Talk:Eastern cottontail

Untitled

This is officially the first wikipedia article started in 2005. Dbiv 01:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Subspp

UtherSRG removed the list of subspecies I place on here claiming that the list was "too old" (1980), however I ask him to find a newer, complete list.
My source was Chapman et al. This source was cited:

by Arita, Robinson and Redford in 1990.
by Sullivan in 1995.
by Swihart in 2003.
The University of Michigan's Animal Diversity Web cites Chapman et al. (here).

...And others. Chapman is one of the experts in the field of rabbits, hares and pikas, with over 25 journal publications and several books on the subject.

The Smithsonian's current information page on Sylvilagus floridanus found here cites Allen 1890. so 1980 isn't nearly archaic when concerning recognized subspecies, especially on Wikipedia and with no further comprehensive sources available. Since we're not talking about gene-sequencing here this source seems more than satisfactory--considering most other sources are from the 1940-1970. Instead of destroying that which UtherSRG doesn't immediately agree with, I ask anyone to instead find a more "modern", comprehensive list of subspecies. IF proven wrong by new data, then by all means remove the list and citation. I've searched JSTOR, EBSCO, ProQuest, Blackwell, BioLine, ScienceDirect and Project MUSE (for the hell of it) and found no newer data.

Allen, J.A., 1890. Descriptions of a new species and a new subspecies of the genus Lepus. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 3:159-160.
Arita, H. T., J. G. Robinson, K. H. Redford. 1990. Rarity in neotropical forest mammals and its ecological correlates. Conservation Biology, 4:2, 181-192. Chapman, Joseph A.; Hockman, J. Gregory; Ojeda C., Magaly M. 1980. Sylvilagus floridanus. Mammalian Species. 136: 1-8.
Sullivan, Janet. 1995. Sylvilagus floridanus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Swihart et al. 2003. Patch occupancy of North American mammals: is patchiness in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Biogeography 30:8, 1259–1279.

I'd prefer it if my time were better spent creating accurate, referenced articles instead of defending my obviously valid actions as if they were dissertations every time I hit "Save page."

TeamZissou 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADW is a hit and miss website. Some articles are well updated, some are not. Much like Wikipedia. I've updated the subspecies list according to MSW3. All *I* ask is that anyone who wants to work on mammal articles has access to MSW3 or something more up-to-date. For some orders, there is nothing more modern. MSW3 is *the* singularly most authoritative source for mammalian taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for why to use one source as the basis - some subspecies have been elevated to species. I just edited a shrew article to remove a subspecies you listed because it is now a full species. Using a source that is 27 years old is going to do that. No amount of web searching is going to find the sources from 1980 to present to update the older information. The best bet is to start with modern sources and go forward. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case of Sorex itself, you should have seen that some of the subspecies you were listing were already listed there as full species. I now I have to either remove it all, or edit it so that all of the current Sorex subspecies are listed. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but now the subspecies list for Sylvilagus floridanus looks beautiful, where before there was none... TeamZissou 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better good than none. Better none than wrong. If you're going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all. That's why I'd rather remove a wrong list quickly and then fix it sometime later, like when I get home from work.... - UtherSRG (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it wasn't the official list--it was just a reasonable facsimile thereof. Totally acceptable. TeamZissou 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

factuality?

Some of this article is, well, flatly not true, at least in the real world. "Mostly in Ohio, Missouri..."? I live in suburban NY, right by NYC, witha wide lawn bordered by woods next to a fair sized pond, and we are overrun with them. "Active at night....dusk..."? True, but they are also routinely grazing on the flourishing spring and early summer clover all over the lawn at 3 o'clock in the afternoon at this time of year(June), lovely broad daylight, competing with the goslings and ducklings and right up to the roadway. "Terrirtorial.."? Define, please. If you mean, stays in one area, OK. If you mean very aggressive in defending an area, I don't see the cottontails, squirrels, chipmunks, ducks, geese, mice, etc., not all running around each other fairly happily.

ok man.TeamZissou 12:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with him on this. Especially about the times, I live in Suburban Toronto (Markham, Ontario to be exact) and well I see these criters an alful lot, even in the afternoons, so their not only nocturnal (although admittingly they sit in the shade for most of the time eating grass). CuffX 9:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "mostly" in regards to Ohio and Missouri is misleading--this species is found in high numbers throughout most of its range. The wording should be changed, perhaps to reflect the population of a subspecies found there. As to the eastern cottontail's hours of activity--yes, some bunnies are seen during the day. Do you know why? Because at 3:00pm on a suburban lawn a rabbit doesn't have to worry about coyotes, foxes, hawks, eagles and all the other predators that are found in more 'wild' areas. In fact, since many people let their cats out at dusk, rabbits in urban and suburban areas may be forced to seek food and mates, etc., during earlier hours. Cottontails are territorial, especially with their own kind. Each rabbit marks out a small patch of grazing territory and patrols it daily. If you've watched rabbits chasing each other around, it isn't because they're in luvy bunni love--it's competition for space. The other animals mentioned aren't something a rabbit can or would combat. Ducks and geese are actually quite aggressive when provoked--the Canada goose has been known break a dog's leg with its wingbeat. Park ducks chase cats (and some dogs) all the time. Squirrels and chipmunks don't compete for the same primary food sources (or mates, obviously). (Isn't it funny how suburbanites invoke the term "real world.") I hate to violate your Disney-induced fantasies, but what the hell do we know?--thousands of biologists and wildlife professionals have only witnessed the same traits throughout all cottontail populations for over a hundred years... TeamZissou 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video examples of Cottontail territorial behavior (notice how most of these vids are shot in the waning light of the late afternoon):
[1] Stupid redneck laughter, Cottontail vs. Rattlesnake.
[2] No, these rabbits aren't "dancing"--this is an example of a Cottontail territorial dispute.
[3] These rabbits are forced into overlapping territories likely due to a shortage of forage. Unlike ungulates, rabbits cannot digest almost any leafy plant material. The patchy grass indicates that there is a limited supply and heavy competition. Watch the territorial behavior.
[4] Closely related Desert Cottontails also demonstrating territorial behavior. No, idiot, they are not ""dancing.""
[5] More territorial behavior.
[6] Another example.
[7] Yet another example.
[8] A Cottontail holding its own against three magpies.

And the most aggressive rabbit ever... [9]
TeamZissou 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution map wonky

The map shows all over Vancouver island but not the Portland to bc Corridor which is where they are very very common Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop‎‎ to have a new map made. Best is to provide them with the IUCN reference link, or some other link to a WP:RS that has map data they can use. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]