Jump to content

Talk:Yanardag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Golden dun

[edit]

From the The Official Horse Breeds Standards Guide (2009): "Dark Golden dun (along with similar colors of golden bay, golden buckskin, and golden dun), is another of the archetypal Akhal-Teke colors." [1]. From International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds (2006): "In color, the Akhal-Teke is often a striking golden dun, with metallic sheen.": [2]. See also Britannica: [3]. See also: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found updated content from the US AK registry that is in line with modern genetic knowledge and added that source [5]; they've dumped the "dunskin" stuff. Those sources you found are generally decent, but on this one they are just repeating the breed registry's claims which are not in line with genetics. Part of the problem is older, sloppy terminology -- a friend in the UK told me they often say "dun" for buckskins, but similarly, a lot of duns in the US get labeled "buckskin". To have the dun gene requires primitive markings, and the AKs don't have them... they sometimes may have a countershading stripe but that reflects the sooty modifier. But basically, there are multiple dilution genes out there, and the AKs quite obviously have the cream gene dilution (noting how the breed standard includes cremello and related colors). The thing the AKs have that is really cool is the metallic coat thing... that's truly interesting. Montanabw(talk) 08:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To geek out a bit more, here is an explanation of cream: [6] and dun. cream is an incomplete dominant and does different things depending on whether the horse is homozygous or not. But dun is a straight dominant; only one parent has to carry the gene for it to be fully expressed. For example, almost all Fjord horses are duns. Hope this helps... everyone has a weird hobby, figuring out horse coat color genetics is mine. (Long story, linked to an interest in equine genetic diseases). Montanabw(talk) 08:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add WP:OR. If you want to term his coloring as something different, please find a citation that specifically mentions him with that coloring. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, it's not OR, the horse truly cannot be a Dun -- it is a utter genetic impossibility, as the color doesn't exist in the breed. The AK breed is famous for carrying the cream gene, which produces a range of cream-to-gold colors, depending on what else is happening genetically. The problem here is old, outdated terminology. I cited the changes to the US Akhal-Teke society, which if you read the page, uses the Russian word for his color and then explains what it is in English. "Golden Dun" is just silly PR talk and no longer used -- (in the Arabian breed, where black is romanticized, Dark Bays are called "Black-bay", which is a similar silliness) What shall we do? Permit the article to contain inaccurate information or correct it by blending several reliable sources? Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: From the US site, it states: "Buckskin (Golden): Called "Bulanaya" in Russian, this is the archetypical color of the Akhal-Teke horse. These horses are sometimes purely buckskin (without a spinal stripe) or carry the "sooty" factor (with a dorsal stripe a few shades lighter than the mane and tail but darker than the coat and plainly visible)." It's obvious as can be that this horse is a buckskin with some sooty factor (not as much as the "Dark Buckskin" on the AK USA page). And even the AK registry acknowledges the "Golden" terminology in that site, so I am puzzled why you call it OR. Also, the site that uses the "Golden Dun" terminology [7], is just bizarre -- they use extremely odd terminology that appears to have suffered significantly in translation. Further questioning the reliability of the source's ability to assess horse color, they claim Yanardag has a bay sire and a chestnut dam, which is genetically impossible for either a buckskin or a dun. (Though a very dark sooty Buckskin might be described as a bay by those not familiar with coat color genetics). Worse yet, there is a horse farther down the page that is obviously a palomino labeled "Light dun shot with gold horse." I know I'm kind of geeking out on this, but I am trying to figure out how to avoid perpetuating inaccuracy here. Montanabw(talk) 05:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to choose what to do here: report carefully what the actual sources say unless it is patent nonsense, just as we do everywhere else. If the colour is called "golden dun" in the source, report it as such in the article, but don't link it to dun if that would mislead (but see below); if the source says the horse is pink with blue spots, ignore it (and look for a better source). The current wording seems to be just fine, even if the quote is a bit long.
A "breed registry" in the United States is (as I understand it) a commercial organisation not subject to any control or verification, so is not a reliable source for anything other than itself; and, by extension, a book like Lynghaug – which just reprints what those organisations say – is not reliable either.
A reliable source for horse breeds and coat colours would be something like this, where two (at least) of the editors are respected geneticists. Here's what it says about the Akhal-Teke: "Colour is quite variable in the breed, including dark colours, grey, yellows and striped duns" (on page 433, in case my link doesn't take you straight there). So I think that linking to dun would in this case arguably be appropriate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now, the "don't link it" solution is adequate, but I'm still frustrated because it's just so obvious that this horse is a bay-on-cream dilution with sooty, and not a dun dilution. But I guess until someone does the study, we can just look at 10,000 photos of cream dilution AKs and call them by non-standard terminology. (Oh well, the color names of the Fjord horse are even weirder... all of them are, in fact, dun... and a few dun + cream -- anyway...). Montanabw(talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I found the book on English google too, and shall link it: [8] It's good find. That said, while I have the utmost respect for Sponenberg, who literally wrote the textbook on equine coat colors, this is still a large encyclopedia with the inevitably overlooked flaws inherent in almost all these mass list-of-breed works (in fact, some entries read about the same as Hendricks). Keep in mind that breed associations are the most reliable source for what genetic coat colors are desired in their breed standard (or not) and their preferred terminology. The US group has explicitly removed "golden dun" from their site, compared to previous versions. Here their "yellows" (which is not a real horse color word) and "striped duns" are both obviously the cream dilution. (Bays and buckskins can have faint countershading stripes, in fact, I've taken the photos we have of them for Wiki) Add to it that the Brits say "dun" when the Yanks say "buckskin", so this adds to the confusion. But both are talking about the cream gene and not the dun gene. Actually, I emailed Sponenberg once about a sabino, and he actually answered. But I suppose it would be OR for me to email him and ask about cream vs dun gene testing in the AK... I can dig around for studies, I suppose... Montanabw(talk) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I'd like your thoughts on these sources, which I realize have uneven reliability, but I've spent time (since the last post time stamp) digging through scientific studies on cream and dun, looking for refs to the AK, and not finding much. So here's what I've got:

  • a breeding farm (so, commercial, also badly written, but also expertise), "The internationalization of the horse breeds is causing some challenges to the registration procedures. There are no overall international standards for the correct terms for all horse colors." They go on to explain (all errors in original), "Note that there are no pure bred Akhal-Tekes registered as dun (Russian term savrasaya) in any of the Russian General Studbooks. The yellow horses with black points are without exceptions registered as bulanaya the Russian term for buckskin. However, in translations to English, sometimes the term bulanaya is translated into the British English generic term for diluted colors -- dun, this sometimes causes the misunderstanding that there are dun colored Akhal-Tekes." That's spot on with the USA AK page and explains why the Brits call everything "dun." These folks are dead-on correct, even if they can't write very well, but how to use this info?
  • A genetic study that I can only access the abstract and a snippet... but the snippet says, "crème horses were often falsely identified and wrongly classified as light chestnut or dun horses..." but absent the full text...

Montanabw(talk) 04:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I now have full text of the above referenced study. I'd be glad to forward it to either of you. Iit verifies that about 70% of all AK's carry the cream dilution and that it was common to misclassify cream horses as duns. "Nevertheless, some evidence for the crème allele in these breeds can be found in earlier times. It seems that in old studbooks, crème horses were often falsely identified and wrongly classified as light chestnut or dun horses. " (p. 523) "Notable, breeding goals in the Akhal-Teke and Kinsky horse include the accumulation of this [cream] allele. " (p. 522). I hope this clarifies the question of how to properly link this horse's color. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be interested to see it, thank you! Though this is really not a field I have much interest in – I'm more interested in how the colours are perceived than I am in what has been discovered so far about what causes them. As I understand it, Akhal-Tekes have unique coat colours, and the genetic mechanism or cause is unknown – but perhaps the article will put me right? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

[edit]

Per WP:BRD, I thought we had an understanding in the discussion above that "dun" in this context is bay modified by cream, hence buckskin. I rewrote the section you removed to be more clear about who says what and why. I've got a scientific paper and a breed registry to confirm this as well as the farm site discussed above. Not sure what more is needed here. It's fine if they want to call him a "golden dun," but just like in the Fjord horse, where they have unusual names for the colors, but the colors ARE all acknowledged to be (in that case) dun, I see no problem with synth to explain this so that people don't continue to labor under these inaccuracies. I would be glad to email you the scientific paper if you want to read it. Montanabw(talk) 23:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that "Colour is quite variable in the breed, including dark colours, grey, yellows and striped duns". It's going to take some strong sources to shift me from that belief, as that source is itself a very strong one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a viewable English-language link to that page: [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, and Softlavender, I sent JLAN the study via email (did you read it?) and I really don't see how anyone with any understanding of science and genetics can possibly dispute that this horse is not a genetic dun. He is a genetic cream dilute bay and I have now produced three sources that are all pretty clear that "dun" is a misnomer. (In the UK, I am aware that "dun" is used as a generic word to describe cream dilutions even though they are produced by two completely different genetic mechanisms.) It is crystal clear that the "highly sought after" color in the AK are the cream dilution shades and peer-reviewed scientific literature is crystal clear that this is the color we are talking about. Further, we all know that general encyclopedias are often not as accurate as more specific works, particularly where they copy from other sources. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did receive it – thank you, Montanabw! – but have not got around to reading it. In any case, academic consensus is not formed by publishing a single paper, but by the reception that paper receives from other academics – who may applaud, refute, endorse, ridicule or completely ignore its findings. In the case of the Reissmann paper, it is the last: it has received no citations whatsoever. That may be partly because it is fairly recent. Monika Reissmann is clearly notable in her field, and Springer is a fully reputable publisher.
A work such as Mason's indubitably has its faults, but it is equally indubitably a reliable source by our definition, and – since (at least) two of the editors are world-famous geneticists – specifically reliable for information on genetically-transmitted characteristics. I suggest taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you want to discuss it further.
Attempting to edit-war the content into the article is an inevitably futile pursuit. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not edit-warring when with each edit I consistently rewrite and improve sourcing in an attempt to satisfy the objections raised. But at least read the article; it is well-sourced and convincing. Here we have a best evidence situation. Montanabw(talk) 02:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, having now read all of this page, I'm inclined now to agree with Mbw, but I don't think this article is the place to extensively over-elaborate on Akhal-Teke color definitions. The place for that would be the Akhal-Teke article. I'm fine with the article in this form: [10], without all the unnecessary jargon and OR/SYNTH (after all we are talking about one single horse, not an entire breed). I do think that the problem is that we are dealing with translations, both from Russian and from British English (and from outdated American English terminology), to current standard official American English breeding terms. I have to re-read the Springer-based PDF article again, but it's late here. And by the way, Mbw, I do suggest that you email Sponenberg (or Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall) about the current terminology on Akhal-Teke coloring and submit the citations and arguments that you have here. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would favor some way of not perpetuating the clear error that this horse is not a genetic dun. I'd be fine making it shorter if others would agree to the evidence so we wouldn't have to go into detail. I have emailed Sponenberg in the past on some other issues and he has graciously replied to me. But I contact Sponenberg on this one, would not his emailed personal correspondence be viewed as OR on my part? (IF he has more citations on AKs being cream, I could, of course, use those...) Montanabw(talk) 02:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not talking about OR, I'm talking about ensuring that Sponenberg has all of the information that you have submitted here. If you think something in his book is inaccurate, then take steps to fix it. Softlavender (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • See below... I think he did, indirectly (but if you want me to email further I can...) I can't say whether he had the 2016 Reissmann article out before he had a printer's deadline on his own revised textbook, but as you can see below, he clearly explains that dun and cream are two different alleles and that "dun" has been a common misnomer for the genetically cream-diluted bay, which is usually called "buckskin". Clearly, the AK carries cream and does not have any genetic studies indicating that it has the "lineback dun" pattern of primitive markings. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, I can live with this version. In fact, it's pretty close (though better worded) to what I originally was trying to do. (maybe with the one small bit from Reissmann that creme dilution produces the desired trait) Montanabw(talk) 03:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]
Dun horse with dorsal stripe
dorsal stripe
Buckskin with sootiness producing a faint countershading stripe

OK, So, Softlavender and Justlettersandnumbers, here's more source material. It appears that Sponenberg (fourth edition of his book on color genetics, c 2017) also acknowledges that the former "D for dilution" is not the same as Dun color: [11] (See page/section 4-22) "It was also common in much past work to ascribe cream-related and linebacked dun colors to a single genetic mechanism, usually the Dilution locus." Then, on the next page (what I can view online appears to have no page numbers, but it's section 4.2.1), Sponenberg states: "Buckskin is the term commonly used for horses that have a yellow body and black points, although this nomenclature is by no means universally accepted...In British or eastern usage, this color is frequently referred to as dun, although this can lead to much confusion...The approach in this guide is to reserve dun for the linebacked varieties..." He goes on to note that darker buckskins are sometimes called "golden buckskins," which is basically the point I've been trying to make. (He only mentions the AK in context of their metallic sheen on their coats on page 8-58 and notes that a few have an odd "giraffe" lacing pattern on page 6-36. Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of that obviously backs up what you are saying in this version of the wiki article: [12] (my preferred version), about the rather loosely applied British and Russian term "dun" as opposed to the more genetically accurate "buckskin", and we could use that as an additional source in the wiki version I linked to. On other matters, the problematical point is that the 2016 Mason book specifically says that AKs can include "striped duns" (i.e., dorsally striped duns), whereas if I understand your various arguments throughout this discussion, the apparent dorsal stripe on any AK is not from the dun gene but from some other kind of sooty gene. Have I got that right? That is something to hash out with Sponenberg, but so far I think you have provided substantial evidence that that is the case. But back to Yanardag: Since he does not have a dorsal stripe anyway, the dorsal stripe thing doesn't even apply to him, only whether his color should be correctly called "dun" or "buckskin", given the variations in terminology versus accurate genetic terminology. (Am I on the right track? I don't understand all of it but I'm grasping some of it.) Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC); edited 04:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are getting it. I'm putting up two photos above (click to enlarge) that perfectly illustrate the problem of a "real" dun primitive marking and a cream dilute horse with an "apparent" dorsal stripe. I'm open to your version, yes. (Perhaps with the wikignoming edits that have occurred since). Montanabw(talk) 03:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the 2017 Sponenberg genetics book: The whole section on buckskin is interesting: [13] and a page which mentions golden dun talks about dunskin, primitive markings, and genes: [14]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a horse could carry both cream and dun genetics... some Fjord horse do, for sure (all Fjords carry the dun gene). But I think the weight of the evidence, particularly when we also factor in that one breeder's page where they explain the Russian words for the "golden" color versus dun dilution, is that Yanardag carries cream. I've also looked at a lot of photos of him, and I do not see any evidence of the dorsal or leg striping characteristic of a "striped dun." (In theory, the AKs could have dun, but the breed society doesn't select for the dun gene, they select for the cream gene, there are a lot of cremello AKs) Could you do the honors of inserting the phrasing you think is best for explaining that he carries cream? There was a diff we discussed that worked for me... Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current loose consensus seems to be to restore this version of the article. I support that, with the proviso that Mbw immediately contacts Sponenberg and presents to him the arguments and evidence she has provided here, and then reports back immediately when and what he responds. If he objects in any way, then we will need to continue this conversation. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Or... er... dun? Montanabw(talk) 07:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, none of that was agreed to at all. Please see the agreed-upon text: [15]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thought we were keeping some in-between edits... OK, I'll put up that exact version. I do think we have to fix some citations and I also think the bit about the government symbolism needs to be in a different paragraph, though. Let me know if we have it correct now. Once you are OK with it, we can do the gnoming... Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The text you added here [16] is completely and utterly different from the agreed-to text (here [17]). Also, if you are adding the agreed-upon text, do not remove the constructive edits that were made in the interim. This isn't rocket science. Go into the editing field of the agreed-upon text and copy only the text that is to be added. Also, if you are using bullets instead of colons to nest your replies, you need to avoid adding a line space when you reply. I have fixed that for you three times now. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Softlavender, I copied the exact link you posted above because you had previously reverted the changes I made that kept the expanded links as being the wrong version. So the new edit I made was precisely the page you linked because I thought that what I thought you wanted. I am a little dismayed at the tone of your edit summary and your tone here, as I preferred the better references, but you were very, very specific above about what you wanted. But thank you for the unsolicited advice. I have made one final edit, which I in good faith believe incorporates the agreed-to text and the intervening format improvements. I also removed one partial sentence that cannot be verified. diff to what I think was wanted. Are we done with the dun/buckskin dispute now? If not, please simply make further edits yourself as I have done my best to figure out what you wanted. Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Montanabw, you have again removed a constructive edit that was made in the interim. I will replace it. You've also messed up your bulleting again (I have fixed it now). Can you please use "Show preview" before you post your comments? Only one bullet should show, and that bullet should be indented the proper amount. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yanardag&oldid=1249249198"