my pleasure. Its slippery thwang to catch. It helped me to understand the biology and kinesiology (the mechanics of motion with respect to anatomy) of the horse first
At this point, I would like to emphasise (mho) that strains and body types are not categorically the same ie they are not interchangeable. For me, strains are a form of shorthand and as such should be used as a tool as like any other form of pedigree reference. “Strains” are not blood, they are names. The euphemism of strains has highlighted that there are differences within the Breed. These differences are truly biological ie they are skeletal etc. The strength and weaknesses (without being faulty) of the genes are what allows the varied differences. As Kimberly examples, this is where the somewhat misfortune lies when associating strain names (a naming protocol) with gene-related attributes ~ there’s no guarantee of a match ie they are not interchangeable.
Confounded by the use of strain names and compounded by the physical differences, the early writers suggested that there were many races
of the Arabian as a Breed! The asil and/or the al khamsa notation seemed to be the consolidating terminology for these authors. As Mutlak was apparently to express often to Lady Blunt – they are all the same, they are all Koheilan (or words to that effect). This was after Lady Blunt had written a book or two on the Breed.
I do believe that the terms masculine type and feminine type (regardless of gender) would be more representative when referring to differences within the breed. Using strain names leads to confusion as the names don’t allow for total portrayal of type consistency. Genetics and the resulting phenotype (the unique visible form of each individual’s genotype) are the factors which dictate what the variances will be/are. The consistency (or not) of type will be the result of the strengths / weaknesses of the genes per individual mating, not by the strain names.
Phenotype may represent one (or a limited) number of types within the individual’s genetics. Breed this individual to a genetically stronger partner of a different type and differences could appear in the resulting foal(s). How the foals are bred on ie which choices are made as their partners (masculine or feminine in type) may solidify some traits (good and/or bad). The definition of good and bad is truly a personal preference (with the exception of an absolute debilitating conformational fault) – OR the breeder’s observance of the pressure to conform
to nominated standards other than those of the original breeders, the nomadic Bedouin.
Therefore, in its singular form classic Arabian type
is a furphy and type (singular) should be understood to relate to many types. To breed asil (including strain naming) is supposedly breeding to original nomadic Bedouin breeding practices not purely modern standards, which would include the allowance of and for variety.
Using Louis L Mann’s words: The past is always present in the future
sums up breeding quite well.
For the above reasons, I’m hesitant to confirm your assumptions. However, in an effort to help understand (perhaps) what you have perceived so far...So the Mu'niqi is associated with the body style of a TB and not "classic Arabian type".
> Per Raswan’s written thoughts – yes.And that's why folks would prefer one or the other - the Arab racing fan a Mu'niqi and those that treasure that unique Arabian look the non-Mu'niqi blood.
> Yes (relating to these parameters only in context with the above)
Its worth remembering that the initial foray (or two) into the Arabian Peninsula by the Blunts was to find the source of the TB in order to obtain individuals to improve on TB in the UK. However, to their dismay, their importations, while improving their stock did not enhance their speed capabilities. Their venture was then converted to obtaining individuals as Arabians and breeding them on in their own right.