Template talk:Lagomorpha

Needs updates

The list of species needs updates.

It contains only 15 species of Sylvilagus out of 27; Sylvilagus andinus, Sylvilagus apollinaris, Sylvilagus daulensis, Sylvilagus fulvescens, Sylvilagus gabbi, Sylvilagus incitatus, Sylvilagus nicefori, Sylvilagus parentum, Sylvilagus salentus, Sylvilagus sanctaemartae, Sylvilagus surdaster and Sylvilagus tapetillus are lacking. See List of leporids (a featured list) and Cottontail rabbit#Species.

Ochotona gaoligongensis and Ochotona nigrita seem to be conspecific with Ochotona forresti, so these "species" should be removed. Ochotona muliensis seems to be conspecific with Ochotona gloveri, so this species should be removed, too. Ochotona huangensis should be called Ochotona syrinx. Ochotona huanglongensis, Ochotona flatcalvariam, Ochotona sacraria, Ochotona opaca, Ochotona mantchurica and Ochotona coreana are lacking. See List of ochotonids (a featured list) and Pika#Species. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some Lepus species should pe moved at Incertae sedis per Hare#Classification. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 12:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The red links on this template are not recognized by both IUCN and ASM, so I propose removing them until such a time as they are recognized... I already made the mistake of creating Northern tapeti and Bogota tapeti which have been split from common tapeti but haven't been recognized by IUCN yet. Recon rabbit 17:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Moroccan hare, Mediterranean hare, and West Sahara hare are described as species at Hare#Classification and in their articles, but they are not included in the template. Something similar applies to other, non-Lepus species, like Bogota tapeti.

In my opinion, such taxa should either be 1. described as recognized species in both articles and the template, or 2. described as disputed species in articles and not included in the template (or the template could somehow mark them as disputed... ?). Any in-between solutions are confusing. --Paloi Sciurala (talk｜contribs) 17:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, most of these species are "disputed" in that they have not been evaluated by the IUCN, but are not otherwise marked as such by authors. I don't know what a satisfying solution is. Some authors accept the recent Lepus taxa, but ignore proposed Syvilagus and Ochotona taxa. I feel like at the very least they shouldn't remain orphaned. Recon rabbit 17:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]