This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So is it extinct or is it not? The first paragraph implies yes but the last paragraph implies no. Sizeofint (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this question, Sizeofint. I think the answer is both: the original breed became extinct in about 1970; a superficially similar breed has been created with other genetic history, and has been recognised by the RBST. As long as our article keeps that distinction clear I think we'll be OK. Not really sure how to handle it in the navbox, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I have just seen this. I have made some amendments based on a newspaper article that contradicts the above and says small numbers were maintained and it is from these the current breed descends. It is not the strongest source and would be happy if you want to revert it. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Cavalryman, that source is just a verbatim copy of the RBST press-release dated 3 October 2018 already in the page; I suggest that the tale told there may have been influenced by the breed association, which obviously has an interest in presenting this as a recovery rather than a re-creation. I don't imagine we'll ever know the truth of the matter, but the solid academic sources in the page (Mason, Felius, Alderson) are unanimous that the breed became extinct. Janet Vorwald Dohner (2001) says (page 219): "The RBST does not believe that any purebred animals survived to the present". Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I agree, I was sloppy in not properly reviewing the existing sources. I think we revert my changes and describe the breed as extinct, then have a separate section that covers the recreated breed and its amended name. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That's very generous of you, Cavalryman, thank you! I was just trying to point out the similarity of two sources, I assure you that the word "sloppy" never crossed my mind. I'll try to add some further detail on the post-extinction herds and their lack of genetic cohesion in the days to come; it's probably worth noting that the extended coverage of this in Mason (sixth edition) was written by Lawrence Alderson ("GLHA"), who was for years the director or whatever of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust (I don't know if he still is). Obviously there's been a change of heart there, but that shouldn't mean that history can be rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it's not particularly credible that the breed somehow survived unknown to anyone but a handful of secretive breeders who covertly traded bulls between herds, on the other had it is possible (even likely) that some genetics from the original cattle survived in crossbred herds and Masons seems to hint at that. I know from personal observations (OR alert) that Shorthorns crossed with Angus produce blue progeny, and blue progeny are frequently seen after multiple generations of Angus bulls covering the crossbred cows. Cavalryman (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]