4 ms·

> the reaction you get is typically "Eeehwww! i understand when people react that way to eating dog or smth, but horses and cows are same family of animald

nkozyra 4y ago
> but horses and cows are same family of animal How do you mean? They're not, taxonomically.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The family of "big and eats grass" I guess.
- jameshart 4y ago
  ‘Family’ doesn’t really have a defined meaning in modern taxonomy. Horses and cows are part of the same clade, ‘ungulata’ - hooved mammals. It’s not a Linnaean taxonomic ally ‘ranked’ clade though, like an ‘order’ or a ‘genus’ - but those terms aren’t really that formally valid, so using ‘family’ informally to mean ‘clade with some reasonable level of shared characteristics’ seems fair. But to also be fair, if you want to classify horses and cows as edible based on their shared common ancestry, you’re also arguing for eating giraffes, tapirs, rhinos, hippos, whales and dolphins.
  - nwallin 4y ago
    You can just look this stuff up on wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology) "Family (Latin: familia, plural familiae) is one of the eight major hierarchical taxonomic ranks in Linnaean taxonomy. It is classified between order and genus." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae "Equidae (sometimes known as the horse family) is the taxonomic family of horses and related animals, including the extant horses, donkeys, and zebras, and many other species known only from fossils." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovidae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovidae "The Bovidae comprise the biological family of cloven-hoofed, ruminant mammals that includes cattle, bison, buffalo, antelopes, and goat-antelopes. A member of this family is called a bovid." No, horses and cattle are not in the same family. Nor are they in the same clade; cattle are artiofabula, (ruminants) horses are mesaxonia. (odd toed ungulates) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artiofabula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artiofabula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesaxonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesaxonia > But to also be fair, if you want to classify horses and cows as edible based on their shared common ancestry, you’re also arguing for eating giraffes, tapirs, rhinos, hippos, whales and dolphins. The argument is about whether horses and cattle are in the same family, not that a species' taxonomic classification can be an indication that they ought to be eaten.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      My point is that Linnaeus's 'family' is not rigorously defined and generally not a very precise term anyway. If you're not sure what level of clade a pair of related creatures share, referring to them as being 'in the same family', informally, is fine. And Ungulata is a clade. "Ungulates (/ˈʌŋɡjəleɪts, -ləts/ UNG-gyə-layts, - ləts) are members of the diverse clade Ungulata which primarily consists of large mammals with hooves." As a clade, it includes several clades that are historically classified as 'orders' and several that are 'families'. It would be inaccurate to say 'horses and cows are members of the same Linnaean order'; but equally, in Linnaean terms, it would be insufficiently precise to say they share the same Linnaean 'grandorder', because that's also true of, say, a grizzly bear, or a badger. Basically, if you're going to be taxonomically pedantic, I think it's better to be pedantic about the Actual taxonomy (i.e. the real common ancestry of an organism) than it is to be pedantic about the metataxonomy (i.e., the classification of clades as 'order' or 'family' or 'genus')
baliex 4y ago
I know what you mean, because of those 3 species, dogs are the only ones to be commonly kept as pets. But what is it that puts horses, dogs, and cows in the same/different categories?
- protonbob 4y ago
  I would say a dog being a carnivore puts it in a different category. The same reason I wouldn't want to eat a wolf or a big cat.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    This is actually a really good point. Dogs will eat really disgusting food, perusing the trash or eating poop at times.. I wouldn’t eat a raccoon for the same reason. Horses and cattle eat grass, they’re vegan
    - NamTaf 4y ago
      The bigger issue is that toxins concentrate in carnivores in a way that they do not in herbivores.
xienze 4y ago
I think it has more to do with the assumption that horse meat is probably quite tough and not very appetizing.
numpad0 4y ago
Humans consume everything from mushrooms to mammals, it’s arbitrary as to which species in what kind of form are ewww and which are not. Only when it comes to primates and closer that our DNA actively tries to stop us. Anything farther are matters of beliefs, preferences and safety.
- jraph 4y ago
  > Only when it comes to primates and closer that our DNA actively tries to stop us Interesting. Do you have evidence for this?
- sph 4y ago
  There are many more ewww type meats that we culturally accept, like crustaceans. I mean, they're sea insects basically. I enjoy a good prawn yet I'm repulsed by the idea of eating a scorpion. I am aware it's just a cultural artifact and not DNA driven disgust. On the other hand herbivores and ruminants are the type of meat humans find the most delicious, and horse is one of them. Carnivores or omnivores I seem to understand they don't taste as good, and here's my justification for never considering cats, dogs, bears, etc., as possible food unless my life depends on it.

nkozyra 4y ago

> but horses and cows are same family of animal How do you mean? They're not, taxonomically.

bombcar 4y ago
The family of "big and eats grass" I guess.
jameshart 4y ago
‘Family’ doesn’t really have a defined meaning in modern taxonomy. Horses and cows are part of the same clade, ‘ungulata’ - hooved mammals. It’s not a Linnaean taxonomic ally ‘ranked’ clade though, like an ‘order’ or a ‘genus’ - but those terms aren’t really that formally valid, so using ‘family’ informally to mean ‘clade with some reasonable level of shared characteristics’ seems fair. But to also be fair, if you want to classify horses and cows as edible based on their shared common ancestry, you’re also arguing for eating giraffes, tapirs, rhinos, hippos, whales and dolphins.
- nwallin 4y ago
  You can just look this stuff up on wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology) "Family (Latin: familia, plural familiae) is one of the eight major hierarchical taxonomic ranks in Linnaean taxonomy. It is classified between order and genus." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae "Equidae (sometimes known as the horse family) is the taxonomic family of horses and related animals, including the extant horses, donkeys, and zebras, and many other species known only from fossils." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovidae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovidae "The Bovidae comprise the biological family of cloven-hoofed, ruminant mammals that includes cattle, bison, buffalo, antelopes, and goat-antelopes. A member of this family is called a bovid." No, horses and cattle are not in the same family. Nor are they in the same clade; cattle are artiofabula, (ruminants) horses are mesaxonia. (odd toed ungulates) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artiofabula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artiofabula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesaxonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesaxonia > But to also be fair, if you want to classify horses and cows as edible based on their shared common ancestry, you’re also arguing for eating giraffes, tapirs, rhinos, hippos, whales and dolphins. The argument is about whether horses and cattle are in the same family, not that a species' taxonomic classification can be an indication that they ought to be eaten.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    My point is that Linnaeus's 'family' is not rigorously defined and generally not a very precise term anyway. If you're not sure what level of clade a pair of related creatures share, referring to them as being 'in the same family', informally, is fine. And Ungulata is a clade. "Ungulates (/ˈʌŋɡjəleɪts, -ləts/ UNG-gyə-layts, - ləts) are members of the diverse clade Ungulata which primarily consists of large mammals with hooves." As a clade, it includes several clades that are historically classified as 'orders' and several that are 'families'. It would be inaccurate to say 'horses and cows are members of the same Linnaean order'; but equally, in Linnaean terms, it would be insufficiently precise to say they share the same Linnaean 'grandorder', because that's also true of, say, a grizzly bear, or a badger. Basically, if you're going to be taxonomically pedantic, I think it's better to be pedantic about the Actual taxonomy (i.e. the real common ancestry of an organism) than it is to be pedantic about the metataxonomy (i.e., the classification of clades as 'order' or 'family' or 'genus')

baliex 4y ago

I know what you mean, because of those 3 species, dogs are the only ones to be commonly kept as pets. But what is it that puts horses, dogs, and cows in the same/different categories?

protonbob 4y ago
I would say a dog being a carnivore puts it in a different category. The same reason I wouldn't want to eat a wolf or a big cat.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  This is actually a really good point. Dogs will eat really disgusting food, perusing the trash or eating poop at times.. I wouldn’t eat a raccoon for the same reason. Horses and cattle eat grass, they’re vegan
  - NamTaf 4y ago
    The bigger issue is that toxins concentrate in carnivores in a way that they do not in herbivores.

xienze 4y ago

I think it has more to do with the assumption that horse meat is probably quite tough and not very appetizing.

numpad0 4y ago

Humans consume everything from mushrooms to mammals, it’s arbitrary as to which species in what kind of form are ewww and which are not. Only when it comes to primates and closer that our DNA actively tries to stop us. Anything farther are matters of beliefs, preferences and safety.

jraph 4y ago
> Only when it comes to primates and closer that our DNA actively tries to stop us Interesting. Do you have evidence for this?
sph 4y ago
There are many more ewww type meats that we culturally accept, like crustaceans. I mean, they're sea insects basically. I enjoy a good prawn yet I'm repulsed by the idea of eating a scorpion. I am aware it's just a cultural artifact and not DNA driven disgust. On the other hand herbivores and ruminants are the type of meat humans find the most delicious, and horse is one of them. Carnivores or omnivores I seem to understand they don't taste as good, and here's my justification for never considering cats, dogs, bears, etc., as possible food unless my life depends on it.