Talk:Volcano rabbit

Wikifikation

• I hope I wikified this right... someone tell me if I fucked up. --NaOH 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks Great to me. -- KaiAdin 10:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• This article needs more sourcing of facts and more paragraph breaks. 24.55.26.76 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How has this page been vandalized for 3 years now?

The article says "Clinton Hart Merri" instead of the species name. This first showed up here and has remained like that since. Haxhaxhax (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to our attention! Fixed it. You could have. And that wasn't the species name, but the genus authority. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Population

Many sources debate on the population of the Volcano Rabbit, with IUCN stating there are 7000 mature individuals and a decreasing population, while Edge of existence says that there are 12000 mature individuals,and an increasing population trend. Other sources are between those two. Blue Jay (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"twilight, dawn and all times in between"

this needs rephrasing, it's very unclear. Lovebuny (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Volcano rabbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I will read this soon. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• consulting with Nelson and Ferrari-Pérez – just to check: is it really Nelson, who only collected the specimen but not described the species?

  Miller writes that he consulted with Ferrari-Pérez, who confirmed that the differently-catalogued species Lepus diazi and Romerolagus nelsoni were the same species, and with Nelson, who examined the specimens and clarified the geography of the species' habitat.

• of the species was attributed to Díaz alone – but the describer is Ferrari-Perrez, so it cannot possibly be attributed to Díaz?

  That would make sense, but Mendoza's thesis states that following Miller's 1911 work, Ferrari-Pérez was not credited in the species authority, only Díaz.

• clarified the nomenclature of the species – Please state what his solution was

  Conclusions stated

• The taxonomy confusion should not be there since the rules of the ICZN apply (rule of priority, for example). So I wonder why this is not the case here?

  Apparently nobody pointed out that the rules of the ICZN applied between 1911 and 1952. This is noted in the Remarks section of the Mammalian Species article (Cervantes et al., 1990).

• that the correct name would be one that credits Ferrari-Pérez as well – But the name is now Romerolagus diazi (Ferrari-Pérez, 1893), right? Where is Díaz credited? I cannot follow.

  Both the Lepus diazi and Romerolagus diazi names are supposed to be credited (Ferrari-Pérez in A. Díaz, 1893), that's my mistake in the speciesbox.

• zacatochtle and teporingo – are these English common names that derive from Nahuatl, or are these limited to Nahuatl?

  Zacatochtle is the Nahuatl name that becomes Zacatuche in Spanish. Cervantes et al. do not give much information on Teporingo, other than that it is not as frequently used as Zacatuche, but there is a possible Nahuatl-based etymology in Montemayor et al. The names are "colloquial where it is found".

• explain haplogroup?

  Tried to provide a brief parenthetical.

• The cladogram title only cites source 17, but you said it's a composite cladogram of sources 15 and 17?

  Title now lists both.

• mention in lead that it is one of the smallest rabbits, instead of only giving the measurement?

  Simplified

• short (only 4.2 to 5.5 centimetres (1.7 to 2.2 in)) – avoid double brackets

  Brackets avoided

• The base color of the rabbit's fur – What do you mean with "base color"?

  Though not explicitly called agouti (coloration) this is the best way I can describe the fur. Reworded.

• dorsal fur – unnecessary technical term.

  Removed

• First, hair is lost, then melanin disappears – Melanin disappears where? What is the significance of melanin for moulting?

  I wish the sources were more descriptive but they are not. The original source from 1993 that describes this process as just "hair loss in random areas, disappearance of melanin, melanin deposition in bare areas, regrowth of hair". I have read elsewhere that white rabbits moult more frequently because melanin helps the root of the hair stay in the skin, but that isn't consistent with this and applies to European rabbits, not volcano rabbits.

If we are not sure what to make of this, I doubt our readers can. If there is nothing the reader can learn from it (because it's too vague), I would just remove the sentence, I don't think it's that important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• though the tympanic bullae (which enclose the internal ear structure) are relatively normal. – Normal how? In size?

  They are normal in size. I am cutting this out as excessive information, especially with the prior comparison to the formen magnum, which is made again by Cervantes et al. in regards to these structures.

• bone structure at the front of the sternum is wider than it is long – "bone structure" here is quite nebulous. If you provide such internal anatomical details, it is better to explain why this particular feature is relevant (because it is a distinguishing feature, because it has functional relevance ...). Otherwise there is little the reader can learn here. Consider removing it.

  Removed. I've added other more relevant information on the skeletal structure as pointed out by Velazquez et al.

• the dental formula should be with the skull info, not inside the gland discussion?

  Moved to be earlier in the paragraph

• Their salivary glands resemble those of other rabbits. – I have my doubts that this is important enough to point out.

  Removed. Primary source of very little relevance.

• The pituitary gland is small, and connects to the first three lumbar vertebrae. – Please double-check that

  Mistranslation of wikt:hypapophysis. Removed as excessive detail.

• Popocatépetl, one of four locations around which – can we say "mountain" or "volcano" instead of "location"? Or what other kind of location is it?

  Volcano makes sense, since it's referred to as one later in the caption

• been fragmented into 16 (later 19) individual patches[2] across the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt due to human disturbance. – Across the entire belt? I thought it lives only on those four volcanoes?

  Clarified that these patches are on the volcanoes. Could go further in detail according to the IUCN evaluation on this.

• Festuca tolucensis, Muhlenbergia macroura – I suggest to link, even if these are red links.

  Plants are now linked in all (first) appearances within sections.

• alder pine – link

  linked and clarified - these are forests that are mixtures of alder and pine

• Human activity in the area has had a great impact upon the preferred habitat of the volcano rabbit, – Isn't the preferred (ideal) habitat still the same?

  Just "habitat" now.

• et al. – "and colleagues" to avoid technical language.

  Done

• found no records of this species there, including the site where mammalogist Ticul Álvarez[35] collected a specimen in 1975.' – I can't follow; is there a record or not?

  I moved information around to better show that it was believed to reside there based on a 1975 record, but has since been declared extinct.

• Threats to R. diazi include logging, harvesting of grasses, livestock grazing, habitat destruction, urban expansion, highway construction and frequent forest fires.[31] Unsound management policies of its habitat in National Parks and outside, mainly by afforestation, have also threatened volcano rabbit populations. – Why is this not in the treats section?

• Human developments on lands inhabited by the volcano rabbit, as well as the effects of human-caused climate change, have caused declines in population. – Again, why not in treats section?

• The IUCN currently lists the volcano rabbit as an endangered species,[2] as does the Mexican government through the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources. – should be in intro of treats and conservation section?

  Moved.

Note: Since I did not fully understand the taxonomy section, I will wait until you addressed the above before doing the sources review. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure how to best address the last three points. The first paragraphs of the 'status and conservation' section are an attempt to summarize the main points that follow but it may be better to diffuse them into the rest of the section and remove the first subheading. The last point is reasonable though, I moved the listings to the top. -- Reconrabbit 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need summaries of sections apart from the lead. But in any case, these are not really summaries as they list details that are not repeated later on, and therefore do not appear in the sections where one would expect them. I would suggest to have the first section only on status, and merge the threats with the "Threats and decline" section and the captive breeding to "Conservation". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the information around and made the change in the below thread. -- Reconrabbit 16:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• clarified the nomenclature of the species by using the name Romerolagus diazi and making Lepus diazi a synonym of it. – I think you should state that "Romerolagus diazi" was a new combination, otherwise a reader may be confused. Also, shouldn't it say "making Romerolagus nelsoni a synonym of it"? If he didn't declare that species a synonym, he wouldn't have clarified the nomenclature issue at all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of the "new combination" concept before now (even though it seems obvious thinking about it). That would make sense to clarify. -- Reconrabbit 20:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Sources 33 and 49 seem to be duplicates.

  I'm not sure what tool I used that caused that - the one named "19932" has been combined with "1993". --RR

• Other than that, all sources seem to be of high quality. Very few spot checks did not uncover issues or close paraphrasing concerns. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

All good now, great work! Promoting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Volcano rabbit

I have rewritten this article basically from scratch and it has been recently assessed as a good article, but out of all the lagomorph articles I've worked on this one feels like it's closest to featured article status. I appreciate any input that can help get closer to an acceptable level for that kind of review.

Thanks, -- Reconrabbit 16:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment. This might be too detailed for the article, but Gerald Durrell led an expedition in 1967 specifically to collect volcano rabbits for breeding. It's mentioned briefly in the article on Durrell but I can pull out the source information if you want to include anything about it. It was a failure; no breeding pairs could be recovered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I added it to the Conservation section, since the biography is available on Internet Archive. The colony is briefly mentioned by Jurgen & Humberto (the establishment of such a colony was suggested as early as 1966, but Durrell was the first to try it). Thank you! -- Reconrabbit 14:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't gone back to the source, but is the comment about offspring that you added correct? I just looked at the section in Durrell's article and it says the only male that reached the zoo died there, rather than saying no male offspring were born. If Botting does give that extra detail, that's fine; just wanted to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I added what the fate of the surviving male was to this article. Botting states "In Jersey the remaining male and two of the females died of a disease called coccidiosis, and though four baby volcano rabbits were born at the zoo, all of them were female and three of them died in infancy." -- Reconrabbit 13:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

OK then -- just checking. And I think the extra detail is worth adding. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I have a more pointed question for potential peer reviewers - Rojas Mendoza's 1952 thesis on the species is used fairly sparingly in this article, but it has a great deal of info. Some notes include info on folklore and potential etymology, behavior, and extreme anatomical detail. I worry that it's dated now though, with 70 years between its publication and now, though some authors used in this article still cite it. Is inclusion of this information due, especially in parts where there is newer evidence? -- Reconrabbit 03:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Do any of the more recent authors contradict any of it? If not, and it's cited by the more recent RS, I think it's fine to include. I've seen older sources than that used for species at FAC (usually for fairly obscure species) where they are the only detailed source. As to what's due, I think that's a judgement call. For anatomical detail how about using the level of detail in other FACs as a guide? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada

The link to the Sierra Nevada in the "Distribution and habitat" section is clearly wrong. Sierra Nevada is suggested as an alternative name on Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt; is that what's meant? Moscow Mule (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, I didn't realize the mis-match since Velazquez 2018 and many of the other sources just call it the Sierra Nevada without clarification. Hoth 1987 at least identifies it as "habitat occupied by R. diazi [was] located on the slopes of the four volcanoes, namely Popocatepetl/Iztaccihuatl (Sierra Nevada), El Pelado and Tlaloc (Sierra de Chichinautzin)". -- Reconrabbit 15:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Shame we don't have an article on El Pelado: not an insignificant feature of the landscape, and far enough away from the others (and much closer to Mexico City) to make it quite interesting. Name-checked on Sierra de Ajusco-Chichinauhtzin, but that's about it. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

mophologically?

The word "mophologically" appears once in this article. I didn't find this word in common online dictionaries. Is it a misspelling of "morphologically"?

WikiBlame (https://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?user_lang=en&lang=en&project=wikipedia&tld=org&article=Volcano+rabbit&needle=mophologically&skipversions=0&ignorefirst=0&limit=500&offmon=1&offtag=20&offjahr=2026&searchmethod=int&order=asc&user=) seems to indicate that "mophologically" was first inserted in version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volcano_rabbit&oldid=1321451843. Differences between that prior version and that version are shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volcano_rabbit&diff=1321451843&oldid=1321266224.

Thanks. Netpicker (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Typo was fixed. -- Reconrabbit 14:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Primitive vs. Basal?

In the first paragraph of the page, the volcano rabbit is said to be 'considered to be the most primitive species among the rabbits and hares'. Notably, in this paragraph, the word 'primitive', is an internal link to Basal (phylogenetics). Is the the link to the 'Basal' page an intentional choice, rather than linking to Primitive (phylogenetics)? If so, should the text say 'the most basal species' instead to avoid confusion? I can't determine whether the link should be changed or not, as I unfortunately can't afford the time right now to look through the sources to see where the 'primitive' description originates from, and how it's described. Thank you to anyone that could handle this! kitokat (they/any) (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that the article primitive (phylogenetics) existed. That is probably more appropriate. From Velazquez and Gopar-Merino 2018:

[...]it is considered by many scientists to be the most primitive of living rabbits and hares. [...] Unlike most lagomorphs, the volcano rabbit retains an ancestral genetic polymorphism. This set of atypical morphological features, including the rudimentary fusion of vertebrae, peculiar dental pattern, and ancestral genetic characteristics, highlights the primitive status of the volcano rabbit.

-- Reconrabbit 16:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)