FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anat Rec (Hoboken) / Could “wild horses” drag you away? Quantifying m...
Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2025; doi: 10.1002/ar.70092

Could “wild horses” drag you away? Quantifying muscular architecture in the forelimbs of extant, non-domestic equids (Perissodactyla: Equidae).

Abstract: Equid evolution is characterized by a high diversity of extinct species and morphologies, whereas extant equids share a superficially similar, monodactyl morphology. This inferred musculoskeletal similarity of modern equid limbs remains unexplored, and it is often assumed that domestic horse limbs are representative for wild equids (e.g., zebras, onagers, etc.). Our aim was to quantitatively describe the muscle architecture and arrangement of all forelimb muscles in extant wild Equus species to test this assumption, and investigate any differences between the species. We hypothesized that there would be subtle variation linked to locomotion on the different substrates that these species encounter. Gross dissections were performed to record muscle attachment sites and to quantify architectural metrics: muscle-tendon unit (MTU) length, MTU mass, muscle mass, pennation angle, and fascicle length; physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) of the muscles and tendon cross-sectional area (TCSA) of the distal ligaments were then calculated. Qualitative results confirm common origin and insertion sites of all muscles across all Equus species. When normalized for size, the forelimb muscles across equids generally exhibit comparable muscular architecture and force-generating capacities. However, we observed a trend for higher force-generating potential in the distal limb flexor muscles in two species of zebra naturally found in habitats with inclined or uneven substrates. Although limited by sample size, these results indicate that scaled data for modern wild equids are generally very comparable, which may enable much smoother translation of experimental data from domestic horses into digital simulations of wild equid locomotion, including for extinct equids.
© 2025 American Association for Anatomy.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-11-20 PubMed ID: 41267484DOI: 10.1002/ar.70092Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study investigates the muscle structure of the forelimbs in wild horse species (Equus genus) to determine whether domestic horse limb data accurately represent wild equid muscular anatomy and function.
  • The research compares the muscle architecture of different wild equid species to identify potential adaptations linked to their natural environments and locomotion.

Introduction and Background

  • Equids (members of the horse family) have a rich evolutionary history with many extinct species that exhibited diverse limb morphologies.
  • Modern equids (like horses, zebras, and onagers) share a similar monodactyl (single-toed) limb structure, but it is not clear if this similarity extends to the underlying muscle architecture.
  • Typically, domestic horse limb anatomy is used as a reference for wild equids, yet this assumption has not been extensively tested.
  • The study aims to quantitatively assess the forelimb muscles of wild Equus species to clarify if domestic horse data are representative for the group.
  • Researchers hypothesize subtle differences in muscle characteristics among species that relate to their natural habitats and locomotion styles, especially since wild equids move on varied terrains.

Methods

  • Gross dissections were performed on forelimbs of multiple extant wild Equus species (examples include different types of zebras and onagers).
  • Muscle attachment sites were documented to verify common origins and insertions across species.
  • Architectural metrics measured included:
    • Muscle-tendon unit (MTU) length
    • MTU mass and muscle mass
    • Pennation angle (angle of muscle fibers relative to the tendon)
    • Fascicle length (length of bundles of muscle fibers)
  • Physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) was calculated to estimate muscles’ force-generating capacity.
  • Tendon cross-sectional area (TCSA) of the distal ligaments was also measured.
  • All metrics were normalized to body size to allow fair comparison between different species.

Key Findings

  • Qualitative observations confirmed that all studied wild Equus species share similar muscle attachment points in their forelimbs, indicating a conserved musculoskeletal design.
  • When size differences were accounted for, the overall architectural traits of forelimb muscles were largely comparable across all species.
  • A noticeable trend was found in two zebra species that live on inclined or uneven terrains:
    • They exhibited higher force-generating potential, specifically in the distal limb flexor muscles (those responsible for bending the limb).
    • This suggests some level of muscular adaptation linked to the challenging substrate these zebras navigate regularly.
  • Despite some subtle differences, the general muscular architecture is fairly uniform among wild Equus species.

Implications and Significance

  • The study supports the common practice of using domestic horse limb data as a proxy for wild equids in biomechanical research and modeling.
  • This finding facilitates the application of domestic horse experimental data to digital simulations of wild equid locomotion, improving our understanding of how these animals move.
  • Insights gained may help reconstruct locomotor function in extinct equid species by extrapolation from modern analogs.
  • The observed minor muscular differences tied to habitat suggest that evolution fine-tunes muscle architecture to environmental demands but does so within a largely conserved framework.

Limitations and Future Directions

  • The study acknowledges a limited sample size, which may restrict the detection of subtle or species-specific differences.
  • Future research could include a larger number of specimens and species to better assess variability and confirm preliminary findings.
  • Additional studies could explore hindlimb muscle architecture and other anatomical features to provide a more comprehensive view.
  • Investigations incorporating locomotion kinematics and muscle function in different substrates would further clarify functional adaptations.

Cite This Article

APA
De Ridder T, Aerts P, MacLaren JA. (2025). Could “wild horses” drag you away? Quantifying muscular architecture in the forelimbs of extant, non-domestic equids (Perissodactyla: Equidae). Anat Rec (Hoboken). https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.70092

Publication

Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)
ISSN: 1932-8494
NlmUniqueID: 101292775
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

De Ridder, Tim
  • Department of Biology, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium.
Aerts, Peter
  • Department of Biology, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium.
  • Movement and Sports Sciences, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
MacLaren, Jamie A
  • Department of Biology, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium.
  • Evolution & Diversity Dynamics Lab, UR Geology, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
  • Palaeobiosphere Evolution Lab, Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium.

Grant Funding

  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • University Research Fund (BOF-UA) of the University of Antwerp

References

This article includes 89 references
  1. Andrew SM, Totland Ø, Moe SR. Spatial variation in plant species richness and diversity along human disturbance and environmental gradients in a tropical wetland. Wetlands Ecology and Management 23(3), 395–404.
    doi: 10.1007/s11273-014-9390-2google scholar: lookup
  2. Austin NP, Rogers LJ. Limb preferences and lateralization of aggression, reactivity and vigilance in feral horses, Equus caballus. Animal Behaviour 83(1), 239–247.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.033google scholar: lookup
  3. Bates K, Maidment SCR, Schachner ER, Barrett PM. Comments and corrections on 3D modeling studies of locomotor muscle moment arms in archosaurs. PeerJ 3, e1272.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.1272google scholar: lookup
  4. Bishop PJ, Michel KB, Falisse A, Cuff AR, Allen VR, de Groote F, Hutchinson JR. Computational modelling of muscle fibre operating ranges in the hindlimb of a small ground bird (Eudromia elegans), with implications for modelling locomotion in extinct species. PLoS Computational Biology 17(4), e1008843.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008843google scholar: lookup
  5. Böhmer C, Theil J, Fabre A, Herrel A. Atlas of Terrestrial Mammal Limbs. .
  6. Brassey CA, Maidment SCR, Barrett PM. Muscle moment arm analyses applied to vertebrate paleontology: A case study using stegosaurus stenops marsh, 1887. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 37(5), e1361432.
    doi: 10.1080/02724634.2017.1361432google scholar: lookup
  7. Brown NAT, Kawcak CE, McIlwraith CW, Pandy MG. Architectural properties of distal forelimb muscles in horses, Equus caballus. Journal of Morphology 258(1), 106–114.
    doi: 10.1002/jmor.10113google scholar: lookup
  8. Brown NAT, Pandy MG, Kawcak CE, McIlwraith CW. Force‐ and moment‐generating capacities of muscles in the distal forelimb of the horse. Journal of Anatomy 203(1), 101–113.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1469-7580.2003.00206.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  9. Budras K-D, Sack WO, Röck S. Anatomy of the horse (5th ed.). .
  10. Butcher MT, Chase PB, Hermanson JW, Clark AN, Brunet NM, Bertram JEA. Contractile properties of muscle fibers from the deep and superficial digital flexors of horses. American Journal of Physiology‐Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 299, 996–1005.
    doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00510.2009google scholar: lookup
  11. Byström A, Egenvall A, Roepstorff L, Rhodin M, Bragança FS, Hernlund E, van Weeren R, Weishaupt MA, Clayton HM. Biomechanical findings in horses showing asymmetrical vertical excursions of the withers at walk. PLoS One 13(9), e0204548.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204548google scholar: lookup
  12. Carnicer D, Coudry V, Denoix J. Ultrasonographic examination of the palmar aspect of the pastern of the horse: Sesamoidean ligaments. Equine Veterinary Education 25, 256–263.
  13. Charles JP, Cappellari O, Hutchinson JR. A dynamic simulation of musculoskeletal function in the mouse hindlimb during trotting locomotion. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 6, 61.
    doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00061google scholar: lookup
  14. Churcher CS. Equus grevyi. Mammalian Species 3(45), 1–9.
  15. Clayton HM, Chateau H, Back W. Forelimb function. In W. Back & M. Clayton (Eds.), Equine locomotion (pp. 99–125).
  16. Clayton HM, Hobbs SJ. Ground reaction forces: The sine qua non of legged locomotion. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 76, 25–35.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2019.02.022google scholar: lookup
  17. Cuff AR, Demuth OE, Michel K, Otero A, Pintore R, Polet DT, Wiseman ALA, Hutchinson JR. Walking—And running and jumping—With dinosaurs and their cousins, viewed through the lens of evolutionary biomechanics. Integrative and Comparative Biology 62(5), 1281–1305.
    doi: 10.1093/icb/icac049google scholar: lookup
  18. Demuth OE, Herbst E, Polet DT, Wiseman ALA, Hutchinson JR. Modern three‐dimensional digital methods for studying locomotor biomechanics in tetrapods. Journal of Experimental Biology 226, jeb245132.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.245132google scholar: lookup
  19. Demuth OE, Wiseman ALA, van Beesel J, Mallison H, Hutchinson JR. Three‐dimensional polygonal muscle modelling and line of action estimation in living and extinct taxa. Scientific Reports 12(1), 3358.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07074-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  20. Der Sarkissian C, Vilstrup JT, Schubert M, Seguin‐Orlando A, Eme D, Weinstock J, Alberdi MT, Martin F, Lopez PM, Prado JL, Prieto A, Douady CJ, Stafford TW, Willerslev E, Orlando L. Mitochondrial genomes reveal the extinct Hippidion as an outgroup to all living equids. Biology Letters 11(3), 20141058.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.1058google scholar: lookup
  21. Dimery NJ, Alexander RM, Ker RF. Elastic extension of leg tendons in the locomotion of horses (Equus caballus). Journal of Zoology 210, 415–425.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1986.tb03646.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  22. Eisenmann V, Beckouche S. Identification and Discrimination of Metapodials from Pleistocene and Modern Equus, Wild and Domesstic. In R. H. Meadow & H.‐P. Uerpmann (Eds.), Equids in the ancient world (pp. 67–163).
  23. Eisenmann V, Karchoud A. Analyses multidimensionnelles des metapodes d'Equus. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle 4, 75–103.
  24. Etienne C, Houssaye A, Hutchinson JR. Limb myology and muscle architecture of the Indian rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis and the white rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum (Mammalia: Rhinocerotidae). PeerJ 9, e11314.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.11314google scholar: lookup
  25. Feh C, Munkhtuya B, Enkhbold S, Sukhbaatar T. Ecology and social structure of the Gobi khulan Equus hemionus subsp. in the Gobi B National Park, Mongolia. Biological Conservation 101(1), 51–61.
    doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00051-9google scholar: lookup
  26. Gaunitz C, Fages A, Hanghøj K, Albrechtsen A, Khan N, Schubert M, Seguin‐Orlando A, Owens IJ, Felkel S, Bignon‐Lau O, de Barros Damgaard P, Mittnik A, Mohaseb AF, Davoudi H, Alquraishi S, Alfarhan AH, Al‐Rasheid KAS, Crubézy E, Benecke N, Orlando L. Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski's horses. Science 360(6384), 111–114.
    doi: 10.1126/science.aao3297google scholar: lookup
  27. Gosling LM, Muntifering J, Kolberg H, Uiseb K, King S. Equus zebra ssp. hartmannae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species e.T7958A45171819.
    doi: 10.2305/iucn.uk.2019-1.rlts.t7958a45171819.engoogle scholar: lookup
  28. Grossi B, Canals M. Comparison of the morphology of the limbs of juvenile and adult horses (Equus caballus) and their implications on the locomotor biomechanics. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology 313(5), 292–300.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.598google scholar: lookup
  29. Hampson B, Ramsey G, Macintosh A, Mills P, De Laat M, Pollitt C. Morphometry and abnormalities of the feet of Kaimanawa feral horses in New Zealand. Australian Veterinary Journal 88(4), 124–131.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2010.00554.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  30. Hampson BA, de Laat MA, Mills PC, Pollitt CC. The feral horse foot. Part A: Observational study of the effect of environment on the morphometrics of the feet of 100 Australian feral horses. Australian Veterinary Journal 91, 14–22.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2012.00995.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  31. Harbers H, Zanolli C, Cazenave M, Theil J‐C, Ortiz K, Blanc B, Locatelli Y, Schafberg R, Lecompte F, Baly I, Laurens F, Callou C, Herrel A, Puymerail L, Cucchi T. Investigating the impact of captivity and domestication on limb bone cortical morphology: An experimental approach using a wild boar model. Scientific Reports 10, 19070.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75496-6google scholar: lookup
  32. Hartstone‐Rose A, Selvey H, Villari JR, Atwell M, Schmidt T. The three‐dimensional morphological effects of captivity. PLoS One 9(11), e113437.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113437google scholar: lookup
  33. Haussler KK, le Jeune SS, MacKechnie‐Guire R, Latif SN, Clayton HM. The challenge of defining laterality in horses: Is it laterality or just asymmetry?. Animals 15(3), 288.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15030288google scholar: lookup
  34. Hermanson JW, MacFadden BJ. Evolutionary and functional morphology of the shoulder region and stay‐apparatus in fossil and extant horses (Equidae). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 12(3), 377–386.
    doi: 10.1080/02724634.1992.10011466google scholar: lookup
  35. Herrel A, Locatelli Y, Ortiz K, Theil J, Cornette R, Cucchi T. Cranial muscle architecture in wild boar: Does captivity drive ontogenetic trajectories?. Journal of Morphology 285(2), e21676.
    doi: 10.1002/jmor.21676google scholar: lookup
  36. Hutchinson JR, Anderson FC, Blemker SS, Delp SL. Analysis of hindlimb muscle moment arms in Tyrannosaurus rex using a three‐dimensional musculoskeletal computer model: Implications for stance, gait, and speed. Paleobiology 31(4), 676.
    doi: 10.1666/04044.1google scholar: lookup
  37. I.C.V.G.A.N.. Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria. Editorial Committee.
  38. Janis C. The horse series. In Icons of evolution. Greenwood Press.
  39. Janis C, Bernor R. The evolution of equid monodactyly: A review including a new hypothesis. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7, 119.
    doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00119google scholar: lookup
  40. Jónsson H, Schubert M, Seguin‐Orlando A, Ginolhac A, Petersen L, Fumagalli M, Albrechtsen A, Petersen B, Korneliussen TS, Vilstrup JT, Lear T, Myka JL, Lundquist J, Miller DC, Alfarhan AH, Alquraishi SA, Al‐Rasheid KAS, Stagegaard J, Strauss G, Orlando L. Speciation with gene flow in equids despite extensive chromosomal plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(52), 18655–18660.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1412627111google scholar: lookup
  41. Kaashoek M, MacLaren JA, Aerts P, Nauwelaerts S. Evolution of the equid limb. In The equids (pp. 347–378). Springer.
    doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-27144-1_13google scholar: lookup
  42. Kaczensky P, Kuehn R, Lhagvasuren B, Pietsch S, Yang W, Walzer C. Connectivity of the Asiatic wild ass population in the Mongolian Gobi. Biological Conservation 144(2), 920–929.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.013google scholar: lookup
  43. Kaczensky P, Lkhagvasuren B, Pereladova O, Hemami M, Bouskila A. Equus Hemionus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T7951A45171204.
    doi: 10.2305/iucn.uk.2015-4.rlts.t7951a45171204.engoogle scholar: lookup
  44. King SRB, Moehlman PD. Equus quagga. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species e.T41013A45172424.
    doi: 10.2305/iucn.uk.2016-2.rlts.t41013a45172424.engoogle scholar: lookup
  45. König HE, Liebich H‐G. Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals (7th ed.). Georg Thieme Verlag KG.
  46. Lawrence LA. Principles of bone development in horses. In Proceedings of the 2003 equine nutrition and physiology society (pp. 69–73). DLG.
  47. Leclercq A, Lundblad J, Persson‐Sjodin E, Ask K, Zetterberg E, Hernlund E, Haubro Andersen P, Rhodin M. Perceived sidedness and correlation to vertical movement asymmetries in young warmblood horses. PLoS One 18(7), e0288043.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288043google scholar: lookup
  48. Levanov VF, Sokolov SV, Kaczensky P. Corral mass capture device for Asiatic wild asses Equus hemionus. Wildlife Biology 19(3), 325–334.
    doi: 10.2981/13-036google scholar: lookup
  49. Lieber RL, Fridén J. Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture. Muscle & Nerve 23, 1647–1666.
    doi: 10.1002/1097-4598(200011)23:11<1647::aid-mus1>3.0.co;2-mgoogle scholar: lookup
  50. MacFadden BJ. Fossil horses, systematics, paleobiology and evolution of the family equidae. Systematic Biology 43(2), 299–303.
  51. MacFadden BJ. Fossil horses—Evidence for evolution. Science 307(5716), 1728–1730.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1105458google scholar: lookup
  52. Maclaren JA. Biogeography a key influence on distal forelimb variation in horses through the Cenozoic. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288, 20202465.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.2465google scholar: lookup
  53. MacLaren JA, Corssmit E, MacMillan M, Rojas‐Jimenez J. A quantitative analysis of the manus musculature in tapirs (Perissodactyla: Tapiridae). Journal of Morphology 286(5), e70051.
    doi: 10.1002/jmor.70051google scholar: lookup
  54. MacLaren JA, McHorse BK. Comparative forelimb myology and muscular architecture of a juvenile Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus). Journal of Anatomy 236(1), 85–97.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13087google scholar: lookup
  55. McHorse BK, Biewener AA, Pierce SE. The evolution of a single toe in horses: Causes, consequences, and the way forward. Integrative and Comparative Biology 59(3), 638–655.
    doi: 10.1093/icb/icz050google scholar: lookup
  56. Mendez J, Keys A. Density and composition of mammalian muscle. Metabolism 9, 184–188.
  57. Michilsens F, Vereecke EE, D'août K, Aerts P. Functional anatomy of the gibbon forelimb: Adaptations to a brachiating lifestyle. Journal of Anatomy 215(3), 335–354.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01109.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  58. Moehlman PD. Status survey and conservation action plan equids: Zebras, asses and horses. In P. D. Moehlman (Ed.).
  59. Neaux D, Blanc B, Ortiz K, Locatelli Y, Schafberg R, Herrel A, Debat V, Cucchi T. Constraints associated with captivity alter craniomandibular integration in wild boar. Journal of Anatomy 239(2), 489–497.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13425google scholar: lookup
  60. Oakenfull EA, Ryder OA. Genetics of equid species and subspecies. In Equids: Zebras, asses and horses. Status survey and conservation action plan (pp. 108–112).
  61. Orlando L, Ginolhac A, Zhang G, Froese D, Albrechtsen A, Stiller M, Schubert M, Cappellini E, Petersen B, Moltke I, Johnson PLF, Fumagalli M, Vilstrup JT, Raghavan M, Korneliussen T, Malaspinas AS, Vogt J, Szklarczyk D, Kelstrup CD, Willerslev E. Recalibrating equus evolution using the genome sequence of an early middle Pleistocene horse. Nature 499(7456), 74–78.
    doi: 10.1038/nature12323google scholar: lookup
  62. Otero A, Allen V, Pol D, Hutchinson JR. Forelimb muscle and joint actions in Archosauria: Insights from Crocodylus johnstoni (Pseudosuchia) and Mussaurus patagonicus (Sauropodomorpha). PeerJ 2017(11), e3976.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.3976google scholar: lookup
  63. Panagiotopoulou O, Rankin JW, Gatesy SM, Hutchinson JR. A preliminary case study of the effect of shoe‐wearing on the biomechanics of a horse's foot. PeerJ 4, e2164.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.2164google scholar: lookup
  64. Payne RC, Veenman P, Wilson AM. The role of the extrinsic thoracic limb muscles in equine locomotion. Journal of Anatomy 205, 479–490.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2005.00353.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  65. Pearce G, May‐Davis S, Greaves D. Femoral asymmetry in the thoroughbred racehorse. Australian Veterinary Journal 83(6), 367–370.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb15636.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  66. Pelletier M, Niinimäki S, Salmi AK. Influence of captivity and selection on limb long bone cross‐sectional morphology of reindeer. Journal of Morphology 282(10), 1533–1556.
    doi: 10.1002/jmor.21403google scholar: lookup
  67. Polly D, Hall B. Limbs in mammalian evolution. In Fins into limbs: Evolution, development, and transformation (pp. 245–268).
  68. Poole D, Erikson HH. Cardiovascular function and oxygen transport: Responses to exercise and training. In Equine exercise physiology (pp. 212–245).
    doi: 10.1016/b978-070202857-1.50012-3google scholar: lookup
  69. Regnault S, Fahn‐Lai P, Norris RM, Pierce SE. Shoulder muscle architecture in the echidna (Monotremata: Tachyglossus aculeatus) indicates conserved functional properties. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 27(4), 591–603.
    doi: 10.1007/s10914-020-09498-6google scholar: lookup
  70. Richards HL, Adams JW, Evans AR. Hanging on and digging deep: Comparative forelimb myology of the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and common wombat (Vombatus ursinus). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 199, 60–82.
    doi: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlad018google scholar: lookup
  71. Rogers CW, Gee EK, Dittmer KE. Growth and bone development in the horse: When is a horse skeletally mature?. Animals 11, 3402.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11123402google scholar: lookup
  72. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9(7), 671–675.
    doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089google scholar: lookup
  73. Schulz E, Kaiser TM. Historical distribution, habitat requirements and feeding ecology of the genus Equus (Perissodactyla). Mammal Review 43(2), 111–123.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2012.00210.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  74. Shanungu GK, Kaumba CH, Beilfuss R. Current population status and distribution of large herbivores and floodplain birds of the Kafue flats wetlands, Zambia: Results of the 2015 Wet Season Aerial Survey. .
    doi: 10.13140/rg.2.2.29983.76967google scholar: lookup
  75. Soffler C, Hermanson JW. Muscular design in the equine interosseus muscle. Journal of Morphology 267(6), 696–704.
    doi: 10.1002/jmor.10433google scholar: lookup
  76. Steiner CC, Ryder OA. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of the Perissodactyla. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163(4), 1289–1303.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00752.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  77. St‐Louis A, Côté SD. Equus kiang (Perissodactyla: Equidae). Mammalian Species 835, 1–11.
    doi: 10.1644/835.1google scholar: lookup
  78. Swanstrom MD, Zarucco L, Hubbard M, Stover SM, Hawkins DA. Musculoskeletal modeling and dynamic simulation of the thoroughbred equine forelimb during stance phase of the gallop. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 127(2), 318–328.
    doi: 10.1115/1.1865196google scholar: lookup
  79. Tesfai RT, Owen‐Smith N, Parrini F, Moehlman PD. Viability of the critically endangered African wild ass (Equus africanus) population on Messir Plateau (Eritrea). Journal of Mammalogy 100(1), 185–191.
    doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy164google scholar: lookup
  80. Tidière M, Duncan P, Lemaître J‐F, Gaillard J‐M, Lackey LB, Müller DWH, Clauss M. Do equids live longer than grazing bovids?. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 27(4), 809–816.
    doi: 10.1007/s10914-019-09483-8google scholar: lookup
  81. van Bijlert PA, Geijtenbeek T, Smit IH, Schulp AS, Bates KT. Muscle‐driven predictive physics simulations of quadrupedal locomotion in the horse. Integrative and Comparative Biology 64(3), 694–714.
    doi: 10.1093/icb/icae095google scholar: lookup
  82. Wareing K, Tickle PG, Stokkan KA, Codd JR, Sellers WI. The musculoskeletal anatomy of the reindeer (Rangifer tarandus): Fore‐ and hindlimb. Polar Biology 34(10), 1571–1578.
    doi: 10.1007/s00300-011-1017-ygoogle scholar: lookup
  83. Watson JC, Wilson AM. Muscle architecture of biceps brachii, triceps brachii and supraspinatus in the horse. Journal of Anatomy 210(1), 32–40.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00669.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  84. Willemen MA, Savelberg HHCM, Barneveld A. The effect of orthopaedic shoeing on the force exerted by the deep digital flexor tendon on the navicular bone in horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 31(1), 25–30.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb03787.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  85. Wilson AM, Hubel TY, Wilshin SD, Lowe JC, Lorenc M, Dewhirst OP, Bartlam‐Brooks HLA, Diack R, Bennitt E, Golabek KA, Woledge RC, McNutt JW, Curtin NA, West TG. Biomechanics of predator–prey arms race in lion, zebra, cheetah and impala. Nature 554(7691), 183–188.
    doi: 10.1038/nature25479google scholar: lookup
  86. Wilson AM, McGuigan MP, Su A, van den Bogert AJ. Horses damp the spring in their step. Nature 414, 895–899.
    doi: 10.1038/414895agoogle scholar: lookup
  87. Wilson AM, Watson JC, Lichtwark GA. A catapult action for rapid limb protraction. Nature 421(6918), 35–36.
    doi: 10.1038/421035agoogle scholar: lookup
  88. Witmer LM. The extant phylogenetic bracket and the importance of reconstructing soft tissues in fossils. In J. Thomason (Ed.), Functional morphology in vertebrate paleontology (pp. 19–33).
  89. Zarucco L, Taylor KT, Stover SM. Determination of muscle architecture and fiber characteristics of the superficial and deep digital flexor muscles in the forelimbs of adult horses. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65, 819–828.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.819google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,048 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.