Talk:Cat

Template:FixBunching Template:WP1.0 Template:FixBunching Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

King Cat

A Slovene told me that a Turkish prince was once given Croatia as a gift but the prince didn't really like the country so he gave it to his cat instead. I think that the article should incorporate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.159.97 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of american references?

"With 69 million of them present in American homes, cats are the most or the second most popular pets in that country" - is this particularly relevant to cats in general? (Also, isn't america a continent (or two), not a country? - ignoring that though) In New Zealand there are 1.5 million cats. But who cares? And more importantly, is this appropriate information for an encyclopedia article on cats? I think the next line effectively illustrates the popularity of cats without being unnecessarily biased towards any one country. Mechwarrior Puppies (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I only had a glance at this page but that line jumped out at me as being in completely the wrong place, why mention America as opposed to any other country? Muleattack (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

America is a country. North America is a continent, and South America is another continent. I hope that clears it up. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

America is not a country, you ignoramus. Just because the Great Uninformed use "America" as shorthand for "United States of America" don't make it so. 124.168.147.224 (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

instead of calling names, see Americas. "America" is not necessarily the same as "the Americas".  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic Grammar Mistakes

Here's a quote from the article, in the category titled "SENSES", "Cats' have excellent night vision..."; please note that the words "cats" does not need an apostrophe after it as it does not show possession directly. This also applies to the following quote from the same portion of the article: "Unlike some big cats, such as tigers, domestic cats' have slit pupils." Whoever is a moderator or whatever the term is for Wikipedia should fix this. Thanks, just trying to give a helping hand and make Wiki better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydentank (talk • contribs)

Are you aware that you could just have fixed this yourself? There is no need to ask permission of anyone for these sorts of edits. You don't even need to bring them up on the talk page. Just for for it mate, that's the whole point of an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. ;) --WebHamster 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I must have been half-asleep last night. Fixed. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous feedback

• My take on words emphasised, such as the group terms in the Nomenclature section was that words were italicised unlike phrases which hd quotation marks around them (reading the MOS on italics/words as words emphasis). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• The article is pretty hefty, I wonder whether declawing is esoteric enough to be relegated to a subarticle and reduced to a sentence or two somewhere.

Unfortunately all too common in the US, I've merged and condensed with the section on scratching.

• I think I'd try to merge Feeding and diet and hunting and site it at the latter entry.

Merged part of the content, the rest is too physiology/biochemistry to go into the section on behavior.

• There is no mention of the genus and family to which the cat gives its name, and maybe a sentence or two on closest relatives outside the dyad of catus/silvestris.

I need a phylogenetic tree.

Sounds good, where do we get one of those then ;)

• The word 'cat' is used alot (duh) - try and think of some clever ways to reduce....
• Although it sits nicely there, I wonder whether the first sentence of the Habitat section should be slotted into taxonomy somehow.

Excellent, keep it coming! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

More later, RL beckons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Back again:

• In Physiology section:

• • Para 2 could be relegated to Cat behaviour (?)
  • Para 3 is unreffed - I'd just ditch it I think. Not specific to cats at all.

• In Domestication section, I would have thought something on the current status worldwide - eg are they domesticated in every single country (even tropical africa??) - any glaring differences, and any (even very gross) estimate of how many people keep them as pets or how many are kept etc. Probably not much out there but currently there is zip in the article at all.

• I am not a fan of see also sections, in most cases, a related article is related enough to have context and an existing spot from which a link exists, or it is too tenuous and should be dropped. Doesn't everyone use ctrl-F these days anyway?

Overall, intriguing read - I have done a little copyediting, which is naughty of me as the content isn't settled. The existence of an ample supply of daughter articles to relegate content is a plus, as I'd keep one eye on the length of the article and need for some more material to come in still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Ambitious project you've got here! Given that it's still a work in progress, I won't go over individual sentences. My first thought is that the ToC is too large and jumps back-and-forth between subjects. Just suggestions:

• Nomenclature and etymology can be combined into a single two sentence section after the intro. This seems to be usual.
• At least for me, the info on domestication in 8.1 follows from the evolutionary material in 1.1. I think this of high interest to the reader and should occur relatively early. Perhaps "Taxonomy and evolution" as the level one headline with Domestication as a sub. The Felis genus should be better contextualized (e.g. currently extant where, divergence estimate).
• Couldn't most of the section 8 be incorporated elsewhere? We have "Skeleton" under 2 and then come back to "Body types" at 8.2.2. "Health" is section 4 and then "Health effects" is 8.1.1. And if "Fondness for heights" belongs under behaviour, doesn't "Indoor scratching"? I realize this is difficult as you need to discuss the subject as a generic species and simultaneously as a pet, so don't combine any sections unless you think it will help. But I do find it jumpy.
• Having both "Anatomy" and "Physiology" as headlines strikes me as redundant.
• Small note: spell out numbers under 10 in words. Lots of examples in "Anatomy" and "Size."
• The intro ought to be larger but that can probably wait until the body settles down.

The ideal ToC is often in the eye of the beholder, so perhaps Cas or somebody can offer a second opinion on my suggestions.

Great work so far! Marskell (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd wonder whether "FOndness for heights" can be relegated into the behaviour subpage too. When we did major depressive disorder the article just kept growing and growing and we had to make some fairly ruthless decisions.. (I hate that part) Casliber (talk · contribs)

I've cut half of it and merged it into the hunting section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't cut out etymology/naming, as material in the lead should be expanded upon elsewhere in the article. Another article worth looking at for a comparison is Domestic Sheep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Better go home and feed my Felids. I'll get back to this later. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Penis spines

The quoted 7mm long penis spines sounded pretty unbelievable to me—we're talking about a house cat after all. According to the referenced PDF, they're 0.7mm long, not 7mm. 75.27.143.66 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You're quite right, I've corrected the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "Fully Domesticated"

The claim made that cats are "not fully domesticated" is based on a passage from source 26: "Although many cats eventually became pets, the modern cat is not fully domesticated in the classic sense." Though this comes from one reputable scolarly source, one should hesitate to rely on it without at least two other equally reputable sources, especially since all domestic variants have arisen due to direct human influence (also discussed in the scolarly source). In fact, the source does not refute cat domestication, but merely qualifies it as not having been a "classic" case of domestication. Therefore, the wording of the article is misleading at best. As an example, no one refutes that domestic dogs are not fully domestic, yet individual dogs also "are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild." --user: pinchme123

I've reworded this to "However, cats are not fully domesticated in the classic sense, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat differs only slightly from wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild." - I think the combination of the two observations are why cats are not fully domesticated: firstly that they are capable of surviving in the wild and secondly, that their anatomy and behavior differs little from wild relatives. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Domestication is about genetic change to make them more suited to humans. Dogs actually are different in behaviour, coat and body shape; and they're further optimised for particular tasks. That's quite a lot of genetic changes. Cats AFAIK have not been changed to the same degree at all.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if a wildcat walked through my garden I probably wouldn't give it a second glance, however the difference between a poodle and a grey wolf is massive. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What about that study that showed domestic cats' brains are 1/3 smaller than wildcats' brains? Granted, the reduction is mostly in the visual cortex, but this is a important difference, no? Abductive (reasoning) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That study (link) apparently examined the Spanish wildcat subspecies Felis silvestris tartessia, which is not the direct ancestor of the domestic cat. The discussion of the paper notes that the differences they observed might have been produced during the evolution of the smaller European wildcat Felis silvestris silvestris, rather than during domestication. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, except the article says the wildcats they dissected conform "closely to that which we anticipated based on the allometric relationship between brain and body weight derived from a wide range of felids (Davis, 1962; Radinsky, 1975; Pagel and Harvey, 1989):

brain mass = 0.23(average body mass)^0.61

Since the article says that domestic cats have much (20-30%) smaller brains compared to the wildcats (3.3 standard deviations), one could make the case that they have been heavily altered by domestication. All it would take to clinch this would be a source that shows that Felis silvestris lybica conforms to the formula. I think this whole "cats aren't really domesticated" argument is based on sentiment, not on facts. Also, if a wildcat wandered through your garden, you'd notice. They walk much more like bobcats or lynx than domestic cats.

Anyway, this is all OR on my part, but your statement that "their anatomy and behavior differs little from wild relatives" is patently untrue. I suggest the article be trimmed of all discussion of supposed partial domestication unless another reliable source or two is found. Abductive (reasoning) 00:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the wildcats they were comparing the domestic cats to are larger than the European wildcat, so any comparison we make between these wildcats and domestic cats says nothing convincing about the domestication process. Another source that discusses this is this book, which says cats drift in and out of domestication, semi-domestication and feralness depending on the particular conditions at the time. This source link makes a similar observation, stating that:

The ‘domestic’ cat, Felis silvestris catus, the only domesticated member of its Family, is usually classified as partially, rather than fully, domesticated. The criteria for complete domestication, permanent isolation from the wild species, and human control of breeding, territory and food supply, are satisfied by pedigree breeds such as Persian and Siamese. None of these, however, apply to all populations of non-pedigree or ‘mongrel’ cats, which hybridize with wild F. silvestris, select their own mates and compete for territories, and retain the ability to hunt and scavenge for food

Seems quite convincing to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not insofar as your claim of anatomy or behavior. The brain source you gave says that even though wildcats are larger, their skulls are thinner. Claiming that wildcats are more robust or whatnot, that they have similar behaviors (when just as many sources describe the extreme waryness and other differences of wildcats--for example the source [1] you just linked says;

The ancestral subspecies F. s. libyca (Randi & Ragni, 1991) fulfils only approximately half of the criteria for preadaptation to domestication proposed by Hale (1969). Specifically, its domestication should have been impeded for the following reasons: it is territorial and does not form large cohesive social groups with a permanent hierarchy (Macdonald, Yamaguchi & Kerby, 2000); in much of its range it is generally wary of man (Smithers, 1983; Happold, 1987); it has specialized dietary requirements (Bradshaw et al., 1996); and it is extremely agile.

just makes me think that every time somebody says they are not domesticated, they are overlooking copious counterexamples.

Also, comparisons to dogs are unfair; they dog is the most plastic animal yet discovered. If one compares say, pigs (which go feral in a flash), sheep (which aside from their coats are pretty much unchanged), other domestics, cats are just as domesticated as any of the others. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is what the sources that discuss the question of "how domesticated are cats" say on the subject. I've reworded this more to focus on the parts of the sources we all seem to agree on, how about However, in comparison to some other domesticated species, such as dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have changed it to However, in comparison to dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild. as I don't see any evidence that these traits of "non-domestication" aren't absent from any other species besides the dog. Let's face it, if the cat isn't "fully domesticated", why is it the most common pet (or on e of the two most common pets) in our households?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

However, since this point seems to be contentious, how about attributing these opinions: "According to X, however, in comparison to dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild." or somesuch?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cat clades (not clowders)

I was asked if my edit about domestic cats nearest relatives was problematic. I edited that within its genus, domestic cats' closest relative is Felis margarita which I think is uncontroversial. Within Felis silvestris, it closest relative is the petite African Wildcat Felis silvestris lybica, which I believe was hypothesized by Darwin and confirmed by many studies (Randi & Ragni, 1991), (Driscoll et al. 2009). The Driscoll article says that DNA evidence shows that that Felis silvestris silvestris, Felis silvestris lybica, Felis silvestris cafra, Felis silvestris ornata, and Felis silvestris bieti are all true subspecies, and that domestic cats are "virtually indistinguishable" from Felis silvestris lybica. All these sources are in the article already, but are explained best for the lay person in this Scientific American article. The name Felis catus is by convention only; it does not indicate that domestic cats are a different species than Felis silvestris, just that they are domesticated. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We now have an article that says cats are a sub-species of Felis silvestris in one paragraph, and then states that they are a separate species in their own right in the following paragraph. The article notes that some sources state that Felis silvestris encompasses both species, and that other sources treat the domestic cat as a subspecies. This will be very confusing to our readers, particularly since you have removed the statement that the phylogeny is still controversial (which reading Mattern et. al. will confirm). How do you think we should solve this problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As an example this paper states that a phylogenetic approach would class the domestic cat, African wild cat, European wild cat, and sand cat all as subspecies of Felis silvestris. Mattern et al, do not take a position on which are "species", although they state their data would also be consistent with the sand cat being a subspecies of Felis silvestris. Yet here we are saying F. catus is not a species, but that F. margarita is a species. I think this article should not make a definite statement on this question - we should just note the uncertainty and diversity of views. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Any source that says Felis margarita is not a full species must be outdated. In the debate about the scientific name in the archives, people relied on Mammal Species of the World and ITIS. ITIS says that Felis margarita is valid, and even has valid subspecies. I can't see what Mammal Species of the World says online, but unless it says F. margarita is a subspecies, I think we are safe. Remember also that WP:PSTS asks us to use secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources. You might be able to find some older primary papers that are confused about the status of Felis margarita, but we aren't allowed to use those to overturn a clear statement in an impecable tertiary source like Mammal Species of the World. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So if we rely on ITIS, then we treat F. catus as a valid species, as these sources say this species is still the official name link. Your edit stating that F. catus is definitely a subspecies of Felis silvestris contradicts these secondary sources, which take a much more nuanced view of the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MSW3 [2] indeed lists F. margarita as a separate species, with six subspecies. Seduisant (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they also list F. catus as a separate species link. This is the convention I followed in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for that is that it is a naming convention, not that anybody believes they are a separate species. This is evidenced by the ICZN's opinion 2027, (already in the article) where they talk about maintaining the old name for certain domesticated animals. Do you see how they call them "forms"? Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on the Science phylogenetic study Driscol et al 2007, they rooted their tree using Felis margarita as the outgroup, so they only examined the relationships within this clade, and could not make any comment on if the clade itself is a single species. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that study doesn't say one way or another, but as far as I can see, there is no debate whatsoever that they are a true species. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the Mattern study from 2000 and the Masuda study from 1996 express doubt about F. margarita being separate from F. silvestris, but I haven't been able to find any more recent articles that address the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, found this paper from 2006 that puts catus, silvestris, lybica and bieti as cospecific (nodes with bootstrap values of <50%). It classes margarita and nigripes as separate but cospecific (with each other). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you copy over Mammal Species of the World's more nuanced view here? Do they address it by anatomy? What is their opinion of the DNA evidence? Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with stating that they are usually described as cospecific in modern texts, but that F. catus remains the official name and is still commonly used. However, if we keep with this official nomenclature, then we can't describe F. catus and F. silvestris as the same species. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the section again to avoid stating definitively that the African wildcat is a separate species, that modern phylogenetics treats F. catus as a subspecies, and noted that the phylogeny of the Felids is still controversial (I think that is pretty clear)! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. We should be very careful using primary sources to say anything definitive. I'm looking at the tree in the source you gave just now. It seems to say (with asterisks) that F. catus has low resolution from F. silvestris, low resolution with the next node with F. lybica and F. bieti, and low resolution between F. lybica and F. bieti. They do have good resolution and a synapomorphy (the arrow) on the next node for the F. margarita/F. nigripes clade. Did you misplace the asterisks? The table seems to indicate that support for the nodes is well above 50%:

10 (Fma, Fca, Fsi, Fli, Fbi) 2.49 1.72, 3.67 0.55 91.0 99 98 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 65

11 (Fca, Fsi, Fli, Fbi) 1.40 0.89, 2.16 1.09 100 100 100 100 < 100 89 100 100 100 100 100

So is it me or you that is misinterpreting? Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing, but in different words! :) They can separate the Fcatus, Fsi, Fli, Fbi clade from the the F. margarita/F. nigripes clade (node 10), but have low resolution within these two clades, so they can't say that Fca, Fsi, Fli and Fbi are separate species or that Fma and Fni are separate species (only nodes 8, 10 and 11 are supported). Or is my interpretation of that table wrong? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Right we are. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Now I can put down my Complete Idiot's Guide To Cladistics and get on with the section on cat health. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat fur

I don´t see why is vandalism to include the picture of a domestic cat fur coat. Cat fur coats do exist and, it is a long tradition, and like the rabbit fur, it is a well known cheaper alternative to mink or ermine. I think that the domestic cat role in the fur industry should have a mention in the article. Before removing the picture, the reasons why it is not relevant should be discussed here Koven.rm (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the use of cats in the fur trade would be entirely reasonable, but I don't see any evidence on the image page that this picture actually shows cat furs. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added two sentences on the use of cats in the fur trade. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a better image of a cat pelt. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the resistance to showing a cat pelt is that using these animals for fur is abhorrent to most people in the Western world. Do we really need a picture of a cat pelt? Frotz (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, we need to provide a complete picture of the cat, its biology, behavior, and interactions with people. Its use as a source of fur is real, but I'm not sure how significant this is to the overall topic. It is certainly significant enough to mention, but I'm open to arguments against including a picture. However, although thinking about cats being raised for fur is very distasteful to me, this emotional reaction isn't really a convincing argument. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's UNDUE weighting, as an image. The vast, vast majority of people have never seen a cat pelt that was not attached to a cat. Given the image overload in the article, it needs to be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a source here that describes the legal cat fur trade as very small indeed. Unless we can find a source giving some solid numbers on the illegal trade, I think I'd agree that we shouldn't give this too much prominence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This source shows that the trade might be larger than claimed, but this is still only in one country in Europe. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image of kitten with rabbit

The source of the image states that the rabbit was presented to the kitten. It's somewhat misleading to put it in the section on hunting impact. Maybe it can be swapped with the image of the cat and mouse.--Dodo bird (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro image

What about this one although the tail is not shown.

Can we replace the current image showing a complex background with a decent one? Of course, all cats are lovely, but well..I don't think the image is a best shot to represent cats.---Caspian blue 01:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Totaly agree, i was only thinking the other day we should have a better one. ZooPro 03:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my attempt to replace with the better image (cute as well) on the right is reverted by Howcheng, but well..looking into Talk:Cat/Lead photo, I do not think two people's discussion two years ago does warrant to keep the image at this time. If people do not think the new one is better than the old one, I will keep looking for other images.--Caspian blue 07:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The current image suffers from low contrast, but the image you tried has problems too; the whiteness makes the neck and chin hard to distinguish from each other, it doesn't show any of the tail, and the cat isn't looking at the camera. I do like the background, though. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the current cat image does not have the distinctiveness of the neck either. I've never thought of the cat's glazing in the new photo is a problem. Although the new image does not show the tail, well, it was taken in Japan, and not every cat have the long tail enough to show front such as Japanese bobtail. However, I accept your criticism, so that means I will try to find other images.--Caspian blue 08:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the neck/chin thing I would have supported the change. Seeing a tail is not crucial to me, and the gaze isn't a deal-breaker either. Surely there are thousands of pictures of cats on Flickr with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses? Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've been searching for "an ideal portrait of cat" past few days, but well, it is hard to find images showing its tail, whole figure, gazing (closing their eyes while everything is perfect), and cuteness altogether....---Caspian blue 08:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any images that weren't as cute? I'll bet they are cute enough. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the cat of in the current image looks less cute in my eyes. :-)--Caspian blue 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe someone reverted it to a inferior image. crikey have people gone made with consensus, be bold, it improves the article and looks 100% better then the old image. Granted a tail and defined jaw line would be better but we work with what we have at the present. and the user who reverted it didnt even follow through with a discussion on the talk page, that shows how little they really cared. i think WP:DICK and WP:BOLD come into play here ZooPro 12:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the image could be lightly manipulated to define the jawline? Abductive (reasoning) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think those who reverted certainly weren't WP:DICK. There has been discussion about what should be a proper representative image for this article, and this is what the consensus of editors (back then, a rather large consensus if I remember) decided upon. So I would expect anyone wishing to change the image to first gather a new consensus on the talk page before changing it.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • ZooPro, you could assume good faith better. It was 12:10 AM local time, and I was tired after having spent a long day doing Halloween-related activities, so I went to bed instead of starting a discussion on the talk page. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The perennial problem of the image

I've reverted the change of image. Per WP:BRD. ZooPro was bold, I've reverted, the next stage is that we discuss. As far as I recall, there was a long debate about the image in the past, and the one of the tabby cat achieved consensus to be displayed. Until there is consensus that it should be changed, it stays. No doubt many of us have cats, and we all think that our cat is the cutest etc but this issue has been discussed and consensus reached. Of course, consensus may change over time, but this needs more than a few people to achieve. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, now the discussion begins. ZooPro 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a composite image like on Ashkenazi Jews or fungus..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Or some articles constantly replace the main image, cycling through a number of them once a month or so, thus no one feels slighted, and shows a variety of cats. - IanCheesman (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Without picking a particular image, I feel that we should first decide what the image needs to portray. I note that some editors think that the cobbles as a background are "cluttered". Colourwise, I feel that all black or all white would not be good, apart from that any colour. Photo really needs to show all of a cat, including a tail. A neutral background with the cat well contrasted would probably be a good thing. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think either a montage or rotating images is fine (and get a pool of say 12 images for both/either). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of those ideas work for me as well. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to disagree (rotating images is a good idea), but can we even find twelve acceptable images? Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We-ell, why not list some candidates and see how we go and what we need. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidates

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10
• 
  11
• 
  12
• 
  13
• 
  14
• 
  15
• 
  16
• 
  17
• 
  18
• 
  19
• 
  20
• 
  21
• 
  22
• 
  23
• 
  24
• 
  25
• 
  26
• 
  27
• 
  28
• 
  29
• 
  30
• 
  31
• 
  32
• 
  33
• 
  34
• 
  35
• 
  36
• 
  37
• 
  38
• 
  39
• 
  40
• 
  41
• 
  42
• 
  43
• 
  44
• 
  45
• 
  46
• 
  47
• 
  48
• 
  49
• 
  50
• 
  51
• 
  52
• 
  53
• 
  54
• 
  55
• 
  56
• 
  57
• 
  58
• 
  59
• 
  60
• 
  61
• 62
  62
• 
  63
• 
  64
• 
  65
• 
  66
• 
  67
• 
  68
• 
  69
• 
  70
• 
  71
• 
  72
• 
  73
• 
  74
• 
  75
• 
  76
• 
  77
• 
  78
• 
  79

--Caspian blue 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a whole bunch more, hope you don't mind. Remember, whether we rotate or gallery or collage, none of the pics have to be "perfect", as if such a thing exists. - IanCheesman (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is purportedly a search for a representative specimen of an "ordinary" cat, I've added a nothing-special, garden-variety grey cat. I would suggest keeping the image selected as simple as possible, with as little background and/or activity as possible. P.S. - I think there are already plenty of pictures to choose from. Seduisant (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

'Warning: Cat overload!!! But seriously, here are some of the things that were discussed last time to help us decide on an appropriate pic:

• The cat represented should be a "typical" cat, i.e. a domestic cat rather than any specific breed
• The cat should be presented so that the whole cat is photographed, with no parts hidden or cropped out, as much as possible
• The picture should be in proper focus, with good detail and background should be appropriate/not distract from the cat

I'm sure I'm forgetting one or two criteria, but those should suffice to winnow the list down a bit... :) --Ramdrake (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is alot of cats....OTOH, if we do have collage of, say, 6 or more cat images, then one each of a few high profile breeds becomes okay i.e. the "many faces of cat" - eg a siamese, and a persian as well as several colours. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with the "typical" cat criterion. Perhaps a better term should be "representative". So a Siamese might be okay, since there are so many of them, but maybe no good photo exists since their faces are so dark. Breeds like the Manx are not representative, and I will say that many of the long haireds don't seem appropriate. But the emphasis on "typical" is leading us to show cats that look more like the wild Felis silvestris rather than the domesticated Felis catus. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Representative" is fine. However, all purebred cats together (all breeds) represents less than 10% of the domestic cat population. Therefore, representativity of any single purebred cat could be called in question. That was my point. Please feel free to agree or disagree with it.--Ramdrake (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just thinking ahead; if a pic has everything else, the fact that it is of a Burmilla should not exclude it. I mean, a Burmilla looks like a mutt to me, and is representative of many cats. Conversely, a Persian, with its pushed-in face, is not representative. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Being logical, if the pic has everything else, I wouldn't vote against it either, provided the cat doesn't have too unusual an aspect (rule out Manx, Bobtails, Persians, Siamese and all Rexes). However, I'd also have a tough time with any cat having colour points for the lead image. So, I guess we mostly agree.  ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I blackball File:Two orange tabby cats greeting by rubbing-Hisashi-01.jpg (#17) since it is too horizontal, and at the scale it would appear in the infobox the cats would be too small. I don't like File:Laperm LH blacktortie white.jpg (#4) much, cat has weird back fur thing going. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• No. 5 would be good after cropping. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• We should first narrow down the images among the 80 something images. My pick of 12 images are 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 45, 63, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79. However, I can change my opinion, if other good images are brought up.--Caspian blue 04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are not my cats, or my photos, but I uploaded some of them to Commons from Flickr images.--Caspian blue 14:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• My top 12 (odd number, but no problem with that here) are : #1, 8, 20, 21, 24, 30, 33, 37, 38, 47, 51, and 79. Obviously, some of those choices would need cropping, and before anyone askes, I didn't take any of those pics, nor are any of them my cats ;) - IanCheesman (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• So we don't lose momentum, I would have no problem with #s 5, 33 (if cropped), 39, 45, and 77. Why don't we start rotating with number 5, and when people complain, recruit them to find more images? Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• By the way, 48 and 64 are the same image, and 45, 75 and 76 are the same cat, as are 74 and 77. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• I like 5, 36, 51, 57, 62, 68, 72, 76, and 78. I think 36 is my favorite. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I pick number 39 for the lede. Nice pose and color. 51 would be my second pick. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideal pose

I think this is close to ideal pose for cat portrait, so the whole body including the tail is shown, while the face is toward the camera. However, it is rare to find this pose...--Caspian blue 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• However, the quality of the picture isn't too good (grainy), the original seems very much to be a drawing rather than a picture, and it depicts a specific breed (Siamese, old-style) rather than a generic cat.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this picture is an ideal image for the article, but just brought it for reference on "ideal pose" for cat portrait in "my opinion". So the breed is irrelevant. :-) Caspian blue 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the pose is "ideal". :) --Ramdrake (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

37 is close to an ideal pose, except that it's not facing the camera. Joyous! | Talk 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

61 is very close to your ideal pose, but it is a black cat.--Caspian blue 05:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that pose. Now, there's millions of cats out there, so it shouldn't be too hard to get a photo of a cat in that or a similar pose, with a fairly neutral background, should it? Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, even thought I saw over 1000 images of cats on Flickr, I could not find any single one that everybody would say "OK, it is our guy".Recognition is a first step to resolve the case, but well, unless people here try harder, we would eventually just have to be content with the current unsatisfying cat image with the complex background.--Caspian blue 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to start stalking some local cats i suppose. Maybe i should take a photo of one of our tigers at work and we can use that :) they are conditioned to "pose" for the camera. Just a thought. ZooPro 13:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalking the local cats sounds a good idea. After all, you can't have too many cat photos on Commons, can you? Not sure about the tigers though. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Collage

Collage of 6 cats.
No. 51, 45, 78
72, 79, 5

Since there seems to be disputes about which image to use, why not use a collage similar to the one used here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. However to make a collage, we still should also select fine images among the candidates first. So please pick your favorite cat images.--Caspian blue 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have now 10 of the loads of pics that have been picked by at least two people. Does anyone have problems with any of the following - #1, 5, 33, 45, 51, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79? If nobody posts a problem with these, I would suggest someone make a collage of 5 or 6 of these (for instance, probably only one of 45, 76, and 77), with further discussion and changes to be made some time in the future - IanCheesman (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I replaced with the previous single tabby image with this collage. Due to irregular sizes and duplicity of the mentioned images, I had to exclude No.1, 33 (for the size matter) and 76 and 77. Except one, the rest are cats in Japan, and 4 images are tabby cats. So I guess we can replace some of them with a long-haired cat or blue cat like Russian blue.--Caspian blue 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If anybody complains about the collage, let's ask 'em to submit a better cat picture than any of the ones we've found. Once they realize how difficult it is to find a suitable image, then they'll understand. Or we might get a better image. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

.........aawww, what a nice bunch of kittehs. But seriously, looks fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Don't need a college as the lede for an animal that's almost only diverse in coat color. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, and if that was the only concern, that would be fine. However this is also an attempt to reduce the back and forth edit wars because someone wants their own cat to be the one and only lead pic. By having multiples in a collage, we are hoping there won't be as much of this. - IanCheesman (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Bobisbob2. I personally believe "one powerful cat image can rule" and using a collage in the infobox is my least choice among the options. However, the idea of rotating 6 to 12 images regularly seems to require undesirable high maintenance. I looked through about 2000 cat images on Flickrs, but I could not really find "one perfect image" with which everybody would be satisfied. I said above, we can exchange some of the 6 cats in the collage with an image of long-hair cat or Russian Blue, both of which are purebreds. However, people did not pick them in the initial discussion. So either you give use a better image, or you have to accept the newly formed consensus.--Caspian blue 06:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I pick 39 as the choice for the lede with 51 (which is in the college) as my second pick. Considering that pictures of different cats with different coat color are found thoughout the article, a college in the lede would be redundant.Bobisbob2 (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think any one of those pictures could be the lede, just not all together. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since several people support for using a collage, you need to gain a consensus.--Caspian blue 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Sorry im not familiar with cats but i was wondering if cats show the same amount amount of protectiveness a dog might. ex- growling at someone when they are with their owners or attacking an intruder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.216.117 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, no, cats do not. - IanCheesman (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive cats are busy hiding themselves from strangers....Caspian blue 06:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hearing ranges

A 55 Hz - 79 KHz hearing range is NOT about 7 octaves. It is about 10.5 octaves, since 79000/55 ~ 2^(10.49). Likewise the canine range is NOT about 6 octaves. It is more than 9 octaves, since 44000/67 ~ 2^(9.36).

DavidLHarden (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you're quite right, I think I dropped a power of ten somewhere when I calculated that. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional info on the impact of cats on prey species

I am new to wiki, but have written a short piece on domestic cats impact on bird species. Do you think this could be added to the main page? Would appreciate comments. Thanks:

To date, there are few scientific data available to assess the impact of cat predation on prey populations. Cat numbers in the UK are growing annually and their abundance is far above the ‘natural’ carrying capacity, due to their population sizes being independent of their prey’s dynamics – i.e. cats are ‘recreational’ hunters (May, 1988). Population densities can be as high as 2000 individuals per km2 (Liberg et al., 1982) and the current trend is an increase of 0.5 million cats annually.

It has been claimed that the domestic cat is a significant predator of birds. Current UK assessments indicate that they may be accountable for an estimated 64.8 million bird deaths each year (Woods et al., 2003). Certain species appear more susceptible than others; for example, 30% of house sparrow mortality is linked to the domestic cat (Churcher and Lawton, 1987). In the recovery of ringed robins, Erithacus rubecula, and dunnocks, Prunella modularis, Mead (1982) too concluded that 31% of deaths were a result of cat predation.

On islands, birds can contribute as much as 60% of a cat’s diet (Fitzgerald and Turner, 2000). In nearly all cases, however, the cat cannot be identified as the sole cause for reducing the numbers of island birds, and in some instances eradication of cats has caused a ‘mesopredator release’ effect (Courchamp, 1999); where the suppression of top carnivores creates an abundance of smaller predators that cause a severe decline in their shared prey. Domestic cats are, however, known to be a contributing factor to the decline of many species; a factor that has ultimately led, in some cases, to extinction. The South Island Piopio, Turnagra capensis; Chatham Islands Rail, Rallus modestus (Fuller, 1987); the Auckland Island Merganser, Mergus australis (Stattersfield et al., 1998); and the common diving petrel, Pelecanoides urinatrix (Williams, 1984) are a few from a long list, with the most extreme case being the elimination of the flightless Stephen Island Wren, Xenicus lyalli, by a single cat (Falla, 1955).

Some of the same factors that have promoted adaptive radiation of island avifauna over evolutionary time appear to promote vulnerability to non-native species in modern time. The susceptibility inherent of many island birds is undoubtedly due to evolution in the absence of mainland predators, competitors, diseases and parasites. In addition to lower reproductive rates and extended incubation periods (Dowding and Murphy, 2001), the loss of flight, or reduced flying ability is also characteristic of many island endemics (Whiting et al., 2003). These biological aspects have increased vulnerability to extinction in the presence of introduced species, such as the domestic cat (WCMC, 1992). Equally, behavioural traits exhibited by island species, such as ‘predatory naivety’ (Steadman and Martin, 2003) and ground-nesting (Dowding and Murphy, 2001) have also contributed to island avifaunal susceptibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt-eee (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, as it is the norm on most talk pages to proceed chronologically from top to bottom. I have also indented the proposed text for readability. As to the content, it looks OK, but you'll need to reformat the references to conform to Wikipedia referencing styles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Arr, I have only just noticed you moved this. I thought you had deleted it totally. Thanks again WikiDan for your assistance in easing me into a more wikified existence! I am now a confirmed user so can edit this aritcle. I have rewritten this now (properly referenced) and added to the main page Matt (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor flaw in the cat senses section

The section about cat senses differ from the article about cat senses when it comes to colour vision.

From this article:

"However, domestic cats have rather poor color vision and can only see two colors: blue and green, and are less able to distinguish between red and green,[52] although they can achieve this in some conditions."

As opposed to:

"Cats can see some colors, and can tell the difference between red, blue and yellow lights, as well as between red and green lights.[3] Cats are able to distinguish between blues and violets better than between colours near the red end of the spectrum."

From the cat senses article.

Not really a big deal, but I thought I'd let you guys know.

Magnus.ivarsen (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is because cats probably do not have simple bichromatic blue/green vision, but have at least some sensitivity to red light, although this needs large bright lights under laboratory conditions. They seem to behave as bichromats but have three visual systems. This is discussed in this paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

human domestication

In support of the notion that house cats changed little in the course of human domestication consider several statements in the June 2009 Scientific American:

1) "Unlike other domesticated creatures, the house cat contributes little to human survival."

2) "Whereas other once wild animals were domesticated for their milk, meat, wool or servile labor, cats contribute virtually nothing in the way of sustenance or work to human endeavor."

3) "Cats in general are unlikely candidates for domestication. The ancestors of most domesticated animals lived in herds or packs with clear dominance hierarchies. (Humans unwittingly took advantage of this structure by supplanting the alpha individual, thus fascilitating control of entire cohesive groups.) These herd animals were already accustomed to living cheek to jowl, so provided that food and shelter were plentiful, they adapted easily to confinement." Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this just goes to say that the reason why cats are domesticated is more puzzling than it is for many other animals. Nowhere does it argue that cats are "less dometicated" than other domestic animals. Also, the source omits the first and obvious contribution of cats to the human way of life: as pest control for grain storage, which in the early days of the agrarian civilization was a significant contribution indeed.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake -- I'm still finding information in the Scientific American article. Consider this:

"Cats, in contrast, are solitary hunters that defend their home ranges fiercely from other cats of the same sex (the pride-living lions are the exception to this rule). Moreover, whereas most domesticates feed on widely available plant foods, cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they have a limited ability to digest anything but meat—a far rarer menu item. In fact, they have lost the ability to taste sweet carbohydrates altogether. And as to utility to humans, let us just say cats do not take instruction well. Such attributes suggest that whereas other domesticates were recruited from the wild by humans who bred them for specific tasks, cats most likely chose to live among humans because of opportunities they found for themselves." Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And this: "It is certainly the case that these house mice attracted cats. But the trash heaps on the outskirts of town were probably just as great a draw, providing year-round pickings for those felines resourceful enough to seek them out. Both these food sources would have encouraged cats to adapt to living with people; in the lingo of evolutionary biology, natural selection favored those cats that were able to cohabitate with humans and thereby gain access to the trash and mice." Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the domestication of cats is more puzzling than for some other species. I'm arguing against using those points to try to support that cats "are less domesticated" than other species. Cats in general have changed less than some other species, but that only goes for mongrel cats. Put side by side a Maine Coon and a Peterbald and you'll see that this variation indeed exists. They are as starkly different as a Mastiff is from a Poodle.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The original passage said that cats changed "less" than other domesticated species. While that is certainly true of the dog, I don't see any kind of studies which concludes they changed "less". There are many characteristics of this species which make it less likely to be domesticated (its diet, its social structure) but the evidence remains that millions of them are domestic animals, as they live right in our houses with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A source that discusses this is this book, which says cats drift in and out of domestication, semi-domestication and feralness depending on the particular conditions at the time. This source link makes a similar observation, stating that:

The ‘domestic’ cat, Felis silvestris catus, the only domesticated member of its Family, is usually classified as partially, rather than fully, domesticated. The criteria for complete domestication, permanent isolation from the wild species, and human control of breeding, territory and food supply, are satisfied by pedigree breeds such as Persian and Siamese. None of these, however, apply to all populations of non-pedigree or ‘mongrel’ cats, which hybridize with wild F. silvestris, select their own mates and compete for territories, and retain the ability to hunt and scavenge for food

See this section of the talkpage above. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The book you mention also says: Based on these kinds of criteria, it could be argued that the cat was only fully domesticated in the last 150 years, so it seems it does admit that the cat is a fully domesticated animal now. Also, what we have here is a collection of informed opinions. We don't actually have a review which establishes that the cat is "less domesticated" than other animals. All the authors who advance this opinion tend to advance different reasons why they think it is less domesticated. Therefore, maybe a solution would be to say that some experts argue that the cat is less domesticated than other animals, cite it properly and not present it as an established fact. I can assure that for every cite you can find who says the cat isn't fully domesticated, I can find three which argue the contrary. So let's present it as a point on which there is dissent, rather than as a consensus that the cat isn't fully domesticated, which consensus doesn't exist.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cats are as domesticated as sheep, dogs, pigs or horses. This notion that they are not fully domesticated is based on wishful thinking and flawed reasoning. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would say. However, staying encyclopaedic, we can report that this is questioned by some people, give the references and let the reader decide. What I really oppose is to bring in the "less domesticated" or "less changed" bit uncontested as if it were a consensus position among scholars. It obviously isn't.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources might say that cats can go feral, but do they compare that to dogs or horses and draw the conclusion that they are less domesticated? This book, The domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour by Dennis C. Turner, Paul Patrick Gordon Bateson seems to me to be saying the domestication was like any other. Should we ask Scientific American to print a retraction? Because they should be ashamed, perpetuating the old nonsense. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dogs can go feral just as much as cats... Not a criterion on which to hinge the "less domesticated" bit.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is domestication even quantifiable? I can't imagine that any source would claim that dogs are "100%" domesticated, but cats are only "75%". What does it even mean when you say some species is "less" domesticated than another anyway? howcheng {chat} 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We could state that "unlike many other domestic animals, cats are not permanently isolated from the wild species, and humans do not have complete control of cats' breeding, territory or food supply" this gets across the main point that cats do not have all the characteristics you expect in a domestic animal. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That they are not permanently isolated from the wild species is not a unique characteristic of the cat, as far as I can understand. Dogs, horses, pigs, goats and sheep at least can all go feral, in which case humans do not have complete control of their breeding, territory (well maybe) or food supply. Even though that quote is cited, it strikes me as factually incorrect. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to raise. The point can easily be made that several of the cat's characteristics made it an unlikely candidate for domestication. However, it seems it is more often than not considered fully domesticated.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then please find more sources, we will never get anywhere if we drift off into discussing our own ideas. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

These are only a few references which consider the cat as domesticated: [3][4][5][6]. What I have seen so far are arguments that claim that the cat was an unlikely candidate for domestication for a number of reasons. It's not difficult to find sources which actually state that the cat as a species has these features. What I'm looking for is an authoritative statement that says that these features are necessary for domestication. I haven't seen any so far.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or should we just cut to the chase and turn this into an RfC?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• God no, let's just put what secondary sources actually say, without interpreting it to mean anything they don't say. Abductive (reasoning) 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scientific American article considers the cat domesticated. But it feels that the cat chose us almost to the degree that we chose it. And that article feels the house cat very easily reverts to being wild as in feral cats. That article also points out that there is much less variety found in house cats than in other domesticated animals especially dogs. That is tied to the basic absence of utility found in cats. They do surprisingly little for us, except control mice, so we have had little incentive to breed them to bring out desirable traits, because there are so few traits that matter to us. Fur type is one trait that that article cites as differentiating breeds. But that is fairly minor. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a case to be made that the domestication of the cat was unusual (unlikely candidate, chose us as much as we chose them, little changed), but I don't see anywhere that this means that the cat is less domesticated than other animals. At least, the two sleeping in my lap seem to disagree. ;-) --Ramdrake (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading "we did not domesticate the cat, the cat domesticated us". I think this refers to the transition from hunter-gatherer society to a farming society, where cats were left to their own devices, unlike dogs and cattle, to control rodents in the grain store. This is where the semi-domesticated theory comes from. I shall have dig through some sources and jot up, then get back to you and report back Matt (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:FixBunching Template:WP1.0 Template:FixBunching Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

King Cat

A Slovene told me that a Turkish prince was once given Croatia as a gift but the prince didn't really like the country so he gave it to his cat instead. I think that the article should incorporate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.159.97 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of american references?

"With 69 million of them present in American homes, cats are the most or the second most popular pets in that country" - is this particularly relevant to cats in general? (Also, isn't america a continent (or two), not a country? - ignoring that though) In New Zealand there are 1.5 million cats. But who cares? And more importantly, is this appropriate information for an encyclopedia article on cats? I think the next line effectively illustrates the popularity of cats without being unnecessarily biased towards any one country. Mechwarrior Puppies (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I only had a glance at this page but that line jumped out at me as being in completely the wrong place, why mention America as opposed to any other country? Muleattack (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

America is a country. North America is a continent, and South America is another continent. I hope that clears it up. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

America is not a country, you ignoramus. Just because the Great Uninformed use "America" as shorthand for "United States of America" don't make it so. 124.168.147.224 (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

instead of calling names, see Americas. "America" is not necessarily the same as "the Americas".  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic Grammar Mistakes

Here's a quote from the article, in the category titled "SENSES", "Cats' have excellent night vision..."; please note that the words "cats" does not need an apostrophe after it as it does not show possession directly. This also applies to the following quote from the same portion of the article: "Unlike some big cats, such as tigers, domestic cats' have slit pupils." Whoever is a moderator or whatever the term is for Wikipedia should fix this. Thanks, just trying to give a helping hand and make Wiki better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydentank (talk • contribs)

Are you aware that you could just have fixed this yourself? There is no need to ask permission of anyone for these sorts of edits. You don't even need to bring them up on the talk page. Just for for it mate, that's the whole point of an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. ;) --WebHamster 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I must have been half-asleep last night. Fixed. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous feedback

• My take on words emphasised, such as the group terms in the Nomenclature section was that words were italicised unlike phrases which hd quotation marks around them (reading the MOS on italics/words as words emphasis). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• The article is pretty hefty, I wonder whether declawing is esoteric enough to be relegated to a subarticle and reduced to a sentence or two somewhere.

Unfortunately all too common in the US, I've merged and condensed with the section on scratching.

• I think I'd try to merge Feeding and diet and hunting and site it at the latter entry.

Merged part of the content, the rest is too physiology/biochemistry to go into the section on behavior.

• There is no mention of the genus and family to which the cat gives its name, and maybe a sentence or two on closest relatives outside the dyad of catus/silvestris.

I need a phylogenetic tree.

Sounds good, where do we get one of those then ;)

• The word 'cat' is used alot (duh) - try and think of some clever ways to reduce....
• Although it sits nicely there, I wonder whether the first sentence of the Habitat section should be slotted into taxonomy somehow.

Excellent, keep it coming! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

More later, RL beckons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Back again:

• In Physiology section:

• • Para 2 could be relegated to Cat behaviour (?)
  • Para 3 is unreffed - I'd just ditch it I think. Not specific to cats at all.

• In Domestication section, I would have thought something on the current status worldwide - eg are they domesticated in every single country (even tropical africa??) - any glaring differences, and any (even very gross) estimate of how many people keep them as pets or how many are kept etc. Probably not much out there but currently there is zip in the article at all.

• I am not a fan of see also sections, in most cases, a related article is related enough to have context and an existing spot from which a link exists, or it is too tenuous and should be dropped. Doesn't everyone use ctrl-F these days anyway?

Overall, intriguing read - I have done a little copyediting, which is naughty of me as the content isn't settled. The existence of an ample supply of daughter articles to relegate content is a plus, as I'd keep one eye on the length of the article and need for some more material to come in still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Ambitious project you've got here! Given that it's still a work in progress, I won't go over individual sentences. My first thought is that the ToC is too large and jumps back-and-forth between subjects. Just suggestions:

• Nomenclature and etymology can be combined into a single two sentence section after the intro. This seems to be usual.
• At least for me, the info on domestication in 8.1 follows from the evolutionary material in 1.1. I think this of high interest to the reader and should occur relatively early. Perhaps "Taxonomy and evolution" as the level one headline with Domestication as a sub. The Felis genus should be better contextualized (e.g. currently extant where, divergence estimate).
• Couldn't most of the section 8 be incorporated elsewhere? We have "Skeleton" under 2 and then come back to "Body types" at 8.2.2. "Health" is section 4 and then "Health effects" is 8.1.1. And if "Fondness for heights" belongs under behaviour, doesn't "Indoor scratching"? I realize this is difficult as you need to discuss the subject as a generic species and simultaneously as a pet, so don't combine any sections unless you think it will help. But I do find it jumpy.
• Having both "Anatomy" and "Physiology" as headlines strikes me as redundant.
• Small note: spell out numbers under 10 in words. Lots of examples in "Anatomy" and "Size."
• The intro ought to be larger but that can probably wait until the body settles down.

The ideal ToC is often in the eye of the beholder, so perhaps Cas or somebody can offer a second opinion on my suggestions.

Great work so far! Marskell (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd wonder whether "FOndness for heights" can be relegated into the behaviour subpage too. When we did major depressive disorder the article just kept growing and growing and we had to make some fairly ruthless decisions.. (I hate that part) Casliber (talk · contribs)

I've cut half of it and merged it into the hunting section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't cut out etymology/naming, as material in the lead should be expanded upon elsewhere in the article. Another article worth looking at for a comparison is Domestic Sheep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Better go home and feed my Felids. I'll get back to this later. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Penis spines

The quoted 7mm long penis spines sounded pretty unbelievable to me—we're talking about a house cat after all. According to the referenced PDF, they're 0.7mm long, not 7mm. 75.27.143.66 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You're quite right, I've corrected the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "Fully Domesticated"

The claim made that cats are "not fully domesticated" is based on a passage from source 26: "Although many cats eventually became pets, the modern cat is not fully domesticated in the classic sense." Though this comes from one reputable scolarly source, one should hesitate to rely on it without at least two other equally reputable sources, especially since all domestic variants have arisen due to direct human influence (also discussed in the scolarly source). In fact, the source does not refute cat domestication, but merely qualifies it as not having been a "classic" case of domestication. Therefore, the wording of the article is misleading at best. As an example, no one refutes that domestic dogs are not fully domestic, yet individual dogs also "are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild." --user: pinchme123

I've reworded this to "However, cats are not fully domesticated in the classic sense, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat differs only slightly from wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild." - I think the combination of the two observations are why cats are not fully domesticated: firstly that they are capable of surviving in the wild and secondly, that their anatomy and behavior differs little from wild relatives. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Domestication is about genetic change to make them more suited to humans. Dogs actually are different in behaviour, coat and body shape; and they're further optimised for particular tasks. That's quite a lot of genetic changes. Cats AFAIK have not been changed to the same degree at all.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if a wildcat walked through my garden I probably wouldn't give it a second glance, however the difference between a poodle and a grey wolf is massive. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What about that study that showed domestic cats' brains are 1/3 smaller than wildcats' brains? Granted, the reduction is mostly in the visual cortex, but this is a important difference, no? Abductive (reasoning) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That study (link) apparently examined the Spanish wildcat subspecies Felis silvestris tartessia, which is not the direct ancestor of the domestic cat. The discussion of the paper notes that the differences they observed might have been produced during the evolution of the smaller European wildcat Felis silvestris silvestris, rather than during domestication. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, except the article says the wildcats they dissected conform "closely to that which we anticipated based on the allometric relationship between brain and body weight derived from a wide range of felids (Davis, 1962; Radinsky, 1975; Pagel and Harvey, 1989):

brain mass = 0.23(average body mass)^0.61

Since the article says that domestic cats have much (20-30%) smaller brains compared to the wildcats (3.3 standard deviations), one could make the case that they have been heavily altered by domestication. All it would take to clinch this would be a source that shows that Felis silvestris lybica conforms to the formula. I think this whole "cats aren't really domesticated" argument is based on sentiment, not on facts. Also, if a wildcat wandered through your garden, you'd notice. They walk much more like bobcats or lynx than domestic cats.

Anyway, this is all OR on my part, but your statement that "their anatomy and behavior differs little from wild relatives" is patently untrue. I suggest the article be trimmed of all discussion of supposed partial domestication unless another reliable source or two is found. Abductive (reasoning) 00:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the wildcats they were comparing the domestic cats to are larger than the European wildcat, so any comparison we make between these wildcats and domestic cats says nothing convincing about the domestication process. Another source that discusses this is this book, which says cats drift in and out of domestication, semi-domestication and feralness depending on the particular conditions at the time. This source link makes a similar observation, stating that:

The ‘domestic’ cat, Felis silvestris catus, the only domesticated member of its Family, is usually classified as partially, rather than fully, domesticated. The criteria for complete domestication, permanent isolation from the wild species, and human control of breeding, territory and food supply, are satisfied by pedigree breeds such as Persian and Siamese. None of these, however, apply to all populations of non-pedigree or ‘mongrel’ cats, which hybridize with wild F. silvestris, select their own mates and compete for territories, and retain the ability to hunt and scavenge for food

Seems quite convincing to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not insofar as your claim of anatomy or behavior. The brain source you gave says that even though wildcats are larger, their skulls are thinner. Claiming that wildcats are more robust or whatnot, that they have similar behaviors (when just as many sources describe the extreme waryness and other differences of wildcats--for example the source [7] you just linked says;

The ancestral subspecies F. s. libyca (Randi & Ragni, 1991) fulfils only approximately half of the criteria for preadaptation to domestication proposed by Hale (1969). Specifically, its domestication should have been impeded for the following reasons: it is territorial and does not form large cohesive social groups with a permanent hierarchy (Macdonald, Yamaguchi & Kerby, 2000); in much of its range it is generally wary of man (Smithers, 1983; Happold, 1987); it has specialized dietary requirements (Bradshaw et al., 1996); and it is extremely agile.

just makes me think that every time somebody says they are not domesticated, they are overlooking copious counterexamples.

Also, comparisons to dogs are unfair; they dog is the most plastic animal yet discovered. If one compares say, pigs (which go feral in a flash), sheep (which aside from their coats are pretty much unchanged), other domestics, cats are just as domesticated as any of the others. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is what the sources that discuss the question of "how domesticated are cats" say on the subject. I've reworded this more to focus on the parts of the sources we all seem to agree on, how about However, in comparison to some other domesticated species, such as dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have changed it to However, in comparison to dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild. as I don't see any evidence that these traits of "non-domestication" aren't absent from any other species besides the dog. Let's face it, if the cat isn't "fully domesticated", why is it the most common pet (or on e of the two most common pets) in our households?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

However, since this point seems to be contentious, how about attributing these opinions: "According to X, however, in comparison to dogs, cats have not undergone major changes during the domestication process, as the form and behavior of the domestic cat are not radically different from those of wildcats and domestic cats are perfectly capable of surviving in the wild." or somesuch?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cat clades (not clowders)

I was asked if my edit about domestic cats nearest relatives was problematic. I edited that within its genus, domestic cats' closest relative is Felis margarita which I think is uncontroversial. Within Felis silvestris, it closest relative is the petite African Wildcat Felis silvestris lybica, which I believe was hypothesized by Darwin and confirmed by many studies (Randi & Ragni, 1991), (Driscoll et al. 2009). The Driscoll article says that DNA evidence shows that that Felis silvestris silvestris, Felis silvestris lybica, Felis silvestris cafra, Felis silvestris ornata, and Felis silvestris bieti are all true subspecies, and that domestic cats are "virtually indistinguishable" from Felis silvestris lybica. All these sources are in the article already, but are explained best for the lay person in this Scientific American article. The name Felis catus is by convention only; it does not indicate that domestic cats are a different species than Felis silvestris, just that they are domesticated. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We now have an article that says cats are a sub-species of Felis silvestris in one paragraph, and then states that they are a separate species in their own right in the following paragraph. The article notes that some sources state that Felis silvestris encompasses both species, and that other sources treat the domestic cat as a subspecies. This will be very confusing to our readers, particularly since you have removed the statement that the phylogeny is still controversial (which reading Mattern et. al. will confirm). How do you think we should solve this problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As an example this paper states that a phylogenetic approach would class the domestic cat, African wild cat, European wild cat, and sand cat all as subspecies of Felis silvestris. Mattern et al, do not take a position on which are "species", although they state their data would also be consistent with the sand cat being a subspecies of Felis silvestris. Yet here we are saying F. catus is not a species, but that F. margarita is a species. I think this article should not make a definite statement on this question - we should just note the uncertainty and diversity of views. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Any source that says Felis margarita is not a full species must be outdated. In the debate about the scientific name in the archives, people relied on Mammal Species of the World and ITIS. ITIS says that Felis margarita is valid, and even has valid subspecies. I can't see what Mammal Species of the World says online, but unless it says F. margarita is a subspecies, I think we are safe. Remember also that WP:PSTS asks us to use secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources. You might be able to find some older primary papers that are confused about the status of Felis margarita, but we aren't allowed to use those to overturn a clear statement in an impecable tertiary source like Mammal Species of the World. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So if we rely on ITIS, then we treat F. catus as a valid species, as these sources say this species is still the official name link. Your edit stating that F. catus is definitely a subspecies of Felis silvestris contradicts these secondary sources, which take a much more nuanced view of the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MSW3 [8] indeed lists F. margarita as a separate species, with six subspecies. Seduisant (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they also list F. catus as a separate species link. This is the convention I followed in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation for that is that it is a naming convention, not that anybody believes they are a separate species. This is evidenced by the ICZN's opinion 2027, (already in the article) where they talk about maintaining the old name for certain domesticated animals. Do you see how they call them "forms"? Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on the Science phylogenetic study Driscol et al 2007, they rooted their tree using Felis margarita as the outgroup, so they only examined the relationships within this clade, and could not make any comment on if the clade itself is a single species. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that study doesn't say one way or another, but as far as I can see, there is no debate whatsoever that they are a true species. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the Mattern study from 2000 and the Masuda study from 1996 express doubt about F. margarita being separate from F. silvestris, but I haven't been able to find any more recent articles that address the question. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, found this paper from 2006 that puts catus, silvestris, lybica and bieti as cospecific (nodes with bootstrap values of <50%). It classes margarita and nigripes as separate but cospecific (with each other). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you copy over Mammal Species of the World's more nuanced view here? Do they address it by anatomy? What is their opinion of the DNA evidence? Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with stating that they are usually described as cospecific in modern texts, but that F. catus remains the official name and is still commonly used. However, if we keep with this official nomenclature, then we can't describe F. catus and F. silvestris as the same species. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the section again to avoid stating definitively that the African wildcat is a separate species, that modern phylogenetics treats F. catus as a subspecies, and noted that the phylogeny of the Felids is still controversial (I think that is pretty clear)! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. We should be very careful using primary sources to say anything definitive. I'm looking at the tree in the source you gave just now. It seems to say (with asterisks) that F. catus has low resolution from F. silvestris, low resolution with the next node with F. lybica and F. bieti, and low resolution between F. lybica and F. bieti. They do have good resolution and a synapomorphy (the arrow) on the next node for the F. margarita/F. nigripes clade. Did you misplace the asterisks? The table seems to indicate that support for the nodes is well above 50%:

10 (Fma, Fca, Fsi, Fli, Fbi) 2.49 1.72, 3.67 0.55 91.0 99 98 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 65

11 (Fca, Fsi, Fli, Fbi) 1.40 0.89, 2.16 1.09 100 100 100 100 < 100 89 100 100 100 100 100

So is it me or you that is misinterpreting? Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing, but in different words! :) They can separate the Fcatus, Fsi, Fli, Fbi clade from the the F. margarita/F. nigripes clade (node 10), but have low resolution within these two clades, so they can't say that Fca, Fsi, Fli and Fbi are separate species or that Fma and Fni are separate species (only nodes 8, 10 and 11 are supported). Or is my interpretation of that table wrong? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Right we are. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Now I can put down my Complete Idiot's Guide To Cladistics and get on with the section on cat health. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cat fur

I don´t see why is vandalism to include the picture of a domestic cat fur coat. Cat fur coats do exist and, it is a long tradition, and like the rabbit fur, it is a well known cheaper alternative to mink or ermine. I think that the domestic cat role in the fur industry should have a mention in the article. Before removing the picture, the reasons why it is not relevant should be discussed here Koven.rm (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the use of cats in the fur trade would be entirely reasonable, but I don't see any evidence on the image page that this picture actually shows cat furs. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added two sentences on the use of cats in the fur trade. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a better image of a cat pelt. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the resistance to showing a cat pelt is that using these animals for fur is abhorrent to most people in the Western world. Do we really need a picture of a cat pelt? Frotz (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, we need to provide a complete picture of the cat, its biology, behavior, and interactions with people. Its use as a source of fur is real, but I'm not sure how significant this is to the overall topic. It is certainly significant enough to mention, but I'm open to arguments against including a picture. However, although thinking about cats being raised for fur is very distasteful to me, this emotional reaction isn't really a convincing argument. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's UNDUE weighting, as an image. The vast, vast majority of people have never seen a cat pelt that was not attached to a cat. Given the image overload in the article, it needs to be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a source here that describes the legal cat fur trade as very small indeed. Unless we can find a source giving some solid numbers on the illegal trade, I think I'd agree that we shouldn't give this too much prominence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This source shows that the trade might be larger than claimed, but this is still only in one country in Europe. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image of kitten with rabbit

The source of the image states that the rabbit was presented to the kitten. It's somewhat misleading to put it in the section on hunting impact. Maybe it can be swapped with the image of the cat and mouse.--Dodo bird (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The intro image

What about this one although the tail is not shown.

Can we replace the current image showing a complex background with a decent one? Of course, all cats are lovely, but well..I don't think the image is a best shot to represent cats.---Caspian blue 01:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Totaly agree, i was only thinking the other day we should have a better one. ZooPro 03:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my attempt to replace with the better image (cute as well) on the right is reverted by Howcheng, but well..looking into Talk:Cat/Lead photo, I do not think two people's discussion two years ago does warrant to keep the image at this time. If people do not think the new one is better than the old one, I will keep looking for other images.--Caspian blue 07:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The current image suffers from low contrast, but the image you tried has problems too; the whiteness makes the neck and chin hard to distinguish from each other, it doesn't show any of the tail, and the cat isn't looking at the camera. I do like the background, though. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the current cat image does not have the distinctiveness of the neck either. I've never thought of the cat's glazing in the new photo is a problem. Although the new image does not show the tail, well, it was taken in Japan, and not every cat have the long tail enough to show front such as Japanese bobtail. However, I accept your criticism, so that means I will try to find other images.--Caspian blue 08:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the neck/chin thing I would have supported the change. Seeing a tail is not crucial to me, and the gaze isn't a deal-breaker either. Surely there are thousands of pictures of cats on Flickr with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses? Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've been searching for "an ideal portrait of cat" past few days, but well, it is hard to find images showing its tail, whole figure, gazing (closing their eyes while everything is perfect), and cuteness altogether....---Caspian blue 08:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any images that weren't as cute? I'll bet they are cute enough. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the cat of in the current image looks less cute in my eyes. :-)--Caspian blue 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe someone reverted it to a inferior image. crikey have people gone made with consensus, be bold, it improves the article and looks 100% better then the old image. Granted a tail and defined jaw line would be better but we work with what we have at the present. and the user who reverted it didnt even follow through with a discussion on the talk page, that shows how little they really cared. i think WP:DICK and WP:BOLD come into play here ZooPro 12:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the image could be lightly manipulated to define the jawline? Abductive (reasoning) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think those who reverted certainly weren't WP:DICK. There has been discussion about what should be a proper representative image for this article, and this is what the consensus of editors (back then, a rather large consensus if I remember) decided upon. So I would expect anyone wishing to change the image to first gather a new consensus on the talk page before changing it.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • ZooPro, you could assume good faith better. It was 12:10 AM local time, and I was tired after having spent a long day doing Halloween-related activities, so I went to bed instead of starting a discussion on the talk page. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The perennial problem of the image

I've reverted the change of image. Per WP:BRD. ZooPro was bold, I've reverted, the next stage is that we discuss. As far as I recall, there was a long debate about the image in the past, and the one of the tabby cat achieved consensus to be displayed. Until there is consensus that it should be changed, it stays. No doubt many of us have cats, and we all think that our cat is the cutest etc but this issue has been discussed and consensus reached. Of course, consensus may change over time, but this needs more than a few people to achieve. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, now the discussion begins. ZooPro 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a composite image like on Ashkenazi Jews or fungus..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Or some articles constantly replace the main image, cycling through a number of them once a month or so, thus no one feels slighted, and shows a variety of cats. - IanCheesman (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Without picking a particular image, I feel that we should first decide what the image needs to portray. I note that some editors think that the cobbles as a background are "cluttered". Colourwise, I feel that all black or all white would not be good, apart from that any colour. Photo really needs to show all of a cat, including a tail. A neutral background with the cat well contrasted would probably be a good thing. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think either a montage or rotating images is fine (and get a pool of say 12 images for both/either). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of those ideas work for me as well. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to disagree (rotating images is a good idea), but can we even find twelve acceptable images? Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We-ell, why not list some candidates and see how we go and what we need. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidates

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10
• 
  11
• 
  12
• 
  13
• 
  14
• 
  15
• 
  16
• 
  17
• 
  18
• 
  19
• 
  20
• 
  21
• 
  22
• 
  23
• 
  24
• 
  25
• 
  26
• 
  27
• 
  28
• 
  29
• 
  30
• 
  31
• 
  32
• 
  33
• 
  34
• 
  35
• 
  36
• 
  37
• 
  38
• 
  39
• 
  40
• 
  41
• 
  42
• 
  43
• 
  44
• 
  45
• 
  46
• 
  47
• 
  48
• 
  49
• 
  50
• 
  51
• 
  52
• 
  53
• 
  54
• 
  55
• 
  56
• 
  57
• 
  58
• 
  59
• 
  60
• 
  61
• 62
  62
• 
  63
• 
  64
• 
  65
• 
  66
• 
  67
• 
  68
• 
  69
• 
  70
• 
  71
• 
  72
• 
  73
• 
  74
• 
  75
• 
  76
• 
  77
• 
  78
• 
  79

--Caspian blue 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a whole bunch more, hope you don't mind. Remember, whether we rotate or gallery or collage, none of the pics have to be "perfect", as if such a thing exists. - IanCheesman (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is purportedly a search for a representative specimen of an "ordinary" cat, I've added a nothing-special, garden-variety grey cat. I would suggest keeping the image selected as simple as possible, with as little background and/or activity as possible. P.S. - I think there are already plenty of pictures to choose from. Seduisant (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

'Warning: Cat overload!!! But seriously, here are some of the things that were discussed last time to help us decide on an appropriate pic:

• The cat represented should be a "typical" cat, i.e. a domestic cat rather than any specific breed
• The cat should be presented so that the whole cat is photographed, with no parts hidden or cropped out, as much as possible
• The picture should be in proper focus, with good detail and background should be appropriate/not distract from the cat

I'm sure I'm forgetting one or two criteria, but those should suffice to winnow the list down a bit... :) --Ramdrake (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is alot of cats....OTOH, if we do have collage of, say, 6 or more cat images, then one each of a few high profile breeds becomes okay i.e. the "many faces of cat" - eg a siamese, and a persian as well as several colours. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with the "typical" cat criterion. Perhaps a better term should be "representative". So a Siamese might be okay, since there are so many of them, but maybe no good photo exists since their faces are so dark. Breeds like the Manx are not representative, and I will say that many of the long haireds don't seem appropriate. But the emphasis on "typical" is leading us to show cats that look more like the wild Felis silvestris rather than the domesticated Felis catus. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Representative" is fine. However, all purebred cats together (all breeds) represents less than 10% of the domestic cat population. Therefore, representativity of any single purebred cat could be called in question. That was my point. Please feel free to agree or disagree with it.--Ramdrake (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just thinking ahead; if a pic has everything else, the fact that it is of a Burmilla should not exclude it. I mean, a Burmilla looks like a mutt to me, and is representative of many cats. Conversely, a Persian, with its pushed-in face, is not representative. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Being logical, if the pic has everything else, I wouldn't vote against it either, provided the cat doesn't have too unusual an aspect (rule out Manx, Bobtails, Persians, Siamese and all Rexes). However, I'd also have a tough time with any cat having colour points for the lead image. So, I guess we mostly agree.  ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I blackball File:Two orange tabby cats greeting by rubbing-Hisashi-01.jpg (#17) since it is too horizontal, and at the scale it would appear in the infobox the cats would be too small. I don't like File:Laperm LH blacktortie white.jpg (#4) much, cat has weird back fur thing going. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• No. 5 would be good after cropping. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• We should first narrow down the images among the 80 something images. My pick of 12 images are 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 45, 63, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79. However, I can change my opinion, if other good images are brought up.--Caspian blue 04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are not my cats, or my photos, but I uploaded some of them to Commons from Flickr images.--Caspian blue 14:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• My top 12 (odd number, but no problem with that here) are : #1, 8, 20, 21, 24, 30, 33, 37, 38, 47, 51, and 79. Obviously, some of those choices would need cropping, and before anyone askes, I didn't take any of those pics, nor are any of them my cats ;) - IanCheesman (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• So we don't lose momentum, I would have no problem with #s 5, 33 (if cropped), 39, 45, and 77. Why don't we start rotating with number 5, and when people complain, recruit them to find more images? Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• By the way, 48 and 64 are the same image, and 45, 75 and 76 are the same cat, as are 74 and 77. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• I like 5, 36, 51, 57, 62, 68, 72, 76, and 78. I think 36 is my favorite. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I pick number 39 for the lede. Nice pose and color. 51 would be my second pick. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideal pose

I think this is close to ideal pose for cat portrait, so the whole body including the tail is shown, while the face is toward the camera. However, it is rare to find this pose...--Caspian blue 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• However, the quality of the picture isn't too good (grainy), the original seems very much to be a drawing rather than a picture, and it depicts a specific breed (Siamese, old-style) rather than a generic cat.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this picture is an ideal image for the article, but just brought it for reference on "ideal pose" for cat portrait in "my opinion". So the breed is irrelevant. :-) Caspian blue 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the pose is "ideal". :) --Ramdrake (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

37 is close to an ideal pose, except that it's not facing the camera. Joyous! | Talk 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

61 is very close to your ideal pose, but it is a black cat.--Caspian blue 05:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that pose. Now, there's millions of cats out there, so it shouldn't be too hard to get a photo of a cat in that or a similar pose, with a fairly neutral background, should it? Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, even thought I saw over 1000 images of cats on Flickr, I could not find any single one that everybody would say "OK, it is our guy".Recognition is a first step to resolve the case, but well, unless people here try harder, we would eventually just have to be content with the current unsatisfying cat image with the complex background.--Caspian blue 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to start stalking some local cats i suppose. Maybe i should take a photo of one of our tigers at work and we can use that :) they are conditioned to "pose" for the camera. Just a thought. ZooPro 13:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalking the local cats sounds a good idea. After all, you can't have too many cat photos on Commons, can you? Not sure about the tigers though. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Collage

Collage of 6 cats.
No. 51, 45, 78
72, 79, 5

Since there seems to be disputes about which image to use, why not use a collage similar to the one used here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. However to make a collage, we still should also select fine images among the candidates first. So please pick your favorite cat images.--Caspian blue 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have now 10 of the loads of pics that have been picked by at least two people. Does anyone have problems with any of the following - #1, 5, 33, 45, 51, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79? If nobody posts a problem with these, I would suggest someone make a collage of 5 or 6 of these (for instance, probably only one of 45, 76, and 77), with further discussion and changes to be made some time in the future - IanCheesman (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I replaced with the previous single tabby image with this collage. Due to irregular sizes and duplicity of the mentioned images, I had to exclude No.1, 33 (for the size matter) and 76 and 77. Except one, the rest are cats in Japan, and 4 images are tabby cats. So I guess we can replace some of them with a long-haired cat or blue cat like Russian blue.--Caspian blue 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If anybody complains about the collage, let's ask 'em to submit a better cat picture than any of the ones we've found. Once they realize how difficult it is to find a suitable image, then they'll understand. Or we might get a better image. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

.........aawww, what a nice bunch of kittehs. But seriously, looks fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Don't need a college as the lede for an animal that's almost only diverse in coat color. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, and if that was the only concern, that would be fine. However this is also an attempt to reduce the back and forth edit wars because someone wants their own cat to be the one and only lead pic. By having multiples in a collage, we are hoping there won't be as much of this. - IanCheesman (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Bobisbob2. I personally believe "one powerful cat image can rule" and using a collage in the infobox is my least choice among the options. However, the idea of rotating 6 to 12 images regularly seems to require undesirable high maintenance. I looked through about 2000 cat images on Flickrs, but I could not really find "one perfect image" with which everybody would be satisfied. I said above, we can exchange some of the 6 cats in the collage with an image of long-hair cat or Russian Blue, both of which are purebreds. However, people did not pick them in the initial discussion. So either you give use a better image, or you have to accept the newly formed consensus.--Caspian blue 06:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I pick 39 as the choice for the lede with 51 (which is in the college) as my second pick. Considering that pictures of different cats with different coat color are found thoughout the article, a college in the lede would be redundant.Bobisbob2 (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think any one of those pictures could be the lede, just not all together. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since several people support for using a collage, you need to gain a consensus.--Caspian blue 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Sorry im not familiar with cats but i was wondering if cats show the same amount amount of protectiveness a dog might. ex- growling at someone when they are with their owners or attacking an intruder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.216.117 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, no, cats do not. - IanCheesman (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive cats are busy hiding themselves from strangers....Caspian blue 06:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hearing ranges

A 55 Hz - 79 KHz hearing range is NOT about 7 octaves. It is about 10.5 octaves, since 79000/55 ~ 2^(10.49). Likewise the canine range is NOT about 6 octaves. It is more than 9 octaves, since 44000/67 ~ 2^(9.36).

DavidLHarden (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you're quite right, I think I dropped a power of ten somewhere when I calculated that. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional info on the impact of cats on prey species

I am new to wiki, but have written a short piece on domestic cats impact on bird species. Do you think this could be added to the main page? Would appreciate comments. Thanks:

To date, there are few scientific data available to assess the impact of cat predation on prey populations. Cat numbers in the UK are growing annually and their abundance is far above the ‘natural’ carrying capacity, due to their population sizes being independent of their prey’s dynamics – i.e. cats are ‘recreational’ hunters (May, 1988). Population densities can be as high as 2000 individuals per km2 (Liberg et al., 1982) and the current trend is an increase of 0.5 million cats annually.

It has been claimed that the domestic cat is a significant predator of birds. Current UK assessments indicate that they may be accountable for an estimated 64.8 million bird deaths each year (Woods et al., 2003). Certain species appear more susceptible than others; for example, 30% of house sparrow mortality is linked to the domestic cat (Churcher and Lawton, 1987). In the recovery of ringed robins, Erithacus rubecula, and dunnocks, Prunella modularis, Mead (1982) too concluded that 31% of deaths were a result of cat predation.

On islands, birds can contribute as much as 60% of a cat’s diet (Fitzgerald and Turner, 2000). In nearly all cases, however, the cat cannot be identified as the sole cause for reducing the numbers of island birds, and in some instances eradication of cats has caused a ‘mesopredator release’ effect (Courchamp, 1999); where the suppression of top carnivores creates an abundance of smaller predators that cause a severe decline in their shared prey. Domestic cats are, however, known to be a contributing factor to the decline of many species; a factor that has ultimately led, in some cases, to extinction. The South Island Piopio, Turnagra capensis; Chatham Islands Rail, Rallus modestus (Fuller, 1987); the Auckland Island Merganser, Mergus australis (Stattersfield et al., 1998); and the common diving petrel, Pelecanoides urinatrix (Williams, 1984) are a few from a long list, with the most extreme case being the elimination of the flightless Stephen Island Wren, Xenicus lyalli, by a single cat (Falla, 1955).

Some of the same factors that have promoted adaptive radiation of island avifauna over evolutionary time appear to promote vulnerability to non-native species in modern time. The susceptibility inherent of many island birds is undoubtedly due to evolution in the absence of mainland predators, competitors, diseases and parasites. In addition to lower reproductive rates and extended incubation periods (Dowding and Murphy, 2001), the loss of flight, or reduced flying ability is also characteristic of many island endemics (Whiting et al., 2003). These biological aspects have increased vulnerability to extinction in the presence of introduced species, such as the domestic cat (WCMC, 1992). Equally, behavioural traits exhibited by island species, such as ‘predatory naivety’ (Steadman and Martin, 2003) and ground-nesting (Dowding and Murphy, 2001) have also contributed to island avifaunal susceptibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt-eee (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, as it is the norm on most talk pages to proceed chronologically from top to bottom. I have also indented the proposed text for readability. As to the content, it looks OK, but you'll need to reformat the references to conform to Wikipedia referencing styles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Arr, I have only just noticed you moved this. I thought you had deleted it totally. Thanks again WikiDan for your assistance in easing me into a more wikified existence! I am now a confirmed user so can edit this aritcle. I have rewritten this now (properly referenced) and added to the main page Matt (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor flaw in the cat senses section

The section about cat senses differ from the article about cat senses when it comes to colour vision.

From this article:

"However, domestic cats have rather poor color vision and can only see two colors: blue and green, and are less able to distinguish between red and green,[52] although they can achieve this in some conditions."

As opposed to:

"Cats can see some colors, and can tell the difference between red, blue and yellow lights, as well as between red and green lights.[3] Cats are able to distinguish between blues and violets better than between colours near the red end of the spectrum."

From the cat senses article.

Not really a big deal, but I thought I'd let you guys know.

Magnus.ivarsen (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is because cats probably do not have simple bichromatic blue/green vision, but have at least some sensitivity to red light, although this needs large bright lights under laboratory conditions. They seem to behave as bichromats but have three visual systems. This is discussed in this paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

human domestication

In support of the notion that house cats changed little in the course of human domestication consider several statements in the June 2009 Scientific American:

1) "Unlike other domesticated creatures, the house cat contributes little to human survival."

2) "Whereas other once wild animals were domesticated for their milk, meat, wool or servile labor, cats contribute virtually nothing in the way of sustenance or work to human endeavor."

3) "Cats in general are unlikely candidates for domestication. The ancestors of most domesticated animals lived in herds or packs with clear dominance hierarchies. (Humans unwittingly took advantage of this structure by supplanting the alpha individual, thus fascilitating control of entire cohesive groups.) These herd animals were already accustomed to living cheek to jowl, so provided that food and shelter were plentiful, they adapted easily to confinement." Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this just goes to say that the reason why cats are domesticated is more puzzling than it is for many other animals. Nowhere does it argue that cats are "less dometicated" than other domestic animals. Also, the source omits the first and obvious contribution of cats to the human way of life: as pest control for grain storage, which in the early days of the agrarian civilization was a significant contribution indeed.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake -- I'm still finding information in the Scientific American article. Consider this:

"Cats, in contrast, are solitary hunters that defend their home ranges fiercely from other cats of the same sex (the pride-living lions are the exception to this rule). Moreover, whereas most domesticates feed on widely available plant foods, cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they have a limited ability to digest anything but meat—a far rarer menu item. In fact, they have lost the ability to taste sweet carbohydrates altogether. And as to utility to humans, let us just say cats do not take instruction well. Such attributes suggest that whereas other domesticates were recruited from the wild by humans who bred them for specific tasks, cats most likely chose to live among humans because of opportunities they found for themselves." Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And this: "It is certainly the case that these house mice attracted cats. But the trash heaps on the outskirts of town were probably just as great a draw, providing year-round pickings for those felines resourceful enough to seek them out. Both these food sources would have encouraged cats to adapt to living with people; in the lingo of evolutionary biology, natural selection favored those cats that were able to cohabitate with humans and thereby gain access to the trash and mice." Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the domestication of cats is more puzzling than for some other species. I'm arguing against using those points to try to support that cats "are less domesticated" than other species. Cats in general have changed less than some other species, but that only goes for mongrel cats. Put side by side a Maine Coon and a Peterbald and you'll see that this variation indeed exists. They are as starkly different as a Mastiff is from a Poodle.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The original passage said that cats changed "less" than other domesticated species. While that is certainly true of the dog, I don't see any kind of studies which concludes they changed "less". There are many characteristics of this species which make it less likely to be domesticated (its diet, its social structure) but the evidence remains that millions of them are domestic animals, as they live right in our houses with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A source that discusses this is this book, which says cats drift in and out of domestication, semi-domestication and feralness depending on the particular conditions at the time. This source link makes a similar observation, stating that:

The ‘domestic’ cat, Felis silvestris catus, the only domesticated member of its Family, is usually classified as partially, rather than fully, domesticated. The criteria for complete domestication, permanent isolation from the wild species, and human control of breeding, territory and food supply, are satisfied by pedigree breeds such as Persian and Siamese. None of these, however, apply to all populations of non-pedigree or ‘mongrel’ cats, which hybridize with wild F. silvestris, select their own mates and compete for territories, and retain the ability to hunt and scavenge for food

See this section of the talkpage above. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The book you mention also says: Based on these kinds of criteria, it could be argued that the cat was only fully domesticated in the last 150 years, so it seems it does admit that the cat is a fully domesticated animal now. Also, what we have here is a collection of informed opinions. We don't actually have a review which establishes that the cat is "less domesticated" than other animals. All the authors who advance this opinion tend to advance different reasons why they think it is less domesticated. Therefore, maybe a solution would be to say that some experts argue that the cat is less domesticated than other animals, cite it properly and not present it as an established fact. I can assure that for every cite you can find who says the cat isn't fully domesticated, I can find three which argue the contrary. So let's present it as a point on which there is dissent, rather than as a consensus that the cat isn't fully domesticated, which consensus doesn't exist.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cats are as domesticated as sheep, dogs, pigs or horses. This notion that they are not fully domesticated is based on wishful thinking and flawed reasoning. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would say. However, staying encyclopaedic, we can report that this is questioned by some people, give the references and let the reader decide. What I really oppose is to bring in the "less domesticated" or "less changed" bit uncontested as if it were a consensus position among scholars. It obviously isn't.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources might say that cats can go feral, but do they compare that to dogs or horses and draw the conclusion that they are less domesticated? This book, The domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour by Dennis C. Turner, Paul Patrick Gordon Bateson seems to me to be saying the domestication was like any other. Should we ask Scientific American to print a retraction? Because they should be ashamed, perpetuating the old nonsense. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dogs can go feral just as much as cats... Not a criterion on which to hinge the "less domesticated" bit.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is domestication even quantifiable? I can't imagine that any source would claim that dogs are "100%" domesticated, but cats are only "75%". What does it even mean when you say some species is "less" domesticated than another anyway? howcheng {chat} 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We could state that "unlike many other domestic animals, cats are not permanently isolated from the wild species, and humans do not have complete control of cats' breeding, territory or food supply" this gets across the main point that cats do not have all the characteristics you expect in a domestic animal. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That they are not permanently isolated from the wild species is not a unique characteristic of the cat, as far as I can understand. Dogs, horses, pigs, goats and sheep at least can all go feral, in which case humans do not have complete control of their breeding, territory (well maybe) or food supply. Even though that quote is cited, it strikes me as factually incorrect. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to raise. The point can easily be made that several of the cat's characteristics made it an unlikely candidate for domestication. However, it seems it is more often than not considered fully domesticated.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then please find more sources, we will never get anywhere if we drift off into discussing our own ideas. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

These are only a few references which consider the cat as domesticated: [9][10][11][12]. What I have seen so far are arguments that claim that the cat was an unlikely candidate for domestication for a number of reasons. It's not difficult to find sources which actually state that the cat as a species has these features. What I'm looking for is an authoritative statement that says that these features are necessary for domestication. I haven't seen any so far.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or should we just cut to the chase and turn this into an RfC?--Ramdrake (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• God no, let's just put what secondary sources actually say, without interpreting it to mean anything they don't say. Abductive (reasoning) 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scientific American article considers the cat domesticated. But it feels that the cat chose us almost to the degree that we chose it. And that article feels the house cat very easily reverts to being wild as in feral cats. That article also points out that there is much less variety found in house cats than in other domesticated animals especially dogs. That is tied to the basic absence of utility found in cats. They do surprisingly little for us, except control mice, so we have had little incentive to breed them to bring out desirable traits, because there are so few traits that matter to us. Fur type is one trait that that article cites as differentiating breeds. But that is fairly minor. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a case to be made that the domestication of the cat was unusual (unlikely candidate, chose us as much as we chose them, little changed), but I don't see anywhere that this means that the cat is less domesticated than other animals. At least, the two sleeping in my lap seem to disagree. ;-) --Ramdrake (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading "we did not domesticate the cat, the cat domesticated us". I think this refers to the transition from hunter-gatherer society to a farming society, where cats were left to their own devices, unlike dogs and cattle, to control rodents in the grain store. This is where the semi-domesticated theory comes from. I shall have dig through some sources and jot up, then get back to you and report back Matt (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)