From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 9784
Date: 2001-09-25
--- In cybalist@..., ravi9@... wrote:
[Piotr:] The article contains a number of errors, and unjustified
interpretations and inferences concerning biological and
palaeontological questions (but the opinions of two experts cited
there are entirely reliable and worth reading _carefully_ -- thanks
for eliciting them).
[Ravi:] ... this is not like you. Refutation must be scholarly - what
errors / what unjustified inferences ?
Well, what follows in the same posting is a list of errors culled
from the article.
[Piotr:] ... The fact that modern horses may have 34-38 (canonically,
36) ribs ...
[Ravi:] This puzzles me; I accept the arguments re gentic
variiabilty, but where is the
atee=ssted evidence for horses with 34 ribs ?? is this a textaul
fabrication ??
The palaeobiological and veterinarian experts quoted in the article
discuss the rib-count question quite exhaustively. The number of
dorsal (thoracic) vertebrae and, correspondingly, of ribs, is
variable in many species. Sheep, for example, have 13 pairs (like
other ruminants), but occasionally 14; pigs may have from 13 to 17
pairs of ribs. In humans, too, the number of ribs varies from 11 to
13 pairs (usually 12). In horses, the "2x17" character is a recessive
feature, but I suppose inbreeding can increase its frequency in some
breeds (e.g. in some strains of Arabian horses). Some sources, e.g.
http://www.bahrainhorses.com.bh/%5CArabHorses.asp
(and also my edition of MS Encarta Encyclopedia) suggest that
Arabians _always_ have 2x17 ribs (as well as 5 lumbar and 16 caudal
vertebrae, compared with 6 and 18 in other horses), but that is a
popular myth (like a similar belief concerning mustangs); in
actuality, the reduced number of vertebrae is only more frequent
among Arabians than among most other breeds. This only goes to show
that even people familiar with a particular breed of horses may hold
(and propagate) a mistaken opinion about its anatomy (I know some
people who are firmly convinced that men have one pair of ribs more
than women -- a belief inspired by the Biblical story of Adam and
Eve).
[Piotr:] ... It results from random mutations, not from mixed descent.
[Ravi:] See above - where is the evidence ??
Genetic variation is _normally_ due to mutations. Among mammals,
cross-species hybrids are rare and usually sterile.
[Piotr:] The Rigveda does not say anywhere that horses have three
digits on each leg, does it?
[Ravi:] The rig veda does sya the horse as they knew it had 34
ribs, ? what is wrong and what am I missing.
I was just reacting to the suggestion that the Rigvedic horse may
have had something to do with hipparions. Hipparions were three-toed.
[Piotr:] The idea that _E. sivalensis_ (or _E. namadicus_, or any of
their cousins) had 34 ribs is therefore just a myth. Anyway, if a
different equid species was domesticated in India so recently, what's
happened to it? (And how did true horses get to India?)
[Ravi:] This s exactly my query : why does the ig veda talf od a
horse with 34 ribs only and not that some had 34 ribs some 36 ansd
some 38. This is a statement that cannot be wished away . I would
love for someone to get to the bottom of the mystery.
It _is_ a mystery, which does not mean that the answer must be a
sensational one. There are a number of possible explanations, for
example:
(1) The author of the as'vamedHa passage was wrong about the number
of ribs in horses or based his count -- accidentally or with some
purpose in mind, see (3) below -- on an untypical specimen.
(2) Horses kept by the early Indo-Aryans showed this recessive spinal
irregularity more commonly than modern breeds, perhaps as a mutation
which had emerged in the wild desert horses of Turkmenistan and which
still occurs among Arabian horses. This would not make them a
separate species -- just as Arabians are conspecific and fully
interfertile with other breeds today.
(3) The number 34 had a symbolic significance (the number of
celestial bodies and constellations, perhaps also of gods) and was
deliberately assumed to be the number of horse ribs for ritual
purposes, even if this assumption required a little licence.
[Ravi:] I am no linqust, but there are other readings of asva
suggested. It may not even mean a horse, but energy, life etc - any
logic there ??
As a linguist, I have to look at this question from a comparative
perspective. Old English eoh, Latin equus, Greek hippos, Old Irish
ech, Avestan aspa-, Lithunian as^va, etc., all cognate to Old Indo-
Aryan as'va-, refer to horses, and there is no reason to assume a
different original meaning of PIE *h1ek^wos. Of course secondary
semantic extensions and metaphorical meanings could develop here and
there as language-specific innovations. None of them is traceable to
PIE.
[Ravi:] ... If you have time, be patient, and address my questions in
an open minded way
I hope you find my answers helpful.
Piotr