Talk:Chestnut (horse anatomy)

Evolutionary origin

What are the evolutionary origins of those chestnuts? Couldn't find anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.217.42 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I added some content about that today. Did you want more? --Una Smith (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fingerprints"

J. Warren Evans, Anthony Borton, Harold Hintz, and L. Dale van Vleck (1990). The Horse (2nd ed.). Macmillan. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-7167-1811-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Quote from this source, page 80:

Even more positive identification is required by some registries: lip tattoos, photographs of a horse's "fingerprints" (unique patterns of the chestnuts (night eyes) that are found on the insides of the legs), and blood typing. Muscular dimples, cowlicks (hair swirls), scars, or brands should also be described and located on the sketch.

--Una Smith (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Um yes, precisely and that is why it needs to stay in the article. They are unique patterns in a way similar to how fingerprints are unique patterns. Montanabw^(talk) 01:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not comparable to fingerprints. For them to be comparable requires at a minimum a source that defines standard descriptive terms for chestnuts, as exists for fingerprints. Precisely because they are so often trimmed, they are less useful than the location and direction of hair whorls. Montanabw, if you really want to get the word "fingerprints" in there, you can add to the article a remark that so and so called them "fingerprints" (quotes in the original). I expect some other editor will delete it, though. Also, please stop corrupting the citation of the source; I obtained the list of authors from the source itself. --Una Smith (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the source does not say chestnuts are used like fingerprints and the source even qualifies the term with quotes. Chestnuts probably aren't fingerprints anyway, but fingernails. Again, please stop reverting the citation to the Google Books data; that data has several errors, including wrong author names. See the source itself. --Una Smith (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of just removing it, take the time to rephrase it such that it is better in line with the quote. Wholesale removal of sourced information is disruptive. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Current phrasing is acceptable to me. Una, the description of chestnuts as in some fashion akin to "fingerprinting is a longstanding explaination used by horse people to explain their nature. to non-horse people I did access the source itself, but if your citation is using a more correct template, that's fine. Montanabw^(talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

horny epithelium

This phrase horny epithelium should be worked into this article as it occurs in a number of works. Eg:

Small round or oval plates of horny epithelium called " chestnuts," callosities growing like the hoof from enlarged papillae of the skin, are found on the inner face of the fore-arm, above the carpal joint in all species of Equidae, and in the horse (E. caballus) similar structures occur near the upper extremity of the inner face of the metatarsus. They are evidently rudimentary structures which it is suggested may represent glands (Lydekker, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1903, vol. i.).

— "HORSE" in 1911 edition of Britannica Encyclopaedia

and more recent ones such as this one use the term -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! Can you imagine the vandalism that would occur if we added that??? LOL! The term is, however, rather archaic. Do we have a horny epithelium artice on wiki? I guess my thinking is that we need slightly better sources before adding the term. Not opposed in theory, just want to be sure that the good Doc at the dvm360 site wasn't a retired sort himself... Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chestnut (horse anatomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318105441/http://www.corollawildhorses.com/Images/HOA%20Report/hoa-report.pdf to http://www.corollawildhorses.com/Images/HOA%20Report/hoa-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

picture inaccurate

The picture supposedly show the chestnut of a horse is not a chestnut of a horse.

From what I can see, the lesion is on the OUTSIDE of the horse's front leg and is ABOVE the knee. It appears to be an old wound that has developed "proud flesh".

A horse's chestnut is on the INSIDE of the leg and BELOW the knee. It is made of of keratin like material, fairly smooth when not peeling or shedding a layer and is much smaller than the lesion in the picture provided. Zoongitozi (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)