No. Horses belong to the species Equus caballus. There are three species of zebra - the plains or Burchell's zebra (E. burchelli), Grevy's zebra (E. grevyi), and the mountain zebra (E. zebra). These are four separate and distinct species, but all belong to the same genus.
A species was once classified as animals that can interbreed and produce fertile young. When horses and zebras interbreed, the young are sterile, so even going by this outdated classification horses and zebras are not the same species. Today we know that closely-related species can interbreed and produce fertile young, but this does not mean they are the same species. For example, wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) can interbreed and produce fertile young - by the old classification, this would make them the same species, which they obviously are not.
Individuals within a species produce offspring like the species,
A zebra mated with a zebra produced a zebra
A horse mated to a horse produces a horse.
A horsed mated to a zebra produces nether a zebra or a horse but a mix.
Hybrids are common in plants and some animal groups, there are a number of barriers that keep closely related species separated from each other, including geographic isolation, distinct breeding periods, mating behaviors, and once species become more isolated from each other genetic barriers.
A number of hybrids are more vigorous than the two species that produced them, this has been true for a number of invasive species. Hybridization has also increased speciation in a number of taxa.
So the idea that a species only can reproduce with another of its own species is not true, but there are limits to mixing imposed by the pairing of chromosomes.
They are pretty close friend, could I live with the differance?
Horses and zebras are close relatives and are classified in the same genus. Close relative means they shared a common ancestor fairly recently and at the same time they are still very similar morphologically. Sharing a common ancestor means they used to be the same species in the past, and they have evolved separately since then. Their ability to produce offspring is the result of that close relationship.
The reason they are now classified as different species is because they have evolved to live different ways by living and adapting to different environments in different parts of the world. The reason they won't interbreed despite the fact that they can is because hybrids are almost certainly genetically inferior to purebred zebras and horses due to their genetic differences. One reason for that is often a difference in chromosome number. If two species have different chromosome numbers then the hybrids are often infertile. Even if the chromosome numbers are the same, there is also the chance that each species has evolved unique genes that are not compatible with the genes of another species, so the hybrid may be inferior in other ways.
Because the hybrids are genetically inferior, their parents will suffer in terms of evolution because their young are less likely to survive and reproduce, meaning there is good chance their genes may be lost forever. To guard against the usually undesirable consequences of interbreeding with animals that may have different numbers of chromosomes or incompatible genes, most species have evolved ways to positively identify members of their own species when they are looking for mates, and they have also evolved to be very picky about whom they will mate with. As a result, even if a zebra were to meet a horse in the wild, neither will recognize each other as suitable mates. Since they don't they are not going to mate in the wild. If they don't mate when given the opportunity then they are considered different species, even if they can produce hybrids in captivity.
Same genus, different species. Different species of the same genus often can interbreed in artificial conditions. In some plant and animal groups, interbreeding also takes place in the wild, but that is more unusual.
You and freond have been taught by non-taxonomists. It was the geneticists, not the taxonomists, who came up with the reproductive isolation idiocy. Real taxonomists know that such a definition is useless for the vast majority of organisms, the ones that are extinct (more than 90%) and the ones that reproduce asexually. In addition, there are fishes that reproduce quite freely across generic lines. Stop using the genetic (so-called "biological") species concept.
Taxonomically, they are different species. However, in reality it's a bit difficult to define exactly what constitutes a species. Interbreeding can occur, even if biologists have designated two types of animals with a different species name.
I suppose "species" might better be thought of as an animal that breeds with others of its species consistently so that the species itself if fairly well-defined, and they do not breed with other "species." That's not to say that it can't happen successfully.
Nature is complex, and species identification is part art, part science. Simply saying, "this is a species" doesn't mean that nature will enforce hard and fast rules regarding it.
They are different species but are in similar genomes. While they can mate and have offspring, the offspring will not live as long as the parents and have a higher chance of having birth defects.
If not, how can they reproduce and not be the same species?
