Burgess Animal Book for science?

I am reading through the Burgess Animal Book for Children with my 6 yo.  We attended a preschool nature center program for my 4 yo today that was about squirrels and chipmunks.  The teacher mentioned that squirrels and chipmunks were classified as rodents.  At the end of the class, I proudly mentioned that the class was great because we are on the rodent section of Burgess Animal Book.  I also mentioned that I was surpirsed to learn that rabbits are also classified as rodents.  Much to my surprise, she mentioned that in her research that rabbits are classified under the order lagomorpha (spelling courtesy of Wikipedia since I looked it up online for verification when I got home).  Turns out, the order of rabbits was changed in 1912, again according to Wikipedia.  I was a bit humbled to admit at the first of class I was homeschooling (since he was the only school aged child in the class), then after being politely corrected about rabbit classification had to confess that the animal book I’m using, which she wasn’t familiar with, is outdated!  

This makes me wonder if Burgess Animal Book is a good source for teaching animal classification today, that is if there are other discrepencies besides this one.   We love the stories, but I don’t want my child going around announcing that he learned rabbits are rodents to naturalists, lol.  I learned very little about nature study in my education, so I am now learning right along with my son.  This is why I wouldn’t notice if there were errors or information that has changed since Burgess’ day.  If the issue of rabbit classification is the only major change scientists have made since Burgess published the information, that’s fine.  I’d just like to know if there are other major changes before teaching the book information as fact.