 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just go for something sensible like Evolution of Equids (Horse species)? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straight-Line Evolution[edit]

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)[reply]

What remains is just one twig from a complex tree, most of whose branches died off. We do have a kinda 'straight-line' from the roots to our current twig-tip, but that's ignoring all the other branches which failed. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyracotherium[edit]

Hyracotherium appears to have been reclassified as a palaeothere, and this is not reflected in this article, which is therefore outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eohippus has been split from Hyracotherium again, so all Wiki horse articles need to reflect this (as in, they should refer to Eohippus, not Hyracotherium, as an early horse). FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the claim that Hyracotherium vassacciense is a species of Eohippus. If so, why isn't it called Eohippus vassacciense? And if the image labelled Hyracotherium really is of Eohippus (as it apparently is) shouldn't there be either some sort of explanation, or a change to the image? I also note that the articles on these two genera not only state that they are distinct (although not formerly considered so) but that they don't even belong to the same family - one is a palaeotheriid, the other an equid. If they do belong to separate families, how can they be the same genus, or is one of the other articles wrong? Anaxial (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eohippus vassacciense is a junior synonym of Eohippus validus. And yes, the image should preferably not have any caption on itself, since taxonomy changes all the time. And what article states the two are in the same genus, by the way? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this article - by using the junior synonym it implies they're the same thing (which, as we both apparently agree, they aren't). I'd recommend re-phrasing the sentence to refer to E. validus if that's the current name. It can only cause confusion, otherwise. Anaxial (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I stated above, many articles need to be updated according to this. And the valid species name is E. angustidens, my mistake.

Size[edit]

Per the citation [1] 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)[reply]

  1. ^ Legendre, Serge (1989). Les communautés de mammifères du Paléogène (Eocène supérieur et Oligocène) d'Europe occidentale : structures, milieux et évolution. München: F. Pfeil. p. 110. ISBN 9783923871353.

Merge discussion[edit]

I have proposed that Four Foundations theory be merged into this article. However, I'm not sure how much actual material needs to be salvaged from there, as the theory appears to be almost entirely non-notable, if not entirely non-existent. A google books search for "four foundations theory" horse gets exactly one hit, to a "book" which is actually a compilation of articles from ... Wikipedia. Searching one of the sources for the article, Bennett's Conquerors, for the string "four foundations" gives no result. Did this theory in fact ever exist, or is it a figment of some fanciful wikipedian's imagination? The terms "forest horse", "diluvial horse" and "tarpan" together get a few google books hits, almost all to works by Edwin Hartley Edwards. Could they in fact be a figment of his fanciful imagination? Is there even one scholarly source for any of this stuff? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an evolutionary theory, it was a wild horse theory. But because it is an old theory, since superceded (not "fictitious," merely a disproven hypothesis), it probably is best to remain in its own article where it can be explained to those who still read books and web sites that discuss it variants. It definitely was never postulated as an evolutionary theory, merely subtypes of equus ferus caballus, not even separate subspecies. No sense cluttering this article with it. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, then, that species and subspecies such as Equus ferus silvaticus, Equus ferus germanicus and Equus agilis were never postulated? If so, they should be removed from that article forthwith. Actually, I think everything should be removed from that article, so I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia has no place for fringe minority theories: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." (J. Wales)
Btw, I'm curious to know where you are reading all this stuff: I continue to be unable to find one reliable source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. This discussion probably needs to go to that article and not hijack this one, but I'll reply here for now. I'm not discussing ANY recognized subSPECIES; this is not really an evolution topic -- the multiple foundations hypothesis/theory/concept (various works postulate four to seven as a rule) proposed that there were multiple wild (equus ferus), undomesticated subTYPES within equus ferus that gave rise to the different body types of modern breeds prior to domestication; this theory in opposition to those who believed that all phenotype variation of body type occurred after domestication as a result of human intervention. (Other theories, now also outdated, placed the wild ancestor as the Tarpan or or the Przewalski's horse) In reality, the truth is in the middle -- DNA evidence now shows that there were extremely few stallions initially domesticated, and these horses and their descendants were bred to multiple populations of local (still "wild") mares. Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The four foundations theory and the hypothetical subspecies that would go with it have nothing to do with reality. It was an short-lived idea that was abandoned rather quickly once molecular data showed that those subspecies don't exist and that the breeds do not make nice clusters as suggested. So, to merge that with an evolution article is a major mismatch. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epihippus - laking information and possible mistake[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion on title of taxon evolution pages[edit]

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)[reply]

Suggestions to Add?[edit]

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)Grumblis.6[reply]

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)[reply]

Sloped terrain[edit]

>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)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

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)[reply]

Which aspects are inappropriately US-centric?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I concur with @WolfmanSF: and @Aquillion:, 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. @RichardWeiss:--Kevmin § 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an attempt to claim pre-Columbian Holocene horses[edit]

This might help.[1] Doug Weller talk 16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of fingers[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New article about the evolution of the modern horse[edit]

Has this article been considered? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient DNA Reveals How the Ancestors of Modern Horses Migrated[edit]

See this. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_of_the_horse&oldid=1218492556"