Talk:Riverine rabbit/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 15:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Karoo Desert – I don't think this is a formal name (so should be in lower case, "Karoo desert"). I am also unsure if I would call it a "desert" (parts of it may count as deserts).

  I find that the readily-available sources like Animal Diversity Web and EDGE of Existence refer to it as the "Karoo Desert", while the encyclopedias describe it simply as "Karoo". Will go with the latter.  Done

• the most recent estimates of the species' population range from 157 to 207 mature individuals, and 224 to 380 total. – Makes sense to already mention here its status as "critically endangered".

  Mentioned here  Done

• critically endangered, the most severe classification used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. – "extinct in the wild" is even more severe, no?

  Removed "Most severe" here  Done

• This, along with habitat loss from agricultural development, soil erosion, and predators contributes to its classification as critically endangered and Of the factors impacting the species' survival, anthropogenic effects including climate change and land development have the greatest impact – two sentences in the lead covering the same question, but with different information (although land use is repeated).

  Reworded almost the whole paragraph  Done

• as Lepus monticularis – you should explain a bit more here. What is Lepus?

  Restated as in the intro (a member of the genus of hares)  Done

• the species name monticularis – the species name is the entire binomen. You mean the specific name here.

  Corrected  Done

• It was separated into its own species in 1929 – That does not make sense, as you pointed out that the species was named in 1903.

  Should have been "its own genus". Fixed there.  Done

• It was first described by Oldfield Thomas in 1903 as Lepus monticularis with the type locality of Deelfontein, Cape Colony, South Africa. – I would recommend to add a bit more context here. Oldfield Thomas, was that a British zoologist that studied some skin that was sent to England? His description was based on what kind of specimen, and where is the holotype now (which museum collection)? No need to use the technical term "type locality", you could just say "which was shot/collected in …".

  Context added  Done

• Since the article is also about the genus, you should state who named Bunolagus, when, and based on what argument, and give the etymology of the name.

  I added more context but could not find much about the generic name. Oldfield Thomas simply states in his description of Pronolagus crassicaudatus: I am again so impressed by the distinctness of the little Kopje Hare of Deelfontein, that I consider it ought to be recognized as forming a special group by itself, like Pronolagus, and should have a superspecific name of its own. This might be Bunolagus, g. n., with genotype B. monticularis (Lepus monticularis Thos.).

• Other names it has are pondhaas and oewerkonyn. – Those are Afrikaans too, I assume?

  According to the work, yes. No etymology given here though.  Done

• nuclear and mitochondrial gene analysis – needs wikilinks

  Linked  Done

• Bunolagus is not well known in the fossil record. – But when the fossils are now thought to belong to Lepus, then there is no fossil record at all?

  Right - no fossils isn't very well known at all. Better to be clear here. Current state of affairs is described (there was a fossil, but it was reclassified, and now there are none- but it may date back .4 mya)  Done

• I don't see a section on "Distribution"? It seems to have a disjunct distribution which is quite interesting. The section should describe its original distribution, as well as where the rabbit is found now (e.g., list some protected areas that have the species).

  Habitat section has been reworked and now discusses distribution. Though the references are a bit vague as to the current status of the northern populations.  Done

• The riverine rabbit is native to the Karoo desert in South Africa. – This is misplaced under "Characteristics".

  Removed, since it's already stated in Habitat  Done

• particularly in the characteristics of the skull; – just state what these characteristics are.

  Stated differently. The characteristics that matter are size and premolar foramen.  Done

• It is distinct from the red rock hares,[5] – again, this information is too unspecific to be helpful (it would not be a separate species if it would not be distinct in some way); you should say what the differences are.

  The reference is similarly unspecific. I clarified to note that it is compared to the red rock hares and that it appears in close proximity to some of them.  Done

• The nuchal patch – explain what this is.

  Explained in parenthetical  Done

• Its dental formula is … – I would translate this formula ("two incisors, no canine, three premolars, and three molars on either side of the upper and lower jaws").

  Written out  Done

• I suggest to swap the two paragraphs in "Characteristics", so that you have the basic description firt, and the details (comparison to other hares) later.

  Rearranged the section  Done

• Bunolagus monticularis is found in only a few places in the Karoo Desert. The riverine rabbit prefers – Stick to one term, it adds clarity: "The riverine rabbit is found … It prefers …"

  Now done - preferring just "riverine rabbit" in most cases unless useful to use binomial  Done

• The riverine rabbit prefers areas of dense vegetation in river basins and shrubland. It feeds on dense shrubland, and the soft soil allows it to create burrows and dens for protection, breeding young, and thermoregulation. The riverine rabbit lives in very dense growth along seasonal rivers in the central semi-arid Karoo region of South Africa. – This is repetitive. Every sentence mentiones that it prefers dense habitats. (Also, I don't think that you can say that it feeds on shrubland – it may feed on shrubs).

  This whole bit was rewritten.  Done

• Its habitat regions are tropical – I don't understand the grammar here, and where does the source say "tropical"?

  Presumably a catch-all "keyword" that is present on the Animal Diversity Web page - removed the "habitat regions" assertion  Done

• You rely heavily on the "Animal Diversity Web" but I have some doubts that this particular entry is of high quality; could you check the claim that it inhabits "dunes" against the primary sources?

  Several claims were removed; I will try to get a hold of Walker's Mammals of the World to confirm the "sexual dimorphism" claim which is one I don't find in my other books. Claim removed citing Walker's Mammals of the World, since it makes no claims of size differences between sexes.  Done

• and Lycium spp. Solanaceae – translate/simplify

  removed the family name, as it seems redundant here?  Done

• though studies have found this habitat to be sixty-seven per cent fragmented in certain areas. – Doesn't make sense. In certain areas (e.g., cities) it should be 100% fragmented (non-existent).

  Levels of fragmentation are either outdated or unhelpful in context of the other information - removed for now  Done

• in 2008 it was predicted that over the next 100 years, one fifth of habitable area will be lost. – This contradicts From the early 20th century up until 2008, over two-thirds of their habitat has been lost

  Removed predictions that are fairly irrelevant given current knowledge of the species' extent  Done

• "Habitat" section contains much conservation info that are better discussed under "Status and convervation" (I would recommend using this heading, and have the others as sub-headings).

  This part and the conservation section have been heavily modified. The habitat and distribution section only discusses extinction when it is directly relevant to the locations occupied.  Done

• I would say that, since this is already a lot, we do it in two rounds. I am waiting for you to address the above, then we do the second half of the article afterwards. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've made some major changes and am finding myself in an embarrassing spot again since I mainly worked on the sections that were very bare after other editors expanded using Animal Diversity Web and the like. Still working here. Reconrabbit 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the careful revisions! Regarding the distribution, can you describe the range, to make clear where exactly they are distributed? The IUCN page has quite some detail (Geographic Range section, click "expand all" to see details), including the river systems where it occurs (or did occur). It also mentions that it is the only native burrowing rabbit in Africa, that's interesting enough to add? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add the details and make a note - Christy 2018 also describes it as the only indigenous African rabbit to make its own burrows. Reconrabbit 17:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack, I've gone through and made some major changes to the latter half of this article - the only part that I'm a bit unsure of is the separation of subheadings (and if I'm missing information that gets repeated across sections) and if all the pertinent info has been put in the right places (since ecology and conservation threats have some overlap). Reconrabbit 14:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Great thanks, I will get to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, could you mark all the points above that you have already addressed, so that I see what still needs to be done? Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I added "done" where it seemed appropriate. If you have any input on Oldfield Thomas' remarks it would be helpful since I don't quite know what to do about the etymology with what I know; also held off on marking the question on ADW done since Walker's Mammals of the World may be clarifying here and I don't have access right now. Reconrabbit 20:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  The Walker's Mammals you can access via the Internet Archive library [1] (you have to create a free account and then click "burrow". Send me a wikimail if you have problems). The etymology looks good to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a great help! I was only getting newer editions that I couldn't read through when I searched. Looks like the sexual dimorphism isn't mentioned at all - removing that. I'll probably replace most uses of ADW for this particular article since it's not being very helpful. Reconrabbit 23:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Second look

• Unlike most rabbits, female riverine rabbits produce only one to two offspring per year. – "Offspring" does not apply to the individual babies, or does it?

  I've used the term offspring to refer to individuals, but it could be changed to "young" to be less ambiguous. I didn't know this.  Done

• Anthropogenic effects – avoid jargon, use "human impacts on the environment" or similar.

   Done

• IUCN distribution of the Riverine rabbit – It is not the IUCN distribution, IUCN is only the source (drop IUCN here); also, the map appears to show the former range, not the current one, that should be made clear.

  Since it doesn't get explicitly described in the source of the geographic range, I noted it as "species distribution as described by the IUCN in 2019". There are extant populations in the northern parts, but their particular location isn't obvious from the description, and there are 5 other populations that are extinct now even further(?) north.

• et al. -> "and colleagues" to avoid jargon

   Done

• but there are significant genetic differences between isolated populations above and below the Great Escarpment. – If the Great Escarpment is significant for the distribution, it should be mentioned in the distribution section too.
• There are no confirmed fossils of Bunolagus. It was thought to date back to the middle Pleistocene, – needs explanation/context. "was thought" means that this information is outdated?

  It's not clear to me. The work Cenozoic Mammals of Africa describes them as dating back to this period but doesn't elaborate on why this is still considered to be true, since there aren't any fossils. Recent phylogenetic analyses I've looked at either don't include time estimates on granular species divergence or exclude Bunolagus as a rogue taxon so I don't have a good answer.

• Some common plants in its habitat are Salsola glabrescens, Amaranthaceae and Lycium. – These appear to be a bit random; is there anything that makes these particular plants noteworthy?

  Schai-Braun 2016 states that these three examples "dominate" the species' habitat, making them not just common but the most common out of any other examples given. I made an effort to emphasize that.  Done?

• The riverine rabbit has a disjunct distribution and occurs in two restricted regions – "originally occurs", right?

  Correct  Done

• Vloere – link

  I can't find an appropriate target.

• Historically, the northern populations occupied five localities near the tributaries of and alongside the Vis and Renoster rivers, but it is now considered locally extinct in these regions. – So, are all northern populations extinct?

  The geographic range wasn't clear on this, but population details clarify that there are still 9 populations in other parts of the northern habitat (that isn't the region occupied by the now-possibly-extinct populations).  Done

• The riverine rabbit is polygamous, but lives and browses for food alone. – I don't understand the "but". That suggests that it is somehow surprising that it is solitary when it is polygamous, but I don't get why.

  This has been changed to "and it"  Done

• It has intra-sexually exclusive home ranges: – I don't understand, formulate in plain language?

  "The size and overlap of home ranges varies based on sex" now.  Done

• You discuss the cecotrophy in two separate places, should be discussed in one place

  The first mention has been removed completely.  Done

• separated by major agricultural projects – sounds strange, reformulate?
• Populations are further reduced through anthropogenic means. – Further? Everything you mentioned so far is anthropogenic already.
• The "threads" section has some duplicated information (e.g., overgrazing), please check.
• "preservation", should this be "conservation"?
• Riverine rabbits are solitary and nocturnal. At night, they feed on flowers, grasses, and leaves. During the day, they rest in forms (hollow excavations scraped in the soil under shrubs[23]). The rabbit practices cecotrophy, producing two types of droppings—hard droppings during the night, and soft droppings during the day, which are taken directly from the anus and swallowed. These soft droppings provide the rabbit with nutrients produced by bacteria in the hindgut and recycled minerals. – I don't see how source 24 supports this paragraph? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Source 24 is now removed and the remaining info tracks to source 23 (Wildpro).  Done This source also supports the discussion of cecotropes later on. -- Reconrabbit 19:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)