Talk:Przewalski's horse

Reordering

I have just done a major rearrangement of material. Over the past year or so the page has evolved in a manner that produced split discussions of some topics, notably captivity and conservationreintroduction, across three different sections, the Chernobyl population twice, etc, and in some cases the sections had contradictory information. I have combined and reassorted the History, Population, and Conservation efforts sections, retaining almost all of the text, but consolidating text about the same topic together. I am not wed to this particular arrangement - if anyone has a better alternative I would welcome it, but recent edits were both exacerbating and highlighting the problem of redundancy and split discussion, and I decided to be bold. Agricolae (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. It needed to be done. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

One thing I didn't do that someone with a better eye for these things can - redistribute the images. Agricolae (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Przewalski not historically in Europe

The lede sentence about their historical range being in Central Asia is entirely accurate, while nothing in the article (what the lede is supposed to summarize) provides any indication of their historical presence there. The citation given for the change is for their current reintroduced range, and makes no claim to their historical range. If we are going to claim they were originally in Europe, there needs to be some actual verifiable basis for it. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the IUCN saying they were in Ukraine, but were extirpated there not evidence enough? Ddum5347 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't match their own historical description, which makes no mention of Ukraine. They do cite a source that suggests all wild horses in Asia and Europe were Przewalski's but then immediately contradict this, suggesting that those in Europe were tarpans (the paper they cite also predates paleogenomics, which has not reported any link between European specimens and Przewalski's). Anytime a source is internally-inconsistent, we look for a second source, yet all of the other recent sources I have seen make no reference to them being that far west in the historical record. Do you have one? Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Ryder, O.A., 1990, Putting the wild horse back into the wild, Przewalski's Horse Global Conservation Plan, , Zoological Society of San Diego, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, San Diego, from this article: [1] Ddum5347 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is nothing but an older version of the same IUCN text, with the exact same sentence citing the exact same dated source already mentioned, only without the qualification later added that the European ones may well instead have been tarpans. Agricolae (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering that the IUCN assessment is for the species as a whole, that range may have been indeed been tarpans. However, I still think this counts, since the Przewalski's horse is the last wild representative of the species. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Przewalski historically in Mongolia?

Following Agricolae above, but considering the opposite end of the Przewalski's range, I note that this page's lede also declares that the horse has been "reintroduced to its native habitat" in several areas of Mongolia, although that nation, by definition not overlapping any part of Central Asia, cannot then be part of that historical range.

By "habitat," does the text merely refer to the kind of wild environment the horse primevally occupied (one found also in North America)? I doubt it. If not, then the lede ought to be modified to read "originally native to the steppes of Central and East Asia," with an internal link to each place, so naming both but giving Central Asia precedence for its (presumably) greater standing in the Przewalski's history. Mucketymuck (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss/Dispute regarding the use of the word 'hypodermis'

I believe that in the last sentence before going on to reproduction, the term hypodermis should be replaced with 'hypometabolism'.. From the 2006 article by Walter Arnold, Thomas Ruf, and Regina Kuntzbelow: The study presents findings in which the researchers concluded that Przewalski's horse exhibited signs of seasonal adjustment due not to energy intake but to endogenous control. A comparison study in 2012 of Shetland ponies by Lea Brinkmann, Martina Gerken, Alexander Riek is found here:

2601:247:C204:DF80:DB9:2A24:A9DD:43E (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Cherie D. Lyon

I concur this is what was intended, but the authors never actually use the term to describe the phenomenon they are observing (only in reference to nocternal hypometabolism) so it is probably best avoided entirely - described rather than identified with a fancy word not used by the source. Agricolae (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Rescued from a kill pen in Kansas

https://www.tiktok.com/@kinsey_huckabay?lang=en 2600:382:2972:6049:8955:AEA3:3EB4:EC5B (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)