On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:17:31 GMT, "Iso" wrote:

Bob,



I refuse to get into a ****ing contest regarding when cats allegedly
became useful to humans and if house cats form social structures. My PhD is
not in feline physiology, history or animal psychology. The only point that
I am attempting to make is that the original poster of this thread would be
foolish to think to add another cat to her household, simply because she
feels as though her cat is lonely.

My point is that cats ARE social animals, not solitary ones. One cat
on its own is rarely happy. That said, the number of cats a normal
person can keep is far less than the number needed to make a proper
social structure for cats - one of the many reasons cats need time
outside most days.

Still, I respectfully disagree with you
regarding your definition of domestication and your statement " the reason
cats moved in with man is that it gave the cat even greater scope for social
relationships - both with humans and with other cats;" although you believe
it to be true, I disagree.

Hard luck. By moving in with humans, or at least living in human
communities, cats could live at a far higher social density as there
was less competition for food. Results, happy cats and happy humans.

The figures that I posted in my preceding post
were to be used as ball park figures not hard referenced, exact dates. I am
not going to write another dissertation, nor argue my point to any further
extent. You believe what you will, and I will do the same. It is fruitless
for us to squabble about this topic anymore.

But to understand cats you need to understand their history.

--
Bob.

Cat's motto: No matter what you've done wrong, always try to make it
look like the dog did it.