The origin of the Rabbit

[zig zag wanderer 0]

After reading Rickardo's thread on the shooting of a fox after free-range chickens and Aaronpigeonplucker's post concerning the origin of the rabbit;

 

What are the panel's views? (please give your reasons)

 

There seems to me to be four theories;

 

 

1) They were always here and survived the various ice ages?

 

2) Norman introduction?

 

3) Roman introduction?

 

4) They were pushed out with the ice age and as it ended and retreated they returned accross the land bridge from France?

 

There is some evidence for all of these theories but some of it is more compelling than others.

 

Personally I favour the return accross the land bridge from France after the retreat of the Third Glacial Phase about 22,000 years ago.

Edited February 8, 2009 by zig zag wanderer

[Shooter08 0]

Facts About Rabbits

 

Rabbits Despite finding them in almost every corner of the UK, often in very large

numbers, rabbits aren't native to Great Britain and were actually

introduced about 900 years ago from France.

 

Rabbits were intially bred for their fur and because they are a convenient size for a good meal, with no leftovers.

 

 

During the 1950s rabbit population in the UK were so large that the Myxoma virus was deliberately introduced, killing 99% of all rabbits in Great

Britain within just two years.

 

Rabbits are the only mammals in the world that can see behind themselves without having to rotate their head.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Shooter08

[Guest mickyrichardson]

interesting mate i just glad there here

[stubby 175]

cant say Ive worried much on the origins, they are here now, thats all that matters

[zig zag wanderer 0]

Facts About Rabbits

 

Rabbits Despite finding them in almost every corner of the UK, often in very large

numbers, rabbits aren't native to Great Britain and were actually

introduced about 900 years ago from France.

 

Rabbits were intially bred for their fur and because they are a convenient size for a good meal, with no leftovers.

 

 

During the 1950s rabbit population in the UK were so large that the Myxoma virus was deliberately introduced, killing 99% of all rabbits in Great

Britain within just two years.

 

Rabbits are the only mammals in the world that can see behind themselves without having to rotate their head.

 

Facts are only facts if they're right.

 

The Norman (French) introduction is very popular but I'm not sure it qualifies for "Fact". What is your source by the way?

[TOMO 26,255]

its now known its not a fact about the normans , like i said on the other thread they have found rabbit bones at a recent dig on roman ruins. so if they were brought hear it was the romans. personly i like to think they were already here , but there was just no evidence of them.

 

i thought there was a land bridge as recent as about 5000 years ago, when where the channel was an area of swamp and marsh land.

[zig zag wanderer 0]

its now known its not a fact about the normans , like i said on the other thread they have found rabbit bones at a recent dig on roman ruins. so if they were brought hear it was the romans. personly i like to think they were already here , but there was just no evidence of them.

 

i thought there was a land bridge as recent as about 5000 years ago, when where the channel was an area of swamp and marsh land.

The reason some people query whether Romans introduced them is that the Romans were here 4000 years before any evidence of rabbite were found so the quetion is why did they wait so long to introduce them?

[Shooter08 0]

Facts are only facts if they're right.

 

The Norman (French) introduction is very popular but I'm not sure it qualifies for "Fact". What is your source by the way?

 

 

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/facts_ab...bbits_and_hares

[TOMO 26,255]

its now known its not a fact about the normans , like i said on the other thread they have found rabbit bones at a recent dig on roman ruins. so if they were brought hear it was the romans. personly i like to think they were already here , but there was just no evidence of them.

 

i thought there was a land bridge as recent as about 5000 years ago, when where the channel was an area of swamp and marsh land.

The reason some people query whether Romans introduced them is that the Romans were here 4000 years before any evidence of rabbite were found so the quetion is why did they wait so long to introduce them?

 

 

zig zag i think you are confused, romans were here from around 1ad till 3ad , about 2000 year ago, not 4000 , we were all cavemen 4000 year ago. in fact one or two on here still are

 

but like i said it was in the news a year or so ago that rabbit remains were found at a roman dig , confirming they were here when the romans were. weather they brought them in my opinion is still open to speculation. but the sheer fact they were here , tells us that the normans wernt the ones to bring them.

[aaronpigeonplucker 32]

norman introduce them, it said on QI on BBC1

Edited February 8, 2009 by aaronpigeonplucker

[undisputed 1,664]

My understanding of it is that the romans introduced them and even had warreners to look after them....cheap source of food

[TOMO 26,255]

yes it does say that arron, but on the linc i put up on the other thread, it says the romans did.

 

wel im off to work now , but in the morning i will do a search about that roman dig

[redeye jedi 39]

rabbits were last bought over by the romans as a source of food. but......Remains of rabbits dating back half a million years were found at Boxgrove in West Sussex and Swanscombe in Kent.

 

 

 

Paleaontologist Simon Parfitt of the Natural History Museum, who worked on the Boxgrove dig, told Show Me all about it:

 

'We found all sorts of animals - from the tiny ones like shrews and bats to huge ones like elephants. All of these animals were living in the landscape and were buried together.

 

We also found remains of hares, and a rabbit's tooth. This was quite a surprise, as previously the idea had been that rabbits were living in the Mediterranean coastal regions - around Spain, Southern France and Italy.

 

We don't know if humans were eating the rabbits at this time - there's no evidence of that yet.'

[zig zag wanderer 0]

zig zag i think you are confused, romans were here from around 1ad till 3ad , about 2000 year ago, not 4000 , we were all cavemen 4000 year ago. in fact one or two on here still are

Sorry, I meant 400 years (they were here for that period before the Normans). Hence the charge why wait 400 years to introduce the rabbit as remains were certainly found dating back to the Norman occupation.

 

It is known that rabbits were indigenous during the Third Glacial Phase 22,000 years ago from lagamorph fossils found in Swanscombe, Kent.

[comanche 3,036]

Romans certainly knew the rabbit and both types of hare . From the writings of Strabo and the like it is obvious that they kept them in domestication of some sort .Remember though these Roman aritostcratic types could afford to pen and maintain massive areas as hare and rabbit compounds. Don't think of little yards or hutches -wild hares and rabbits are quite nervous and tend to suffer stress in confinement . It would have taken some very selective breeding to create the dopey hutch rabbits we see today.

To be considered Native to Britain an animal or plant must show a linage dating back some 10000 years to the end of the last Ice age when the seas rose and started to cut Britain off from those rough European types with their more diverse wild-life and odd habits .

 

Rabbits came from the Mediterranean and North African area. The people of the Balearic Islands once had to beg their Roman occupiers to come and control the bunnies that had been introduced and were destroying their crops . This is a matter of written record and therin lies an indication that rabbits were not present in Britain and were not introduced by the Roman conquerors . Ok so maybe ,just maybe ,the odd one made it here as a Centurians' hand baggage or a personal import but the Romans (like the later Normans) were manic record keepers . There is no mention of rabbits being present in this country or of any being imported . On the contrary ,the Romans had no need to bring game with them as there were deer ,hares,fish and other edibles a plenty to be had from our native fauna. They did import farmstock -good improved breeds of sheep and cows but no mention of rabbits. They were, however, particually impressed by our dogs .Again all a matter of Roman record.

The Normans ,having hacked Harold( more likely than not he was chopped to death by Norman cavalry and had his willie chopped- off &stuffed in his mouth rather than being arrowed in the eye but I digress) to death and spent a few years subduing the country then set about compiling the Domesday book . Anything of value was duly noted and taxed . No mention of rabbit warrens I'm afraid . Only in the late Norman /Angelvin /Plantagenate period did records of rabbit warrens appear.

Edited February 8, 2009 by comanche