Talk:European hare

Can we use the hare picture from da:wikipedia at [1] ? Billlion 22:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most likely, yes... 惑乱 分からん 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

We already did Billlion 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Both the existence of Eostre herself, and (even moreso) the connection between her and the modern Easter Bunny seems to be too controversial and dubious to pass it out as plain fact in the article. The section should be either removed or rewritten/clarified. 惑乱 分からん 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

amo las liebres

Isn't the meat really quite DARK and delicious? Try it in central European restaurants (of course it's mostly available only in the hunting season (which, I believe, is in the fall).Svato (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In an edit to this article I inserted the taxonomic name of the European rabbit so that there could be no confusion with which animal the European hare was being compared. Editor LittleJerry deleted this with the brief edit summary of 'Not needed'. I undid the deletion which LittleJerry has subsequently undone (i.e. re-deleted the taxonomic name) and accused me of an edit war. Hardly!. What do other editors think about including the taxonomic name so that this article is accurate and informative. __DrChrissy (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like this article, well, my comments:

• I think '"normally" shy' sounds a bit awkward. The line could be rewritten as, perhaps, "Generally nocturnal and shy in nature, these hares change... " ("Generally nocturnal" sounds better.) I say "these hares" as the line sounds as if we are referring to the whole hare family and not this particular species.
• Add more details in the second paragraph - about the hare's diet and breeding. During this spring frenzy,... a test of his determination This line focuses largely on only one detail. You should combine it with the details of reproduction (like mating season, sexual maturity - these are relevant details, you see). I like it if the second paragraph is bulky, full of nice info about the diet, behaviour and breeding.
• It would be better if you send the line about predators from the third to the second para. You should add habitat details as well as the hare's range in the last para.

• If possible, you could tell more of the many subspecies of this hare.
• "Nuclear gene pool" is a duplicate link.

• "Lagomorphs" and "leporids" might confuse the reader. Perhaps you could express at least one of them differently : "The European hare is one of the largest living members of Lagomorpha" OR "As with all members of Leporidae, the hare has elongated ears..."
• ...the hare has elongated ears which in this species ranges from... --> ...the hare has elongated ears which', in this species, ranges from...
• Though not much needed, could you state the reason of the colour change in the coat?

• Link ovulation.
• ...as it observed in March as the nights, the bucks preferred time for activity... Bucks' preferred time.
• Precocial is a duplicate link.
• This line about sexual maturity - Sexual maturity occurs ... months for males should better be in the first para.

• You have once mentioned this hare with its scientific name here. It makes the use of the common name inconsistent. Use the common name.

That's it. The rest of the sections I haven't mentioned are perfect. I await your replies. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

All done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, just one more thing is to be done - about the common names you mention in the lead, what is the reference for them? Nor are they sourced elsewhere in the article. This should be sourced in the lead itself. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Removed all but the brown hare. It is called that in some of the article titles. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks much fine now. Very well, I'll pass it as a GA! Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The range map is a bit outdated, as far as Brazil is concerned. European Hares entered Sao Paulo State in the early 90's, and have migrated as far north as Lins(Sao Paulo State). As hunting is not allowed, and they have few natural enemies, I expect they migrate much further north. 30 Jun 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.140.188 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

A google search provides many popular wildlife web sites claiming the brown hare was introduced, even by the Romans ( a confusion over rabbits presumably). Digging deeper that it stems from an old academic article that observed there was no archaeological evidence at the time for hares before Roman times. That would be considered pretty thin evidence for anything given how little evidence about wildlife can be gleaned fro archaeology. Last year I looked at papers on brown hare genetics and found one that showed the British population was most closely linked to the population on the near European areas in Netherlands and Germany supporting the hypothesis that hares, like most British fauna, crossed Doggerland after the retreat of ice in the last ice age, making them pretty much as native as everything else. Of course the idea of importing hares in small boats across the North sea is pretty much absurd. You can cage and rear rabbits, and transport them, even farm them but captive rearing, even live capture, of hares is a very different proposition. I have just trawled through through my Google search history, google scholar and my download history and I just cant find the article again. I feel rather foolish that I cant see it. I wonder if anyone else can find the article I mean? It seems to me a myth that needs busting that we are now promulgating on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help - I feel like an old guy who has lost his glasses and they are probably on my head! Billlion (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I even posted a link to the article on a forum discussing mammals in the UK. Can't find that either! Billlion (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not what I was looking for but "F. Suchentrunk & H. Ben Slimen & C. Stamatis & H. Sert &

M. Scandura & M. Apollonio & Z. Mamuris Molecular Approaches Revealing Prehistoric, Historic, or Recent Translocations and Introductions of Hares (Genus Lepus) by Humans", Human Evolution (2006) 21: 151–165 DOI 10.1007/s11598-006-9016-7. Has following quotes "For brown hares, it is not clear whether or not they made their way naturally to Britain, when it was still connected with what is today northwestern continental Europe (until ca. 8,000 years B.P. (cf. e.g., [32])." and "Yalden [71] cites a series of excavation sites in Britain where brown hares have been found. They show that the supposed non-native brown hare was present at least in Britain during the Iron Age. However, subfossil evidence from earlier periods is not good enough to convincingly demonstrate the presence of brown hares. Stewart ([55], Table 7.5)" and『. Brown hares were also absent from southern Sweden until the 19th century, when they were introduced there by humans. This might suggest that brown hares did not make it to northern continental Europe before the rising sea level separated southern Scandinavia from the mainland roughly at the time when the sea level of the North Sea separated Britain from the continent.』The low genetic variability could have resulted from a small intrduced population or "If brown hares have managed to establish a natural founder population in Britain prior to its separation from the continent, genetic diversity could have been lost at long-term low densities under156 Human Evolution (2006) 21: 151–165 early Holocene climate. Long-term, low effective population size effectively reduces allelic variabililty and heterozygosity (e.g., [15]).". I think overall the evidence of this paper is that it is not known if they were introduced. If they were it was before the Roman occupation. It seems we have reinforced a factoid rather by including the "introduced by the Romans" idea? Billlion (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bio Ushasarma6 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The lead says,『Some hares are herbivorous and feed mainly on grasses and herbs…』and the section on Food and foraging says "European hares are primarily herbivorous." Aren't all hares exclusively herbivorous? Do some of them eat meat some of the time??? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello @BhagyaMani: Author names make it more likely that a reader can use a ref, and that a bot will correctly recognise it, and if edited by a bot it will still be the same ref. Additionally it is better not to just edit refs. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The #Taxonomy and genetics sections says "They are distinguished from other leporids (hares and rabbits) by their longer legs, wider nostrils and active (precocial) young.", but the all hares are born precocial. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 22:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, and the reference makes no note of this species being particularly more precocial than other species. I think it's fine to chop that sentence down to "... by their longer legs and wider nostrils." - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

European hare#Health and mortality:

In North America, foxes and coyotes are probably the most common predators, with bobcats and lynx also preying on them in more remote locations."

The bobcat is also a lynx, and in North America there are only two species of lynxes (bobcat and Canada lynx). Thus, the text should be replaced with one of these versions:

In North America, foxes and coyotes are probably the most common predators, with bobcats and Canada lynx also preying on them in more remote locations."

In North America, foxes and coyotes are probably the most common predators, with lynxes also preying on them in more remote locations."

--NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Hecer abbasova: What is your source for 4-7 vs the currently source 3-5? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply