MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967901246 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.11330548

Equus caballus Linnaeus 1758

2005· article· en· W6967901246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Diversity and Health Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquusSubspeciesEquidaeEndangered speciesPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equus caballus Linnaeus 1758 Equus caballus Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat., 10th ed., Vol. 1: 73. Type Locality: "Habitat in Europa" (= Sweden?); based on domestic horses. Vernacular Names: Horse. Subspecies:: Subspecies Equus caballus subsp. caballus Linnaeus 1758 Subspecies Equus caballus subsp. ferus Boddaert 1785 Subspecies Equus caballus subsp. przewalskii Poliakov 1881 Distribution: In the late 18th Century, from Poland and Russian Steppes east to Turkestan and Mongolia; wild population survived (at least until recently) in SW Mongolia and adjacent Gansu, Sinkiang, and Inner Mongolia (China); reintroduced into Mongolia. Domesticated worldwide; feral in Portugal, Spain, France, Greece, Iran, Sri Lanka, Lesser Sundas (Flores and Rintja), Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Hispaniola, Canada, USA (incl. Hawaiian Isls), Galapagos and probably other oceanic islands. Conservation: CITES – Appendix I as E. przewalskii; U.S. ESA – Endangered as E. przewalskii; IUCN – Extinct in the Wild as E. ferus and E. f. przewalskii. Discussion: Reviewed by Bennett and Hoffman (1999, Mammalian Species, 628). Recent caballine horses have been assigned to two different species, E. caballus (or ferus) and E. przewalskii, but many authors now include przewalskii in caballus; see Corbet (1978 c:194), Groves (1974 a), Bennett (1980), and Bennett and Hoffman (1999). Gromov and Baranova (1981:333-334) continued to recognize two species, gmelini (= ferus) and przewalskii. Groves (1971 b) and Corbet (1978 c:194) proposed that ferus (the Tarpan) replace caballus, objecting to the use of specific names based on domestic animals. Gentry et al. (1996) proposed that majority usage be confirmed by adoption of the first available specific name based on a wild population for the wild taxon, in this case deemed to be E. ferus. It has not been demonstrated that most authors have termed wild horses E. ferus rather than E. caballus or E. c. ferus or other names. Azzaroli (1984), Bennett and Hoffman (1999), and Forsten (1988) are among those who have used the name caballus for the species. The case is complicated by the very much wider use of przewalskii as a name for wild horses, though przewalskii is commonly treated as a species separate from E. caballus. Gentry et al. (1996) asked the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary power to rule that the name for the wild species is not invalid by virtue of being antedated by the name based on the domestic form. The Commission has ruled in favor of the proposal (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2003). It has stipulated that ferus is not invalid but has not specified explicitly what name is to be used for the species by those who consider E. caballus and E. ferus to be conspecific (see Bock, 1997). Material evidence that ferus is a distinct form of wild horse is limited to osteological material of two specimens and it has not been reliably identified with Pleistocene or Holocene local populations (Forsten, 1988). Its status as a wild rather than a feral form is disputed (e.g. Epstein, 1971) and it is not regarded as ancestral to domestic horses by Kuz'mina (1997). Accordingly ferus is here treated as a subspecies of E. caballus. The systematics of ferus needs to be more thoroughly reviewed. Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785 is preoccupied by Equus asinus ferus Erxleben, 1777 (= Equus hemionus), cited also by Kerr (1792) and G. Fischer [von Waldheim] (1814), which can however be regarded as a nomen oblitum. The next published name, equiferus Pallas, 1811 is available, contrary to Heptner et al. (1961). It is listed by Pallas (1811:510) as " EQUUS Caballus … b. Equiferus" in his synonymy, that is as an infraspecific category, now regarded as a nominal subspecies. For domesticated horses, Desmarest (1822) employed 25 subspecific names and Fitzinger (1858, 1859, 1860) used 160 names for species, subspecies and infrasubspecific categories. Most of these names have been ignored but the specific and subspecific names are available and take part in synonymy. Only those that have been used elsewhere as junior or senior synonyms are cited above, under "synonymy".

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.012

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicAnimal Diversity and Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207