Implicating jackrabbit → lagomorph
Link to implication

Reason:

As a type of hare (and not rabbits), jackrabbits are thus lagomorphs.

Clawstripe said:
Implicating jackrabbit → lagomorph
Link to implication

Reason:

As a type of hare (and not rabbits), jackrabbits are thus lagomorphs.

Already mentioned in my thread here

Also, -1. Jackrabbits aren't a type of hare, they're just another name for hare. A different name for the same creature; alias instead.

And since I'm here:

Related implications

• arctic hare → hare
• snowshoe hare → hare

facelessmess said:
Also, -1. Jackrabbits aren't a type of hare, they're just another name for hare. A different name for the same creature; alias instead.

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare ), there are six species of jackrabbits amongst the hares. As jackrabbits are a subset of hares rather than synonymous with all hares, an implication is more appropriate than an alias.

Clawstripe said:
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare ), there are six species of jackrabbits amongst the hares. As jackrabbits are a subset of hares rather than synonymous with all hares, an implication is more appropriate than an alias.

*search*

I guess that understood it; "Jackrabbit" apparently is a regional nomenclature for hares. In some places of western North America hares are called "jackrabbits", thus the hare species native of those regions tend to be called that way.
I can't see what benefit we would have in keeping such region-specific term though.

+1 for alias. Explanation above.

O16 said:
I can't see what benefit we would have in keeping such region-specific term though.

Then consider jackrabbit to be a species- or genus-level designation for certain hares, just as a dog is a species-level designation for certain canids. Would you alias dog to canine?

-1 for alias.
+1 for implication.

Curious, I thought I'd asked for an implication of jackrabbit → hare instead of → lagomorph. I must have gotten some wires crossed somewhere.
________________
A corrected suggestion:

Implicating jackrabbit → hare
Link to implication

Reason:

Jackrabbits are a type of hare (and not rabbits).

okay but is there ANY significant visual differences between jackrabbit and hare? because if there isnt any, implication would be completely meaningless.

Ledian said:
okay but is there ANY significant visual differences between jackrabbit and hare? because if there isnt any, implication would be completely meaningless.

Enormous ears, even compared to other hares. Those gave them their name as the ears reminded people of the long ears of donkeys (AKA jackasses). Also, a lankier body as they're among the speediest of lagomorphs, reaching speeds up to 35 mph (56 kph).

Clawstripe said:
Enormous ears, even compared to other hares. Those gave them their name as the ears reminded people of the long ears of donkeys (AKA jackasses). Also, a lankier body as they're among the speediest of lagomorphs, reaching speeds up to 35 mph (56 kph).

but can you actually see these differences in art? because even the line between hare and rabbit gets very blurry when it comes to furry art, let alone hare and jackrabbit.

Jackrabbit to hare is like bobcat to lynx. Bobcat is aliased to lynx.