Talk:Hare

old comments

Are members of the genera Caprolagus and Pronolagus true hares? It seems that Pronolagus, in particular, are called 'Red Rockhares' at times and 'Red Rabbits' at other times.

Edededed 00:24, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think all non-Lepus stuff must be removed from the page. Hares are members of the genus Lepus, and other leporids are not. Ucucha 09:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I have to admit to having less knowledge about lagomorphs than I do primates, how are Caprolagus and Pronolagus not hares? As listed here, their common names surely seem to put them into the "hare" category. Simply because they are partitioned slightly away from the other hares by being in a different genus doesn't mean they aren't hares. What's the modernliterature say about the entire lagomorph classification? - UtherSRG 11:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Phylogenetics of Leporidae are very confused, I think, but I thought Caprolagus and a few other small genera have been placed in the subfamily Palaeolaginae, while Pronolagus was related to Lepus (?). See Mikko's Phylogeny Archive ([1]). In any case the "hare" group of this article is not supported in any classification, and Pronolagus has also been called a "rabbit", I thought. I don't think we have to sort beasts according to common name. We don't place Notoryctes under real moles only because it has been called the "marsupial mole", so why should we place Caprolagus under real hares only because it has been called a "hare"? Ucucha 14:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to notify anyone concerned that the link http://www.alienexplorer.com/ecology/m101.html is gone.

I just removed the reference (by deleting that sentence). Molinari 00:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orphaned sentence

I removed the following sentence: "The word 'hare' refers to large members of the family Leporidae only," since it has been orphaned from its original context when it was first added in the 15:36 edit on the date 7 Aug 2003. The language was already perhaps a bit vague, but became even more so when its preceding sentence was replaced in the 18:32 edit on 2 April, 2004. Eventually, through subsequent editing, the sentence was quite unrelated to the rest of the paragraph.

Instead of moving the sentence to a new paragraph I chose to remove the sentence and archive it here because I am unsure as to the sentence's intent. I think the original contributor meant that the term "hare," while having a scientific definition, is often used colloquially to refer to any large member of the family Leporidae. I could not locate documentary proof of this assertion, despite my agreement with the assertion on anecdotal grounds. I felt it best to remove a potentially confusing sentence, and I was not confident enough in my interpretation of the original contributor's intent to edit the passage to a more clear meaning.

Disambiguation?

Maybe a disambiguation page is in order for the animal hare, a hare-lip, various people called hare, etc?

Diet

It's similar to rabbits'.... but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in this article! pomegranate 00:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny

What evidence do we actually have that Bugs Bunny is a jackrabbit? That sounds like speculation to me. He gets called a "hare" in the cartoons (usually to make a pun), but he also gets called a "rabbit" quite a lot. I'm not sure we can assume that he's supposed to be any particular species. His long ears and gangly legs suggest a hare, but could just be cartoonish exaggeration.

I changed this a few days ago. Someone likely misinterpreted a fact on his page stating he may be based on an earlier character that was a hare. So? He could be based on anything - say a chinchilla - and it wouldn't mean he is. Indium 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should watch the Loony Toons and find out. I seem to recall Bugs referring to himself specifically as a Jackrabbit at least once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.210.217 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also points out several times that he has a cottontail, "...although mine's 50% wool." I think that we can safely say that he's whatever the writers thought would be funny at the time and leave it at that. JDZeff (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With that Brooklyn accent it's pretty safe to say he's an eastern cottontail, the only type of leporids found in New York City. In fact, I remember reading once he's officially from Coney Island, whose name is an archaic word for rabbit. That said, like all of Looney Tunes, they go wherever the joke takes them. Anywhere the joke takes them. Really, there were no limits in the classic shorts. Probably why the Censored Eleven exist. oknazevad (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are hare kidneys? where is a diagram showing organs in hares?

someone needs to find a diagram of a rabbit and put it in here!

A small addition to folklore

Just wanted to point out that I added a bit of information from my own research on the Proto-Indo-European culture about hares. Hope it helps a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seadog driftwood (talk • contribs) .

Please cite your sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it Seadog is the originator of the claim about the hare being subject to some early PIE taboo? FTA:

"There is evidence to suggest that there was some sort of taboo regarding hares in the Proto-Indo-European culture; this is especially notable due to the likelihood that the common word for hare, *kasos, which literally means "the grey one", was a euphemism for a previous and now lost word for hare."

The argument as I understand it is that animal words based on PIE roots for color indicate a hunter's taboo, i.e. that an animal's true name could not be spoken on the hunt. Thus the Latin word for bear being ursus, while Proto-Germanic languages use terms like bear and bruin that ultimately derive from the PIE root for "brown one."

Since hare is derived from *kas (grey), there is probably another unknown PIE root for it. We know about the "real" root for bear because some PIE family languages like Greek and Latin have preserved them, which (apparently?) is not the case for hare. At least, I take it that is what Seadog meant in the quoted text and when he talked about his "own research" above.

If there are no timely objections I'll re-write the unsourced passage and add a source. Incidentally here is the online source I used to try and figure out this riddle: http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html#69 --Pompous stranger (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I just came across a fuller version of Seadog's mythological "research." All of it is, of course, vague and un-sourced, though interesting. http://www.thepacksden.com/thepackboard/viewtopic.php?p=132856&sid=d2fcd13680f4e4eb84b14474a7eabc64 --Pompous stranger (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hare as food

The article lacks information at present on the hare as a food (jugged hare, etc.). -- Picapica 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thre years later, still nothing. I have heard it said they're inedible (meaning unappetizing) though i can't imagine how they'd be much different from rabbits, which are certainly a popular food. Will bring in some material from Jugging. DavidOaks (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, there's a lot more information on hares as food than about anything else on this page. Maybe it needs more balance. Drakkenfyre (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but in some survival textbooks, the reader is warned in the strongest terms not to consume the flesh of the North American jackrabbit except in the gravest extreme. This seems to be a bit of hunters' lore going back to the era of the frontier, if not longer. The claim is made that a great many diseases are endemic among jackrabbits and to eat even the smallest quantity of their flesh, even when it has been boiled or roasted for hours and cooked to the point of disintegration, is to risk slow and hideous death by trichinosis, liver flukes, tapeworm, ringworm, Q-fever, rickettsia, tularemia, and AIDS for all I know. This seems a bit odd to me; I have read that during desert survival training in the southwestern US, US military personnel taking the training are expected to trap and kill jackrabbits and eat them raw, which I would not expect them to require if it were so dangerous. Is there some knowledgeable person who can speak on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "I am no expert", rabbits and hare are perfectly safe to eat. Look up tularemia if you like; just know that cooking will take care of that. Also, regarding "rabbit starvation," the fat in a lagomorph is largely located in the liver. But don't believe me; confirm this with other sources. Kortoso (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comment stating that hares are a poor survival food because they lack fat. While this is somewhat true, it seems like it's more of a misinterpretation of the common anecdote that someone would die if they ONLY ate rabbit meat forever. If you were trying to survive and managed to catch a hare, it would be an immense benefit. 69.118.29.2 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim dietary law comments need to be re-written for clarity. Mentioning a difference of practice without specifics is simply "not encyclopedic." Also, some explanation of "halal" is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.87.243 (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit/Hare hybrids

Can rabbits and hares interbreed and produce viable offspring? Drutt 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbits + hARES == Rares... Actually I have no idea. --Jeff Bongi 03:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes absolutely no sense to redirect to this page the link for Hare-Rabbit hybrids from the mammal hybrids link summary thing (I don't know what it's called here, but it shows at the bottom of pages on hybrids, such as the Mule page) when there is absolutely no information regarding such hybrids on this page. The redirection should be removed (which I don't know how to do) so the link shows properly red as a page that has not yet been created.

Cadrac (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do people orthodoxly eat hares as they do rabbits? --Jeff Bongi 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackrabbits

Jackrabbit and jack rabbit are redirects to the accompanying article hare, but not all hares are jackrabbits, and it seems more reasonable to make "jackrabbit" the Dab (and "jack rabbit" a Rdr to it), and have a group of entries on the Dab for the various species. (Each article should of course lk to hare, accomplishing everything the current Rdrs do. I'm doing Dab-Cleanup on Jack rabbit (disambiguation), which i'll move to "jackrabbit" before making the additions i'm talking about. I'm proceeding BOLDly w/o waiting for discussion, anticipating that anything that i'm missing can be fixed later.
--Jerzy•t 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it as it is, with all redirecting to hare, unless and until someone creates a jackrabbit specific article that describes the differences between jackrabbits and the remainder of this taxa (which IIRC) are none. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[shrug]
--Jerzy•t 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fur harvesting

It might be good if the article had a discussion on the use of hare fur, and whether harvest always or typically involves death or injury to the animal. —SlamDiego_←T 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welllllll...I'll admit that in fourth grade, when doing an assignment related to homonyms, I said something about a hare-hair paintbrush... Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Harebrained"

This expression deserves mention. Sure, it basically means the same thing as "mad as a March hare" (i.e. as crazy as a jackrabbit in spring)...but even so. Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Under differences from rabbits, this article states: "The hare's diet is similar to the rabbit's. They are both in the order Lagomorpha." How are these differences? Isn't much of a paragraph either as these sentences don't really relate to one another (other than being examples of how hares and rabbits are similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genus or Genera?

At the top of this talk page is a somewhat circular discussion, going like "The only true hare genus is Lepus because all true hares are members of the genus Lepus".

Currently all genera in the Leporidae family (which, we are told there, is formed by species of rabbits and hares) are listed either in the taxobox at Rabbit or in the taxobox at Hare, with two exceptions: the genera Caprolagus and Pronolagus. I see no particularly valid reason to handle these genera as homeless orphans. Using the true-genus logic one could declare with equal validity that the only true rabbit genus is Oryctolagus because all true rabbits are members of the genus Oryctolagus and insist that all non-Oryctolagus stuff be removed from the Rabbit page. --Lambiam 14:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Springhares?

This article states, "Four species with 'hare' in their common names are not considered true hares: the hispid hare (Caprolagus hispidus), and three species known as red rock hares (Pronolagus spp.)." However, this should presumably be increased to five, since according to the Wikipedia page on springhares (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pedetes), they are not true hares either, since they are rodents. If someone is more knowledgeable about this than I am, could you make the change or explain why not? 74.71.69.7 (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of that statement is not to list up the myriad animals with “hare” in their names. It is to list up leporids with “hare” in their names, but which are not true hares. No one would mistake a springhare for a hare; the name is merely a simile. When the animal looks like a hare and is related to a hare, on the other hand, the name is not only evocative but potentially confusing. Strebe (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609193641/http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/food_and_drink/news/article1193098.ece to http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/food_and_drink/news/article1193098.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Male boxing: myth or not?

Right now it's described as a myth based on a 1984 article in nature that claims that it's a female-male thing. However when I looked this up I found it was followed by a letter (Nature, 02/1987, Volume 325, Issue 6106) contradicting this and defending the idea that boxing is competition among the males, citing some sources including a German publication. Opinions?Spiny Norman (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status in Australia

" in Australia, where the hare is hunted as a feral pest " -- the Hare has never been a problem here, and aren't "illegal" in any state, so I doubt this claim. They aren't as destructive as Rabbits, don't overpopulate like rabbits, etc.

   https://www.logan.qld.gov.au/rabbits-hares -- "Hares are not a declared pest. There is no legal requirement to manage hares."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.51.238 (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hare species are native to Africa, Eurasia, North America, and the Japanese archipelago."

curprev 13:07, 11 August 2019‎ Strebe talk contribs‎ 22,143 bytes +30‎ Japanese archipelago has had no land connection to mainland over geological time. British isles have no hare species exclusive to themselves. Undid revision 910371814 by Khajidha (talk) undothank Tags: Undo, PHP7 curprev 12:36, 11 August 2019‎ Khajidha talk contribs‎ 22,113 bytes -30‎ →‎top: why would it be necessary to split the Japanese archipelago from Eurasia but not do the same for the British Isles? undo

While I understand the point Strebe is making here, I feel that specifying the Japanese archipelago in this sentence is overly exact for a simple overview sentence in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if there were other, comparable regions hosting unique hare species. There aren't. The list given in the lede is exhaustive. In that sense, excluding Japan would be distinctly misleading. Japan is not some minor, offshore island. Meanwhile, no hares are native to the Philippines (directly comparable), the Caribbean (directly comparable), or the Indonesian archipelago (directly comparable). (Java has Lepus nigricollis, but it is not clear if it is native, and it is also not unique to Java; it is also native to the Indian subcontinent, making the situation comparable to the British Isles.) Strebe (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is clear from the sentence in the lead and all of which would be better explained further down in the article. As is, the sentence reads like "continent, continent, continent, and random island group we are separating from its continent for reasons not explained". --Khajidha (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add explanation. I don’t see the problem, though. I think it’s a little odd to think of Japan as being “separated from its continent”. Sure, Japan is culturally Asian, but we’re talking about wildlife, not people, and geological time. How far away do islands have to be in order to be considered distinct? Is Hawaii distinct? Strebe (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between "hare" and Lepus

I made some edits and they were immediately reverted by User:Strebe.

My intention with these edits was to make explicit the fact that "hare" is a common language term, which is sometimes but not always considered an exact synonym for the scientific classification Lepus.

I think we should create separate pages for Lepus and for Hare, to resolve this ambiguity. The term hare clearly does not refer exclusively to the genus Lepus (e.g. the hispid hare is in a different genus), and the genus Lepus clearly contains species not known as hares (e.g. jackrabbits). Both of these examples are mentioned in the article, but the article simultaneously treats hare and lepus as synonyms, which makes the topic very unclear.

I propose moving this article to Lepus, and creating a new Hare article which describes the uses of "hare" as a common term. Alternatively this article could be edited to refer to the common term only, and a new Lepus article created instead.

Averixus (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another option (instead of creating a new separate Hare article) would be simply to modify the existing Hare (disambiguation) page. Instead of the current "a hare is a mammal closely related to the rabbit", it could be rephrased to something like "hare is a term for several types of mammals in the Leporidae family", followed by a list that could include Lepus, Caprolagus, belgian hare, etc. The current article could then be moved to Lepus with relatively minor changes to phrasing.

Averixus (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Averixus. I’m not enthusiastic about creating separate pages about this. We have common names that don’t reflect sensible groupings for all kinds of things. I do not, for example, think we should change the “star” page to recognize “shooting stars” as a kind of star. Nor changing the “fish” page to recognize “starfish” as fish. And so on. Of course “hare” vs “rabbit” is more nuanced, but the principle is the same, isn’t it? Sometimes a field in science crisply defines a common term a particular way, and then some people get pedantic and arrogant in trying to tell everyone else they are wrong to use the term the the way they’ve always used it (say, “sphere”, for example). I don’t like or agree with that mentality, but I don’t think that’s what’s in play here. I don’t think “hare” ever was synonymous with “rabbit” in English; I think some rabbits were mistakenly called hares and some hares mistakenly called rabbits, and the names stuck. In other words, the reason there are two words is because they describe two different categories of things, but the distinctions between the categories weren’t always clear to those who coined the common names for the various species. I also don’t think (for example) that anyone’s telling people to quit calling jackrabbits “jackrabbits” just because they’re not rabbits—in fact, I believe the name was given fully cognizant that the animal is a hare; the prefix “jack” means “not a proper xxx”. I think the right way to handle this is just to note that common usage is less distinct than scientific usage, pretty much as the page already does. Obviously it could be improved. Strebe (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Strebe. I do understand your reluctance to separate the pages. I'm going to make another attempt at clarifying the way the different terms are used on the main page (without moving or separating the articles), let me know your thoughts. Averixus (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished a new edit. I also made some corresponding small tweaks to Rabbit and Hare (disambiguation) to try and unify the way the terms are used. Averixus (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Averixus. That looks good. Strebe (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference or not?

"Hares, like all leporids, have jointed, or kinetic, skulls, unique among mammals." This sentence appears in the section on the differences between hares and rabbits. Given that rabbits are leporids, it would seem to follow that this is not a difference between hares and rabbits, and if so, it surely doesn't belong here. Am I misunderstanding something? MicroProf (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chromosomes

It says that hares have 48 chromosomes and rabbits have 44, and the sources are behind a paywall. Did they verify that that's true for *every* species of rabbit and hare? I'm worried they only checked one and it's not a reliable difference at all. The title of the article doesn't specify a species of rabbit. Looking for one not behind a paywall I found this, which has a similar title but only looks at rabbits of a specific breed. — DanielLC 03:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]