Quarnberg 1

Robyn Quarnberg

Ms. Saurus

ANTH 1020

11/27/2018

ePortfoio Signature Assignment: What, If Anything, Is a Zebra?

For the reading response assignment three, I choose the article “What, If Anything, Is a

Zebra?” by Stephen J. Gould. I picked this one because the article intrigued me. I have been

involved with and loved horses my entire life, zebras are so similar to horses that I have also

been very fond of them.

1) View of the major point of the reading

The main point of this essay was discussing how zebras are separated into three different

species, which are determined by the number of stripes that they have and the pattern of their

stripes. Scientists are trying to determine if these three species come from one single

evolutionary unit or if they have a common ancestor and if that ancestor also evolved into a

horse. They are trying to determine this by using a method called cladistics. Cladistics is based

on the formation of a clade which is a branch on an evolutionary tree, and a cladistics tries to

establish a pattern of branching of a group of related species. There is concern on the ability to

identify events on such a fine scale. Some believe you can while others believe that the fossil

records are not adequate due to missing data that ultimately has to be assumed.

2) Something particularly interesting.

I found it interesting that there are considered to be three different species of zebras. I would

consider all zebras one species. It’s interesting to me that the number and pattern of stripes on a
 Quarnberg 2

zebra is enough difference to consider it to be a different species. I would think there would need

to be something bigger than this to make it a different species.

3) Something puzzling, vague, or confusing.

What is confusing to me is how Debra Bennett grouped the mountain zebras with the horse

before she connected it with the other zebra species. If zebras are broken down into three

different species due to their pattern and number of stripes, then how can the mountain zebra be

in the same group with a horse that doesn’t have stripes? Bennet used her clade tree to group

donkeys and asses together, which both have similar features but are different is size. Then she

put horses and mountain zebras together as another group and finally grouping the Burchell’s

zebra and Grevy’s zebra together. It is confusing to me why some differences such as size in the

donkeys and asses don’t separate them as a species but that the pattern and number of stripes can

separate zebras into different species and finally, why is a horse and zebra considered the same

species. It’s confusing to me how they determine what does and doesn’t determine a different

species.

Before taking my Anthropology class, if asked to classify the horse, asses, donkeys and

zebras I would have put them all under the genus Equus then classified all four of them as their

own species. I would have made this classification based off of appearance. Even though asses

are similar in size, shape and coloration as horses and are a cross breed between a horse and

donkey, I would have put them in their own classification because they have the larger long ears.

Donkeys would have been given their own classification because they are so different in body

shape, they are smaller than horses, have long ears and their tails are completely different than a

horse. I would have put the zebra in its own class due to the stripe coloration.
 Quarnberg 3

In this article, Gould discusses the classification process through the cladistics method.

He refers to the study on zebras done by Debra Bennett. Bennett discusses how zebras are

separated into three different species based off of the number of stripes that they have and the

pattern of their stripes. In the article, a question was asked if these three species of zebras share a

common ancestor that is theirs alone and not to the other species of Equus like horses. This is

where the cladistics method is being used in the classification of zebras. The Cladistics method is

based on the formation of a clade which is branch on an evolutionary tree. The cladistics tries to

establish a pattern of traits of a clad or group of related species. This will help show a

hypothetical lineage of a specific clad. A genus group will have common ancestral

characteristics, by using the cladistic method you can break the group down into different species

by identifying the derived characters that identify an evolutionary lineage not just a common

ancestor. Their shared derived characteristics are traits that are only in specific immediate

lineage and not part of the ancestral group. These different species are also called sister groups in

the article.

This is how they are able to break down the zebra, which I originally considered one

species, into three species. Bennett breaks down the genus Equus into two major cladistic

groups, the first one containing donkeys and asses while the second groups has the horses and

zebras. After reading the article this makes sense to me. Donkeys and asses have the large long

ears that horses and zebra don’t, this would be a trait that only they have. Bennett then breaks

down the zebras into three species, the Equus Burchellie (Burchell’s zebra), Equus Zebra

(Mountain zebra) and the Equus Grevyl (Grevy’s zebra). Bennett used the presence of a frontal

doming (which is a inflation of the top part of the skull) and the relative skull breadth (which is a

snout that is long and narrow) as a derived trait to classify them as a sister group. She then
 Quarnberg 4

claimed that the Equus zebra or Mountain zebra was more closely related to the horse than the

other zebra species because of one shared derived trait which was the orientation of postorbital

bars related to the horizontal plane (which is the bar of bone located on the skull behind the eyes

which is less slanted).

This reading was one of my favorites because it talked about the classification of Equus,

which I have a personal interest in. I was able to think about how I would break down the genus

of Equus and what I would consider to be defining traits in comparison to how the scientist did

it. For fun, at the beginning of the assignment, I made my own cladistic analysis based off of

visual characteristics and came up with a much different result, (knowing that I am not a scientist

and my branches were based off of visual traits only). I took the genus Equus and broke it down

into four sister groups: horses, asses, donkeys and zebra. For the sister group of horses, I further

broke down into draft horse, light horse and pony. For asses, donkeys and zebras, I left them as

their own groups because of their visual characteristics. This wasn’t scientific but it was fun.

This article and creating my own cladistic analysis helped me understand that more goes

into classifying a species than what just the eye sees. Just like the zebras, even though they all

have black and white stripes, that doesn’t mean that they are the same species or come from the

same lineage. You need to go deeper under the skin and look at the structural makeup of the

animal alone with its DNA chromosome makeup. Just looking at the visual characterizes may

only be giving you their ancestral traits and not their lineage traits. This article is an interesting

example on how you can use the Cladistic method to help classify species which helps us to

understand biological anthropology so that we can not only classify different species of animals

but also the different species that evolved over time into us as humans. It’s been very interesting

learning how to look for the smaller traits in a skull to help determine which species it came
 Quarnberg 5

from, which in turn helps to determine where it originated. At the beginning of the class, I would

have said they all look similar and must be from the same species but now I can see the

difference. They may come from the same genus but different species, you just have to look for

the traits that form a lineage.

Annotated bibliography

1. “A Cladistic Analysis of 17 Hominid Skulls.” Anthropology.net, 13 May 2008,

anthropology.net/2008/05/06/a-cladistic-analysis-of-17-hominid-skulls/.

This article is about a Cladistic analysis study that was done on 17 hominid skulls.

It described the mythology of cladistic analysis. How organizing anything can be done by

using the cladistic methods by comparing shared derived characteristic traits. These traits

seen in members of the same species that are unique from other species. It gave some

examples on how Cladistics analysis method works by grouping different species or

organisms. The cladistics tries to help organize the species or organisms’ differences or

variations. It mentioned some problems that can occur while analyzing these variations.

Some species can share large numbers of derived traits which can make it hard to

determine which traits are unique to each species. They found that functional traits had

been separated from developmental traits when they were actually integrated traits and

shouldn’t have been separated. At the end of the analysis the cladistic branches showed

what they had anticipated, that Neanderthals are a lineage from the H. erectus-sapiens.
 Quarnberg 6

2. Prado. J, Alberdi M. A Cladistic Analysis of the Horses of the Tribe Equini. Aug1996.

https://www.palass.org/sites/default/files/media/publications/palaeontology/volume_39/v

ol39_part3_pp663-680.pdf

The article is about a cladistic analysis on the Equini tribe. In the study, they

defined seven groups from the characteristics which were shared from its ancestors. They

studied 14 different species of Equini during the analysis. Some of the characteristics

used were cranial, upper and lower teeth, mandible and appendicular Skelton

morphology. Based on the analysis, the tribe Equini was broken down into two subtribes:

the Protohippina Sensu Hulbert and Pliohippina. One sub group of the Equini tribe is the

Equinae Gray. This was found to have common traits by analyzing five major shared

derived characteristics found in the cheek teeth. The article shows that the cladistic

method can be used with different types or characteristics or differences in one

characteristic.

3. Welker, Barbara Helm. “The History of Our Tribe: Hominini.” Lumen Learning, Lumen,

13 June 2017, courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-history-of-our-tribe/chapter/2-primate-

classification/.

This article described the history of the hominin. It started with an introduction on

the two ways scientist classify species, the classic taxonomy and cladistics. Although the

use of combining both systems provides utility, they rely primarily on cladistics analysis

for their studies. It then discusses the primate classification and the characteristics of

evolutionary trends. Primates are divided into two groups: Strepsirrhines and Haplorhinis

and their sub orders. It describes their differences, touching on the old world and new
 Quarnberg 7

world monkeys and ape characteristics. The article also mentions the primate evolution

over the past 65 million years and the climate changes during that time. In addition, the

author talks about the primate social organization with details about their group life,

mating habits, territorial tenancies and living habits. The article explores the evolution of

bipedalism and how with this evolution also came the evolution of the primate skull,

vertebrae, thorax, shoulders, limbs, hips and pelvic to accommodate bipedalism. It

summarizes with Hominin evolutionary trends and hominiin groups.