Talk:Cat/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

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)

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)

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)

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)

External Links

Please add to the external links The Cats Wiki, htttp://www.cats.wikia.com

Thanks

82.45.185.179 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A cat can be diffrent colours and patterns.There can be wild cats and cats as pets.Cats are also stand for baby leopardsor tigers. Cats have fur however some don't,some people say there skin is like snake skin.Cats are very soft and they can sleep most of the time.Cats have very good smell.If you smell something a cats smell is 100 times smellier. Some cats are nasty and some are nice that don't hiss at you but gives you lickes.Ther a bit similer to dog because thay both have stright or flapped ears,wiskers and 4 legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.102.51 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sleep all the time?

A study of 50 cats suggested that cats sleep infrequently during the day when their owners are away. What does anyone make of that? Student7 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 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: [2][3][4][5]. 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)

The past 10,000 years represents more generations in domestic cats than between us and the first anatomically modern humans. Here's the story of a lynx raised from kittenhood; still wild as all get out. Here's a video of an angry lynx. Hybridize a jungle cat with a domestic, and you get this (video), and in this video look at the way they move. Abductive (reasoning) 07:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And for those who enjoy a good read; this article says that humans introduced everything from weasels to Corsica, badgers to Crete and sheep, goats and cats everywhere, and uses these long-term ferals to assess this issue of domestication. It examines mummified cats from Ancient Egypt too. Abductive (reasoning) 07:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The domestic cat is one of only two animals (the other is the dog) that commonly becomes a household pet and companion. It is not kept entirely as a decoration (which makes it much more tame than goldfish); it can be given free range within a dwelling (unlike caged birds); its behavior is somewhat amenable to modification -- more so than an animal more recently introduced as a pet (a ferret, an animal that can't be given the run of the house because it can easily get entangled in something that can kill it). It can be walked. It is not vermin.

It is practically as reliable a companion as a dog, and arguably safer. The only thing that it isn't as a domesticated creature is a beast of burden; it's simply too small for such use, and the sorts of cats large enough to be used as beasts of burden are simply too dangerous to have around. To be sure it has changed less from wildness than any other domesticated animal -- but that also says that it has needed little change.

If it has done more to change human behavior than Man has been able to change its behavior (other than to bribe it with food and the safety of a human shelter), then the dog isn't that much different in that respect. So it is a menace to any caged bird, fish in a tank, or rodent in an an enclosure? Such is the same with a dog (the lists of incompatible animals, mostly as prey, for both in the respective Complete Idiot's Guides to both animals are essentially the same), and that does not disqualify a dog as a domesticated animal.

To be sure, once outside a house and off a leash it is little different in behavior from wild cats, as is shown in some of the live dramas of predation that I have seen by a killer as efficient as any giant cat. But they do return to the house, and they revert to lapdog roles. If that isn't domesticated, what is?--Pbrower2a (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cats are a social species" needs qualification

Domestic cats are more social than a number of other species in the cat family, and domestic cats are relatively sociable considering that their basic mode of adaptation is solitary hunting -- but obviously they're a whole lot less social than many pack or herd species. So the statement "Cats are a social species" has somewhat misleading implications without further qualifications or explanations... AnonMoos (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not a species anyway. It should be rewritten as "domestic cats are more sociable than their wild forebears, and form "colonies" readily". Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't know how social wildcats are, since their populations are never dense enough to see that behavior. They are effectively solitary. Only the regular provision of large amounts of food create cat colonies. This does need qualification though, I've reworded it to Although wildcats are a solitary species, domestic cats are much more social... Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A "herd" of cats?

The image with a caption "A herd of cats"... the correct collective noun for cats is a "clowder" of cats. A herd of cows, a flock of sheep, a pack of dogs, a clowder of cats. Cats don't herd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.189 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I want to remove the photo, anybody concur? Abductive (reasoning) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, it isn't all that useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I always thought the collective noun for cats was "destruction." Dead serious. Edit: I found a source! This is nit-picky though, since it also lists "clowder." http://mindprod.com/jgloss/collectivenouns.html Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Computer simulation of the cat brain

I added this section to the article cat because it is newsworthy, involves controversy, and may be of general interest. If I added the information to the rarefied world of artificial intelligence, computer science, or neuroscience, I'm afraid it would get lost to the members of the general public that has some interest in cats. I will be happy to discuss suggestions on a better location for this information. Obankston (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:TimVickers moved the section to the cat senses sub-article. Thanx. Obankston (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

Stephens Island Wren

A piece of information in the "Impact on Birds" section of article Cat is probably not up-to-date. In the article Stephens Island Wren, it is mentioned that the research of Galbreath & Brown (2004) and Medway (2004) disproves the account by Rothschild (1905) who claimed that a single cat brought caused the wren's extinction. I thought I will point this out here because wikipedia would not let me edit semi-protected articles. Kimsin98 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've reworded this and added Medway's article as another reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

cat are mamal like humuns.ÇÁŢ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekah z (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Regionalism

The reference to "Female cats are seasonally polyestrous, which means they may have many periods of heat over the course of a year, the season beginning in January or February and ending in late October." would surely apply to only one hemisphere of the planet, but which one? Nylonnet (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the northern hemisphere, female cats tend not to go into heat during the months November, December, and perhaps January so that kittens won't be born in the coldest months of the year when food supplies are the most scarce. I would expect regional variations on this pattern. Obankston (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The source does not specify, but since it was written in English, I'd expect this to refer to the Northern hemisphere. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Valerian (herb)

I had a look in this ref and couldn't find any mention of nepetalactone, which is the active constituent of catnip. Reading this paper it looks like it is a different chemical that is responsible. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither "Catniptoys.com" or Wikipedia are reliable sources. I'll see if I can verify any of this material in reliable sources, but if I can't I'll have to remove it. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the structures of valeranone I can't see much similarity to nepetalactone or actinidine (which are indeed similar). Moreover the statement that these two compounds (valeranone and nepetalactone) are "very similar" is unsourced. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I lost my post here - it seems we were posting at the same time. I had reported that the pet resue center that I have been bringing cat toys to for some years has found that valerian is much more popular with cats than catnip. How do you suggest that I enter this information in our article, or perhaps is it not possible since there are (perhaps) no acceptable references? Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of plants that cats respond to (see the Tucker and Tucker article) but I haven't found any reliable sources that single out valerian over the others. I'm particularly unwilling to use the commercial website as a source, since they have a strong motive for exaggerating how effective their product is. Perhaps we could just say something like "Cats respond to several plants, of which catnip is best known.." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly appreciate your spirit of willingness to be fair, I really do want to include valerian! I do understand your unwillingness to include the site I used. I will look at the site that wiki used at their valerian article. If I could have a little time to look for something better...and if I don't find it I will delete my addition...though I don't expect to find anything. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about the cats at the shelter, it might be that they are showing that well-known feline trait of loving new things over familiar things. So while everybody else is spoiling them with catnip toys, you're the only one giving them these unusual toys - the cats therefore go crazy over the new thing. Anyway, that's only speculation, but even from your experience I wouldn't be comfortable saying that cats are more sensitive to valerian than catnip. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Neutralperson (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading this section through again, it seems I initially misunderstood you and thought you did not want to include valerian at all, perhaps because it seems that we were making a post at the same time and I failed to read your entire post. I never did feel that I wanted to include the suggestion that it was even better than catnip in the article, but was only trying to back up my statement that it is an attractant. Everyone knows that cats like catnip, nothing new about that. So all the more reason to include valerian so that people can learn something they didn't know. At any rate, in my experience while catnip is not attractive to all cats, valerian never fails! Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've condensed the section, removing the unreliable sources and mentioning valerian as one of several plants that produce the "catnip response". Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not unsatisfied with the article, however I do wonder about why you would find my new reference "unreliable". Also, BTW, further looking did find that the catnip chemical and the valeriean chemical (atinidine) are similar. And, just because I found it so interesing... Reading the interesting information on toxoplasmosis and the strange way that it alters a rat (and I assume mouse) brain to make it suddenly find cats attractive so as to complete its life cycle, plus the fact that both rats and cats are attracted to valerian, made me wonder if there just might be a connection. Ahh, so many new things to learn, so little time! :-) Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Feral cats do not vocalize

I have read in various sources that feral cats do not vocalize (meow, purr, etc); only domesticated cats do this. A quick google search will confirm this. However I am not experienced in creating footnotes; perhaps someone can help incorporate this fact into the article? Also this should probably be included in the cat communication article. I can forward sources if need be. Thanks!! laurap414 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I know they hiss and one I tamed does now purr. I'd be fascinated to see some sources about this. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the source; it's from a book called Communicating with your Cat, available on Google Books here (I forget how to insert a link!) http://books.google.com/books?id=lE-EbnD96QIC&pg=PA55 laurap414 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added this fact to the article. Thank you Laura. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But they do yowl, hiss, and growl, and kittens purr and meow, so this falls more under the idea that domestication of cats and dogs causes them to act as children their entire life (~~I appologize, I can't remember the technical term off the top of my head~~ Neotony ), not vocalizations. Admittedly, more work has been done with dogs/wolves on this issue than with cats, but there is some (I'll see if I can find my notes on the subject in the next day or two. - IanCheesman (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that feral cats do hiss, I know they growl and they don't meow because they have to meow or purr about living in the wild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lois490 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cats are a common companion animal in Europe and North America

they are also a very common companion animal also in South America, and probably also in Middle East, Asia and Oceania. The "in Europe and North America" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.152.112 (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cat posture

Cat posture is sometimes mentioned in context with something else, and sometimes has a picture, but I couldn't find a collection of cat postures with pictures and videos.
Where would such a collection go?

A list of whole-body cat postures (incomplete, but includes many common postures):

Static (not moving)
- Laying on back (relaxing)
- Laying on back (defensive)
- Laying on side, tail straight out (relaxed)
- Laying on side, tail curled around (relaxed)
- Sitting on stomach, front paws forward (resting or attentive, Sphynx style)
- Sitting on stomach, front paws curled inward, tail curled around base of body (resting, more common in the cold)
- Sitting up, tail straight back
- Sitting up, tail curled around feet
- Standing on all fours, tail erect with flagpole
- Standing on all fours, facing away from a person or object, but tail in close contact with the person or object
- Standing on all fours, tail straight back
- Standing on all fours, back arched, fur puffed up, body sideways (defensive)
- Cat face vs. human face, reaching out with paw affectionately
- Cat face vs. cat face, friendly greeting
- Cat face vs. cat face, confrontational
- Waste and scenting stances
- Reproductive stances
Dynamic (in motion)
- Kneading
- Yawn
- Stretching after ending resting
- Rubbing face on something (leaves scent)
- Rubbing base of tail on something (leaves scent)
- Wagging tail (annoyed or defensive)
- Standing on back feet, stretching upward, clawing something (leaves scent)
- Twisting in the air (righting reflex)
- Landing (after righting)
- Powerful jump upwards onto something (6 ft or more upwards, need video for this)
- Catching itself by front claws after almost falling off a tree branch or window sill (dramatic, but this rarely happens, so this is hard to catch on video)
- Stalking (moving slowly forward close to the ground)
- Preparing to pounce (moving its body slowly side to side close to the ground)
- Pouncing (sudden burst of speed)
- Whiskers in basket shape as it is preparing for killing bite on prey
- Laying on back, scratching something with back claws while holding it with front claws
- Hissing, mouth partly open (defensive)
- Cat face vs. cat face, lashing out with one paw
- Panting (rare)

Obankston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the crazy

I am not sure whether this is an appropriate or useful suggestion; however, I think the article could be improved by reducing the amount of crazy in it. The article reads like it was written by a pack of crazy cat ladies. All assertions about behavior should be supported by scientific peer reviewed journals, not crazy people. Cat whispers, cat psychics, and animal advocates are not appropriate sources. Due to the use of such sources, the article has a strong bias in favor of crazy. To rectify the situation, I think contributers who have more than two cats in their home should kindly excuse themselves from editing the article because of an obvious conflict of interest; owning a pack of cats does not make you an expert on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.144.142 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples of where you think this applies? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why semi-protected?

Why is this article semi-protected? I don't see a reason for it here on the talk page. Can the protection please either be explained here, or else removed?83.87.133.123 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but possibly related to the fact that every cat owner in the world wants pictures of their own cat in the article :-) Haakon (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The page experiences ceaseless vandalism from children. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Abductive - this article would erode over time - the frequency of vandalism would be such that it wouldn't be long before reversions were missed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.sfx-360.com/ladyj/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mare_machine_gun_cat1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sodahead.com/living/for-the-pretty-people-what-would-you-have-to-offer-if-you-werent-attractive/question-807407/&usg=__9YEIX9XamutxfmjxzFC_44rSob0=&h=320&w=400&sz=97&hl=en&start=4&sig2=G21GoeJU9hEydk-KPnDKEw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=tay12zbxlpGhFM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpsycho%2Bcats%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENUS375%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=HcG_S-CHIIqgnQf59NX_CA

Sexually active cats

"Sexually active males will usually be involved in many fights during their lives, and often have decidedly battered faces with obvious scars and cuts to the ears and nose."

"Sexually active" cats? Wouldn't "un-neutered cats" be a little more accurate?

Someone needs to get those sexually active cats some purity rings. 71.225.227.249 (talk)J

Incorrect binomial

This article uses an incorrect binomial. According to "Concepts of Genetics" by Klug, Cummings, Spencer, and Palladino, 9th Edition, Copyright 2009, my textbook for Biology 222 Genetics, the true binomial for the domestic cat is Felis domesticus, not catus. Between a 200-level college biology book, for a class aimed at majors, and a Wiki article that anyone with an account can edit, which do you believe? Let me clarify further. I would not have been taught Felis domesticus in both high school and college if that were not THE name for the domestic cat. So, change it.

For the record, I'm a Biology Major. I know exactly what I'm talking about with this.

By the way, 3 years of Latin tell me that "Felis" by itself IS the Latin word for "cat," so that would make a name like "Felis catus" utterly redundant. This article has the wrong binomial. Change it. I even provided a source this time, everyone. Find the book and go to the Common Names, Scientific Names, and Haploid Numbers Chart on Page 23. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.247 (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Cat/Archive_10#Scientific_name. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the authors of that discussion. It is interesting to see one of my old comments in an Archived Debate. Anyway, I can find sources for Felis domesticus, and I just did by citing my Genetics book.

At any rate, the person who replied to me there lost reliability by saying wolf hybrids (offspring of Canis lupus with Canis familiaris) aren't sterile, whereas in fact they are sterile. They DO exist, but they're sterile, similar to mules. Just ask any of my biology teachers and Professors from over the years. In fact, I once asked my dog's vet, and she said wolf hybrids are sterile. More generally, there tends to be a lot of incorrect biology stuff online. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.247 (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If Felis catus is incorrect, then the most recent Science paper on Felid phylogenetics is incorrect (see PMID 16400146) as is Scientific American article as is the paper "Phylogeny and Speciation of Felids" in Cladistics as is the ITIS entry on F. catus link. Since these recent, authoritative and reliable sources all agree on F. catus as the official species name, I think we should follow what they say. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The catus vs domesticus conundrum has interested me for years. I am sure some source must have discussed precedence etc. somewhere, and a few lines should definitely be added on how/why the names changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ITIS say Felis catus domestica is a synonym, but that it is an invalid junior synonym as it postdates Linnaeus' original name link. This alternative name certainly isn't in common use in the scientific literature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

When I was a child in the 1970s, I'd see books with either name in them. In 5th grade I got in trouble correcting a teacher by offering F. catus as the name when the teacher had said domesticus. Things are easier now in the computer age. This reminds me of Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, which had magnificus as a specific epithet. I find these taxonomic adventures fascinating and feel they are worth explaining. And these pale in complexity with fungi naming conundrums....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still looking for a worse nomenclatural mess than the Noronha skink. Ucucha 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that if we could find a source that talks about it changing, that would be good. However the problem has been, there is no real enforcement of what it the "correct" scientific name, as scientists use what they feel is correct, which may be different. At one point in time I thought there were comments along this line in the article. As I said in the previous discussion, I don't know which is right, and whichever one is chosen will have well written, knowledgeable, and important works that disagree. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I' am not a biology major, but I do know three things: Linnaean taxonomy is not known for proper Latin, but it is known for redundant names; and there are known cases of fertile mules. Lars T. (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758, is the correct specific name, as it predates Felis catus domesticus Erxleben, 1777 (MSW 3). This paper affirms this point. I found this book explicitly discussing the issue. But it appears that there is no argument against the fact that catus is technically correct, only that domesticus is subjectively more appropriate. The latter argument has no place under the Code, which rather values stability and objectivity. A scientific name is just a label and its literal meaning has no bearing on its validity. Ucucha 14:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That last sentence about literal meanings doesn't change the fact that every biology class I've ever taken in high school AND college has taught me Felis domesticus, and, for the record, it's only 2 words Felis domesticus, which means I already agreed that the 3 word Felis catus domestica/domesticus was invalid. I'll cite my Genetics book, "Concepts of Genetics" by Klug, Cummings, Spencer, and Palladino, 9th Edition, Copyright 2009, again. I leave you with 1 side point. What I learn in class will always take priority over an open-editing source such as Wiki. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is your only (rather silly) point, then just wait a few years more until everything taught in class will be from a wiki ;). Coming myself from the "world of botanics", i would claim that the botanic names used are almost exclusively determined by the age of professors, not their competence ;) --92.202.48.125 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks (or text CDs or whatever they turn into over decades) will be based on formal peer review (which this isn't) as long as anyone who bothers to think has anything to say about it. It makes me shiver to imagine otherwise. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Male Calico Cats

In the article male calico cats are said to sometimes derive from mosaicism. This is incorrect. Female calicos are the result of mosaicism (a result of X inactivation due to the female cats having two X chromosomes), male calicos are the result of chimerism (the merging of two embryos during early pregnancy). I recommend changing mosaicism to chimerism, with a link to the page on Chimeras. Also, mentioning the fact that male calico cats are extremely rare (approximately 1:3000). 64.110.208.244 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do you have a verifiable and reliable source we can cite? - UtherSRG (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

More likely, a male Calico could result from a feline version of Klinefelter Syndrome. I am not sure which chromosome pair determines sex in cats, but a Trisomy XXY (most mammals are XX/XY rather than WW/WZ) of that pair with different hair color alleles would result in a male Calico. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The intro image

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. Zoo Pro 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 Zoo Pro 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. Zoo Pro 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)

Does it even matter, geez. TheClerksWell (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (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)
Of those ^ I like 39 the best. --Webbie1234 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are cats moody? My cat be an angel and othertimes a devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horselover25 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 February 2010 (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. Zoo Pro 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)

I agree that this is an ideal pose. You can see the whole cat (head, body and tail).Kerisnook (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Keri

Collage

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)

I don't see that there was consensus for replacing intro image. If you wanted a collage it should have various cats. Here, we have 6 images - all cats are bicolor, all of them are short hair, 4 of them are in the same sitting pose. Interestingly, 5 of them are from Japan. --Lošmi (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I changed it to one of the images alone. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not the consensus. I had to revert your unilateral decision. I also strongly oppose to your choice of the image as a sole image. I did not support the collage idea, but people picked the idea.--Caspian blue 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The collage has been pretty stable and it was a good solution to finding a single image to represent all different types of cats. If you want to replace it, propose a new collage please. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Some points:

We already have images of different cats thoughout the article. Having a collage in the lede would be pointless.
Cats are not very diverse in shape and size.
The collage isn't even diverse anyway. Where are the long hairs?

The lede cat should be a generic cat with the most common color pattern. Which would probably be tabby. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide us with new images to consider. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Already did. Look above. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cats as Food Sources

I think this article should mention that cats are eaten in many parts of the world, such as Peru and China, and in the past they were eaten in the USA (they were referred to as "roof rabbits" during the Great Depression). 12.40.5.69 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned already, but I couldn't find many good sources dealing with this. can you provide some? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Cat stew is also a Tuscan (Italian) specialty." This phrase should be modified, because the cat was used as food in the '1930s/1940s years in some needy areas in Tuscany (but maybe even in the rest of Italy). Please note that the actual source for this has an anecdotic charachter: the protagonist of the "scandal", Beppe Bigazzi, has specified in an interview that he ate the cat in his childhood when he lived in a poor family. Italian speakers can check this video. --Gwilbor 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwilbor (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Jtjlforever101, 16 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Some people are allergic to cat hair.

Jtjlforever101 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's already in the article. See the section titled "Effects on human health". Goodvac (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

sleeping cat is not sleeping

The picture of the cat allegedly sleeping on a void deck is showing the cat with it's eyes open, flat on it's back. I'm not a cat authority, but this might lead some to believe that sleeping in this pose with the eyes open is normal - and I don't think it is, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.63.184 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

edit request from Sandgirl

You might mention that for example in Polish 'cat' is 'kot' (it means male cat and cat in general). The word 'kotka' means female cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandgirl (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of mother cat carrying a kitten by gripping its scruff in her teeth?

Such a photograph would be a useful addition to article Nape, but I can't find one on Wikimedia Commons (searching for "scruff" doesn't turn up anything useful there, and the category system is only of limited help). Does anybody know of such a photograph available under a free license? Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I found one on Flickr for you: File:Cat carrying kitten.jpg. howcheng {chat} 06:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (sorry I didn't see your reply until today...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.226.156.142, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Cats are highly intelligent. They no when something is hurt or dead. Cats can also lower your blood pressure by petting them. 99.226.156.142 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done Already mentioned in the article. Spigot Map 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish "qadi"

Qadi is the word which is said to be the word for cat in Turkish but "kedi" is the real translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.210.82 (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Collage revisited

I think we need to swap out a few photos in the lead collage to show a greater variety. We've got four out of six spots taken by tabbies, so I think we at least need one longhaired, one tortie/calico, and one solid (blue or brown). I'll go through the Commons categories later today and propose some replacements (unless someone else feels up to it), but does anyone else agree that a greater variety could be shown? howcheng {chat} 00:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Candidates: (these photos were not in the previous candidates)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

I propose leaving in the top center photo (orange tabby with white) and replacing the other three tabbies (upper left, lower right, lower left). howcheng {chat} 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my effort. Comments/flames welcome. If no objections are posted in the next few days, I'll swap it out. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In the section that discusses different coat patterns there different images of cats with the coat pattern. Why does it need to be in the lede? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a long way down from the lede to the coat patterns section. Having a variety of coat patterns and colors can introduce the reader to the amount of variation before we get into detail later. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not spread them thoughout the article? Anyway, i don't think that just because cats have different coat types is a reason for a collage. Those are only use for animals that are very diverse in shape and size and no one specimen can't represent them (like whole Phylums or Orders). There is nothing special about the different cats that they need to be represent in the lede. One simple picture of a standard cat will give the reader the message. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that's been discussed many many many many many many many times, but the problem is, what is a "standard" cat? I realize that the editors of Dog have picked one single dog, but maybe because we're cat people over here we can't come to an agreement on which photo is best. As you can see from above enough people have agreed on the concept of the collage, so that's what we've got now. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the first photo in the college would be a good lede. Can there be an argeement on that? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to start that conversation, go ahead, but considering we already have consensus among editors to use a collage image, I doubt you'd get anywhere. You'd need to get a new consensus to go back to a single image. howcheng {chat} 05:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the pic of silver Persian at the right upper corner, because it looks like a grey-scale pic. If you want to change the pics, I think it is better to have a Turkish Angora or a Turkish Van there as the breeds originated of the offsprings of the most ancient cats. And I think a good pic of a modern type Persian shall be also placed as the breed that undergone the aimed selection at the most degree. It does not mean other breeds will be depreciated. Their pics may be placed inside the article as illustrations to the material in the chapters.--Zara-arush (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Toxoplasmosis

Why is there so much information on toxoplasmosis? Can't that paragraph be condensed? Most of it has very little to do with cats. --Webbie1234 (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I cut all of it out and added it to Talk:Toxoplasmosis for possible inclusion in that article. howcheng {chat} 06:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cats in Egypt

Not all cats were sacred animals. There were several groups of cats, and the special cats that corresponded to definite requirements and had special traits were chosen as a personification of some god, Bast among them. The red tom cat was considered a personification of Ra. It had not been so simple as "In ancient Egypt cats were sacred animals". There was an article published about it.--Zara-arush (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oscar

Oscar (bionic cat) should really have a mention in this article, but I'm not sure where, but would prefer to avoid listing him in the "see also" section. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The Egyptian part of the etymology is not correct. "Cat" was mỉ.w (masculine) and mỉ.t (feminine) in Egyptian (p3 mỉ.w and t3 mỉ.t with the definite articles Late Egyptian was so fond of). I haven't found anything resembling šau or šaus and meaning "cat" in the Wörterbuch (largest Egyptian dictionary). (čaus is hard to look for, as č is not used in Egyptian transliteration; I even looked at ṯ which can be pronounced as ch, and at ḫ which becomes sh in Coptic, but nothing.) – Alensha ^talk 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The etymology seems to be full of problems. The word listed as Hindi "kathi" does not exist in the best Hindi dictionaries. The very source it cites has no mention of it. What is more, the word from Latin easily predates the Hindi language itself, and a word from the latter cannot be a source. The commonly used Hindi word is "billee", which is related to Sanskrit "vidaal", which again cannot possibly be a source for "cat".

Someone above noted a problem with the Turkish source too. The Online Etymology Dictionary, which seems to share much of the other content in this section, cites no Hindi source either.

If someone doesn't have a valid defence, I shall remove the Hindi reference.

--Ankurtg (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed the Hindi word. Ankurtg (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Navbox?

I seem to be having a problem adding the navbox below to the page. An error message keeps telling me the navbox is too big. This puzzles me, as the navbox in question is present in other articles for genus Felis, and by all logic shoudl be in this one too.

Here is the navbox. Help would be appreciated. Vidor (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)