Edited wiki link← Previous revisionRevision as of 17:18, 11 October 2026 Line 9: Line 9: | genus = Chaetophractus | genus = Chaetophractus | species = vellerosus | species = vellerosus | authority = ([[John Edward Gray|J. E. Gray]], 1865) | authority = ([[John Edward Gray|J.E. Gray]], 1865) | synonyms = *''Chaetophractus nationi'' (Thomas, 1894) | synonyms = *''Chaetophractus nationi'' (Thomas, 1894) *''Dasypus vellerosus'' J. E. Gray, 1865 *''Dasypus vellerosus'' J. E. Gray, 1865 Line 19: Line 19: ==Taxonomy== ==Taxonomy== The animal was first described by [[John Edward Gray|J. E. Gray]] in 1865 from a specimen in the British Museum collected from [[Santa Cruz de la Sierra]] in eastern [[Bolivia]] as ''Dasypus vellerosus''.{{cite journal |last1=Gray |first1=Dr J. E.|year=1865 |title=Revision of the Genera and Species of Entomophagous Edentata founded on the examination of the specimens in the British Museum |journal=Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London |publisher=Zoological Society of London |page=376 |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/90412#page/440/mode/1up |access-date=19 May 2011 }} Two [[subspecies]] are currently recognized (''C. v. vellerosus'' (Gray, 1865) and ''C. v. pannosus'' (Gardner, 2007)) although the taxonomic validity of the split has been called into question. The animal was first described by [[John Edward Gray|J.E. Gray]] in 1865 from a specimen in the British Museum collected from [[Santa Cruz de la Sierra]] in eastern [[Bolivia]] as ''Dasypus vellerosus''.{{cite journal |last1=Gray |first1=Dr J. E.|year=1865 |title=Revision of the Genera and Species of Entomophagous Edentata founded on the examination of the specimens in the British Museum |journal=Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London |publisher=Zoological Society of London |page=376 |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/90412#page/440/mode/1up |access-date=19 May 2011 }} Two [[subspecies]] are currently recognized (''C. v. vellerosus'' (Gray, 1865) and ''C. v. pannosus'' (Gardner, 2007)) although the taxonomic validity of the split has been called into question. ==Description== ==Description==