What color are Przewalski's?

Going off memory from pictures I've seen, I'd say bay dun.

Well now I've just looked at photos and I don't see a dorsal stripe! bay with pangare and... what makes them so pale? Is that just pangare gone nuts all over them?

Wait, no, now I found some shots that show a faint dorsal stripe so I'm back to bay dun + pangare. I even saw one that could possibly have been red dun. Their dun is certainly not as distinct as, say, the Fjord.

Based on what I saw, they are definitely dun, just not... as you said, like Fjords.

So you say normal bay dun with pangare'? Any chance of brown (yes I know, a dreaded word :lol: ) or wild bay dun?

Bay Dun with Pangare from memory..

[quote]Any chance of brown (yes I know, a dreaded word ) or wild bay dun?[/quote]
Sure, why not?

What are you thinking (with the Przewalski colours) ACC? :?:

I vote bay dun from memory.......related to this is what causes the extreme frosting on the Fjords?...is that just it extreme frosting or something else that causes the white on both sides of the mane - used to love trimming the mane to get the perfect Trojan arch for my Fjord Askov !

I always thought they were bay duns with frosting

It's funny because my brain remembered them being dun, in illustrations they are given prominent primitive markings, but in actual photographs the markings are verrrrry faint. I had to go through a full page of google images before I saw a definite dorsal stripe -- and even still, I've seen counter shading look more obvious! I'd be open to believing wild bay. That actually crossed my mind as I looked at the photos. Since wild bay dilutes (somewhat) and restricts the black markings on a bay, it makes sense that a wild bay dun might have pretty faint primitive markings.

I have seen them (live) and they all appeared to be dun. Yet [color=#BFBFFF]pale[/color], despite black points (on most)

I always remembered them as dun. I think the dorsals are so faint because they are dirty! Looking on google images, 90% of the pictures were of a view that didn't readily show the back to get a good view of the dorsal.
Their dorsal stripes are very thin though. I would say bay as I've never seen a double dilute baby.

I have always thought of them as being dun but they do have a surprising lack of primitive markings.

This one however has a clear dorsal stripe even though it is thin.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/250…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are a few more.

http://www.takhi.org/cms/images/stories…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.zoossa.com.au/files/3549.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mustangs4us.com/New4/takhis1…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://assets.panda.org/img/takhi_10863…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://k53.pbase.com/o6/13/724813/1/750…" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't doubt that they are dun at all.

The reason I am asking is that I am being told they are ALL wild bays. I don't see it, AT ALL. I have not found a SINGLE one that looked wild bay to me.

[quote="accphotography"]I don't doubt that they are dun at all.

The reason I am asking is that I am being told they are ALL wild bays. I don't see it, AT ALL. I have not found a SINGLE one that looked wild bay to me.[/quote]

Aren't their legs to dark for that even without the dun gene? I mean IMO I see dun and dun with wild bay should have really light legs, correct?

Exactly.

They are Dun, no Cream, the Fjords are all "wild" colours and I am guessing that the Przewalski's are too, and although the Fjords have Cream, even without it (ie the Red Duns) they are a different presentation of colour to usual horse colours so something else is going on.
We are aware of "Wild Bay" as different form normal Bay, so there well may be wild forms of all basic colours and dilutes.
I know the Przewalski's are Bay as when bred to "Cream" ponies at Whipsnade the result was Red Duns with obvious dorsals, that looked very similar to Rabbits colour only paler.
I do not know the genetic make up of the cream ponies, they were bred for Queen Victoria to pull her kid's carriages (one of which we used at Windsor with the tandem team for our present Queens anniversary). She gave a few to London Zoo and they were used for pony rides, Whipsnade is the country retreat for London and a few went out there, some idiot put them in the paddock with the Przewalski's and nearly mucked up the Whipsnade bloodlines for good!!
Luckily the floppy manes gave them away even after three generations, then DNA kicked off and they were able to sort it out (as I know that quite a few Przewalski's have floppy manes!!! ;) )
I could e-mail Whipsnade and see if they ever DNA'd the creams....I have a sneaky feeling they are/were cream in the sense that the Hanoverians were cream...ie not CrCr...it makes sense that they were actually bred form the Hanoverians, too, maybe someone has researched them further??
Dunno...head is now hurting form scratching around in the archives!!
Some days I have almost total recall, the next day I can't remember my name and I've got me knickers on me head.
I don't know :laugh1

I would say that they are very similar dun coloration to Fjords. Fjords also have very faint dorsals; some of my fjords dorsals disappear completely and it is pretty hit and miss whether or not they have other primitive markings. I think it would be difficult to judge wild bay or not because of the extreme dun expression. You would need to find one that wasn't dun to get any idea.

[quote="accphotography"]I don't doubt that they are dun at all.

The reason I am asking is that I am being told they are ALL wild bays. I don't see it, AT ALL. I have not found a SINGLE one that looked wild bay to me.[/quote]

No one should ever say "All". When I googled I saw quite a few "wild bays" but also some that were not. Since "wild bay" is a phenotype, you can't have an "all".

Yeah that's what I was trying to say Andrea. I didn't find a single one I'd say was wild. I didn't even find any I felt whose black was lowered by the dun.

Supposedly both Dr. Sponenberg and Ann Bowling both said all Przewalski's are wild bay.

[quote="accphotography"]Yeah that's what I was trying to say Andrea. I didn't find a single one I'd say was wild. I didn't even find any I felt whose black was lowered by the dun.

Supposedly both Dr. Sponenberg and Ann Bowling both said all Przewalski's are wild bay.[/quote]

Really? I have Sponenberg's book. Here is his quote.

"Linebacked Dun color is a characteristic of (but not limited to) primitive or rugged breeds.They are a consistent feature of the Tarpan, Sorraia, and Przewalski's horse."

It is a few years old. Maybe he changed his opinion??

Well they ARE line-backed duns. But any shade of dun is technically a "line-backed dun". So that doesn't really say if that's what he really thinks or not.

Where would one find a statement from Bowling about it? Did she write a book? I feel stupid not knowing that.

Here is what the person said:
[quote]I am saying that Dr. Ann Bowling and Dr. S. both said that they were A+. [/quote]

[quote="accphotography"]Well they ARE line-backed duns. But any shade of dun is technically a "line-backed dun". So that doesn't really say if that's what he really thinks or not.

Where would one find a statement from Bowling about it? Did she write a book? I feel stupid not knowing that.

Here is what the person said:
[quote]I am saying that Dr. Ann Bowling and Dr. S. both said that they were A+. [/quote][/quote]

I know that technically any shade of dun is "linebacked dun". I thought though that you meant Sponenberg thought they were wild bay but what you are saying is that he thinks they are wild bay dun?

Oh yes that's what I meant, wild bay dun.

Ok, now I gotcha!! Just wanted to make sure I understood. :)

"Wild" colouration has a different connotation in Fjords...I do not know enough about it to explain it correctly but it makes the whole colour look different.....a "wild" Red Dun looks far more like Rabbits colour than any of the US Red Duns, so using "Wild Bay" is confusing.
I think they are all Wild Bay Duns...since Dun is H/Z in this breed and "wild" colouring is H/Z in Fjords (ie you do not see any other sort) there is no reason why the Przewalski's cannot be H/Z Wild Bay Dun.....is there??
Please remember I am saying all this from the depths of severe sleep deprivation, BTW!!
And I have absolutely NO idea where Sponenberg has seen a Tarpan, since they were wiped out over sixty years ago, and those were not necessarily purebred!!!
And I did not know Sorraia were classed as true wild horses??
As far as I know the Przewalski's is the [i]only[/i] true wild horse remaining, with the possible, and as yet unproven exception of the Exmoor....and they could really only claim "indigenous" as they do live a wild existence but as anyone who has ever had to handle Przewalski's will tell you, and Exmoor is a lot more easy to tame!!
If the przewalski's had been contenders for saddle horses the Mongolian herdsmen would have incorporated them long ago and they would have disappeared.
The fact that one of the best tribe of horse people still in existence toady considered them only good to eat says a lot for their temperaments!!

I took loads of pics of some zoo Przewalski's for a college project, they look a bit red to be dun- to me they look bay+pangare, but they do have thin dorsals and some zebra stripes so I guess bay dun+pangare.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/…]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/…]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/…]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/…]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/…]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/…]