Talk:Cat/Scientific name

Scientific name
According to ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) Felis catus is invalid junior synonym and the correct scientific name is Felis silvestris. Find a reference that says F. catus is correct and then we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm putting it back.  howcheng  {chat} 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I just read that portion in the article. A conclusion being drawn here, based on an uncited statement ("Recent DNA and comparative bone research shows that the separate species name F. catus is correct after all"), which IMHO counts as original research. Until some authority declares that F. catus is the scientific name, F. silvestris is what we should go with.  howcheng  {chat} 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ITIS is using old sources. MSW3 (2005) states that F. catus is correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, so how can I verify your information? The only cited statement in that section is the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.  howcheng  {chat} 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This section is problematic: "Recent DNA and comparative bone research shows that the separate species name F. catus is correct after all. The results show little relation to the F. sylvestris (sic) group with F. catus being derived from F. lybica 7000 years ago when the very first small felines were domesticated in Asia Minor." Based on the Wildcat article, however, the proper classification of F. lybica is actually F. silvestris lybica, thus placing it within the very group that the statement alleges it is distinct from. Regardless of whether F. catus or F. silvestris catus is or should be the accepted nomenclature for domestic cats, the reason given for the present choice is faulty. Beatfox 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) Felis catus is the correct scientific name and Felis silvestris only refers to the wildcat. Felis silvestris catus does not even appear by searching ITIS anymore. For more information, please see the endnotes at the base of the above link, which indicate broad preference for F. catus. I found a source. Will you please change it now? Somerut 23:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Species name
The lastest evidence (cited on the article page) is that domestic cats are in fact the same species as wildcats. Now I know that some people are fond of the name Felis catus, but it is now Felis silvestris catus. To my mind, the people who are reverting my edits are mistaken. For example, one reverter noted "revert to info from Mammal Specis of the world, 3rd ed, the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy" when in fact science is all about changing the facts as new evidence emerges. There is no "canon" in science. I played by the rules, citing my edits directly from the scientific literature. People reverted my edits. Please leave your comments below. Thanks. Speciate 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be the "lastest evidence", but one study does not all of science make, and names don't just up and change thanks to one overhyped study and an overzealous editor. DreamGuy 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment answer

I am not a cat expert, but I think the Felis catus is still used and the other name is newer and not fully accepted. If this is true, there should be mention of both names and an explanation. Plumbing 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to itis.gov, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, Felis catus is invalid. We have the most recent article in Science, a prestigious scientific journal, showing that domestic cats are genetically indistinguishable from Felis silvestris. According to the Smithsonian Institution, F. silvestris is valid, F. catus is not. It doesn't matter if the name F. Catus is older (1758) than F. silvestris (1775), because the int'l naming commission says the wild name takes precedence. Only the Wozencraft citation is claimed in the article to say that F. catus "is correct after all", but the wikicitation takes us to the Smithsonian Institution page that says it's not valid. Furthermore, the Wozencraft source is a textbook, mentions bone morphology (which is trumped by DNA), and is not official like the sources I have above. The current article says that nearly all scientists use F. silvestris. Therefore, if no one objects, I am going to update the article to reflect these facts. If someone objects, let's see your citations. Speciate 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From the comments to the link you used as evidence (my emphasis): In this application we have confined our attention to the names for 15 wild ancestral species and have made no proposals for the naming of domestic animals. Names based on domestic animals in Linnaeus (1758, 1766) and other authors are available (Article 1.2.1 of the Code) but have not been universally adopted; having been misapplied to the wild species by some authors they are inevitably compromised. A number of systems, some of which are notational, for naming domestic forms are currently in use (see para. 3 of the application). Approval of the current application will settle part of the problem and will allow the use of names for domestic animals to be formalised by subsequent agreement between all those interested. Erik Warmelink 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what the species name is supposed to be, but we should go with what is verifiable against the latest information.  howcheng  {chat} 19:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what to do? When the source says "no proposals" that could be interpreted as saying all those domestic names are out. Do you see? All sources have no opinion or say F. catus is invalid. It is logical to conclude that it is invalid. I think, but am not sure, that Howcheng is trying to say that Science, being a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and being available online, is verifiable. Certainly the other sources all say F. catus invalid. Are there any more citations out there? Speciate 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The ICZN ruling says specifically it doesn't apply to domestic animals, so the evidence User:Speciate is providing (the change of the taxonomic name to f. silvestris) obviously applies to the wildcate, and it doesn't look like the world of science has made up its mind yet as to whether to rename the domestic cat; the ICZN recongizes that different taxonomic names may be required for the domestic and wild forms of what would otherwise be the same species. Taking all that into consideration, I say we wait until we have better confirmation as to whether to change the taxonomic name of the domestic cat, lest we fall prey to recentism.--Ramdrake 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * F. catus was declared invalid by the NODC Taxonomic Code, database (version 8.0) in 1996. Look at this itis.gov ITIS citation. 1996 is not recent. Speciate 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, as applying to the wild or the domestic form? I would very much expect F. catus to be invalid as pertains the wild form, no? Please remember that until this paper came out, the domestic cat and the wild cat were considered separate but closely related species. Try to put your quotation into that frame.--Ramdrake 22:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now we're talking. I will add text to explain the change in species name. Speciate 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that if we make clear that the ruling applies to the wild cat (as this is the article on the domestic cat), and that the ruling as pertains to the domestic cat is unclear, I'll remove my objection. I'm not arguing that the wild cat isn't f. silvestris; I'm arguing that there's been no clear ruling that says that the taxoname for the domestic cat should be changed to f. silvestris from f. catus yet. That is the only reason why I put up the recentism tag. I hope that makes sense.--Ramdrake 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for an old, datable citation that will show when F. catus was declared invalid. Then I will remove the recentism tag. And telling me I'm at 3RR when you are too is silly. Speciate 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you'd need a recent citation that would specify that F. catus is considered invalid for domestic cats. And I wasn't trying to be smug: I'm careful to count my edits; however some people are less careful, so I warn them.--Ramdrake 22:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you are getting at. My interpretation is that Felis catus is invalid period. Your interpretation is that domestic cats escape this invalidation. I believe that could only be true if they were a seperate species. But they are a sub-clade of a subspecies, Felis silvestris lybica, genetically speaking (which is the only way of speaking). Why do you think the authors of the Science article did their experiment? To figure out what domestic cats are, that's why. People have accepted that dogs are Canis lupus familiaris for the same sorts of reasons, with the same sort of evidence. Speciate 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm here to respond to the RfC. Reading through the debate here, I'd just like to say that it's very refreshing to see people being so civil about the discussion. As to the question at hand... User:Speciate's arguments and deductions seem to be very reasonable, logical, and well thought out. This can be, of course, an excellent description of synthesis, which is my concern. The one thing that could resolve this issue once and for all is a respected source saying that F. silvestris catus is the correct term for the domestic cat. As things stand, and in the absence of such a source, the best that can be done is to describe the research and its conclusions, and perhaps even to note that the name has yet to be definitively established in the light of that research. Hoping this treads on no paws...  Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if the subject of the Request for Comments has reached a consensus. If that is correct, please delete the RFC template from the top of this section to clean up the RFC list.  Enuja 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm deleting the template. If this subject does, indeed, need more input, I'd suggest adding a new RfC at the bottom of the page.  Enuja 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific classification
It appears that the current use of F. silvestris catus as the main scientific name is the result of a somewhat misguided interpretation of developments in taxonomy. I propose it is changed back to F. catus. First, this is a continuation of a lot of past discussion; most recently: This discussion seems to have petered out into inactivity. It was noted that publications had started using silvestris catus, but no such citations were given. The article in its current state (under #Scientific classification) cites ICZN opinion 2027. However, as was noted in the prior discussion, this is a misinterpretation of the ruling, which was specifically aimed at wild animals and did not affect domestic animals; see this note, specifically reading from "This erroneous nomenclature" and the preceding paragraphs. ITIS was also cited in discussion. This clearly prefers catus as the conventional name, although it cites MWS in noting that silvestris is also a synonym.
 * /Archive 8, and
 * /Archive 8

It would therefore be much more NPOV to acknowledge F. catus as the usual name. If catus and silvestris are indeed the same species then this should be discussed under #Scientific classification. Currently, this section should have put on it, because its interpretation of the source is wrong. I would do this, but I'm a new user, so semi-protection is stopping me. It would be even better if somebody can provide a source explaining the equivalence; all the most cited, most reliable sources in this discussion so far have favoured F. catus.

Also, while this is still semi-protected, I'd like to point out that both inline citations of Mammal Species of the World should be removed. The first is uncalled for by WP:LEAD. The name "cat" is common knowledge and is recognised by all 62 other references in the article body. The second deals with specific species names for cat breeds. MSW doesn't even mention these names, so it's unfair to synthesise from that that Wozencraft, let alone all feline biologists, does not support them. However, MSW is a useful reference, so I suggest moving the citation to external links, or a probably-needed "Further reading" section. JNSQ (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. My opinion last time was that we should go with whatever the reliable sources say and F. catus is now the accepted name, then so be it.  howcheng  {chat} 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MSW3 is the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy. It uses Felis catus and notes there is some controversy. We should do the same. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I view this with suspicion. If JNSQ's interpretation is true, then ITIS should not report the domestic dog as Canis lupus familiaris, and call Canis familiaris invalid. The ITIS webpage has no entry at all for Felis silvestris catus, not even to call it invalid.


 * Felis silvestris catus is used more and more frequently in the scientific literature. I draw this from scholar.google.com:
 * From 1982-1991, 0 uses of Felis silvestris catus, many uses of Felis silvestris f catus whatever that notation means.
 * From 1992-2000, 42 uses of Felis silvestris catus
 * From 2001-2008, 207 uses.


 * The Commission has this on the topic for public consumption. I interpret it to mean that Felis silvestris trumps Felis catus.


 * Finally, the Commission makes no ruling or comments on subspecies names, as far as I can tell. Speciate (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You speak of my "interpretation". Fine, but what you are quoting as justification does not mention domestic cats, only wildcats. It is also an executive summary of opinion 2027, which my link directly elaborates on. It explains that the opinion regards only the naming of wild species, which previously was mixed between F. catus and F. silvestris, and conserves the "first available name based on a wild population". It also specifically declares the usage in MSW correct: "This erroneous nomenclature has not been followed in other chapters: in the Carnivora Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758, the domestic cat, is treated as distinct from F. silvestris Schreber, 1777, the wild cat".
 * Treated as distinct is wrong? Speciate (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Read the sentence. "In the Carnivora ... treated as distinct ... the wild cat" is an indicative phrase given as an example of "This erroneous nomenclature has not been followed in other chapters". Not erroneous nomenclature. JNSQ (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for dogs is the same, only it results in a different outcome. C. familiaris was proposed after C. lupus was used in reference to the domestic dog. Since for both dogs and cats, the wild variety is (or may be) the same species as the domestic variety, it made sense to return to the original name. F. catus was already in common usage when it was recognised to be the same as F. silvestris, and so convention has remained to make the distinction. The fact that ITIS does not document the F. silvestris catus subspecies does not strengthen the case for its usage in Wikipedia.
 * ITIS is run by the government, and is full of errors, see below. Speciate (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. But then you shouldn't have cited it on 13:28, 24 February. Google and Wikipedia have more errors. What sources are left? JNSQ (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm considering writing to ITIS and to Anthea Gentry to see if I can get some clarification. Speciate (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't read anything into your findings on Google Scholar. First, it can't be used to justify anything in the article since it's original research. Second, I would not rely any judgement of the scientific community on a search of unvetted, not-necessarily-peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary papers over resolutions made by authoritative institutions, especially in an era where many scholars are getting lazy and using Wikipedia as a reference anyway. Thirdly, the equivalent figures for F. catus to the ones you gave are 485, 1300, 3300.
 * I note that F. silvestris catus is increasing exponentially, F. catus only linearly, which is an artifact of Google scholar having fewer old articles. Speciate (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have gall to read two unrelated statistical profiles into data with a sample of six. It also does not affect the current preferred or prevalent usage. 89 countries have a higher population growth rate than any of the five most populous countries (India, second biggest, is 90th). This does not mean you can say that any of those 89 are bigger than any of the top 5. JNSQ (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In summary, the ICZN, ITIS and MSW all recognise F. catus as the preferred name for the domestic cat. ALL recognise the equivalence between catus and silvestris, and identify catus as the preferred and predominant usage. Fifteen times as many academic papers referred to F. catus than to F. silvestris catus in the last seven years. Not one authoritative source has been proposed to disagree with this position, except for the reinterpretation of ICZN opinion 2027, which is not the interpretation of the consensus and I hope I have now spelled out in simple enough terms why. Is there any further reason why this article still does not reflect this? JNSQ (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that what the ICZN ruling means is that even though Linnaeus described a species from the domestic form first, and then somebody else named the wild form something else, the later name is to be conserved (which means used) and the older name not take precedence. In other words, we should not say Felis catus silvestris. In fact, the ruling protects the domestic cat from being called Felis silvestris lybica, which it is now known to be part of by the 2007 Science DNA study. Speciate (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter is to be conserved for wild species. Quoth: "15 names for wild mammal progenitor species were fixed". That is the ICZN's direct description of opinion 2027. It explains that the problem they were solving, is that "names based on domestic forms have actually been used for wild species". Not the other way round. "Names based on domestic forms can now only refer to domesticates." F. catus is a name based on a domestic form. The domestic cat is a domesticate. Please tell me you now understand why the ICZN agrees, not conflicts, with this proposal. JNSQ (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, ITIS used to classify domestic cats as F. silvestris catus, although that name doesn't even appear there anymore.  howcheng  {chat} 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the infobox cites the ITIS entry for F. catus as an invalid junior synonym, when of course it now doesn't back up that statement. F. lybica, which is also given as an invalid junior synonym, is described by ITIS as the original name for F. silvestris lybica, a subspecies of wildcat. This also needs to be corrected. JNSQ (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that ITIS changed that listing. I also note that ITIS has very unevenly implemented Opinion 2027 for Equus africanus (no mention at all); Equus ferus (ditto); Camelus ferus (no mention); Lama guanicoe (listed as valid); Vicugna vicugna (listed as valid); Bos primigenius (listed incorrectly as invalid); Bos gaurus (no listing); Bubalus arnee (no listing); Bos mutus (no listing); Capra aegagrus (no listing); Ovis orientalis (listed incorrectly as invalid); Cavia aperea (listed as valid); Canis lupus (dog listed as subspecies, as I already stated, Canis familiaris listed as invalid; Mustela putorius (listed as valid); Felis silvestris (which we are debating); Carassius gibelio (listed as valid); and Bombyx mandarina (no listing). Therefore I claim that ITIS is unreliable. Speciate (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ITIS isn't unreliable, it's slow to update. On the premise that ITIS is reliable, then remember that the policy of Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth"; those other articles will be updated when ITIS gets around to updating their database. Regardless, if we accept that Opinion 2027 is reliable, then we are still obligated to update the species name here. Pick your poison.  howcheng  {chat} 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't accept JNSQ's interpretation of Opinion 2027. I say it means we can't call cats Felis catus silvestris or Felis catus catus. You have to integrate the fact that domestic cats are now known to be derived from Felis silvestris lybica. I say 2027 allows the use of Felis silvestris catus where the scientific evidence would otherwise force them to be called Felis silvestris lybica. Remember also, that Felis lybica was thought to be a distinct species, but isn't anymore. Speciate (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, what about MSW3 then, as UtherSRG pointed out earlier?  howcheng  {chat} 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only "canon" for species names is the ICZN. MSW3 is out of date, I guess. I've been looking for a secondary source that explains Opinion 2027, but I can't find on that says one way or the other. It is also enlightening to look at the Wikipedias in other languages; there's no way the English Wikipedia convinced nearly all of them that it is F. s. catus. (Except a few, try to find them. And there are some that use Felis silvestris forma catus. Also, Wikispecies' entry calls them Felis silvestris catus, although the talk page reveals that they were influenced by this page.) Speciate (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How difficult is this? The ICZN does not advocate a preference of F. silvestris catus for domestic cats. How can the MSW3 be "out of date" when the 2006 ICZN statement explicitly credits the publication's nomenclature for cats as correct? I am aghast that the featured articles in other languages also use the same nomenclature. However I would not be too quick to assume that they are not copied from the English version. This is made much more real in a further error in this and its interlingual articles: F. silvestris catus is credited all over the place to Linnaeus 1758; however, the silvestris species was named by Schreber in 1777 - 19 years later. This is an example of just plain wrong - unless you can produce a second publication of Linnaeus in 1758 which mentions silvestris. Because you can read through Systema naturae yourself (that one is two editions newer, of 1767, 10 years precedent to Schreber) and there's not a single mention. Furthermore, the Spanish featured article uses a dead link to ICZN opinion 2027 as a source, where F. silvestris catus is not mentioned in spite of the article claiming that. Others cite ITIS, in ways which strongly suggest that ITIS has indeed made a reversal of decision on this matter. Various other websites are cited which are either incomplete or do list both variants without discussion. The French one also cites this which is another academic source to support F. catus.
 * This is all just distracting nonsense though. This point is: Google is not a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Where then are the reliable sources which indicate that our article is right as it currently stands? Any source! Come on! And let's see that it is relevant in the context of an ICZN statement of 2006 on the matter. JNSQ (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of date because of the Science article. They found that all domestic cats are derived from at most 5 mothers, all of whom were Felis silvestris lybica. Can you provide one source (besides the ones already provided here) that interprets Opinion 2027 that says all Felis subspecies are F. s. foo except domestic cats which are still F. catus? Read the subspecies article, which you would have to get changed too. Speciate (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that you are pushing a POV yourself (POV which is not explicit in the source) that Opinion 2027 does apply to domesticates (when the Opinion itself is worded to say it addresses a problem with wild species). As such, your conclusion is OR, and should be discounted, unless you can find a reliable source which litterally holds the same opinion you do. The other editors here seem to have made a good case that Opinion 2027 shouldn't be assumed to apply to the domestic cat (or any other domestic species).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * POV pushing is OK on talk pages, up to a point. I am trying to find sources that back up either position. Speciate (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthea Gentry is the motive force behind the whole naming thing. She is on the ICZN Secretariat. She states here on the an ICZN page "Over the next six years our application received 28 out of 33 comments and five brief notes in favour of the proposals with considerable support from workers in zoology, archaeozoology, palaeontology, conservation, ecology, ethology and endangered species management. A few commentators were not in favour but this seemed to be because they had misunderstood the intention of the application: they assumed either that earlier names based on domestic forms were going to be discarded or that two alternative names would be adopted as valid for the wild species. We explained in published replies that neither assumption was correct. In March 2003 the Commission approved the proposals (Opinion 2027, BZN 60: 81–84) and 15 names for wild mammal progenitor species were fixed as those based on wild populations. Names based on domestic forms can now only refer to domesticates." Speciate (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You refer to that page as if it hasn't already been quoted several times before. Let me highlight the relevant part seeing as you didn't add any commentary to your quotation: "they assumed either that earlier names based on domestic forms were going to be discarded or that two alternative names would be adopted as valid for the wild species. We explained in published replies that neither assumption was correct". Are we settled now that the earlier name based on the domestic form (F. catus) is not going to be discarded? JNSQ (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The catus name is not being discarded. You are confounding "Felis catus" with "catus." Speciate (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Catus" is not a name. It is a latin word which forms part of more than one taxonomical name for the household cat. Felis catus is one such name. Felis catus is based on a domestic form. Why do you think it is being discarded? You cannot just gratuitously move words around from the species to the subspecies part. This is a good example of how you are misreading the opinion to further the case for the name that you want. JNSQ (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I cannot gratuitously move the name, but science has. It has to be the subspecies name, they are a subspecies for sure now. Speciate (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So how did the commission’s ruling affect the usage by scientists? Here is a source, a 2007 scientific article in an archeological journal that should be available for anybody to access, that explicitly says they follow Gentry, A., Clutton-Brock, J. and Groves, C.P. 2004. The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:645-651. (This is the article that Opinion 2027 uses as justification.) You will note they call dogs Canis lupus familiaris and cats Felis silvestris catus. Speciate (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody to my knowledge has ever disputed that some people use the F. c. silvestris name in academic texts. That is to be treated in the article. This discussion is about the prevalent name (no contest) and the agreed standard name (which I hope by now you see is F. catus). Put simply, the ICZN, ITIS and MSW3 are authoritative sources in the field of taxonomy. An archaeological journal is not. JNSQ (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The archeologists care about this because they are the ones that have to look at bones and try to figure out if they are looking at a wildcat or a domestic cat. The differences are extremely subtle. Speciate (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for overhastily dismissing these sources. However the one which you linked to still isn't relevant. F. catus and F. silvestris catus are the same taxon. It is irrelevant to archaeologists which one is used, except for the sake of following the taxonomical standards of the scientific community.
 * However, the source cited by the ICZN (which I didn't realise was a separate source - it's here) specifically recommends F. catus: "We now recommend that names based on domestic forms (Table 1, right side) be adopted for the corresponding domestic derivatives. These were established by Linnaeus with the exceptions of the names for the domestic gaur ... and the domestic pig... The names have been in use for over 200 years and are internationally recognised.". So although it is trivial to the findings of his report, Gilligan is not right in saying that the naming reflects Gentry et al.
 * Unbelievable, you are now a better expert on this than a published scientist in a peer-reviewed journal. Speciate (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And nobody has explained to my satisfaction why Canis familiaris is invalid if opinion 2027 cannot be applied to domestic species. Ramdrake, any ideas? Speciate (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You will have to explain your dissatisfaction with my explanation, I'm afraid. It is standard taxonomical practice to use the older name. In the case of the domestic cat, this is F. catus. In the case of the domestic dog, it is C. lupus familiaris. JNSQ (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Opinion called Canis familiaris "older" than Canis lupus (even if Linneaus described them both in the same year--maybe even in the same document, perhaps because they were in alphabetical order?). Why else would they need to mention Canis lupis in the Opinion? Speciate (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that familiaris is older, wolves should be called Canis familiaris lupus or any other number of C. f. foo names. But they aren't. Why? Because everybody knows wolves came first in reality. Ditto with cats. The Opinion was cast in terms of conserving the wild names over the older domestic forms. I'm going to outdent and keep going. Speciate (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Familiaris referred to a domestic form, while 2027 recommends names based on wild forms for wild forms. I didn't realise that both names were introduced at the same time, but it seems sensible to me that whichever gained the most popular usage, seeing as they are accepted to share the same ancestry, should be kept. JNSQ (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your response does not rebut my argument. You seem to be confused about the science, and popular usage is irrelevant. familiaris STILL refers to the domestic form, as does catus. But according to Opinion 2027, familiaris and catus cannot refer to the wild forms. Naming dogs Canis familiaris or cats Felis catus would force the wolf to be named Canis familiaris lupus and wildcats Felis catus silvestris because they are both unitary species. Do you deny that cats and wildcats are the same species? Speciate (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible names

 * Felis catus. Unfortunately doesn't account for the need for the subspecies' names, or JNSQ would be right.
 * Felis catus catus. What domestic cats would be called if Linneaus' name took precedence, bcause we would need to name the other subspecies something. You know we are Homo sapiens sapiens, right?
 * Felis silvestris catus. What Opinion 2027 allows; continued use of the "catus" name for the domestic form only, properly cast as a subspecies.
 * Felis silvestris lybica forma catus.  Popular for decades in the German literature
 * Felis silvestris lybica. What they really are.

So you can see that if somebody came on the talk page wanting the name changed to Felis silvestris lybica, I would oppose that on the grounds of the reasoning in Opinion 2027. So my interpretation is really in the middle. Speciate (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides hardly being a balanced summary of the discussion to date, this is distracting and irrelevant. It is not the job of the encyclopedia to decide which to use. We are to report what is used. So let me summarise the facts to this end:
 * Both cats and wildcats are scientifically the same species, descended from F. sylvestris lybica.
 * Obviously you have not read the Science article which I have cited endlessly, and is cited in the article. Your refusal to acknowledge this groundbreaking work is at the heart of your inability to see why your interpretation is incorrect. Please read it. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of scientific literature has referred to the domestic cat as F. catus (Linnaeus), both historically and contemporarily.
 * Irrelevant, science marches on. Also, the vast majority of scientific articles on humans calls them Homo sapiens, even though we are Homo sapiens sapiens. Many other examples of this sort of thing can be found. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The ITIS cites and follows the practice of MSW3 in using Felis catus and not acknowledging the existence or validity of Felis silvestris catus. However, equivalence between the catus, silvestris and lybica species names is noted in the comments and it is recognised as a source of disagreement.
 * This disagreement was the reason why people did a huge and expensive genetic study of cats; to find out what they were. As of 2007, we now know that domestic cats are derived from F. s. lybica, as has been suspected for years. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The ICZN's September 2006 notes on its March 2003 Opinion 2027 describes MSW3's nomenclature for cats as correct.
 * Outdated, as I have previously stated. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The same notes cite Gentry et al, which recommends the use of the original Linnaean names for domestic forms. Linnaeus described F. catus, not F. silvestris or any of its subspecies.
 * Linnaeus was wrong, and he would be the first to admit it. Many of Linnaeus' other names have been changed, your argument is specious. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the elaboration on the Opinion in these notes, the abstract of the Opinion states the reservation of names, but not what the names are for. In the keywords, the Opinion is described as pertaining to "names for wild species with domestic derivatives". Therefore, the Opinion does not dictate the names for domestic species.
 * It most certainly does. In any case, as I have already stated, the name "catus" is being preserved in the only way possible. Once it has become clear that domestic cats are a subspecies, they cannot receive a species level name. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The NCBI lists F. catus as the main name and F. silvestris catus as a synonym.
 * Please explain what, if anything, is not factually accurate within these bullet points. Then we can decide how this article ought to use the names. JNSQ (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NCBI not reliable, see Talk:Neanderthal. That discussion is may also help you understand the whole subspecies argument. Speciate (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Essential question
JNSQ, do you deny that domestic cats and wildcats are the same species? Speciate (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. However, either the scientific community are ignoring this fact and using incorrect nomenclature, or this statement is not so well agreed on as you suppose.
 * Please understand that taxonomy is not the same as biology. Wildcats and domestic cats are clearly distinguishable. They both have separate names. If the scientific community decides to use a biologically erroneous name, in this case because of historical practice, then this is primarily what Wikipedia should do. This is not a site for original research. Of course we should state the facts. However, when asked to stick to confirming your agreements with the factual statements above, you continued to wander off into comments like "irrelevant" and "outdated".
 * The Science article that you cite makes no recommendations about taxonomy. In fact, it only says that the domestic cat is "sometimes considered" to be the subspecies F. s. catus.
 * I appreciate that you dispute the authority to varying degrees of various sources recommending F. catus. However, you still have not provided a source which recommends the usage of F. silvestris catus. The exception is your claim that the ICZN recommends it. Here are some facts about the ICZN:
 * Their 2006 notes provide additional explanation of their 2003 Opinion 2027.
 * These notes approve of the usage of F. catus in MSW3.
 * These notes cite Gentry et al which recommends F. catus.
 * The Opinion itself does not mention F. catus or F. silvestris catus.
 * Any problems so far? Do you consider Opinion 2027 outdated? In which case, a more up to date taxonomical declaration would be needed. Do you think it rejects F. catus and/or recommends F. s. catus? Then please explain why the above bullet points do not apply, and a more concrete explanation than waving your hand and moving the word "catus" one place to the right. This is not the way that the names of subspecies are decided. JNSQ (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I stepped away from this for a few days, but let me just say that JNSQ has made an extremely valid point which Speciate has failed to address: It is not Wikipedia's job to determine what the real binomial name should be -- it's our job to report what's being used. The very first sentence at WP:V explains this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). Currently, it is verifiable that F. catus is the accepted name. The best resolution therefore is to state that F. catus is the currently accepted name, but F. silvestris catus is still being used. Speciate, I understand that F. catus doesn't follow the subspecies naming rules and all, but that's not our problem. Leave it to MSW3, ICZN, etc. to determine that stuff. When/if they decide to change the species name, we'll report that's what they did.  howcheng  {chat} 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd care to explain this change to federal law? Speciate (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it perplexing that you see this as an argument that one of us has to "win", or something. Thank you for bringing new sources to the discussion. It certainly shows that the growing number of uses of F. s. catus is a notable change in position. While I don't have to "explain" anything about the bill amendment, I would be interested to know if Congress has done so. Obviously the bill doesn't declare any statement of authority over the taxonomy of domestic cats, or make any comment about what is the prevalent usage (whereas the ICZN and MSW3 do both). Therefore it is a notable example of the usage, and if they are citing a scientific authority then it strengthens the authority of that source and of F. s. c. as an official name. So far we haven't seen any source like that though. Unless anybody has a genuine disagreement not yet voiced about my comment immediately preceding this one. JNSQ (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Insofar as the bill is concerned, I looked it up. It is not law at all, and in fact is still in the first step of the legislative process. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Trade over a year ago and still hasn't been scheduled for debate. It has about 7 months left to get through the two Houses and to the President's desk before it's discarded officially. JNSQ (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But why would they bother to try to make this change, hmm? Speciate (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I believe it has been addressed; domestics cats are now known not to be a species at all. ICZN explicitly does not comment on subspecies names, see International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (which, by the way, also calls cats F. s. catus as an example). ICZN will never update the non-status of domestic cats, so we could just as well argue that cats should now and forever be known as Felis silvestris lybica using Howcheng's argument. Speciate (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This simply continues the original research connection of biology to nomenclature. If sources persist in using a different species-level name, then this must be reported by Wikipedia as acceptable, whether or not you or I think it makes logical sense. To quote Science, which I think I'm right in supposing to be the source of your claim that they are the same species, "The domestic cat is sometimes considered an additional subspecies, F. s. catus". That is as far as they dare to go. We should do likewise.
 * Any statement starting with "we could just as well argue that cats should now and forever be known as" is bound to be a pretty poor summary of Howcheng's argument which opens with "It is not Wikipedia's job to determine what the real binomial name should be". As for the statement about the ICZN, I would like to see where it "calls cats F. s. catus as an example", because all I've seen is two separate usages of F. catus, which may not be a subspecies but it sure ain't F. silvestris, which is a subscpecies no less. The authority of ICZN stands. The ICZN and MSW3 have not changed their stance. Nature avoids making nomenclatural proclamations and specifically refers to F. s. catus as an alternative scientific name. What exactly is the independent justification for not adopting the use of F. catus? JNSQ (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a source that might help, ITIS says Felis catus is not the accepted name, and furthermore Felis silvestris is. Speciate (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I thought you already dismissed the authority of ITIS. Second, the Catalogue of Life says that F. catus is an ("accepted") synonym to F. silvestris. Furthermore, it makes no differentiation between domesticates and wildcats, so dictates no authority on which synonym to prefer for specific cases. We have already seen numerous sources which do, including those cited by ITIS itself. We still have not yet encountered a source which does not.
 * This is not a challenge for you to go out and unearth, unpick and construe a source which does, although if you do it will be scrutinised in the best possible faith. Nobody else in this discussion has reason to think that one exists, and I'm really now concerned with achieving full consensus. If you think that F. s. catus is a better name to use, then take that up with the authorities which Wikipedia currently cites, who disagree. If you think we should ignore those authorities in favour of your logic, start a Wikipedia fork or challenge the current Wikipedia policy. If your intentions are to keep the name as it currently stands in the article by delaying due process, don't; that's disruptive. However, if you know something that we don't about the international position about the preferred scientific name for domestic cats then let's hear it. JNSQ (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources disagree. I say your understanding of scientific naming conventions, your understanding of subspecies, your understanding of trinomials, and your interpretation of Opinion 2027 are all wrong. You claim to have addressed all these points, but always incorrectly; for example you say, "...it sure ain't F. silvestris, which is a subscpecies no less." The fact is that Felis silvestris is not a subspecies, it is the species to which both wild and domestic cats belong. You continue to confound the binomial name Felis catus with the epithet catus, and argue for the retention of the old binomial.  Opinion 2027 was set up to protect silvestris not catus. If you agree that domestic cats are descended from Felis silvestris lybica you have only two choices; call them Felis silvestris lybica or Felis silvestris catus. As I have pointed out, domestic dogs, which fall under Opinion 2027 also, are now uniformly called Canis lupus familiaris. Finally, Gentry says explicitly, "Names based on domestic forms can now only refer to domesticates." You will note she says "based on", not "kept as the binomial name" or some such. That's why people call Canis familiaris by Canis lupus familiaris now; the epithet familiaris is the part of the name based on the domestic form. Speciate (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The sources disagree."
 * So far, so good. I agree that not all sources express a preference for F. catus, and some expressly prefer F. s. catus. The article should reflect this. However, the majority and the most authoritative of sources (of which I count the ICZN as one) say F. catus.
 * "You claim to have addressed all these points, but always incorrectly; for example you say, "...it sure ain't F. silvestris, which is a subscpecies no less." The fact is that Felis silvestris is not a subspecies, it is the species to which both wild and domestic cats belong."
 * This is a wording error on my part, and it without a doubt made my argument rather unclear. What I was trying to say is that as you agree, F. silvestris is a species, not a subspecies, and therefore is under the "jurisdiction" of the ICZN. The subspecies part is not. You cannot have your cake and eat it - either the ICZN is changing the species name of domestic cats to silvestris, or it is keeping it as catus, since they do not decide on subspecies names. You would then need to produce a reliable source which proposes F. silvestris catus as a formal trinomial name for the domestic subspecies. However, as I have said before and am about to reiterate, 2027 explicitly avoids changing established names for domesticates. It consistently confirms its approval of sources making use of F. catus and never acknowledges F. silvestris as an acceptable species name for domestic cats.
 * "You continue to confound the binomial name Felis catus with the epithet catus, and argue for the retention of the old binomial."
 * I'm not arguing for the retention or deprecation of anything, since I am not a reliable third party source. Let's stick to working within Wikipedia policy, and assess the conclusions of the sources. If you think that you are "arguing for the retention" of anything, take those views elsewhere, because Wikipedia does not conduct original research.
 * "Opinion 2027 was set up to protect silvestris not catus."
 * ...for wildcats. Gentry's comments iterate over and over again that the objective of the Opinion is to avoid domestic names such as F. catus being used for the wild form. The fact that domestic names are not affected is merely a clarificatory aside.
 * "If you agree that domestic cats are descended from Felis silvestris lybica you have only two choices; call them Felis silvestris lybica or Felis silvestris catus."
 * Then please provide a reliable source employing this reasoning. I agree with you that it seems logical, but Gentry explicitly says that F. catus is fine, as do all the other authoritative sources raised so far. Unfortunately, you're not an authority on this matter any more than I am.
 * "As I have pointed out, domestic dogs, which fall under Opinion 2027 also, are now uniformly called Canis lupus familiaris."
 * Unlike Felis silvestris, Canis lupus was proposed at the same time as Canis familiaris. This means there is no violation of common practice in choosing one or the other. At any rate, I'm not under the impression that Opinion 2027 has had the only, if any, effect on the matter, particularly since its focus is wild species and it specifically says that names for domesticates are still okay for domesticates. The genetic biology leading to the taxonomy of canines is also completely different to that of cats.
 * "Finally, Gentry says explicitly, "Names based on domestic forms can now only refer to domesticates." You will note she says "based on", not "kept as the binomial name" or some such."
 * "Based on" means that the taxonomist who chose the name was studying a domestic form (i.e. domestic cats) when choosing it, as opposed to a wild form (i.e. wildcats) or both. This is basic taxonomic language, so I hope this clears some things up.
 * "That's why people call Canis familiaris by Canis lupus familiaris now; the epithet familiaris is the part of the name based on the domestic form."
 * No, the reason both Canis familiaris and Canis lupus familiaris exist is because Linnaeus formally proposed both names in 1777. The reason they both contain the word "familiaris" is because this is a latin word for "domestic". A single latin word is only an "epithet" as part of a complete name. Other than that it's just a word with meaning. Some epithets are namesakes for their discoverers, while some, like here, are more descriptive. Don't be surprised that the same descriptive words are used for different names for the exact same animal. JNSQ (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained why this change to federal law was proposed. Instead you argued because it hadn't moved through Congress, it must not matter. Given that the bill says it is designed to protect domestic dogs and cats from being skinned and their fur imported into the US, and that the bill's remedy is to change the names of domestic dogs and cats from Canis familiaris and Felis catus to Canis lupus familiaris and Felis silvestris catus, I ask again, why is making a name change the proposed remedy? Speciate (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what a "bill's remedy" is. The proposed bill amends the existing act in a number of ways, in which changing the nomenclature for cats and dogs is just one. The only parts of the bill which receive commentary in public that I can find are the more significant proposals to include Raccoon Dogs in the scope of protection, and to eliminate the $150 minimum value below which other animal furs don't have to be labelled. The change of cat and dog names is probably the result of bill-writers consulting a particular source which uses the name - perhaps even Wikipedia. While I already acknowledged that it adds some weight to the movement in favour of F. s. c., it clearly doesn't trump the leading taxonomical authorities on the issue. JNSQ (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If Congress declared the bottlenose dolphin a fish, would that make it one? Ajwenger (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lawmakers and judges are very keen on making scientific declarations with the force of law these days. I won't go into specifics here.  Leave a message on my talk page if you want to talk about it.  Frotz (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Species name
There are many sources for Felis catus, Felis silvestris, Felis silvestris catus, and Felis silvestris lybica. I am trying to be inclusive, but if Felis silvestris catus is not accepted by some editors, neither is Felis catus. For the time being, the page shall reflect both Felis catus (the romantic name) and Felis silvestris lybica (what the DNA says they are). Speciate (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MSW3 is the definitive and canonical listing of mammal taxonomy. It uses F. catus. That should be enough. In addition, ICZN and ITIS also use F. catus. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not enough. ITIS call them Felis silvestris See? Speciate (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * F. silvestris and F. catus are synonyms, according to this. This doesn't establish the precedence of F. silvestris over F. catus.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The direct link to ITIS has F. catus distinct from F silvestris. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if we suppose they are correct, my compromise of listing both is appropriate since the sources disagree. Speciate (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to list one, and discuss the controversy in the text. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's go with the biologically correct one. Are cats a species or a subspecies, and from whom are they descended? F. s. l., that's who, as of 2007. Speciate (talk)
 * We list in accordance with MSW3, which is supported explicitly by ICZN, and mention the controversy in the text. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed before ^^^^^^ Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your vaunted MSW3 says "Also see comments under Felis and Felis sivestris. Synonyms allocated according to Pocock (1951) and should be considered provisional. There has been almost universal use of F. catus for the domestic cat and silvestris for wild cats. Several authors have treated the domestic cat as separate from the wildcats (Corbet and Hill, 1991; Daniels et al., 1998; Kitchener, 1991; Mattern and McLennan, 2000; Nowak, 1999; Pocock, 1951; Wiseman et al., 2000); however also see Randi and Ragni (1986), Essop et al. (1997), and Johnson and O’Brien (1997), who presented morphological and molecular evidence to support catus, libyca, and silvestris as conspecific. If conspecific, there would be a problem with the continued use of the name Felis silvestris (see comments therein)." Okay, now they have been demonstrated to be conspecific (actually, they are consubspecific). So MSW3 says we can't use Felis silvestris for wildcats anymore, which indicates that they are misinterpreting (or unaware of) Opinion 2027. Speciate (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It says that it would be problematic, but it does not specify what action should be taken. Fundamentally, it specifies that F. catus is preferred at the time of printing. It is acknowledged by the ICZN that MSW3 is not always faithful to opinion 2027; however in the same article it explicitly says that it is right about cats.
 * There seem to be two claims of justification for not using F catus being perpetuated by Speciate. Perhaps it would be clearer if we deal with them separately.
 * "We don't believe that the current position of MSW3, the ICZN, ITIS, or more or less any source laying claim to authoritative classification of mammalian taxa is either neutral to or in favour of F. catus". I think for the most part we've established that this is not the case. In the case of the ICZN, the only really disputed one, I have posted an extensive refutation to Speciate's contrary interpretation above which has gone unanswered. I have done so again at the end of the first paragraph of this post. I hope we can assume that we are now all agreed on this matter.
 * "One or more published sources which postdate the taxonomical authorities' publications makes biological findings about cats which affects the preconditions of the current authorities' justifications &mdash; i.e. cats have now been found to be more closely related, conspecific, or have any other relation with wildcats (which I don't understand in detail) which we did not think to be the case before." As far as I know, the only source being treated in this manner is the 2007 report in Nature. This focuses on the origins of domestic cats, not their relative biology to wildcats, and concludes that they are descended from (not necessarily that they are now) F. s. lybica. Unfortunately it seems that since the beginning of the discussion the full text has been withdrawn to a pay-per-view basis. The only other notable feature of the full text that I noted was that it mentioned that cats were "sometimes" called F. s. catus. It made no further mention in its conclusions or otherwise to suggest that this should be the new status quo or that their findings affect the nomenclature at all. Therefore unless there is another source that I've missed, I am also sure that the taxonomic references on which we rely are also current and accurate, as well as in favour of F catus.
 * I hope this makes things clearer. If anyone still specifically disagrees with these points, then hopefully any further discussion will be more suitably ordered, and we can build a full consensus as soon as possible.
 * One final note - some of the conduct in the latest flurry of edits (I'll stop short of calling it an edit war) brought in a couple of rather unnecessary faux pas to the proceedings &mdash; let's try to avoid them:
 * "we follow MSW3". I think this is unrepresentative of Wikipedia practice. MSW3 is a very reliable source, and in this case I agree that it is in the right, but if someone claims that there is an equally reliable source which contradicts it, we do not have a single authoritative source to which we refer without question. Fortunately, MSW answers to and cites many other reliable sources, including the ICZN, so it is unlikely to contradict any on a fundamental level &mdash; and in this case I'm still as unsatisfied as the rest of us that there has been an exception.
 * Editing Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT &mdash; to my knowledge, there have been no sources cited which seriously entertain the idea of calling modern domestic cats F. s. lybica. It has been used predominantly as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum against F. catus and original research drawing from the Nature article. Alternatively, the equal willingness to use F. s. catus and F. s. lybica but not F. catus shows at best a lack of willingness to follow the proper guidelines of verifiability and at worst means this whole discussion has been an elaborate troll to disrupt Wikipedia and distract it from reason.
 * JNSQ (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)