This title
is surely a bit provocative – it is of course zoological consensus that the Asiatic
Przewalski’s horse, Equus ferus
przewalskii, is the last living genuine wild horse that is extant today
after the last western wild horses disappeared. However, advocates of a number
of horse breeds that they purport as living remnants of the European wild horse
or at least being strongly influenced by original wild horses, sometimes put
the status of the Przewalski’s horse as a genuine wild animal into question.
They argue that decades of breeding in captivity and introgression from
domestic horses has altered the nature of the Przewalski’s horse, and claim
that the situation is comparable to what has happened to their favoured “wild”
breed: an original wild population has been influenced by domestic horses and artificial
selection. As a consequence, they argue that if the Przewalski’s horse still
deserves status as a genuine wild horse, which is zoological consensus, then so
does their breed of choice. However, the often purported background stories for
those breeds being “near-wild horses” are not tenable after objective
examination for a number of reasons (see here), but what about the arguments
against the original, wild status of the Przewalski’s horse?
The lineage
of the Przewalski’s horse separated from that of domestic horses several
millennia ago. The exact point of separation varies from study to study,
depending on the molecular chronometer and its calibration. The maximum I found
was 160.000 [1] and the minimum 38.000 [2] years ago. This comparably long
reproductive separation resulted in a different karyotype, the Przewalski’s
horse having 23 pairs of chromosomes and the domestic horse 24 due to a fission
or fusion (depending on what is the plesiomorphic state), but they intermix
readily and without fertility problems. In the millennia of living side by side
in the Eurasian steppe, the Przewalski’s horse contributed genetically to the
domestic stock (which is not only genetically [3] but also optically apparent,
f.e. see some Mongolian horses), and vice versa. The Przewalski’s horse gene
pool was introgressed by domestic horses, especially in the 20th
century. Photographs of wild herds from 1954 showed individuals of divergent
colours (Wikipedia), indicating admixture. The whole modern population descends
from 13 founding individuals, one of them was a domestic Mongolian stallion
[4]. Does this mean that the original, genuine Przewalski’s horse is lost and
the modern population is an altered result of intermixture?
Orlando et
al. 2015 made a genomic study compromised of a large sample of Przewalski’s
horses, post and prior to the bottleneck (including the holotype specimen),
domestic horses plus a late Pleistocene wild horse as outgroup. The result is
that although there are genetic traces of intermixture, also including such
having an effect on the phenotype such as an allele associated with increased
withers height, there are still lineages in the population that are virtually
free of admixture[3]. Also, height is a highly multifactorial trait, therefore
it cannot be claimed that Przewalski’s horses are taller now due to admixture
because of one allele – the average withers height is still between 122-142cm
according to English Wikipedia, between 120-146 according to German Wikipedia
(note that there is also sexual dimorphism in size). Przewalski’s horses are
still uniform in their typical colour, sturdy build, robust head shape, erect
and short mane, short-haired tail basis, a very lightly coloured almost white
winter coat, and other typical morphologic differences to domestic horses such
as thicker hooves (Wikipedia). I would even say that domestic cattle left a
bigger trace on modern American bison than domestic horses did on the
Przewalski’s horse, yet nobody is questioning the bison’s status as a wild
animal. Also I found no source stating that Przewalski’s horses with a domestic
karyotype have been observed.
Yes, the
Przewalski’s horse seemingly intermixed with domestic horses continuously after
their point of separation, but I see no compelling evidence that this fact
altered the genetic integrity of this wild subspecies. Furthermore, domestic
animals introgressed the gene pool of their wild counterparts everywhere they
shared the habitat – this evident in European wild boar that show deviant,
domestic colours and there is also the hypothesis that American wolves
inherited black and other colour variants from domestic dog introgression
several millennia ago (this might also explain blue-eyed wolves). Yet nobody is
calling their wild animal status into question.
If
Przewalski’s horses indeed lost part of their wild animal nature due to
domestic introgression and being bred in captivity for a number of decades, it
might be helpful to look at a checklist of aspects typical signs of
domestication:
-
Morphological paedomorphy
-
Behavioural paedomorphy
- Reduced
brain volume
- novel
morphological/optical traits (very typical: colour variants, particularly white
spots)
- Earlier
maturity and increased litter size (the latter aspect is not true of domestic
horses either, so let us ignore it for now)
Przewalski’s
horses do not show any signs of morphological paedomorphy, not even if you
compare photos of the early 1900s to modern individuals. Przewalski’s horses
still always have the robust, donkey-like skull with small eyes and their
proportions do not seem to be altered as well. I have not found any remarks in
the literature stating that Przewalski’s horses as a whole lost brain volume;
domestic horses have about 14% less brain volume than Przewalski’s horses [5]. Captive
Przewalski’s horses also have 14% less brain capacity than wild counterparts
[5]. Since there are no separate genetic lineage between wild and captive
Przewalski’s horses, this should be applicable to phenotypic plasticity.
According to Wikipedia, earlier maturity in captive Przewalski’s horses has
been reported, but explained with better nutritional conditions in zoos than in
the wilderness and as far as I know the same phenomenon can be observed in
other zoo animals. The behaviour of Przewalski’s horses and domestic horses is
well comparable, but Przewalski’s horses have a way higher aggression potential
than domestic horses, especially the stallions. This is universal for this
subspecies and evident in zoos as well as grazing projects. I once was told
that zookeepers are more afraid of Przewalski’s horses than lions. Przewalski’s
horses can be tamed and ridden to a certain degree, but this is also true for
zebras, including the quagga.
There are
not any novel traits found in any Przewalski’s horse, such as a new colour
variant, or fur modifications. There are occasionally individuals showing a
white streak along the face or white socks, which is applicable to
introgression from domestic horses.
Looking at
some deer populations which have been kept in game parks for many generations,
we see incipient signs of domestications, such as new colour variants or
typical domestic spotted patterns, or beginning paedomorphic skull shapes – you
can find this in some roe deer, red deer and fallow deer in European game parks
and this is what I would call an early state of slow domestication. But we do
not see that at all in Przewalski’s horses.
All in all
I think there is not one compelling reason to claim that the original
Przewalski’s horse is gone, that it has been altered by man and hybridization,
or that it is on the edge of domestication. I see nothing that calls their
status as a genuine wild animal seriously into question, especially when we
look at other wild animals. And even if the critics were right, it would not
make any of the domestic horse breeds praised as near-wild horses “wilder” than
they are (or not are, actually).
Literature
[1] Ryder
et al.: A massively parallel sequencing
approach uncovers ancient origins and high genetic variability of endangered
Przewalski’s horses. 2011.
[2] Orlando
et al.: Recalibrating Equus evolution
using the genome sequence of an early Middle Pleistocene horse. 2013.
[3] Orlando
et al.: Evolutionary genomics and
preservation of the endangered Przewalski’s horse. 2015.
[4] Bunzel-Drüke, Finck, Kämmer,
Luick, Reisinger, Riecken, Riedl, Scharf & Zimball: „Wilde Weiden: Praxisleitfaden für Ganzjahresbeweidung
in Naturschutz und Landschaftsentwicklung“. 2010
[5] Röhrs,
Ebinger: Are zoo Przewalski’s horses
domesticated horses? 1998.
Thank you again for an interesting post, Daniël. I also do like the consistent extensive literature-links in your posts. One thing in the post was not clear to me: the holotype specimen used by Orlando... (if that is clear in the study do not bother, i downloaded it already but no time to read yet). Vriendelijke groet, Frank.
ReplyDeleteIt means that they included the taxonomic holotypus specimen for Equus ferus przewalskii among other individuals of the subspecies.
DeleteThank you Daniël, but does that mean the taxonomic holotypus is one individual specimen ?
ReplyDeleteHolotype specimen are always individual specimen.
Delete"the Przewalski’s horse having 23 pairs of chromosomes and the domestic horse 24" it's 33-32, isn't it ? 23-24 is human-chimp...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you, partner. This is a really interesting article on the Mongolian Wild horse and whether it should be called domesticated or not due to cross-breeding with domesticated horses. Speaking of cross-breeding with the said wild horse, I have a hypothetical question for you and you might be able to give me a good answer on this (it's for both my own scientific interest and a potential future post on my blog):
ReplyDeleteYou know about the Yukon horse (Equus lambei)? I have read that it is the oldest genome that has been able to be sequenced. And I've wondered if that means that if it could be cloned? I know that it would be a stretch, but if it was possible, would it be a good animal to use in both giving more genetic diversity to the wild horse (if the yukon horse was cloned via oocyte from a Przewalski's horse, so it could have the mitochrondrial DNA of the said horse) and used to resurrect the Tarpan? Any other effects could the Yukon horse clone(s) could have on this idea?
Concerning the Yukon horse, I doubt it can be cloned as viable cells are needed for that. But it could be genetically resurrected via genome editing using CRISPR-Cas9 as long as the full genome is known as far as I understand, but I am not a geneticist.
DeleteAs to the "Tarpan" (I assume you are talking about the predomestic wild type of the western wild horse subspecies, I avoid using that ambiguous term), this animal cannot be resurrected by selective breeding, just as the aurochs cannot be resurrected by selective breeding. You'd need a full genome for that as well, and use the same technique (genome editing). Crossing a resurrected Yukon wild horse with robust European landraces for releasing them into nature is not something I would do.
New study online: Coat colour adaptation of post-glacial horses to increasing forest vegetation
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0358-5
german summary: http://www.izw-berlin.de/pressemitteilung/ueberlebt-dank-farbanpassung.html