• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cat-fox species?

The Shrike said:
Color me skeptical on this being anything other than genetic drift on an island population of domesticated cat.
Click to expand...

That would also be my guess. The linked article says that DNA tests show that it is not related to any known species, but the DNA is similar to that of the African Forest Cat (Felis sylvestris lybica). That statement really doesn't make sense, but I would note that Felis sylvestris lybica is generally believed to be the ancestor of the domestic cat. The European wildcat is also a subspecies of Felis sylvestris. I don't know if they are, or ever were, present on Corsica, but if so, they may have contributed genes to this particular cat. I kind of doubt that they are actually a different species. At most, they might be a new subspecies of Felis sylvestris. The picture shown looks like a domestic cat to me, with somewhat unusual tail markings.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
The specimen in the photograph of the article doesn't strike me as noticeably larger than a domestic cat, or indeed noticeably different in any immediately visible respect.
Click to expand...

The tail markings are somewhat unusual for a domestic cat, in that the the tip and last few rings on the tail are much darker than on the typical domestic tabby, but I suspect that similarly marked domestic cats exist. The one shown is on the large side for a domestic cat, but within the range of sizes for domestic cats.
 
William Parcher said:
This would have been where they say the DNA was similar to domestic cat (F. catus), if it were more similar to that than the African forest cat.

I just don't think it's descended from domestic cat because that should be revealed in the DNA.
Click to expand...

It's very hard for me to make sense of, or take to seriously, the sentence in the linked article about DNA (not related to any species, but similar to Felis sylvestris lybica). In any case, I suspect these cats are descended from domestic cats, or are a local population of wildcats, likely with some hybridization between the two, which ever may be the predominant ancestor. They may warrant subspecies status, but I highly doubt that they actually represent a different species.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, the key feature that is not visible in the photographs of the kitty is that its canine teeth are different from a domestic cat, which would rule out it being a feral domestic cat descendant.

The articles didn't say whether the teeth were the same as felix sylvestris lybica.
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
It's very hard for me to make sense of, or take to seriously, the sentence in the linked article about DNA (not related to any species, but similar to Felis sylvestris lybica). In any case, I suspect these cats are descended from domestic cats, or are a local population of wildcats, likely with some hybridization between the two, which ever may be the predominant ancestor. They may warrant subspecies status, but I highly doubt that they actually represent a different species.
Click to expand...

Well given how well domestic cats can breed with different species of wild cats it gets into questions of what is a species.
 
Meadmaker said:
Apparently, the key feature that is not visible in the photographs of the kitty is that its canine teeth are different from a domestic cat, which would rule out it being a feral cat domestic cat descendant.

The articles didn't say whether the teeth were the same as felix sylvestris lybica.
Click to expand...

Yes, very clear: whether a feline is vulpine depends upon its canines.
 
Meadmaker said:
Apparently, the key feature that is not visible in the photographs of the kitty is that its canine teeth are different from a domestic cat, which would rule out it being a feral domestic cat descendant.

The articles didn't say whether the teeth were the same as felix sylvestris lybica.
Click to expand...
In the OP it is proposed that this cat was brought to the island 8,500 years ago. That could certainly be long enough for domestic cats (or any other cat) to evolve longer canines by way of natural selection. I think that it would be most associated with advantages for killing or grasping certain kinds of prey. A situation where longer canines leads to greater success as a predator in that specific island environment.

Here is a photo of the teeth. Not sure if it's helpful for gauging relative size. https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2019/amongitsfeat.jpg
 
Last edited:
My Cat-fox

Oh cat-fox,
You are so misunderstood,
Oh cat-fox,
I want your claws removed,
Your teeth filed down,
Oh cat-fox,
I want to hug you,
Oh cat-fox,
You are so misunderstood.
 
I don't see much exciting here. Probably just a genetically isolated population of cats that looks a bit "different" from other populations of cats (I don't see the fox part in the photo). Not clear if its a feral population of domesticated cats that underwent genetic divergence in 8500 years, or some form of hybrid with a different cat species. Either would be interesting but not scientifically shocking. Probably both.

The DNA sequence would be definitive. The claim that when "the researchers examined the DNA from that fur, they found these cat-foxes weren't related to any known species around the world, but their DNA was similar to that of the African forest cat (Felis silvestris lybica)" suggests the hybrid scenario. But the "unrelated to any known species" part is absolutely a terrible mis-statement of science and genetics: they must be closely related to all other cat species, but simply not identical to any other one. And no suggestion that they are, in fact, related to foxes (cats and foxes diverged about 50 million years ago and have been unable to cross breed for most of that time).
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well given how well domestic cats can breed with different species of wild cats it gets into questions of what is a species.
Click to expand...
My understanding(limited) is that in this case, currently the species is felis sylvestris with two subspecies. Catus(domestic cats) and lybicus(African Wildcats). This may be a third I guess but it looks a lot like a catus to me.

There seem to be two competing classifications currently. Either the version I stated above or felis libycus and felis catus assuming African Wild Cats and Domestic Cats are distinct species.


On further reading, that may all be wrong, so take it for what its worth.
 
ahhell said:
My understanding(limited) is that in this case, currently the species is felis sylvestris with two subspecies. Catus(domestic cats) and lybicus(African Wildcats). This may be a third I guess but it looks a lot like a catus to me.

There seem to be two competing classifications currently. Either the version I stated above or felis libycus and felis catus assuming African Wild Cats and Domestic Cats are distinct species.


On further reading, that may all be wrong, so take it for what its worth.
Click to expand...

I was thinking Felis Sylvestris was a North American domestic cat of above average size, whose colorization is basic black with a white underbelly and boots, that has an almost Coyote like obsession with obtaining and consuming a small yellow bird, generally with less than successful results. Or am I mixing that up with something else altogether?
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
My understanding(limited) is that in this case, currently the species is felis sylvestris with two subspecies. Catus(domestic cats) and lybicus(African Wildcats). This may be a third I guess but it looks a lot like a catus to me.

There seem to be two competing classifications currently. Either the version I stated above or felis libycus and felis catus assuming African Wild Cats and Domestic Cats are distinct species.


On further reading, that may all be wrong, so take it for what its worth.
Click to expand...
It's confusing. Wikipedia has the domestic cat as Felis Catus, the European Wildcat as Felis Sylvestris, and the African Wildcat (or African forest cat) as Felis Lybicus. But the article in the OP has the African version as Felis Sylvestris Lybicus. Putting that into Wikipedia redirects to Felis Lybicus.

In any case genetic differences among them are undoubtedly minimal.
 
Giordano said:
I don't see much exciting here. Probably just a genetically isolated population of cats that looks a bit "different" from other populations of cats (I don't see the fox part in the photo). Not clear if its a feral population of domesticated cats that underwent genetic divergence in 8500 years, or some form of hybrid with a different cat species. Either would be interesting but not scientifically shocking. Probably both.

The DNA sequence would be definitive. The claim that when "the researchers examined the DNA from that fur, they found these cat-foxes weren't related to any known species around the world, but their DNA was similar to that of the African forest cat (Felis silvestris lybica)" suggests the hybrid scenario. But the "unrelated to any known species" part is absolutely a terrible mis-statement of science and genetics: they must be closely related to all other cat species, but simply not identical to any other one. And no suggestion that they are, in fact, related to foxes (cats and foxes diverged about 50 million years ago and have been unable to cross breed for most of that time).
Click to expand...

The "fox" part of "fox cat" is purely a reference to color and size, and the fact that these cats are pretty reclusive and no one but the locals believed they existed until recently. "Part cat, part fox" works fairly well in local folklore, but once people figured out genetics, that sort of hybrid was pretty well dismissed, but the legend lives on, and apparently, so do the cats.

ETA: Here's a link that includes a good look at the teeth.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/new...previously-unknown-feline-species/1456461001/
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
It's hard to see the bat in a wombat too. ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting question. Who put the tie in tiger? Who put the gore in gorilla? But then who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp
Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong
Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop
Who put the dip in the dip da dip da dip
 
Trebuchet said:
It's confusing. Wikipedia has the domestic cat as Felis Catus, the European Wildcat as Felis Sylvestris, and the African Wildcat (or African forest cat) as Felis Lybicus. But the article in the OP has the African version as Felis Sylvestris Lybicus. Putting that into Wikipedia redirects to Felis Lybicus.

In any case genetic differences among them are undoubtedly minimal.
Click to expand...
I wonder if its something that is currently hotly debated among taxonomist and geneticists. A bit like whether it should be Home Sapien Neandertalensis or Home Neandertalensis. I think that debate is mostly on the side of the former.
 
The simple fact that its ancestors *were brought to Corsica by humans* confirms for me that these are/were domesticated cats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom