I think so.
All horses have the chestnuts on the inside of the legs.
no, chestnuts are not of use to horses. People believe way back when, horses had fingers and toes.
Chestnuts and Horse Chestnuts are not the same thing. Chestnuts are edible by humans. Horse Chestnuts (Buckeyes) are not edible and are generally considered poisonous --- even to horses!
This is absolutley true. the boney things are called chestnuts, and all horses and ponies have them!!!
A horses chestnuts are just like a human fingerprint, no two are exactly alike. The chestnuts could be used in much the same way as a human fingerprint for identifying a horse if a 'chestnut database' were set up.
The chestnuts on the insides of horses legs are the remaints of its "toes". When horses were first created, they were slightly bigger than a chicken(i know it sounds wierd!) but its true. Its name was Eohippus. Horses first had toes instead of hooves but over the years, they have become hooves.
Yes, although they are more prominate on the front legs.
The chestnut on a horses leg is the remnant from when they were multi toed animals. The Chestnut has absolutely no bearing on if a horse can swim or not.
Horses don´t have chestnuts, it is a couler. horses do have chestnuts on the inside of their legs, it is the traces of an old toe from prehistoric times when horses were more like dogs. it is said that the chestnut fuses the horses legs together inside the womb and it breaks during birth, im not sure if that is correct though. These grow sometimes, and have to be cut down a little bit. If not, they will interfere with the horse's movement. They are parts of old bone from there prehistoric times they used to be toes
Yes the horses brain is very small and not connected.
Horses are just called "horses" unless they are in a group together. When horses get in a group together, they are then called a "herd".
No, they are a bony protrusion with a gel like texture on the inside of a horses legs. i dont know who you are but i agree with you