Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black Rabbit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2014 at 13:36:10 (UTC)

Well, this black - so I think it is a house rabbit or Domestic rabbit (black rabbits are not usual in the wild... - or possibly a melanistic varierty ...? but still interesting than ) -
Oryctolagus cuniculus is Latin for European rabbit - the one in FP the picture is wild. The only rabbit to be widely domesticated is the European rabbit, which has been extensively domesticated for food or as a pet. It was first widely kept in ancient Rome and was refined into a wider variety of breeds during the Middle Ages Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diego's identified it as O. cuniculus, which is a species name. Being domesticated or not does not affect that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same species is not a problem as far as the use in article is different. For domesticated animals, we can expect more sub divisions (See the categorization in Commons). I agree, Rabbit is a too wide scope. Wonder why an Australian rabbit is used at European rabbit too. J e e 08:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blast this rabbit, because it is same species - the Australians never had a rabbit before the Europeans took them there. Hafspajen (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still my biology-lesson say to me that oryctolagus-cuniculus-forma-domestica is very different from Oryctolagus cuniculus - out in the wild -wild ones are grey-brownish - while domestic ones are black, white, blue, cinnamon - and so on. Hafspajen (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still I don't think a rabbit grown up in Australia is the best option to describe a rabbit "native to southwestern Europe (Spain and Portugal) and northwest Africa (Morocco and Algeria)". :) J e e 14:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no, not that one. These rabbits are annoying. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nice picture, but I feel that the lighting lets it down just slightly. 109.145.182.239 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, and Jkadavoor: The image quality of this image is better than the one Crisco mentioned. For example this image is 3115×2920 pixels whereas the one Crisco mentioned is 1367×1709 pixels. The light and focus is more sharp in this image than the one Crisco mentioned. Thanks! Jim Carter 09:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, actually it is. Only 1367×1709 pixels. Hafspajen (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Said image is also five years old. Note that size isn't everything, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Can be closed speedily per WP:SNOW. Jim Carter 19:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]