standardizationbygladysbrownedwards

STANDARDIZATION by Gladys Brown Edwards
Do you know that all Arabians should have a white face (bald? Or just a blaze?) and four white legs (to knee and
hock, or to body?)??? Well, that’s the way the Standard reads. Look at it: “Dark skin; solid color, except for white legs
and face (white spots on body permissible but undesirable in breeding classes); fine coat.”

I admit I haven’t checked all types of horses for this, but so far (I.e. since I began to think about it) I have yet to see a
horse of the usual colors (chestnut, bay, brown, black, roan or grey) that was not black of skin, except under white
markings. Of course the “pumpkin color” skin of certain Palominos, the freckled skin of Appaloosas and the Pink (flesh)
colored skin of the Albinos and creams are not in this category of standard colors. There are possibly two reasons why
this black-skin idea has become such a fetish with Arabian breeders-one is because the skin of a “white” Arabian is black,
simply because these so-called whites are mature greys; secondly, because the hair of most Arabian horses is summer is
so fine that the black skin shows through around the eyes and muzzle, as it does also on some of the other highbred
breeds. I do know that all of us for years, if not decades or centuries, have been emphasizing the fact that “white”
Arabians are distinct from Albinos (the breed, so-called, is capitalized, but any pink-skinned white horse is an “albino”
even though not scientifically in that category), and it is easy to see how eventually this phase of the deal was forgotten
and the idea transferred to all colors-that is, that the “skin is always black.” I do know of some registered Arabians that
did not have black skin, one was a desert bred grey whose skin was as freckled as any Appaloosa’s, and another was a
chestnut whose skin was a near-black liver color. Many chestnut foals have liver-colored skin when first born, but this
quickly turns black. As usual, all of this skin color is qualified by the “except under white markings.” I’ve already
mentioned this particular paragraph in the Standard, but is still needs revising. Of course that little parenthetical
remark about “white spots on the body permissible but very undesirable in breeding classes” has long been the
subject of heated controversy and hopefully it will be deleted en toto in the very, very near future.

If anyone has read history thoroughly, with emphasis on that of the light horse in the Near East, he will know that white
spots apparently originated with the horses of the first-depicted (in murals, etc.) Arabian type. The alleged
“spotted horses” of Pech-Merl cave paintings are merely the product of a spot happy artist who put spots all around the
horses and elsewhere on the walls as well. As previously pointed out on many occasions, naturalists affirm that white
spotting of random type (not zebra, skunk or similar markings) is one of the first results of breeding and selection by
man, so it is not surprising that spots should first be seen in the oldest breed of all, the Arabian. Or rather, on his
dominant ancestors, regardless of the northern mixtures acquired before the Arabs ever got him (which was around 1500
years after the “Arabian” prototype was depicted in Egyptian and similar art.) Spotting apparently did not occur on the
northern types of horses of horses until after they had been crossed with the southern horse, probably after the Scythians,
returning to the Steppes from a quarter-century stay in the regions from Egypt to (and including) Mesopotamia, took back
the “hot-blooded” type with them. Of course, all types had been mixed before but art does not seem to show it until after
this period.
So what is the point of all this verbal wandering? Only that spots are as old as the original ancestors of the Arabian
breed. They are part of the breed, whether you like it or not. Return now to the wording of the the Standard: “white
spots on the body…etc.” To me, that sounds as if the horse might be spotted all over-like a leopard-spotted Appaloosa or
else a different type, like an overo pinto, or even the more usual pinto. No matter what, “spots” sound like a whole flock
of the things, when actually the customary Arabian spot is one or two splashes of white under the body, or one
rather low on the side. That is the customary “spot,” often indiscernible unless you get down on all fours and look
up in the spot-pursuit, but there are also some near-pintos and “wild white.” Certainly from the esthetic point of
view, a body spot you can hardly find, or which is small and unobtrusive, is less objectionable than a too broad or very
ragged blaze. After all, the bald face is always hanging over the stall door, while the belly spot isn’t (or shouldn’t be for
gosh sakes.)

All of the foregoing subject matter was under paragraph (b) of the Standard. A rather ambiguous sentence is that of ©.
This reads “Stallions especially should have an abundance of natural vitality, animation, suppleness and balance.” You
can’t argue too much with the first two qualifications, except that some stallions seem to be encouraged to show a little
bit more than the “natural” vitality, or else just plain bad manners in pursuit of this, but you can’t help but wonder why
mares should be excluded from having “suppleness and balance.” I know that some of them stand stiff as a harness
manikin (horsikin?) near-life-less, but even if they shouldn’t be “supple” (why not?), surely they should be in good
balance. I don’t just mean they wouldn’t fall over if the wind hit them, I mean put together in proper relationship…that
sort of “balance.” Oh, the joys of semantics. Now I see how people can read all the wrong things into what I write-but I
don’t have a solemn committee to mull it over, the way the Rules Committee supposedly does regarding the Standard.

Now to ramble back to the main portion of the Standard, paragraph (a). There is probably too much verbiage spent on
the head, for certainly anyone who has ever seen a horse knows that this animal’s nostrils “extend when in action,” so this
section is unnecessary. I do admit some confusion over why dark eyes should be set well apart but glass eyes should
not…but of course the wording is a bit confusing, if you are nit-picking (as I am at the moment). It reads:…”large, round,
expressive dark eyes set well apart (glass eyes shall be penalized in breeding classes…”. I don’t know whether it is
actually legal to discriminate against glass eyes at all, since this is not a defect (unsoundness), but is you’ll pardon
the pun, glassy eyes are an eyesore. But to some people an Arabian with no white markings is an eyesore, or to
another a horse with flashy markings is ditto, and to the more normal person, one with obvious conformation defects is
an eyesore. So it all depends on what makes your eyes sore, other than smog. You can argue that this can come under
“type’ and accordingly be penalized, but it is not part of “conformation.”

How short is “short”? Some of the most clean-cut and well-chiseled breedy heads, such as been on some Egyptian
imports, have not been short at all-in fact the eyes are rather high-set, but the type of head is distinctly Arabian
nevertheless. The very short, thick and meaty head is more characteristic of certain Mongolian ponies than Arabians, but
people have emoted over this sort of “classic” simply because it is undoubtedly short. There is nothing in the Standard in
reference to the dry, chiseled “deserty” kind of heard that artists have indoctrinated us into wanting for the breed, and
which, when seen, is appreciated as being truly Arabian, when combined with other “type” factors. Since the Standard
does not condemn the meaty or coarse head, presumably no judge needs to penalized an animal having this sort of
blight, yet the Standard specifically condemns a white spot!

The phrase “well overlaid with muscle” in reference to the shoulder was probably inserted to discourage a too-high wither
and a very flat shoulder, but on the other hand it encourages the production of mutton-withered horses with a heavy
forehand. The shoulder being specified as “long sloping” probably is intended to indicate that the chest should be deep,
since ordinarily length of shoulder indicates depth of chest as well. But you would think that a good girth would be
mentioned anyhow. Nor is a short coupling mentioned, the “short back” probably intended to cover that area too.
Nevertheless the Arabian is renowned as a breed that is “easy keeping” and a short coupling is one of the reasons. This is
produced not only by a short loin, but also by the “well-ribbed-up” inclination of the back ribs, which do not merely point
down, but rather backward, allowing for much more efficient breathing capacity.

The croup in the Standard is OK, being defined as “comparatively horizontal” but recently some reference to this has been
made in the AHW, indicating that goose rump or darned near that, is more efficient. You can argue this up one wall and
down the other and still get nowhere. Included herewith are pictures of three Thoroughbreds which happen to have level
croups. One is “the horse of the century” HYPERION, who had an even more level croup (than shown here) when in
training…the fat of retirement life having given him a slightly fat-padded curve. Nevertheless his croup is what is termed
“level” and moreover is beautifully, gorgeously long. Another picture shows SCEPTRE, one of the greatest race mares of
the early 1900s in England. This is not a good photo, but does show her very level croup (also her very, very plain head).
Once of the many great runners she beat was *ROCK SAND, Derby winner and sire of MAN O’WAR’s dam. A third
picture is that of BEND OR, known as “the Apollo of the British turf,” and he too is beautifully conformed, like
HYPERION, and was a Derby winner. Note also his roan flecking ,his coat being heavily shot through with these marks,
but he is also said to have had dark spots in his chestnut coat (this is seen in a number of chestnuts, even some bays) and
they are even now called “Bend Or spots.” The pictures were just some I located in a hurry (forgot the deadline this
month) and many others could be found. The picture of KHALED is the Arabian of that name, not the Thoroughbred,
and shows what is called a “level” croup by ordinary standards, even though it is not as horizontal as some.

Just taking the foregoing Thoroughbreds alone as an example proves that the slant of the croup has nothing to do with
the efficiency of the horse, for there are many others (NATIVE DIVER was one) which were very level of topline and were
among the best, if not the best, runners of their time. Among Quarter Horses, especially those predominantly of
Thoroughbred blood, can also be found some comparatively level croups. However one thing is noticeable with Quarter
Horses, when they have a slanted croup (or even when flat) the croup is very long, and the key is length. Jumpers usually
have more slope than is considered ideal for an Arabian, but again there is that length.

One thing that should be pointed out about the Arabian croup is that it often looks more level than it is, when the horse
is moving with is tail carried in the usual gay Arabian “high style.” In case you never really looked at a horse skeleton, the
sacrum is that portion of the spine that that is within the croup-the lumbar vertebrae ending ahead of the croup and the
caudal (tail) vertebra finishing the spinal column. The first caudal vertebrae are within the croup, and are somewhat
flexible, lifting the after topline of the croup perceptible when the tail is lifted. This is more true of some horses than
others, and of Arabians more than the dead-tailed breeds. So, even if many desert breds did not have dead level croups,
they nevertheless gave the overall impression that the breed did have a very level croup. Accordingly that is the way
travelers reported it, and that the way the various breed standards (I.e. Arabian standards in various countries) got
written up. Moreover photographs of the average Near Eastern horse, scrubby as the animals may be, also shows the
predominance of level croups and high tail carriage, no matter how plain headed or ewe-necked and miserable the horses
are. Therefore people may breed apple-rumped or goose-rumped Arabians if they want to, but that doesn’t alter the fact
that these animals are off-type, whether from consideration of the majority of Near Eastern horses or from the somewhat
artificial point of view of the Standard. By the way, some of those starved, cat-hammed and over worked ordinarily
horses of the Near East (in contrast to the Bedouin animals which may however have had the same appearance) managed
to carry their tails high, well above the croup, whether their croup was dead-level or not, which is more than can be said
of the worst goose-rumped Arabians here, whose tails look as if they were stuck low down the side of the apple (or tennis
ball, maybe) with about as much elegance.

There are always hot arguments over which should be first-type or conformation. If only there were some way to make
them equal-for after all, if the horse is not typey, he is not Arabian in appearance, but if his conformation is poor, he is
not a good horse. In fact in the latter case he can be worthless as a using animal, and usefulness at some sort of work is
the ultimate aim of any breed of horse. Even if used only in upgrading other types, an Arabian would be worse than
worthless if he at the same time introduced a thousand and one blights in the way of defects. Well maybe not that many,
but a bad stallion can be sure ruin a herd quickly.

When you think about it, the majority of light horse standards of perfection are more or less the same as to basic
conformation with the exception of specialized types such as the Tennessee Walking Horse and the bulldog version of the
Quarter Horse. So actually, does so much space have to be given to those basic “beauties” of riding horse conformation
that every judge or breeder should know by heart?

Just for clarification, Goubaux and Barrier in the Exterior of the Horse define “beauties” thus: “A more precise sense
should be attached to the word beautiful, and we should assert that it indicates the perfect adaptation of the organ to it’s
function, or of the subject to the service for which he is destined. IT is not that which pleases the eye, as is often
understood by persons ignorant of these kinds of study, but that which is qualified as fit by the connoisseur, the
competent man. Beauty is therefore synonymous with fitness. It is seen, then, that a beautiful region is a good region, a
beautiful horse is a good horse, the beauty of the whole results, as Bourgelat says, from the beauty and reciprocal fitness
of all the parts. One of these may be beautiful without the whole possessing that quality.

“There is still another distinction to be established among Beauties” some are absolute, others are relative. Absolute
beauties are always sought for whatever may be the service-the saddle, or light or heavy transaction. A spacious chest,
large articulations, dense and voluminous muscles, regular equilibrium, and powerful attachments are absolute beauties
to be extracted from all horses, for these characteristics indicate strength and energy necessary for all services. Relative
beauties, on the contrary, denote a specialization for such and such a service. Thus, we prefer largeness of chest, massive
shoulders, short, vigorous members, a body close to the ground, wide loins, etc, in the slow and heavy motors which
must overcome resistance by the mass and power of their effort; whilst we seek a more elevated and narrower body, a
longer neck, a light head, long bones, -in word, a smaller mass and more subtle and extended movements-for the rapid
motor. These are beauties relative to these two kinds of utilization, which would become prejudicial if instead they were
applied to the other.”

The authors’ note that absolute defects are causes for rejection of a horse, as these would be” injurious to every kind of
utilization,” whether flat ribs, bad feet, under or over angulations of limbs which would “diminish the extend of the
movements,” or an “unstable equilibrium” and so on. Relative defects are those which are defects only when they “injure
the employment of a horse for a determined service” and they especially pointed out that although a steep croup and a
wide chest would be very suitable for a draft horse, they “are not suitable for rapid gaits.”

Accordingly the ideal horse should be “beautiful,” as to the “absolute beauties,” and also well endowed with the “relative
beauties” which equip him for the job he is to do in the horse world. The Arabian is of course a light horse so has the
same basic “beauty” requirement of a Thoroughbred and similar wellbred horses. Then there is one more step, which
Goubaux and Barrier might term the “ultra absolute beauties” (or they might not!) which distinguished one breed from
another. In other words, type. With the Arab it is the distinctive head; the light and arched neck; the comparatively level
croup; the high carried tail; extreme quality (fineness of coat, clean cut breedy head, clean heels and fine haired mane and
tail). Add to this the glow of restrained fire (in stallions) and typical presence for which the breed is famous, and there
you have the main features summed up, as to “Arabian type.” Why bury these essentials of type in among words used for
practically any other light breed? Hunters, Saddlebreds, Hackneys and a couple of other breeds have no description at all-
in the Rule Book, yet judges certainly know what to look for when that class specifications call for conformation judging.
And their “type” is apparently well known too, without its being included in the Rule Book.

I am sure that prospective Arabian judges and others who have to dig through the surplus verbiage of the Standard,
would be pleased to have the essence of Arabian type pulled out of the “conformation” grouping, for after all, judges are
assumed to know the basic rules of conformation before they even think of acquiring a card, so there’s no use in inflicting
them with the same stuff that’s in all other standards.

Referring back to glass eyes, the mere inclusion of this “relative defect” in the Standard automatically give the novice the
impression that many Arabian horses have glass eyes. Ditto the discussion on “spots,” as already noted, since the word is
in the plural so one does not think a minor spot, but a hole pea picking gaggle of them.

Here's an intersting article from the ARABIAN HORSE WORLD October 1970 by Gladys Brown Edwards!
It's shown here for reference purposes only.