All so called wild populations of Equus caballus extant today are descendants of once domesticated or captive animals that have either been set free, strayed, or escaped from man, reverting to a more natural way of life. In scientific parlance, these animals are considered “feral horses” or ponies.
Many of these feral populations thrive on very marginal lands across the globe, occupying niches in many cases far removed from that for which they had evolved, but still they persist by adapting their behaviour to the new environments.
Unfortunately for many the word feral used in describing populations is often times synonymous of pest, vermin or something to be exterminated. For this reason alone, it is worth calling horses wild.
We caution you when considering the behaviour of equines, to look closely at the variables of the surrounding environments in which the studies have taken place. Variables such as the presence of predators, the availability of water sources or even the time of year will undoubtedly affect the individuals and the groups under scrutiny.
Furthermore human intervention in many of the populations undoubtedly alters the population dynamics, herd/band cohesion as well as affect the rates of competition among individuals. Care must therefore be taken when describing the behaviour of localized populations as representative or generic of the natural behaviour of Equus caballus found across the globe.
I would respectfully disagree with your suggestion to call feral horses “wild” since the Przewalski’s horse (takhi) is the only surviving species of genetically wild horse and, with only 2000 or so in existence, I think it is very important that there be no confusion. They are highly endangered, so it is very important that what makes them unique be clearly understood.
I find that Americans who have heard of takhi or Mongol horses almost always have them confused, so I know there is an issue about this.
Also, feral horses, being domestic in origin, can be captured and habituated to humans for riding. Tahki cannot be tamed. There are a few accounts and some photos of captive takhi foals at reserves like Askania Nova in the Crimea being socialized to the point that someone could sit on their back and get them to walk a little, but that’s about it.
Thanks for your comments, which I actually totally agree with! You are right Takhi are not wild but have been re-introduced after apparently having gone extinct in the wild. However we may look at it, there is great confusion. Although they are all equids, chromosome counts differ. I personally do not call feral horses wild, but there seems to be great movement in the US to consider the feral horse population there wild, it happens to be the case with the Koniks and many other ferals as well. Even the word horses brings some confusion. Are Przewalskii’s horses? Of late I have noticed that the word horse has been used to describe most equids, asses, caballus, przewalskii’s etc… are they really all horses?
The only reason (it may be a wrong one) I have accepted to call ferals wild, is that we know that there are no truly wild horses (caballus) in existence, and all populations seem to have stemmed from once domesticated stock. In Australia and the US, the term feral is a green light for culling and slaughter and for this reasons alone I do not mind that they are considered wild, if one wishes.
As for Przevs,, the convenient story that they are the wild ancestors of caballus no longer stands its ground, and they have now been reduced to mere cousins (subspecies). Behaviourally there has been much fuss, as people studying the behaviour of captive Przewalskii’s have extrapolated these behaviours to be representative of caballus as well.
Przevs are indeed unique and a great effort has been placed in their recovery but they should be treated as a totally unique and distinct species from that of E.caballus and not an ancestor thereof.
Again thanks for your comments,
Victor Ros