When is something a breed, rather than a cross?

JOJOBA

JOJOBA

Fluffy Bunny, apparently
Jun 22, 2004
6,795
0
0
39
Edinburgh now. Sheffield in the holidays.
www.freewebs.com
Having seen lots of studs (especially in the US) declaring they have new 'breeds' of horses for sale I got wondering when something is a breed, rather than just a cross.

For instance the Clydesdale Pony - a cross of Hackney ponies and Clydesdale horses. Why is that a breed? Is it a breed when you start breeding the crosses together and producing something which is always true to type?

Come across a new one today - the Moriesian. A cross of Morgans and Friesians. Why is this not just a crossbreed?

My horse is a friesian x dales. If I decided to call that a 'Dalesian' and started breeding together horses with the same cross, would I also have created a new breed? The Dalesian Horse? :D

I find it a bit confusing and also a tad annoying :p

Someone want to explain?

xxx
 
Moriesian:
mikasa.jpg


The Clydesdale Pony:

prince_copy.jpg


xxx
 
Last edited:
Ooo and another one, the Montana Travler.
toma1.jpg

50 years of intensive interbreeding of Tennessee Walker, American Saddlebred, Morgan, Thoroughbred, and Hamiltonian bloodlines. Finally produced a foundation sire, Montana Travler.

I know breeds have to go through changes and selective breeding, but this suggests anyone can just make up their own? :p

xxx
 
This is a good question, which sadly I have no answer, but I would have thought that most of thoes adverts are really crosses rather than new breads.

I would have thought that a breed needs to have distinct unique charictoristics whch can be reliably reproduced over several generations.

Also I think a Zorse or a mule is a cross not a breed because you can't breed from it (not that you asked :rolleyes: )
 
It seems odd to me too, I would have thought that a bloodline would have had to exist for a long period of time before it could be considered a 'new breed'. Very curious...
 
there are some crosses that are breeds eg the aegidienberger is a cross between an icelandic and a paso fino.

and, a friends horse has a secD dad and a secC mum but is registered welsh D (dont think thats a useful example though!)

Julia
 
I think its just false advertising (they are for studs right?) like that site that advertise coloured freisians, and only once in about 20pages is the word 'partbred' mentioned...

Isn't there also some confusion with american terms, what we call a type they sometimes call a breed?? Right?

I did think Azteca was a breed though - but the ones I've seen are so different to that horse.
 
ive seent he azteca in one of my breed books. i think to register a breed you have to have so many of them with simialr trailts, i think ive read that somewhere before.

with the welsh, my section d has a section c dam and a section d sire, she is a section d as she is over 14 hands:)
 
notpoodle said:
and, a friends horse has a secD dad and a secC mum but is registered welsh D (dont think thats a useful example though!)

Julia
Click to expand...

That's not a cross, they're all the same breed, it's just that the breed has 5 sections - E's being geldings, but only welsh cob geldings I think. Which section a pony is in depends on it's height, although B's and C's are very distinctive when compared.

This is an online definition of breed;

A group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propagation.
Click to expand...

But I don't know when a cross would actually become a breed. Chev might know, she's good with genetics and that sort of thing.
 
JOJOBA said:
Come across a new one today - the Moriesian. A cross of Morgans and Friesians. Why is this not just a crossbreed?
Click to expand...

It's a ploy to raise the selling price of the mutt horse.

We have the same problem with dogs. Someone thought it would be fun to cross Labradors with Poodles and now there are "Labradoodles" for sale at high prices.

A "breed' must have some sort of written specification written that defines the ideal characteristics of the breed. A new breed must also be something that is being developed by more than 1 or 2 breeders....and these breeders should work together, taking the best of each generation, until they've created a quality & distinctive animal. Ideally there should be a real purpose for creating a new breed, not just because the breeder thought a breed looked better with paint markings or something.

Generally breeds also have breed registries which are independent databases that track pedigrees and ensure each parent in the family tree really is the breed they say it is.

My pet peeve are people who take mutt horses which they think vaguely resemble a breed, then call it that breed as if it was a purebred. Even worse are people who take a horse who they think sort-of look like a popular, expensive breed like Friesian and they breed it to any mare they happen to own... and then they're selling "Fresian sporthorses" or "Friesian crosses". We see that alot here in the US with Gypsy Vanners and a few expensive breeds of warmbloods. It's all about money and hype, and people buy into it because they don't want to pay the money for a true animal of that breed.
 
I think the confusion lies with people referring to 'types' as breeds. A 'type' (e.g British Riding pony) can be produced by selective breeding from various breeds. It should not be referred to as a breed as it is not a pure breed native to a certain area.
 
A cross becomes a breed when it is no longer a cross, has certain identifiable traits which breed consistently across generation. There would also need to be recognisable standards and characteristics. Using the Morgan x Friesian as an example; a Morgan x Friesian is just that. Two different breeds crossed to produce a half-bred. If you bred the horses resulting from that cross for generations, without introducing more Morgan, Friesian or other blood, and they eventually bred true for certain characteristics, then it could be considered a breed. But it is something that takes years and generations. Breeds are not formed from crossing two breeds.

The Welsh thing... thing with the Welsh sections is that section A, C and D as we know them were all derivatives of one type of horse. The ponies breeding wild on the mountains became Welsh Mountain ponies, the Cs were a sort of small working cob and Ds were the big working cobs. Originally, other than size, there was little difference between them. The one breed was separated originally into Welsh Mountain ponies, (sec A) and then three sections of cobs; today's sec C was the original Sec B for cobs between 12.2hh and 13.2hh, sec C was the next size up of cob (13.2hh - 14.2hh) and Ds were the biggest cobs; 14.2hh and over. C and D were later amalgamated and sec B became sec C - basically so the a new breed of riding pony could be registered in sec B. So you see, As, Cs and Ds were all derived from the same lines and differences were only developed along the way. Old photographs of Sec As show a mini sec D to be honest. That explains the crossing between sections; it comes from the original stud book rules which were based on the fact that they were nothing much more than size related sections of the same breed.

An interesting case though is how the sec B came into being. That is a breed; it breeds true, has standards that are adhered to, and certain characteristics that make it almost instantly recognisable. Section B was started in the early 1920s - it comprised (in theory) of Welsh ponies already registered in the stud book who conformed to the riding pony ideal, foundation mares (mares who were not yet registered but fitted the Welsh ideal) and three stallions who were not Welsh but also fitted the Welsh riding pony ideal (one was a Barb stallion). Stock derived from FS1 stock (foundation stock 1st generation) were not granted full registration; they were registered as FS2 (foundation stock 2nd generation). Once the standard was established and ponies were breeding true to type (whcih wasn't until between 20 and 30 years of breeding later) the foundation route was closed and the stud book became a closed studbook (no outside blood could be registered from this point). Foundation stock were not crossbred ponies; they were approved Welsh-type ponies. They were granted approval only if they bred true to type and to the Welsh riding pony ideal.

The whole thing was a heck of a lot more complicated than simply crossing two breeds and giving it a catchy little name based on some clever word play ;) . That wasn't even creating a breed from scratch; it was developing the Welsh breed into a children's pony as well as a working pony. To create a breed from two distinct and separate breeds would be something that could only happen over several decades; the result would not be a cross in any way. For as long as it's a cross, it won't breed true; people have been crossing Welsh, NF and Connies with TBs for generations but the results are always slightly unpredictable. Some are very TB in looks and type, some very native.

It is, as MayS says, basically nothing much more than a marketing technique.

The difference between types, breeds and part-breds is always going to be a blurry line at best; which makes it easy enough for anyone to cross x with y a few times and say they've developed a new breed. In reality, a new breed can only come into being with a much wider gene-pool to draw from than a few crossbreds, and a very long-term breeding programme. Twenty years to develop an existing breed gives you an idea of the timescale involved. To create a new one I imagine that anything short of fifty years of dedicated breeding for type is going to be a waste of time. A breed is genetically distinct from any other breed; DNA (mitochondrial) can trace any existing breed back to its origins but can also identify an individual breed. It takes a long time to create a genetically distinct breed.
 
Jojoba, here in NorAm, we come up with simplified names for certain crosses when it comes to a point that there are many around. Hence, we use pintabian, pintaloosa, morab, quarab, thoroshire, etc.

It gets lengthy if you are talking about your horse to constantly refer to it as "Well, my frieisian morgan cross is..." and so on. So, over here, we generally morph the two names together to cut down the mouthful some crosses can be. Mine, for instance, would probably turn into a quarter clyde, or I can cheat and call her a clydesdale sporthorse.


If there is a registry, it's a breed. If it's a well-used and plentiful cross, there is a name. That is that- you need a registry to be a worldwide noted breed.

The Nez Perce Horse (Akhal Tekes crossed with Appaloosas)
Click to expand...

You brits are a little off. :p
The Nec Perce is a specific type of appaloosa, which dates back to a specific group of aborigionals. Take a look on google.COM.
The name nez perce comes from the aborigional word, which means appaloosa.
The cross with akhal-teke horses is, in my eyes, an infusion, and a variant of the breed. Some breeders use the akhal teke horses, some are lucky enough to still have the classic, lighter built appaloosas- but generally the appaloosa's today are completely stock bred, which is why they have reverted to a lighter breed- just thank them that they have veered away from the stupid thoroughbreds.


The Tiger Horse (appaloosas crossed with... just about anything it seems)
Click to expand...
Again, WRONG.

Tiger horses are four-gaited horses- they have a gait called the indian shuffle. They also tend to carry much more interesting variants of color, including the LP gene, than appaloosa's

Simplified site: http://www.tigerhorse.com/CHARACTERISTICS/characteristics.html


In shore: please do a little more research outside of advertisements, Jojoba. Azteka's are breeds too.

Just because you see ads for CROSSES saying they are pure, does not make it so. You need to look up the registries, history, and characteristics of breed. Tiger horses are a subtype of appaloosa's which are finer and sleeker, and have specific coloring and type.

-.-;;;
I know there is a lot of fake breeds and convenience naming, but do become a proactive learner here. For all I know, half the people who skim have read the opening post and won't bother reading this, and will now think that these aren't breeds

=\
 
Chev - anything about breeding you dont know? ;)

Just.Jump -
I took my information about the Tiger horses from their register which is.... let me find it....
www.tigrehorse.com
where it states;
'We understand that an extinct horse can never be revived but because genes from the ancient "Heavenly" or Tigre horses were saved by others who out crossed to local breeds, a variety of international breeds now show a relationship to those earliest horses. The American Appaloosa horse is just one of them. From certain types of horse, we at TIGRE in the USA have reached into the Appaloosa breed and extracted desirable color genes for our modern day Tiger Horse breed. We also carefully selected for a certain body type. These we crossed on solid colored gaited breeds that displayed similar look-alike characteristics to each other, and the first Tiger Horse was born. First, second, third and even fourth generation Tigers are now available for sale or breeding.'
And also;
'Fortunately for TIGRE The Tiger Horse Breed Registry and the Tiger Horse members and breeders, genes take millions of years to disappear or even change. The founders dream was to extract the Lp gene (otherwise known as leopard spotting gene or "Appaloosa"coat patterns), and put it into gaited horses. The dream to create a superior American version of this once famous horse known to have roamed the Steppe, is now a reality.'

Hence my belief that they are mostly appaloosa's crossed with any other horse that they wanted for the breed characteristics (whether those be gaited horses or others that they saw a desirable trait in).


And the Nez Perce information I got from... (this may take longer to find)...
(just a side note - isnt the History button useful? :p... sadly not useful enough though, Im going to have to re-do my search...)
www.nezperceappaloosas.com
Admittedly this is a breeder.
'OUR MISSION:
The Nez Perce people are historically known for their selective horse breeding practices, especially of the Appaloosa horse (“Maamin,” the Nez Perce word for Appaloosa). We strive to follow the lead of our ancestors and carry on their legacy and traditions by breeding, training, riding and trading (selling) Appaloosa stock - - for our own enjoyment and that of our family, our community and our friends (old and new).
When we started our breeding program, we had Appaloosas (Appys) with STRONG Foundation lines. We strengthened our Appy bloodlines even more when we obtained some nice, "old herd" Appy mares from the Minam line in Wallowa, Oregon. (See our Breeding Section.)
In 1995, to support our Nez Perce Tribe’s new Nez Perce Horse Registry, we bred some of our Appy mares to the Tribe's Akhal-Teke stallions (see our Breeding Section). We now have Appy and Akhal-Teke mares that we breed to our Appy and Akhal-Teke stud. We are very pleased with the Appearance, Temperament, Athleticism and Performance of this cross!
However, the large herd of the M-Y Sweetwater Appaloosa Ranch is still predominantly Appy, and we’ll continue our efforts to preserve the wonderful Appaloosa horse!'

Does that then mean that the Nez Perce is in fact a variant of the appaloosa, like the Welsh sections? If this is the case, why is it a seperate breed rather than just a section? (is it even a seperate breed? This site is reluctant to tell me).


So I appreciate your concern, but I did read before I posted. :p. The site for the Nez Perce wasnt clear and on second reading it seems only selected breeders add Akhal Tekes to their appaloosa stock.
And as for becoming a pro-active learner - isnt that what this board is here for? ;)

xxx
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
newrider.com
Top Bottom