Talk:Colonial Spanish horse

"Spanish Mustang" vs "Mustangs considered to be Colonial Spanish Horse Strains"

The two terms are not interchangeable. Spanish Mustang is a breed of horse that was derived from a variety of sources; feral, Tribal and domestic. The breed was given the name "Spanish Mustangs" because by the time the registry was established, most horses called mustangs had no or little Spanish blood in them (as is still the case). But, although Spanish mustang (small "m") is an accurate term for the few herds that do have Spanish blood, it is confusing, because most "Spanish mustangs" (small "m") are not eligible for registration in the "Spanish Mustang" Registry, most notable the Kigers and the Pryors.

That being said "Spanish Mustangs" (capital "M") are Colonial Spanish Horses. But, they really aren't a strain, since they are derived from many different strains, but are more of a breed, for which there is no category in the article yet. And, as in the case with most things horses, there was much disagreement about which horses should be registered, so there are splinter registries, The Painter Barbs, the Southwest Spanish Mustangs, the Southwest Barb Breeders Association, etc. The Horse of the Americas recognizes all the horses registered in the Spanish Mustang Registry and the splinter registries, and so considers itself the "umbrella registry of the North American Colonial Spanish Horses. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think it best to be very clear that the Spanish Mustang is, as you note, a specific breed, and "Colonial Spanish Horse" is the proper term for the broader group of Spanish type horses, as indeed not all mustangs are Spanish and not all Spanish horses are mustangs. The Sponenberg 2011 source is a very, very good one and the LC one you found is also very helpful. I don't think we have significant disagreement on that point. Just be careful not to extrapolate too far beyond what the sources say - Sponenberg said in the 2011 article (my emphasis) "Following the foundation of the Spanish Mustang Registry [in 1957], most of the feral herds that served as the original source [for that breed] were contaminated with other breeds of horses, and are therefore no longer purely Spanish." Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If needed

Tossing the refs tossed from the main article here in case needed later:

• Colonial Spanish Horse Foundation
• Gila Horses
• Pryor Horses
• Iberian Sulphurs
• Sulphur Mustangs

More sources

• http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/2/107.full.pdf+html "Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds" (Cothran et al., 2006) Montanabw^(talk) 07:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mustang history not identical with CSH history

It is not suitable to move the history from the Mustang article here because many of these horses aren't Mustangs (and many Mustangs are not of Spanish ancestry). It is also SYNTH to conflate the Colonial Spanish Horse (CSH) as identical to the names of the South American horse breeds of Spanish Type; even Sponenberg only uses "North American" in an article title, not throughout. I have removed the Mustang history from this article, though the characteristics section does fit and it remains. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 09:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To expand, per this diff, the following issues also occurred:

1. The sources do not appear to verify that Sponenberg "coined" the term Colonial Spanish Horse. He might have, but we need independent verification
2. The source named "Luis" does not at any point refer to the South American breeds as Colonial Spanish Horses, they are horses of Iberian ancestry, but the Colonial Spanish Horse label is used primarily in North America. Given that the article actually says that some of the South American Spanish horse breeds have an Iberian haplotype not found in North America, it is inaccurate to say they are the same.
3. The statement that the CSH is a single breed is in dispute; Cothran and Sponenberg, the leaders in the field, disagree on this point. To call it a breed in the lead is to overgeneralize.
4. The Livestock Conservancy calls it a "group of closely-related breeds" on one page of their web site and refers to "strains" on another, so it is not accurate to say they "consider it one breed" -- they don't.
5. The long history of the western Mustang doesn't fit here, in part because it is not one breed, and several strains (or breeds) live on the east coast -- and each has their own article, complete with breed history. Basically, after Cortez, there were multiple importations throughout the Americas, and the history becomes too complex to summarize here.
6. The "not all feral horses are Spanish" thing doesn't have to be brought in here any more then it is, it is noted, but no need to harp on about it.
7. No one appears to use the acronym "NACSH", we can't create a neologism

Hope this begins to explain the issues. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 09:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

First, I'll respond to your assertions:

1. popularized is fine.
2. As you often do, you are criticizing me for something that was in the article when I started editing it, in this case something you put in it. You are correct when you say "but the Colonial Spanish Horse label is used primarily in North America", which is why I had said that in the article and put the South American breeds in a footnote. But, your statement "Given that the article actually says that some of the South American Spanish horse breeds have an Iberian haplotype not found in North America, it is inaccurate to say they are the same" is just silly. No one is saying they are the same, just that they all descend from horses brought to the New World from Spain. The issue here is that, although Sponenberg does not eliminate the South American breeds as being Colonial Spanish horses, he does not explicitly name them. That's because, again, the focus is on the North American ones. So, yes, you could probably say it was synth when you originally used the Cothran study as a source to that proved the South American horses were Colonial Spanish, but I let it go because it wasn't inaccurate. I don't pick apart edits that portray accurate information. That's destructive.
3. The Livestock Conservancy says specifically: "The North American Spanish horse population includes many distinct strains, and these could be considered either parts of a larger, single breed, or several smaller, closely related breeds. Given the overall consistency of this population and the fact that many individual horses are registered in more than one of the registries, The Livestock Conservancy has chosen to consider them as one breed, while recognizing the importance of the unique regional adaptations of individual strains. Your assertion that "Cothran and Sponenberg, the leaders in the field, disagree on this point." is synth. Cothran is a geneticist, and has not explicitly weighed in on the issue. In the article, the authors may refer to the strains as breeds for consistency, but given the context of the article that does not mean that they would disagree that they are strains. And Cothran is a contributor, not necessarily the author of the section of the article that calls the strains "breeds". Sponenberg is closely affiliated with the Livestock Conservancy, if it calls it a breed he's on board with it.
4. See above. I'm putting the history back. You're right, it's not identical, which is why I had modified it.
5. Your opinion. I think it does
6. I'm not convinced. Sounds to me like you're making up rules

Now, let's go into a few issues with your edits:

1. The statement you inserted: "Spanish horse ancestry is found in many gaited horse and stock horse breeds.[3]" Is sourced to the Livestock Conservancy, which does not make that assertion.
2. Your statement: "Though many are described as horse breeds, genecists debate whether some of the North American horses are separate breeds or multiple strains of a single large breed.[3]" goes beyond the source. The LC doesn't say anything like: "genecists debate"; for one thing Sponenberg is not a geneticist, and as I stated above, it's synth to state that Gus Cothran is weighing in on the matter. I fixed the statement
3. This statement you put in: "but preservation programs urge caution, noting that some horses of Spanish type may not carry the expected Iberian blood types" What "preservation programs" caution this? It's Sponenberg that says this. He's not a preservation program. I fixed your error
4. This statement you put in: "The ancestral type from which these horses descend was a product of the horse populations that blended between the Iberian horse and the North African Barb.[2]" Seriously? You harp and harp on me for using a legal dissent as a source, yet you use this study as a source for this statement? It's total synth, the study doesn't talk about "Colonial Spanish Horses" at all. But I'll leave it, because it's accurate, and I'm not going to play your game of picking apart accurate information to convince myself I'm proving a point.
5. "Colonial Spanish Horse type and DNA exist in some Mustangs," You capitalize mustang. That is against concensus.
6. You use the Sponenberg article as a source that the Mexican Galiceno is a NACSH strain, despite his statement in the article: "The status of Colonial Spanish horses in Mexico today is somewhat uncertain. Most Mexican horse breeders have come to favor Quarter Horses along with their northern neighbors. Any remaining Iberian horses are expected to come from remote regions, and would be very interesting as a conservation priority. The conservation of Colonial Spanish type livestock in Mexico has gotten off to a later start than the efforts in South America, and appears to have nearly missed the opportunity to work with any relatively uncontaminated Colonial Spanish horses." I fixed that.
7. Your statement: "DNA analysis has been used to identify the ancestry of horses of Spanish type. One of the lead researchers in this area has been Dr. Gus Cothran of Texas A&M University. Some breeders and horse associations use it to trace the connections among the breeds, but preservation programs urge caution, noting that some horses of Spanish type may not carry the expected Iberian blood types." starts talking about DNA analysis, then unexpectedly ends talking about blood types. I fixed that. Also, keep in mind that neither of these analyses are the same as the article referenced in the study, which used mtDNA.
8. Your have skewed the article to imply that "Colonial Spanish Horse" applies only to North American Horses. Sponenberg has stated: "Colonial Spanish Horses are of great historic importance in the New World, and are one of only a very few genetically unique horse breeds worldwide. They have both local and global importance for genetic conservation. They are sensible, capable mounts that have for too long been relegated a very peripheral role in North American horse breeding and horse using. The combination of great beauty, athletic ability, and historic importance makes this breed a very significant part of the historic heritage of North America.

"Colonial Spanish Horses are rarely referred to by this name. The usual term that is used in North America is Spanish Mustang. The term “mustang” carries with it the unfortunate connotation of any feral horse of any genetic background, so that this term serves poorly in several regards. Many Colonial Spanish horses have never had a feral background, but are instead the result of centuries of careful breeding. Also, only a very small minority of feral horses (mustangs) in North America qualifies as being Spanish in type and breeding."

His statement is very clear that Colonial Spanish Horses are also in South America. So, I fixed the article to reflect that, but qualified the assertion you made six months ago but now object to, that the Cothran study can be used as a source that the South America breeds are CSH horses.

I suggest (again) that you work on your own editing issues, and stop focusing on mine. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• PInpoint cite to which source says each assertion you are making. I did not find it. We might be able to reach agreement on some of these points, but I am going to once again have to spend hours verifying this material, so if you could use the URLs to the articles, it would help. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. If you would not revert everything, it would be a lot easier. Not my fault it will take you hours the way you insist upon doing it. Also, there are no sources that say things like "Sponenberg is not a geneticist." But if you are saying things like, "genecists debate whether some of the North American horses are separate breeds or multiple strains of a single large breed.[3]" you'd better be prepared to state who those geneticists are, and whether or not they are geneticists. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BRD applies. The burden of proof is on you to justify your changes. I am reviewing your changes, and I am keeping some of your phrasing and some of your material (such as the characteristics section). Shall we have this article locked down again? Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Again:

• Cothran says they are strains of one breed, Sponenberg views them as separate breeds. We can rephrase that it if it's a problem for you.
• We could consult WP:SCIRS for assistance on the genetics issues.
• Sponenberg states that horses of Spanish ancestry are in South America; he does not call them the "Colonial Spanish Horse" - other than the article title, which adds "North American", he uses Colonial Spanish Horse to describe the North American and Caribbean animals. The Luis study doesn't use the phrase "Colonial Spanish Horse" at all.
• We don't have to identify the "geneticists" in the article text if the source cited identifies them. We certainly can link to Sponenberg and Cothran's curricula vitae, but I don't think we disagree on their credentials as experts. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"We don't have to identify the "geneticists" in the article text if the source cited identifies them. " So, quote me where the source cited them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Cothran says they are strains of one breed, Sponenberg views them as separate breeds." Again, quote me, where? Don't try this BS game with me. You're putting in incorrect information that you can't source. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's clearly a mess. I suppose we could massage the language a bit more. I know I saw the Cothran/Sponenbrg debate somewhere, but maybe they've now resolved it. If consensus amongst the experts has shifted, I'm fine with an update. We can't "extrapolate" too far, though.
• Sponenberg says in the 2011 article, "That, plus the type and history, argue that the Colonial Spanish Horse should be managed as a single breed with important substrains." Note [1] The Livestock Conservancy says "The Colonial Spanish horse is a group of closely related breeds " [2]
• But we have [3] which interviews Sponenberg says, "Colonial Spanish Horses - and there are several dozen sub-types or breeds."
• We really can't say they are one breed or multiple breeds; have you read the Luis study? It make my eyeballs burn, To be honest, even Sponenberg swings back and forth, sometimes saying "breeds" and others "strains" (and frankly, there really isn't a clear distinction.) For example, Sponenberg, in the same article, says, "Livestock breeds are populations that have undergone successful genetic adaptation to a wide variety of environments," and "As a result, several new strains of horses have been added to the conservation effort. "
• If you would prefer to say that the Livestock Conservancy lists them both as a different breeds and as strains of one breed, depending on which page of their web site you are viewing, we can do that too. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing at a time

OK. We need to just work on each thing individually. Add what else you think we need to debate. I signed each paragraph so we can discuss individually:

• Breed/Strain: LC site states "The North American Spanish horse population includes many distinct strains, and these could be considered either parts of a larger, single breed, or several smaller, closely related breeds." It also looks like between about 2008 and the present, the research has evolved. I suspect the "one breed or many" thing is in part political, as the study we label "Luis" indicates multiple haplotypes exist amongst even North American Spanish horse strains or breeds. We probably need to "teach the controversy" on this one without making a conclusion." Perhaps something along the lines of "LC calls them all a breed, but DNA says they are of multiple haplotypes." Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You truncated that quote. The rest of it is: "Given the overall consistency of this population and the fact that many individual horses are registered in more than one of the registries, The Livestock Conservancy has chosen to consider them as one breed, while recognizing the importance of the unique regional adaptations of individual strains." And no, the Luis study is not relevant. Different strains are likely to have different haplotypes. You are creating synth by concluding different haplotypes mean different breeds. And, why are you using the one study as a source that horses are North American Colonial Spanish Horses, if the other is a useless source for South American Horses? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly a political decision to keep things simple, not a genetic one. Even Sponenberg says "managed as". I'm comfortable explaining that it could be viewed either way; we have to acknowledge here that there are multiple breed registries, some closed. The Luis source with all the DNA studies shows Iberian ancestry throughout the Americas, but it doesn't call the South American horses "Colonial Spanish Horses" ("Therefore, this study supports the historically documented Iberian origins of New World horses") Don't misinterpret what I just said, it's a good source, but it says what it says and we can't "extrapolate" terminology. (Have you actually read that study? I found a full text link)

Neither the Luis nor the other source calls ANY horses Colonial Spanish. They're just genetic studies. It is OR to say that the results prove them to be CSH. I don't know why you're so determined to put them in the article, when the interpretation as Colonial Spanish status should be left to the experts. If you want to talk about the genetic studies, just put in a section and discuss them there. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we now appear to agree that we do not call the South American horses CSH. To be honest, I can't recall when the SA horses originally landed in this article, probably way back when it was less well-researched than it is now. Also, there is no overview article for them. At this point, they are in a small paragraph in this article describing closely-related breeds, and I suppose there could be an argument to somehow create a spinoff from both here and Iberian horse (which covers the breeds still in Europe) called something like List of Iberian-descended horse breeds in the Americas (preferably something less clunky than that) to discuss them. Given that the CSH is determined by a mix of DNA and phenotype, we could add a new section to this article about the genetic studies, or we could do that in the list overview article that we could create, kind of like the discussion of the gaitedness gene at the related list articles on those horses. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"To be honest, I can't recall when the SA horses originally landed in this article, probably way back when it was less well-researched than it is now." You put them in it, based on the genetic studies finding them to be Spanish. It was OR, but that doesn't mean that the horses in SA aren't CSH, so no, I don't agree "that we do not call the South American horses CSH", just that we don't have breeds specifically designated as such by the experts, since the experts are focused on the North American strains. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Which horses to count: We appear to be edit-warring over inclusion of the Gila Bend horses. With all the other disputes, I haven't had time to research this one. I was the one who tagged it, so I can take responsibility for seeing if I can verify it. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Follow up: Stillman notes Spanish type, and the other source already there states that Cothran found Spanish markers... we probably have to locate the Cothran study, I suppose? Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about the Gila Horses. But there is no reliable source that they are Colonial Spanish. You are REALLY stretching the Stillman source. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There are now two sources, the first one was better, but it was tagged; there is a claim that Cothran's studies looked at the Gila herd... However, not sure where that study is. I'd like to see if we can find the study. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If neither Sponenberg nor the Livestock Conservancy include them, it is OR to do so based on nebulous claims by their advocates. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I could go either way, we could just create an article about them. I'd favor creating the new article, even if a stub, before deleting it here, because the content gets easily lost in a wave of diffs. If you want to create the new article, even if just a stub with the two existing refs, I won't object further to tossing them once it's done. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• We need to explain the Chincoteague Pony, which Sponenberg doesn't include as of Spanish type due to all the crossbreeding they have (and he's right), but because of the myths and legends -- some still promoted by the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department every Pony Penning Days, we do need to discuss them, I think. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, find a reliable source. Right now there's no source. 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A possible solution: I think Sponenberg 2011 (or one of the existing sources) explains the crossbreeding thing. Perhaps we could do up a section of horses claimed to be of Spanish ancestry but not proven by DNA? The Chincoteagues are disproven due to crossbreeding (though they have some markers). The Gila Bend horses might also wind up here. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's OR. We have two reliable sources of what horses are Colonial Spanish. We should limit the discussion to those.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not OR to say they are not CSH and it's not OR to say that the Chincoteague Fire Dept claims they are. (Both are verified in the Chincoteague article). I guess the real issue here is if we do a "claimed to be but aren't" section in this article (in part to prevent future editors from creating "magic unicorn horses" laundry lists)?

We can't say they aren't either. All we can say is the Livestock Conservancy and Dr. Sponenberg do not say they are. I reworded the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• History section: I don't think we need a huge history section, as almost all of the breeds/strains listed here have their own articles with their own histories, and because a chunk of them are on the east coast, it makes little sense to have a lot of detail past the point they landed in the Americas and where. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but I fail to understand your logic. We have history sections at Mustang and all the breed articles, I truly see no need to go into much more detail here. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Because history is important to the determination of what is a CSH. That's why I keep saying it's OR to try to include horses that haven't been evaluated by experts. As Sponenberg says, it's a combination of phenotype, history, and genetics. Also, I think the early mustang history is more approriate here, since it is applicable to so few of today's modern mustangs. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, but copying from the Mustang article isn't the way to do it because half of the CHS breeds aren't Mustangs. I'd be OK porting a little of that over, but maybe one paragraph, not multiple ones. Then we'd have to add something about all the stuff that came in on the east coast via Florida and the Caribbean. And we should only do a summary because almost all the CSH breeds have separate articles with more detail (and several of those are GA class). Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As I stated earlier I modified the history to make it less about mustangs. If you would just stop summarily reverting, and work with what is there, collaborating would go a lot more smoothly. And, I think the CSH article is the place for a general history of the NACSH strains and mustangs with the more specific articles providing "strain specific" history. Kind of like an overview article, with the more specific ones tiering to it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• The South American horses: I reworded that bit again. I do not think we can use the term "Colonial Spanish Horse" for South American horses of Spanish ancestry, the researchers don't. If I am incorrect, provide a site. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I did provide a source. You reverted it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It appeared to be Luis, Luis doesn't use "Colonial Spanish Horse." Was there another one? (I'm not going back through diffs; too many diffs). Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sponenberg talks about several breeds. He just doesn't explicitly call them Colonial Spanish. However, it is abundantly clear that there are other horses besides the North American ones that can be considered Colonial Spanish. So, I made a qualified statement. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That's synth. I think Sponenberg 2011 lists most of them and the LC picks up the rest. They are, as far as I can tell, explicit. Are there any in North America that you are disputing? (Other than the Gila and Chincoteague we've mentioned)

No, it's not synth. Sponenberg and the Livestock Conservancy make it very clear that CSH applies to the New World, both North and South America. However, they are focused on the North American strains, so they don't talk about the South American breeds, except for Sponenberg mentioning them in passing in the registry part of his essay. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• "NACSH" is an acronym, I haven't found anywhere. Sounds like government-bureaucrat speak. Let's not go there. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, write out North American Colonial Spanish Horse every time. I think it's ridiculous, but whatever. 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't say "North American" -- that is a single article title, as far as I can see. We say "Colonial Spanish Horse." (Certainly the Livestock Conservancy does) Sometimes the sources say "Spanish horses" or "horses of Spanish (or Iberian) type" -- seems those are the catchphrases, and I have no problem using them as needed. But seriously, "NACSH" doesn't show up anywhere. I wish "CSH" did, but I'm not finding it enough to justify its use. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They ALL say North American. "The North American Spanish horse population includes many distinct strains...."(LC) It just needs to be made clear that "Colonial Spanish horse includes those in South America. If you want to say "For purposes of this article... But here's where the disconnect is...The LC does say they are several different breeds ONE OF WHICH is the North American population. So, you have disctinct breeds in South America the Caribean (Paso Fino) Mexico (Galiceno), but all the strains listed by the LC Conservancy and Sponenberg are strains of one breed. That's why it's important to make the North American distinction. The people that disagree with that concept are the registry groups, that want to consider their own horses as distinct breeds. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The name is not "North American Colonial Spanish Horse" -- it's just CSH. We can't do "for the purposes of this article" and make up a name that doesn't exist. The registry groups have the right to disagree with Sponenberg and the LC, because, as has been debated endlessly on WP across a lot of different animal articles (I remember a particularly heated debate on a feral pig breed article), the definition of "breed" is nebulous; landraces and feral animals are a stage of breed development. If a group of horses has a registry that tracks pedigrees, then that moves it into one definition of "breed." And, if you have ever spent much time in horse organization land (I'm guessing you might have) you know that horse politics are ... interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"We can't do "for the purposes of this article" and make up a name that doesn't exist." Go back and look at the Sponenberg essay. It's called: "NORTH AMERICAN COLONIAL SPANISH HORSE UPDATE". NACSH is what the LC and Sponenberg are focused on. And, yes I know, horse politics are pathological, (surpassed only in extent by Wikipedia politics). Which is why I suggest we go with the expert opinion-the North American strains comprise a breed. I don't know much about Arabian horses, but I believe they do that. One breed with several strains. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm DGAF on the Mustang capitalization issue; you don't like, it, then change it, I prefer that styl, but I'm not going to edit war over that. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

okay, then, leave uncapitalized. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We can clean that up later, I'm not going to do so now. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Spanish horse lines contributed to many American horse breeds, the LC site verifies this, I moved it from the beginning to the end of the paragraph. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 22:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, the LC site you keep sourcing to does NOT say that. Yes, it 's correct, but you need a real source. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does: " The Spanish horse has also made substantial contributions to the American gaited breeds and to the American Quarter Horse and other stock horse breeds." [4]. If you want more sources, we could do that, though I think a laundry list of breeds would unnecessarily clutter the article. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Simple issue

Let's break out this question because it's easy. Do we "explain the controversy" and put the stuff that is claimed to be Spanish but either not proven (Gila Bend) or conclusively disproven (Chincoteague) into a little section in this article, or do we just toss the both of them, but create an article on the Gila Bend horses? I probably favor the former, due to the myths and legends stuff, but I could live with the latter. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it the way I think it should be. I personally don't think the Gila Bend horses are notable, except for the controversy over trying to stop them from destroying one of the few riparian ecosystems in the desert. Those who are trying to allow it to continue are asserting they are CSH in order to drum up support. But, if someone wants to write an article about the issue, that's where the discussion belongs. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

List of horses

There appears to be some confusion in the article, as the list of horses currently looks as follows:

The Spanish Mustang: includes Banker horse, Carolina Marsh Tacky, Chickasaw horse, Choctaw horse, Chincoteague/Assateague pony, Florida Cracker Horse, Gila Bend Mustang, Wilbur-Cruce Mission horse, Santa-Cruz Island Horses

Mustangs considered to be Colonial Spanish strains: Kiger Mustang, Pryor Mountain Mustang, Sulphur Mustang, Abaco Barb

To begin with, I read through the primary cited source. It at no point claims the above. Additionally, it's an outdated source as it proposes the "Iberian Barb" theory which has since been widely discounted.

My main issue is with the division into "Spanish Mustangs" and "Mustangs considered to be CS strains". This a massive misrepresentation of several of the breeds listed (the Abaco SCH is not believed to be a Mustang, neither are most of the breeds in the first list Spanish Mustangs). By the cited source's definition, they are all Spanish Colonial Horses or believed to be SCH, not necessarily Mustangs. Even using the definition in use on the Mustang page, many of these breeds come from outside the American West, so would not qualify.

I propose that it should be instead divided into "SCH" and "Breeds considered to be SCH" (but for which there is dispute or lack of evidence). Additionally, the Abaco Spanish Colonial Horse (or Abaco Barb here) should be in the former category, as genotyping has shown that it has Spanish, but not Barb, origins, and the breed has been renamed as a result.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's far more complicated than this. We have things like the Spanish Mustang registry, and what they accept for registration, we have the DNA studies, we have historical research, and we have assorted popular myths and legends (seems most barrier island populations originate in the purest form from horses who swam ashore from sunken Spanish Galleons... who knew? /snark) I suggest we gather a list of reliable sources (here would be fine) and go through them. Sponenberg is probably the go-to expert on American strains, and Gus Cothran did much of the DNA analysis on Mustang bands (which is a yet more complicated issue. I have a lot of sources over at List of BLM Herd Management Areas too... I think if we gather our source material and see where it leads us, that is the wisest approach. Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Your latest edit was more or less what I had intended, not listing all the breeds as "Mustang", so thank you for that! I'll be looking at more sources over the next few days whenever I get a chance. I think DNA testing should be taken with a pinch of salt; Cothran's papers are some of the better examples of DNA testing coming out of the US, however some of the results for European breeds are demonstrably inaccurate, although that could be due to the sample population available to him - one would expect foreign-bred individuals to have a less-clean genome compared to that in the country of origin.

Having a quick look through the article, I'm going to remove The Livestock Conservancy considers them one breed as, looking at the source cited, it currently says The Colonial Spanish horse is a group of closely related breeds.... Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• • That worked. I don't recall how the threading of that list got so screwy, there was some editing drama here a while back, something probably got misformatted. My take is that many of the Iberian feral landraces in Europe are mostly outside the scope of this article unless there is a significant population in the America (I think some [{Sorraia]]s are over here, for example). For those we have Iberian horse. Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

By all means, I wasn't suggesting that Iberian breeds be added or discussed in the article, I was only referring to the inaccuracies of DNA studies with such small sample pools! Wasechun tashunka (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cothran knows his stuff; I find his findings generally reliable; federal government contract and all. Also, Lynghaug is one of our "OK if it's all we have, but best to look for better sources" references -- she generally just quotes breed registry standards verbatim with relatively little critical analysis. Sponenberg is the far superior source. Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Follow up: We have to be super careful not to too-closely paraphrase these sources. Reviewing Lynghaug, here's where I think she's strong-- or not. 1) I'm cool with expanding the list based upon her book. 2) She is reliable for the concept that there are multiple organizations with varying criteria for inclusion, who they are and how they differ. 3) She's fine for anything on overall general history or features of the horses that is not otherwise superceded by Sponenberg or other, more recent sources. (Lynghaug is 2009) But, I'd want the original sources (possible Horseoftheamericas.com?) for the various sub-types. I've seen modern Andalusians, I've never seen a photo of a Mustang that looks like an Andalusian (though I did once see one that rather looked like a small Lipizzaner) -- I'd want to have the actual person who postulated that theory and a definitions of where such magic unicorns populations exist. Montanabw^(talk) 01:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Cothran "knows his stuff", his work is academically very solid, but even geneticists are aware of the limitations of their techniques. I was suggesting that DNA studies in general are very susceptible to error introduced by small or biased sample sizes. That is why WP:RS cautions against relying on primary sources such as conference proceedings and journal publications, and therefore these DNA results should be mentioned, but not stated as fact.

Let's look at the three sources: Sponenberg (paraphrased by the Centre for America's First Horse, which is a commercial site), the Horse of the Americas registry's website, and Lynghaug's book (which quotes the former as the source, and indicates that the chapter was prepared with their support). The information given by the HotA and Lynghaug is almost identical, however I believed Lynghaug was the better source as it a) is a secondary source, b) is available in print, as opposed to published on an online website, and c) explains why the HotA registry standard is a more acceptable characterization of the type than the breed registries' standards: because it is a less restrictive standard.

Neither Sponenberg nor HotA/Lynghaug particularly contradict each other. However, what HotA/Lynghaug do is provide a complete characterization of the type, which is compatible with the breed standards from the multiple breed registries of each of the breeds considered under the umbrella of the HotA. When it comes to which is more reliable, HotA are a recognized organization which carries out frequent evaluation of whether a particular horse could be considered a CSH or not, while Sponenberg is a single researcher who occasionally writes about the breed, therefore I propose that HotA/Lynghaug are a better source, as per WP:PRIMARY. Regardless, I sidestepped the issue by rewriting the Characteristics in such a way that both sources were used, since they did not contradict each other; HotA/Lynghaug is just more exhaustive. You should not have removed it just because it didn't cite Sponenberg, and I would be very grateful if you would undo the revert.

Regarding your statement about the "Andalusian-type", firstly the article is not about Mustang, and secondly my edit did provide an explanation: in the text it stated that the Mustang was not Andalusian-type (I too have seen both breeds, and no, they are not alike, hence why in my edit I had stated that the type was highly variable - but they do share certain characteristics, particularly in the crestiness of both breeds and their forward movement), but rather, the Southwestern type. Here is the same statement, attributed to Sponenberg, on the HotA website. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Random break

• The link to the Sponenberg treatise at the HOA site gives a 404. But it's probably this one. Montanabw^(talk) 04:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Can you find full text of this Cothran study?
• The problem is that the studies are our best evidence ... the samples are going to be small because the populations are small. (We can certainly read them and explain their limits) They may be "primary sources" but Lynghaug is not a scientist, she's just the person who accumulated content for a breeds encyclopedia -- mostly that book just parrots, verbatim, the claims of various breed associations, and they are of varying reliability but all somewhat promotional in tone (their breed history is often accurate as to the founding of each particular group, though they often romanticize breed origins). If you read Lynghaug, and then look at the associations she lists, then go to their websites (or the wayback versions thereof) you will see this verbatim copying. If Lynghaug is used, it has to be done carefully, with pinpoint page citations, and where another source can verify the material, that should be looked at. Overall, Sponenberg and Cothran are far our best sources. The bottom line is that genetic studies in horses are not a real high priority for funding, so we must respect primary sources. HotA used Sponenberg as their expert, and the BLM used Cothran as theirs, so yes, there is overlap. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• The HOA site needs to be expressed as such; note they recognize multiple COH strains (and I think this matches up with Cothran and Sponenberg. The Southwest/Spanish Jennet/Andalusian thing appears to be something new, possibly their own marketing... and their 10-page conformation section doesn't mention it as far as I could see. The CSH organizations are often quite small and formed by, basically one clique getting into a catfight and going off to form their own club. I do think the HOA site is quite comprehensive, and I suspect they will be more or less reliable on the more obscure strains that have nothing easily located elsewhere. I just wish it looked a little less amateurish... Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My Two Cents

This is just too painful to sit back and watch, so I'm going to give some background on it on the slim chance that the wiki-lawyering, and turf-pissing stewardship stops and actual improvement can be made.

Sponenberg is the one who coined the concept and name of Colonial Spanish Horse. No, I don't have a source for that, but having been involved in the "breed" for over 20 years (I am actually the one who coined the Havapai name), I know that is the case. He wrote his first articles on the subject back in the early 90's. A few years later, a break-off group from the Spanish Mustang Registry/Southwest Spanish Mustang Registry decided to embrace Sponenberg's concept and revitalize the Horse of the America's registry. The HOA was named after a book by Robert Denhardt of the same name, and was founded by Bob Brislawn and some others back in the 70's. Brislawn had originally founded the Spanish Mustang Registry back in the 50's but other members started taking it in a direction he didn't agree with, so he decided to move on. The HOA never really went anywhere though, and a person in Texas ended up with all the paperwork and some of the horses. She and some others are the ones that revitalized the HOA about 20 years ago. They pretty much follow Sponenberg's lead on conformation, which horse populations should be included, etc. So, basically the HOA is the registry for the North American (you can read the fuckibuster drama discussion above on whether or not South American Horses are also CSH) Colonial Spanish Horses, although a lot of other registries also register horses considered Colonial Spanish Horses.

As far as BLM using Cothran as an "expert" in Spanish Horses-no. Back in the 1990's Cothran began doing blood typing studies on BLM horses to try to determine if the herds are genetically viable. He would call out in his reports interesting finds, such as a remarkable percentage of Spanish Markers, but Cothran does not advise the BLM on which horses may or may not be CSH. So, the BLM may put Cothran's findings in their herd descriptions, but Sponenberg has only confirmed a few herds to be CSH.

Unfortunately, there's probably nothing online or elsewhere that could be used as a reliable source for what I just wrote. I would suggest, however, that you just use the KISS method and use the conformation pages on the HOA site as your most reliable source. It is identical to this source which is Sponenberg's 2011 update (2011 may be the last time he did an update). I also suggest you not get all anal over "close paraphrasing" since Sponenberg freely allows anyone to republish this report, and its a subject that doesn't lend itself to much change in verbiage. I also suggest you ditch Lynghaug, whose book is little more than a vanity publication, unless she actually has published some useful information about the origins of the HOA.

edit: I see Lynghaug states that the HOA is the registry for the "Colonial Spanish" horse (page 56). I would go with that, with a disclaimer that other registries register horses considered Colonial Spanish Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

OMG, we actually (for the most part) agree. Certainly on minimizing use of Lynghaug. (Save for the snark, at least.) As for Cothran, he is interested in Spanish ancestry of Mustangs, and IS the guru of which Mustang herds have Spanish markers, regardless of what his original motivation may have been -- and he strongly favors their preservation.

I would not be surprised if Cothran "strongly favors their preservation", but I doubt there's much of a source for that out there. He is the one that identified the Spanish markers in many herds, but that is as far as it went. He did not write reports or publish opinions on whether the herds should be considered CSH, that was Sponenberg. Cothran did include some horses from the Sulphur Springs herd in one of his academic research studies "Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds" but that was after Sponenberg had evaluated the herd. So once again-no, the BLM does not use Cothran as an expert in Spanish horses. If list of BLM herds that you created states that he does, it is an incorrect assumption (also known as OR) on your part. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(Note: In response to Montanabw, I haven't read LynnWysong's recent response yet!)

• The link above (repeated here) works for me, but alternatively you can go to the HotA website and click "Conformation" (not "Conformation2" etc.). It is written by Sponenburg, and explains the three types.

Um, no it is not written by Sponenberg -- they have a link to his treatise, except it returns a 404. I cannot find anything he wrote that lists the three types. --Montanabw^(talk) 07:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• The page you linked is the currently cited Sponenberg overview of the SCH, and interestingly, reinforces my misgivings about the effectiveness of DNA and blood typing:

Blood type and DNA techniques have some limitations in that no breed or herd is uniform for the presence of what are generally considered to be “Iberian” markers (or blood types). [...] Almost invariably when the history and phenotype point to a consistently Iberian population, the blood typing and DNA evidence likewise point in this direction. The DNA technologies that have replaced blood typing have the additional problem that variants completely unique to certain breed origins are generally lacking, so that gene frequencies become more important in determining the origin and relationships of populations under study. [...] Therefore, conformational type is a more important factor than blood type or DNA type, and will always remain so. It is impossible to determine the relative percentage of Spanish breeding in a horse through blood typing or DNA typing, at least currently.

Wikipedia cautions against presenting research findings as fact before they enter the scientific consensus for this very reason: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

• The Cothran study you've linked is available if you have access to the Wiley publications. In case you don't, here's a quick summary of the paper:]
  • Cothran et al. have investigated samples from five identified CSH (287 Shackleford Banks, 38 Corolla, 37 Ocracoke, 46 Florida Crackers, 124 Marsh Tackies) and compared them to a bank of samples from 40 other breeds.
  • 4 out of 5 breeds (not the Corolla) showed microsatellite diversity within the range of that of the other breeds.
  • The Florida Cracker population was the only one of the 5 found to have a heterozygosity deficit. In the other 4, the authors presume the high heterozygosity is due to recent outcrossing.
  • No statistically significant evidence of genetic bottlenecks were found in any of the 5 CSH populations.
  • The Florida Cracker was found to be similar to the TWH, and the Corolla to the Shetland Pony.
  • The Shackleford, Marsh Tacky and Florida Cracker all showed some affinity to the Paso Fino, which the authors attributed to a distant Spanish origin.
  • The 5 populations "show more similarity to other New World horses of Iberian origin than they do to the modern Lusitano and Andalusian."

If you require further information, let me know what you're looking for.

• Back to the original point, and in reply to "They may be "primary sources" but Lynghaug is not a scientist, she's just the person who accumulated content for a breeds encyclopedia -- mostly that book just parrots, verbatim, the claims of various breed association... Overall, Sponenberg and Cothran are far our best sources. The bottom line is that genetic studies in horses are not a real high priority for funding", I think you are missing the point. My edit was to expand the Characteristics of the horses, that is, the external morphology of the animals. The way you determine this is by examining the animals in question. Cothran's DNA studies, while interesting (if flawed) from the point of view of the evolutionary biology of the animals, are unsuitable for that section. Perhaps for a History or Genetics section, but a horse's genetic makeup does not tell you about the shape of the horse. For that, you typically examine the breed standard, or in this case, the type standard. What Lynghaug did was not to "parrot" the HotA standard, as the book states, she worked in collaboration with the HotA, hence why the standards are almost identical. I would be more than happy to provide page numbers if that is what you require. Again, Sponenberg, although monumental in the naming of the breed, gives an overview, but deferred to the registries to fully describe the type. Cothran deals with the BLM to help them decide on optimum herd numbers for management purposes, that is very different to characterizing a type.
• I am aware of Respect Primary Sources, however I am also aware of Respect Secondary Sources, and the guidelines make clear why one is preferred over the other!
• At this stage, if you are still unhappy with my reasoning, would you like to call for a WP:THIRDOPINION? Wasechun tashunka (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Best to post at WikiProject Equine for input. I do want to see the Cothran paper in full text before I go further. I've been reading a lot of studies on coat color genetics and breed stuff as well, you have to be careful not to "cherry-pick" the data. I've also read a lot of Cothran's older papers when I was working on the BLM HMA list. Parentage verification and genetic markers are pretty complex topics -- must be careful about extrapolating too far unless you are a geneticist. Montanabw^(talk) 07:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to extend this much further, as I feel it would be more productive for both of us to come to some sort of a conclusion and move on to improving other articles. I'm not aware of how to ask for a third opinion on a WikiProject, so I'm just going to through the WP:3O procedure explained in the policies. I am aware that Lynn already has given her opinion on using HotA or Lynghaug, but since you both seem to have a somewhat antagonistic relationship, I'm going to ask for a completely unbiased, outsider opinion.

'To recap:' The dispute is over a revert of this edit, which expanded a previous description based on the Livestock Conservancy with additional material from Lynghaug.

• Montanabw reverted the edit as they feel that Lynghaug is a weaker source than Sponenberg, as it paraphrases closely the HotA conformation, and that Sponenberg is a stronger source as he is an expert on the matter and an academic. Additionally, Montanabw would like to see the use of DNA studies by Cothran as a citation.
• I feel that Lynghaug is a valid source as it is based on the standard of the umbrella registry, the HotA, and does not contradict Sponenberg. I am happy using the HotA's website instead, as the HotA were the contributors to that chapter of Lynghaug's book and the information is almost identical, however I chose Lynghaug's book as it is a secondary source and in print, and reinforces the choice of the HotA's standard. Additionally, I have no problem with Cothran, but I feel that research papers into DNA sequencing are not a suitable source for a description of the external morphology of a breed/type. I do feel that there is room for Cothran's studies, but in another section, and suitably qualified as it is new research. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of Cothran's mtDNA/DNA research, and have modified the article accordingly.

very confusing

classification of horses in this article is very confusing. I read some discussions above and see some of it was already discussed.. will edit few things according to my understanding and feel free to correct. 89.216.113.98 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Revisions to article

Reverted back the article to the version I spent some time and effort updating to the sources, and correcting information. Please stop making a succession of excuses, (first POV pushing, then synth and overgeneralization, then that I must respect status quo) to obstruct editing. If you want to help improve it, engage in thoughtful and informed editing. Don't just obstruct. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Yes, I would like to see Montanabw post here, but you made a bold edit, it was reverted and the onus is on you to explain why it is an improvement. I haven't seen you make the case. "time and effort" does not qualify as an explanation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I get BRD. It doesn't work when the reasons for reverting are a succession of aspersion casting. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No aspersions from me. The problem is that, as usual, there is an editorial tone that is POV-pushing and the usual problems with SYNTH from sources. Some of the content helped and I was trying to integrate it, but the constant reversions and personal attacks (one from a sockpuppet account -- now you SLW) make it difficult to get anything done. Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Stop with the histrionics. Just ignore the troll and stop using it as an excuse to not engage in good faith collaboration.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that the article was reported by a blocked sockpuppet account but also was locked by Coffee and that C.Fred asked me to weigh in here. There is no need to lock this article, SLW and I have had disagreements on how to handle this and related articles for years, nothing particularly new or different has occurred here other than I have been very busy and less active on wikipedia than previously. The bottom line is that I have long had concerns that the edits made by the other editor often have useful sources but that the information from them is cherry-picked and "extrapolated" to present a tone that is pretty much straight from the ranching industry and the management level of the BLM. My own positions have also been misrepresented by this editor at times. The whole issue is very tiring and if the other editor involved would admit that they also have a COI and actually edit neutrally, we'd not have as many problems. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And, when did you stop beating your husband? You make accusations and cast aspersions left and right as though they are foregone conclusions, and not something you are obligated to prove. Or, as in the case of Wasechun tashunka earlier, just play around with an editor because you think they are a sock you don't have to take seriously. If you would collaborate in good faith rather than continually resorting to such tactics, things would go better.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to engage on this further. You have been repeatedly warned about your penchant for misusing source material and if you could do less of that so I could trust your edits to be fully accurate, our different points of view would be far easier to resolve. Focus on content. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So, as a Start...

Montanabw Why don't you explain how the article, as it is with my last round of editing "present(s) a tone that is pretty much straight from the ranching industry and the management level of the BLM." Because, I'm pretty sure that my editing tone simply reflects a reality backed up by history and several experts on the subject of Colonial Spanish Horses. If that happens to be the same stance taken by the "ranching industry and the management level of the BLM" (which BTW, you have not offered one iota of evidence to be the case) maybe its just because we all like to deal with reality. So, instead of throwing out accusations of "cherry picking" sources, you should accept the facts instead of making accusations of "cherry picking" them because they don't fit your POV. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to add sources from the 1980s. I was attempting to review the source materials and see what could be incorporated, My suggestion is that we revert to the status quo ante and keep the format the same until we have the content issues fixed. Per WP:BURDEN, you actually are the one who needs to explain why we should be using 20-year old research instead of more recent work. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You sidestepped the issue. Why don't you explain how the article, as it is with my last round of editing "present(s) a tone that is pretty much straight from the ranching industry and the management level of the BLM." You make statements like this right and left to discredit me, but never back them up. Add to that, your latest: "You have been repeatedly warned about your penchant for misusing source material..." Stop the bull crap pretension that you are engaging in good faith collaboration, when what you are really doing is trying to bully me into backing off.

Discussion to be added when the article is unlocked...

"One position held that the horses were the descendants of Spanish mustangs. Another took the view that the horse herds were the result of released or escaped cavalry mounts and work animals. At the time that the 1980 report was written, no data existed to answer questions about the amount of genetic variation within and between populations and the relatedness of free-ranging equid populations to domestic horses and donkeys. Therefore, the report recommended that studies be carried out to determine the genetic variation between populations of free-ranging horses and burros and the genetic similarity between free-ranging equids and domestic breeds...The data showed that there was less difference between populations of horses in the Nevada and Oregon herds than there was between domestic horse breeds. It also supported the hypothesis that the free-ranging horses in that region descended from escaped or released domestic draft, saddle, and cavalry animals." Appendix B, National Resource Council, 2013

Provide link to report, please. We should probably review the underlying studies. But, nothing is new with this, all mustangs are "feral" and descended from animals that "escaped" from domesticity, so it's kind of meaningless. Also, I did a ton of research on individual HMAs when creating the list of BLM HMA article, and it was pretty clear which herds the BLM says had "Spanish markers" and which did not... but it's also kind of irrelevant, the real issue here is that THIS article is about the animals more or less "officially" designated as of Colonial Spanish type or descent by folks that hope to preserve them. This isn't an article about Mustangs or necessarily about free-roaming horses, as some Colonial Spanish breeds are fully domesticated (Marsh Tacky, etc...). Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The link is in the article. If you want to review the underlying studies, go ahead, but the conclusion is not "meaningless;" it straight-forwardly confirmed that all but a few herds descend from Spanish horses. I agree, your "research" is useless for this article, especially since it would be synth to try to extrapolate any conclusions about the origin of the horses based on the BLM's references to Cothran's findings, which you seem to be trying to do. The bottom line is, there's been a ton of genetic analysis on feral horses, and only three herds were found to have markers that indicate direct Spanish ancestry. No, I do not agree that the article should be reverted, because it stated that DNA is used to determine ancestry. The 2013 NRC report specifically states it isn't. Bowling and Touchberry, as identified in the 1991 NRC report, started with blood typing, then Cothran continued with it when he was in Oklahoma Kentucky and found the spanish markers in three herds that Sponenberg confirmed were CSH. When Cothran moved to Texas A and M, (sometime around 2003) he switched to exclusively using direct DNA (micro-satellite) analysis, but "Because the blood group polymorphisms provide clear evidence and the micro-satellite loci do not, the results that he presented to the committee were based only on blood group data." (NRC 2013 p. 152). Cothran's studies are primarily done to determine genetic health of the herds, and secondarily to look for old Spanish blood. I believe the studies now use hair follicles for the DNA source, rather than the blood samples they used to use for blood typing. So, if the micro-satellite analysis indicates possible Spanish ancestry, the next step is to do blood sampling and run blood marker tests. But, by the time the micro-satellite analysis is done, the horses are no longer available to pull blood from. In addition, Cothran told me his lab at Texas A&M does not have the capability to test for blood markers, so those would have to be done elsewhere. So, your statement that "it was pretty clear which herds the BLM says had "Spanish markers" and which did not.." reveals an ignorance of the subject matter. It's not clear at all when the BLM references "genetic analysis" whether it was blood typing or DNA testing. I see where you assumed in the list that "genetic analysis" meant DNA, such as in the Sandwash Basin and Callaghan HMAs. That was going beyond the source, but now you are saying it was "Spanish Markers" like it was blood typing.

Moved from my talkpage

This is Pointless

Good talkpage discussion, but it belongs over here, so moving. Continue. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC) So, @Atsme:, can you please point to any policy or essay that condones reversion based on the idea that status quo must be maintained? Because BRD (which isn't policy by the way) states: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. There's nothing there about reversion being justified just because you don't want the article changed until you've approved the changes on talk. Especially after your first two reasons for reverting was an unsubstantiated accusation of COI, then an unsubstantiated accusation of synth and cherry picking. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC) WP:PRESERVE, but the first thing I saw was "blood markers" VS "genetic markers" and there was no justification for "blood markers" unless you work in forensics. Atsme📞📧 20:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Don't see anything about status quo in WP:PRESERVE. And I have no idea what you are talking about "blood markers" VS "genetic markers." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Ok, I understand...but before we move forward, I ask that you please look at this edit, and when you see "blood markers", let me know. Atsme📞📧 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I mean, where is your authority that "blood marker" is not a valid phrase in this case? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC) How about we take that DNA-vs-"blood marker" (which is the name for older testing used for parentage identification prior to modern testing that is described as "DNA test" -- both being used as parentage and ancestry testing for horses, regardless of method) to the article page? Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) We can. But first, I would like to post this source: [5] where the term is used by impeccable experts. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) It's dated 1996, Lynn - we could also say the Edsel is the car of the future. It's not a term that's used in the 21st Century. Atsme📞📧 21:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Source? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC) I will as soon as I catch my breath from laughing over Bull Pucky. Haven't heard that in a while. Wish we were having this discussion with country music playing in the background while drinking our favorite beverages! Atsme📞📧 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC) See the following (quick picks): [6], and [7]. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC) They don't. The first is discussing DNA. The second is talking about why some Blood marker tests are outdated. But the article is talking about the blood marker typing that was done in the past. It is a valid term to use in the context of the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Having moved the discussion between Atsme and LynnWysong from my talkpage, I am going to let you two further discuss and sort some of this out, but what is relevant is from the above linked source, "A biomarker can be a gene, a gene mutation, protein, other molecule or clinical measurement..." My edits stated "DNA Markers," SLW's edits said "blood markers" and I proposed the compromise language "genetic markers". We could come up with some other neutral term, but the point is that parentage/ancestry testing shows that the horse breeds listed as Colonial Spanish show this ancestry. Cothran's studies of Mustangs were only one such study, other work was done on other non-mustang domesticated horse breeds. A proper review of the underlying literature is needed, without dragging in the wild horse issue. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to put into this right now, though I have interest in the topic. Carry on. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pryor Mountain Mustang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spanish Jennet Horse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge . Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

---

This, like the Tiger horse, seems to be an attempt to re-create an imagined memory of the jennet, with both gaits and spots; or perhaps it's an attempt to make a buck or two. It appears to completely non-notable in its own right. I suggest merging/redirecting both pages here, but am fullly open to suggestions of better or alternative redirect targets. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support, my cowboy knows the way.Sourcerery (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, The CSH is a legitimate attempt to preserve the type of horse that the Spanich originally brought to America. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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.