| re:.1
No, there are not really any sub-classes beyond the meso-doli and
meso-brachy.
The point of this system of classification is to attempt to make
approriate groupings of equines as opposed to the current
popular system of hot-blood, warm-blood, cold-blood or the
equally popular riding, draft, light-draft, coach, farm, sport,
show, hunter categories that have been invented.
The morphology of equines will always be the same unless
the breed evolves into something else, but then it's no longer
that breed any more now is it?
It is an attempt by researches to classify equines by a more
stable (pun) method of calssification. That is one that doesn't
change based on someone elses "opinion". The point about
Frisians was very appropos in introducing morphology here.
Is or are Frisians a draft horse? Who cares! Person X may say
"yes it is" and person Y say "No it ain't". Both, by their world-view
and understanding may be correct.
By classification according to morphology, you'd have to deny
the animals structure, and conformation to say such and such
a breed was not (for instance) "brachymorphic". Hence its very
existance would be put to question. Such absurdity of denying
that Frisians really existed at all would be laughable, so the case
is clearly made that it falls into a respective category.
The meso-dolichomatic and meso-brachymorphic classes
were devised in recognition that MODERN horses are being
cross-breed for specific purposes, as classified current breeds
still exhibit either strong dolichomorphic or brachymorphic
structure but are beginning to show mesomorphic qualities
that do not fit within tight definition. Some breeds are shifting
back to either dolichomorphic or brachymorphic from
meso-dolichomorphic/meso-brachymorphic as breeding
programs refine their structure and conformation. But this
(if any change) will take 10-20 generations to effect.
Your point of sub-classifications does raise one tiny little nit
I have with the system, as morphology is a study of structure
and as is sometimes hotly debated, the Arab having a physical
structure which is unlike any other horse, I wonder if it is
not a "breed" but a different "species" entirely. This single breed
does not cleanly fit the morphologic classification of a mesomorph.
It has the qualities but also some major differences that fall outside
of the clssification system which contunually raises questions.
As for the quarterhorse in your question, it is by its morphology
that it is "the same" (not different) as all the other horses
in the category.
Ed P (confused yet? I'm working on it.) :-)
|
| OK, now that we are nearly confused, let me give you the opportunity to
complete the job. I still don't see the underlying qualities that place
a breed in one category or another. That lack of understanding makes the
examples you give seem to be riddled with inconsistency or at least as
much arbitrariness as the classical usage desginations. Would you
be more specific about what qualities are associated with each of the 5
categories?
The rest of this note is an enumeration of points that I find
confusing, apparently inconsistent or at least arbitrary without a
better understanding of a category's characteristics. I'm listing them
so you can see why I'm confused. I'm just curious.
What distinguishes the meso-brachymorphic Friesians from horses of similar
size and conformation(e.g. Welsh Cobs and Morgans) which are classified as
mesomorphs? This seems inconsistent to me. Further apparent inconsistencies
arise when considering other breeds used as examples.
For example, Irish Hunters are classified as mesomorphs. I have always
understood that they are usually a cross between
Thoroughbred(dolichomorphic) and Irish Draft(which I assume are
meso-brachymorphic since you mentioned them w/ Friesians). How do you
cross a dolichomorphic horse with a meso-brachymorphic and get
mesomorphs?
Similarly, in some places you say that warmbloods(e.g. Oldenburg,
Trakehner, Hannoveraner, etc) are meso-dolichomorphic yet in
others(e.g. 199.99) you say that they have brachymorphic ancestry too!
Wouldn't these examples require a brachy-meso-dolichomorphic category?
Or consider the closely related breeds, Lusitano(mesomorphs),
Andalusian(classified as mesomorphs despite your statement that they have
Noriker[brachymorphic] influence?) and the Lipizzaner which you
said(in 199.96)is classified as meso-dolichomorphic. The breed history
of the Lipizzaner indicates that they were breed by crossing Spanish
horses (Andalusians, Lusitanos and/or their progenitors) with native work
horses. Where is the dolichomorphic influence in the Lipizzaner? All I
am aware of historically is mesomorphic and brachymorphic influences.
Or what about a category for the type of horse created by crossing TB
with Shires, Clydes, etc. referred to in 199.103? Doesn't that require a
brachy-dolichomorphic category?
Can you clear up my confusion on those points?
Thanks
John
|
| It's all quite simple, and I can see your confusion. You had me worried
for a second that I might be making sense. :-)
My refernce to other breeds in note 199 was an example of the
the bloodlines of Frisians which, I will admit I did a poor
and confusing job of writing. The references to Cyldesdales
was to show that the Noriker plays a BIG influence in
may brachymorph and meso-brachymorph breeds. This
I believe is part of the source of the confusion.
I will clarify in my next note the meso/brachy/doli lines and
attempt to explain what the distinction.
Ed
|