CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Common mole-rat

species of mammal

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 21, 2026
Entity authorityQ1032783
Source-derived summary

The common mole-rat, African mole-rat, or Hottentot mole-rat, (Cryptomys hottentotus) is a burrowing rodent found in Southern Africa, in particular in the Western Cape province of South Africa. It also occurs in Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It is a species in the subfamily Bathyerginae.

Taxonomy

René Primevère Lesson was the first to describe the common mole-rat in 1826, based on an animal captured near Paarl, and called it Bathyergus hottentotus. The following year, the Dutch zoologist Anton Brants described a specimen from the eastern part of the Cape Colony which he named Bathyergus caecutiens. In 1828, Andrew Smith described Bathyergus ludwigii. Around 1900 these little mole rats were no longer considered to fit into the genus Bathyergus, and various forms were described in the genus Georychus, namely G. exenticus in 1899 by Édouard Louis Trouessart, G. jorisseni in 1909 by Henry Lyster Jameson, G. albus in 1913 and G. vandamii in 1917, both by Austin Roberts. The same Roberts described two more forms in 1924, but now under the current genus name Cryptomys, namely C. cradockensis and C. transvaalensis. However, the current combination was already made in 1906 by Oldfield Thomas and Harold Schwann, but with an unnecessary addition: Cryptomys hottentotus talpoides. In 1964, Gerrit de Graaff in his dissertation considers all these forms as belonging to the same species and thus all other names are synonyms of Cryptomys hottentotus.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Common mole-rat” as species of mammal. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Common, mole-rat and species.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1826, 1828, 1900, 1899—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Common, mole-rat and species providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Common mole-rat”, the useful work is to connect “species of mammal” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1032783. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1826, 1828, 1900 and 1899.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Common mole-rat”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Common mole-rat primary sources, Common mole-rat archive and Common research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Common mole-rat”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Common mole-rat” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.