Mary's Monday Metazoan: gettin’ some tail : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

Being omnipotent means not only 'never having to say you're sorry' but also never having to say how, that is, being able to get away with being just an idea man.

Richard M. Gale, "Some Difficulties in Theistic Treatments of Evil" The Evidential Argument from Evil (ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996), p. 211.

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« A wretched poll from a wretched fellow | Main | Desecration for sale »

Mary's Monday Metazoan: gettin’ some tail

Category: Organisms
Posted on: June 8, 2009 11:52 PM, by PZ Myers

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/111927

Comments

Posted by: Steve_C | June 8, 2009 11:57 PM

Reeeowwrrr.

Tail! I haz it!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 9, 2009 12:08 AM

OM NOM NOM

Posted by: HenryS | June 9, 2009 12:11 AM

In this months SciAm, there is an article that reports where, when and which wild cat give rise to "kitty". Using genetic studies, the where is mid-east in the region of modern Israel, when ~10 k years ago, which the Middle Eastern wild cat...Felis silvestris lybica.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 9, 2009 12:17 AM

Mwwowr! Kitty! Yay!

I love cats. All cats.

Posted by: Kseniya | June 9, 2009 12:20 AM

Cheetaharmonica!

Henry, that's interesting. I saw something in a book recently that mentioned that all domestic cats can be traced back to two wildcats, the other being a northern European variety found in Scotland (though perhaps not only in Scotland). I don't have access to the book, so I can't give you the proper name. (The book may or may not be correct, I don't know.)

Posted by: Kobra | June 9, 2009 12:35 AM

Bracing for lame lolcats jokes in 3... 2...

Posted by: MadScientist | June 9, 2009 12:37 AM

Ooo! Spotty kitty!

When I had a cat he'd play like that with my dog's tail (well, at least when he was a kitten). Most of the time the dog just twitched her tail but I think the kitty bit too hard once and got quite a fright; this mid-sized dog jumped up, turned around with her huge mouth right in the kitty's face and she barked very loudly several times. I don't recall the kitty playing "catch the tail" after that. At least the dog was good enough not to hurt the kitty; I wouldn't want to see a tail hanging out of her mouth and have to retrieve what's left of the kitty.

Posted by: Autumn | June 9, 2009 12:40 AM

I have a tiny little cat and a seventy-pound dog. The cat shows no fear, though. Imagine this photo, only the kitten is clamping onto the lip of the huge opponent.
The dog shows great restraint, as he is often able to fully engulf kitten's head in his mouth, yet never snaps down. In the above case, the kitten is busy attacking the dog's toungue.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 9, 2009 12:43 AM

Lesssssgittum, kitty. Gittum. Esssyoukitty like to gittum. Gittum. Yum, kitty. Yaahahahum. Kidden.

/teaching small kitties how to prosper mode

#10

Posted by: HenryS | June 9, 2009 12:47 AM

Henry, that's interesting. I saw something in a book recently that mentioned that all domestic cats can be traced back to two wildcats,
*********
Not my area of expertise but the DNA evidence corresponds with the earliest know region for the transition from hunter-gather to village life..Sedentism. In addition, the "house mouse" Mus musculus domesticus also appears in the same region at the same time.

#11

Posted by: MadScientist | June 9, 2009 12:50 AM

@Kseniya: It used to be thought that all domestic cats were derived from two or three species of cat from North Africa to India. There is a fairly recent paper looking at cat genetics and suggesting that in fact all varieties of domestic cat are derived from a single species: Felis sylvestris libica, the African (Libyan) wild cat. If correct it certainly is quite amazing to get short/long/no-hair cats of all shapes, sizes, coat colors, eye colors, and so on from a single species, so much so that the 'cat breeds' hardly resemble the original species. For some idea of what the original looks like, just look at everyone's favorite mongrel type cat.

#12

Posted by: JAMSHED MOIDU | June 9, 2009 1:07 AM

Oh My '' CHANCE''

#13

Posted by: HenryS | June 9, 2009 1:10 AM

If correct it certainly is quite amazing to get short/long/no-hair cats of all shapes, sizes, coat colors, eye colors, and so on from a single species, so much so that the 'cat breeds' hardly resemble the original species.
**********
Even more amazing is that similar genetic evidence suggests that domestic dogs came from a single litter of grey wolves in, what is now called, Siberia about 15 k years ago.

#14

Posted by: Michael | June 9, 2009 1:12 AM

Aww, he's sho cute! Meow meow kitty!

But seriously, childish grammar aside, cats rule.

#15

Posted by: JAMSHED MOIDU | June 9, 2009 1:13 AM

bleh.... cats have still Tails what happened to evolutionary mechanism? hahahahaha

#16

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 9, 2009 1:24 AM

I CAN HAZ CAUDAL APPENDAGE, PLZ?

#17

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 9, 2009 1:26 AM

bleh.... cats have still Tails what happened to evolutionary mechanism? hahahahaha

What a knob.

#18

Posted by: JAMSHED MOIDU | June 9, 2009 1:31 AM

#13
If correct it certainly is quite amazing to get short/long/no-hair cats of all shapes, sizes, coat colors, eye colors, and so on from a single species, so much so that the 'cat breeds' hardly resemble the original species.

There are different MODELS of car like Mercedez benz, Ferrari, BMW, Honda city, Honda civic, Scoda Ocatavia, Maruti,Tata sumo, Mazda, Tata safari and so on.on on..all of them are CAR, but they all are different from each other,but have COMMONALITY, LIKE engines, light, steering, mirror etc..etc..., but none of them where evolved from one another , each one of them is manufactured individually by CONSCIOUS people,
none of them where EVOLVED from one another, SEE even inanimate things cannot ORGANISE themselves then how can living biengs form BYthemselves?

#19

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | June 9, 2009 1:43 AM

Dogs all came from wolves... there's a hell of a lot more variety in them than in cats... chihuahuas, great danes, etc.

#20

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 9, 2009 1:49 AM

If correct it certainly is quite amazing to get short/long/no-hair cats of all shapes, sizes, coat colors, eye colors, and so on from a single species, so much so that the 'cat breeds' hardly resemble the original species.

There are different MODELS of car [...] but none of them where evolved from one another , each one of them is manufactured individually by CONSCIOUS people, none of them where EVOLVED from one another, SEE even inanimate things cannot ORGANISE themselves then how can living biengs form BYthemselves?

When a mommy kitty and a daddy kitty love each other very much, they do this thing which *ahemmumblemumble* makes kittens.

At no point is a kitty manufacturing plant involved. Yes! It is true. Kitties are not manufactured!

Amazing, isn't it?

#21

Posted by: Rorschach | June 9, 2009 2:16 AM

This clown is still here?

#22

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 2:19 AM

hmm, this jamshed troll is shedding all over the place.

#23

Posted by: Gorogh | June 9, 2009 2:22 AM

I am concerned. There has been too much talk about kittens recently, and too little talk of cephalopods.

#24

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 2:23 AM

oh btw, jammy, on your inane blog you screech of persecution thusly:

I WAS SUDDENLY BLOCKED IN COMMENTING by giving a message "your comment should be approved by a moderator".

um, hate to break it to you, but the reason you were "blocked" is simply because you tried to include too many links in your post.

Nobody gets more than 3 before the comment goes to moderation.

though, if you continue playing the persecuted ass you are currently, you're likely to get tossed just for that.

moron.

#25

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 9, 2009 2:25 AM

...and one more thing:

Adnan Oktar is a criminal, and a liar.

that you think his publications have anything at all to do with science paints you as a complete idiot.

#26

Posted by: Kobra | June 9, 2009 2:39 AM

Oh look, a troll. How adorable.

#27

Posted by: MadScientist | June 9, 2009 3:04 AM

Wow - what sort of moron would try to relate cats to cars?

I'd like to see the secret assembly lines where people take the eviscerated cats and add the upholstering, accessories, and do the spray paint job.

I think David Mabus may have been reincarnated - and he's at least as stupid as before.

#28

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 9, 2009 3:09 AM

Kitties grabbing butt snakes are cute.
Stupidity isn't. Cats have a *use* for their tails-- they are a balancing organ of such use that the tailless varieties such as the Manx and Japanese Bobtail may find it more difficult to jump and climb. They still do, but with diminished agility. The evolutionary value of the tail is such that the Manx would probably not have developed without the domestication of cats.

As for origins, a cat encyclopedia I've been reading (The Encyclopedia of the Cat by Michael Pollard) says that there is speculation (doesn't say if DNA has been tested) that Sand Cats, a wild species, may have interbred at one point, giving rise to the longhair variation in cats, which would not occur in the main parent species.

#29

Posted by: Scrabcake | June 9, 2009 3:44 AM

"You has a flavr."

#30

Posted by: MPG | June 9, 2009 5:31 AM

MadScientist @27:

what sort of moron would try to relate cats to cars?

Well there's only one letter difference, so a single mutation is all that's needed! Proof that Darwinism predicts cats give birth to cars! Ridiculous, right!?

That or someone playing one of those word ladder puzzles. You know, where you substitute, add or remove one letter at a time to go from the start word to the goal word, like so:

HARUN -> HARAN -> HARAM -> HARM -> HERM -> HERE -> MERE -> MORE -> MORN -> MORON

It took me nine steps. Harun Yahya manages to be both Harun and a moron simultaneously.

#31

Posted by: Chris Davis | June 9, 2009 5:44 AM

Ah - tails. Balance adjuster, emotional state signal, childcare device.

Such a pity that our need to wear designer pants forced them to go vestigial.

#32

Posted by: Chris Davis | June 9, 2009 5:58 AM

Hey Jamshithed, you know what really pathetic about your posts? It's the way your present these silly little arguments as if they're really intelligent criticisms that none of us has encountered before, or has any way to refute.

They aren't - they're just unbelievably idiotic facepalming stupidity. They're so stupid they make it obvious that trying to reason with you is futile, because your depth of ignorance is so abyssal. If you don't realise how dumb you sound, you simply wouldn't understand the reasons why.

Enjoy your stupid. Soon you will be gone.

#33

Posted by: JAMSHED MOIDU | June 9, 2009 6:29 AM

MPG@30
HARUN -> HARAN -> HARAM -> HARM -> HERM -> HERE -> MERE -> MORE -> MORN -> MORON

thanks to your ''SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE'' in the mutation of the words

#34

Posted by: Katrina | June 9, 2009 6:38 AM

@ Samantha (#28)

If that is so, then why are Lynx essentially tailless? Their near-taillessness would be to their evolutionary disadvantage, wouldn't it? Or is it not really a significant enough advantage?

#35

Posted by: RobertDW | June 9, 2009 6:51 AM

HenryS@3: So you're saying that all our cats are Jewish?

#36

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 9, 2009 7:10 AM

Jamshed, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. What an idiot. You must prove the creator exists before you can use him in an argument. Welcome to real science.

#37

Posted by: MPG | June 9, 2009 7:23 AM

thanks to your ''SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE'' in the mutation of the words

. Are you seriously citing the rules of a word game as evidence against evolution? Well done, you've reached a new level of detachment from reality. "Coming soon! Jamshed's crossword book! Over 100 intelligently designed puzzles, proving that Darwinism can't explain puzzle magazines!"

#38

Posted by: echidna | June 9, 2009 7:43 AM

Different varieties do occur naturally by evolution. in the north of Australia are a classic example. As their habitat retreated, different colour>ation evolved. Now they are able to interbreed again to some extent, but the different colourations are not as fertile with each other. Blending into a single species again will take some time.

#39

Posted by: echidna | June 9, 2009 7:43 AM

#40

Posted by: echidna | June 9, 2009 7:45 AM

html fail
Gouldian finches: see http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/Gouldian_Finches.jpg

#41

Posted by: Jerry Coyne | June 9, 2009 7:48 AM

Hey, P.Z., that's NO FAIR! Do you want me to start posting photos of cephalopods?

#42

Posted by: Chris Davis | June 9, 2009 7:52 AM

@Katrina #34

I don't know any lynxes personally, but if I were to speculate, there are a number of things I reckon a lynx would tell you:

The sort of hunting, living and mating they do doesn't specifically need a tail, or can at least be done well without one.

There are situations in their life and environment where a tail would be disadvantageous. For example, they appear to live in subzero climates: keeping a tail warm would need big fur and consume food energy. And a big furry tail might get caught on things like underbrush and tree branches during hunts.

How'm I doing, O ye Lynxen?

#43

Posted by: Kate | June 9, 2009 8:23 AM

...and in a related story, Blog commenter "Kate" has finally succumbed to the injuries she sustained when her head "Exploded from Cute" early this morning.

Action News Channel EleventyOne reporter, Ms. Fluffy McSplashyPants has the full story:

"Officials are investigating a series of posts by Blogger P.Z. Myers entitled: "Mary's Monday Metazoan", which are believed to be the cause of this terrible tragedy.

In the wake of this disturbing report, local legislators are calling for stricter controls on "Teh Cute", after it was revealed that images containing "Teh Cute" are a regular, weekly feature of P.Z. Myers' blog, Pharyngula.

Charges have yet to be laid in this case, but officials have assured Action News Channel EleventyOne that they are continuing to investigate.

This is Fluffy McSplashyPants, reporting live from Ontario Canada. Back to you in the studio..."

Action News Channel EleventyOne urges their viewers to use caution when using the internet, as images containing kittens, puppies, baby otters and other animals displaying infantile characteristics are now widely available for public viewing, often without any warnings attached.

Stay tuned to Action News Channel EleventyOne for more details....

#44

Posted by: shrimplate | June 9, 2009 8:33 AM

The greater variety among dog breeds is due to selective pressure: breeding guided by humans. Cats, not so much. All they really had to to was catch vermin and look cute.

#45

Posted by: Katrina | June 9, 2009 8:59 AM

@ Chris Davis:

What you say makes sense. Growing up in Oregon, we had bobcats, who are, I believe, a type of lynx. They live in forested areas and, though mainly solitary, their territory includes that of the mountain lions.

I still suspect that there might not be as much selective pressure for tails as one would expect. But I have nothing to back that up. Hmm. I'll have to try and look into it.

#46

Posted by: Tomato Addict | June 9, 2009 9:05 AM

@33:

HARUN -> HARAN -> HARAM -> HARM -> HERM -> HERE -> MERE -> MORE -> MORN -> MORON

thanks to your ''SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE'' in the mutation of the words

Actually, only three steps are needed:
HARUN -> MARUN -> MARON -> MORON

Therefore, the probability of this mutation is greater than (1/26)^3; clear evidence of Irreducible Moronity.

#47

Posted by: E.V. | June 9, 2009 9:07 AM

Mutations that affect testosterone/melanin levels are largely responsible for the variations in canine and feline variations. Humans have increased the variations through selective breeding.

#48

Posted by: Masks of Eris | June 9, 2009 9:11 AM

Ah, cats.

The reason I won't get a cat is the matter of names.

Not that I couldn't think up one; no, the problem is I can think up too many too weird ones.

Like Mohammed, Basement, This ("Hey, have you seen This?"), Loll, God, Arm ("Dear: Arm was yowling, jumping all over the place; got worried & went to see a vet"), or then a certain four-letter word the repeated yelling of which would cause a significant decrease in the number of neighbors willing to say hello.

#49

Posted by: E.V. | June 9, 2009 9:12 AM

department of redundancy department... sheesh

#50

Posted by: MPG | June 9, 2009 9:38 AM

Tomato Addict, you cheater - those aren't real words! <creotard>Proof that you atheistic Darwinists have to ignore the rules to make your theory work!</creotard>

#51

Posted by: cicely | June 9, 2009 9:42 AM

Kittiessssss........

Chris Davis @ 31:

Ah - tails. Balance adjuster, emotional state signal, childcare device.

And, according to Calvin & Hobbes, a bow-tie for your butt.

#52

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 9, 2009 9:43 AM

Isn't it sad how creationists have to ruin everyone's enjoyment of nature with their silly stories?

#53

Posted by: Watchman | June 9, 2009 9:48 AM

Gah! Another thread jamshed beyond repair.

#54

Posted by: ajbjasus | June 9, 2009 9:51 AM

I know I shouldn't do this, but I followed the link to Jamsheds site, and then got drawn in to reading all the nonsense - it's like a sort guilty vice ! Anyway the single most spectacular bit of rubbish cited to explain why Richard Dawkins is afraid of debating (with) Harun Yaya is
because :

HE WILL BE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO ACTUALLY SEES THE IMAGE IN THE BRAIN although there is no light either outside or inside that brain. NEITHER WILL HE BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO HEARS sounds, speech and music within the sound-proof brain. AND HE WILL HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHO IT IS THAT TAKES PLEASURE FROM, INTERPRETS AND REACTS TO THE IMAGES, MUSIC, TACTILE SENSATIONS AND SCENTS IN THE BRAIN.

I must admit - I haven't heard this particular argument before - but it's a cracker.

#55

Posted by: blueelm | June 9, 2009 9:54 AM

Cats. They melt my heart.

#56

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 9, 2009 9:55 AM

Pfft

Can't we get a better class of troll, please?

_____________<;,><_____________

#57

Posted by: daveau | June 9, 2009 10:07 AM

Jerry Coyne @41 said:

Do you want me to start posting photos of cephalopods?

As long as they're adorable cephalopods...

#58

Posted by: savve | June 9, 2009 10:12 AM

KITTEH!

And all you trolls, please keep your trolling to the science and debate threads. Stay the heck OUT of teh cute, pls kthxbye!

#59

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 9, 2009 10:12 AM

As long as they're adorable cephalopods...

As if they all aren't

oh wait did you say delicious?

#60

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 9, 2009 10:13 AM

ajbjasus, the proper place for a scientific debate is the peer reviewed scientitic literature. Have Harun Yaya write up and submit a scientific paper refuting evolution. Until that happens, Harun Yaya is an unscientific windbag.

#61

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 9, 2009 10:18 AM

Nerd I don't think ajbjasus was supporting Harun Yaya. I think it was more a point and laugh situation.

#62

Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 9, 2009 10:24 AM

Scientific American has an interesting article on The Evolution of House Cats.

#63

Posted by: ajbjasus | June 9, 2009 10:25 AM

NerdofRedhead

I doubt he'll ever do that. I did feel guilty about reproducing that rubbish - but it just about ids the most stupid argument I've ever read (Ray Comfort notwithstanding).

Cracker was obviously a Freudien slip given PZ's Consecrated Host item

#64

Posted by: ajbjasus | June 9, 2009 10:25 AM

NerdofRedhead

I doubt he'll ever do that. I did feel guilty about reproducing that rubbish - but it just about ids the most stupid argument I've ever read (Ray Comfort notwithstanding).

Cracker was obviously a Freudien slip given PZ's Consecrated Host item

#65

Posted by: Watchman | June 9, 2009 10:37 AM

Jamshed: Cats still have tails, therefore God?

#66

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 9, 2009 11:02 AM

Actually, that's frighteningly close to a Buddhist argument, which is, essentially, an atheistic one.

#67

Posted by: Chris Davis | June 9, 2009 11:09 AM

Cats, not so much. All they really had to to was catch vermin and look cute.

Huh! As if...

Therefore, to be possess'd with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,
To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.
(Bill Shaks)

#68

Posted by: AJ Milne | June 9, 2009 11:18 AM

Jamshed: Cats still have tails, therefore God?

Well, it's a nice change from 'I got tail, therefore God', anyway, I guess...

(/And granted, fer some folk, it does seem a bit of a miracle.)

#69

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 9, 2009 11:20 AM

My apologies ajbjasus, my humor detector was on the fritz this morning.

#70

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 9, 2009 11:22 AM

(/And granted, fer some folk, it does seem a bit of a miracle.)

I can think of one commenter here in particular...

#71

Posted by: Richard Smith | June 9, 2009 11:25 AM

@AJ Milne (#68):

a nice change from 'I got tail, therefore God', anyway

Or, 'I got tail, therefore God, therefore Satan, therefore Hell, therefore aforementioned Hell now frozen over.' Guess that would mean Hell was endothermic...

#72

Posted by: AJ Milne | June 9, 2009 11:37 AM

I can think of one commenter here in particular...

I have occasionally found myself wrestling with the philosophical and ethical ramifications of this...

I consider it an open question: if a woman seen in certain company were later to insist her child were an immaculate conception, shouldn't I at least have to consider the possibility?

(/Charitably, at least. And for her sake...)

#73

Posted by: Sastra | June 9, 2009 11:38 AM

ajbjasus #54 wrote:

HE WILL BE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO ACTUALLY SEES THE IMAGE IN THE BRAIN although there is no light either outside or inside that brain...

I must admit - I haven't heard this particular argument before - but it's a cracker.

Looks like a particularly clunky version of mind/brain substance duality. Perhaps it could be called "The Argument from the Ghost in the Machine" -- "There is an invisible person who watches everything inside our heads! It's a ghost! In the brain! Ghosts are supernatural! Explain that, materialists!"

#74

Posted by: Steve_C | June 9, 2009 11:41 AM

The kooks are crawling out of the woodwork today.

#75

Posted by: Onkel Bob | June 9, 2009 11:48 AM

Coyne has raised the stakes!

#76

Posted by: Sili | June 9, 2009 11:51 AM

(/And granted, fer some folk, it does seem a bit of a miracle.)

I can think of one commenter here in particular...
_{Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 9, 2009 11:22 AM}

Hey! I resemble that remark! /obvious

Re image: AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

And prof Coyne, duh! PeeZed wants you to post cephalopedestrians. That's his whole purpose with these posts. He's goading you.

#77

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 9, 2009 12:14 PM

Kate #43, then as a friendly warning, whatever you do, don't scroll up to look at the female Lynx and kitten image or the explosion will be thermonuclear in nature :)

#78

Posted by: Gra | June 9, 2009 1:07 PM

You'd have trouble fitting that one in th oven.

(ducks)

#79

Posted by: dNorrisM | June 9, 2009 2:14 PM

All cats have three tails:

One cat has one more tail than no cat.
No cat has two tails

#80

Posted by: DPSisler | June 9, 2009 3:19 PM

@65 "Jamshed: Cats still have tails, therefore God?

so that is why when you hook up with a male / female you yell out "Oh God" in bed, shower, bathroom, because you got tail?

#81

Posted by: ajbjasus | June 9, 2009 5:20 PM

Nerd

No worries - that's the effect that those nutcases' constant dripping of nonsense has !

Sastra

Yes - dualism struck me - but I suspect just a fluke as far as Jamshed was concerned

#82

Posted by: cyan | June 10, 2009 12:23 AM

JAMSHED MOIDU

If we artificially selected for breeding in current domestic cats these features combined:

- shorter snouts
- larger size
- less musculature
- more societal behavior

then in a few hundred years we would see the resultant animals being less being able to be classified by us as felines and as more canine

Wouldn't change their molecular present and past.

Now apply that concept to working backward with all organisms.

Hmmm.

Not that difficult to understand, is it.

- cyan

#83

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 10, 2009 1:38 AM

A species has a binominal name. A sub-species has a trinominal name. Thus Felis silvestris lybica (the African Wildcat) is a sub species of the wildcat Felis silvestris. The original story pointed out that domestic cats are African Wildcats, Felis silvestris lybica. Which means that due to a peculiarity of a population of African Wildcats we are able to keep what amounts to a wild animal in our homes, and treat it as if it were domesticated.

Either that, or we tend to be a bit too stringent whereto our definition of species in one instance.

#84

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 10, 2009 5:46 AM

Katrina, I'm not a full-fledged cat expert, and it might be necessary to look up specific research on the wild cats that have stub tails to see what differences of habit and habitat would select for taillessness, and the research itself may not yet have been done.
I'm seeing the Canadian and Northern lynx with a short tail and the bobcat with a stumpy white-tipped tail. The Spanish lynx is described as having a tail that is both short and stumpy (stumpy appears to refer to the tails that sort of curl back on themselves, keeping the mass close to the body).
The caracal is a desert cat that also has a short, lynx-like tail. They are champion jumpers.
Hunh... just looked up the Manx, and the encyclopedia specifically says that even though tails are considered important for balance, even the show quality, completely tailless Manxes show no loss of agility.

So maybe it's only a problem for cats who lose their tails, not those born without. It does seem that cold and dry climates sometimes might select for smaller tails to avoid the loss of heat and possibly moisture.

#85

Posted by: sharky | June 10, 2009 8:14 AM

One example that springs to mind when speaking of silly stumpy kitty tails was the tag on the rear of the saber-toothed lion.

Saber-tooths seemed to handle having not much tail just fine, though. It was the other end of the beast that doomed them.

#86

Posted by: catgirl | June 10, 2009 3:31 PM

I just want to point out that car designs do evolve. The first cars (horseless carriages) were based on previous carriages. Since the first cars, designs have been improved an modified by tweaking the original design, rather than re-inventing the whole thing. Of course car design was consciously done by humans, because cars can't reproduce biologically. Plenty of other things evolve without intent, such as language.

Anyway, what I really came here to say is:

Moar kittehs plzkthnx!