Talk:Hyracotherium

Mammals Mid‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page move from Eohippus to Hyracotherium[edit]

Should this page be moved to Hyracotherium? That name seems to be the one most in use.Fornadan 20:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and Eohippus should redirect to it as a synonym. When Owen found the first fossils he did not have a full specimen, didn't realise what he had, and called it "mole beast". When a full specimen was discovered later it was given the more fitting name Eohippus. It wasn't realised until even later that the two finds were the same species. In cases like this the first published name has priority as the official name. Deadlock 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved the page and took the liberty to move your explanation into the article. Fornadan (t) 09:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ribs[edit]

An interesting coincidence is that the Hyracotherium has 18 pairs of ribs, while Orohippus has only 15, and Pliohippus has 19, and Equus has 18 pairs of ribs, making this impossible to be an ancestor of the horse

I don't know if this makes it impossible to have been an ancestor. Anyway, it needs to be phrased better and have a ref. --DanielCD 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many ribs it has is irrelevant, as the change is due to the requirements of the environment and period in which it lived. If it has LESS ribs in a later phylogenetic branch, then it would just mean that one evolutionary mechanism dictated the change in it's structure. Let's not make quantum leaps when it comes to simple science. James.Spudeman 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals within a single vertebrate species can vary in the number of ribs they have. For example, humans normally have twelve pairs of ribs but occasionally some individuals are born with eleven or thirteen pairs. So rib count is certainly no barrier to the genus Hyracotherium (or any other fossil equid) inclusion in horse phylogeny. Evolutionist1859 (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dog Sized"[edit]

To continue what Gould said, can we ever describe anything as "dog-sized" anyways? What breed of dog? Chihuahua or Great Dane? Eran of Arcadia 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards Chihuahua, or a Yorkshire terrier.--Mr Fink 03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Adi No Da[edit]

It is entirely inappropriate that this entry be turned into an infomercial for Avatar Adi Da. I have commented out the inappropriate entry, but left it in place for the amusement of fellow Wikipedians. rowley (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facetious comparison[edit]

I'm sure that "dog-sized" is tongue-in-cheek tribute to Gould's essay. It's obviously a terrible comparison, as "dog-sized" encompassses a wide range of sizes. If there are no objections, I'm going to change it to a cm comparison.--THobern 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Better now?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.--THobern 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Gigantic fox terriers[edit]

I am puzzled by this paragraph:

"In elementary level textbooks, Hyracotherium is commonly described as being "the size of a small Fox Terrier", which is actually about twice the size of the Hyracotherium. This arcane analogy was so curious that Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about it ("The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone", essay #10 in his book, Bully for Brontosaurus), in which he concluded that Henry Fairfield Osborn had so described it in a widely distributed pamphlet, Osborn being a keen fox hunter who made a natural association between horses and the dogs that accompany them."

The article has already established that the Hyracotherium is about 2ft long, which strikes me as being about right for a small fox terrier. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dog comparison is very misleading, although the3 creature was roughly the same height at the shoulders as a fox or even the blessed fox-terrier, with a weight of 50 pounds rather than 15-20 it was much a more robust animal, more like a half-grown capybara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous name switcharoo revisited (sorry)[edit]

I'm assuming that it's all solved and that Hyracotherium is the proper genus, but I'd just like some clarification (I'm still rather confused about the Hyracotherium/Propaleotherium difference) because apparently some are starting to think that Eohippus and co. are distinct after all, and... perhaps [1] that might help a bit. Sorry if I made your head hurt, Crimsonraptor (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is still debate occurring as to which species belonging the three genera. If I recall correctly Eohippus may have bee recently resurrected for a single species, but I'm not sure as to if this has been accepted or rejected.--Kev min § 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Name Change[edit]

I'm sorry, but this article's name needs to be changed again. According to Dorling Kindersley's Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth, "The name Hyracotherium was once applied to early American horses, but recent research shows that this name applies to a horselike European mammal, not a horse." The new name is Protorohippus. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What study does it cite? FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for terms Hyracotherium and Eohippus needed[edit]

According to the Palaeobiology Database, which is a trustworthy source of information, the article here needs better clarification. Eohippus is only used for various subspecies of the Hyracotherium genus.Paleobiology Database - Hyracotherium and subspecies Therefore it should be made clear that only these subspecies, which later on led to the next step in evolution of the equidae are the Eohippus.--Amrbc (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that actually means Eohippus should be split, no? FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eohippus is valid?[edit]

Now it's just a redirect to Hyracotherium, but it seems to have been resurrected.[2] Other species within the genus seem to have been split off as well. Do other studies support this, and should the article be split? FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

I wonder if the descrption given in the article corresponds to Eohippus (stricto sensu) or to Hyracotherium leporinum. Eohippus is referred as Hyracotherium in many sources because of the former synonym, and that is misleading.--Miguelferig (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're provably right, but it's a bit hard to verify... FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]