I have a picture repainted zebra? :)

Hi!

I painted a lot of zebras, and maybe you have painted zebra?
Or did the sculpt zebra?
I'm looking at the pictures as you have

Greetings!!!

I did a quagga using a Schleich model:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

really nice repaint! nice Quagga! (not that I've ever seen one, or ever will. sad.)

Great painted!!!!

Congratulasions!!!!!

SyLoBe wrote:

I did a quagga using a Schleich model:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He is beautiful, thanks for the photo!

Thank you my friends

the quagga ?
is that some prehistoric horse our so?
did not have the time to look in the wide web,,haha

martien

btw

great model,,i like it

STORMnl wrote:

the quagga ?
is that some prehistoric horse our so?
did not have the time to look in the wide web,,haha

martien

btw

great model,,i like it

Martien, quaga is only a recently extinct subspecies of common zebra. So that's not a prehistoric creature once its extinction happned in historical times.
Anyway it is very hard to determine what is historic and what is prehistoric and one of the good examples are your beloved mammoths. Prehistoric? Why? Humanity registered their existence but I don't want to discuss this concept only suggest you to collect extinct mammals, historical time in the history of the life in this planet. You'll enjoy it!

yeb

i know what you mean Roger

but i stay at my Prehistoric mammals,,
left the Historic mammals

like,,

MOA,,DODO,,Tasmanian tiger,and that quaga

for other collectors,

but deep down inside my brain a voice is saying

collect them to HAHA

Martien

Roger,
Common (or Grant's zebra) live in East Africa, exactly in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ruanda, Ethiopia and parts of southern Somalia, and quaggas lived only in South Africa, or Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, and are most closely related subspecies of the plain's zebra, but not common, but Burchell's and Chapmann's. Just as Quagga, Burchell's an Chapmann's zebra live only in South Africa, I'll post pictures:
On the first picture is the common zebra (Grant's),
The second is Chapmann's zebra,
The third is the Quagga-you see that the stripes on the rump and hind legs, Burchell's zebra is not as pronounced as in Grant's zebra?
Quagga is why he was most closely related subspecies of the southern plain's zebra :)

1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
2. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
3. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Greetings!
Daniel.

See here, at the end of the page, where it says "Discussion": [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks a lot for the explanation but I'm not getting the idea. These classifications are always under discussion and revision but I can't see anything conclusive.
Common zebra and plains zebra are only 2 different names for the same species.
So Burchell's zebra, Chapman's zebra, Crawshay's zebra, Grant's zebra, Quagga and Maneless zebra are all subspecies of common zebra as I told.
As well as Lusitanos, PREs, clydesdales are different breeds of horses but all of them are horses. There are in fact other zebra species but it looks that these I listed before are still considered subspecies of the same species in our days. Are you making some confusion between subspecies and species or it is me who is not understanding?

There is also hand painted Tijuana zebra

Roger,
plain's zebra subspecies are a few, they are:
Grant's zebra (Boehmi)
Chapmann's zebra,
Burchell's zebra,
Crawshay's zebra,
Maneless zebra (Selou's),
Subspecies differ from each other, and are often classified as separate subspecies, or species of zebras that are less closely related to Quagga.
Nevertheless, the species closest kin Quagga is a Burchell's zebra and the other, the Crawshay's, Grant's and others are less closely related to Quagga, unless you know;-)

Yours!

Daniel, subspecies and species are 2 different concepts. What I told was only that Quaggas were subspecies of common zebra and haven't specified with which subspecies they were more closely related.
A common or plains zebra is classified as Equus quagga, this binomial name means only the species. Some species are separated in subspecies as it happens with common zebras. As long as a quagga is classified as Equus quagga quagga it is considered a subspecies of common zebra. Which subspecies is closer related? That's another question that I haven't told here.
But don't worry with these concepts, you are very young and surely it will change a lot during all of your life. In quagga discussion they are already trying to put the animal as a full species but sometimes it is more political than scientific although they arg using some genetic evidences.

Roger,
I know that the species and subspecies are very different, but I mean that Quagga lived only in South Africa, where today Chapmann's and Burchell's zebra, besides, are just as fewer stripes on the rump and back of the body such as Quagga, so surely Quagga is most closely related species of the southern plain's zebra, and not those of central Africa.

OK Daniel! :)
I enjoy talking about zebras with you, it is always an interesting and striped conversation!

....
Greetings!

Yes Roger, I'm a freak of zebras! also likes to talk about the zebras with you and other people, because I know that each of us is right and a little lie, ;P
Zebras are amazing! All! - Grevy's, Mountain, Common, and all are beautiful and smart ;-)
I love them from an early age, P I hope you liked it:D
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

;DD

Well, i am the other zebra-freak and expert on the forum here, i just love striped animals, and specially zebra's, don't ask me why...
Besides that, i love digging in the roots of the evolution of some species.

You forgot the sub-sub species of the Burchell zebra, the Damara zebra, which is even closer to the quagga, and from which they try to re-breed the quagga genes.
But Daniel is correct to say, that the Burchell zebra is one of the closest relatives of the quagga.
But actually, the quagga was the name giver of the subgenus(first species name=quagga), so all of the other species are sub-species of the quagga generally speaking.
But that is because it was the first plain- or common zebra to be described scientificly, and says nothing about their evolution.
Anyway, all of the plain-/common zebra's are the same species, with the different sub-species, and even some sub-sub species, if you can say so.
When you look at the several different types, markings and stripings of the plain zebra's, i could imagine, that the quagga was one of the first to develope, as it looks much like the early horses we see in fossiles(but those colours are fantasized to...).
From there they went out further north into Africa(as many species did like we humans), and developed different patterns.
Obviously, the sub-species that stayed close, do look more like the quagga.
The Grevy zebra is even more closely related to donkeys then to horses and zebra's, so totally different.
When i look at the 2 species of mountain zebra's, the Cape- and Hartmann, they look very much like the plain zebra, only smaller, dewflap, and smaller stripes.
They could have developed out of a species or subspecies of plain zebra's.
That could have been easily the Selous zebra, another subspecies that you did forget, it lives in eastern South Africa(almost extinct) and has those typical smaller and narrower stripes of the mountain zebra's to...
It is confusing, because some of the sub-species of the plain zebra's have more than one name, but a little bit of googling clears you up.
Zebra's rule!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You're right

Zebras are the best!,
Sent a photo of a model large zebra, also have two of these models, one repainted, how would you want I can send you some pictures of my repainted the model

Yours!

Nice that we agree on that Daniel!

This zebra did cost me only 5 euro's in a shop that has never the same products through the year, it is like a little warehouse full of cheap stuff, and ofter very good and nice stuff to.
I do have a big white rhino from the same brand to.
I did like this cheap zebra, because it was actually very good for one that price.
The sculpt is very ok, and the way it is painted resambles a Grants zebra well.
I don't like to re-paint my models, as i like them to be original and stay that way, unless i have some spares, but then i need one of the forum-members to do so for me, as i never did that before, i actually never tried.
I don't want to mess up a model when i don't have the right material or paint for that, and i don't like half work...
It would be good to show us some pics of your zebra's anyway Daniel, but you have to learn to put them here on the forum, that isn't to hard...

Ok, Willy,
as I have time to do photos of this model painted by me, so we'll see;-) But sometimes it looks nicer painted model, then it looks more like a real animal, in this case the model of a large zebra we are talking about a poorly painted, besides, not zebras have an orange mane and no legs so it is bad and belts. But I think that most (at least the orginal figures such as Collecta, Schleich and Papo) to be in the original preparation is not repainted. But it's my opinion

I agree on the poor colouration Daniel, but for a cheap model like this, it was not to bad, and the mould was not bad either.
I saw much worser models from respected companies, for which you have to pay at least the same price, whennot more.
It is free to re-paint it of course.
But i know from experience, that original models with original paint have more value, but that is only one aspect of collecting.
When i was even much younger then you(about 6 or 7 years old), i did have a sharp and sceptic eye for realness of a model to, and i judged my animal collection by that to.
My first more expensive model was the Britains walking adult elephant, in the right scale to my other animals finally(i still have it), and it did cost my father 5 complete gulders and 10 ct in the 1970's, which was the price of a complete Hong Kong set of copies to.
Already a few years later, the same model did cost about 35 gulders!

It's actually, the price has changed substantially ...but I think it is because the company just has long Britains figures do not, so the prices are reasonable as can be. The same goes for dozens of years as the company Bullyland or Papo figurines and stop doing as zebra model now costs 5 euros in a few decades it will cost 50 euros and these are the facts....