The Store Damme aurochs

The Store Damme specimen from Denmark is a nearly complete skeleton of a male aurochs. The mount has a withers height of 175 cm [1], what means that in life the bull might have been 180 or 185 cm tall at the withers. 

As so many aurochs skeletons, it is mounted anatomically incorrect. The hind legs are bent too much, also the spine is mounted in a straight line, while in a living bovine the spine is curved on the anterior part of the trunk. Also, the front legs are not mounted entirely life-like. Using GIMP, I corrected the position of the bone elements, including the spine, front legs and hind legs. The result is about as tall as the wrongly mounted skeleton, and looks much more natural and anatomically plausible to me: 

Seeing the corrected version, I could not resist doing a life restoration of it, using GIMP. Here is the result: 

 

I will use it as a basis for a couple of new aurochs models that I am planning at the moment but do not have the time to build them right now. 

 

Literature 

 

Pucher, Erich: Wie kam der Auerochse auf die Alm? 2019. 

New video from the Lippeaue

The youtube channel Auerochsen Weidelandschaften just posted a new video of Taurus cattle in the Lippeaue: 

I have to say that I really like most of the individuals in the video. Many of them have inwards-facing horns, a good overal body shape and the colour is right as well. 

 

Is "breeding-back" necessary?

Originally, “breeding-back” as it was invented by the Heck brothers, aimed to recreate extinct species. We now know that this is not possible working with domestic descendants only, as the subject is much more complicated than just uniting visible traits found in primitive breeds. Therefore, the goal of “breeding-back” changed. Nowadays the main purpose of this method is to authentically replace the extinct wildtypes in the wild, filling the empty ecologic niche. In order to accomplish that, the set of criteria now also includes ecologic traits. The cattle (or horses, if there were “breeding-back” projects for horses) not only have to look like their extinct wildtype, but they also have to be capable of surviving in nature. Achieving that is not a big problem, was most primitive breeds already are very hardy landraces. 

But is “breeding-back” really necessary to fill the ecologic gap? 

 

For this question, the answer is pretty clear: no, it is not necessary. Releasing a couple of hardy landraces back into the wild would do the job as well, no elaborate selection on wildtype traits is actually necessary for these animals to survive in nature. While it is true that large, long-legged, athletic cattle with large horns will have a much easier time to defend themselves against predators than small, short-legged cattle without horns, natural selection will probably enforce wildtype traits anyway. Also, many landraces are already quite aurochs-like, such as Sayaguesa for example. They are large, have a comparably aurochs-like morphology and horns, and the colour is right as well (except for the very reduced sexual dichromatism). Add Maronesa genes by releasing both breeds in the same area and most aurochs fans will be satisfied. The same goes for Spanish fighting cattle (Lidia). The probability that they survive in nature and function like their extinct ancestor is very high, as there are feral cattle populations that descended from derived breeds that were not landraces (such as on the Ile Amsterdam or New Zealand). So just releasing a number of cattle from several primitive landraces and letting them breed for themselves and do their thing in natural areas will do the job sufficiently in any case. I have the suspicion that this is the plan the Tauros Programme. So far, they have done exactly that and nothing more (at least nothing that they have published). 

 

If that is the case, why doing “breeding-back” in that intensity at all? I see three main reasons: 

- to see how much similarity to the extinct wildtype can be achieved by selective breeding 

- educational purpose: by showing what an aurochs (or European wild horse) looked like and was like you educate people zoologically 

- a homogeneously wildtype-like phenotype is important for the public acceptance as a wild animal. If the cattle are heterogeneous in appearance they would look more like a bunch of escaped farm cattle, while the phenotype of the aurochs was undoubtedly that of a wild animal. There are indeed people who are against using cattle (or horses) in rewilding because they consider it animal cruelty to let domestic animals live in the wild. It is thus important for the public acceptance of the projects to communicate these are “special” animals bred to live in the wild. 

 

So from a purely ecological point of view “breeding-back” is not necessary. But having a breed of cattle that is as aurochs-like as possible certainly has some advantages. In the end, it is about authenticity. An authentic proxy for the aurochs is more satisfying for nature lovers, has a higher chance of being accepted as a wild animal in the public eye, is more educative, and probably has a higher ecologic fitness compared to randomly chosen landraces due to the selective advantages a wildtype-like phenotype likely has. It is also a matter of opinion. Surely there are more pragmatic people that do not care that much about authenticity, but there are also (perhaps more idealistic) people that do want to replace the aurochs as authentically as possible. And there is enough of the latter category that there are “breeding-back” projects, and even several of them. 

That "tarpan" photo

I am very averse to using the term "tarpan" for the western form of the wild horse, Equus ferus ferus, for a number of reasons. First of all, "tarpan" was actually only a local term from Southern Russia referring to free-ranging horses from the 18th and 19th century whose status was and is unclear. It is not known whether those horses were wild or feral domestic horses, or hybrids. Some contemporaneous authors who saw those horses in real considered them escaped domestic horses, such as Peter Pallas in 1771. A few single individuals are reported because they were kept at zoos, three to be precise. These three individuals are known today as the Dubrowka tarpan, the Krim tarpan and the Cherson tarpan. The status of the Krim tarpan was questioned already back in its lifetime [1] and the Dubrowka tarpan had a semi-erect mane [2] as a hybrid between a domestic horse and a horse with an erect mane would have, suggesting it may have been a hybrid. And then there is the Cherson tarpan. It was the only individual considered a "tarpan" to be photographed. 

The Cherson tarpan

Wikipedia uses the word "tarpan" as a synonym for the western type of the wild horse, Equus ferus ferus. That is, considering the uncertainties of what the horses actually called tarpan were, not a good idea and also arbitrary. Wikipedia also presents the photo above as the only photo of a "tarpan", although the Wiki authors admit it may not have been "pure" (what is a pure "tarpan" anyway?). Let us analyse this individual in detail. 

The Cherson tarpan was caught as a foal in 1866. First it might be interesting which colour the animal had. Judging from the photo, it likely was of a very dark expression of black dun, as found in some Koniks and other black dun horses (like this mare). Black dun is one of the five possible colour phenotypes found in the western wild horse (black dun, bay dun, black, bay, leopard spotted). It has a pretty long and thick mane, what does not fit any of the historic reports of other free-ranging horses (which may or may not have been wild horses, I tend to regard them as feral domestic horses or at least hybrids). Also, its proportions, with the small head and long legs, are like those of normal riding horses and nothing like a wild horse or sturdy pony type. Looking at this animal it is actually easier to conclude it is a feral domestic horse rather than a wild horse. What would qualify this individual as a wild horse, apart from the fact that it was born in a free-ranging herd (which would also go for a feral individual)? And, as mentioned above, some authors considered all those free-ranging horses of Southern Russia in the 18th and 19th century feral horses, what is also suggested by domestic colour variants such as grey or white found in the herds [1]. 

Furthermore, if the western wild horse had indeed an erect mane as all other extant wild equines do, which is not unlikely, all those reports of horses with falling manes and especially the Cherson tarpan with its long and thick falling mane, can safely be considered feral horses or at least hybrids of feral horses and some type of wild horse (we don't know how far westwards the original range of the Przewalski's horse extended). 

Literature

[1] Tadeusz Jezierski, Zbigniew Jaworski: Das Polnische Konik. 2008.

[2] Hardy Oelke: Wild horses then and now. Kierdorf-Verlag.

Using zebus to achieve the trunk to shoulder height ratio?

I make no secret of the fact that I am not averse to using zebuine or zebuine-influenced cattle for “breeding-back” the European aurochs, Bos primigenius primigenius. Surely, zebus have undesired traits, such as the zebuine hump, hanging ears or the adaption to hot, arid climate and hence a coat that would be insufficient for European climate. But, on the other hand, they also have traits useful for “breeding-back” the European aurochs. And what is very interesting is that zebus seemingly share wildtype alleles with the European aurochs that taurine cattle have lost [1]. This could be the result of genetic drift (hence “coincidence”), or maybe zebus did indeed preserve some primitive organismic traits that taurine cattle have lost. I also consider the reverse possible, that taurine cattle have aurochs alleles that zebus lost, but that has not been proven genetically yet. 

 

Thinking of useful traits that zebuine or zebuine-influenced breeds can contribute to “breeding-back” the European aurochs, the first trait that comes to mind are large horns. Watussi is or was used in some projects/breeds to achieve an aurochs-like horn volume. But there is an even more important trait that zebus could contribute that was not considered yet: an aurochs-like ratio of trunk length to shoulder height ratio (note: not withers height, that parameter is influenced by the height of the spines). In male aurochs the ratio was 1:1, in cows the trunk was even a little shorter. “Breeding-back” struggles to achieve that ratio – in Heck cattle the trunk is generally too long and the legs too short (with very few exceptions), I have also not seen a Tauros cattle individual with the right ratio yet, and also in Taurus cattle the ratio is not entirely as in the aurochs. For example, in the otherwise rather nice bull Darth Vader III, the legs are not long enough respectively the trunk is too long. In Lamarck, the best Taurus bull so far, the ratio comes closer to the aurochs. I used two photos to determine the ratio, one resulted in 1:1,07 and the other one in 1:1,16. In the cows, the trunk is usually longer than the shoulder height too although it should be slightly shorter. 

The Taurus bull Lamarck - the shoulder height to trunk length ratio is not completely there yet

This is not surprising, considering that many of the primitive taurine breeds from Europe are imperfect in this regard. Sayaguesa, a heavily used breed that has many qualities, often has rather longish or short-legged bulls. Also, in Chianina, some bulls have indeed the 1:1 ratio, others do not, it depends on the individual. Lidia bulls are generally too short-legged, with a few exceptions. Maronesa, a breed that is wonderfully aurochs-like in many respects, usually has rather heavy and longish bulls too. The ratio is not perfect in Maremmana either, the same goes for their Hungarian sister breed Grey cattle. An aurochs-like 1:1 ratio for bulls and shorter for cows is simply hard to find even in primitive taurine cattle. 

 

A Deoni zebu bull, photo by Pavanaja on Wikimedia Commons

But there are zebus with a very short trunk and pretty long legs, such as the breeds Deoni, Hallikar, Haryana, Kenkhatha, Nagori and others. I am aware of the fact that these breeds cannot be considered “aurochs-like” in the strict sense: they have the zebuine hump, a diluted coat colour, wrong horn shape, hanging ears and are of the wrong ecotype. But I am not suggesting to using these breeds on a large scale. Rather, it would be interesting to see a F2 crossed with Maronesa (or Sayaguesa or Taurus/Tauros). With luck, the right trunk to shoulder height ratio gets passed on in the F2 while maintaining a more or less aurochs-like overall habitus. An individual like that could be useful for further breeding. Undesired zebu traits would have to be bred out just as any undesired trait. 

The only real problem would be to get hands on these zebus. I guess importing them from India would be way too effortful and perhaps impossible due to the official disease requirements. But perhaps there are zebu breeders in Europe already that have useful individuals. One would have to look for them. 

 

References

 

[1] Orlando et al.: The first aurochs genome reveals the breeding history of British and European cattle. 2015. 

 

 

Two new videos of Tauros cattle at Milovice

The Tauros cattle herd at Milovice, Czech Republic, is so far the only Tauros cattle herd in Central Europe. It is composed of cows, several bulls and calves. 

Recently I found two new videos of the cattle on youtube: 

The breed combination of the animals is, as usual, "top secret". But two of the bulls look like they have Pajuna influence, the cows have Maremmana influence for sure and possibly also Sayaguesa. Perhaps this herd is a mix of those three breeds. Regarding their quality from a "breeding-back" perspective, I would say they are somewhere between Heck cattle and Taurus cattle. 

The Heck/Taurus cattle of the NP Unteres Odertal, Germany

Heck cattle and Taurus cattle can be considered two different breeds, but it has to be kept in mind that both gene pools are connected and there is a seamless continuum between both types. This is because Taurus cattle individuals often become sold to Heck herds in order to improve their aurochs-likeness, and consequently there are herds that are actually a mix of Taurus and Heck cattle. One of those herds is the population at the National Park Unteres Odertal in Germany. 

What is particularly interesting about this herd is that Taurus cattle individuals from the Lippeaue and are bred to, among usual Heck cattle, Heck cattle from the Wörth/Steinberg line, which are noticeable for their aurochs-like horn dimensions and sometimes also curvature. That means the alleles for large body size and longer legs and snouts as well as aurochs-like horn curvature (coming from Taurus cattle) and aurochs-like horn dimensions (coming from the Wörth/Steinberg Heck cattle), are mixed in one pool. That is a pretty good potential that needs stringent selection in order to produce good results. 

Here you have some of the individuals. 

A bull that is definitely from the Wörth/Steinberg line can be found here. 

Some cows are here. 

A rather "classic" Heck bull is found here. 

And a Taurus bull most likely from the Lippeaue can be found here. 

I suspect that this Taurus bull is 42 632 (down below a photo in young years), which I saw in the Lippeaue as a bull calf in 2013. 

© Matthias Scharf

This bull is a son of Lamarck (Sayaguesa x (Heck x Chianina)) and Leier ((Sayaguesa x Heck) x (Chianina x Heck)), consequently a total mix of the three main Taurus breeds. Noticeable about this bull are its cream white forelocks, possibly caused by Chianina dilution alleles. 

Botai horses were not domestic, study says

According to a widely publicised study by Gaunitz et al., the modern Przewalski’s horse descends from the horses associated with the Botai culture from Kazakhstan about 5.500 years ago. These horses were believed to be the earliest domesticated horses. Consequently, the authors write, the modern Przewalski’s horse is not a wild horse but a feral horse [1]. 

In a very recent post on this blog, I discussed the discrepancy that, although now classified as a feral animal descending from domesticated horses, the Przewalski’s horse does not show a single typical domestic trait (f.e. paedomorphy, piebald colour or a reduced brain volume). I came to the conclusion that the Przewalski’s horse is a fully dedomesticated, post-domestic wild animal that can easily be distinguished from feral horses that have been living in the wild for a considerably shorter time (such as mustangs or brumbies). 

 

This year, however, a study came out that calls the Botai domestication theory into question. The main argument for a the Botai horses being domestic is dental damage believed to be caused by bridle mouthpieces. A study by Taylor and Barron-Ortiz 2021 found that this dental damage was more likely caused by natural tooth wear [2]. Furthermore, the mortality patterns of the Botai horses are not consistent with pastoral management [2]. Early ridden horses also show damage in the lower back area, which is not found in the Botai horses. And even more importantly, arrowheads were found in association with some of the specimen, which indicates that they were hunted. This is definitely not in line with the theory that the Botai horses were domesticated [2]. The authors write that the archaeozoological record instead suggests regularized mass harvesting of wild Przewalski’s horses and not domestic pastoring [2]. 

 

Consequently, it seems that the Przewalski’s horse never was domesticated. This is perfectly in line with the fact that the Przewalski’s horse does not show any domestic animal traits and is clearly distinguishable from feral domestic horses in behaviour [3]. This news makes me feel rather comfortable, I always had a hard time believing the Przewalski’s horse descended from domesticated horses. So it seems that the Przewalski’s horse now has its old status back again, being worlds last predomestic wild horse. I hope this study gets as much attention as the Gaunitz et al. paper. Adding it to Wikipedia might help. 

These new insights are meaningful as they emphasize the importance of the conservation of the Przewalski’s horse as a true wild animal. 

 

What is also interesting is that the time and place of the domestication of the horse is still unknown. The earliest unambiguous evidence of domestic horses is from the early decades of the second millennium BC [2]. 

References

 

[1] Gaunitz et al.: Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski's horses. 2018. 

[2] Taylor, Barron-Ortiz: Rethinking the evidence for early horse domestication at Botai. 2021. 

[3] Bunzel-Drüke, Finck, Kämmer, Luick, Reisinger, Riecken, Riedl, Scharf & Zimball: „Wilde Weiden: Praxisleitfaden für Ganzjahresbeweidung in Naturschutz und Landschaftsentwicklung“. 2011