Cats

[Lestat]

Felines have probably been living alongside of man longer than canines. Yet, the common house cat remains remarkably feral. They are aloof and have retained their natural instincts much more so it seems, than dogs have. Most dogs that are pets have become so tamed, they probably wouldn't survive for long in the wild. Yet, most cats would probably do just fine.

Why is that? Are their natural/wild instincts more firmly embedded in their DNA?

[Sephus]

maybe part of it is that dogs are pack animals and cats are more secretive.

[vhawk01]

Or cats never stumbled upon the strategy of sucking up to humans, or they managed to do just fine without it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe part of it is that dogs are pack animals and cats are more secretive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought of this, but don't some felines live in prides? And aren't some wolves solitary? This could be it, but I'd guess intelligence, before packs.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Or cats never stumbled upon the strategy of sucking up to humans, or they managed to do just fine without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the relationship between humans and cats is interesting. We originally kept cats around, because they killed mice and other varmints that sabotaged stored food supplies, etc. In return, cats got the easy life. To this day, it could be said that cats reap more from their relationship with us, than we do from them. Maybe they aren't so dumb after all?

[ALawPoker]

The aloofness of cats vs. the friendliness of dogs definitely has to do with hunting in a pack. Dogs have learned to communicate and rely on each other much more than cats have.

I disagree entirely that cats have "maintained their instincts" better than dogs. Dogs just also have the instinct of loyal respect for the hierarchy of the pack. So if the leader of the pack keeps molding their behavior to be that of a lovable 21st century pet, then that's how the dog will behave.

But humans tolerate the instincts of cats because they don't bother us, so their behavior goes uncorrected. Cats don't have the great ability to adapt that dogs do. People keep cats as pets because the way they naturally live around us is un-intrusive; people keep dogs as pets because their natural temperament is one that is able to adapt to new surroundings, attitudes, and routines. Both species are acting "as they should."

[ QUOTE ]
I thought of this, but don't some felines live in prides? And aren't some wolves solitary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lions live in prides. But they don't hunt with as much detailed communication and cooperation as wolves do. The females do the hunting, and when they hunt, cooperation is more 'helpful' than 'necessary'. A lion will not die if his communication fails him. With wolves, the prey is often larger, the environment is different and probably more challenging, and wolves aren't as strong as lions, so it's impossible for them to survive without coordinated teamwork.

A lion's pride usually has just a few males, so that means the other males are nomads and have proven themselves to be able to hunt alone over their evolutionary journey.

Male cheetahs also sometimes hunt with their brothers. But some don't. And females hunt alone. So again, some capacity for communication (which pet cats definitely seem to have, just much less than dogs) might creep into the gene pool, but since the animal is mostly equipped to survive even in the absence of communication, the effect isn't anything like dogs.

I don't know about wolves living solitary lives. If what you think you heard is correct, my guess is they're just anomalies, whereas all cats are pretty well able to survive on their own. Some have just found that living together is a little better. Wolves really aren't equipped to live alone, and I'm sure the ones that do do not do so voluntarily, and will not be reproducing much.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Felines have probably been living alongside of man longer than canines. Yet, the common house cat remains remarkably feral. They are aloof and have retained their natural instincts much more so it seems, than dogs have. Most dogs that are pets have become so tamed, they probably wouldn't survive for long in the wild. Yet, most cats would probably do just fine.

Why is that? Are their natural/wild instincts more firmly embedded in their DNA?

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be dogs that are the mystery.

The wide range of dogs are all one species and apparantly its very unusual for one species to be so diveerse and so breedable for desired traits including tameness.

cats are far more regular.

chez

[kerowo]

I think there was a study done a while back and dogs are more intelligent than cats. Don't anthropomorphize cats and dogs too much, it's not like work dogs get pissed at their boss for making them work all day when what they really want to do is go fishing.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there was a study done a while back and dogs are more intelligent than cats. Don't anthropomorphize cats and dogs too much, it's not like work dogs get pissed at their boss for making them work all day when what they really want to do is go fishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think of cats as Lizards with fur.

luckyme

[Lestat]

Thanks ALaw. Very informative. I thought some lions were in fact capable of a little more sophisticated approach to hunting, but I could be wrong about it. I thought I've seen documentaries that showed how one lion would flush out prey while others laid in wait, etc.

I can't cite exactly where I heard about solitary wolves, but I'm pretty sure some foxes live solitary lives (aren't foxes canines?).

Anyway, what you say makes a lot of sense. Of course, it has to do with dogs respecting the hierarchy of the pack. Although I'm pretty sure male lions wrestle for hiearchy too, I think you're correct that they're more likely to leave the pride and live solitary lives, whereas wolves just accept their demoted status.

Probably this all has to do with intelligence too somehow.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe part of it is that dogs are pack animals and cats are more secretive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought of this, but don't some felines live in prides? And aren't some wolves solitary? This could be it, but I'd guess intelligence, before packs.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALaw is correct. With very few instances, usually due to living near humans and eating all that delicious garbage, the lone wolf doesn't exist . When a wolf gets booted form a pack it needs to find another pack soon or it will starve.
(This human connection is one of the theories about the beginning of dog domestication.)

Also, while lions live in packs and have excellent cooperative hunting, the overwhelming majority of cat species - including the ones ancestral to our domesticated kitties - are solitary or close to it.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks ALaw. Very informative. I thought some lions were in fact capable of a little more sophisticated approach to hunting, but I could be wrong about it. I thought I've seen documentaries that showed how one lion would flush out prey while others laid in wait, etc.

I can't cite exactly where I heard about solitary wolves, but I'm pretty sure some foxes live solitary lives (aren't foxes canines?).

Anyway, what you say makes a lot of sense. Of course, it has to do with dogs respecting the hierarchy of the pack. Although I'm pretty sure male lions wrestle for hiearchy too, I think you're correct that they're more likely to leave the pride and live solitary lives, whereas wolves just accept their demoted status.

Probably this all has to do with intelligence too somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foxes are solitary or go in pairs for the most part, but in some regions they form little bands. The are in the Canid family but are a different genus than dogs, jackals, and wolves. Because of this, some people don't consider the foxes true canines. Others split them into groups with the dogs, wolves, etc. called "true dogs" and foxes in their own clade.

Also, why do you think the difference in lion and wolf sociality is related to intelligence?
I think it's pretty unrelated.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there was a study done a while back and dogs are more intelligent than cats. Don't anthropomorphize cats and dogs too much, it's not like work dogs get pissed at their boss for making them work all day when what they really want to do is go fishing.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think of cats as Lizards with fur.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Kraepelin is offended by your fur-centric stance.

http://www.sphynxlover.com/kraepelin.jpg

[tolbiny]

Lestat,

Cats were domesticated for different reasons than dogs- (except for a few breeds of ratters) they were used to get rid of rodents primarily. Contrast that with dogs uses- hunting, protecting/herding animals, protecting humans. You don't want a dog to start eating the kill, you need him to wait for the human to divide it first, but you don't care if the cat eats the mouse as long as the mouse is dead your happy. This goes even further with protective roles, it takes a lot of breeding to let a wolf run around with your sheep, but cats don't play this role with people.

[Borodog]

Lots of good stuff here. I would just like to add that I think dogs have experienced much more selective breeding because humans actively work dogs, whereas cats do not actively work with humans (e.g. catching rodents is something the cat does all by itself, without human oversight or communication).

[Borodog]

Rduke,

As always, your freakish bald cat disturbs me.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, it has to do with dogs respecting the hierarchy of the pack. Although I'm pretty sure male lions wrestle for hiearchy too

[/ QUOTE ]

Male lions probably do wrestle for hierarchy. I know intruding male lions wrestle the leader for control of the pride, and if they win they kill the cubs and then make their own (and the defeated male roams).

But then the evolutionary consequence is that lions will be bigger and stronger. Wolves learn to communicate because they need it to hunt, not because they need it for their social structure. It just so happens that with this ability they can determine their hierarchy more efficiently (based on more than just brute ability to wrestle ones own species). Lions just wrestle and that speaks for itself.

I'm not an expert on this stuff or anything, but I like animals and it's fun to talk about them. Good thread. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[brandofo]

[ QUOTE ]
Felines have probably been living alongside of man longer than canines.

[/ QUOTE ]
I saw a show on Discovery channel called History of Man or something like that and they said that dogs were the first animal to be tamed by man. They said cats were only tamed originally for religious purposes. (?) One reason they gave was about dogs hunting in packs like humans were doing during that time.

[Arnold Day]

How different (in apperance and behavior) do you guys think the first stages of a domestic dog and cat would be from the pets we are used to today?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw a show on Discovery channel called History of Man or something like that and they said that dogs were the first animal to be tamed by man. They said cats were only tamed originally for religious purposes. (?) One reason they gave was about dogs hunting in packs like humans were doing during that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah I'm pretty sure dogs were with men as hunter gatherers way before agriculture.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Rduke,

As always, your freakish bald cat disturbs me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "intrigues" not "disturbs"

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
How different (in apperance and behavior) do you guys think the first stages of a domestic dog and cat would be from the pets we are used to today?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in one way dogs' appearance hasn't changed all that much - as in you would recognize ancestral dogs as dogs no problem (with all the different breeds you could say that appearance actually has changed a lot). For cats I think they've changed very little other than some new coats. Look at indian fisher cats, etc.
The big changes are behavioral. Just tolerating proximity to humans is a huge change.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
For cats I think they've changed very little other than some new coats. Look at indian fisher cats, etc.
The big changes are behavioral. Just tolerating proximity to humans is a huge change.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/all-i-can-say-is-dat-my-life-is-pretty-plain.jpg

[Skoob]

I think it all boils down to canines being much more social than felines. Sure, some felines are known to congregate in packs or "prides" and there are some solitary canines. But when taken as a whole, canines are just so much more social.

I saw a documentary a while back about the timber wolf and it was suggested that wolves may be the only species on earth that is more social than humans. It was also said that, "a lone wolf is a dead wolf."

Dogs rely on humans not because humans provide food and shelter, but because humans provide companionship. Cats don't need a companion to be healthy emotionally. Dogs do.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rduke,

As always, your freakish bald cat disturbs me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "intrigues" not "disturbs"

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "intrigues" you mean "gives me the galloping willies", then yes, yes I do.

[Lestat]

This is my point. Cats STILL are not tamed! The common housecat does whatever it wants on it's own terms and as long as it's not destructive, the owner is fine with that.

[Lestat]

This is also my point. I don't think a cat's behavior has changed much if any. Domestic dogs obviously behave much differently towards humans than wild ones.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Dogs rely on humans not because humans provide food and shelter, but because humans provide companionship. Cats don't need a companion to be healthy emotionally. Dogs do.
</font>

That makes sense.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> but you don't care if the cat eats the mouse as long as the mouse is dead your happy. </font>

Do you think if we did care, cats could be trained not to eat a mouse? Or to guard a room full of flying birds without swatting at them (the way dogs have been trained to be near sheep without killing them)?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Also, why do you think the difference in lion and wolf sociality is related to intelligence? </font>

Good question, I just assume the more social the species, the more intelligent, but in hindsight, that's probably not correct. Most likely, the more COMMUNICATIVE a species, the more intelligent, right? If wolves need to communicate with each other in order to hunt, that requires a degree of intelligence that say, a zebra doesn't have. That's also why I think carnivores tend to be more intelligent than herbivores. Anything that requires the thoughtfulness of hunting, requires intelligence.

Other social creatures such as apes, dolphins, etc., are considered more intelligent, wouldn't you say?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If wolves need to communicate with each other in order to hunt, that requires a degree of intelligence that say, a zebra doesn't have. That's also why I think carnivores tend to be more intelligent than herbivores. Anything that requires the thoughtfulness of hunting, requires intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]
In the food chain its a huge problem to try to live off something more intelligent that you. I'd guess for that reason alone, you would expect that if A eats B then A is more intelligent than B.

che

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> but you don't care if the cat eats the mouse as long as the mouse is dead your happy. </font>

Do you think if we did care, cats could be trained not to eat a mouse? Or to guard a room full of flying birds without swatting at them (the way dogs have been trained to be near sheep without killing them)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cats can be conditioned using basic Pavlov techniques not to do certain things, yes. Imprinted early enough, you can teach them to leave the fish tank, rabbit hutch, mouse cage alone.

As for guarding a room full of birds, the dynamics are different for a cat than it is for a sheepdog. I'd imagine at a basic level the sheepdog is just protecting its sheep against other wolves and predators as a food source for its alpha, which happens to be a shepherd.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> but you don't care if the cat eats the mouse as long as the mouse is dead your happy. </font>

Do you think if we did care, cats could be trained not to eat a mouse? Or to guard a room full of flying birds without swatting at them (the way dogs have been trained to be near sheep without killing them)?

[/ QUOTE ]


Dogs have been breed for generations to act that way, if you spent the time selecting cats who acted a certain way/obeyed more than their siblings you would probably be able to alter their instincts to where they bgegan to resemble dogs in a few generations.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

In the food chain its a huge problem to try to live off something more intelligent that you. I'd guess for that reason alone, you would expect that if A eats B then A is more intelligent than B.

che

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush is a vegetarian?

luckyme

[Nielsio]

The PBS series "Dogs and more dogs" explains a lot about the evolution of dogs. Very educational and entertaining.

[MaxWeiss]

Training and artificial selection of dogs much more than cats (and different training/selecting for house cats as well).