From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cryptozoology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Lepus Anteoculini

(image alone)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Lagomorpha
Family: Leporidae
Genus: lepus
Species: Anteoculini

Should a fictional animal such as this have a tatobox so similar to real animals? I think it's kind of misleading, since the classification is completely made up. Bryan 07:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the answer is obvious: no, it shouldn't have a taxobox, especially not one that's completely mucked-up (Carnivora isn't a genus). This is just Reddi being silly again (he tried to put a taxobox into Wookiee too). --No-One Jones 07:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll also note that Anteoculini fails the Google test, leading me to think that it's a category straight out of the author's imagination. --No-One Jones 07:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't meant as original research ... but as bj-a-odn JDR 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Looking at the common Wolpertinger, it seems probable that the Jackalope has been introduced by German settlers, probably interbred with local rabbits and lost its wings as a result of adaption to the harsh surrounding ecosystem (which is a bit strange considering that it should be the apex predator, it could point to hippogryff population that has become extinct). As I am not a cryptozoologist, I would not be ideal for contributing to the existing post, but I urge you to add a paragraph concerning the striking similarities between both animals. Also, you should delete the part in the references about the Wolpertinger being a special kind of Jackalope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article should reference the Wolpertinger. It is virtually the same animal, but with wings. Wolpertingers are very common in Bavaria, where you find them stuffed in virtually every traditional bar. It is most likely that the Wolpertinger is the origin of the Jackalope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the navbox at the bottom of the article. There are links to all sorts of fictional creatures including the Wolpertinger. MarnetteD | Talk 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Why is this listed as a fictional animal? I have a pet Jackalope at home. They're not common, and there are probably a lot of fakes around, but they are a real animal. 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

a pet jackelope? You have to call a newspaper than! It must be the first jackelope caugt alive! Beware of scientists, they will probably want to study it (actually, this means they cut him into pieces and you don't want this to happen to your beloved pet).

I know they exist. I'd read about them in a really TRUSTABLE scientific magazine. So I also wonder: why is this animal classified as a fictional creature? How trustable is Wikipedia if real existing animals are called fictional? What will be the next animal said not to exist? A horse maybe? Or a dog? Perhaps a salmon?

try looking up "Shope papillomavirus," a form of cancer that causes bunnies to grow horns. This does not make jackalope a species71.53.163.211 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it certainly doesn't by most common definitions of 'species'. Morphological definition, possibly. -- General Wesc (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
When I was a child in the 1950s, a local store had a jackalope head mounted on the wall. It had to be real because the grownups told me so, and what grownups tell a child is always the truth. Right? Naaman Brown (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Jackalope isn't real, those trophies are just jackrabbits with deer antlers taped on, nothing more. Meanwhile, your pet was probably a domestic rabbit with Shope papilloma virus labelled as a Jackalope. There've got to be a few pet stores that do that, people would pay thousands of dollars just to see what they were told was a Jackalope, let alone buy one as a pet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


The image in this article (Image:Jackalope.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jackalopes are real.[edit]

According to this website, the Shope papilloma virus creates horn like growths similar to keritan horns on human skin tumors on jackrabbits and cottontails. The myth of a jackalope is probably based on the factual occurrence of diseased horned rabbits... this places a whole new important spin on the article.

Gotnerve 07:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

you say that this virus creates this growhts on human skin tumors on jackrabbits and cottontails eh? How dou you explain a human skin tumor on a jackrabbit or a cottontail? I don't think these animals are human...

Grammar'ed--"The Shope papilloma virus creates horn-like growths, similar to keritan horns on human skin tumors, on rabbits." Which doesn't mean it makes rabbits magically have human skin... it means that it causes horn-like growths similar to the ones on some human tumors. 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should add this information to the article, I was hesitant to add it because we don’t know if the Jackalope is real or not, but it does supply relevant information. Size: Males to 24". Females to 20". Weight: Avg 6-8 lbs. Binge up to 12 lbs. Horns: To 12 inches across. 2-3 points common. Coat: Tawny-brown, lighter on chest & underside. Disposition: Secretive. Easily agitated. Habitat: Grasslands & KOA Campgrounds. Range: Western North America into Canada. Diet: Grasses, beenie weenies, smores. Mating Ritual: Only during intense lightning strikes. Population: Less than 10,000. (2000 Census) Predators: Taxidermists, Tourists, Wall Drug. Status: Endangered to threatened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surferchick81 (talkcontribs) 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


There was a reference to a Jackalope in Frasier, along with, I think, the head of one mounted for show. I can't remember the specifics enough to add it in though.

> You're right. Season 7 Episode 7 "A Tsar Is Born" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

trying to edit[edit]

I keep trying to contribute to this page and some so and so keeps erasing my contributions and calling them vandalism. Let's put a stop to it, OK?--Bubbabear 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

BubbaBear, your edits may have a problem with verifiability. Many new contributions to Wikipedia are heavily scrutinized to be attributable to some outside source. That helps make sure people don't just make stuff up and add it. If you can find a source - web page, newspaper, a book, etc - that says the things you are trying to add you'll have good luck getting your edits to stick. Unfortunately, the jackalope is mostly an oral legend passed on amongst people in an informal setting. It can be difficult to find source material that backs up specific points of the legend, even the stuff that "everybody knows". It isn't correct for your material to be removed as vandalism, though, the other editors may want to put a {{Fact}} tag on it and give you some time to find the details. Good luck. SchmuckyTheCat 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the info on one of the web pages listed as an external resource. If you'd like me to add a source I will gladly do so.--Bubbabear 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

as for being "some so and so", I am a contributor to wikipedia like everyone else, If you place unsourced information then I will gladly remove it, each and every time. However, if you provide a source that is reliable, I would just as gladly leave the information in place. As to calling it vandalism, I may have jumped the gun and got you confused with one of the many others I removed from this article in a purge I did the other day, If that is the case, I apologise. Regards, -- Nashville Monkey 12:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Stagbunny Movie[edit]

There was a movie shot in Wyoming last year. Should something be added to the film section?

Stagbunny on Amazon

Stagbunny on IMDB


I've deprecated the trivia tag on this article. As a modern oral legend, it owes its very existence and notability to pop culture. SchmuckyTheCat

Listing random references is not a good way to build an article--even one about a "modern oral legend". General discussion backed up by reliable sources is much more appropriate. I am therefore re-adding the tag, and if no one else objects I will begin culling in a couple of weeks. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

America's Funniest ... ?[edit]

The jackalope appeared several times on America's Funniest Home Videos before it appeared on America's Funniest People. This was my -and I'm sure many other's- first exposure to the jackalope. It seems like it should be mentioned. Machee 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think AFHV is a big part of the Jackalope legend, not to be left out of an encyclopedic article. Cuttycuttiercuttiest (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jakalope-It-Dreams-(Cover).jpg[edit]

The image Image:Jakalope-It-Dreams-(Cover).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did the legend originate?[edit]

What is the first known reference to jackalopes? -Pgan002 (talk)

No cyptozology info boxes please[edit]

I do not think such animals even if they might have once been considered part of cryptozoology are to be group so closely with such after being accepted as false. It is my opinion that this only causes confusion between cryptoozology and folklore fields and also deters the exposure of certain mythologies as a separate entity. Except for special cases, I do not not think most debunked cryptids are deserving of cryptozoological categories, info boxes, &c. Tripodero (talk) 08 MAY 2009, 16:41 (UTC)

Complete Deletion[edit]

I think this page should be completely deleted. The jackalope is completely fictitious because no credible proof has been found. If one has, then the jackalope would be known as a real animal, not a fictitious one. Therefore, it doesn't deserve an article for itself. (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a valid argument, not in any way. It is indeed fictitious, and this is made very clear in the article. However, it is nonetheless a very famous animal, and has left a considerable mark in American folklore. Wikipedia articles do not only deal with things that exist in the physical world, what part of "Neutrality" is so difficult to understand. If there were an article about a creature the user completely made up, I could understand. Let's say an article about a creature called the Pteranotiger. It has the head and wings of a Pteranodon, but the body of a tiger and it spits acid. An article like that could stand to be deleted. But an article about a creature existing in stories passed down from generation to generation such as the Jackalope is quite welcome in this encyclopedia. May I suggest preposing the deletion of the articles European Dragon, Unicorn, or Minotaur as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talkcontribs) 17:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin and names in other languages[edit]

The Wolpertinger

It is also very popular in alpine regions of Europe (Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland). Depending on the region, it has following names:

Why this part was removed? What is the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It was moved from the lead and copyedited. Pinethicket (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Shope Papilloma Virus[edit]

I found this information, but it seemed a little off topic, should it be added to the Article?

• This viral skin disease occurs commonly in its natural host, the wild cottontail rabbit, Sylvilagus floridanus - Eastern Cottontail, in Eastern USA. The disease is also occasionally seen in the domestic rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus domesticus. • In cottontails, this virus causes a benign cutaneous disease but in the European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, the characteristic wart-like skin lesions may progress to malignant neoplasms that resemble squamous cell carcinomas, and metastasis may occur. Shope papillomavirus causes sporadic disease in rabbits across North America. Cats, dogs, goats, pigs, mice, guinea pigs and rats are refractory to this virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surferchick81 (talkcontribs) 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've known about this for several years aswell. It should be explained clearly that the "Jackalope", while not it's own species, certainly are real flesh & blood creatures. The "antlers", and "horns" are cancer, not props. (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Problematic source for "flaggerdoot"[edit]

The Larkin source ("Sightings and Human Interaction." 50 Facts About Jackalopes) is a children's book of joke facts that are all original inventions by the author. I am positive that Larkin also coined "flaggerdoot", as all google results point back to him and his book. This makes the book a primary source material, as it itself is the origin of the word, and is not far enough removed from the coinage of the word. I know that this is a fictional subject, but the only way that Larkin's contribution to the mythology could be considered notable is if a secondary source commented on the usage of "flaggerdoot" in some cultural context.

Blueaster (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak the article accordingly. As you say, it's all in good fun. Maybe the Larkin book should be specifically discussed. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting information about Douglas Herrick's age[edit]

"The New York Times attributes the story's origin to a 1932 hunting outing involving Douglas Herrick (1920–2003) of Douglas, Wyoming. Herrick and his brother had studied taxidermy by mail order as teenagers,"

If the story's origin was in 1932, then Herrick could not yet have been a "teenager" if he was born in 1920. While the first sentence implies the source for this information is the NY Times link, the second sentence is sourced tot he "About Us" page for a bar called the Jackalope which provides no information about the Herrick's or the creature at all. I will remove the non-useful reference to the bar's page so that the next reference is to that seems to be the actual source for "studied taxidermy by mail order as teenagers," (also supported by an LA Times obituary for Douglas Herrick referenced elsewher in the article) but that still leaves the incongruity of Douglas Herrick not being a teenager when Ralph Herrick contends (in the NY Times story) the event actually occurred. Cy Guy (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, corrections always helpful. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Source material[edit]

Found some stuff that might pass WP:RS for this article. Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Good tip. This solves the problem of what to do with the unsourced list of critters. Not all are hares or rabbits. The Dildapp, for example, is a goofy person. I have deleted the list, which could be recreated one by one if supported by RSs. Finetooth (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks very useful at first glance. Muchas gracias. Finetooth (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oy. Finetooth (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Time for a run at GA?[edit]

What'cha all think? I've pretty much run out of ammo. Montanabw fixed that Huichol thing that's been bugging me since Day One and a bunch of other things too. I'll probably see more little glitches and baggy prose tomorrow, but I think I'm basically done. What's still missing, confused, wrongheaded, or messed up, or is everything approximately A-OK? Finetooth (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we are ready for the GAN. I'll help birddog it and if I see any wikignoming edits I can do along the way, I'll help there too. It has been hilarious and fun to have happen! Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Super! I hope to do this tomorrow, February 7. Finetooth (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015[edit]

A Jackalope does NOT have antelope horns; it has Deer antlers, mostly whitetail type and only 2 points on each side! Please change the descripton.--Wyocop (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Wyocop (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 19:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe the existing article makes clear that although the imaginary creature is a combination of antelope and rabbit, the taxidermist jackalopes that you can buy in a store or by mail order are, as you say, made with deer horns. Could you point out where in the article you see a problem? Which section, which sentences? Finetooth (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is my very first WP:GA review.

@Montanabw:, @Finetooth: I apologize for taking so long to review this article; I have been doing schoolwork and etc. I hope to move a little faster now. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No worry, no hurry. Your schoolwork is more important. Jackalope will wait. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Cleanup tags: None to be too concerned about. Just some sources that require a subscription to access and apparently there is a template with duplicate arguments. Someone can fix the latter (I don't know which template it is), the former is not abnormal.
    • The "subscription required" tag is actually required when we cite to such sources. (Montanabw)
  • Copyvio Just reword this line: The Douglas Chamber of Commerce has issued thousands of jackalope hunting licenses to which is from [1].
    • Reworded. (Montanabw)
  • Blatant failures of the Six Criteria None.
    • Finetooth is the lead editor here, but these two looked like low-hanging fruit for me to catch on his behalf, no worries if someone else reverts my fixes if they have a better solution. Montanabw(talk) 07:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Guye for taking the time and trouble to review the article, and thanks Montanabw for the help with fixes. I just got home from a long errand and noticed that the process had begun. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Can I get a source that says "jackalope" is a portmanteau of "jackrabbit" and "antelope" (or something of the sort). The claim is probably true, but I just feel more comfortable with a source on it. Actually, that whole paragraph needs sources.
I guess that should be discussed in the "Name" section. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that we need a source for "portmanteau" as it is obviously a blend of two words; similarly we wouldn't need a source to establish that "wouldn't" is a contraction. The rest of that sentence is verified by the remaining two paragraphs in that section. I think that one's OK. Montanabw(talk) 07:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Douglas Herrick and his brother, hunters with taxidermy skills, popularized the American jackalope in Douglas, Wyoming, in the 1930s by grafting deer antlers onto a jackrabbit carcass and selling the combination to a local hotel. Sentence seems a bit rambly. Possibly because it seems to have too many commas.
  • The phrase so-called, which appears multiple times in the article, should be avoided as an expression of doubt.
    • I eliminated one instance where it was used (for jackrabbit), the other two make sense, one due to its humor ("fearsome critter") and the other because it is an inaccuate colloquialism


  • Some of the largest herds of wild pronghorns, which are found only in western North America, are in Wyoming. The adults grow to about 3 feet (1 m) tall, weigh up to 150 pounds (68 kg), and can run at sustained speeds approaching 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) I feel like this line is in there only to promote Wyomingite pronghorns, which means not only is it WP:POV, but it is WP:OFFTOPIC as well. Is there a good reason for it?