RANGE Magazine-Spring 2012
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Genomics and the Evolutionary History of Equids Pablo Librado, Ludovic Orlando
Genomics and the Evolutionary History of Equids Pablo Librado, Ludovic Orlando To cite this version: Pablo Librado, Ludovic Orlando. Genomics and the Evolutionary History of Equids. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, Annual Reviews, 2021, 9 (1), 10.1146/annurev-animal-061220-023118. hal- 03030307 HAL Id: hal-03030307 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03030307 Submitted on 30 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2021. 9:X–X https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-061220-023118 Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved Librado Orlando www.annualreviews.org Equid Genomics and Evolution Genomics and the Evolutionary History of Equids Pablo Librado and Ludovic Orlando Laboratoire d’Anthropobiologie Moléculaire et d’Imagerie de Synthèse, CNRS UMR 5288, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse 31000, France; email: [email protected] Keywords equid, horse, evolution, donkey, ancient DNA, population genomics Abstract The equid family contains only one single extant genus, Equus, including seven living species grouped into horses on the one hand and zebras and asses on the other. In contrast, the equine fossil record shows that an extraordinarily richer diversity existed in the past and provides multiple examples of a highly dynamic evolution punctuated by several waves of explosive radiations and extinctions, cross-continental migrations, and local adaptations. -
A DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS of RURAL COLORADO ENGLISH By
A DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF RURAL COLORADO ENGLISH by LAMONT D. ANTIEAU (Under the Direction of William A. Kretzschmar, Jr.) ABSTRACT This dissertation describes a study in linguistic geography conducted in Colorado using the methodology of the Linguistic Atlas of the Western States. As such, the goals of this dissertation are threefold: 1) to provide a description of Colorado English with respect to select lexical, phonetic, and syntactic features; 2) to compare the results of work in Colorado with previous work conducted in the eastern states as well as in Colorado and other western states; and 3) to use inferential statistics to show correlation between the distribution of specific linguistic variants and the social characteristics of those informants who use these variants. The major findings of this study include the observation that linguistic variants are distributed according to a power law, that numerous variants have statistically significant social correlates at all levels of the grammar, and that the relative effect of social variables differ at each linguistic level. INDEX WORDS: Linguistic Geography, Dialectology, Sociolinguistics, Language Variation, American English, Western American English, Colorado English, Rural Speech, Kruskal-Wallis A DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF RURAL COLORADO ENGLISH by LAMONT D. ANTIEAU BA, Eastern Michigan University, 1996 MA, Eastern Michigan University, 1998 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2006 © 2006 Lamont D. Antieau All Rights Reserved A DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF RURAL COLORADO ENGLISH by LAMONT D. ANTIEAU Major Professor: William A. Kretzschmar, Jr. Committee: Marlyse Baptista Lee Pederson Diane Ranson Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2006 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to the good people of Colorado who welcomed me into their homes and into their lives. -
Mules and Hinnies Factsheet
FACTSHEET: OWNERS MULES AND HINNIES Mules and hinnies are similar. They are both a cross between a horse and a donkey, with unique characteristics that make them special. Because they are so similar, the terms ‘mule’ and ‘hinny’ are used interchangeably, with hinnies often being referred to as mules. KEY FACTS ABOUT MULES AND HINNIES: Mule: The result of a donkey stallion mating with a female horse. Mules tend to have the head of a donkey and extremities of a horse. Hinny: The result of a horse stallion mating with a female donkey. Hinnies are less common than mules and there might be subtle differences in appearance. Size: Varies greatly depending on the stallion and mare. Ranging from 91-172 cm. Health: Hardy and tough. They often have good immune systems. Strength: Extremely strong. They pull heavy loads and carry much heavier weights than donkeys or horses of a similar size. Behaviour: Intelligent and sensitive. They can have unpredictable reactions. Appearance: Ears smaller than a donkey’s, the same shape as a horse’s. The mane and tail of a hinny is usually similar to a horse. Vocalisation: A mixture of a donkey’s ‘bray’ and a horse’s ‘whinny’. Sex: Male is a ‘horse mule’ (also known as a ‘john’ or ‘jack’). Female is a ‘mare mule’ (also known as a ‘molly’). Young: A ‘colt’ (male) or ‘filly’ (female). What is hybrid vigour? Hybrid = a crossbreed Vigour = hardiness or resilience • ‘Interbreeding’ (crossbreeding) can remove weaker characteristics and instead pass on desirable inherited traits. This is ‘hybrid vigour’, a term often associated with mules and hinnies. -
Ilililbblilliibiiiilllllillflflllfllsisbbiilill Ibililliiilllbbllbllllllblllllllllllifllillll
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ♦ PHENOTYPIC AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF ETHIOPIAN EQUINES: THEIR GENETIC DIVERSITIES AND GEOGRAPPHICAL DISTRICUTIONS BB»&m3BBS5£SBBBBBBBBSBB£SBBB®BBBBflBBBBBBBBBB5*flB gllBllHHllHlililllillllllllflBIIHBIBBBBHSlIll IlililBBlilliiBIIIIlllllillflflllfllSISBBiilill IBililliiilllBBllBllllllBlllllllllllifllillll llllillllllllillBliBBIIIIRIlllllBlBllliillBI IlflHlHflliillllBBBBlBBillBllBBBIfllllllfllllilB IBIlllBlBBBBiiBBlllBBIBIliBIBBBBBlHlHBlilill IBIlllBBllfllBBBBBBlBBBBBBBIBBIBflflBBBBBBiBifll IBIlilBBlBBBBBBIIIIIIIBIIBIBBIBfllflBBlBllBiflB llliaiBBBBBBBBBIIBBIBBBIIBIBBIIfliBIIBllBBflBB PhD DISSERTATION KEFENA EFFA DELESA MARCH, 2012 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY HARARMAYA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES PHENOTYPIC AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF ETHIOPIAN EQUINES: THEIR GENETIC DIVERSITIES AND GEOGRAPPHICAL DISTRICUTIONS A Dissertation Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Haramaya University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Animal Genetics and Breeding by Kefena Effa Delesa Advisors: Tadelle Dessie (PhD) (Chairman) Han Jianlin (PhD) Mohammed Yusuf Kurtu (PhD) March, 2012 Haramaya University iii SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY As Dissertation Research advisor, we here by certify that we have read and evaluated this PhD Dissertation prepared, under our guidance, by Kefena Effa Delesa entitled "PHENOTYPIC AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF ETHIOPIAN EQUINES: THEIR GENETIC DIVERSITIES AND GEOGRAPPHICAL DISTRICUTIONS'. -
Zeitschrift Für Säugetierkunde)
ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Mammalian Biology (früher Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde) Jahr/Year: 1964 Band/Volume: 29 Autor(en)/Author(s): Huitema H. Artikel/Article: Archaic pattern in the horse and its relation to colour genes 42-46 © Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ 42 H. Huitema Zusammenfassung Mönchsrobben sind die einzigen wirklich tropischen Flossenfüßer, und unter den drei Species ist die Laysan-Robbe die zuletzt und erst spät entdeckte. Ihre Verbreitung, Geschichte und derzeitige Populationsgröße werden gezeigt. Eine kurze Beschreibung der Robbe, ihrer Lebens- weise und ihrer verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen wird gegeben. References Allen, G. M. (1942): Extinct and Vanishing mammals of the Western Hemisphere; Special Puhl. No. 11. Am. Comm. Int. Wildlife Protect. 620 pp. — Bailey, A. M. (1952): The Ha- waiian Monk Seal; Mus. Pictorial, Denver. 7:1-32. — Blackman, T. M. (1941): Rarest Seal; Nat. Hist. N. Y. 47:138-139. — Bryan, W. A. (1915): Natural History of Hawaii; 1-596 pp., pl. 117, Honolulu. — Kenyon, K. W., and Rice, D. W. (1959): Life History of the Hawaiian monk seal; Pacific Science, 13:215-252. — King, J. E. (1956): The monk seals (genus Mona- chus); Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Zool. 3 (5):203-256. — King, J. E., and Harrison, R. J. (1961): Some notes on the Hawaiian monk seal; Pacific Science. 15:282-293. — Matschie, P. (1905): Eine Robbe von Laysan; Berlin Sitz. Ber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde. 254-262. — Rice, D. W. (1960): Population dynamics of the Hawaiian monk seal; Journ. Mamm. 41:376-385. -
The Perdum-Mule, a Mount for Distinguished Persons in Mesopotamia During the fi Rst Half of the Second Millennium BC By
190 The perdum-mule, a mount for distinguished persons in Mesopotamia during the fi rst half of the second millennium BC by Cécile Michel Fig. 7. Map of the area. [First. Unnumbered note: (*) Bibliography and sigla of Traditionally Mesopotamia defi nes the region bounded the Old Assyrian texts cited in this article are detailed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, but in a more conven- in C. Michel, Old Assyrian Bibliography, Old Assyrian tional way, it covers the whole area where people used Archives. Studies 1, Leiden, 2003.] cuneiform script on clay tablets, from Iran to Anatolia, from the Zagros mountains to the Persian Gulf. The area Abstract: concerned by this study is limited mainly to Anatolia Among the many equids used at the beginning of the second millen- nium B. C. in Northern Mesopotamia, the perdum, an hybrid, is at- and Syria. tested only in few corpuses: the Old Assyrian merchant archives found Equids in the Ancient Near East are divided into in Central Anatolia in the ancient town Kaniš and dated to the 19th and three different groups: asses (equus asinus), half-asses 18th centuries B. C., the royal archives of Mari, Northern Syria, from (equus hemionus) and horses (equus caballus), and their the 18th century B. C., the tablets from Ugarit, half a millennium later, or even in the Bible. The aim of this article is to analyse the use and hybrids. The studies on this subject are already numer- the value of the perdum, compared to the picture given by the other ous, especially for the written documentation of the third equids documented in texts, iconography and by the archaeozoology. -
Horse + Donkey = Mule by Morris Helmig & Sybil E. Sewell a Mule
Horse + Donkey = Mule by Morris Helmig & Sybil E. Sewell A mule combines the traits of its horse dam and donkey sire to create a new animal with its own distinctive characteristics. Here are the notable differences between horses, donkeys, and mules. Head—A donkey's head is larger than that of a horse, as is evidenced by its need for a bridle with a larger browband than is required for a horse or pony of comparable size. Donkey owners like to point out that this characteristic indicates a larger brain capacity, and therefore greater intelligence. The head of a mule or hinny is larger than the head of a horse of comparable size. Ears—A donkey's ears are longer than those of the horse and have an excellent blood supply, which is a desert adaptation for cooling the body. A mule's ears are inherited from the donkey, but are not quite as long as the donkey's. A hinny's ears are shorter than those of a donkey, but are much wider. Eyes—A donkey's eyes are larger in proportion to the head than those of a horse. Donkeys and mules have heavier eye sockets set farther out on the side of the head, resulting in a wider field of vision than the horse has. The horse's eye sockets are round, the donkey's are D-shaped. The mule's eye sockets are somewhat D-shaped, as seen in male (horse) mules with heavy brow ridges. Tail—The donkey has a cow-like tail covered by short coarse body hair, except for a tuft at the end. -
Mules and Hinnies Mules Are Intelligent and Sensitive
MULES AND HINNIES MULES ARE INTELLIGENT AND SENSITIVE A mule is the result of breeding between a female horse and a male donkey. A mule is said to have the body of the horse with extremities of a donkey. Mules have smaller ears than their donkey fathers but larger, although the same shape, as their horse mothers. Their manes and tails are not as thick as that of a horse. If they try to bray it usually starts out with a horse’s whinny and ends with a donkey’s distinctive bray. Mules can range in height from less than 36 inches up to 17 hands, depending on the size of the mare and stallion used. In Britain larger mules are less common than in the USA where they have been used as draft and riding animals since America was colonised. These larger mules from North America were extremely popular with the British army and were used in both World Wars and during campaigns in India and Asia. MALE MULE The correct name for a male mule is a Horse Mule, but they are sometimes referred to as a John or Jack Mule. FEMALE MULE The correct name for a female mule is a Mare Mule, sometimes females are informally called Molly Mules. Mule Colt or Mule Filly refers to a mule that is less than 3 years of age. HINNIES A hinny is the result of breeding between a female donkey and a male horse. A hinny is said to have the body of a donkey and the extremities of a horse. -
Comparing the Physiological and Biochemical Parameters of Mules and Hinnies to Horses and Donkeys
Comparing the physiological and biochemical parameters of mules and hinnies to horses and donkeys Amy K. McLean [North Carolina State University] Figure 1. Mules and hinnies comparing the commonalities and differences of these hybrids to their parents the donkey and horse. One of the most challenging things to do is distinguish a hinny from a mule based only on its appearance. Which is the mule and which is the hinny in this figure? Abstract: Mules and hinnies are hybrid offspring from donkeys (Equus asinus) and horses (Equus caballus). Little scientific information is known regarding mules and even less is known about hinnies the reciprocal cross. There have only been a few studies that have attempted to define commonalities and differences of these hybrids especially in terms of comparing and contrasting them to their sires and dams (donkeys and horses). This presentation will take a closer look at hinnies and mules from around the world and how they are used today as well as comparing both physiological and biochemical parameters of these unique creatures while addressing many of the fallacies and myths commonly associated with such equids with special attention being paid to hinnies. Recent studies conducted by the author and colleagues on comparing physiological, haematological, and biochemical parameters of both hinnies and mules from several countries will be shared in this review. In addition, interviews from both hinny and mule owners and breeders from Mexico, Colombia, US, Spain and Portugal will also be included in the presentation for a more comprehensive understanding of behaviour and training and how hinnies and mules are used today (Figure 1). -
A Donkey Is Not a Horse: the Differences from a Practical Veterinary Standpoint
A Donkey is Not a Horse: The Differences From a Practical Veterinary Standpoint Stephen R. Purdy, D.V.M. Objectives of the Presentation: • To discuss the practical differences between donkeys and horses. • To discuss donkey and mule terminology, genetic makeup, anatomic differences, and donkey behavior. Terminology associated with donkeys and mules: • Donkey- worldwide common name for the ass family – Jack, Jack Ass, or Jackass- an intact male of the ass family – Jennet, Jenny- the female of the ass family. – Burro- the smaller member of the ass family, usually of Mexican or Spanish descent. Usually gray in color and commonly thought of as feral asses. – Donkey Gelding, or Gelded Jack- castrated male of the ass family Hybrid Crosses: • Hinny- the hybrid cross resulting from breeding a stallion to a jenny. – Mare Hinny- a female hinny. – Horse Hinny- a male hinny. • Mule- the hybrid cross resulting from breeding a mare to a jack – Mare Mule- female mule, also referred to as a Molly Mule. – Horse Mule- male mule, often referred to as a John Mule. – Mule Mare- a mare used to raise mules. Donkey Sizes: • Miniature Donkey- member of the donkey family that stands at 36 inches or less at the withers at maturity. • Standard Donkey- between 36 and 54 inches at the withers at maturity. • Mammoth Donkey- greater than 54 inches at the withers at maturity. • Jack Stock- indicative of multiple animals of mammoth size regardless of sex; similar to the term cattle for cows. Genetic Makeup: • Domestic horses- 64 chromosomes • Domestic ass- 62 chromosomes • Mule- female horse bred to a male ass- 63 chromosomes • Hinny- male horse bred to a female ass- 63 chromosomes also • Both crosses are considered sterile even though there are documented cases of fertility in the female mule (Mare Mule or Molly Mule). -
Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies As a Tool to Comprehend Their Behavior and Improve Their Welfare
animals Review Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies as a Tool to Comprehend Their Behavior and Improve Their Welfare Amy McLean 1,*, Angela Varnum 2, Ahmed Ali 3,4, Camie Heleski 5 and Francisco Javier Navas González 6 1 Department of Animal Science, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA 2 College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA 3 Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA 4 Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA 5 Department of Animal and Food Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA 6 Department of Genetics, Veterinary Sciences, University of Cordoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-706-296-8743 Received: 29 May 2019; Accepted: 20 July 2019; Published: 26 July 2019 Simple Summary: Mules and hinnies combine traits of their equid parents—the horse and donkey—but are less studied or understood. Still, their welfare varies greatly because of several factors. These hybrids have anatomy, health, nutritional, and behavioral particularities that are distinct from those of donkeys or horses. Their behavior can pose challenges to providing routine care and treatment during times of disease. Abusive treatment can result from those who have little understanding of learning theory or body language. Hence, an overview of studies and field observations can offer solutions for welfare enhancement. According to literature, participatory surveys and behavioral assessments across several countries, mule owners and handlers find it easier to interact with their animal as compared to allowing a stranger to do so. -
Donkeys, Domestication and Early Bronze Age Society
Donkeys, Domestication and Early Bronze Age Society By Ianir Milevski and Liora Kolska Horwitz Dogs are traditionally called man’s best friend. But the real best friend may be the more humble donkey. Fig 1A. Photograph of Equus africans (Photo 79784, (c) Valerie, some rights reserved [CC BY-NC- ND]). (https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/79784) The domestication of animals in the Near East during the Neolithic (8-6th millennia BCE) and the subsequent “Secondary Products Revolution” which took place in the Chalcolithic (mid-5th to mid-4th millennia BCE), had a profound impact not only on food production but also on all aspects of human lifestyle. This entailed new uses for domestic animals, manifest in the exploitation of products such as dairy, wool and hair, and traction and labor. These innovations, staggered over several centuries, highlight the intensification and shifting relations between people and domestic animals. In the Southern Levant, domestic sheep, goats, pigs and cattle are the most common livestock by the Chalcolithic, but neither the horse nor the camel were domesticated at that time. Regarding the first domestic donkeys (Equus asinus), there is still no consensus. Some researchers believe its introduction from North Africa (Egypt) occurred at the very end of the Chalcolithic period, around 3,800 BCE, while others suggest this occurred in the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3,700-2,500 BCE) when donkeys form a major component of the economy, and may even have been locally domesticated. To elucidate this, we examined donkey remains from archaeological sites dating to the Early Bronze Age (EBA) and preceding periods, to highlight the timing and the location of donkey domestication, as well as iconographic representations of equids spanning this time period.