Talk:Sardinian Pika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mammals Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Portal This article is part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Thearticle says It was described by early Sardinian authors as "a giant rabbit with no tail" and yet the image has no ears... Where did this image come from? The local kindergarten? muriel@pt 23:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The images /does/ have ears. Skeletal remains of Sardinian pikas show that their ears were short, very much unlike most rabbits, but similar to most other pikas. The picture demonstrates this - the ears are there, but they are small. The image is consistent with skeletal remains. If you want to do your own artists' rendition based on descriptions in historical sources, skeletal remains, and earlier sketches, you are welcome to go ahead.

I also don't see what makes you think this image came from "the local kindergarten". The calves appear almost perfectly faithful to skeletal remains, and everything about the image is basically correct except that, other than historical accounts, we do not knw the color of the fur.

The ears HAVE to be small - ppl described it as a "rabbit" because that's what is is most similar to if you've never seen a pika! Put img back in - it's really not the best, but it is accurate enough and better that than none. Dysmorodrepanis 08:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Corsican Pika"?

As far as I know, the "Corsican Pika" does not exist and has never existed except as a population of P. sardus. A quick Google search returns only Wikipedia and its clones. The third edition of Mammal Species of the World does not comment on it, but gives the distribution of P. sardus as Corsica and Sardinia, so I'm going to redirect the Corsican beast. Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[1] --Node 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's one link. I think MSW 3 is a much better source than some "extinct mammals" site. They also list a few species that aren't extinct at all, probably. Ucucha (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[2], [3]... not just one site now, but a few. (lagomys is an alias of prolagus) --Node 03:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither is very confincing. Lagomys is an outdated synonym; the fact that Lagomys corsicanus is more commonly encountered than Prolagus corsicanus is telling. Ucucha (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Most authors now see the Sardinian and Corsican animal as one and the same animal. Peter Maas 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct. But "It is the only animal belonging to the genus Prolagus" is wrong - there were some 10 more! Corrected, but genus article (even a stub) should be made! Dysmorodrepanis 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So add them as appropriate. Do not have redirects point to the source article. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert the edit. The way it was is "orthographically" wrong as per taxobox SOP. I have reinstated the outcommented information, but I shall add the species when I have time. Or maybe you do it; source is here ("Reptile"). Prolagidae should redir to Prolagus if I'm not mistaken. Dysmorodrepanis 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't open that file. As things stand, the taxobox is correct. There is one extant species, so this article is correctly about the (extant) family, genus and species. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no no! There is no extant species and the genus is NOT monotypic (as indicated by bolding and lack of link). You can open the file using the password "Reptile". Dysmorodrepanis 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dysmorodrepanis is very right! There is indeed no extant species and this genus is indeed not monotypic. I've created a page for Prolagidae and Prolagus (including some more species) redirects to there. If it need to the other way round, feel free to change it. Peter Maas\^talk 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've made some edits to make the formatting and referencing fit with the rest of the lagomorph articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work and thanks. Peter Maas\^talk 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern survival

What is the reference for this? There is no reference given and I know of no suggestions that it is still alive in the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.5.20 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference is (G. Amori pers. comm. 2006). You can find this info at: IUCN 2007. Prolagus sardus. In: IUCN 2007. European Mammal Assessment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/species/prolagus_sardus.htm. Downloaded on 19 January 2008. Peter Maas\^talk 11:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)