Misplaced Pages

• Archive 2006
• Archive 2007
• Archive 2008
• User:Montanabw/Sandbox
• User:Montanabw/Gwinva-Medieval Sandbox
• User:Montanabw/Countercanter-Color genetics sandbox

• Remember: WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
• However, Misplaced Pages is not just an encyclopedia
• What we are REALLY doing: Professor Misplaced Pages

I really don't appreciate your attitude on this at all. I did not start this problem; you did by having a substandard article listed as a GA. As I said to Dana, I will provide a further review and give my opinion when I have the time but as I also mentioned, it is not my place to close the review - in fact to do so would be a pretty severe conflict of interest. As I think I mentioned to you at the start of this process, assuming an aggressive attitude and being impatient with other editors will get you nowhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jacky, I've answered elsewhere. The lack of appreciation for attitude is mutual. And your personal attack here is unwarranted. The article was awarded GA status by the same process that all articles supposedly go through now. "Substandard" is really pretty over the top. To say that standards have tightened up is fine. Insulting the work of previous editors and GA reviewers is not. Montanabw 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I just reread the article. It looks good from an MoS and sourcing standpoint. I still think it's a bit unfocused in areas; however, those issues are not sufficient to remove the article's GA status. I reversed my delist so that another editor can close the review. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, you're a gem.

From the GAR page history, it appears that User:Geometry guy is the main person who opens and closes reviews and discussions. I'm unsure as to weather or not users can close GARs on their own. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the article was listed as a GA back in December 2006, when standards were different than they are now, they have tightened considerably. So while the article did need updating, calling it substandard is probably a bit of a stretch. It's more that the standards have improved (as they should, I personally believe). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I have relatively few issues with tighter GA standards. But that aside, can we just close the GAR somehow, some way, any way? I just read WP:GAR and putting the article up for a community reassessment was an abuse of process in the first place. The GAR article says, "A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment..." There never WAS communication about the article at all. The request for a community reassessment came like a blast out of the blue. I'm still pissed off about this, it was not very well handled. Montanabw 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Epicadam is going to close the review now I believe. These GA reassessments do come like a bolt out out of the blue, and they do need to be handled with some sensitivity. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy enough now. Yeah, an individual GA reassessment is sort of a jolt, but that's the way they have to be, I suppose. Nonetheless, now that I see what the GAR guidelines are, a community reassessment with no prior warning was pretty poor form. But now everything appears to be tucked in, I'm (mostly) over it. Montanabw 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As the GAR has now been correctly closed as keep, let that be an end to this. Congratulations to everyone who put in hard work on this (including you Montana); the article is now vastly improved, not far indeed from FA standard. By the way, if you take a look at the top of the GAR you will see that I brought it to a community GAR because I felt the article was too long and complicated for me to personally decide in an individual reassessment whether it was good enough for GA. I therefore took it to community GAR, perfectly correctly, to generate wider community interest and comments. This has resulted in both increased interest in and large-scale improvements to the article, and was thus the correct procedure. I think it would be better if you and I avoided one another for the forseeable future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The sloth speaks

Sorry, I kept promising to look at Horses in warfare, but have not yet made it, despite your crisis. Are there still page nos and other refs outstanding, or have you sorted everything despite my slothfulness? Let me know if you still need anything, and be as rude to me as I deserve for not doing anything I promised. My mind's still on holiday, I think. Gwinva (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we weathered the crisis and are finished, but if you see any "citation needed" tags or "needs page number" comments in there (do word search) and they are to one of your books, can you help? Also, check the stuff linked to the Keenan work; I have issues with some of it, but no ammo to back up my thoughts (basically on the development of light cavalry after the demise of the knight). Montanabw 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm,if you mean Keegan, then yes, I see your point re: firearms-armed infantry, especially where combined with pikemen, were able to counter cavalry with relative ease throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. – try telling that to the poor musket-armed infantry standing up to the cavalry during the napoleonic wars. The Infantry square was quite effective, but in line or column, the infantry were destroyed by cavalry. Thus, European cavalry moved from a central, "shock combat" role to a flanking role, used mainly to harry and to disrupt artillery from being deployed freely. – well, kinda true, but not the full story: plenty of effective mounted shock charges by cavalry well into the 20th century. Will have to have a think about that. I had heaps of Nap wars (plus some American and colonial wars) stuff floating around the house a while back, but most have found their way back to their respective libraries. So, something else to add to my "to do" list: Cavalry in the 18th & 19th C. Gwinva (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Keegan, yes, Precisely. Having just survived GA review, I hate to bring this up over there now, but I think it needs to be fixed. When you have a chance to shoot me a bit of rewording, with citations, holler, or just put it over on the HIW talk page as something to add and we can play with it from that point on. By the way, I discovered that HiMA is missing a couple of page citations, found out the hard way when I swiped them for HIW. Montanabw 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

O great copyeditor and general clean-uperer

Thanks for sorting the HiW stuff: the format is much better (I couldn't quite get my head around how it should go) and the prose flows a lot better too! Feel free to toss anything if you think I went overboard, or yell at me if I've neglected anything. Fully intend to fill in some of the holes, but I've also in the midst of a GA review for the 52nd Foot, so I'd better work on that too.

You're right about the euro-centrism (blame my books). I plan to do India, and some of the British colonies, but we also need a little more on America: war of independence, civil war etc to offset the British bias. Sounds like your area, Professor. (Oh, and apologies for the UK English take over: don't blame me. I even made a very painful sacrifice earlier, before the decision was made!) Gwinva (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on the article is that we want to focus on major trends in tactics and technology rather than nations. (Though a spinoff of horses in 19th century European warfare would be cool as well!) Hence, the stuff added on horse artillery was much needed. For example, I'm not so much interested in horses in either of the big American wars other than in the context of whether there was anything new in how they were used, otherwise they can just be lumped in with the other stuff happening in the 18th and 19th centuries. Likewise, the stuff on American Indians and horses really needs little additional detail unless the Cheyenne, Comanche or whomever cooked up something new for use of horses by nomadic people on lightweight horses that was significantly different from what the Scythians were doing 3,000 years earlier, which I can look into. (What was remarkable about American Indians is how FAST they developed a horse culture after not having any at all for 10,000 years!) As for India, take a look at the India and China section of the existing article, which covers more early history, but maybe there is something more recent you can pop in there. (Like, how did they fight against elephants??) At least that's my thinking. Maybe we should run this past the rest of the gang on the article talk page too???Montanabw 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been at HiW the last day or so. As mentioned, I'm in the midst of a GA review. If you (O great copyeditor, etc) have a spare moment which you want to waste on my behalf, then you could look at the review comments (with particular attention to the concerns regarding the Peninsualr War section), and then the article, to see if I've met the concerns, or if it's still a confusing and poorly-written piece. (Oh, I know it's not scintillating prose, but I only want competent GA not super flashy FA at this stage.) Don't worry if you're busy, though. Gwinva (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

white horse genetics re mythology

Hi Montanabw, you mentioned on the talk page of white horse (mythology) that you could help with sourcing the genetics stuff. That would be great! Julia Rossi and I have discussed it a bit on our talk pages here and here as well as on the article talk page. I thought the sentence added to the lede covered the idea well enough, because it makes clear that this article includes technically grey horses as well as technically white horses. But as Julia suggests, maybe expanding into a paragraph explaining the distinction would be helpful. Whatever you can do – I appreciate the changes you made already. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just pop in what you need on the article talk page and I'll see what I can do. Also feel free to read Gray (horse) and steal anything from there that you want. Montanabw 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what is needed 'cos I don't really understand the explanations. Just perhaps something that makes clear that white horses in mythology aren't defined as strictly as genetics defines them? I think? Maybe the paragraph you wrote on the talk page could just go straight into the article :) WikiJedits (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

More about white...

The first mention of non-gray non-cream white horses in scientific literature was Sturtevant's A critical examination of recent studies on coat colour inheritance in horses Journal of Genetics 2, pgs 41-51. Here is what he wrote on the subject:

Mr W. P. Newell has supplied me with information about an interesting family of white horses. The ordinary white horse is of course merely an old faded-out gray, but this is a family of real whites. Mr Newell gave Professor W. E. Castle some information about these horses, on the basis of which Professor Castle considered the colour to be an extreme spotted condition dominant to the ordinary colours. I have now some further information, which makes the case an interesting one. These horses are said to be somewhat variable in colour. To use my informant's words: "The colour of skin is white or so-called pink, usually with a few small dark specks in skin. Some have a great many dark spots in skin. These latter usually have a few dark stripes in hoofs; otherwise the hoofs are almost invariably white. Those that do not have dark specks in skin usually have glass or watch eyes, otherwise dark eyes....I have one colt coming one year old that is pure white, not a coloured speck on him, not a coloured hair on him, and with glass eyes." The term "glass eye" means a white eye. Therefore the colt described above is almost an albino in appearance. However, his sire is one of the dark-eyed somewhat spotted whites, his dam being a brown Trotter. Since "glass" eyes occur not infrequently in pigmented horses it seems probable that this white-eyed albino (?) is really an extreme case of spotting, plus an entirely independent "glass" eye. Mr Newell writes that white mated to white gives about 50% white to 50% pigmented. He reports only three matings of white to white. The results of these were, one white, one roan, and one gray.

I know you'll find this interesting. Also, is there any way you could get your hands on WL Pulos & FB Hutt's Lethal dominant white in horses Journal of Heredity 1969 March-April, 60(2): 59-63?? I so desperately want to see it. This is the "study" that started the whole "dominant white" deal. Countercanter (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That reference above looks like it could be referring to "Sabino White" as well. Also called Maximum Sabino? I have lot of pics of white stuff like this I think. I hope it all gets explained soon as well. Sabino is said to cause a separate type of raon-ing by some aficionados. Fascinating stuff though. Arsdelicata (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm so glad you're curious too. What MBW and I have been discussing is where sabino ends and "dominant white" begins. So far it does not seem that there is any one gene that produces 100% white horses all the time. Furthermore, I'm desperately looking for that article because it is their "study" (which was based on a breeding program) that coined the term "dominant white" and labeled it lethal. And the more I learn, the more I'm starting to feel like a single allele, lethal in the homozygous state, which produces 100% white horses, doesn't exist.Countercanter (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be poky to reply here. Arsdelicata, long story short is that some of what is popularly called "true white" or "dominant white" genes are clearly lethal when homozygous -- not in the precise way "lethal white" in frame overo is -- but rather that the foals die in the womb -- so it's different. On the other hand, as far as we know, the "sabino", "maximum sabino" or "sabino-white" is not at all lethal, ever. (No lethal whites in the Arabian, for example, though they can have Lavender foal syndrome, which is a coat color dilution lethal) CC has done some interesting research into Leopard complex genetics and tobiano and there is somehow a relationship there, too...but we don't seem to have any studies that tie it all together! Anyway, the point is that there is more than just sabino and gray and there are lethals connected somehow to some white coloring. There is also weird stuff like the increased incidence of melanomas in gray horses, also...all fascinating and still kind of a mystery -- at least to me! LOL! Montanabw

Clear as MUD. The 1969 study that proclaimed the existence of dominant white was based on progeny ratios. There are other explanations for unusual progeny ratios, and that's why I'm looking for the article. "Dominant lethal white" has NOT been proven to exist.Countercanter (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered that the American Singer Canaries are said to have two types of white, and the dominant form, they claim is Lethal.Dominant White Singer. ( they also have a non lethal recessive white. Sometimes people have an experience with one species and expect the same to be true for others. It is like that quest for the "theory of everything." The articles on Lavender foal syndrome, Leopard complex and the Overo and Tobiano sub headings I got into were quite good I have to back and read then carefully as they are really rich an full of information. Some aficionados I remember taking about "Linkage" that word is not mentioned in the LW or the Overo frame syndromes, but people said it meant that the gene that caused the lethal condition, and the gene that caused the color were very close to one another on the chromosome and therefore were usually inherited together. Fascinating reads, I keep having to go back and then the internal links also keep me going to other fascinating places.Arsdelicata (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much *confusion* because there are several kinds of lethal or pathological white spotting in mice. So I'm not saying that types of lethal white dominant spotting *couldn't* exist, I'm merely saying that we cannot just decide that a fifty year old study based on progeny ratios constitutes a really exceptional "proof." This is confounded by the fact that polygenetic conditions (when several genes that produce some white get together, the result is greater than the sum of the parts, in terms of the amount of unpigmented skin/coat expected). Anyway, very interesting about white spotting in canaries! More often than not, we can expect to find a condition across species. This is due to one of the most important eh, not rules, but themes of biology: genes are conserved.

For example, suppose that ancestral horses, probably the ones that lived in the forests, were striped or spotted-striped live civets. When they gave rise to plains species closer to modern day horses, they may have lost their stripes. However, it's unlikely that they lost the *genes* necessary to produce stripes. Sometimes genes are re-purposed, but all in all, especially among mammals, we're all so much more similar than we are different! Especially with some of these genes that cause white spotting, which can be very high in the "gene hierarchy" and produce so-called "cascading" effects. KIT affects melanocytes early, EARLY in development!

I was once under the impression that LWFS was merely *linked* with the frame overo phenotype. This is incorrect. The Ile118Lys mutation in the EDNRB gene is causative of the frame overo phenotype in heterozygotes, and lethal white foal syndrome in homozygotes. Countercanter (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining CC. If the study included pictures and a good amount of cases though, I sure would like to see it. I do think though, that some aletes get lost. Do you know if the genes for bay (agouti) ( and others ) have been re-purposed in the friesian Horse, or have they been bred out. What I am asking I guess is if in some horse breeds don't carry say the LP alete that makes the leopard spots ... was I maybe confusing alete with gene? ThanksArsdelicata (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See allele and gene. I get confused too! One thing we have to deal with is propaganda. APHA, for example, still "officially" says that "overo" is not necessarily correlated to LWS. Well, if you classify "splash" and "sabino" in the overo family, then yes, the statement is true. But "frame" is what CC is talking about. And when most people say "overo," they are really thinking "frame." So, well, horse politics once again rears its ugly head... oh and I also once heard a rumor that there is a lethal in the Peruvian Pasos, but that no one admits to it...may be just a rumor. As for "dominant lethal white," all I can say is that there appear to be cases where something other than LWS is going on. There is a type of "true" white that behaves like a dominant, in that only one parent is needed to produce it, but that it appars most such white horses are heterozygous and only pass it on 50% of the time...unlike the famous homozygous gray, which will ALWAYS produce gray offspring, there seem to be no whites that fit this pattern, hence why it is such a rare color and probably it is so rare because homozygotes are not produced...if there ever was, people's weirdness about color would suggest that it would be more widespread -- the way gray is.

As for the Friesian thing, I don't know a lot about it. I know the mainstream registries will not register anything but black and are trying to weed out everything else, but genes are stubborn things -- occasionally a chestnut will crop up (which is logical, as a heterozygous black may not necessary produce chestnut offspring, but the allele will pass on, perhaps hidden for generations, particularly in mares, who produce fewer offspring than stallions). Then, naturally, someone thinks chestnut Friesians are cool and so has started a separate group just to breed them! As for bay, agouti is dominant over black, so if it's there, it shows -- breeding a black to a black will never produce a bay, though it might produce a chestnut if both blacks are heterozygous. On the other hand, I suppose a few bays might sneak into the Friesian gene pool, particularly if they have CC's "sooty" gene and look like bleached-out blacks. (Wishful thinking is an amazing thing) They can now be "caught" with DNA tests, but again, I think the Friesian registry gets rid of all the ones it finds...but I am sure that, again, someone thinks they are cool and breeds them anyway...humans are so very, very human... Montanabw 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope I'm not butting in... There is a red gene in Friesians, and certain lines known to carry it, but red Friesians can't be approved, and FHANA is now trying to eliminate the red gene by color testing stallions to be sure they are homozygous black. In that way, red Friesians will be eliminated (because you can't have a red foal with a homozygous black parent), and also the red gene will be slowly phased out of Friesians, at least FHANA registered Friesians. I'm not sure if FPZV has taken the same stance about requiring stallions to be homozygous black. Here is a neat link: to a red Friesian stallion, he is FHANA registered, but not approved. Salito (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I had a hard time finding yer post as it was mixed in the middle. Thanks for the info and link though! Arsdelicata (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the allele and gene links! I am off to read them and understand. I see the linkage stuff was propaganda or wishful thinking <smile>. I'll upload the white looking horses I have under Cream_gene, we may also eventually want to look at the Marwari_(horse), and the Kathamawari Horse (spelling) because I have seen many videos on Youtube of these horses with pure white looking color and DARK eyes, yet pink skin! and NO SPOTS. I think a lead to White, maybe a dominant white not related to the Gray, can be found there. Arsdelicata (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

CC will probably accuse me of oversimplifying, and I probably am doing so, but I'd say that many cases of white bodies-pink or parti-colored skin, but DARK eyes are probably sabino. There is an Arab described by scientists studying this stuff as a "dominant white," but his owners call him a "maximum sabino bay." IN short, I usually suspect Sabino for anything with dark eyes, and if the horse has blue eyes, then there is a much wider range of possibilities, though the sabino SB-1 gene (which apparently produces some, but not all "sabino" coloring) can produce white horses with blue eyes too. Montanabw 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Frame and splash produce blue eyes, not much else. You can certainly call those horses sabino-whites. Countercanter (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just another update. I did some digging and Professor Newell was the original owner of Old King, the original Nebraska White Horse. The descendants of Old King were the horses used in the original Pulos and Hutt "Dominant white lethal" study; the family that led them to believe that it was a homozygous lethal condition. That means that the description above is the absolute standard of "Dominant white." Countercanter (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

CC, want the article rewrite from hell? (grin) See American creme and white horse registry. It needs a lot of help. It might be beyond help. I notice the "registry" site seems to no longer be maintained... repeal of the AQHA "white rule" seems to have taken a lot of wind out of the color breed registries. Montanabw 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Brown

And now, more about brown. I sent an email to the researcher at Pet DNA Services of Arizona asking for information about seal brown. This is the lab that does the seal brown test, and I hoped to cite the correspondence. Unfortunately, it turns out there's patent work going on and he wasn't comfortable sharing anything other than that they do a test. Bummer! However he did say that the information was not published "yet" which makes me hope that it will be...eventually. Boo. Countercanter (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll stifle the irritation that they want the patent before releasing enough useful information to verify that they aren't just making it all up! (Very weird that this test does not have any affiliation with a major university-- most companies LIKE the universities to do all the grunt work of research for free, then the school licenses the test to a commercial lab like VetGen. UCD at least provides enough data that we can write an article that cites to a verifiable source. D'oh!!! Montanabw 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, long time no chat. A newbie just created Puerto Rican Paso Fino, which I didn't merge or redirect 'cause heck, I dunno if it deserves its own article. Wanna help the newbie out? later! Ling.Nut 08:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Will check. Thanks. Montanabw 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to add any source material needed for " Puerto Rican Paso Fino" or " Paso Fino - Sub Directory Puerto Rican Paso Fino" Much will have to be translated as sources for this breed are mainly in Spanish. But I will start with what is wanted most if anyone has suggestions.

Arsdelicata (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Arsdelicata (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I've read the appy article and the others as well. I have less info on the Colombian Paso Fino... I don't know how the article can be incorporated exactly.

There is going to alot of hard work with the breed standards. Each country has a different one,

Colombian Paso Finos are Called different things, Paso Fino Colombiano, Caballo Colombiano de Paso. etc. in Puerto Rico.

In Colombia, my understanding is that they have one national breed called Caballo Criollo Colombiano, with three gaits Paso Fino ( this is Modality or gait within the CCC ) Trocha ( no word in English to my knowledge. It is a rapid, Diagonal trot with no suspension period in the air, so therefore it is very comfortable.) Trote y Galope ( Trot and Gallop/Canter)No word for canter in Spanish to my knowledge. these three " Varieties" called modalities of Gait over there, while considered one breed are rarely mixed, as it would be detrimental to the specific gait of the " Variety".

I'm also not sure how to ask for input on Paso Fino talk... I notice that there are ratings there... but no questions or suggestions or corrections. Portal Colombia gave the lowest rating... but why don't they explain why or add what needs to be added? Thanx for your time in advance. Arsdelicata (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer over on Paso Fino article. Montanabw 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw I posted and their is one response, from another user on Paso Fino talk. I have the books for Puerto Rican Paso Fino horse breed specifically, waiting on some others. I can't help much with Peruvian Paso, but I could donate pictures of Colombian Trocha horse, Colombian Trote and Galope horse, as well as specifically Colombian Paso Fino and specifically Puerto Rican Paso Fino and "Andadura". I also have donate-able pictures of specific horse colors and also Oxen teams if needed. My first experience on Wiki was seeing that there was no category for the Puerto Rican Paso Fino and therefore to go adding stuff as time let me. I had no idea it was not allowed... Or is it? Anyway, if I can learn and help on other subjects until that one is cleared up, I will. Arsdelicata (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Colombian Paso Fino and Pasos

Hi Montanabw, I am told that the FAO (2005) recognized the Colombian Criollo Breed. No link to FAO, but here is the WiKipage I read about it on Iberian horse. If we can find them online and see how they describe or word the breed/breeds/types/forms, It will/might help greatly. Arsdelicata (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

MTW, this is the champion Caballo Criollo Colombiano Paso Fino in Colombia, he was flown to PR and won the Paso Mundial in 2005 and I think also won the USA mundial. So I think this is a 3x or more World champion. Colombian Paso Fino Champion Arsdelicata (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a Caballo Colombiano or Trocha and Galope Trocha and Golope . Arsdelicata (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a Video of Colombian Trocha, with some slow motion takes, by the paso Pedigree site you likes Champion Colombian Trocha, and slow motion

Arsdelicata (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to look at it, I have a dialup at home, which is s-l-o-w (But also makes me understand why galleries are baaad within wikipedia articles =:-O ) A have ridden a Colombian-bred mare who would occasionally try to trocha and her owner was quite insistent about never, ever allowing her to get away with it. In short, though, explain to me if there is really any significant difference between the trocha and the fox trot -- both are four beat diagonal gaits, are they not? (Whereas the paso gaits are lateral) Montanabw 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, the foxtrot is an easy traveling gait. The trocha is a snappier show gait. The front leg may land an instant before the hind of opposite side, but just an instant (as in the trot). Some refer to the foxtrot as walking in the front end while trotting in the back end. Trocha is a square gait, the movement equal in both front and rear ends prized, plus the piston choo choo action that the foxtrot is not. Some trainers can get a paso to do both paso fino and trocha well enough to have it registered as both a paso fino and a trocha horse in the registry or as one in one registry and the other gait in another registry. but, some trocha aficionados feel that this ruins the trocha, because trocha horses when tired of trocha or when collected,( pressure applied to the reins ) with then start to paso fino instead. Some trocha breeders believe fino blood will ruin the trocha gait and discourage using it for this reason. I am think of making animations(animated gifs) of all these gaits to illustrate the differences. The lateral Paso Gaits and even the rack, flat walk, and others also differ. For example, the Peruvian Paso lifts the front legs higher that it's rear legs as it moves, this is not a good trait in the classic fino or trocha classes where equality is prized. Because I was used to trotting breeds before my interest in pasos, I had a hard time seeing the differences in the beginning, all pasos and even the rack, tolt, and others looking all alike to me (and they are pretty similar). An Asian horse the Marwari,(seen in India and Pakistan) can also execute a lateral gait called the "Rawal." But I need to get the books that explain this well. I only know of the "Rawal" from youtube. It seems that aficionados may not except a that a tolt and rack are the same in many ways, or maybe a locomotion expert will say they are some day and really tick off a lot of people. On the other hand, breed aficionados may often explain the differences to show how these breeds differ from one another. Many smooth gaited horse breed aficionados seem to of have been un-aware of each other in the past, and claimed to have the smoothest gait in the entire world. As they become aware of each other that wording will hopefully change, yet some still claim they are the smoothest because the legs are lifted less, because their is no head shake, because the feat land in equal 1-2-3-4 time intervals or whatever. but in reality, it is all just propaganda, redundant and very tiring. I think the general term of "a smooth gait" is best instead of this "smoothest in world stuff."Arsdelicata (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, they ALL claim to be the smoothest gait in the world. And NONE of them have a gait that is like any other, they ALL are completely UNIQUE! (And write that way, too!) Actually had an edit war with someone at the Peruvian Paso article who kept wanting to say things like that. I think they are also capable of walking on water! ALL of them! LOL! I think that being faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound may also be involved. Believe it or not, I actually once had a minor editing dispute at an article where an aficionado mentioned a breed's ears "could rotate 360 degrees." They were NOT happy to be informed that ALL horse's ears can rotate 360 degrees!  :-P There are also many breed fans who seem to feel that they have the only duns on the planet and that this is a unique breed feature (an issue at two articles in the last month, for starters.) Montanabw 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As for gaits, if we sorted out all the variations of the trot (horse gait), you will note that one could also probably claim some breeds to have a unique gait-- yet the Lipizzan, the American Quarter Horse, the trotting Standardbred and the 3-gaited American Saddlebred all just "trot." LOL! I am actually glad that Bennett made the call to refer to gaited horses as "ambling." It makes things so much simpler for the rest of us!

But, admitting that I am a cretan, (though we did once own a halfbred Tennessee Walker who was gaited) As far as I can tell, the Tolt and the Rack ARE almost exactly the same thing other than perhaps in performance style -- both are rapid four beat lateral gaits that I think are supposed to be performed with an even 1-2-3-4 rhythm (and if I may be an apostate, other than style, is there really any difference between the rack and the largo? LOL!) (grinning, ducking and running...) I have ridden the Largo, and admit that it's an absolute head rush...never realized how fast it was until I stopped, turned around and noticed that a friend's quarter horse was GALLOPING to catch up! =:-D

Technically, "walking in front and trotting in back" is not what's realy going on, when that happens with trotting horses in things like western pleasure, they call it "four-beating" (because they aren't supposed to be gaited, even though many are, god forbid we call it an amble or a slow gait! LOL!)-- all it means is that the trot broke down into four beats. When a horse is SUPPOSED to be gaited, the best description I have ever heard of the fox trot is actually to describe it as a rhythm of: 1-2, 3-4 instead of the metronomic, even 1-2-3-4 that I think is what is valued in the Pasos. So, if I am hearing you right, the difference in the trocha and the fox trot is that while both are diagonal four beat gaits (and I think the same footfall sequence), the action and rhythm is markedly different? BTW, Do you want to add a note on the "rawal" to Marwari horse and maybe to ambling?

Cool, we agree. I noted the Peruvian Paso divides differences in extension. One gait(the faster more extended) being more like a broken pace a lateral 1-2, 3-4. This is what Andadura is really. and the same way they divided the gait into extensions, the Paso Fino did the same with Corto and largo, but to say it that way would be "original research" I guess. Yes, a diagonal 1-2, 3-4 is I think the best way to describe the foxtrot. I ordered the International Encyclopedia of horse breeds book, so when I get it I'll place quotes on different pages for "Rawal" and the Costa Rican Saddle horse, or any other tidbit I think can benefit a particular article. The problem with some words as well, is the meaning, and that meaning changing depending on where you are geographically or who you are speaking to. Criollo sort of means local, native or indigenous, so if you are in Costa Rica they are probably talking about their particular native horses, but they might be talking about the "Criollo", that other tough Argentinian breed, gosh, you know, Paso just means step really. Today I told a non horse person something about thoroughbreds, called "pure bloods" in Spanish. Since they were not a horse person they asked me if I was referring to "racehorses" and I said yes, suddenly realizing that to them thoroughbred just means "well bred horses," and not a particular breed. It has me really stumped sometimes when thinking about how to word things in writing. I'll be back to work on the articles, probably the paso fino sandbox most, then others as I get material on them. you really have to see Trocha with your own eyes in regular as well as slow motion since it is so fast, to understand it. the foot fall is most like a trot, but really fast, and they don't bounce up and down. The body of the horse stays still. Arsdelicata (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, Galope/ the Colombian GallopThis is slow motion and other explanations of the Colombian Galope, or Canter where the horse always has at least one leg on the ground, making it smoother than any other. The voice over explanation is in Spanish, BUT the slow motion shots will let you see exactly what is going on. Arsdelicata (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh LOL! "Thoroughbred " in English IS the breed and only the breed, "purebred" is proper horse lingo for all other breeds-- So you mean the Spanish have it the other way around? =:-O We had a huge discussion about this when we took Thoroughbred to FA status. The non-horse people were having hissy fits when we stated that "little t" thoroughbred" to describe "purebred" animals was improper use. You would enjoy seeing the chat about that as well as the final version that appeared in the article. Hee Hee! Montanabw 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the gait stuff, The caner video is interesting... I was surprised to see that they can do that without 4-beating the canter, which is what I anticipated I would see (Note tothe planet: MtBW IS willing to change her mind on issues! LOL!) ! As for the rest, it might be OR, but I think you have it correct anyway. I'd say move this over to the talk page for the PF article and we can pop it in there. When there isn't really a summary out there, we may technically be on thin ice to do something like cite to a YouTube video as a source, but given how little material is written down, in this case I say "proceed until apprehended," especially where the narrative supports the video (I'll trust you on the Spanish, LOL!) We may get slapped later, but as long as we remember this is wikiland, where one must not have any ego, we will survive. The article on gaits and gaited horses I used as a source in the ambling article was one of the first I had ever seen that put all the gaits side by side...even things like the Saddlebred's "slow gait" allow multiple named ambling gaits, (stepping pace, running walk, etc) which I think MIGHT mean that when the old timers were putting together the rules, that really meant that they allowed just about anything, the 1-2, 3-4 rhythm or the 1-2-3-4 rhythm. I'd have to check the rules, but I think they might even allow the fox trot as a "slow gait," though I'd think the transition would be sort of weird (Like going from trocha to largo--seems some known law of physics is broken there!)

Hi Montanabw, Yeah, there is no word for Thoroughbred in Spanish to my knowledge, so they call it the English Pure Blood raze, or the "Pure Blood" for short in a literal translation. I am rather stumped as how to go for the history of the Colombian Criollo in all modalities, plus there is the issue that they have several "Legendary" stallions, but no clear founder like "Dulce Sueño" is for the modern(Puerto Rican)Paso Fino. I have less history and any if not all is probably in Spanish, but I am not giving up on finding some English stuff yet. The description of the Colombian gaits was translated from a Spanish online document from Colombia I guess. I will look at the articles you pointed me too above as well. BTW, the Banker Horse article looks great. I wish we had more info like that on the Paso Fino genes, bones, etc. What does annoy me I guess is that all varieties of the Colombian Pasos are now in some cases being advertised as the other types of Paso Finos, which they never were, but since Colombian Paso Owners want to market them along with the more famous Paso Fino term, ughhh. In reality the Paso Fino is the name of the Puerto Rican breed. But hey, it is a free country. The 1-2-3-4 Rhythm is the golden rule for many gaited breeds. They even have training methods to get a gaited horse to move right or to counteract pacyness and trottyness.Arsdelicata (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who (what) is a TPSers? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with my talk page watchlisted! LOL! See WP:TPS. Montanabw 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC) (Tongue firmly in cheek)

Ah, very clever, passing reference to lesser known abbrevation induces query, page is watched for answer, and I are one Gerardw (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And clever way to tighten up a user page. I may have to figure out how you just did that! Montanabw 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's real easy --

{{collapsetop|off topic query by Talk Page Stalker and subsequent reply}} 

followed by {{collapsebottom}} at the end. Just a minor tweak from your friendy talk page stalker. Gerardw (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)