Talk:Desert cottontail

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 31 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Livelyriver.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

untitled

The range map appears to be that of the Eastern Cottontail, not the Desert Cottontail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.134.181.106 (talk • contribs).

Indeed. I've removed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Threat behavior

The current status of this sentence is "The cottontail's normal anti-predator behavior is to stay completely still to analyze a potential threat. If it must retreat quickly, it will do so by running;". There seems to be a lot of contention about this, so let's look at the source material and come to a conclusion about what it should state, as a group.

"A desert cottontail crouches low and stays still, so that it seems to disappear into its surroundings."
"A desert cottontail freezes and tries to blend in with its surroundings when threatened by a predator."
"Desert cottontails freeze rather than run when they sense danger. They stay completely still, hoping that they will not be seen. A desert cottontail freezes to trick predators that rely on their sense of sight to find prey. When a desert cottontail sees a predator, it stays still so that its movements do not attract attention. Then, if it thinks it has time to escape, it hops away in a zigzag pattern."

What if we rephrased the statement as follows:

"The desert cottontail's normal behavior upon spotting a potential predator is to remain in place in an attempt to avoid being detected. If it determines that it is in danger, it will flee the area by hopping away in a zigzag pattern." (*as a general starting point*)

Comments? - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal:, @Pocketthis:, @FlightTime: - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems cool. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK by me. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I just rewrote that area with Adityavagarwal's version of facts, but correct English. I think you should all be happy with it now. My main issue was correct grammar and wording. I had little issue with the facts being proposed. Pocketthis (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you might have missed the point above - we are attempting to garner a consensus for the statement as a group. If you have an issue with the statement proposed above, please feel free to comment on it here, before going to change the article yourself. Thanks. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The changes made on your previous edit are cool and better than the previously present sentences; however, I do not think the statements that we needed to amend are amended. Also, let us do it after the consensus. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that "freeze" better describes the behavior than "remain", since it conveys that the animal is motionless. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with that assessment. "The desert cottontail's normal behavior upon spotting a potential predator is to freeze in place in an attempt to avoid being detected. If it determines that it is in danger, it will flee the area by hopping away in a zigzag pattern." - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is so true. This is a better version. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have no issues with any wording of that sentence you all decide on, as long as the grammar is correct. When you start deleting photos, then you will have me to deal with. Pocketthis (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

(←) I will make the update as agreed upon above. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Images

Among the images in the article, which ones seem extraneous and can be removed? Mother and Juvenile enjoying a carrot dinner.,Six week old cottontail exhibiting a wounded ear from a spat with an adult Cottontail., Wild desert cottontail stretching, Joshua Tree National Park, California High Desert cottontail on alert, Desert cottontail in submissive posture anticipating food, and An abandoned four week old kit Cottontail, 12 hours before being reunited with its family. seem removable to me. Kindly comment on the same. @Pocketthis:, @FlightTime:, and @NsTaGaTr: Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• NONE should be eliminated. I thought I may get to like you, but that isn't going to happen. I've been slaving over this article for 6 years. One day you show up and want to eliminate a gallery for no reason. This is a visual article. It's for kids in school. Not only are you here for no good reason, but you actually have the nerve to revert me when I correct your deplorable English. I have no issues with someone that contributes to an encyclopedia article, and actually improves it. I will most likely have to take caffeine tablets to stay awake 24/7 to revert you. I'm not going to see all of my edits, and other editor's work, ruined for no reason. I spend from 7:AM to 7:PM with over 50 cottontails everyday. I am the man in the neighborhood that everyone comes to with their wounded rabbits. I splint their legs, and paws. I nurse the abandoned young back to health and eventually free them onto my property. 10 acres between Landers, and Joshua Tree. I have spent the last 17 years observing these animals habits. NO ONE on this planet knows their habits and actions better than I do. If that sounds presumptuous, I'm sorry it's a fact. Leave the remaining photos be. There is no reason to eliminate the gallery in this article. I cut it down to one row to appease "you". Now you want to cut more out. Your motives are beyond suspicious. Prepare to be reverted if you plan on ruining this article. Pocketthis (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For the images in question, I have several comments. 1.) They're nice photos - I don't have the patience (*or the luck*) to get such good material or results. 2.) I believe that the photos in an article should enhance the content of the article. This article contains eleven photos, which 'feels' like a bit much to me, and seems to drown out the article itself. 3.) As far as deciding which ones should be removed, I'd start with the ones of similar layout -- 'eating a carrot', 'wounded ear', 'carrot dinner', 'abandoned kit', and 'under sage bush' are all 'the same', in that they're all facing the right side in a sitting position. Yes, they convey different things, but in the grand scheme of things, what is the added benefit of having five seemingly similar photos? I would pick one or two and remove the others. Same goes for 'standing in the desert' and 'submissive posture' - at a quick glance, they look just about the same. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the photographs are really amazing, and really well taken. I like these rabbits myself. However, as I also stated earlier, we need to check out Wikipedia:Galleries in order to walk in accordance with Wikipedia. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that 1.) No Wikipedia article belongs to any one editor, 2.) Articles are for everyone, not specifically "kids in school", 3.) Personal attacks between editors are not acceptable (*on either end*). I absolutely understand the idea that you've put so much time and effort into the article - you should be commended for that... however, the entire point of being a collaborative effort is that we are attempting to build this encyclopedia together, and make it better as a whole. Wikipedia does not care about our own personal experiences or insights, but merely on verifiable facts published by reliable sources. I have no stake whatsoever in this article, but as an outsider, I question the purpose for having multiple photographs with the same composition -- what purpose does it serve to enhance the article as it currently stands? - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• A one row gallery is the desired size for any gallery on this site, and has been for decades. Sometimes it can be larger when an article is a "visual article" as this one is. You've got it down to one row. Be content. Oh, and as far as that "15 for dinner" shot: it is one of the most viewed photos on this entire site. Check the stats page.- Pocketthis (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

From the reference posted above: "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries."

Please demonstrate the 'aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text' and 'must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject' for these photos.

This should not a battle between editors, but more of a battle for the progression of this article. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to pick and choose images, I live in the Mojave Desert and most of these images is just like looking out my window, quality is not an issue, however I do have a couple thins I like to mention, 1). Too many. Images are meant to enhance the text of the article (in these type of articles) and it seems instead they are used to decorate the page (the same issue I have with Mojave Desert). 2). Guidelines. Image and gallery guidelines need to be followed regardless of "who the page is for", on the other hand consensus usually trumps guidelines. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not look for anybody's particular interest, but for the interest of the article. Commons is actually the place for all the extraneous images, where everybody can look at them. Despite being really cool images, they do not add much to the sense of the article (Imagine having 20 more images for the article, all within the article). Wikipedia do not see either mine, or yours, or even Bill Clinton's way of making article, but according to policies. Just imagine, 1000 different people may have 1000 different ways of creating articles. It would not be coherent with each other at all! Every article of the same category would be so different from each other, wouldn't it? Would it not be difficult to read from one article to the other? If they have certain guidelines, then they would be so readable. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• The three photos in the article body, belong there. They are extremely rare shots, and also photos of the animal in question that the general public will "never get to see" in their life in person. In the gallery, the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th photos are important to show aspects of the animal's lifestyle, and extremely rare shots of juvenile wild cottontails, which, to the average person looking to see the species in the wild, will never encounter. The other shots can be eliminated if you all feel "so strongly" that there are too many photos there. That's all from me today, I must go check the water levels in the rabbit and bird pools, as the temperature is again above 100 today. Then it will be close to feeding time here. Pocketthis (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I also have nothing further on these issues so please do not ping me and Pocketthis I assure you I will respect your request about your talk page, go take care of your friends as it is hot today 116° here. Happy editing, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

My main hesitation is that a lot of the images are similar to each other, and I don't feel like they really add to the article as a whole. I can go to Google images and see thousands of pictures if I wanted to, so why duplicate that effort here? As far as "that the general public will never get to see in person" - that could be said about almost any topic, and doesn't mean that every article on Wiki has an extensive gallery of photographs. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• 116? That is 8 degrees hotter than it was here in Joshua Tree yesterday. What part of the Mojave do you live in? Also, I went to the Mojave article, and pulled all of the photos out, and loaded them into a temporary gallery. Now you can eliminate the photos from that gallery down to one row. Have fun. I must now leave to get supplies. Have fun. Pocketthis (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Pocketthis: May I respond on your talk ? I'm a little uncomfortable answering personal questions on an article talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• We had an edit conflict there. Please read what I said about the Mojave Article. You are welcome to answer on my talk page, however, I am running out the door for supplies before the heat hits, so I won't be able to reply till later on. thanks Pocketthis (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So, could we look onto the images? Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, the article currently has more images than strictly necessary, and there seems little or no justification for a gallery in an article of this type (nothing specially visual, no list of things to compare, for instance). I see the defence that some images are "extremely rare"; however, we should in general avoid images of animals in captivity eating cultivated vegetables such as carrots which don't grow wild in the Mojave Desert.

I suggest therefore that we carefully select the most informative of the images in terms of the biology of the species. The lead image is well chosen, being clear and illustrating the habit of the species. Of the rest, perhaps the 'social' (File:15 for Dinner.jpg) image is distinctive, though it's a pity the habitat is so obviously human-influenced. Perhaps the 'submissive' (File:Desert Cottontail on hind legs begging.jpg) image is useful. The wild one stretching (File:Joshua Tree National Park - Cottontail - 01.JPG) is perhaps also worth keeping. I'd drop all the rest. Just my tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, Desert cottontail under sage bush at 2,100 m (6,900 ft), eastern Sierra Nevada CA image shows the height where it is found. So, this might be kept too, right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If it displays unique behavior at this altitude which is different than any other altitude, sure. But I'm assuming that a rabbit sitting under a bush looks the same at 6900 feet as well as 69 feet, thereby making the point invalid. (*in my unbiased opinion*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 18:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lol, yep. So, we could remove that image. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• You can remove that image, as it was the last one placed in the article, has no tenure, and is irrelevant to the article. I didn't take it obviously. As far as the images in the body of the article are concerned, there are 3 not counting the opener. They stay where they are. If you want to debate about a few more gallery photos, I already explained that the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th photos are important. They stay. You can delete the rest. Then the article as far as images is concerned will be completed. Pocketthis (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read my suggestion above, where I proposed removing most of the images, and the criteria for deciding which ones should stay. It may perhaps help to reflect that since the subject is a species, this is a biology article, and deserves to be treated as such. It needs to cover its subject systematically and scientifically, with attention on evolution and phylogeny, ecology, physiology, and distribution. Basically, and I'm sorry to have to say this given that you are evidently keen to have the images, there's little biological justification for keeping most of them. It would be very helpful if you could go with the general consensus here, so we can continue to build the article towards GA status. That would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• OK, now there are only two in the body, and three in the little gallery. Biological or not, this particular article is a "visual" article, because these animals are so loved by the children. I get emails, letters, and posts on social networks, thanking me for those now deleted photos. Most are from teachers that tell me the kids spend hours talking about the "rabbit that is standing up" in two photos, and the "group photo especially" is appreciated. I think you guys recently have hurt this article trying to get some damn rating status that only you care about. That's not what this place is all about. I rewrote this article years ago from a "stub" to its present state. Today, that has gone backwards. Pocketthis (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, but you have removed the wrong images by the stated criteria. Note however that Wikipedia is not a children's picturebook as such. Obviously it's delightful that children can like fluffy animals, but there are many websites that cater to that demand. You have evidently much personal knowledge and interest in that area, which is entirely admirable, but in some degree of conflict of interest with Wikipedia's purpose; in any such conflict, it must go without saying that Wikipedia's mission comes first here. There is of course ample scope at Commons for images (and even pages of images, with commentary). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor that barely speaks English gives you an "editor's Barnstar", so you show up here to help him out in destroying this article. Actually comical. I have had to go behind every single edit this guy has made, and correct his English. I'll give him this much credit: The copy of this article has improved because he showed an interest in researching and improving it, even though none of his edits were grammatically correct, his intentions were good. As far as your comment that I have "removed the wrong photos", we just plain disagree. I left the standing adolescent in the body because he is the most perfect cottontail specimen I have ever seen in the two decades I have been caring for them, and feeding them. I left the group photo, because it proves their social habits with their peers, and it is one of the most viewed photos in an article on this site. In the gallery, the rabbit that is an adult standing in anticipation of food, shows the effect the human race can have by being kind to these animals. Once you have earned their trust, they will be loyal to humans, and follow them around like a dog would. I left the mother and juvenile, because it shows the size difference from youth to adulthood, and this scene would never be observed by the average rabbit viewer in the wild. Also, it collaborates the "Eating Mechanics" paragraph, and is an extremely rare shot. I left the baby Kit in the gallery, because these shots are almost non existent. Even after 17 years caring for these animals, I have seen a specimen at this age only twice. Leave the photo choosing to me. These animals are my life. I know what's important, and what's not. Happy editing. Pocketthis (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have an issue with the process that you're using here, however. We, as a collective, are here on the talk page attempting to come to an agreement on which photos should remain on the article, and you ON YOUR OWN, are editing the article based on YOUR ideas and opinions. I'll point to my comment just below this one -- this article does not belong to you personally. Stop making edits that haven't been agreed upon. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't care which photos go or stay - I don't have a stake in that. I'd like to (*once again*) point out that articles don't belong to any particular editor. You keep referencing "I rewrote this article" and "I get feedback..." -- this isn't your personal article to do with as you please. It belongs to the community as a whole. If the community is suggesting that we make a change, we need to be pliable in that effort. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been "more than pliable" my friend. I have objected to none of the copy edit improvements, (except grammar), and have eliminated multiple photos. Happy editing. Pocketthis (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you haven't made grammar corrections on my edits, I think you're referring to @Adityavagarwal:. Secondly, my point exactly -- YOU have eliminated multiple photos, based on your own criteria, not based on any of the discussion above. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the change and placed the images back to where they previously resided. Come to a consensus on what needs to be updated, THEN make the update. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, even though none of his edits were grammatically correct as far this goes, I do not think this is correct. As far the editor's Barnstar goes, you might consider seeing the article for which I awarded him with the barnstar. He repeatedly kept checking (literally, repeatedly) and improved the quality of the article. To be honest, there had to be something above the barnstars that I could award him with. He also provided his inputs on improving the article. Not only that but also did he, on various occasions, pointed out issues and amendments on various articles (for example, Taxonomy (biology)). Undoubtedly, not only me but many editors would agree to me that @Chiswick Chap: is a really awesome contributor. I also, on looking at all your image contributions, wanted to award you with The Photographer's Barnstar, but somebody had already awarded you with that. Also, I repeatedly tried to explain you why so many images were not required on the article. It is just like spamming the article. Just think if there were 20 more images, it would become like Wikimedia Commons instead of being a Wikipedia article. Commons is for all those images (I have mentioned it plenty of times earlier), and what is the point behind making Wikipedia just like Commons? I asked out Chiswick, as he has a lot of knowledge about many things, and would be able to separate the images far better than I would. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Commons is the "depository" that we all take the photos "FROM" to put in the articles. It was not intended as a public viewing venue. PLEASE LEARN THAT! The only reason the photos are even there, is because that is where we upload to. It is a "storage facility". We can't upload direct to articles. Get it yet?? I am not arguing that Chiswick doesn't deserve credit for his editing, however, it is ironic that an editor that barley speaks our language gives him an English Copy Editing Barnstar, which by the way, you are famous for handing out to many here. Your motives are obviously for acceptance here, but in my opinion, you should be editing on the wiki native to whatever your language is. India perhaps?? Don't know. My job on this site is to pick the appropriate photos for articles, when I have one that I believe fits. Yes, it is a "self imposed" position, but one that has suited this site quite nicely. If you don't like my work here. Go ahead and delete all of it. I really don't care at all anymore at this point. Have fun, and knock yourselves out. Happy editing Pocketthis (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't take this as a personal back and forth. The topic at hand is this: which images need to stay (*out of sheer benefit to the article as a whole*), and which images need to be pruned? - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 18:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm done here. Have fun. Pocketthis (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your attitude here, but you are giving the impression that you think you "own" this article (if so, please see WP:OWN for why that is not acceptable on Wikipedia). You are entitled to your opinion, but we work by consensus here, and you are basically trying to oppose it by stating that you have an interest outside Wikipedia, and have spent much time editing the article. Those things are fine in themselves, but give you precisely no right to impede consensus on the article, that's simply being disruptive. It's time to stop arguing, and for us to make a small, sensible selection of the many frankly similar images of rabbits sitting, rabbits eating, young rabbits eating, etc. We honestly don't need terribly many of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

First image is perfectly fine. Second (*juvenile standing*) and fifth (*submissive posture*) appear the same to me (*as an outsider*), so I would keep the fifth as it has better lighting/clarity. Third (*eight week old*), eighth (*six week old*), and ninth (*mother and juvenile*) also appear similar to me. Of the three, I'd say to keep the ninth (*mother and juvenile*) since it gives a visual scale of adult versus young. Fourth (*group shot*), tenth (*abandoned*), and eleventh (*under bush*) don't seem to provide a benefit to the article. Six (*on alert*) is probably good since it directly ties to a statement in the article itself. Seventh (*stretching*) is questionable. Again, my unbiased opinion just by looking at the article as a whole. I'm more than open to ideas, suggestions, and even discussion to the contrary. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are basically just far too many, far too similar images. I've suggested the three I'd keep; any small selection will probably do. I suggest we go for it and remove most of them now, as most of us agree that's what needs to be done. Failing that we can invite uninvolved editors at relevant WikiProjects like Biology to come and take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That could be useful - an outside eye / fresh perspective. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Why don't we show the images we want to retain, as a gallery here on this talk page? All this reference and numbering is a bit indirect. Suggest just 3 or 4 pics in all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My "max 4" suggestions would be:

• 
  Main image, works fine
• 
  Clear image of rabbit from the front
• 
  Good scale between adult and child
• 
  Directly referenced behavior in the article

- NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support using only these images as proposed by NsTaGaTr. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support They seem appropriate. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Four is about the right number of images for a page of this size, and those seem appropriate. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Rabbit Rocket Scientists

Since the rabbit rocket scientists arrived in a group about a month ago, pulled the gallery, and at least two of the best photos, reworded paragraphs with the help of an illiterate barley English speaking editor; the viewership of this once solid article, is now down around 50%. Congratulations on destroying an article. You reap what you sew, and reveal what you don't know. Shame on you. Pocketthis (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Speculation as fact...not found in references provided.

"... Another factor is its competition with the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), because both have the same diet, and share the same habitat.[24] When a season has been particularly dry, there is less plant life to go around. The cottontail does not fear the jackrabbit, in fact the jackrabbit is very skittish and will retreat from a confrontation in most instances. However, the black-tailed jackrabbit is much bigger, and consumes much more food at eating times. That means in dry periods, there is sometimes not enough food to sustain a robust cottontail population.[12] ..." The above quote from the article section on threats appears to be speculation not supported in the references provided. Additionally, in times of scarcity, it is typically the larger animals which are at a larger disadvantage, requiring more calories to sustain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGriffin (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comments. I am both the photographer and one of the original authors of this article. I have been feeding approximately 40 cottontails and 10 Black-tailed jackrabbits twice a day for almost 18 years. I repair their broken legs, nurse them back to health when sick, care for the kits when they are abandoned by their parents etc. I truly believe I know these animals better than I know myself. When I wrote that section above, it was POV. Perhaps both species are equally affected by dry periods. However, I make that conclusion from years of feeding both species at the same time in the same space. As far as the cottontails not fearing the Black-tails, and the Black tails are skittish, that is a fact. When these animals are hungry and competing for the same scrap of food, the bigger Black-tail will nudge the cottontail away, until the cottontail realizes just how big a coward the Black-tail actually is...lol. Once the little cottontail starts nudging back, the Black-tail is spooked, and will move on to another food scrap option. P.S. I also took most of the photos in the Black-tailed jackrabbit article as well. I have many photos of the two species eating together, however, I've never uploaded any of them. IF you'd like to see a few, leave me an email address to send them to. What happens over time is that the two species get used to each other, and eat right next to each other, however, the competitive attitude never fully subsides. That's especially true with the cottontails. There can be 100 carrot pieces in an eating area (e.g.

500 sq'), and even though there is more than enough food to go around, two rabbits may waste valuable eating time fighting over one piece of food. I buy 25lb bags of carrots, and go through 3 bags a week. This is an expensive hobby. :-). Also, what is quite interesting, is that these animals (both species) have unique personalities just like us. There are the mellow friendly ones that are happy to sit and eat next to 49 others just inches apart, (most are like these), and there are the tough guys that could care less about the carrot right under their nose; they want the "other rabbit's food", and will waste half the morning trying to get it. I've learned how to segregate those guys from the pack, and feed them in their own areas. I could go on for hours about their personalities. Whenever a mother arrives with a juvenile for the first time, I spend time getting to know the youngster, and make him not fearful of me. (short of ever picking one up) This is very rewarding three months later when the youngster is full grown, and will scratch on my door in the morning to let me know it's feeding time. The Black-tails I meet when they are young are also comfortable around me, however, never as fearless as the cottontails, and never as personable, warm and friendly. I have wild cottontails that I've been feeding since they were kits, that will sit on my foot and eat, and follow me around my property when I'm out doing chores. Too bad so many humans use them as target practice. I will adjust the paragraph about the food supply since it is POV. Thanks for your observations.→ Pocketthis (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor changes that could be made

First a math correction for the dental formula. Here it says 2.0.3.3/1.0.3.3=28 which doesn't add up. The calculation (2+0+3+3+1+0+3+3)x2 equals 30, not 28. I think its supposed to be 2.0.3.3/1.0.2.3=28 but someone else can look it up and make the edit.

Second, the part "cottontails give birth to their kits in burrows vacated by other mammals" isn't always true. I have seen them dig their own burrows in the backyard garden, so at least in urban areas without other animal burrows, they make their own. Again, someone else can find those troublesome references and make the edit. — Preceding !nosign!