Talk:Maronesa

Sometime ago, I did had the time to research the genetics about this breed and ask for people who studied their genome, and they mentioned that Maronesa has very primitive structures on their nuclear DNA. Nothing surprising for me as this as been confirmed from their very early derivation from the common ancestor (the aurochs) and isolation from other primitive iberian breeds, such as Barrosa, Sayaguesa or Limia.

I did edit the article, mentioning a valuable point about their primitive DNA and I see that it was removed... I wonder if we have a geneticist here (over?)zealing Maronesa wiki page, that have a different opinion from the other geneticists and cattle researchers.

Maybe he/she can produce evidence about the contrary.

Some excuses have been risen around « Fernández, A., J.L. Viana, A. Iglesias and L. Sánchez: Genetic variability and phylogenetic relationships between ten native cattle breeds from Galicia and the north of Portugal. 1998», like it may have been not relevant, but then we would like to know how and why´s that? Moreover, when additional evidence supports the same, we think that the possiblity that Maronesa has primitive genome, is very high.

Is anyone admired about why the primitive lineages, have a primitive look? Well, this can be explained also by their genome and rustic lifestyle, is not a result of aurochs backbreeding experiment done on a lab...

Regards

Hi,

of course it is very likely that Maronesa has a very ancient genome, but the problem here is that the study the sentence is referring to does not say anything about its connection to the aurochs. Of course its relationships to the aurochs could be added on the article, but there has to be a published scientific study stating that; as wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia that aims only to sum up what has been published. -- DFoidl (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about Maronesa having a primitive genome (early derivation and isolation from a common ancestor, which is the aurochs,I think), not stating something about its genetic connection with aurochs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.45.220 (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

But one indicates the other, in this case. Everything can be added to the article, if it has justifiable references. -- DFoidl (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So if you think that one indicates the other, the evidences are on the article used on this wikipage:

Fernández, A., J.L. Viana, A. Iglesias and L. Sánchez: Genetic variability and phylogenetic relationships between ten native cattle breeds from Galicia and the north of Portugal. 1998.

I can see perfectly that it has a primitive genetic imprint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.220.57 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

bufalo

Carabao Virgilio c baldovino (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Only d Phil. Virgilio c baldovino (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maronesa. 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/20091221082122/http://www.eccn.edu.pt/alunos/vacas/images/maronesa.jpg to http://www.eccn.edu.pt/alunos/vacas/images/maronesa.jpg

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) 22:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Maronesa, primitive cattle of Portugal

Moved from my talk-page.

 – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers

I tried to log in, several times, but without success (for some odd reason), so I appear here as anonymous.

I´m sorry, if I´m mentioning the wrong person, but I got the information that it´s you who have been altering information on Maronesa wiki page (a old portuguese cattle breed).

What you want from Maronesa wiki page, exactly? It took us, months to make it, like it is today. How can you come there, deleted all what was done, with barely any justification and then put a bot to not allow the people that did it, to put anything more?

If you don´t mind the question, you came from which country?

For some reason, the Tauros programme info disappeared. Also the true nature foundation aim to preserve the ancient type of the breed. Not everyone in Maronesa cattle association is worried about the primitive type though.

Evidences have been revealed here: http://familycow.proboards.com/thread/56166/maronesa

Also all the photographic evidence was removed (well, wikipedia pages have often several pictures, why conveniently delete it only from here)?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

188.37.171.168, who is "we"? You do know that Wikipedia accounts are strictly for individual use, right?

I made 13 edits on 4–5 June. Each of them has an edit summary which explains what I did, and often why I did it. You can see those in the edit history, but for your convenience I'll list them here.

1. add 6 sources, write a little from them
2. infobox, add ref
3. far too many pictures (the place for a large image gallery is Wikimedia Commons, our image-hosting site)
4. add 2 refs, a bit on Robertsonian translocation
5. add 1 ref, a bit more from it, including geographical distribution
6. slightly better link
7. ce lead
8. ce characteristics, rm some unreferenced content – Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources; this may be true, but is not verifiable without sources, and is thus valueless here
9. clear WP:LINKFARM – Wikipedia is not a link repository
10. use for meat
11. better images, showing the environment as well [as] the animals
12. conservation status
13. {{Cattle breeds of Portugal}}

Or, in other terms, I took a page that had just one reference (which supported on statement only, presented without any discussion of the scientific evidence that suggests exactly the opposite), added eleven reliable sources to it, and wrote text based on what they say, removing any unreferenced material. That's what we do in Wikipedia, it's how our articles are written. I'm sorry if you don't like the result. If you think it has inaccuracies or omissions, please mention them here, together with the sources that support what you are saying. And on that topic, I'm sorry but somebody's blog about how they once saw a nice cow is not a reliable source by our standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Next time, before do such deep changes, maybe you should speak about it on discussion (edit, talks, whatever) section. You didn´t created this page. People have been employing great time on doing this. True Nature foundation is really protecting the primitive type of the breed and using it to backbreed a certain type of aurochs, and that´s explained on that link (it´s not a blog or a wikipedia page!). I can send the TNF facebook and site too. You clearly didn´t even saw it properly. Also the Tauros programme is using it too to backbreed the aurochs (but they combine with other breeds): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauros_Programme There´s a primitive type within the breed. Also you clearly deleted the parts where the primitive type on this breed is mentioned, and explain why they are primitive and anything related with its conservation. I think that this should never be removed, because it´s indeed endangered and that´s proven and presented here: http://www.quercus.pt/images/PDF/QA/QA56.pdf

These (changes on wikipedia page) may have drastic consequences for the breed conservation, because the public is not allowed to see the truth. Total number estimates don´t give us any idea about the reality of the primtive type which is much less numerous. One last suggestion, next time respect others time and work. By what I saw on your personal discussion page this is nothing new and lots of people complain about the same things...

You wrote: «better images, showing the environment as well [as] the animals»

Why you deleted all the pictures with the Maronesa cattle, without asking anyone before? Some had it showing the environment as well. 

You should know how difficult it was for me (but I speak for both Tauros programme and True Nature Foundation, because I cooperated with both and even with Maronesa association, and I did exposed my name and ID several times, in real life and online) to get those pictures. Some pictures aren´t even mine but from Maronesa association, and I asked permission for it. But I guess that you never set a foot there and had to face all the difficulties and dangers to get it. Aren´t you a Italian? Why the sudden (for creepy reasons, it seems) interest on this breed? I´m confused, to be honest.

«The horns extend horizontally from the skull, then point forwards and downwards»

And yet what we see from your cherrypicked pictures are cows with horns facing upward on the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point about the shape of the horns, 188.37.171.168. As you surely know, it is very variable in many breeds – several of the animals shown here show the same characteristic, for example. You write "You should know how difficult it was for me ... to get those pictures. Some pictures aren´t even mine but from Maronesa association, and I asked permission for it". All the pictures that were in the article before I started editing it were uploaded to Commons by DFoidl as "own work", but were also attributed to other people (Goncalo Figueira, João Quadrado). Without the permission of the photographer they can't be kept on Commons. I've started a deletion request for that reason, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DFoidl. Please note, no-one is under any obligation to link an IP address with their username; I'm not asking whether, nor suggesting that, you and the uploader are the same person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nearly all Maronesa have horns that in the end are upwards. Usually only some bulls have it a bit downwards in the end. But it´s still not that common. So your description is the view of Maronesa association of what Maronesa cattle should be, not exactly what they usually are, though. And there´s still no clear evidence about the genetic position of Maronesa. It surely doesn´t seem to be a cross of Mirandesa and Barrosã, because otherwise, you´ll notice the connection of it on all genetic studies. We know that Alistana Sanabresa and Mirandesa cattle though derive from the same ancestral cattle nucleus, but Maronesa never was assigned to it. Barrosã, for instance, is very close to Cachena, so also these ones seem to group with each other, because it´s likely that they derive from the same cattle ancestral branch. Regarding Maronesa, there isn´t any evidence about any clear connection with any of these cattle. I know that it shares a paternal ancestor with Barrosa and lidia/iberian bullfighting cattle. But I hardly have time to locate the articles, maybe I´ll do it later (otherwise all these my observations are irrelevant for wikipedia).

So what have I have been exposing (and proving), essentially is that there´s an ancient and more original type of Maronesa and that´s strongly supported, by the article that I posted above. Cis Van Vuure and Marleen Felius, also know about that. And well, Gonçalo Figueira is myself, you can contact me via Maronesa association (just call me by my name) or more easily by the True Nature Foundation website. And many of those pictures are from Maronesa association (also some are mine and only a few are of João Quadrado). João Quadrado is from ATN (he worked for Faia Brava reserve/Rewilding Europe). They have a natural reserve where they have Maronesa and Sayaguesa cattle living on the wild. Do you want links about myself and João Quadrado? You can email me, if you want evidence, like I said, by the Maronesa association or by the True Nature Foundation website.

Maronesa in Faia Brava:

https://www.rewildingeurope.com/blog/faia-brava-as-a-showcase-of-rewilding/

Maronesa is also used on the TaurOs Programme: http://www.taurosproject.com/ As seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauros_Programme

True Nature Foundation (https://www.truenaturefoundation.org/), a non profit organization, started an herd of primitive type of Maronesa. Here: https://www.facebook.com/aurochsproject/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

Their aim is explained here: https://www.facebook.com/aurochsproject/posts/622393951297683

Daniel Foidl, is an Austrian Biology student, that has a passion for backbreeding among other things. He´s a very talented person.

So, for the main wikipedia page of Maronesa, on the «Use» section, I think that this should be posted:

«Since 2012, there is also a small herd in the Netherlands being used in the TaurOs Project and in 2017, True Nature Foundation started to breed the primitive type found on this breed, in Vila Pouca de Aguiar. The True Nature Foundation is therefore using the Maronesa breed as a separate lineage in their Uruz Project. Selection within the Maronesa population is used to increase primitive traits known to occur in the aurochs. Because of the suggested strong resemblance of the Maronesa with its wild ancestor, no crossbreeding is taking place.»

Also I noticed that you took information from the Maronesa association page (did you asked for permission?). It´s ok if you quote the references or direct it to the Maronesa association website, but seemingly you missed some important parts, like this one:

«Actualmente, pelos resultados que se têm encontrado em vários trabalhos científicos a raça tende para uma arrumação filogenética em espaços suficientemente afastados das demais raças portuguesas e para a confirmação da sua filiação no tronco étnico Negro Ortoide portanto para uma origem directa do Bos primigenius, que povoou a Península Ibérica quando do primeiro movimento dos bovinos em estado selvagem.»

Google translation for English:

«Nowadays, by the results that have been found in several scientific works, the race tends to a phylogenetic arrangement in spaces sufficiently far from the other Portuguese races and for the confirmation of its affiliation in the ethnic trunk Black Ortoide therefore for a direct origin of the Bos primigenius, that populated The Iberian Peninsula when the first movement of cattle in the wild.»

My personal opinion, is that there´s no evidence for this yet, but since this is on the Maronesa association page and there are authors behind it, why not mention it, as well? It´s connection with the aurochs or better said a local type of aurochs, is suggested there.

More about this subject here (check the Maronesa section):

http://www.drapn.min-agricultura.pt/drapn/conteudos/cen_documentos/outros/OsCornosdoAuroque.pdf

So I wonder if you still want to hide the role of this breed on backbreeding and rewilding projects, by deleting all the information and pictures regarding this subject, on the Maronesa wikipedia page? If so, I´ll expose publicly that as another issue risen against the conservation of the endangered primitive variety found on this breed, and for that, I´ll give credit to your wikipedia ID, nationality, etc... I don´t want to be involved on that.

Is that supposed to be some kind of a threat, 188.37.171.168? I certainly hope not! A few things:

• please don't alter your talk-page posts after others have replied to them (see WP:TPO)
• if you want people to read what you write, make it much more concise
• Facebook is not a reliable source
• this is a good and useful source, many thanks
• if you are Gonçalo Figueira, please email us permission for the pictures that you yourself took (see Commons:Email templates/Consent); it'd be good if you would upload the original versions of them, at full resolution and with their original EXIF data, instead of the low-grade web-resolution versions there now. Many thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it´s not a threat, it´s also my duty to expose what have been done about the breed (in favor or/and against) and to alert the public about that. If you hide what have been done with Maronesa, then you should be the responsible for it, i.e, you are the author of your own claims and actions.

Regarding the pictures, I don´t have time for it now, maybe later I´ll send some... But can´t the original ones, that were here, be kept? If I can send it to someone´s personal email, maybe that would be easier, but I guess that it goes against some of the wikipedia policy. If so, I don´t have time for it now. Still, I think that the pictures that were here previously, were more than good enough, to be on wikipedia. I don´t see in what the ones you posted are any better, it only show cows, which are even hardly representative of the breed (their features are actually unusual for the breed norm) and the pictures don´t seem to have that much better quality than the previous ones. Facebook is a not a useful source, so great, ignore it. Let´s assume that primitive Maronesa aren´t being produced based on that.

Anyway, Maronesa cattle association, TaurOs programme, True Nature Foundation, are all organizations that cooperate with each other and all use Maronesa, just with different goals.

And more importantly the links to Faia Brava/Rewilding Europe and also TaurOs programme website and wikipedia, respectively, on which we see Maronesa being used as primitive cattle are also unreliable or a not a useful source?

And this article, it´s fake too (?): http://www.quercus.pt/images/PDF/QA/QA56.pdf And yes, I did published that. I´m the responsible for those claims.

Also, you altered the beginning part as well, with this: «Its primary use is for draught power»

Well, maybe you need to re-check the basis for that claim, because nowadays Maronesa are more used for meat production, like it says here on Maronesa cattle association webpage (though it were used as draft cattle maybe for most part of their evolution as domesticated cattle):

«Até à mecanização e motorização da agricultura e transporte, o maronês teve na aptidão trabalho a causa primeira da sua elevada valorização económica. Atualmente, a raça distingue-se na produção de carne, principalmente na carne de vitela, aptidão pela qual passou ser conhecida pelos consumidores mais exigentes. »

http://www.marones.pt/conteudo.php?idm=11

Translated version:

«Until the mechanization and motorization of agriculture and transport, the Marones had in their work the first cause of their high economic value. Nowadays, the breed is distinguished in the production of meat, mainly in veal, the aptitude for which it has been known by the most demanding consumers.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

On the «USE» section, you used the right term:

«The traditional use of the Maronesa WAS for draught power.»

Recent edits

I've reverted some recent edits to this page by 188.37.171.168 because the first of them contained a passage translated directly from the last paragraph of this page. In any case, if that thesis (the "tronco étnico Negro Ortoide") is supported by modern scientific sources, it should be easy enough to cite them here. It seems, however, that scientific sources do not agree on that, as already covered in the article.

Some other content was also removed. I invite 188.37.171.168 to study carefully what is and what is not a reliable source. Facebook and the like are not; sources talking about themselves and what they are doing are (in general) not; independent published books, and articles in learned journals, in national newspapers and in magazines, usually are. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not just ask people that truly work with Maronesa to do a wikipedia their own? Carne Maronesa wiki page was done by Maronesa association. TaurOs Programme, Faia Brava/Rewilding Europe and True Nature Foundation or whatever, should do it their own too. Justlettersandnumbers is just random wikipedia user that got some pedigree among some wikipedia people. On the last edit done by 188.37.171.168, I didn´t saw any reference with a facebook page. So why Justlettersandnumbers is mentioning again something that was corrected already?? It´s obvious that Maronesa is used in aurochs projects, and it´s an undeniable fact that Justlettersandnumbers seems to have a problem with it. Also of course that we cannot make translations letter by letter, like the user 188.37.171.168 did, but since Justlettersandnumbers got information from Maronesa association website page, he could get the same information that 188.37.171.168 posted here (also from Maronesa assocation website), just with different words (the aurochs part from Maronesa page). It´s valuable information. Black Orthoid is just an outdated designation for Iberian cattle, with a primitive configuration that has often dark colored coats. It doesn´t matter that term and it can be deleted that part, but the rest of the information is valuable. But it seems that any connection of Maronesa with primitive cattle makes Justlettersandnumbers annoyed. This italian user evaded also some parts on his translations from Maronesa association page so why not doing the same on this case? Excuses and more excuses. So interested on journalistic sources and articles, but only about some subjects, such as meat, bla, bla...

Repeated removal of referenced content

An IP editor has been persistently removing referenced material from this page, apparently because he/she is under the mistaken impression that sources need to be immediately visible in order to verify content. I've now restored the material that was removed, as the sources are completely clear. Here are some quotations:

... some authors have suggested a particularly direct line of descent from aurochs, but genetic studies deny this

— Mason, page 240

Historical accounts suggest a descent from Barrosã (qv), probably with Mirandesa admixture.

— Mason, page 240

Representative samples of Portuguese cattle from Barrosã, Maronesa, and Mirandesa breeds underwent cytogenetic investigation. Banding showed that 134 (65.0 %) Barrosas, 74 (40.2%) Maronesas and 4 (1.6%) Mirandesas carried rob (1;29). The frequency of this translocation in the three breeds (39 % in Barrosas, 23% in Maronesas, and 1% in Mirandesas) was in a genetic Hardy‐Weinberg equilibrium for the three karyological forms (2n = 60, 2n = 59 and 2n = 58), strongly supporting the hypothesis for an ancient origin of this translocation and the hypothesis of the origin of Maronesas from Barrosã and Mirandesa cross‐breeding.

— Hereditas 119 (3):233-237

Is there any solid reason to dispute any of that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There are no historical evidences, that Maronesa is a crossbreed between Barrosa and Mirandesa and you guys have no sources, unless an outdated cytogenetic study (which is nothing about history but rather a bold guess based on next to irrelevant markers), so stop making unsupported claims. The same for the claim that Maronesa derives directly from the aurochs, based on its appearance, so both are considered as anecdotal. You guys are using a 1993 article and posting as something that denies a 1998 and a 2004, more detailed studies. Please try to use the publications on a chronological order, unless it bear less significance than the older ones.

Actually more recent studies identify unique genes in Barrosa (like Y-DNA), like here: «Y Chromosome Haplotype Analysis in Portuguese Cattle Breeds Using SNPs and STRs», which are absent in Maronesa.

And in fact, genetic studies also don´t either prove or disprove a Maronesa connection with the aurochs, because we know next to nothing about what the aurochs genes were (only one complete sequence (UK) and some haplogroup studies). This is about what we know in 2018, let alone some years ago...

More detailed/specific studies than «Mason encyclopedia» suggest that the European bull aurochs could have contributed to some modern Portuguese breeds, like it suggested here: «Native cattle contained most of the diversity with 7 haplotypes (H2Y1, H3Y1, H5Y1, H7Y2, H8Y2, H10Y2, and H12Y2) found only in these breeds.» «The presence in Portuguese breeds of Yl patrilines, also found in aurochs, could represent more ancient local haplotypes.»

In «Y Chromosome Haplotype Analysis in Portuguese Cattle Breeds Using SNPs and STRs».

And 4 of those Y2 are only found in those breeds, so not only Y1 could have derived from the aurochs.

Plus here Catarina Ginja mentions that Iberian bovines retain a high frequency of aurochs specific alelles (2016).:

http://www.sprega.com.pt/Cong2016/CIRGAn2016_004.pdf

There are even suggestions that the rare haplogroup Q, also present in some Portuguese breeds derives from a certain cow aurochs (mtDNA), here:

On «Genetic origin of cattle and ancient DNA contributions: a review», by Jaime-Lira on page 164 (in Spanish), it is mentioned that Q was found in some aurochs samples, by analyzing the cytochrome b ( (STOCK et alii, 2009): The article is here: https://ganaderiasos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/revisic3b3n-sobre-la-genc3a9tica-del-origen-del-ganado-vacuno-y-las-aportaciones-del-adn-antiguo1.pdf So this aurochs cow possible contribution still need to be evaluated.

On the same article posted right above, the author also presents Y1 as evidence of aurochs contribution. But also mention that some aurochs also had Y2.

Plus, let me re-address that if you want to prove that Maronesa is a crossbreed between Barrosa and Mirandesa, please, post more recent and relevant evidence (though it is very unlikely and only supported by bold old claims based on non pure animals, by an old 1993 cytogenetic study and not proven by more recent studies. This appears unsupported also because Barrosã as an unique Y-DNA haplogroup, like I said, completely unknown in Maronesa breed. Both in fact share one paternal ancestor (also with Brava/Iberian Fighting bull/Lide/Lidia) but don´t share the other paternal ancestors.

So if anything, there are some evidences that aurochs could have contributed to the formation of some modern Portuguese breeds. If Maronesa breed is part of that group of breeds (that are suggested to have aurochs genetic influence), we don´t know yet (I still have to find time to consult more articles). So by now there isn´t evidence to prove or disprove it. Information is still building up, no one has the definitive answer on this subject yet. If anything, recent studies favor a aurochs influence in some Portuguese breeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.20.196 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add this article on the main page, where it is said that Mirandesa, Barrosã and Maronesa are 3 genetically distinct cattle breeds, but it seems that there´s some issue: https://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bitstream/10198/12050/1/Armandina%20dos%20Santos%20Almeida.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.20.196 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Master's thesis

An IP has several times added this source as a reference here (while at the same time removing other sourced material and breaking the existing references). That "study" appears to be a master's thesis ("... para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Tecnologias da Ciência Animal ..."), and so is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If there's any question about this, the reliable sources noticeboard would be the place to discuss it. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)