most unfavorite thing about geldings

Well, I learned something new today. I hav had geldings for about 4 years now, and ahve regularly cleaned sheaths. (either me or my dd has had the (ahem) privilege of doing this, as my hubby wil nover go near there.) What I didn't know about was the bean. I knew about the cornflakes, although I have never heard of it being called that. Good article Pat, I have forwarded it to my dd and to my sil, since my sil is the one who taught me how to clean sheaths. Oh yeah, I would dream of doing it without the excalibur.
tongue.png
 
Oh I don't know....

As my doctor says water will do just about anything you want...

Actually most of the reason for cleaning them is the bean. The other stuff isn't as significant. The bean can stop urination. That can't go on for long.

Something else that is very often repeated and very strongly and widely believed, and VERY often repeated, is that chestnuts are where a foals legs are fused together before birth.

No matter how many embryologists insist foal's legs are never fused together at any point in development, no matter how many fetuses you show people, no matter how many ultrasounds or anything else people get shown!

But that's how that stuff goes. No matter how many paleoanatomists and researchers insist chestnuts could never be in the locations where they are and still be due to vestigal toes, people believe it, as long as even one other person believes it, LOL.

And probably always will, LOL.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember our teachers were saying about chestnuts that they are the "thumb prints" which no two chestnuts are alike in every horse. Each one has their own ID, of shape, texture and size.
 
Quote:
which in itself would back up the theory that wc says, if they are just leftover toes then wouldn't they be very physically the same on all horses.
 
Quote:
which in itself would back up the theory that wc says, if they are just leftover toes then wouldn't they be very physically the same on all horses.

Sorry but no, why should they be? Heck, we all have *fingerprints* and they're all different
smile.png


Every body's veins and arteries and the exact twists and turns of their guts and so forth are individual to them. You may not realize this until/unless you dissect or slaughter/process a bunch of individuals of the same kind of animal, or deal with having to find particular blood vessels on a bunch of individuals... but, we are not nearly as cookie-cutter as you might think
smile.png


(e.t.a. - Chestnuts used to be used as part of individual identification of horses by some registries and racing authorities.)

Pat, still utterly agnostic about what chestnuts really mean
 
Last edited:
Quote:
which in itself would back up the theory that wc says, if they are just leftover toes then wouldn't they be very physically the same on all horses.

Sorry but no, why should they be? Heck, we all have *fingerprints* and they're all different
smile.png


Every body's veins and arteries and the exact twists and turns of their guts and so forth are individual to them. You may not realize this until/unless you dissect or slaughter/process a bunch of individuals of the same kind of animal, or deal with having to find particular blood vessels on a bunch of individuals... but, we are not nearly as cookie-cutter as you might think
smile.png


(e.t.a. - Chestnuts used to be used as part of individual identification of horses by some registries and racing authorities.)

Pat, still utterly agnostic about what chestnuts really mean

physically close as in the same basic size and shape, not round on one then square on the next or oval on the third. all fingers are basically the same, you have to get pretty darn close to see the prints and the differences.
 
If they are vestigial toes or remnants of heel pads or other structures related to hoof evolution, then how does one explain why zebras, African Wild asses, who evolved their hooves in the same way as horses, do not have chestnuts on their hind legs, and Prezwalski's horse, who also evolved hooves in the same way as horses, does have hind chestnuts, as well as why in Caspian horses some lack hind chestnutes, and why in Banker horses, most lack hind chestnuts.

And why they smell so similarly to the sheath/sebum/gunk etc. And have no connection to any underlying structures. And are epidermal in structure.

I think that while individual variations occur in anatomy, most of the key structures in a given species are more consistent.
 
Last edited:
No, deer have them. Another fly in the ointment of chestnuts being part of hoof evolution. Fact is a good many animals have them that have not gone thru the same 'hoof evolution' as horses.

That....that and the fact that modern researchers have just about completely rewritten horse evolution, and it no longer is a neat and tidy stepwise process, there isn't even a critter referred to as 'Eohippus' in it. Another fly in the ointment. Bruce McFadden's Fossil Horses has a good treatment of the subject.

Of course there is also that the splint bones that were supposedly toes (or 'hoofies') still exist in the legs and the chestnuts are nowhere near them....

The other issue, though, is why do asses and various equids not have chestnuts on one pair of legs, if they all went thru the same evolution? (All horse species are currently viewed as having one common ancestor).

from colorado states hunting website:

Most big game animals have the scent glands; one pair on the inside hind leg at the hock (tarsal gland) and one pair in the outside lower hind leg (metatarsal glands). The glands excrete a penetrating odor or musk. Males frequently urinate on these glands during the breeding season. Therefore, avoid touching exposed meat if you touch these areas. Leave the glands on and skin them off as you skin the entire hide. There is no danger of meat contamination by leaving scent glands. They are fully contained in the skin and have only one opening to the outside.
 
Last edited:

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom