Topic for unrelated discussions

[Malakai10]

Moon Moon is usually used to describe a wolf, husky or husky-shaped dog (and sometimes people) that behaves in a clumsy manner. Around our house we use it to describe anyone that's clumsy - we also have another word for it, which is FUF and stands for *ahem* 'messed' up fairy - which is just someone who either is or looks like they're super graceful but then they go and trip over their own feet or something. For example, a friend of mine who is a fantastic and athletic tennis player will trip over air occasionally, so she is a FUF and we sometimes call her Moon Moon. The number of times I've been called Moon Moon *shakes head* but I simply used it in a teasing manner toward you - no offense was intended.

The original Moon Moon was this werewolf 'what is your name post' based of the first letter of your first name and the last letter of your last name... and someone got Moon Moon and they basically described themselves as the ridiculous werewolf (from what I interpreted it to be). Now people call anything with a repeated name the 'Moon Moon of XYZ': Ursus arctos arctos, Remus Lupin and Akatosh three examples I can think of.

Even the competition style we are generally taught can be used in life or death combat - it's just not very effective and it's more showy, for lack of a better word. For example, one of the blocks we are taught for kicks starts with our hand by our opposite ear, travels across our body and ends a bit in front and to the outside of our thigh - real combat doesn't leave the time to do that. Doesn't mean I won't use that move in real combat, it just emans that I'll shorten it.

Hah! yes, with that definition I am a Moon Moon, or a FUF... I usually call it the little gremlin on the shoulder, you know, the one that pulls you JUST off balance at the most inopportune time. Or whispers in your ear 'glass doesn't get hot in the oven'.

People have called me graceful before, in all my great short-ness! But I feel far from that. How can somebody be graceful AND clutzy? But yes, I'm like them I guess.

I got it as what you intended. But after looking it up, wow... some beginnings are quite harsh. For instance, the word 'nice' wasn't... nice to begin with.

Evolution of the word:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nice

I do wonder though, how many of the steps and movements would translate effectively from other styles of competitive combat? For instance, 'thrust-thrust' for... whatever sword-play... is quite straightforward. But some of the other ones... What real damage would come out of the translation of a side-hit with such a thing as a rapier? One would at least need a regular flat sword.

Oh wow and here I thought nice just meant something delicious

I know much less about sword fighting then I would like (*keyboard smash video game games * cough Bleach * cough * other fighting anime... maybe? Soul Eater *cough*) ooo! Stick them with the pointy end! Or slash them with the sharp end! That's the extent of my sword play knowledge!

But, yeah, there are some really ridiculous moves. For example, in one of the katas in the style of karate I do (Shukokai... I think. And I think the kata is Pinan Nidan... or something. Names aren't my forte) there's a move where you stab forward with your hand - the intended purpose was that you stab through their chest and rip out their heart??? Somehow??? Apparently, they actually used to belive you could do that and gave themselves terrible arthritis stabbing their hands at various things in an attempt to 'toughen the hand up' so they can be all stabby stabby murder.

Here's the kata - they've labeled it Pinan Shodan but it's actually Pinan Nidan - it might be a regional difference or it could have been a mistake when they uploaded it.

[BlackOak2]

Oh wow and here I thought nice just meant something delicious

I know much less about sword fighting then I would like (*keyboard smash video game games * cough Bleach * cough * other fighting anime... maybe? Soul Eater *cough*) ooo! Stick them with the pointy end! Or slash them with the sharp end! That's the extent of my sword play knowledge!

But, yeah, there are some really ridiculous moves. For example, in one of the katas in the style of karate I do (Shukokai... I think. And I think the kata is Pinan Nidan... or something. Names aren't my forte) there's a move where you stab forward with your hand - the intended purpose was that you stab through their chest and rip out their heart??? Somehow??? Apparently, they actually used to belive you could do that and gave themselves terrible arthritis stabbing their hands at various things in an attempt to 'toughen the hand up' so they can be all stabby stabby murder.

Here's the kata - they've labeled it Pinan Shodan but it's actually Pinan Nidan - it might be a regional difference or it could have been a mistake when they uploaded it.

I kind of recognize 'shodan' not but 'nidan' so I'm voting for regional differences. But that's like somebody describing the words Witch and Which as the same thing! Just some idiot trying to make sense of something, i.e. ME.
It's an interesting clip. I can watch them spar, but singularly, they always come across as... weird. And still neat.

Maybe it came TO the belief that with enough study one might be able to tear the heart out. Because such a strike there in the sternum, in just the right spot, with just the right pressure, could stop the heart. Thus the theory of 'stopping the heart' could eventually become the belief that one might be able to 'take the heart' and eventually becomes 'taking the heart out' of the chest.
But who knows.
But that part you said, it made me laugh. 'that you stab through their chest and rip out their heart??? Somehow??? ... gave themselves terrible arthritis.... so they can be all stabby stabby murder'

That is one thing I also considered, but never thought to get into. I'm the quiet, disappear-into-the-background style, so all those vocals and making yourself the center of attention was WHOLLY NOT what I wanted. So I scratched that off... then I learned about ninjitsu and though... well... maybe? Then of course, THAT school of study didn't appear to have any official schools, it was a 'dead art'. Well... I likely could never survive in something like that either, or rather... much of it might forever be outside of my abilities, simply because of that gremlin on my shoulder! I have a tendency to plateau in physical things quite quickly. And though I'm good at certain aspects... I fail to... grow beyond certain areas.

...hmm... I wonder if that's beginning to get to personal. Well, whatever.

Anyway, so I'm a bit of a failure in physical activities. But I'm okay with that. Such is my lot.
I make up for it by 'stabby stabby murder' in the games like skyrim and final fantasy and let's see, what are some other impressive games I've played... Not too many of them... Oh, Star Ocean is another epic, good one. I prefer the not-so survival style. So I own more games like Gallop Racer, GI Jockey... hmmm... I'm seeing a pattern here!

That and anime is always fun to watch. I haven't yet tried playing any of the anime-made-into-games though. So I don't know anything about them.

[Malakai10]

Oh wow and here I thought nice just meant something delicious

I know much less about sword fighting then I would like (*keyboard smash video game games * cough Bleach * cough * other fighting anime... maybe? Soul Eater *cough*) ooo! Stick them with the pointy end! Or slash them with the sharp end! That's the extent of my sword play knowledge!

But, yeah, there are some really ridiculous moves. For example, in one of the katas in the style of karate I do (Shukokai... I think. And I think the kata is Pinan Nidan... or something. Names aren't my forte) there's a move where you stab forward with your hand - the intended purpose was that you stab through their chest and rip out their heart??? Somehow??? Apparently, they actually used to belive you could do that and gave themselves terrible arthritis stabbing their hands at various things in an attempt to 'toughen the hand up' so they can be all stabby stabby murder.

Here's the kata - they've labeled it Pinan Shodan but it's actually Pinan Nidan - it might be a regional difference or it could have been a mistake when they uploaded it.

I kind of recognize 'shodan' not but 'nidan' so I'm voting for regional differences. But that's like somebody describing the words Witch and Which as the same thing! Just some idiot trying to make sense of something, i.e. ME.
It's an interesting clip. I can watch them spar, but singularly, they always come across as... weird. And still neat.

Maybe it came TO the belief that with enough study one might be able to tear the heart out. Because such a strike there in the sternum, in just the right spot, with just the right pressure, could stop the heart. Thus the theory of 'stopping the heart' could eventually become the belief that one might be able to 'take the heart' and eventually becomes 'taking the heart out' of the chest.
But who knows.
But that part you said, it made me laugh. 'that you stab through their chest and rip out their heart??? Somehow??? ... gave themselves terrible arthritis.... so they can be all stabby stabby murder'

That is one thing I also considered, but never thought to get into. I'm the quiet, disappear-into-the-background style, so all those vocals and making yourself the center of attention was WHOLLY NOT what I wanted. So I scratched that off... then I learned about ninjitsu and though... well... maybe? Then of course, THAT school of study didn't appear to have any official schools, it was a 'dead art'. Well... I likely could never survive in something like that either, or rather... much of it might forever be outside of my abilities, simply because of that gremlin on my shoulder! I have a tendency to plateau in physical things quite quickly. And though I'm good at certain aspects... I fail to... grow beyond certain areas.

...hmm... I wonder if that's beginning to get to personal. Well, whatever.

Anyway, so I'm a bit of a failure in physical activities. But I'm okay with that. Such is my lot.
I make up for it by 'stabby stabby murder' in the games like skyrim and final fantasy and let's see, what are some other impressive games I've played... Not too many of them... Oh, Star Ocean is another epic, good one. I prefer the not-so survival style. So I own more games like Gallop Racer, GI Jockey... hmmm... I'm seeing a pattern here!

That and anime is always fun to watch. I haven't yet tried playing any of the anime-made-into-games though. So I don't know anything about them.

sho means first and ni means second (I think? Something along those lines - at least, in the context of the kata they mean that). You might even recognise it from an anime, for example, in Naruto, the first hokage was called the shodaime and the second the nidaime (and apparently they literally mean first and second so we're going to have to ask someone that actually speaks Japanese for the translations.)

Yeah, I hate the vocals too. I've managed to shove it aside once at a competition. The previous year, one of the brown/black belts (I can't remember what belt she had at the time) did a kata and shouted so loudly that she made the entire hall go dead silent and gave one of the judges goosebumps. I wanted to imitate that and at least equal if not surpass her (I do have a problem with her and it's 100% because she just abandoned us out of the blue leaving me to try to figure out how being the captain of a sport's team works) in the next competition. So, I shouted really loudly, scared myself, quietened the hall, caused two of the baby karateka to stop in the middle of their fight to look at me... and still lost. Eh. And no one said I gave them goosebumps. No, I'm not bitter.

One thing to note: when you're doing the kata with enough energy, you begin to vocalise naturally, especially if you're in a strange place or have to demonstrate for others (cough the times I helped with a class of midgets)

I haven't heard of most of those games!

The only anime game I've played is one of the Naruto ones. It was fun. I was referring to the actual anime, though and the manga (if I mentioned Tokyo Ghoul)

[BlackOak2]

sho means first and ni means second (I think? Something along those lines - at least, in the context of the kata they mean that). You might even recognise it from an anime, for example, in Naruto, the first hokage was called the shodaime and the second the nidaime (and apparently they literally mean first and second so we're going to have to ask someone that actually speaks Japanese for the translations.)

Yeah, I hate the vocals too. I've managed to shove it aside once at a competition. The previous year, one of the brown/black belts (I can't remember what belt she had at the time) did a kata and shouted so loudly that she made the entire hall go dead silent and gave one of the judges goosebumps. I wanted to imitate that and at least equal if not surpass her (I do have a problem with her and it's 100% because she just abandoned us out of the blue leaving me to try to figure out how being the captain of a sport's team works) in the next competition. So, I shouted really loudly, scared myself, quietened the hall, caused two of the baby karateka to stop in the middle of their fight to look at me... and still lost. Eh. And no one said I gave them goosebumps. No, I'm not bitter.

One thing to note: when you're doing the kata with enough energy, you begin to vocalise naturally, especially if you're in a strange place or have to demonstrate for others (cough the times I helped with a class of midgets)

I haven't heard of most of those games!

The only anime game I've played is one of the Naruto ones. It was fun. I was referring to the actual anime, though and the manga (if I mentioned Tokyo Ghoul)

Yes, actually, that makes a LOT of sense. And would also make sense why I recognize 'sho' and not 'ni'. Because if I remember correctly 'shodan' means first...warrior? In a loose translation.
***
And now that I look it up, it's literal translation is 'beginning degree'.
And understanding that, I must assume you're correct, that the move is 'Pinan Nidan' because that clip does not look like the 'beginning' of a step, but the 'next one' of the step, or, the 'build-up'. But again, I know next to nothing about it!

Such a shame that you didn't get one over on her. And couldn't even win you match. That is... an outcome fit for the gremlin on the shoulder. So sad and yet, so true.
That is one thing I did learn the hard way and multiple times. I'm far from lacking (except in the area of physical strength ) and yet, I've been beaten by so many different things, so many different times that I've come to the conclusion that no matter how good at something I might be, I will ALWAYS be beaten by somebody on any given day because their 'best day' will just so happen to be on the day that I Meet Them. Makes me so edgy I want to scream and tear my hair out!
But such is. I've come to terms with it, for the most part anyway.

Hopefully, one day, you'll best her and be able to feel a little bit of that 'see? I can win over you.'

You're not the first one I've heard say that either. That energy begets vocals. And it SO makes me Not want to try it out!

You've must have heard of Final Fantasy, it's been out since like the 80's with multiple releases... are they on #12 now? I don't remember. Like most, some of the releases are rather poor, but some of them are quite nice. The chocobos are fun.
I am assuming however, you haven't heard of Star Ocean. It's like a survival, role-playing, epic warrior-life style game. I forget the one that's my favorite... 2? or 3? But it spans multiple worlds and... multiple discs. Quite the long one. If you play for 100 hours on it, it's a short game.
I'm also assuming Gallop Racer is another you're not recognizing. It's a racing style (so Tb) game that you breed your own horses and ride them to the line. GI Jockey is a little similar, but you don't breed in that one, at least not the release I have, I only have one of them.

I've read a couple manga's, they're fun, but reading what consists of a long comic strip isn't too much my style. I'd prefer to see them either animated or full-blown, live action. Just my preference. But I can only watch anime's sub-titled in their original languages. If I try to watch them dubbed... it looses all soul for me. And for some of those characters that were designed to be portrayed with higher-pitched voiced, being dubbed in the ...ahem... manly, US-style voices... it takes me from: down to:
I actually get embarrassed for the voice-actors that have to play these characters, saying such cheesy lines, because after translation, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS! The lines turn from great, to ... cheesy.

[Malakai10]

sho means first and ni means second (I think? Something along those lines - at least, in the context of the kata they mean that). You might even recognise it from an anime, for example, in Naruto, the first hokage was called the shodaime and the second the nidaime (and apparently they literally mean first and second so we're going to have to ask someone that actually speaks Japanese for the translations.)

Yeah, I hate the vocals too. I've managed to shove it aside once at a competition. The previous year, one of the brown/black belts (I can't remember what belt she had at the time) did a kata and shouted so loudly that she made the entire hall go dead silent and gave one of the judges goosebumps. I wanted to imitate that and at least equal if not surpass her (I do have a problem with her and it's 100% because she just abandoned us out of the blue leaving me to try to figure out how being the captain of a sport's team works) in the next competition. So, I shouted really loudly, scared myself, quietened the hall, caused two of the baby karateka to stop in the middle of their fight to look at me... and still lost. Eh. And no one said I gave them goosebumps. No, I'm not bitter.

One thing to note: when you're doing the kata with enough energy, you begin to vocalise naturally, especially if you're in a strange place or have to demonstrate for others (cough the times I helped with a class of midgets)

I haven't heard of most of those games!

The only anime game I've played is one of the Naruto ones. It was fun. I was referring to the actual anime, though and the manga (if I mentioned Tokyo Ghoul)

Yes, actually, that makes a LOT of sense. And would also make sense why I recognize 'sho' and not 'ni'. Because if I remember correctly 'shodan' means first...warrior? In a loose translation.
***
And now that I look it up, it's literal translation is 'beginning degree'.
And understanding that, I must assume you're correct, that the move is 'Pinan Nidan' because that clip does not look like the 'beginning' of a step, but the 'next one' of the step, or, the 'build-up'. But again, I know next to nothing about it!

Such a shame that you didn't get one over on her. And couldn't even win you match. That is... an outcome fit for the gremlin on the shoulder. So sad and yet, so true.
That is one thing I did learn the hard way and multiple times. I'm far from lacking (except in the area of physical strength ) and yet, I've been beaten by so many different things, so many different times that I've come to the conclusion that no matter how good at something I might be, I will ALWAYS be beaten by somebody on any given day because their 'best day' will just so happen to be on the day that I Meet Them. Makes me so edgy I want to scream and tear my hair out!
But such is. I've come to terms with it, for the most part anyway.

Hopefully, one day, you'll best her and be able to feel a little bit of that 'see? I can win over you.'

You're not the first one I've heard say that either. That energy begets vocals. And it SO makes me Not want to try it out!

You've must have heard of Final Fantasy, it's been out since like the 80's with multiple releases... are they on #12 now? I don't remember. Like most, some of the releases are rather poor, but some of them are quite nice. The chocobos are fun.
I am assuming however, you haven't heard of Star Ocean. It's like a survival, role-playing, epic warrior-life style game. I forget the one that's my favorite... 2? or 3? But it spans multiple worlds and... multiple discs. Quite the long one. If you play for 100 hours on it, it's a short game.
I'm also assuming Gallop Racer is another you're not recognizing. It's a racing style (so Tb) game that you breed your own horses and ride them to the line. GI Jockey is a little similar, but you don't breed in that one, at least not the release I have, I only have one of them.

I've read a couple manga's, they're fun, but reading what consists of a long comic strip isn't too much my style. I'd prefer to see them either animated or full-blown, live action. Just my preference. But I can only watch anime's sub-titled in their original languages. If I try to watch them dubbed... it looses all soul for me. And for some of those characters that were designed to be portrayed with higher-pitched voiced, being dubbed in the ...ahem... manly, US-style voices... it takes me from: down to:
I actually get embarrassed for the voice-actors that have to play these characters, saying such cheesy lines, because after translation, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS! The lines turn from great, to ... cheesy.

I can at least take the relief in the knowledge that I will likely surpass her in belt - she stopped at her first black belt and I doubt she's started again. In any case, I must have good sportsmanship - I'll be disappointed and maybe a bit bitter but I won't take it out on her or sulk. I'll just anime protagonist my way through by shouting how I'll one day become the Hokage and vow to train 25 hours a day, 8 days a week and reach my goal of uLtImAtE pOwEr.

I've heard of Final Fantasy, I know nothing about it though - although I have encountered the chocobos in a Minecraft modpack.

Star Ocean sounds pretty cool. Gallop Racer sounds exactly like the sort of game I've been trying to find for years and never succeeded in. I'll have to check out Gallop Racer and GI Jockey.

[BlackOak2]

I can at least take the relief in the knowledge that I will likely surpass her in belt - she stopped at her first black belt and I doubt she's started again. In any case, I must have good sportsmanship - I'll be disappointed and maybe a bit bitter but I won't take it out on her or sulk. I'll just anime protagonist my way through by shouting how I'll one day become the Hokage and vow to train 25 hours a day, 8 days a week and reach my goal of uLtImAtE pOwEr.

Yes!
I can actually see that manifesting in my brain as I read it.

I've heard of Final Fantasy, I know nothing about it though - although I have encountered the chocobos in a Minecraft modpack.

Star Ocean sounds pretty cool. Gallop Racer sounds exactly like the sort of game I've been trying to find for years and never succeeded in. I'll have to check out Gallop Racer and GI Jockey.

If you're an RPG fan, epic-style storyline, that's just about as close to sandbox as a game could theoretically get, then the Final Fantasy and Star Ocean games are the way to go. Both follow a storyline and in some cases won't let you get to certain areas, but for the most part, what restricts you from them, is the actual levels of the monsters... so if you can somehow survive the monsters, you can access the areas. Much like Skyrim, but much... larger... I think my record for playing one of these games is close to 450 hours without yet reaching the end. And still involved (and interested) in the game itself.
Gallop Racer is a good set of games and the ones that I remember the most about. The first you probably won't be able to find. It's a collectors item now and when I last checked on it some number of years ago, was selling for a minimum of 45 USD. It's alright, but has a weird gameplay and certain restrictions that if you're not prudent and careful, will leave you pennyless and game-ending within the first 'year' of play. The second one (released as '2001' version) is a much more open version than the first, but still is quite difficult to play up and get anywhere really. The third is '2003 A New Breed' release. This one was by far an open-ended and player-friendly version that can get addicting. If you want to start somewhere in the series, I'd likely recommend this one. I actually didn't purchase the second one until years later, having only found out until after purchasing the third, that a second even existed. Eventually, I did find it and purchased the second and it is a good step-up from the first, but there wasn't anything lost if (and since) I skipped it. The fourth release is the '2004' edition. It's very similar to the third release, just a bit updated, new farm to look at, new layout, slightly different build-up and slightly different additions to horses, abilities and progression. The one thing that I had hoped that they would keep, is the training system of the third release. But that went away.

Actually, as an aside, I like to think that the training system in-game was problematic and they developed GI Jockey to test just that out. I'm sure there is NO truth to that, but still, it's a nice thing to think, because the GI Jockey game that I own (the third release), has an extensive and gorgeous training system.

There are two more releases that I know of in the Gallop Racer series, the one that's '2006' release and the one that's released on the Wii and ... XBoxOne?... Yeah, that last one I don't have. But I do hear it's quite the game.
The 2006 release of Gallop Jockey is... entirely revamped. It's a good game, but not like the previous releases. And I hope that it isn't much like the newest release either. I wouldn't recommend trying the 2006 release and basing your experience about the series on that one.

[Malakai10]

If you're an RPG fan, epic-style storyline, that's just about as close to sandbox as a game could theoretically get, then the Final Fantasy and Star Ocean games are the way to go. Both follow a storyline and in some cases won't let you get to certain areas, but for the most part, what restricts you from them, is the actual levels of the monsters... so if you can somehow survive the monsters, you can access the areas. Much like Skyrim, but much... larger... I think my record for playing one of these games is close to 450 hours without yet reaching the end. And still involved (and interested) in the game itself.
Gallop Racer is a good set of games and the ones that I remember the most about. The first you probably won't be able to find. It's a collectors item now and when I last checked on it some number of years ago, was selling for a minimum of 45 USD. It's alright, but has a weird gameplay and certain restrictions that if you're not prudent and careful, will leave you pennyless and game-ending within the first 'year' of play. The second one (released as '2001' version) is a much more open version than the first, but still is quite difficult to play up and get anywhere really. The third is '2003 A New Breed' release. This one was by far an open-ended and player-friendly version that can get addicting. If you want to start somewhere in the series, I'd likely recommend this one. I actually didn't purchase the second one until years later, having only found out until after purchasing the third, that a second even existed. Eventually, I did find it and purchased the second and it is a good step-up from the first, but there wasn't anything lost if (and since) I skipped it. The fourth release is the '2004' edition. It's very similar to the third release, just a bit updated, new farm to look at, new layout, slightly different build-up and slightly different additions to horses, abilities and progression. The one thing that I had hoped that they would keep, is the training system of the third release. But that went away.

Actually, as an aside, I like to think that the training system in-game was problematic and they developed GI Jockey to test just that out. I'm sure there is NO truth to that, but still, it's a nice thing to think, because the GI Jockey game that I own (the third release), has an extensive and gorgeous training system.

There are two more releases that I know of in the Gallop Racer series, the one that's '2006' release and the one that's released on the Wii and ... XBoxOne?... Yeah, that last one I don't have. But I do hear it's quite the game.
The 2006 release of Gallop Jockey is... entirely revamped. It's a good game, but not like the previous releases. And I hope that it isn't much like the newest release either. I wouldn't recommend trying the 2006 release and basing your experience about the series on that one.

If you're an RPG fan, epic-style storyline, that's just about as close to sandbox as a game could theoretically get

Minecraft!! But that does sound cool

That definitely looks like something I should try out if I can find it

[Malakai10]

Just realised I've been going on about separate species when I should have said subspecies. Tarpans, Przewalski and Forest Horses are classified as a separate subspecies.

Domesticated horse: Equus ferus caballus

Tarpan: E. ferus ferus

Przewalski's: E. ferus przewalskii

The Forest Horse is actually just a hypothesis - it was given the name Equus caballus germanicus. (Back when it was proposed, Tarpan, Prze and domestic were all called E. caballus (subspecies)

The biggest reason I'm a bit huffy at this is probably because I spent far too long putting together a research task on domestication for bio. It was. So exhausting. And now a little thing like the difference between feral and wild annoys me because there's a big difference and spent weeks and my sanity of researching that and it was awful and I'm never touching a research task again *thinks to the music research task that is essentially tomorrow that I still haven't done* not touching a researching task again nOPE



Anyway, it's mostly because of that research task that I argue about feral vs wild.

I completely agree that there is a VAST difference between 'feral' and 'wild'. (And under certain conditions, I have the same 'evil' attitude about it).
In this case, I am reading as 'wild horse breed' as a 'breed' rather than a 'species'. Though sub-species are supposed to be... in a rather indirect definition... 'a full part of the main species but because of area of development or subsequent result of environmental factors, has, over time, developed a different set of characteristics from the main species', I am reading it as a 'breed' of horse whereas, at least by the Prze standard, the Prze horse, is a different species, albeit very closely related. The difference is 2 chromosomes. I suppose my sticking point is that a different number of chromosomes is more in tune with a different species, however closely related, versus just a 'different set of characteristics', for instance, a species that was recently identified as having different sub-species is the giraffe, but they all appear to have 30 chromosomes (hopefully, my information is still correct, things change ).

So... I don't know what the correct description of species or sub-species would be, because at some point a sub-species becomes it's own species, entirely separate from the main one.

In this case, I still say a 'wild' breed is best defined as a 'breed' of horse that has developed with little to no direct human interference... and yes, also known as a 'feral' breed. And this should be different then the wild horses that we do have on here, the Prze, and I can also certainly agree that the tarpan is a true wild horse (but not necessarily a 'wild breed', aka a feral horse. I just don't know about the forest, but that's simply lack of investigation, so I'll also agree with that one as well.

If we are to get other equine species and sup-species on here (Zebra for instance, or the donkey) then maybe we would have to separate out true wild species of horses with false wild breeds, aka ferals, insofar as calling them 'Feral Breeds' and 'Wild Horses'.

Speciation is... blurred. It's a silly little concept created by humans to help us catagorise things - someone who's never seen a dog would never call a Great Dane the same species and a Chihuahua (they can't even seem to interbreed - all artificially created puppies died before or right after birth) and one would also think the Asian Leopard cat and jungle cat to be the same species as the domesticated cat - they can even interbreed and produce generations of healthy offspring and yet they are still different species, known as Bengals and Chausies.

A species is defined as a group of organisms that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Two animals are not the same species if they cannot interbreed and produce mostly fertile offspring (....aaaand some exceptions are posted above ) a subspecies would be two populations of organisms isolated from each other that, whilst they can still interbreed, are distinct from each other and in the process of speciation. For example: a population of blue mussels stretched along a coast. In the warmer, southern water they are preyed upon more readily. The southern population develops thicker shells than the northern population and thus, eventually, forms a different subspecies and likely a different species. Although generally a subspecies is formed by proper geographical barriers... but predation and habitat can play a role, too. Remember our conversation about moths and mice?

One thing to note, however, is that there is a difference between subspecies. As far as I'm aware dogs are now considered a subspecies of wolf - and you know perfectly well how differently they behave! And in appearance, more often than not - distinctive even from the wolf-like dogs.

The thing that I'm thinking about - say this were a dog game. We would want wolves to be classified as more than a 'wild dog breed' and would likely not like the pye-dog being classified as a 'wild dog'. If it were a cat game, we would want sand cats, African wild cats and jungle cats classified as more than a 'wild cat breed' and would likely hate the Arabian Mau or Aegean cat being called a 'wild' cat.

I just think, Larissar and Tom try very hard for maximum realism in this game (which I really like) so I also sort of want this to be classified correctly, too. It's not like classfying them as a subspecies instead of a breed changes anything but what they're labled as - subspecies can interbreed, so no problem there.

.... I'm starting to think that we might have to move another conversation to the unrelated topic

Actually, I'm going to do that quickly so that we don't spam Totina's breeds' wiki.

[BlackOak2]

I completely agree that there is a VAST difference between 'feral' and 'wild'. (And under certain conditions, I have the same 'evil' attitude about it).
In this case, I am reading as 'wild horse breed' as a 'breed' rather than a 'species'. Though sub-species are supposed to be... in a rather indirect definition... 'a full part of the main species but because of area of development or subsequent result of environmental factors, has, over time, developed a different set of characteristics from the main species', I am reading it as a 'breed' of horse whereas, at least by the Prze standard, the Prze horse, is a different species, albeit very closely related. The difference is 2 chromosomes. I suppose my sticking point is that a different number of chromosomes is more in tune with a different species, however closely related, versus just a 'different set of characteristics', for instance, a species that was recently identified as having different sub-species is the giraffe, but they all appear to have 30 chromosomes (hopefully, my information is still correct, things change ).

So... I don't know what the correct description of species or sub-species would be, because at some point a sub-species becomes it's own species, entirely separate from the main one.

In this case, I still say a 'wild' breed is best defined as a 'breed' of horse that has developed with little to no direct human interference... and yes, also known as a 'feral' breed. And this should be different then the wild horses that we do have on here, the Prze, and I can also certainly agree that the tarpan is a true wild horse (but not necessarily a 'wild breed', aka a feral horse. I just don't know about the forest, but that's simply lack of investigation, so I'll also agree with that one as well.

If we are to get other equine species and sup-species on here (Zebra for instance, or the donkey) then maybe we would have to separate out true wild species of horses with false wild breeds, aka ferals, insofar as calling them 'Feral Breeds' and 'Wild Horses'.

Speciation is... blurred. It's a silly little concept created by humans to help us catagorise things - someone who's never seen a dog would never call a Great Dane the same species and a Chihuahua (they can't even seem to interbreed - all artificially created puppies died before or right after birth) and one would also think the Asian Leopard cat and jungle cat to be the same species as the domesticated cat - they can even interbreed and produce generations of healthy offspring and yet they are still different species, known as Bengals and Chausies.

A species is defined as a group of organisms that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Two animals are not the same species if they cannot interbreed and produce mostly fertile offspring (....aaaand some exceptions are posted above ) a subspecies would be two populations of organisms isolated from each other that, whilst they can still interbreed, are distinct from each other and in the process of speciation. For example: a population of blue mussels stretched along a coast. In the warmer, southern water they are preyed upon more readily. The southern population develops thicker shells than the northern population and thus, eventually, forms a different subspecies and likely a different species. Although generally a subspecies is formed by proper geographical barriers... but predation and habitat can play a role, too. Remember our conversation about moths and mice?

One thing to note, however, is that there is a difference between subspecies. As far as I'm aware dogs are now considered a subspecies of wolf - and you know perfectly well how differently they behave! And in appearance, more often than not - distinctive even from the wolf-like dogs.

The thing that I'm thinking about - say this were a dog game. We would want wolves to be classified as more than a 'wild dog breed' and would likely not like the pye-dog being classified as a 'wild dog'. If it were a cat game, we would want sand cats, African wild cats and jungle cats classified as more than a 'wild cat breed' and would likely hate the Arabian Mau or Aegean cat being called a 'wild' cat.

I just think, Larissar and Tom try very hard for maximum realism in this game (which I really like) so I also sort of want this to be classified correctly, too. It's not like classfying them as a subspecies instead of a breed changes anything but what they're labled as - subspecies can interbreed, so no problem there.

.... I'm starting to think that we might have to move another conversation to the unrelated topic

Actually, I'm going to do that quickly so that we don't spam Totina's breeds' wiki.

Hah! yes. Though Totina might also want to keep some tabs on this and chime in at some point.

...

Linking you to this topic in case you still want to follow this thread.

I have some issues with that as well... the categories. After all there is... 2? distinctive prze horse types.
*******
Okay... well I must've missed something somewhere... apparently after a brief search, apparently all the prze horses today in the wild are descended from previously caught wild horses and a couple out-breedings to actual horses. So the original prze is officially extinct and the one we have populating the wilds today is itself, a descendant of the crossing of "just 12 Przewalski’s horses (caught from the wild between 1899 and 1947) and up to 4 domesticated horses." *Citing: https://www.activewild.com/przewalskis-horse-facts/

So knowing this new set of information (how did I miss that before when I was looking it up?) Then if we were to base it off of today's wild horses, the the prze today is just another breed of horse, regardless of it being a sub-species before... and that seems not right, and at the same time, not incorrect either.
I don't like it.

In order for the 'human' to understand the world around us, we must define such things and categorizing such things helps us to define them, thus further understanding into the world around us. It's not a poor or negative way of working through understanding. What doesn't work for us is when the definitions defining HOW we categorize, is... a bit scant or allows certain 'wiggle-room' that such disagreements come to light. It comes down to the fact that we don't yet understand HOW to define certain things, so by trying to figure out WHERE it's supposed to go, can only happen when we understand it more.
It's the cache-22 syndrome.

I've never yet heard that a great dane and chihu couldn't be crossed. When I consider it; It wouldn't a good idea anyway, the genetics that define a great dane's growth are so vastly different then that of the chihu that I wouldn't think the puppies could survive well anyway, but not because of the genetic count of chromosomes, but the inability of the growths of organs, of growth plates and the random compilation of the male side when it combines to the female side to come out correctly enough to allow a pup to grow to full term. In this case, this wouldn't be because they aren't compatible, but because the genes defining certain things like growths and total size is the real factors. And there really isn't much example in the wild world to help define such an outcome.

However, there are a few very distinct and unusual crosses that in some cases, did happen naturally as well, that begs further understanding to how species are defined and why some species that shouldn't be able to cross, because of natural evolutionary separation, somehow can or do anyway. Then there are others that are artificially crossed, either through genetic manipulation, or just by the introduction of two species that in the wild would have never or should have never theoretically crossed paths.
A few of note:
American paddlefish and Russian sturgeon - artificial
Marine iguanas and land iguanas - natural
Burmese pythons and Indian pythons - natural, both separate species released and became feral (florida, US)
Bison and cows or yaks - artificial (possibly also natural, depending on where the herds roam)
Camal and llama - artificial, I think? (Who thinks of these things??)
False Killer Whale and bottlenose - natural

There's a lot more though, and many of these have viable offspring. So there is quite a bit more going on that simple 'close relation' species. And to define such things... yeah.
In the case of the bison and the cow (which does have viable offspring), would the bison be considered a 'wild cow subspecies' or would the cow be a 'domesticated bison'.
Such is the similar result for the prze horse and the domesticated horse, and also the tarpan and the forest.

We're both on the same page, I think, we're just getting to it different ways.

So by reclassifying certain 'true wilds' as Wild Horses, and the wild-developed from ferals as Feral Horses, we should, for the most part, fix our issue here. Because I think that you would likely agree that a feral-developed breed is also different in the development from a wholly human-chosen developed breed. Then that would also beg the question, where would a breed like the Arabian, or if memory serves, the Turkmene, which are both half wild-developed, running feral for a good portion of their histories and half-human-aided, still also being chosen for specific traits in breeding.
I could go either way, but I think that any long-term involvement with humans having the choice of breeding, it should be categorized away from 'feral horse'. As we are coming to understand, only a handful of generations can alter a feral or wild animal decently apart from where it started from.

[Malakai10]

Speciation is... blurred. It's a silly little concept created by humans to help us catagorise things - someone who's never seen a dog would never call a Great Dane the same species and a Chihuahua (they can't even seem to interbreed - all artificially created puppies died before or right after birth) and one would also think the Asian Leopard cat and jungle cat to be the same species as the domesticated cat - they can even interbreed and produce generations of healthy offspring and yet they are still different species, known as Bengals and Chausies.

A species is defined as a group of organisms that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Two animals are not the same species if they cannot interbreed and produce mostly fertile offspring (....aaaand some exceptions are posted above ) a subspecies would be two populations of organisms isolated from each other that, whilst they can still interbreed, are distinct from each other and in the process of speciation. For example: a population of blue mussels stretched along a coast. In the warmer, southern water they are preyed upon more readily. The southern population develops thicker shells than the northern population and thus, eventually, forms a different subspecies and likely a different species. Although generally a subspecies is formed by proper geographical barriers... but predation and habitat can play a role, too. Remember our conversation about moths and mice?

One thing to note, however, is that there is a difference between subspecies. As far as I'm aware dogs are now considered a subspecies of wolf - and you know perfectly well how differently they behave! And in appearance, more often than not - distinctive even from the wolf-like dogs.

The thing that I'm thinking about - say this were a dog game. We would want wolves to be classified as more than a 'wild dog breed' and would likely not like the pye-dog being classified as a 'wild dog'. If it were a cat game, we would want sand cats, African wild cats and jungle cats classified as more than a 'wild cat breed' and would likely hate the Arabian Mau or Aegean cat being called a 'wild' cat.

I just think, Larissar and Tom try very hard for maximum realism in this game (which I really like) so I also sort of want this to be classified correctly, too. It's not like classfying them as a subspecies instead of a breed changes anything but what they're labled as - subspecies can interbreed, so no problem there.

.... I'm starting to think that we might have to move another conversation to the unrelated topic

Actually, I'm going to do that quickly so that we don't spam Totina's breeds' wiki.

Hah! yes. Though Totina might also want to keep some tabs on this and chime in at some point.

...

Linking you to this topic in case you still want to follow this thread.

I have some issues with that as well... the categories. After all there is... 2? distinctive prze horse types.
*******
Okay... well I must've missed something somewhere... apparently after a brief search, apparently all the prze horses today in the wild are descended from previously caught wild horses and a couple out-breedings to actual horses. So the original prze is officially extinct and the one we have populating the wilds today is itself, a descendant of the crossing of "just 12 Przewalski’s horses (caught from the wild between 1899 and 1947) and up to 4 domesticated horses." *Citing: https://www.activewild.com/przewalskis-horse-facts/

So knowing this new set of information (how did I miss that before when I was looking it up?) Then if we were to base it off of today's wild horses, the the prze today is just another breed of horse, regardless of it being a sub-species before... and that seems not right, and at the same time, not incorrect either.
I don't like it.

I think, in this case we should consider the Czecheslovakian Wolfdog and the Sarloos wolfdog. Both dogs are crosses between German Shepherds and wolves - the Czech wolfdog with some European subspecies of greywolf and the Sarloos with... I think the Mexican wolf? Anyway, both wolf and dog, yet we classify them as dog.

HOWEVER, this does not mean I think Prze should be called a domesticated horse - quite the opposite, in fact.

The reason I would say that the wolfdogs I mentioned are dogs and the Prze wild instead of feral is simply that the wolfdogs are fairly domesticated- not much different in personality than, say, an Akita - just more nervous and shy. They have significantly more dog blood in them.

The Prze, on the other hand, has more wild blood and simply does not seem to be domesticated. Yes, it has some domesticated blood in it but, just like how I can add four sooty dapple horses to my herd and eventually end up with no sooty dapples if I don't carefully select for that trait, so too can genes associated with domestication be lost,

In order for the 'human' to understand the world around us, we must define such things and categorizing such things helps us to define them, thus further understanding into the world around us. It's not a poor or negative way of working through understanding. What doesn't work for us is when the definitions defining HOW we categorize, is... a bit scant or allows certain 'wiggle-room' that such disagreements come to light. It comes down to the fact that we don't yet understand HOW to define certain things, so by trying to figure out WHERE it's supposed to go, can only happen when we understand it more.
It's the cache-22 syndrome.

I've never yet heard that a great dane and chihu couldn't be crossed. When I consider it; It wouldn't a good idea anyway, the genetics that define a great dane's growth are so vastly different then that of the chihu that I wouldn't think the puppies could survive well anyway, but not because of the genetic count of chromosomes, but the inability of the growths of organs, of growth plates and the random compilation of the male side when it combines to the female side to come out correctly enough to allow a pup to grow to full term. In this case, this wouldn't be because they aren't compatible, but because the genes defining certain things like growths and total size is the real factors. And there really isn't much example in the wild world to help define such an outcome.

It was somwthing I got curious about and read up on a few years/months ago. I was quite disgusted, in all honesty - do you know the first thing they tried was a male Great Dane to a female Chihuahua?!?! And it implied that they breed 'naturally'. I mean, good grief - surely common sense dictates that the larger dog when dealing with such an extreme difference ought to be the female??? Both mum and pups died because of this. Then they tried artificial insemination with a female Dane and male Chihuahua. Pups died at some point during the pregnancy and/or birth but the parents were fine.

However, there are a few very distinct and unusual crosses that in some cases, did happen naturally as well, that begs further understanding to how species are defined and why some species that shouldn't be able to cross, because of natural evolutionary separation, somehow can or do anyway. Then there are others that are artificially crossed, either through genetic manipulation, or just by the introduction of two species that in the wild would have never or should have never theoretically crossed paths.
A few of note:
American paddlefish and Russian sturgeon - artificial
Marine iguanas and land iguanas - natural
Burmese pythons and Indian pythons - natural, both separate species released and became feral (florida, US)
Bison and cows or yaks - artificial (possibly also natural, depending on where the herds roam)
Camal and llama - artificial, I think? (Who thinks of these things??)
False Killer Whale and bottlenose - natural

There's a lot more though, and many of these have viable offspring. So there is quite a bit more going on that simple 'close relation' species. And to define such things... yeah.
In the case of the bison and the cow (which does have viable offspring), would the bison be considered a 'wild cow subspecies' or would the cow be a 'domesticated bison'.

Modern cows are descended from auroches.

... and it turns out that cattle and bison aren't even in the same genus. Go figure. Got to love our absolutely imperfect categorisation

Such is the similar result for the prze horse and the domesticated horse, and also the tarpan and the forest.

We're both on the same page, I think, we're just getting to it different ways.

So by reclassifying certain 'true wilds' as Wild Horses, and the wild-developed from ferals as Feral Horses, we should, for the most part, fix our issue here. Because I think that you would likely agree that a feral-developed breed is also different in the development from a wholly human-chosen developed breed. Then that would also beg the question, where would a breed like the Arabian, or if memory serves, the Turkmene, which are both half wild-developed, running feral for a good portion of their histories and half-human-aided, still also being chosen for specific traits in breeding.
I could go either way, but I think that any long-term involvement with humans having the choice of breeding, it should be categorized away from 'feral horse'. As we are coming to understand, only a handful of generations can alter a feral or wild animal decently apart from where it started from.

I would think that any breed that is domesticated is still feral, even if it wasn't wholly domesticated by humans - we're still deciding whether we actively domesticated dogs or if they just decided to follow us

I mean, dingos pretty much developed on their own and I'm still more inclined to call them a feral dog breed than I am to call them a wild dog species. Despite them being classified as a separate subspecies (actually read up on now it's very interesting apparently dingos might have been one of the domesticated dog lines that emerged? I had previously read that it might have happened multiple times but nothing ever mentioned the dingo. It's rather cool actually)

Feral-developed vs purely human-developed... hmm, I haven't thought of that before. I'll spend some time pondering it. Another dog example but I remmeber reading that the Siberian husky would be used for work in winter and set loose in summer - no human care during those months. They're still very much domesticated- friendly than most dog breeds, really got to love the huskies