Comments on: Cryptid Quagga?

By: NewSpecies

NewSpecies — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:44:11 +0000

I’ve seen horses with similar markings. Just not as far reaching. they usually are confined to the legs, the tail has a characteristic low set, and not very heavy bodied as quarter horses. Experts say there were no horses in the Americas at the time of its “Discovery”, but it’s a vain and pretentious contention. Archeological records are few and far between. That’s what makes them exciting. In a preditor environment of the plains populated by large plains wolves and plains grizzlys, cougar, etc., as well as hungry American Indians (who are patronizinly described as ‘wandering homeless people’ without using the actual words) It seems unlikely that one spanish horse could populate the plains by itself into the millions. Horses are composed of up to six sub species, of which the modern horse is a mixture of, similar to the domesticated dog. One example, the European forest horse, does not fit the assumed identity that one learns as a child. It was very tall, not necessarily heavily muscled, solitary and shy, somewhat like a moose. They didn’t travel in huge herds.
Individuals trying to preserve mustang lines have been disregarded for decades as crackpots and overly sentimental nuts. The Grullo markings have been associated with the identification of assumed Mustangs by these people. The pictures of this horse look like grullo marking. Maybe it’s a throwback. When small populations of animals have been isolated for very long periods, the narrow genetic variation tends to weaken the animal. If fresh genetic information is introduced they tend to thrive (hardening of the existing traits infused with more genetic resources) and could explain a population bloom such as the supposed feral horse population of the plains. Since the horse originated in the Americas, it wouldn’t be surprising to me that they could have genetic similaritys to the surviving species of the world. The camel originated here, the elephant, the horse, the lion and others. Like other symbols, the horse, even the Morgan Horse breed, were icons of America. At the end of WWI the Morgan breed virtually disappeared. In Europe they were slaughtered for food. In America, they probably were also, the breeding stables for the military were shut down and they couldn’t be supported. People were hungry. Everything became mechanized. The Morgan horse was destroyed by lack of interest. The modern breed is mostly some type of walker horse, infused with a few typie grade horses that were left over. Because of political prejudice about the condition of our countrys origin, our cultural heritage has been squandered. Look at the bison, then look at the African Gnu. Look at the Wolverine, then look at the African Honey Badger. There are many examples

By: Bob Michaels

Bob Michaels — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:06:33 +0000

Take a look at The Extinction Website.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:10:19 +0000

Yes, Kittenz, I agree that wolf and dog was perhaps a bad comparison. The more I thought about it, the more I wish I didn’t post that. It was just a rhetorical question. But you do see the point I’m trying to make. These quaggas that they are breeding would not be an exact genetic match. That was the gist of what I was trying to say. Nature created the quagga subspecies and it earned its right to be genetically distinct without human intervention. Unless humans create a clone from the original DNA, then no amount of tinkering with selective breeding is going to bring the subspecies back. It’s a matter of opinion and that is my opinion. So I definately think that these new quagga should be labelled as such, not taking on the exact scientific ame of their extinct brethren.

By: elizdelphi

elizdelphi — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:00:25 +0000

As others have said, quaggas were simply a color pattern variant of Plains Zebra (not necessarily even a subspecies). Zebastian is definitely a zorse and not a zebra, though it’s probable he was sired by a Plains Zebra since they are the most common species used to produce zorse offspring out of horse or pony mares. So, there would be nothing mysterious about him carrying a genetic marker carried by quaggas.

By: kittenz

kittenz — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:08:40 +0000

I don’t think you can really compare what the Quagga project is attempting to do with selective breeding for a wolf-like dog. It’s sort of like apples and oranges.

Quaggas were a naturally evolved subspecies of Burchell’s Zebra (or probably I should say Plains Zebra), while domestic dogs, even though they are thought to be primarily descended from wolves, are a man-made, hybrid species, with DNA having been introduced from many sources, including other canid species. Dogs have been selected for domestic behavioral traits for thousands of generations, and even dogs which are nearly indistinguishable from wolves in appearance are much different from wolves in behavior. I disagree with those who consider domestic dogs to be a subspecies of wolf. They are a separate species; of that I have no doubt at all.

Subspecies are still members of the same species as the parent species in every way, with some small differences brought about by isolation of smaller populations within the whole, which allows some traits to become more pronounced or slightly different than other subspecies. But they still share basically the same gene pool.

The zebras being selectively bred by the Quagga Project are unquestionably zebras. They are drawing on the same gene pool from which the original Quaggas originated. I agree that the quagga-like animal which will eventually be produced by the Quagga project will be slightly different, genetically, than the original Quagga population. But I think that it will be very close, since they are selecting entirely from within the original species.

An interesting project which parallels the Quagga project in some ways is the “recreation” of the recently extinct Tarpan horse. “Primitive” domestic breeds of horse, known to have been descended from Tarpans, were selected and bred for Tarpan characteristics. Today an animal exists that is called a Tarpan, and they have all the characteristics that were attributed to Tarpans. They are identical to the extinct Tarpans in appearance and behavior. Whether they are actually Tarpans is largely a matter of opinion.

My personal opinion is that the recreated animals should be referred to by a different name, no matter how closely they resemble the original extinct animal. The main reason I say this is that I do not feel it would be wise to become complacent about extinction. If an extinct animal could ever be cloned, as a true clone with 100% of the genetic material coming from an extinct individual, I would consider that cloned animal to be a member of the original species. But when a species or subspecies is resurrected from selective breeding of hybrid animals, or animals of other subspecies, I think it should be designated as such. For instance, Modern Quagga as opposed to True Quagga.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:26:18 +0000

Yeah, I see your point One Eyed Cat. But if I breed, say, a dog to look exactly like a wolf and it continues the “wolf look”, is that really a wolf? It’s still a common dog that just resembles a wolf. How far does just coloration and superficial appearance go towards being considered a revival of this species? There is more to the genetic code than mere appearance. I don’t know enough about the quagga to really make a firm stand on this, but it is my opinion that even if it survived in the wild and continued the look, it still would only be sort of an imposter. A zebra created by humans to look like a quagga.

By: One Eyed Cat

One Eyed Cat — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:25:41 +0000

mystery_man I think that depends on how well the animals do in wild conditions. If they survive long enough to breed on and breed true for the Qugga look, the answer may be very close to, if not truly, be yes. The first Quaggas came about without man’s help and had to survive and continue the look.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:02:46 +0000

That’s the one thing that gets me about the Quagga Project. The quagga was a unique subspecies, but what they are doing is breeding quagga- like zebras. So even if they get one that looks excactly like a the extinct quagga, does merely looking like one constitute a revival of the species? Would these look alikes then become a stand alone subspecies, to be classified once again as quagga or would they merely be a zebra with coloration resembling a Quagga and not a recreation of the original subspecies? I tend to think that merely looking like a Quagga does not a Quagga make.

By: One Eyed Cat

One Eyed Cat — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:37:08 +0000

Thank you kittenz, it has beeen awhile since I looked at The Quagga Project, but the timing still didn’t make sense for it to have progressed so far.

I doubt DNA would totally match unless descendants of the exact animals that first produced a Qugga are the only animals used now. Most likely newer strains of zebra are being used. I would think based on that we have no idea what lines of Zebra went into the first Quaggas.

By: raisinsofwrath

raisinsofwrath — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:30:24 +0000

I wouldn’t be all that surprised to learn that this guy does in fact have an animal with some Quagga genetics in it. It would seem that the breeding of such an animal is not as far fetched as say a Mammoth for example.

A very interesting situation to say the least and I hope he gets his animal back as there are hunters out there that shouldn’t own a gun let alone hunt animals with one.