www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Cat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ian Dalziel (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 4 January 2023 (Undid revision 1131386026 by 24.181.146.246 (talk) Un-Ftgfmtgb). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleCat is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleCat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 19, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 23, 2006Featured article reviewKept
March 3, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
December 20, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


Improper Grammar?

This says "it leads to the extinction of bird, mammal, and reptile species". Shouldn't it be THE bird mammal and reptile species?

This term stands for several species of birds, reptiles and mammals. To use "the", one would need to clarify which bird, mammal and reptile species went extinct - obviously, it's not referring to all such species. beforeAdapter (talk · contribs) 2022-03-20T17:22Z

Kellas Cat

This article says "House cats often mate with feral cats,[54] producing hybrids such as the Kellas cat in Scotland.[55]" while the article about the Kellas cat says it is a hybrid with the Scottish wildcat. I believe the Kellas cat article is correct. Would someone with easy access to the Journal of Zoology please check reference 55 and reconcile the two articles. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cat prey

Should insects be added to the animals cats are skilled at hunting? Or is it not common enough in cats overall to be notable enough to mention? Blu Moon (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that insects are a significant part of a cat's diet (not sure whether a cat could live too long eating only insects), so even if they sometimes toy with moths or whatever, the hunt-to-eat element seems to be mostly missing... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Species classification

The species name of felus catus is severely outdated and references a mid 18th century article. The housecat is currently considered (according to 2007 ruling by the international commission of zoological nomenclature) one of the subspecies of felus sylvestris, felus sylvestris catus and is considered semi-domesticated having very little to distinguish it from other f.sylvestris subspecies. Robbyrockett (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The domestic cat Felis catus is treated as a distinct taxon following Opinion 2027 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2003). See section #Taxonomy + references therein. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, opinion 2027 says that both names are valid for the same species.

The decision was as to whether felis sylvestris was valid since the name felis catus had predated felis sylvestris on naming the the same species.

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34357823#page/97/mode/1up

Case 3010 decided 17 names for wild animals that had been predated by a name for the same species based on domestic variety and settles on " sylvestris,felis catus", recognizing it as a subspecies.

The IUCN publication you are quoting from " a revised taxonomy of the felidae" from 2017 then goes on to cite Gentry etc al.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222518224_The_naming_of_wild_animal_species_and_their_domestic_derivates

The EEP doesn't even recognize felis catus as valid and instead redirects to felis sylvestris

https://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species/14240

Also see https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Felis_silvestris_catus

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Felis_silvestris_catus

Also see classification here https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/c/Cat.htm

"opinion 2027 (published in Volume 60, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, March 31 2003) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature "conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are predated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms", thus confirming F. silvestris for the wild cat and F. silvestris catus for its domesticated subspecies. (F. catus is still valid if the domestic form is considered a separate species)

Bottom line is for binomial classification felis catus and felis sylvestris can be valid. For trinomial classification (recognizing subspecies) felis sylvestris catus is correct.

IUCN decided to use felis catus strictly as a naming convention, it does not distinguish it as a separate species, nor does any of the sources it references.

Current researchers use felis sylvestris catus.

Etc ,etc— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyrockett (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at 1) the dates of the linked websites : they have not been updated for a few years, reflect the outdated taxonomy, but fail to reference the revision of felid taxonomy by members of the Cat Specialist Group; 2) the topic of the linked articles, which are NOT taxonomic papers, i.e. do NOT discuss taxonomy of the domestic cat. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1.Nevermind that the IUCN isn't a nomenclatural authority and the article was published in a magazine not a peer reviewed journal. The source sighted by the IUCN paper recognizes using felis silvestris catus if it is regarded as a subspecies. ICZN opinion 2027 specifies this. This is why peer reviewed publications as recent as this year can correctly use F. s. catus

The IUCN paper even recognizes this by stating the reason for using F.Catus is they are regarding it as a full species within this publication according to a 2004 paper here. ( Note this wiki already cites more recent studies which indicate it is a subspecies)

" 

Following the ruling of the International Commis-

sion for Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 2027; International Com-

mission on Zoological Nomenclature 2003), the domestic descendant

of the North African wildcat should be treated as a separate taxon, which here is regarded as a full species, Felis catus (Gentry et al. 2004).Domesticated mostly from a lineage of Felis lybica lybica from Meso- potamia (Driscoll et al. 2007)."

2. This wiki misquotes the IUCN paper by stating 

"  Following Opinion 2027 of the Interna-

tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2003), the domestic cat is treated as a distinct species"

Which does not appear in the paper at all.

Instead it says this

"Domesticated mostly from a lineage of Felis lybica lybica from Meso- potamia (Driscoll et al. 2007). Following Opinion 2027 of the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2003), the domestic cat is treated as a distinct taxon, Felis catus (Gentry et al. 2004)."

Perhaps we could at least fix the misquote within the wiki article.

I realize in all this that F.catus is also technically correct so I can't claim it isn't. However so is F.s.catus when regarded as a subspecies. Which I guess is not really necessary to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyrockett (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name Felis silvestris catus only makes sense if we also assume that the African wildcat is Felis silvestris lybica, but Felis lybica seems to be widely used across Wikipedia. Using the terms inconsistently gives the incorrect impression that the domestic cat is more closely related to the European wildcat, F. silvestris, than to F. lybica, especially given the wording of this sentence: "In 2007, it was considered a subspecies, F. silvestris catus, of the European wildcat (F. silvestris) following results of phylogenetic research." The first citation for this sentence, Driscoll (2009), is clear that the domestic cat is a descendant of the African wildcat: "The domestic cat is referred to as a sixth subspecies, F. silvestris catus, although it is clear that domestic cats derive very recently from F. silvestris lybica." The second citation, Wozencraft (2005), doesn't support the claim at all given that... it's from 2005, and thus has very little to say about phylogenetic research in 2007. I'm not an expert in felid taxonomy (that's why I came to this article!) and my previous knowledge of the subject came from neither Driscoll (2009) nor Wozencraft (2005) but rather Data (2369). However, I can follow a link, and I can tell that the sentence as written gives a misleading impression of what the cited sources say.
I would argue that the Driscoll citation should be changed to the original 2007 paper, the Wozencraft citation should be removed entirely (at least for this sentence), and the sentence should be rephrased to something like "In 2007, both the domestic cat and its wild ancestor, the African wildcat, were considered to be two of the six subspecies of Felis silvestris following results of phylogenetic research, and were accordingly named F. silvestris catus and F. silvestris lybica respectively." The following sentence should then be edited slightly to say something like "In 2017, the IUCN Cat Classification Taskforce followed the recommendation of the ICZN in regarding the domestic cat as a distinct species, Felis catus, and its Near East ancestor as Felis lybica." (However, I would also suggest that perhaps the entire section should be rewritten completely, as the changes I'm proposing to make the current version less confusing are hardly the most elegant.)
The WP:BOLD thing to do would of course be to make these changes myself, but as a lowly IP anon who rarely edits and may not be fully up to date on the current conventions, I thought it better to bring my suggestions here first. 2601:14D:4E00:C1E0:0:0:0:2841 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

Change "This article is about the species commonly kept as a pet" to "This article is about the domestic cat". ඞඞඞඞඞඞ (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We need to be more specific. "domestic cat" is less specific than "species commonly kept as a pet" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, don’t they mean the same thing? 아름다운 반짝임 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farm animals are also domesticated. AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

In the introduction, please change “effected” to “affected”. 아름다운 반짝임 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wording is correct as is. UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


File:Felis catus-cat on snow.jpg

This image is in the article twice. Once in the infobox and once further down. might be worth removing the second instance.©Geni (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was completed. Renewableandalternativeenergy (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat&oldid=1131421607"