The Oddest Cat I Have Ever Seen

[TelegramSam]

The Exotic Shorthair looks like a Persian because it basically is a persian. They bred Persians to American Shorthairs, then bred the short-furred offspring back to Persians to retain the Persian body/face type. There's really no major difference except coat length.

As for the smushed-up faces of so many pedigreed cats (Persians, Exotic Shorthairs, Himalayans and a few other related breeds), I agree - they look mutated or something. And a lot of them have these flat upper eyelids and drooping lower ones that make them look like they're constantly p.o.'ed. I don't see anything "cute" or "beautiful" about them. That smushed look I think came about in the latter half of the 20th century, before then the Persian breed was similar in type to the Turkish Angora, another long-haired breed with a normally-proportioned face that is a fair sight prettier in my opinion.

The Siamese shares a similar story, only with the facial structure going in the opposite direction - they're now artificially long-faced. Both breeds can have health-related issues with these modified head shapes, but the Persian by far suffers the most, having many of the same problems as brachycephalic (short-faced) dog breeds like the Pug including sinus problems and difficult or impossible non-caesarian birthing.

I'll stick with "alley" cats myself. They tend to be healthier in the long run and can be just as pretty as the pedigreed beasts.

[Martin Milner]

I'll stick with "alley" cats myself. They tend to be healthier in the long run and can be just as pretty as the pedigreed beasts.

Ditto. I fail to see how cat breeders can also be cat lovers, deliberately breeding for traits they like to see, not what the cat wants or needs.

We have a B&W alley cat Charlie, who adopted us about 14 months ago, and he has a wonderful life popping in and out whenever he can. Cats really know how to relax, and seeing him stretched out on the sofa relaxes me.

[avanutria]

There may be other types of Persian cats that looked more like the modern Persian cats I see, I don't know. But I think the cat in these pictures didn't need to change into a flat-faced odd looking cat, if that's what the breeders did. It was beautiful just the way it was.

It's possible the breeders didn't mean to end up with flat faces but were originally trying for other traits. (Though after they noticed the effect they may have liked it for being 'different' or 'new'.) There's a good book by Temple Grandin that, among other things, talks about the 'side effects' of breeding for one trait without looking at the animal as a whole.

I agree that alley cats are the best. Two of the best cats I've ever had started their lives on the streets.

[Cynth]

There may be other types of Persian cats that looked more like the modern Persian cats I see, I don't know. But I think the cat in these pictures didn't need to change into a flat-faced odd looking cat, if that's what the breeders did. It was beautiful just the way it was.

It's possible the breeders didn't mean to end up with flat faces but were originally trying for other traits. (Though after they noticed the effect they may have liked it for being 'different' or 'new'.) There's a good book by Temple Grandin that, among other things, talks about the 'side effects' of breeding for one trait without looking at the animal as a whole.

I agree that alley cats are the best. Two of the best cats I've ever had started their lives on the streets.

I'll have to try to read that book. We don't have special breeds of cats for our pets, but I have often wondered what the breeders could have been thinking, although there are some really beautiful breeds out there---I saw a Russian Blue once and boy, that was a beautiful animal. I can see, though, how a desired characteristic, something that would be good for the cat's health even, might be genetically linked to something else.

A few months ago there was an interesting series on PBS about people who showed different sorts of animals. One show was about people who showed cats and a number of those people were breeders. The show concentrated on a few people and did in-depth interviews, showed them at home with their cats, their set-ups and the cat shows. They did all seem to love their cats very much, but they sure took getting a prize very seriously. For some, I think a lot of money was riding on breeding a prize-winning cat, for others it just seemed like an obsession, their hobby I guess. There was one really great (for the viewer, not for the cat) segment showing one cat at a show who just suddenly took off, slipped right out of the judge's hands and wreaked havoc in the audience. I don't have anything against showing cats if the cat is used to it and likes it, but I must say I felt like cheering for that cat. Another woman had entered a cat who became quite violent and could not be gotten out of the cage safely and so was disqualified---she was heartbroken. But surely she could not have been surprised---I would think he had given hints before that he didn't like being handled, especially in such a strange situation. She did love him though, that was clear.

Our cat Hannah, now gone, was left behind on a campus at the end of the school year and so she was on her own for awhile. She always retained a certain wildness. She gradually got more gentle and I learned to pick up on the signals she was giving and to be a little more assertive (like I finally dared to move her from my spot on the bed when it was time to go to bed ). The two we have now came from a shelter and I think they must not have lived on their own because they are so gentle compared to Hannah. It was really a new experience to not be wondering if someone was going to let me have it if I had to mess with her a bit and she wasn't in the mood. We couldn't have loved Hannah more though, she was a wonderful, wonderful cat. You just didn't want to cross her .

Say, ava, I just checked on some titles for Temple Grandin. I'm wondering if you are refering to Animals in Translation or maybe Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals? They seemed to be the most likely candidates, although she is editor of the second one I listed, so probably that's not it. They look quite interesting.

[TelegramSam]

Pedigreed dogs and cats all have a "breed standard" to which the dog or cat fancier breeds toward. This breed standard is a description of the "perfect" specimen of a particular breed. The Persian's breed standard at least at one point indicated that the animal's forehead, nose and chin should all form a straight line when seen in profile (this taken from a book published in 1989, this may have changed). This facial structure was no mistake - somebody at some point decided that this is the way that Persian cats should look and the rest of the breeder community agreed; that's why it's in the standard.

This page has the entire breed standard for the Persian: http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/standards/persian.html

You'll notice that the animal's head is worth 30 points - more than any other part of the animal.

These standards are occasionally revised but generally only in an emergency, such as if the breed is in danger of extinction and outbreeding (breeding to other pedigreed or non-pedigreed cats outside of the breed) is necessary to preserve the breed.

[cowtime]

Good post Sam.

As someone who bred and showed Skye Terriers for over 25 years I can tell you that anyone who is a truly serious fancier lives and breathes those animals care and welfare. Everything in my house/kennel/yard was there, only after considering how it affected the dogs. Carpet? No. Scraggly bushes? No. Cushy bedding, the best food and vet care? Yes. Plenty of love and care all around. Any breeding was done only after long consideration and study, and then was only done if I could keep every puppy(and sometimes did)and I never sold one unless it was to an exceptional home, and then with a very long signed contract.


Without breeder/fanciers there wouldn't be any different breeds.
Breed standards are rarely changed. But, certain characteristics may become the "fad" at any given time. That's when some breeders will breed only for that trait. In that way, extremes can sometimes develope, particularly in popular breeds. Yes, we (humans) can mess up a breed, but those who are careful have as their goal to improve it, and often do.
I'm happy that Skyes are not popular, and have not been since Victorian times. Popularity brings trouble to any breed. Skyes have looked the same for hundreds of years and hopefully will hundreds of years from now.

[Jack]

Without breeder/fanciers there wouldn't be any different breeds.

There are naturally occuring breeds of cats, such as the Turkish Van and Russian Blue.

[TelegramSam]

Without breeder/fanciers there wouldn't be any different breeds.

Um, don't take this the wrong way, but that's not entirely true. People have been selectively breeding animals without any knowlege of genetics or keeping track of bloodlines or much of anything else for centuries. It's simply a matter of somebody choosing to breed their best hunting dogs over the more lackluster ones, or picking the dogs who herd their sheep best, etc etc. The early progenitors of modern breeds came into being for rather practical reasons long before the days of breed clubs, breed standards, dog/cat/horse/etc shows and true animal husbandry.

It is true that we probably wouldn't have as many breeds without the intervention of obsessed fanciers, but there would be different and distinct types based on the animals' use and probably geography.

But, certain characteristics may become the "fad" at any given time. That's when some breeders will breed only for that trait. In that way, extremes can sometimes develope, particularly in popular breeds. Yes, we (humans) can mess up a breed, but those who are careful have as their goal to improve it, and often do.
I'm happy that Skyes are not popular, and have not been since Victorian times. Popularity brings trouble to any breed. Skyes have looked the same for hundreds of years and hopefully will hundreds of years from now.

That's definitely true. The Siamese cat of old had a fairly normal cat-shape that didn't resemble the modern slinky-looking beast in any capacity other than the point coloration. Some time in the early 60's the cat became a huge class of its own in shows with 60 or 70 animals being shown per event as Siamese breeders became desperate to achieve a particular long, lean look that had its origin in a specific animal name Fan Tee Cee. For good or for ill, that one cat ended up changing the entire look of the breed.

[TelegramSam]

Here's an interesting article on overbreeding of cats: http://www.messybeast.com/ultracat.htm

[cowtime]

When you say "People have been selectively breeding animals without any knowledge of genetics etc...."

That's exactly what I meant by fanciers/breeders. I guess I should have written "fanciers OR breeders" to make my meaning clear.
People are choosing to breed certain animals to try to reproduce traits they desire in the offspring. It's artifical selection as opposed to just natural selection/evolution. The breeder/fancier could be someone well versed in scientific genetics or someone who just likes the way an animal looks/behaves and wants to try to develop that to some degree of reliability. So we are really in agreement here.

I once read of a study, and I'll try to find it, where it was determined that the domestic dog, if left alone by humans, would have a pretty uniform size, coat, tail carriage etc. Something like this- short haired, around 30 lbs, high curved tail carriage.



I know "doodlie" about cat breeds , but did do a search. As to Russian Blues - one theory is they developed naturally. There are other theories according to this site-
http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/russian.html
With the Turkish Vans, I found that they are a breed thought to be as old as the Saluki,so I suspect that we humans had a part in their development somewhere along the way. Here's the link -
http://www.swimmingcats.com/history.htm

The above is posted not to argue a point about the development of certain breeds. I'm sure that natural selection caused some breeds to develop characteristics necessary for their survival in their environment- long hair/short hair, tooth/jaw size, shoulder lay-back, etc. desireable conformation to survive with the most success. I did find it very intresting that the Turkish Vans are voluntary swimmers. But, I'll say humans here, as opposed to fanciers/breeders, have had a huge impact on domestic animal development and quiet often to the good. To just say " I want mixed breeds because they are better" is no more true than assuming that folks who show their animals are somehow doing the animals a disservice or that they care nothing for the animals themselves. All who show animals are not on an ego trip, doing it to make money(ha! what a joke there), or some ulterior motive. Many do it because they are genuinely captivated by these creatures and are blessed by that
captivation. The "showing" is to make sure that they are not "kennel blind" and that they are truly producing animals of better than average quality- doublechecking your breeding program.

As someone who has had lots of dogs, cattle, horses(so that's what I'm speaking of here, I can say there are positives/negatives about both the purebred and the mixed. Neither is better or worse than the other. That can only be determined on an individual basis depending on the wants/needs of the people involved.

[avanutria]

Say, ava, I just checked on some titles for Temple Grandin. I'm wondering if you are refering to Animals in Translation or maybe Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals? They seemed to be the most likely candidates, although she is editor of the second one I listed, so probably that's not it. They look quite interesting.

Yup, Animals in Translation. Really good.

http://www.grandin.com/inc/animals.in.translation.html

... as Siamese breeders became desperate to achieve a particular long, lean look that had its origin in a specific animal name Fan Tee Cee.

Fan Tee Cee? Really? 'Fantasy'? That's great

To just say "I want mixed breeds because they are better" is no more true than assuming that folks who show their animals are somehow doing the animals a disservice or that they care nothing for the animals themselves.

Hi Cowtime, I'm sure no one meant to imply that. I certainly didn't.

[TelegramSam]

Cowtime, nobody's saying that mixed-breed/random-bred animals are always "better" than purebreds.

There are positives and negatives to either choice. With purebreds you have far fewer unknowns regarding the animal's physical attributes and temperament, but there are often greater chances of disease. That's not to say that mixed-breed dogs and cats never get sick, they just tend to less often and with less predictable illnesses. It's a statistical fact that owners of mixed-breed animals spend less money and time at the vet than owners of purebred animals. It's also a fact that you have no way of predicting what a mixed-breed puppy will look like as an adult in terms of size, activity level and likelyhood of aggression, whereas with purebred animals you do.

You do also have to realize there is a massive difference between the ways pedigree dogs are bred and pedigree cats are bred. Dogs have been bred for centuries to fulfill different human needs; other than some members of the toy group, all breeds exist because somebody needed that dog to do a particular job like hunting, guarding, herding, etc.

Cats on the other hand have only ever had one real job: rodent control. Pedigree cats are not barn cats and most never will be, many breeds are deliberately bred AWAY from the natural, useful mouser type to be used solely as pampered house pets and are more often bred only for LOOKS rather than for the animal's more practical attributes like hunting vermin. That's why you get entire breeds based on single random mutations like the hairless Sphynx, the rex breeds, scottish fold, american curl, etc. They're bred for novelty value more than anything else.

Cat fanciers do love the animals they breed and nobody's saying they don't care a fig at all about the health of these animals, but in reaching that breed standard and winning those ribbons, they will often go to greater lengths than dog breeders, who have to keep in mind that their dogs are still essentially working animals who must be able to do that work. Most pedigreed cats are essentially "toy group" though and if some of the animal's health and mobility have to be sacrificed to attain a particular look, some breeders will inevitably do so and those are the people who take home the ribbons. I blame the judges as much as the breed communities, myself.

At any rate, when it comes to cats, I personally prefer the random-bred pound kitty over the purebred. As for people who prefer the purebred? Fine, great. It's simply a matter of personal choice.


As for what dogs would look like if left to their own? Well that's what a Dingo is, isn't it?

[Jack]

Meow!

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

[Jack]

That's why you get entire breeds based on single random mutations like the hairless Sphynx, the rex breeds, scottish fold, american curl, etc. They're bred for novelty value more than anything else.

I wonder, somewhat seriously, if there are any breeders of hairless scottish fold bobtail ocicats?

[DCrom]

You do also have to realize there is a massive difference between the ways pedigree dogs are bred and pedigree cats are bred. Dogs have been bred for centuries to fulfill different human needs; other than some members of the toy group, all breeds exist because somebody needed that dog to do a particular job like hunting, guarding, herding, etc.

I mostly agree with you, but I think that the "practical" effect on show dogs has been declining for some time.

Look at a show collie today. Compare that with the animal you see in the older "Lassie" movies. Today's collie has a longer, narrower, head than his ancestor, and (from what I've heard) has far less natural ability as a sheep dog.

I know that for some of the herding breeds there are practical, field-trial like events (and I believe that for some herding breeds they don't allow you to register a dog with both the "show" and "herding" associations), but from what I've heard that arose specifically because the mainstream show standards had diverged so far from what was needed in a working breed.

I like both dogs and cats. If I ever have the space (and cattle) again, I'd love to have another Queensland Blue Heeler. Or a good (working) Border Collie. Or most of the practical hunting breeds. But though they're pretty, I don't have any interest in the toy or show-only breeds.

I, too, like random breeds - our current cat was (literally) a alley cat that adopted us - one of the smartest cats I've ever been around. But we had several Siamese back when I was a kid, and I'd love to have one again - as long as I could get one of the heavier, traditional looking "apple heads". The current favored breed standard for Siamese makes them look like they've been pulled through a knothole by their noses. Repeatedly.