Talk:Hinny

I did what looks like an extensive rewrite, but did not remove any prior contributions -- though they did get moved around a lot, in order to establish a reasonable flow of information with appropriate subheads. Added internal & external links & "see also" section to direct readers to closely related wikipedia articles on donkeys, mules, etc. Still needs more revision to achieve encyclopedic style and be fully wikified. Lisasmall 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Prodded by the unsigned note "Enough mule" below, deleted hefty portions of prior contributions because they were mule-specific without being sufficiently hinny-germane. Also was bolder about deleting repetitive material. -- Lisasmall 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to How They Do It, the reason hinnies are difficult to obtain is that jennies refuse to mate unless they are beaten, and stallions don't normally have to fight mares. -phma

That may be a factor, but growing up in farm country, I understood it to be that when you have two species with a significant size difference, the hybrid should be borne by the larger species. It's easier for a female horse to deliver the large hybrid foal than it is for the much smaller female donkey. (Maybe -- I'm guessing on this part -- if the How They Do It explanation is true, the size of a male horse might frighten the female donkeys into kicking up a fuss.) But so we're not relying on my memories of my rural youth, for verification, I dug a little further and came up with this from here, http://www.lovelongears.com/longearlingo.html , the official site of the American Donkey & Mule Society, which offers this page as "Official American Donkey and Mule Society Terminology" :

Hinny: This is the term used for the hybrid animal produced when the female ass (jennet) is mated to the male horse (stallion) to produce a foal. There are both male hinnies and females. The genetic inheritance of the hinny is exactly the same as the mule. * * * * For all purposes, hinnies are classified with mules. Hinnies do not differ from mules in endurance, or other useful traits, but are bred more rarely because the donkey dam tends to make the offspring smaller.

The same site notes that while American fanciers refer to female donkeys as jennets, breeders in the United Kingdom call female donkeys mares and save the word "jennet" for what Americans call a hinny. Hmm. Further crossbreeding info I'd never heard before, in the same paragraph from the same source:

Donkeys do not as readily conceive to horse stallion as to donkeys. The equine hybrid is easier to obtain when the lower chromosome count (the donkey) is in the male. Therefore breeding for hinnies is more hit-and-miss than breeding for mules.

This verifies what the original Wiki-author put in the article about the chromosome / fertility issue. Lisasmall 08:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I edited out this: "Nature prefers the chromosome match-up to occur ...." This is an example of the pathetic fallacy. See Bad Science: pathetic fallacy.--Indefatigable 13:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to be a lot more about the mule than the hinny... a lot of references are for the mule rather than the hinny. Though you can make the argument that they're genetically the same, it's rather odd to read an article on the hinny based off mule information.

Good point. After another edit today, I think that the mule references which remain are necessary. By necessity, mules will be discussed a lot in the section on differences between hinnies and mules. In the fertility section, there were a few anecdotes about fertile mule mares but they seemed necessary as a context for the rarity of the fertile hinny mare in China. I cut some of the least-relevant (and mule-exclusive) anecdotes and cleaned up the language throughout the section to try to make the relevance of fertile female mules to fertile female hinnies more clear. -- Lisasmall 04:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

On that point, where the mule is mentioned, the article is often in error. As in where it says that mules have donkey coat colors. They don't, they have horse coat colors -- see the Wikipedia article on mules. The reason for this is that horse color genetics are dominant over donkey color genetics because horses have been specifically bred for those dominant factors and donkeys have not. The same thing happens if you cross a domestic horse with a Przewalski's wild horse, unless the domestic horse is a dun. Donkeys come in several colors but most are either just dun or modified dun. Hinnies and mules are usually colored like their horse ancestor, modified by the (usually) dun heritage of the donkey parent. One of the horse colors you don't usually see in mules is palomino because it is a heterozygous condition caused by crossing a chestnut with a cream. Even so, there are palomino mules because there are cream donkeys. I don't have ready references for this info but much of it is available on Wikipedia. Halfelven (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's been a while since my genetics classses, but I believe the portion pertaining to the percentage of horse or donkey genes passed on is misleading. It states that the mule will pass on 100% maternal horse genes; however, due to recombination of DNA during meiosis, a certain amount of transfer between maternal and paternal genes occurs. This means that the largely horse based genetic material will have some characteristics from the donkey. This is how offspring obtain unique characteristics, and may more closely resemble close relatives other than their parents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halogenated (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

this is correct i am editing out the part about genetic because it is not at all correct, please do not edit about genetic if you dont know about genetics. there are no maternal or paternal genes just non expressed genes for different gender. the dna test part can also be taken aout as it is just repetetive as all a dna test will do is map genes on chromosomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.177 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

In Morocco in 2003, a mule mare bred to a donkey stallion produced a male foal that was 75% donkey and 25% horse. as with my comments above completely incorrect these percentages are uneducated estimates with the crossover of genes the haploid egg cell could be as much as 0 or 100 percent horse (both extremes very unlikely). in conclusion the stallion would have a potential to be anwhere from 100 to 50 percent donkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.177 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, English is not my first language so I may be misunderstanding this, but in any case it's confusing. If it means what I think it means (taken literally), it can't be true -- if equine offspring doesn't grow larger than the mother, then new equine generations would either be getting shorter or possibly (although improbably) maintaining the same size. If a male can't grow larger than his mother and females are usually smaller, this means they keep getting shorter. Am I missing something or this is completely wrong? PoisonedQuill 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's just missing a word -- "usually" or perhaps "approximately". Halfelven (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The hinny should NOT have a scientific classification. It is not a species because it is an infertile creature. If someone has any reason to call it a species, start explaining, because my college textbook (Essentials of the Living World/Chapter 12.4 ISBN 0-07-305238-8) says that according to the Biological Species Concept, the species need to be reproductively isolated. They are unable to interbreed, therefore not a species.

Like all documented crossbreeds, there are scientific classifications for mule and hinny. These are not the same as species names but involve two species names with an X in between. Many domestic plants are also hybrids between two or more species. Wheat, apples, oranges, rutabagas and several others. MUles and hinnies are not species but it is necessary to have a scientific classification for them in order to be able to talk about them in scientific papers and publish research. Halfelven (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

207.183.174.167 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why does this article have the category Donkeys, but not the category Horses?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good point, excess cat, tossed it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thus, hinnies are smaller because donkeys are, for the most part, smaller than horses, and growth potential of equine offspring is influenced by the size of the dam's womb.

It's been a while since my time in a classroom, but this doesn't ring quite true.

Size of any individual would seem to relate to two things. The first is genetic; the size of the dam's womb cannot affect that. The second is environmental.

Assuming - and this may be off, can anybody shed light on it? - that the nutrition provided to a fetus by both mare and jenny are equivalent, then the only environmental factor is uterus size and that's where I get puzzled.

Take two identical fetuses, in different sized wombs. Once born, they eat the same thing (again, the dangerous assumption that mare's milk and jenny's milk are equally nutritious but certainly grass is grass). Same genetics, same nutrition - would the initially confined space (and what uterus is not confined?) be enough to overcome both genetics and subsequent nutrition?

Does anyone have info on respective gestation periods (viewing the hinny as a 'premie')? Is it possible that mules' digestive systems are more efficient, thus allowing larger sizes?

I think, at the least, some citation is required for this statement. I would be interested in an explanation from somebody whose science is more current than mine.

75.155.33.80 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is an impact on the size of the foal at birth based on the womb size -- you see this constantly with mutt dogs with the dam smaller than the sire -- nature tends to avoid killing the mother by having a gigantic fetus that cannot be born (though it, of course, does sometimes happen). Sometimes they catch up, sometimes they don't. Hinnies are not very common and not a lot of info out there. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Female mules have been known to produce offspring when mated to a horse or donkey, though this is extremely uncommon. Since 1527 there have been more than sixty documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world. In contrast, according to the ADMS, there is only one known case of a female hinny doing so.

The insinuation would seem to be that female mules are more fertile than female hinnies (albeit both at a low level). OK, but the article also says that mules are far more common than hinnies. If they are, say, 10 times more common, then the statement above might be statistically significant. If on the other hand they are on the order of 60 times more common, then the insinuation is essentially meaningless.

Any insight on ratios?

75.155.33.80 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a complete joke anyway. "More than sixty documented cases" - well, if those cases are documented, there should be documentation, one should assume. Not in this article though! No documentation, no citation, no nothing.

Whoever put that into the article must have been kidding. --93.212.246.254 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

does it rhyme with tiny or with tinny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsamaBinLogin (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is my question, too. Is the pronunciation "HIGH-knee" or "HINN-y"? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's the latter. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was a bizarre question. How many comparable words with double 'n' are pronounced like the former rather than the latter? None.86.87.191.180 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

There was a sentence in the Fertility, sterility, and rarity section stating, "Dragon Foal's genes that she was a previously undocumented combination." A search found that the original sentence was, "Her chromosomes and DNA tests confirm that she is a previously undocumented combination." That claim itself is uncited and since genome sequencing was only first achieved in 1979, it is unlikely that DNA testing was performed on that individual, and certainly no comparison could be done with earlier subjects. Therefore, I removed the sentence entirely. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

FYI: I am going to do a little improvement on this page. Just starting this discussion to keep some info while I work, and if anyone has question or comments for me.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

1. "White 'Hinny' Fair Feature". Eugene Register-Guard. Eugene, Oregon. Associated Press. 11 Aug 1947. p. 3. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
2. "Palomino, Hinny Mate; Result is 'Something'". Ellensburg Daily Record. Ellensburg, Washington. Associated Press. 6 July 1950. p. 7. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
3. "Rare Hinny Born on Hays Ranch". Othello Outlook. Othello, Washington. 31 January 1963. p. 10. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
4. Rong, R; Chandley, A C; Song, J; McBeath, S; Tan, P P; Bai, Q; Speed, R M (1988). "A fertile mule and hinny in China". Cytogenet Cell Genet. 47 (3): 134–9. PMID 3378453. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
5. King, Max (1995). Species Evolution: The Role of Chromosome Change. Cambridge University. p. 152. ISBN 0-521-48454-5. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
6. Hutchins, Paul; Hutchins, Betsy (17 March 2001). "Longear Lingo". ruralheritage.com. Rural Heritage. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
7. Hendricks, Bonnie (2007) [1995]. International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 283. ISBN 978-0-8061-3884-8. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
8. Smith, Aaron (22 February 2007). "Horse whisperer coaxes lonesome hinny home". Bangor Daily News. Bangor, Maine. p. A1. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
9. Patton, Leah (19 August 2008). "About Hinnies". lovelongears.com. American Donkey and Mule Society (ADMS). Retrieved 14 July 2014.
10. Hutchins, Betsy (15 April 2012). "Rural Heritage: Mule or Hinny?". ruralheritage.com. Rural Heritage. Retrieved 14 July 2014.
11. Hodges, Meredith (2014). "Lucky Three Ranch: Mule Facts". luckythreeranch.com. Lucky Three Ranch. Retrieved 14 July 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just remember, hinnies are NOT mules and anything about mules cannot necessarily be generalized to hinnies. Other than that, I look forward to seeing your work, and thanks for diving in! Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, I am aware. My parents grew up on farms, and I've learned a thing or two. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Lightbreather! Thanks for taking the trouble to post potential sources here before making big changes to the page (to which as far as I can recall I have never made one single useful edit); it's a novel and most welcome approach. I haven't actually read all the sources you've listed, but my first-glance reaction is as follows: 4 and 5, obviously reliable; 1–3, 8, could be useful for specific events, but probably not reliable for characteristics or general facts ("albino stallion", alarm bells should ring); 7, Hendricks, is one we know well, and that I personally do not have a lot of faith in (Montanabw may have a different view on that); 6, 9, 10, use with great circumspection if at all; and 11 is probably a Wikipedia mirror, as this page seems to indicate.

I don't know how your French is, but I notice that a principal source for the corresponding French article is this doctoral thesis. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. As for languages, my Spanish is pretty good, and I comprehend a bit of German, but French? I tried it one semester and gave up before it was over. Ugh. Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

My view on Hendricks is that it is a superficial breed encyclopedia that tends to uncritically cut and paste what breed associations say about their breed. So it can be useful for basic data, but if a more specific source contradicts Hendricks, Hendricks is probably wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think I agree with just about everything you say, but I have questions and a comment. Numbers 9 (Beatles, anyone?), is on the American Donkey and Mule Society website. Numbers 6 and 10 are by the Hutchinses, founders of ADMS. These are probably reliable sources for basic information, right? (For instance, common hinny/mule vocabulary, as given in 6, and hinny (and mule) lore from farmers, ranchers, packers and others who have worked or do work with such animals. And 11? I felt the same way when I first read it, but I think it's Hodges' own report, though it would be nice if she gave her sources (besides the Jesus story at the very end that she attributed to "Mr. Longears publisher Tom Constantino," which I probably wouldn't pick for an encyclopedia article anyway, though it is a charming story.) At any rate, I will dig around a little more to see if I can figure it out.

What I also have, here in my own home, are:

1. Hauer, John, ed. (2014). The Natural Superiority of Mules. Skyhorse. ISBN 978-1-62636-166-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
2. Sheehan, Sarah; Laughon, Barbara, eds. (2014). "2014 Mule Days Celebration: The Spirit of the Volunteer". Bishop Mule Days Souvenir Program. 45. Bishop Mule Days Celebration: 112. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Do you have any other suggestions for sources, besides the four in the article's reference section (only two of which are cited in the article)? Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Google doesn't give me even a snippet of the McKinnon book, which is probably the sort of source that should be the basis of the page. I can help with reading French. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The LuckyThree site would normally raise red flags if you were to be challenged because it's a personal business site, though if you can independently establish that the author (apparently Meredith Hodges) is a notable person and expert in the mule world, it might fly, similarly to how horse trainers such as Cherry Hill or Mark Rashid (speaking of two other people from Colorado) have independent notability sufficient for their works to meet WP:RS, even if it's stuff off their web site. It's a cute page. That said, she doesn't have a lot to say about hinnies. ADMS will be RS for basic info, some history, etc. but not for claims of superiority, as they would be viewed as biased. Rural Heritage is probably pretty decent for a mainstream-type magazine. Should be adequately "third party neutral" for RS, anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

A side comment is that I view the hinny article as an offshoot of mule, and so if you are going to be talking a lot about horse-donkey hybrids in general, it is possible you'd want that info to go into the mule article and then refer here only to what's different from mules, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

There really isn't an established format for dates in this article. The one reference that gives a complete date is in yyyy-mm-dd format. Is there any strong preference by currently active editors here? 2014-07-14? January 14, 2014? 14 January 2014? (I'd like to complete and standardize the citations currently in the article.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well it's certainly nice to be asked! My opinion, though I'm not an active editor here: there's no established format, so go with what you prefer. I would however suggest that same date format be used throughout, for simplicity and consistency. If no-one minds. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, whatever you pick, keep it the same and fix all the others. Usually if you write in US English, use mmdd dates, if you use UK English, use ddmm dates. The general rule is to keep the ENGVAR the same unless there's some logical reason to change it (like an obviously UK or US topic; London would be written in UK English, obviously) or if it's so inconsistent you can't determine the default. The default rule is that whichever version was first way back when is where you go if no one can agree, but as to all that, on this particular article, I DGAF other than to beg for consistency. Montanabw^(talk) 04:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree about consistency. Since I will probably be adding some sources to the article, that's why I asked. I am going with the "month dd, yyyy" format (like "July 16, 2014") unless anyone objects. Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Meh. I'm a damnyankee, fine with me. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to the ADMS, "The equine hybrid is easier to obtain when the lower chromosome count, the donkey, is in the male. Therefore breeding for hinnies is more hit-and-miss than breeding for mules."[1] ZFT (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The page states “hinnies and mules differ in temperament despite sharing nuclear genomes” without offering how they differ in temperament. Seems like it needs an explanation on how they differ. Kjpires (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply