I understood this book did not contain what I expected (I wanted for pop-ethology) but the evolutionary history of the horse was relayed intelligently and playfully. I enjoyed the prose and even where I saw the author coming to conclusions that I did not feel the presented evidence warranted, I still wanted to read her view.
Then came the final chapter about rewilding Przhevalsky's horses in Mongolia.
Among the possible explanations for extinction of original Mongolian Przhevalsky's horses was the fact that "Soviets insisted that the Mongolian people settle down and live permanently in collectives"
That's pretty weird but maybe they are talking about Mongolian People's Party bureaucrats, thought I?
But no
"in the midst of Mikhail Gorbachev’s openness policy, Soviet officials contacted the couple and suggested several possible locations in Siberia, Ukraine, East Kazakhstan, and Mongolia"
Soviet bureaucrats specifically under Gorbachev's leadership offering land in Mongolia?
And then a miracle happens
"Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Mongolia became an independent nation."
What?
And this is not a random aside. That is specifically linked to Soviets oppressing Mongolian horse culture and Mongolians regaining their ancestral ways following the dissolution of SU.
It is not an easy mistake to make. If that found its way into the published book how can I trust pretty much anything else that I read there.
I feel angry and cheated. I wish I could erase that book from my brain entirely so I would not have to second guess anything that I "learned" from it.