Talk:Tarpan

Equine Mid‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Extinction Mid‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

IUCN Link: Equus ferus

The links had been removed, because it was about the Przewalski horse subspecies. But that is not true. It is about all Eurasian wild horses, the Przewalski horse is also mentioned, and linked to the Przewalski subspecies page on the IUCN red list. See text from that link: "This assessment is for the wild horse, not for the domesticated horse or any of its feral populations. Of the three subspecies that lived in historical times (since 1500 AD) two are Extinct while the third survives only in captivity or as highly managed introduced or reintroduced populations. Wild animals survived in eastern Europe (Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and Germany) through the eighteenth century, with the last wild individuals killed in 1814 (Novak 1999). The subspecies, known as the Plains Tarpan, lived on the steppes of southern Russia and the Ukraine. Its disappearance is attributed to interbreeding with domestic horses; hunting by people for sport and to protect their mares and forage; and the rapid settlement and cultivation of the steppes in the ninereenth century (Novak 1999). The last known wild individual died in Ukraine in 1879 (Novak 1999). Przewalski's Horse (E. ferus przewalskii) is the only subspecies still extant, but only as 'captive' populations. The last know sighting of animals in the wild was made in 1969 in Mongolia. All subsequent expenditions to find animals in both Mongolia and China have failed to find any evidence for their continued survival in the wild. For further details, see the account for this subspecies." Wild Horse (text from this link): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Equus ferus Przewalski Horse: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Equus ferus ssp. przewalskii Pmaas 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the name

ru:Тарпан gives a Turkic etymology of the name, unfortunately without reference. I can imagine a meaning of "flying forward", but I have more difficulty believing the term means "to be born in full gallop", that sounds a little too picturesquely Sapir-Whorfish. There is also an anecdote about Tarpan-hunting I would like to quote here, but unfortunately also given without source. dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Russian sites give the name as meaning "carry itself galloping at top speed" or "fly forward". However, when checking various forms of these words and synonyms in Kirgiz, Kazakh and Turkish dictionaries, there is nothing like tarpan. It is true that Vasmer gives two references to different authors who define tarpan as meaning "wild horse" but that doesn't sound like an etymology. In checking various other Russian language sites for "tarpan" and "Kyrgyz" I came across descriptions of beating the two front hooves like a camel (Bactrian). Then I came across the words tarpu and tarpa in Kyrgyz dictionaries in phrases about beating. Russians will now be thinking about the russian word "tolpa" and wondering if there is a connection. I also followed up in a Turkish dictionary and came across two words "darbe" and "darp" referring to "beat. Given that Turkic languages like to make nouns by adding -(vowel)n to the end of a word, it seems that Tarpan means "one who beats".

Not sure what to do now. Given the widespread belief that it means "wild horse" in Kyrgyz even though that work is "takhi", I'm not sure that we will be able to find an English language reference. Given that Russian language sources are closer, perhaps someone with better Russian than me could edit the Russian language article with a good reference and then we could lean on that as the authority. Wavetossed (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tarpan's closest living relative

The tarpan article has this to say:

"The Hucul pony living in the Carpathian mountains is arguably the most direct descendant of the Tarpan."

But the article on horse says:

"The Wild Polish Horse or Konik more closely resembles the tarpan than any other living horse."

Which is right? Or is that point disputed? If anyone actually knows, or at least knows enough to know where to look, a little reconciliatory research could be in order.

Both can be right. Being the most direct descendant does not mean it has to resemble the tarpan the most. The Konik does resemble in appearance the Tarpan the most. But (and I don't know enough on this breed) the Hucul pony might be genetically more pure and therefor the most direct descendant. As Koniks are tarpans' descendants crossbred with other breeds, while the text on the Hucul pony says they are only rarely cross-bred with domestic horses. Besides that, the taxonomy of the horse subspecies is still not completely clear. There is still need for a lot of (genetic) research, including for horse breeds like the Konik, Hucul pony, Exmoor Pony, Sorraia, etc. Peter Maas 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hucul theory" is given without source and reason or evidence. What strikes me is the resemblance of the physical features, esp. the head, of the "only one" photograph with those of "Koniks" I have seen repeatedly over a number of years. That is the most convincing piece of evidnece I have come across so far.

However, microtaxonomy is a tricky field (I remember reading a PhD thesis on conservation genetics years ago, dealing with North African Wild Sheep [what is their name again in English ?] which warned against jumping to conclusions, so I am cautious). Even if now - long after they are gone - one usually distinguishes two subspecies of tarpans, and three of the Eurasian wild horse in historical times, I feel that is an oversimplification: how do sothern and western Europe fit into the picture, what degrees of anthropogenic gene flow do we have to count with since Antiquity, what regional populations should be recognozed at what times, to what degree do physical and genetic differences match etc. ?

The Journal "Proceedings Nat. Acad. Sc." had an interesting article years ago on the genetic genealogical tree of extant horse breeds, which showed a complicated picture...

Hippophile regards, Sophophilos: 147.142.186.54 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is simple, footnotes are good. Until then, everyone is just putting forth opinions! (smile). Basically, just remember to use proper wikiquette in tagging material you question, and remember the pillar of wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Montanabw^(talk) 19:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article: http://www.rac.uab.cat/bibliografia/articles/AHP/JEVS3.pdf describes genetic research on several types of horses, establishing their relationship to each other. It was found that of all the breeds used in this research Przewalski's horse was (by far) the most closely related to the tarpan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.109.82 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article was published in 1995, it is outdated and has been superseded by better studies. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Species vs breed

The opening para says Tarpan was a species, but the (very informative) taxonomy section describes it as being (in fact, if not by naming convention) a breed of horse. By the definition in species it sure looks like a breed. Perhaps we should use a more generic turn of phrase than the meaning-laden "species" in the opening para. Perhaps we should change "The last specimen of this species died" to "The last tarpan died", or something like that? (note: I'm not proposing we get into the breed/species matter in the opening paragraph, that would just be clunky and uninformative). Darryl Revok 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of avoiding the entire controversy. If you can do a smooth rewrite to clean it up in that respect, go for it! Montanabw 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction date

Why does it say that the last specimen died in 1918 or 1919 when the taxobox says it became extinct in 1879? ??????? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The species would be extinct when there was no chance for breeding, even if a surviving specimen remained alive. Do horses live forty years? Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Back-breeding" projects

I just changed the order in which the two projects appeared in the article. Not "knowing" which of the two is or was "better", and not interested in such judgement (at least not here and noew), it is obvious that the Heck project should be listed first for reasons of alphabetic and esp. chronological order (provided the dates given in the respective WP articles are accurate). 147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

This page was one of the many pages moved by Una unilaterally like more cases, in order to change policy. Tarpan is very clearly the primary topic, and this highly controversial move should have been discussed. If this discussion does not generate consensus to leave it here, it should be moved back as a controversial move unapproved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this requested move is highly controversial, then all the relevant WikiProjects should be notified. Kim, have you done that? --Una Smith (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, did YOU notify the relevant projects BEFORE moving this? Where is the consensus for the move demonstrated prior to the move? You can't brush away objections to your unilateral actions by suggestions that other people need to do work you should have done. You need to stop unilaterally doing things, period, until it's clear that you almost always would have had consensus for it. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think the move was controversial. --Una Smith (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, you clearly thought wrong. As such, I request that from now on you assume all moves you would like to make are potentially controversial, and go through WP:RM, since the criteria you use to make this determination is quite apparently woefully inadequate. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a somewhat blunt way of putting it. But I tend to agree... something is off in your "should I move this?" evaluation process, Una. Sometimes you get it right, but often, you do not and then there is a big mess to clean up. Perhaps moving things really isn't where you should be spending any of your time, Una. Instead perhaps there are other more productive uses? ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had notified the wikiproject listed at this talk page. I have now notified some additional iwkiprojects (mamals and extinction). Feel free to expand on that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved back, per the fairly obvious consensus. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Move back. Nominator. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move back - No end runs around policy, no unilateral moves, no moves without sufficient discussion. Policy is clear on this matter. Una to fix any problems created by the move as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move back *Sigh* --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move back simply to stop the usual end runs around policy via unilateral moves and anything but discussing the policy that User:Una Smith is attempting to implement as her singular vision for Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here Wikipedia page names of extinct species commonly use the scientific name, and the best (only?) reason offered so far to move the page is an ad hominem (and untrue). --Una Smith (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argument is that it is a primary topic, and as such an highly controversial move. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read a few more reliable sources about "tarpan", I think Wikipedia readers will be better served if this article remains at Equus ferus ferus. Tarpan (disambiguation) illustrates why: the name "tarpan" is ambiguous. --Una Smith (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; species extinct since 1600 do have common names, tendency to use scientific names applies generally to prehistoric species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think on reflection I'll support a move back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here: Use of the scientific name removes any scope for ambiguity. It doesn't make it any harder to find as the common name can redirect here. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~But it doesn't redirect here: the common name points at an unconvincing dab page. Readers would have to know which scientific name they want. Kanguole (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~ It does now. Kanguole (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move back: the new Tarpan (disambiguation) page doesn't make a case that any of the other items are normally called "Tarpan", except possibly the aircraft (in Polish aviation circles). Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kanguole (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move back. As Sabine's Sunbird says, post-1600 extinctions are at the common name. I suppose we should also move Thylacine to Thylacinus cynocephalus because there are other extinct thylacines? Or perhaps Atlas Bear should be at Ursus arctos crowtheri. The horse is easily the most common use for "Tarpan". Frickeg (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frickeg, neither of these examples has an associated dab page. Could you explain how they relate to the problem here? --Una Smith (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, your argument is that, as an extinct species, it is necessary to have the article at a scientific name. As this is a subspecies extinct since 1600, this does not apply, and I cited two other examples of species/subspecies extinct during that period as examples. "Tarpan" is definitely most commonly used for this subspecies, and thus the disambiguation page would be perfectly fine linked from the top of the article. (For other uses, see Tarpan (disambiguation).) The Atlas Bear example was perhaps not the best, but I think the thylacine is relevant, as it could be argued that "Thylacine" is applicable to the entire family Thylacinidae. Frickeg (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move back and fix the new disambiguation page to remove OR as well. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move back Yet another case where Una ignores naming policy, convention and guidelines, in particular WP:PRIMARYTOPIC [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

As is proper, I disregard the ad hominem arguments offered here by some editors. However, I am persuaded by the arguments to the point, so I have moved the disambiguation page to Tarpan (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una: There were no ad hominums offered by editors other than yourself, in my view. Nonetheless, thank you for honoring consensus, Una. We all of course expect no less, but it's worth thanking you anyway. In future, if you think there is any chance at all that a move might be remotely controversial, play it safe and seek consensus first. It will decrease the amount of ill will directed at you, significantly. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Move back simply to stop the usual end runs around policy", above, is an argument ad hominem: it addresses another editor's presumed intent, rather than the merits of the proposal at hand. Meta-discussion of such purported "end runs around policy" can be found on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. --Una Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to do it, it will remain necessary to alert other editors of Wikipedia of your intent to avoid a meta-discussion of the change you are implementing on Wikipedia. Go ahead and post your meta-discussion of your proposed policy change to make all of Wikipedia redirects and the warnings to other editors will become unnecessary. Meta-discussion of such end runs around policy should be found somewhere, but they're not, because you don't intend to discuss and attempt to gain consensus for your policy changes.--KP Botany (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back, per the very overwhelming consensus above. Una Smith, please do not make moves that are clearly against consensus. Prodego ^talk 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cave paintings

Cave painting at Lascaux. Dun is thought to be a primitive trait.

The sentence about cave paintings showing Equus ferus ferus does not have an adequate source. This is important because most cave paintings of horses that are in color show dun, not grullo horses; also, most cave paintings are not adequate to distinguish between Equus ferus ferus ~~(this article)~~ and Equus ferus przewalskii. --Una Smith (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other painting could also be a mutation of the dun gene rather than the Agouti gene... You know, a bay ;) Pitke (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several kinds of horses are known from cave paintings (even with different kinds depicted in the same caves), no one has claimed all were Tarpans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, so the point is that the one on the right looks way more like a Tarpan than the one on the left, so shouldn't it be used in the article? To my knowledge, only the grey ones have been identified as tarpans by any authors. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way anyone could know, as there was about 20,000 years between the paintings and the last known Tarpan that died in a zoo. So far those paintings have been claimed to be the ancestors of every horse breed that exists today in the region! (sighing) Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with calling these individuals tarpans. Based on genetic data, there has been only one undomesticated subspecies in Europe, and that is then effectively the Tarpan. DNA analysis has now confirmed the pressence of the three colors depicted in the cave paintings. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, what's the name of the paper on the colours? FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/46/18626 -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, though, is that these ancient cave paintings could also have been of the ancestor of the domesticated horse -- the aficionados of modern domesticated breeds often make such claims (they are probably at least partly wrong as they all claim "pure" unbroken lineage too, but that's a different issue). Thus, all we know is that they most likely were images of horses that lived in the area, whether the Tarpan or another subspecies is speculative, as there is no horse DNA to be found in art! And the dun coloration is clearly one of the genes that is a wildtype coloring, but it also exists in modern domesticated animals as well as the remaining genetically wild ones. Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know when domestication took place and where. We know what colors the horses present in that time had. We know that domesticated horses only arrived in Europe long after those cave paintings were made. Really, the horses there are Equus ferus ferus.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These cave paintings are from the pleistocene, when Europe was a steppe-like habitat. The left picture is very likely to show a przewalski's horse, which may have been present in europe during that time. Or at least, similar forms. Pruvost et al. also describe that one from Lascaux as being of the przewalski phenotype. The Tarpan refers to the Holocene type in Europe, and there likely have been more than one type during the pleistocene. I think that the right one would be better suited for the article, mainly because it does not look like a przewalski but like a different type of horse. Concerning the colour of the right one; the upper red horse definitely looks like bay to me, while the lower one may be a grullo. -- DFoidl (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus

No doubt naively, I had expected the article to stay where I moved it, and rewrote the taxonomy section accordingly. But in rewriting it, I realized that the taxonomy applies to Equus ferus ferus, not to Tarpan (whatever that may be). I have tried to make this clear, in splitting the two. I know I am not being a compliant editor here, but my experience with WP:EQ has been that when I am compliant, I am simply ignored. ---- Una Smith

Nice original research here. Before making such a massive change, I suggest that you first discuss these before implementing these. If you want to make a point because you could not have it your way, you made it, so please undo this and discuss it first. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I will revert your edits so we can discuss them first here.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kim, discussing my contributions does not require first reverting them. Do you have any substantive objections to them? --Una Smith (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The versions of Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus prior to Kim's reverts are here and here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I normally disagree with Una (sometimes to the point that I fear it is knee-jerk), but in this case, based on my understanding of the basis of the name Equus ferus, I agree with her that its application to the Tarpan is conjecture—widely-held conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless. I think a split is a reasonable way of handling this, but I'm open to any other way that makes it clear.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, descriptions are fine as a holotype for species described before 1931 (see The Code, 72.5.1. an animal, or any part of an animal, or an example of the fossilized work of an animal, or of the work of an extant animal if the name based on it was established before 1931;) and as such, Tarpan is valid for Equus ferus ferus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted everything because it was a major change, not discussed, unreferenced and as far as I can tell, original research. It would be nice to see references backing up that the tarpan is not the valid name for Equus ferus ferus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the European Wild horse skeletons in the museum in Moscow that are generally seen as the last Tarpans are classified as Equus ferus ferus, just like the original description. So, Wikipedia is going to say they are WRONG? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that Equus ferus ferus = Tarpan. So IMHO, speaking as the horse person here (not a taxonomist) they are one and the same. Tarpans were truly "wild" horses that never were successfully domesticated, though they may have been crossbred onto domesticated animals and if they were genetically close enough to have hybrids that were not sterile like mules, it is possible that some modern horses have tarpan ancestry in them somewhere. However, because people think Tarpans are cool and wish they weren't extinct, some modern "bred back" animals get dubbed "Tarpan" as a PR stunt even though they have no direct genetic link to the "real" Tarpan. There is no real ambiguity, though I suppose I could also breed great big iguanas and market them as a dinosaur in a similar fashion. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disentanglement of two issues

Ok, there are two things getting conflated here.

Scientists recognize one single wild horse species in Europe, called Equus ferus ferus, and no other subspecies are recognized in Europe. So, there is ONE single entity we have to deal with, and suggesting that there are maybe multiple because there is only a short description of the holotype, is original research.
Two common names are used for the subspecies, Tarpan and Eurasian wild horse. As far as I can tell, Tarpan has the more common usage of the two, so the valid name for Equus ferus ferus to be under is Tarpan per WP:COMMONAME. We still talk about a single entity here.
Next to that, Tarpan is used for some breed-back horse breeds, and for some other things. Furthermore, tarpan is often used with a qualifier such as breed-back tarpan or "Tarpan" in quotes to indicate it is not the real deal.
For all those breedback species, we have to decide what is the primary topic, which as far as I can tell would be the actual breed names, Konick and Heck.
So, we have a wild species for which its primary name is tarpan, and several breedback species that for PR reasons are also called tarpans, often with such a qualifyer.
The use of google hits in this context is very tricky, as the breed-back breeds will pretty much always refer to the wild Tarpan because of the basic idea that they have bred baclk the tarpan, so you have to check the pages one by one to see whether they use it as the name for the wild tarpan or the breed-back breed.

So, what leaves us that with. A single eurasian wild horse species, named Tarpan and Equus ferus fersu and several breed-back species also called Tarpan for nostalgia and PR reasons (and a few that actually think they have bred back the tarpan). So, does that means Tarpan whould be the disambig page. In my opinion, no, as it has only breed/species for which it is the primary use. That has already be decided above in the move request. Remains that we could argue that Tarpan has to primary uses, but in that case, it should be reslve by makeing Tarpan (wild horse) and Tarpan (breed backs) as that is where we actually disambiguate between.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would treat the putative "wild" tarpans and the bred-back tarpans together, because like the example of Saber-toothed cat, both belong to one and the same folk taxon. "Tarpan" is a common name and refers to a group of animals that might or might not have ever been a clade. From among tarpans (and information about tarpans), several holotypes have been selected. Because we have no evidence that tarpans are a phylogenetic group, it is an error of inference to argue that the scientific names attached to those holotypes encompass all tarpans. --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is only ONE holotype. Equus ferus ferus is a valid taxonomic clade by all scientists that work on it, they consider all european wild horses as to belong to that clade. And the common name for that clade is Tarpan. Your continued unreferenced and therefore till then original research claiming otherwise is not going to change that. Even wehn you would be able to dig up a single 100 year old article that claims this, what you need to show now is references to relative recent literaure that support your pretty wild assertions about two or more species of horse in Europe. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mammal Species of the World,^[1] Equus ferus ferus (MSW calls it Equus caballus ferus) has these synonyms:

Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785
Equus equiferus Pallas, 1811
Equus gmelini Antonius, 1912
Equus tarpan Pidoplichko, 1951

Equus ferus Boddaert and Equus gmelini share a holotype. That holotype is the cursory description by Gmelin of a band of tarpans. I provided reliable sources for both facts here. Equus tarpan is a nomen nudum;^[1] it has no type whatsoever. That leaves only Equus equiferus; its holotype is a synthetic description by Pallas (1811:510) of Russian wild horses (in the folk taxonomy sense) that collectively are red dun and grey dun. That holotype has been "cherry picked" by some authors who assume the red duns are Przewalski's horses and the grey duns are tarpans.^[2] In conclusion, there exist two holotypes pertaining to Equus ferus ferus and there exists no physical specimen with standing in the taxonomy of Equus ferus ferus. None of the illustrations and photographs and museum skeletons of tarpans are type specimens pertinent to Equus ferus ferus. Moreover, MSW notes that Equus ferus Boddaert is preoccupied by Equus asinus ferus Erxleben, 1777, so it cannot be used for putative tarpans. These are facts. Now, can I get on with untangling the taxonomy on these articles without being subjected to further disruptive reverts? --Una Smith (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Mammal Species of the World: Equus caballus ferus
^ Dr Colin P. Groves. "The Przewalski Horse: Morphology, Habitat and Taxonomy".

One, the holotype of a synonym is not available as a holotype for the species it is synomized with. Two, there is a valid holotype for the Equus ferus ferus, and whether there is a actuall specimen or not is irrelevant, it is still the holotype. And scientists come to the conclusion, contrary to you, that all European horses belong to one single taxon. The preoccupation of Equus ferus is irrelevant, as it "can ... be regarded as a nomen oblitum."see same article, which is correct as the name has not been used for a long time, see the code for how to deal with those. So, no, you cannot continue to push your POV and original research on this article. till you actually show that you have a point. Untill now, I have seen assertions, misrepresentations of facts, misunderstanding of how nomenclature and taxonomy works, but not solid reason based on solid evidence that there is actually an issue here that needs to be rewsolved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands, which is that all of these synonyms lack a physical specimen attached to it. Usually a holotype is a physical specimen that can be compared to other specimens. The descriptions are valid holotypes, but what they define is vague: horse or ass, grullo or dun. Who knows what the authors saw? For the moment, let us assume they saw a wild species, true tarpans. Nonetheless, their descriptions are not sufficient to distinguish between true tarpans and domestic horses. --Una Smith (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in an earlier post, it is irrelevant whether there is a physical specimen attached to it. Please, read the relevant literature about taxonomy and nomenclature. Yes, the description can be vague, but as long as it contains relevant characteristics, there is not a problem. Based on the current available evidence, Equus ferus ferus is accepted as a valid species of wild horse, and all european wild horses are in that subspecies. That covers all individuals that are called tarpans. And yes, the problem that some of those might be crosses with domestic horses is known. However, that does not invalidate that Tarpan is the valid name for Equus ferus ferus and mistakenly have been used to indicate some feral horses. When that is discovered, the individual will be reclassified to Domestic horse and the problem is solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary usage question

Out of curiosity what are the assertions that Tarpan=Equus ferus ferus based from? I just typed "Tarpan" into google and the first 10 links pan out as such (ignoring wikipedia/wikicommons and duplicates of sites):

Tarpan/Heck/Konik are alive/same animal/same name [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Tarpan/Heck/Konik are NOT alive/the same animal/same name[7][8][9]
Redirects to Przewalski's Horse [10]

Comments on the links found. Montanabw asserts that the connection between the term "Tarpan" and the bred back horses is not a major aspect. However from the results of my quick informal search ~2/3 of the links treat the two as one and the same. many mention that "wild" Tarpan went extinct in the 1800 but go on to treat Heck & Konik breeds under the same name and with descriptions ranging from "similar to" to "the same as" when equating E f. ferus to the breeds. Of the sites that treat the "Tarpan" as extinct 2 mention the Heck & Konik breeds. One, link 8, states its not correct to refer to the breeds as "Tarpan". One, Link 7, talks about the breeds without comment on how to refer to them. And one, link 9, Doesn't mention them at all. (and lists the Trarpan as "Equus caballus gmelini" showing how outdated it is!). The last link, link 10 (and link 11), simply states "See: Przewalski's Horse". Thus it is clearly NOT a simple issue.

Another important aspect is the statement that keep resurfacing is that "Tarpan" is THE official name for the subspecies. It has been stated that MSW3 is the official source for WP:Mammals for Common names. The MSW3 page on "Equus caballus ferus", which as was noted earlier hasn't been updated since 2002, does NOT list ANY common name for the taxon.

Also brought up in the first page of the search were two MORE usages of the word "Tarpan": here Apparently a Hindu ritual? and here UK plumbing and heating.

I think that while not a option liked by some this article if it is going to be about E. f. ferus is would be best have it located at Equus ferus ferus. The page titled "Tarpan" should be used as a disambiguation page set up ~~similar to the one used for USS Enterprise~~ as there are multiple different things both living and not that people may be looking for when they search for "Tarpan".--Kevmin (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Actually a better response to the proliferation of the term would be the Saber-tooth cat solution. A page about the term with explanations and links to the various articles--Kevmin (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have one response this this generally. if we would always just bluntly take what the majority (in whatever way we want to measure it) thinks is right, evolution would be listed as invalid, unsubstantiated etc, and creationism would be listed as real. Yes, Tarpan is used for different breeds, because of the nostalgia related to having a "WILD Horse", but does that mean wikipedia has to bow to that just because such a group exists? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a straw man argument as the debate is over the validity of evolution as a theory. I was asking who is being referenced when the statement "Tarpan" is the official common name for E. F. ferus". The official source for WP:Mammals does not list any common names for the subspecies so where is the statement coming from?--Kevmin (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The true Tarpan is extinct. Some people have "bred back" a bunch of coarse, dun-colored ponies until they look kind of like a Tarpan and are now calling them "Tarpans" to help promote them. I'm not sure if this fully explains things, but I happen to recall directly reading in the horse magazines of the time when some of the first "bred back" so-called "tarpans" were introduced to the public, and it was in the 1970's. Given that the last "real" Tarpan died in a zoo in the 1800s, the species is obviously extinct. If you skim Heck horse, you will get the general history of the so-called modern "Tarpan," which is, as Kim points out, a romantic PR name. In fact, the aficionados of this creature point out how nice and gentle it is! But the real Tarpan was WILD and never domesticated! It's sort of like comparing a wolf and a wolfhound... I hope this clears things up. A dab to Heck Horse would solve the entire ambiguity problem. Montanabw^(talk) 07:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not the point and not answering the questions posed. I fully agree that the "bred "back"" breeds are NOT real E. f. ferus. Now who are is the authority being cited for the use of Tarpan as the name for E. f. ferus? and what make having this page NOT a disambiguation page better considering the myriad misuses and completely unrelated uses of the term "Tarpan" which are present currently. Why shouldn't a page along the lines of Saber-toothed cat be employed here to inform people and direct them to the place they are actually looking for.--Kevmin (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well at least we have agreement on one point (bred back "tarpans", which also include the Konik as well as the Heck horse, by the way are not real Tarpans). As for the saber toothed cat solution, there is far less ambiguity here than there. I'll leave it to Kim and others to discuss the speciation and taxonomy details, but there are basically two animals, maybe three that get called "tarpan," the real, but extinct one and the Promotional lingo for the bred back ones. The wiki article on the Kiang makes an unsourced comment that it might sometimes be called a tarpan, but like so many things on wiki, who knows where that came from, and even if true, it doesn't mean it's correct. (I mean some people call Alzheimer's disease "Oldtimer's disease" -- which doesn't make it correct terminology, not matter how common.) Everything else getting raised here is a red herring or OR, or theory. Not sure this is an answer, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, Ummmm, Nooooo......YOu will notic I used very specific wording. The "..."bred "back"" breeds are NOT real E. f. ferus." While I agreed with you in principle about the bred back, I did not say I was in anyway convinced of the usage of the term "Tarpan" for E. f. ferus.--Kevmin (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, as I understand him Kevmin does not agree with you. Furthermore, no issue that I have raised here is original research. --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, except for assertions of some wikipedia editors, I have not seen any references to reliable sources that actually say that not all European wild horses are tarpans, the issue raised here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over with my question again! First and foremost! I am not nor have I at any point made the assertion that there were several species of Extinct horse being represented as the same speies E. f. Ferus!!! My concerns are about the assertion that at this point in time "Tarpan" correct common name by dint of WP:COMMONAME. To this I have pointed out the usage of the name for other things is seeming to be wide spread. Two to four OTHER horse breeds from what I am finding have been and still are being referred to as "Tarpan": Konik, Heck horse, The Hegardt or Stroebel's horse, and Przewalski's Horse. There are other things with the name "Tarpan": Tarpan Honker, PZL M-4 Tarpan, The [Hindu water offering for the dead, the here UK Plumbing company, the [www.tarpanstudios.com/ San Francisco recording studio] . Also, looking at the spelling ability on this talk page (me included), I will also include: TBF Avenger aka the Grumman Tarpon, Tarpon the fish, Rambler Tarpon the concept car, USS Tarpon the US Sub, and USS Tarpon (SS-175) a second US sub all easy to end up here due to a single letter difference! Are we assuming that ALL who are interested in finding out what a "Tarpan/Tarpon" is will know how to spell it? Considering the amount of other things with the same or EXTREMELY similar names I think it is a rather extraordinary claim to make that E. f. ferus is the only/most searched for meaning of the term "Tarpan". In science etraordinary claims require extrordinary proof. So far the defence of the useage of "Tarpan" has been to dismiss the wrong uses of the word for other breeds without acknowledging the LARGE amount of misinformation present available to the public (web,publication etc..) put out by supporters of those breeds; to not even recognize other uses of hte term or to call them OR, even though I have provided link showing the usage of the term. and assert that "Tarpan" is the "common name without providing supporting evidence.

I think there IS plenty of proof that the term "Tarpan" is a widely used and misused term for which an explanation of more then just a hatnote or one sentence is needed. I say this is a time when a page similar to Saber-tooth cat is appropriate for adressing the multiple and varied uses of the name.--Kevmin (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry kevmin, it was posted under a specific header, so I assumed that you primarily had that in mind. But now I see that you want to reopen the discussion about primary use, as was done above when discussing whether tarpan should remain a disambig page. Tarpan for breeds is used as an alternative, and most references to those breeds use thos actual names. For the wild horse to the contrary, Tarpan is the primary use. So, I think it is fair to see which of the usages of tarpan as the main namegiver, tarpan is used for the most, and that is for Equus ferus ferus. Maybe that Tarpan in google count hits is used more for some of the breeds, but I think they are less used for those than the actual names of the breeds. For that reason, I do not see why th9is page should become a disambig page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask what is this assertion "So, I think it is fair to see which of the usages of tarpan as the main namegiver, tarpan is used for the most, and that is for Equus ferus ferus" is based from. From what I can see MANY sites use the term from both the extinct and bred back horses. Also you are still not addressing the issue of the myraid OTHER uses of the word "Tarpan" and the issue of the one vowel different "Tarpon"--Kevmin (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we come full circle to why I moved the article to Equus ferus ferus and made Tarpan a disambiguation page. Alternatively, Tarpan could be an article about the folk taxon "tarpan": historical free-roaming, typically grullo equines in central Europe that might have been wildlife and not feral, also certain modern horse breeds reputed to derive from these historical equines. Those are the two reasonable choices: dab page, with each equine usage in a separate article; or folk taxon with all equine usages combined. I thank Kevmin for drawing my attention to folk taxon articles such as saber-toothed cat. --Una Smith (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you split the common name from the scientific name, which is incorrect. if there is sufficient argument to disambiguate Tarpan, the page should be moved to Tarpan (wild horse). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the two is incorrect only if they are one and the same. Unfortunately neither Equus ferus ferus nor "tarpan" is described well enough that a reasonable observer can say they are one and the same. Also, splitting the common name from the scientific name is standard practice on Wikipedia when dealing with folk taxa such as "tarpan". --Una Smith (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una states: Splitting the two is incorrect only if they are one and the same. Exactly, they are the same, so there is no reason to split. That the description is not to your liking does not invalidate that all European wild horses are considered of a single subspecies, and that the valid name for that subspecies is tarpan. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, do you have a reliable source providing evidence that they are one and the same? --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Tatjana Kavar and Peter Dovč (2008) Domestication of the horse: Genetic relationships between domestic and wild horses. Livestock Science 116(1): 1-14 doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.03.002 and Melinda A. Zeder (2006) Documenting Domestication ISBN 0520246381 [11]. I will request the Olsen book to be delivered from the library. In short, each of them calls all Equus ferus ferus Tarpans. Which is the issue at hand. We know already that some other horses are called Tarpan (Heck and Konik) and that some might have confused wild horses with feral horses, but that does not invalidate that the correct name for Equus ferus ferus is Tarpan. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevmin, of the various topics for which Tarpan is the primary use (Wild horse, car etc), and not secondary use (breed backs), which one is the primary topic it is used for? Basically, if only one topic can be discussed at this page, which of the following pages (Tarpan, Grullo, Heck horse, Konik horse, Tarpan Honker or PZL M-4 Tarpan) would you move to this page? Tarpan is only for Equus ferus ferus its primary use, for all the others, it is either an alternative to the main name or part of a more extensive name. As such, I think it is more than sufficient to use Tarpan (disambiguation) to address all those other useages. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it all together

OK, there are two different discussions going here and it's getting confusing. I basically agree with Kim's summation of the whole issue and I say she has it dead-on correct. As for Kevmin's point about the cars, fish and so on, I suppose there is precedent in Mustang (horse) versus Mustang, though that was probably due to the Ford model of car being so very, very, very well known. (Unlike vehicles named Tarpan) Maybe as a compromise, we could call this article Tarpan (horse), just like most of the other animal articles (compare Passenger pigeon, another animal extinct only within recent times) as the evidence is overwhelming that equus ferus ferus is commonly called the Tarpan (It is not routinely called the Eurasian Wild Horse, though that is another acceptable name). A paragraph about the bred backs could be added or expanded, but it is appropriate for each of the different ones to keep their own article. We have Konik and Heck horse already done. I certainly would have no problem if someone wanted to do up a new article on the other one. The Przewalski's is NOT a Tarpan, and all we have otherwise is an obsolete 100 year old source that mistakenly labeled it as such, already noted in the Przewalski's article and of no use elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 03:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper scope of this article? Does the equine tarpan include:

Russian red dun horses described by Pallas (1811:510)
Heck horse and Konik
Sorraia
Equus ferus ferus (here)

--Una Smith (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Equus ferus ferus, and I can live with moving this page to Tarpan (wild horse) and make a bunch of other Tarpan pages with similar disambiguation, like Tarpan (breed backs) and Tarpan (car). But I will resist the continued push to insert the original research from Una in this group of articles with Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus being split as original research just does not have a place in wikipedia, rightfully. Original resear4ch is for science articles, and I suggest that Una writes her ideas down in a science article to see whether her ideas are accapted or not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested tarpan (horse) only to answer Kevmin's concerns about cars, but to make a bunch more articles just about horses is not a useful thing to do. We already have Tarpan (disambiguation) to cover all of the above. Most of the bred backs have their own articles having (parenthetical) title names is a pain in the butt when wikilinking on other articles, thus this is one reason that the primary topic style dominated wikipedia and London goes to the Capital city of the UK, and not a disambig. At the end of the day, my own position is that Tarpan should remain as the primary topic, NOT moved to a disambig page. However, if people into cars, fish and whatever else throw a fit about it, I offered a possible compromise, though I really don't personally want to do so. I just want this whole repetitive discussion to end. It is going nowhere. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equus ferus ferus vs tarpan

Equus ferus ferus is a scientific name based on a holotype. Tarpan is a common name for grullo colored equines formerly known in the wild in Europe. The two may be considered to be "the same kind of animal", or not. Because this is a choice, and a matter of scientific debate, it is appropriate to have separate articles for the two. --Una Smith (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice original research here. Before making such a massive change, I suggest that you first discuss these before implementing these. If you want to make a point because you could not have it your way, you made it, so please undo this and discuss it first. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I will revert your edits so we can discuss them first at Talk:Tarpan.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original research would be equating Equus ferus ferus with the Tarpan based on the evidence available. Especially if the holotype is a description, equating the two is conjecture. Fortunately for Wikipedia, that conjecture has already been made and can be cited, but it seems appropriate to make it clear that it is in fact conjecture, and having two separate articles is one way of doing that. Although I disagree with Una more often than not, in this case I agree, and certainly this article as she wrote it makes the salient points in a clear manner.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for my response, see: Talk:Tarpan#Split_Tarpan_and_Equus_ferus_ferus -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, the grullo is NOT the Tarpan! Tarpans ARE an extinct group/species/subspecies of horse. There may or may not be some link between the extinct tarpan and the modern domesticated horse, but if there is, the lineages diverged 5000 years ago. There is ONE source, circa 1906, that Una uses where some author claimed that grullo horses were called Tarpans. That is just b ad nimenclature. There is NO "scientific debate" about grullo horses. It's just the dun gene over a black base coat color. Dun may be linked to primitive horses (all the primitive wild breeds appear to have been dun), but grullo is nothing special. Una, LET IT GO. You have some interesting theories, but they are OR, and so go get them published in peer-reviewed literature and then come back in a year or so and tell us all about it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Type specimen

Re this version: An important question here is the typification of Equus ferus ferus. Here, Kim thinks the type is a specimen in a museum in Moscow. Would someone with access to the nomenclatural literature please check this? --Una Smith (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are taxidermy mounts of the now-extinct Tarpan in existence. That particular creature has been classed as Equus ferus ferus. What is the problem? Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors on the web

Re this version: A number of errors about this taxonomy exist on the web. They include naming the wrong author with the surname Gemlin, and using the description by the nephew Gemlin in place of the one by the uncle that is the type of the name. --Una Smith (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Sometimes the internet is wrong?? You mean we CAN'T believe everything we read on the internet! Horrors! =:-O (The preceeding is a lame attempt at humor). Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More tarpans

[The following discussion moved here from User talk:Una Smith.]

This implies that E. ferus ferus lacks a type specimen. Is that correct?--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. --Una Smith (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, see The Code, 72.5.1. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, the holotype is valid but it is not a type specimen, it is only a brief description of animals in life. Not only is there no pelt and skeleton, but the description includes no anatomy. We have far more data about some fossil holotypes than about this holotype. --Una Smith (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the holotype IS the type specimen, even when it is a description only. Please, see the Code for Zoological Nomenclature, article 72 for what valid types are. Alternative types valid as type specimen are syntypes, lectotypes and neotypes. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, you are correct that the holotype is a valid type. I agree with you. The point that Curtis and I see is this: the holotype is not a physical specimen, nor even a photograph, only a brief written description. It is nearly useless. If we had a physical specimen then we could find out if it had chestnuts on the hind legs, if it had a hair whorl on the forehead above or below the eyes, if it had 5 or 6 lumbar vertebrae, the exact shape of its hooves and ears, the hairs on its tail, the anatomy of its skull etc. All these characters are relevant to the phylogeny of horses and their ancestors, but absent in this holotype. --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, it is not up to us at Wikipedia to change the rules of nomenclature, and the absence of a physical type is effectively irrelevant for that. There is a valid holotype, and the last centuries, researchers have discussed in great detail how many subspecies of wild horse could be recognized, and the end result of that long discussion is three, Domestic, Tarpan (Europe) and Prewalzski (Far east Asia). There are also various skeletons in at least Moscow. My suggestion with this topic would be to first write a scientific publication bringing forward your position and see what the taxonomists community response is as this is a rather novel and unusual point of view. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, the problem here is not nomenclatural. The problem is in attributing any other specimens of tarpan to Equus ferus ferus. To do that requires a clear, testable difference between Equus ferus ferus and Equus caballus. Between Equus ferus przewalskii and Equus caballus there is a different number of chromosomes. Between Equus ferus ferus and Equus caballus there is none. --Una Smith (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe I had better check on the holotype of Equus ferus przewalskii. --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of chromosomes for the tarpan is unknown, as there is no DNA left (ancient DNA of nuclear DNA is much more difficult than mtDNA to extract and often very fragmented). You started with the claim that the species was not validly described because there is no physical type specimen, and that therefore, we have a problem that wikipedia needs to resolve that scientists have not yet. The last individuals of the tarpan in Moscow are classified as E. f. ferus. And wikipedia is going to claim they are wrong? There has been lengthly discussions in the literature about how many subspecies there are, and the conclusion based on the avialable material is that all wild European horses are likely just one subspecies (barring the addition of new not yet discovered material). Furthermore, the type locality is Bobrovsk, near Voronezh, and the Tarpans in Moscow are from Poland and or the Ukriane. These locations are relative close. Are you suggesting is that there could be TWO species of wild horse in such a relative small area? And that the discussion of many scientists on this for decades who concluded that there is only one subspecies in Europe can to the wrong conclusion? Ancient DNA studies show that even the subgenus Amerhippus is positioned in the middle of the domestic horse, and probably not even a subspecies. Sorry, show me some good and recent references, that support that your position is not just original research from your side. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And though I shall defer to Kim on things taxonomic, :I have to, again, point out that the "wild" and now-extinct Equus-ferus-ferus-Tarpan is "the" Tarpan, and anything else called a "tarpan" is either sloppy usage, non-modern usage, or is a PR stunt to promote someone's experimental idea (like the Heck horse, which is no more a Tarpan than I am a scrambled egg! You can call something an ugly duckling all you want, but it's still a swan...so please, once again, you need to think through these things before you start promoting half-formed theories based on a too-literal read of something. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was using "specimen" in the physical sense; I had forgotten that the ICZN allows for descriptions only (in botany, we call those nomina nuda).

Second, please don't make this about Una any more than it has to be. The issue here is not the specimens from Moscow or any other specimens, the issue is the name Equus ferus. Gmelin was likely looking at Tarpans, but it can't be ruled out that he was looking at feral horses, feral horse-Tarpan hybrids, or even some other, otherwise-unknown (sub)species. And there is probably no way to ever know. Parsimony would suggest he viewed Tarpans, and the common use of E. ferus ferus as their scientific name follows that. If it were a plant of that importance, it probably would have been neotypified (a new type specimen selected, to firmly tie the name to an organism), but since in the ICZN a description can be a type, perhaps it is not allowed to select a neotype.

And this is totally independent of the separate controversies over what is and isn't a Tarpan or any other ancestral horse; it is a controversy over the applicability of a name, not about biology. If someone discovered an isolated population of Tarpans in some hidden valley in the Carpathians, protected by domestic-horse-eating Neandertals, we might have a lot of our questions about the biology of ancestral horses answered. But it would have no effect at all on the issue of Equus ferus ferus.

I've decided that a separate article is perhaps misleading and unnecessary (will weigh in on the article talk page later), but Una has done a commendable job of outlining the issues with the name, and at the least it should be a section in Tarpan.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The preceding discussion moved here from User talk:Una Smith.]

I thought about whether a separate article would be more or less misleading than going into the taxonomy of Equus ferus ferus in an article about the tarpan, and concluded it would be less misleading if in its own article. That is partly because of the open issue of what is a tarpan. Could we just for now put Equus ferus ferus in its own article? It would not go into the tarpan story, nor much beyond this version. --Una Smith (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a paleontology perspective may be useful here. It is common practice in paleontology to name a different species from each important specimen, whenever there is ambiguity about its relationship to other specimens. That is one reason why there are so many fossil species of Equus (see Template:Equus). Collectively the fossil taxa are equines, and undescribed specimens may be regarded as simply belonging to the collective taxon and not assigned to any species. As a rule, individual specimens are too incomplete to support much detailed analysis of their relationships. A cursory description such as the Gmelin holotype has much in common with an incomplete fossil. In that light, I think we can agree that Equus ferus ferus (meaning the animal described by Gmelin) was an equine and that all tarpans also were (are) equines. My point is that, given the scant evidence at hand, we cannot say all tarpans belong to Equus ferus ferus and we cannot say Equus ferus ferus was the only kind of tarpan. --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, original research remains original research, regardless of how many times it is repeated. There is northing misleading on this issue. So, I suggest that you drop the issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, what exactly do you consider to be original research here? Perhaps you could quote each sentence from this that you think is original research? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una:

Although Equus ferus ferus often is used as the scientific name of the tarpan, a putative wild ancestor of the domesticated horse, this is a matter of long dispute

-> there is no dispute. This has been discussed above over and over again, so, why do you keep pushing it. The statement was unsourced, and I still have to see a good reference that actually descripes this dispute that you claim exists. Untill those references are there, and the statement can be sourced, This page should be a redirect to tarpan, as that is the valid common name for this species. So, do you have some references aluding to this dispute? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kim. That sentence could be worded more clearly. The dispute centers around whether the tarpan, collectively or in part, was a feral domesticated horse. Hence the question of whether to use Equus ferus ferus or Equus caballus ferus. Here are two reliable sources copied from my last version of Equus ferus ferus. --Una Smith (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Ewart (1906). "The tarpan and its relationship with wild and domestic horses". Nature. 74: 113–115. this article is devoted to this specific question
Colin P. Groves (1994). "Morphology, habitat, and taxonomy". In Lee Boyd and Katherine A. Houpt (ed.). Przewalski's horse: The history and biology of an endangered species. SUNY Press. p. 50. ISBN 0791418898. this book chapter reviews the history of the dispute, in passing

The first ref is over a century old, so that is not accurate to determine whether this is still regarded an issue. I quickly scanned the text of the second, but did not find a clear discussion about this issue as you refer to, so if you would be so kind to point me towards where this issue is discussed. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Equus ferus (sensu the original name, not the modern circumscription) is a Tarpan. That cannot be disputed, since there is no physical specimen of Equus ferus. No "original research" is involved; it can be deduced by anyone who looks at the protologue of E. ferus (caveat: I'm basing this on what I have read; I have not seen it myself). It is also important to note that there is no evidence that E. ferus is not a Tarpan.

Many authors have postulated that Equus ferus is a Tarpan, based on (afaict) more than one line of conjecture. Although this doesn't appear to be testable with current data, it is not an unreasonable hypothesis, it seems to be well-accepted currently, and obviously it deserves to be in Wikipedia. But the fact remains that there is no physical evidence connecting the binomial to the animals. This is worth noting. It is not original research. It is one of those interesting twists of nomenclature that, but for the (totally independent) disagreements over "what is a Tarpan", and the current accusation-laden atmosphere, would have made the article more interesting to us few geeks who like nomenclatural trivia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what I see, I broke it down into sections and shall sign each should we want to discuss only one or the other:

Basically, there was a critter no one could successfully domesticate, called a Tarpan, or Eurasian Wild Horse, which became extinct when the last living specimen died in a Russian Zoo in the late 1800s. It did not look very much like a Przewalski's horse, other than having primitive markings, so in the good old days before we could analyze DNA, people who were doing taxonomic classification put it down as something different from the Przewalski. Over the next 120 years or so, WHAT it is called has changed with the development of taxonomy, and, for all I know, the political winds within the taxonomy community. BUT today, it is STILL thought to be something other than a Przewalski, AND it is also NOT considered a domestic horse by anyone, possibly other than Una.Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a theory that the Tarpan MIGHT be the original wild ancestor of the modern domestic horse. I don't know if there have ever been serious studies done to back up this. There is a competing theory, more common today, that the ancestor or ancestors (there are two versions out there, single foundation and four foundations, not relevant here) of the domestic horse was not the Tarpan itself as known in historial times, but rather another primitive-looking horse that may have looked somewhat Tarpan-like. But no matter which theory you follow, NONE state that the Tarpan itself (the one that survived into historical times) was ever domesticated.
There are descendents of modern horses that have primitive features that are called "Tarpans" for commercial promotional purposes, most of which have their own articles on wiki, and need not bother us here.Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, what a 1906 source has to say on the matter is totally irrelevant here other than for the proposition that some people 100 years ago used the term over-broadly to characterize blue duns in general. In 1906, Arabian horses were registered in the Thoroughbred stud book too, and that does not make them Thoroughbreds. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the open question is this: Is the "real" Tarpan, defined as the critter that became extinct in the last 1800s, supposed to be classified as Equus ferus ferus, just like the Przewalski's is Equus ferus przewalski (or whatever it is)? And, on a related note, does anyone know if there has been a DNA study done on the remains of the Tarpan specimens that are known to be sitting around somewhere? Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the 1906 article is totally irrelevant to you, Montanabw, then I have no idea what you think is a "tarpan". Please define it for us, so we can know what you are talking about. You might also provide a list of the reliable sources that you consider to be relevant. --Una Smith (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, it is YOUR responsibility to defend your material. I have no desire nor interest to prove yet another negative just because you raise it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, let me see if I can answer some of your questions.

Over time, many different subspecies of the wild horse have been described, and much speculation has been devoted to what and how of those various subspecies. The issue of how many subspecies was solved when sufficient sub-fossil bones and teeth were found. This showed that there are two wild species of horse in recent time in the old world, the Tarpan and the Prewalski horse. There are clear morphological differences that separate the two (cranial capacity and if I remember correctly pelvis etc). The domestic horse is closest to the Tarpan. Most importantly, in recent times, only one homogeneous subspecies of the horse has been found in Europe based on the material available (which is from many places in Europe). This takles the issue of a species for which the holotype is the description of a specimen without having actually that specimen in the physical form, and for which some argue that it could be another species of wild horse. If another species would have been present, the bones would have given those clues, and they do not.

Tarpan is actually a pretty wild used name for the wild horse in the regions covered by Equus ferus ferus, as described above. So, this is a obvious and solid link of the common name with the scientific taxon known as Equus ferus ferus.

Additionally, the name Tarpan was used occasionally to indicate feral horses, but this was not the norm as for example the Tatars and Cossacks had specific names for feral horses (Muzin and Takja (spelling might be off)).

Hope this helps. When the discussion about the merging of caballus and ferus is finished, I intent to write a more comprehensive section about the taxonomy and related issues. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does Kim, but basically to bring us back to the point that was originally here. Two "wild horses" One is the Tarpan, scientific name Equus ferus ferus. Which is where we were a month ago. Sigh. Now, if we can just have this talk page merged with Tarpan, where it belongs, that would be nice. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation?

There is a parallel conversation going on over at Tarpan, to which this article above redirects. Una is splitting editors here, or engaging in her usual tactic of WP:ASK, and I strongly urge that everyone go over to Tarpan and consolidate this discussion in one place. We are ALMOST at a solution there, I'd hate for a legitimate editor with views worth considering to be left out of the discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate discussion, about the scope of that article. I would like to keep it separate. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, you are wasting everyone's time. By splitting the discussion, you are just confusing everyone and hiding your own tracks. This talk should have been moved and merged with the article. Let it go. Consolidate the discussion on one talk page and work with the community to reach consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse taxonomy discussion at wikiproject

I posted a bunch of thoughts about the taxonomy of the horses on the Wikiproject Equine here, because of its cross article scope. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of the Tarpan

I realized that actually there is no section really describing what the Tarpan presumably looked like. There is only the reference to the konik horses and others, and that photo, but that is not enough in my opinion. For example, after Puvrost et al., the grullo coat is not the only coat colour that appeared in the Tarpan. I'll spend some time gathering references for the appearance of the Tarpan, and then create a section for that. -- DFoidl (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need Kim. Desperately. Kim? Oh Kim? Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Let him collect the data, and we go from there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay, I now started that section in the article. -- DFoidl (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a positive start. I did some cleanup, and one source was just plain wrong, so I updated that with more relevant material. However, can you please use proper Wikipedia citation format, including a URL that goes to at least an abstract of all the things you are citing, most of which appears to be peer-reviewed material that is online. For guidelines, please see WP:CITE. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source you call plain wrong, sometimes I really don't get what you mean: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/02/1108982108 -- DFoidl (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legit, if there are issues with it, we need to be able to cite counterclaims. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably be hard to find counterclaims for that, since this paper has not been disputed in any way in the literature. However, we could write instead of "these colours have been identified" this sentence: "Pruvost et al. identify colour as the following". -- DFoidl (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was originally worded was incorrect, as there have been markers for the dun gene located in modern breeds. As I rewrote the sentence in a manner that tossed the source (which at the time had no URL and I wasn't going to go hunting for it when I had a different source available), I presumed it was either wrong or badly misquoted. Apparently, here it was the latter. The problem overall, DFoidl, is that I don't think English is your first language, and some of what you add sounds very odd. I'm doing a lot of cleanup, but I can only work with what is there, we definitely need URLs to your sources so I can directly check them, and for English WP, it's best if most are in English. Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, of course English is not my first language, I am sorry that my english sometimes causes problems. I was just a bit perplexed that my reference to the paper was removed completely and replaced by "citation needed". But it seems to be ok now. By the way, one regarding one of your changes, don't you think that the differences between Konik and Heck horse are more likely due to their breeding history? Since they are not feral and exposed to their environment, therefore they are the result of what man makes of them. -- DFoidl (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went with what I read in the article you cited as a source, which noted a different ecosystem for each; but IMHO, even selectively bred animals do develop some landrace traits, at least if they live outside, as horses do. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the much better title. Yes, I know the Tarpan was a subspecies, that's what I wanted to address with my note. Yes, environmental factor may play a role (although I do not believe that, because Heck horses are either bred in zoos or grazing projects, and koniks mainly live in grazing project as well), but the breeding history is strikingly different, that's also what the reference by Bunzel-Drüke et al. (sorry that it's in german) states.-- DFoidl (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On wiki, we have to stick to what we can source, otherwise we violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH if we try to draw too broad a conclusion from the sourced data. Environmental factors will play a role in horses allowed to live outside, even if in a "grazing project" - terrain, length of day, climate, all that sort of thing is a factor, one can clearly see this in breeds like the Clydesdale, a fully domesticated breed, but with a dramatically different body type for those bred in (very hot) Australia compared to those bred in their original Scotland. I don't know if anyone has studied this, but I will bet that even the Przewalski's horses bred for multiple generations in different zoos develop somewhat different phenotype. Washington DC (where they have a small herd) has a radically different climate from, say, Mongolia ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One article was about Hucul, not Heck horses, my mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I was thinking the Heck horse and the Hucul were different names for the same breedm but they aren't. Wonder if that bit is even relevant now? Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Heck horse, you reverted my edit stating they have a strikingly different breed history from koniks because you thought it goes beyond what the reference I cited says. Have you read this book? http://www.abu-naturschutz.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265&Itemid=74 That's the one I cited. If not, you can't tell anything about its content and wether a certain passage is present or not. --DFoidl (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in German, so it really should not be used at all on en.wiki. But I'm not disputing that the Konik and the Heck horse are different, it was how you worded it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you understood what I meant in my edit but the wording wasn't fine, why do you remove the entire message of the sentence instead of rewording one single line? And I don't know whats so bad and incomprehensible about: and a different breeding history, as Heck horse descends from a variety of horse breeds. And this sentence is nothing but the truth and it's sourced.

Furthermore, only because one source is German it does not mean that it is a bad reference. And using only those references which are written in the language of the respective Wikipedia, would restrict the amount of knowledge this wiki can provide. -- DFoidl (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some kind of procedure for using foreign language sources, but I'm not sure where to find a description FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked and it's here WP:NOENG. In practice, the basics are that if an English language source exists, use it. If the English source is accurate as far as it goes, but isn't ideal, use BOTH the English and the foreign language sources so one supports the other (with translation as needed). If no English source, and there is a question (which often will happen, sooner or later) then pinpoint the citation and ideally provide the sentence of so of foreign language text supporting the statement in question (in the footnote) so that people can translate just that bit and not hunt through the whole document. To give you an example, the language issue was really well handled at Finnhorse where virtually all existing reliable sources are in Finnish with no English translation and not very many people speak Finnish (plus Google translate mangles it). You can see there that the English statements in the article that are sourced to a Finnish source pinpoint precisely the section of the Finnish source, with the precise text used for the statement provided in the footnote so if someone really wants to verify it, they can. As for the precise statement, I tossed it for two reasons, first because it was not in the English source. If it's in the German source, best to cite page number and at least a relevant sentence as opposed to "it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it." The second reason is that it's sort of obvious - and stated elsewhere - that the two breeds have two different breeding histories. Plus, bless you DFoidl, but some of your earlier edits actually haven't been phrased in a particularly accurate manner, mostly, I suspect, due to the language barrier. I have no problem if a statement such as "due to the different bloodlines that created the two breeds" is re-added IF the German source verifies it, (and is footnoted as such with the relevant snippet) but as I said, the English source does not support it. I know detailed citations are a pain in the butt to do up, but it's the best way to handle foreign language material. I hope this helps! Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article claims at different points that the last tarpan died in 1909 and 1918. Making it even weirder, the 1918 claim and one of the 1909 claims appear to have the same reference as their source (it's a print source, so it's difficult to tell what the source actually says).99.102.30.51 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch, will sort it out. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk)

I wonder, what do the sources actually say? There seems to be some disagreement. If the sources give two (or perhaps three? 1901 as well as 1909 and 1918?) years, shouldn't both of these be treated equally and be mentioned, both? –78.82.198.250 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC) (flinga@svwp)[reply]

The article also veers wildly between stating that the tarpan (in the more narrow sense?) is the ancestor of the domesticated horse, and that it is *not* seen as such by scientists (the alternative is, of course, that horses were domesticated from a wild population of another subspecies, which went extinct well before the middle ages and hasn't left any certain trace of itself in history). Obviously some of these statements about the tarpan being/not being the wild ancestor rely on different zoologists and different strata of the scientific debate. The article really should say, scientific opinion remains divided on this important point. There's nothing strange about the idea of several different subspecies or breeds of wild horse during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, and we can be sure that the horse was domesticated at least before 2000 BC. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "tarpan" as in e. ferus ferus is probably not an ancestor of the modern domesticated horse. That said, particularly in Europe, lots of people call the ansceotrs of domestic horses "Tarpans" so it has become something of a misnomer. Further, hybridization probably exists- or existed. So, no "scientific" debate. See history of horse domestication theories for more on this. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there isn't any scientific debatte about this *now* there was for a major part of the 20th century and this still colours many of the books people look into when they're posting here. The point I wanted to make was that various people have been tossing in their quotes, inline notes and statements from the books they have at hand or the hippologists they personally like, with no real editorial control. Unfortunately this is WP and we can't be sure that all the people who post here about tarpans and domestiocated horses are doing so from a properly scientific background - many of them are amateurs and have just been posting what they had at hand, and then, like you stated, they wouldn't have made any distinction between "tarpans" strictu senso and early wild horses in general.

Compare Cro-Magnon Man vs early modern humans - many people use Cro-Magnon as shorthand for any early members and traces of the anatomically modern human race, though this is not scientifically right anymore. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So go out and find some better sources and help improve the article. Or just complain. Your call. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct

There is a clear consensus that they are. Unless one can change that consensus through convincing argument here on the Talk page, this should not be changed in the article to suggest that there is some disagreement on this point. Agricolae (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1)There is a clear consensus that they are. 2)There is a clear consensus that they are not. 1 or 2 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

blogpost or p/r journal

there is source of survival of this subspecies

Genet. Mol. Res. 10 (4): 4104-4113 (2011)
Received March 25, 2011
Accepted August 8, 2011
Published October 31, 2011
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.4238/2011.October.31.7

du u:a refer this to blogpost ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The paper only postulates that the Hucul is a surviving relic population of Tarpans as an explanation for the Hucul's sharing so much Tarpan DNA: the paper leans towards its suggestion that the reason why they appear to be directly descended from Tarpans is because they are/were Tarpans, but does not actually outright state as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reference in the Name and Etymology section

Regarding the following paragraph: "In modern use, the term has been loosely used to refer to the predomesticated ancestor of the modern horse, Equus ferus, to the predomestic subspecies believed to have lived into the historic era, Equus ferus ferus, and to all European primitive or "wild" horses in general. The modern "bred-back" horse breeds are also promoted as "tarpan" by their supporters, though researchers discourage this use of the word, which they believe should only apply to the ancient E. ferus ferus.", currently marked as "citation needed," this is a summary of the contents of one of the sources referenced in the following Taxonomy section, which contains a shorter version of the same material ("It is debated if the small, free-roaming horses seen in the forests of Europe during 18th and 19th centuries and called "tarpan" were indeed wild, never-domesticated horses, hybrids of the Przewalski's horse and local domestic animals, or simply feral horses.") I have just restored the reference in the Taxonomy section, where it was likely removed because the link was broken for some time due to the PLOS Paleocommunity Blog being migrated to The Official PLOS Blog. I suggest to restore it in the Name and Etymology section as well because, while the wording is different, the contents clearly refer to the same source. I marked it as "<ref name=Castelli>" in the Taxonomy section.Kileytoo (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tarpan is not the European wild horse

A recent study by Librado et al. 2021 found that the horses called "tarpan" came about by hybridization between domestic horses and wild horses, in particular the Cherson tarpan. It never was clear if the horses called "tarpan" were truly wild or feral horses, but the new study seems to suggest they were hybrids and therefore not synonymous with the original European wild horse. A distinction should be made between the horses of the Russian steppe from the 18th to 20th century that were called tarpans, and the actual European wild horse. I suggest to split the article into two, one for the tarpan and one for the European wild horse. In the current form, the article is misleading and compares apples to bananas. DFoidl (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has objections against the plan to split the article into two, I'm going to realize it in the next couple of days.DFoidl (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is premature splitting, based on one WP:PRIMARY report. At least for the time being, it looks to me like this would be better dealt with within the article, explaining the situation here, while we wait and see how the scholarly community deals with Libredo's conclusions. Otherwise, we are left with some pretty arbitrary decisions that could be off in two totally different directions. Given that they only tested a single tarpan from 1868, can we really be sure that the tarpan 'first described by Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin in 1771' was similarly admixed, when we already refer to the hybridization process ('By 1880, when most "tarpans" may have become hybrids)? On the other hand, this could be a distinction without a difference. The authors don't actually describe their horse as a hybrid between wild and domestic horses, but rather a hybrid between a Western European wild horse lineage (CWC) and a sister lineage to that from which domesticated horses arose, meaning this could be a completely natural hybridization between two wild horse popuations that predates domestication entirely and they are just European wild horses that are more genetically diverse than your average European wild horse. This is not a case (is there ever one?) where Wikipedia editors should be out on the bleeding edge, not based on a single tarpan sample in a single paper. Agricolae (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I made some changes. The article now appreciates the fact that the nature of the horses called tarpan is a matter of debate, and I added the new study. Where studies are cited that refer to unambiguous wild horses, such as the coat colour genetics studies, the horses are called wild horses in the article. Where definitely only the horses called tarpan are mentioned, they are called tarpan in the article. I also had to eradicate some repetitions of passages (f.e. the horses at Zamosc). DFoidl (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the paper by Librado et al. now. As far as I understand, the authors of the paper nowhere say that the horses associated with the Corded Ware culture were wild horses. As far as I know, the Corded Ware culture also had domestic horses. So I don't see where we get the certainty from that the CWC horses were predomestic wild horses. Or am I misunderstanding something? Thanks, DFoidl (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a hold-over from the prior version of the page, but for what its worth, the CWC horse site is a hunting camp in a cave, with no indication of livestock domestication. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, do you have some source for that? We could add that to the article, then. Thanks, DFoidl (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am going to have to walk this back. I had found an account that reported the site as a short-term hunting camp, but that was referring to an earlier period, in the 6th-millennium BCE, than that to which the horse finds date. The wild/domesticated status of those horses seems to be ambiguous, according to this description of the study with specific mention of the Hohlen Stein near Schwabthal (Corded Ware) horses, so the description as 'wild' definitely needs to be removed. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarpan individual in Librado et al. 2021

In the article it is written that the "tarpan" individual that was used in the study by Librado et al. was the "Shatilov tarpan" which died in 1868. The study, however, does not say that explicitly, it just says it was a "tarpan" from the Kherson region that is now in the collection of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Sankt Petersburg. I think we would need additional references for the nickname and death date of that "tarpan" and that it was indeed the one that was used in the study to clarify this, especially since some sources refer to the "Cherson tarpan" as "Shatilov's tarpan" because that individual was donated to the Moscow zoo by Shatilov in 1884 according to Falz-Fein cited in Oelke 2012, causing confusion - or have I overlooked something? Thanks. DFoidl (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say much about this, but out of curiosity, are there any stuffed tarpans today? FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately not. Only one skeleton including a skull and a skull without lower jaw that is from the "Cherson tarpan" is preserved, as far as I know. But the sources are sometimes conflicting on that, thus there is confusion regarding the tarpan remains, but no individual was stuffed. DFoidl (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[MSW-1] Mammal Species of the World: Equus caballus ferus

[2] Dr Colin P. Groves. "The Przewalski Horse: Morphology, Habitat and Taxonomy".

[1]

[2]