Miscellaneous desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 17

Are cats really fussy?

There's a bit of feline propaganda being spread by the dog lobby which claims cats have a reputation for fussy and finicky behavior. Is this really true or are canines secretly spreading this rumor so that they will have more food to eat? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines "fussy" as:

Anxious or particular about petty details.
Having a tendency to fuss, cry, or be ill-tempered (especially of babies).

I'm not sure which definition (or both!) you have in mind.

Things we do know are that dogs have a higher encephalization quotient than cats - larger than any other animals except great apes, dolphins and elephants. It's known that socialised animals need more brain power - and dogs are clearly more socialised than cats.

But I'm not sure that intelligence relates to the question of "fussiness".

Dogs (being pack animals) have a closer affinity with humans (who are also pack animals) - and the notorious independence of cats comes from them not being pack animals...but again, "fussiness" doesn't seem to figure into this.

Another possibility is that this reputation comes from eating habits - dogs have survived as domesticated animals by living on human foods - they are essentially omnivores like us. Cat, on the other hand were historically valued for vermin control - so they remain largely carnivores. It follows that cats would be more "fussy" about what they eat than dogs are - simply because they don't do well on our omnivorous diet.

Another reputation of cats is that they don't like water, mud and such. I imagine again that in the role of vermin hunters, they've been selected for abilities to manage rat and mouse populations barns, storehouses and houses. Dogs have historically been hunters - so they are required to be "all-terrain" animals - you wouldn't want a hunting dog that didn't like water. So again, the historical role of cats may have resulted in some inadvertent selection for fussiness.

But this is a tough question...there is too much vagueness in the definitions for conclusive answers. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say cats can be finicky eaters, but I wouldn't call them "fussy". Unless you count the psycho-cats on Jackson Galaxy's TV series "My Cat from Hell". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary defines "finicky" as "fastidious and fussy"...but "fastidious" is also defined (in part) as "fussy"...so I think you're OK with "finicky" - you should agree with "fussy" too. But as I said, the needs of a pure carnivore are bound to be narrower than an omnivore - so "fussy" isn't a derogatory term here. Cats simply evolved to deal with a narrower range of foods than dogs and humans - so there is a ton of stuff they won't eat that dogs and humans would - and we judge them by our standards and label them "finicky" or "fussy" as a result of that. Pigs and goats - which can cope with an even wider range of foods than we do have a bad reputation for eating all sorts of stuff that we wouldn't touch...but again, we're just judging them by our human standards - and tell our children not to "eat like pigs". SteveBaker (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another way they could be said to be "fussy" is in where they sit or sleep. They are quite adept at regulating body temperature by use of external heat and cooling sources. For example, you may find, on a cool day, a cat will move to remain in the sunlight as the Sun moves across the sky and sunlight hits a different spot on the floor. On a hot day, I had a cat that slept in a small circular sink, since it served as a "heat sink", and drew the heat away to the cool connected pipes. Then there's the kneading behavior before they settle down on fabric for a nap. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen all of those behaviors in dogs too though. Our dog lies belly-down on hard tiled floors when it's hot - legs spread to get maximum non-furry skin in contact with the cold tile. When it's cold, he curls up on the well-insulated rug in a tight ball with feet, nose and tail tucked in tightly to retain heat. He also tracks the sunny spot on the floor over time when it's cooler. I wouldn't call that "fussy" so much as "necessary" for a creature that's covered with dense, insulating fur and efficient thermoregulation needs a little help. SteveBaker (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they don't sweat, so can overheat more easily. Thus, compared with humans, both cats and dogs might be said to be fussier about where they rest. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's something of a myth. Dogs have sweat glands on their feet - and (according to some sources) on the exposed skin of their bellies. But certainly not to the degree that humans do. Cats also only have sweat glands on their feet - and they do sometimes pant like dogs...although somewhat rarely. If a cat is panting, it's severely over-heated.

Oh, yeah - and although I haven't seen dogs do the "kneading" thing - it's pretty common for them to walk around in a small circle a couple of times before settling down. Dunno why either behavior exists - but they seem to have a similar kind of nature. SteveBaker (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the circling behavior is so they are still rotating as they collapse, so their fur will lie flat. Of course, with pet instincts, they seem to often go awry, such as cats who feel the need to scratch something after they poop, but are unclear that the reason is to bury their feces. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - clearly some of these are vestigial behaviors. My present dog doesn't do the "burying" thing - but my last dog (a female Lab mix) did it after pee-ing. Just a couple of hind-leg scrapes pushing dirt in the wrong direction. Clearly a left-over instinct to cover her scent - but not carried through to any useful conclusion.

Dogs (and to a lesser extent, cats) have not gotten where they are today from anything like a normal evolutionary path. SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "vestigial", as they serve a purpose, the pets just seem unclear on that purpose until trained (by their mother, typically). StuRat (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another point someone made to me about "fussy" eating is that cats are active hunters - so their natural food is freshly killed. Dogs and their wolf ancestors are quite happy to hunt - but they'll also eat carrion. This must mean that they are OK with food that's been hanging around for a while - and that might well give them a wider tolerance for somewhat imperfect foods that a cat would be forced to reject. SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One strange thing about dogs, considering that they will eat carrion, is that, unlike a buzzard, they don't seem to be able to digest it very well. Thus, they often puke it back up, then maybe eat it and puke it up again a few more times before they give up on it. That, and their tendency to eat feces, would seem to be the very definition of "not fussy". StuRat (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old world

Which US state is geographically the nearest to the Old World? Contrib raati (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Old World includes Asia, the answer seems to be Alaska. - Lindert (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? What kind of answer is this? The user is clearly referring to a US state that is geographically close to Spain. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask about Spain then? The Old World is a whole lot bigger than that; the OP even linked to the article, describing it as Europe, Africa and Asia. The US state closest to Spain (and to Europe in general) is Maine. - Lindert (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this is only if you include islands like Ireland, Iceland and GB in 'Europe' (and exclude Svalbard). Alaska is closer to continental Europe than Maine is (even though the shortest journey takes one very close to the North Pole). - Lindert (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but you are still ignoring the implicit, embedded historical context of the question. In the United States, when history books talk about the Old World, they discuss it in the framework of exploration and migration to the New World. And in that context, referring to Alaska is somewhat of an anachronism. Viriditas (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas - You know what you think is the implicit, embedded historical context of the question. You don't know what the context of the question was for the original poster, and therefore in criticizing an answer that is only wrong in an unknown context, you are being non-collaborative. If a question isn't clear, and this one isn't, the reply is to ask for clarification, not to criticize answers that make assumptions with which you disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that. The question is really where the problem is found, not in the answers. As others have noted, there are also temporal concerns. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse context does not imply Asia, it implies Europe. Care to explain why and how Europeans explored California before Maine, even though Maine was closer, and from the looks of old maps, they knew where it was? Surely they weren't holding out until L.L. Bean showed up? Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maine would seem the likely answer. It will be interesting to see when (or if) the OP clarifies his question, which is most certainly not "obviously" about Spain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with Alaska, since it is indisputably closer to Asia than Maine is to Europe. Whatever the OP meant, the question itself is asking for the closest state to the Old World, not the closest to Europe. Mingmingla (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP himself cited the Old World article, it's reasonable to suppose he might have read it, in which case he would be including Asia, and the right answer would be Alaska. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 1958 where I am. Contiguous United States, baby. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see what the OP has to say, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article about the Old World describes a world that used to exist in a past when the United States didn't exist yet, a past when even the Americas didn't exist yet. When the "old world" discovers "the americas", there is not yet any such thing as a "state" let alone some "United States". Akseli9 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also talks about the Old World in the present tense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I alone in not understanding the phrase "reverse context"? —Tamfang (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone. I don't know what it means. But the larger issue is that we don't know what the OP means by "Old World". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant contiguous USA. So to reword, which contiguous US state is the nearest to the Old World? Contrib raati (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the Old World? There has been considerable off-the-point argument above about what you mean by the Old World. If you mean Europe, or any particular part of Europe, it is almost certainly Maine. If you include Asia, I haven't compared the distance between Maine and Europe and the distance between Washington State and Siberia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on a longer and more detailed version of this, but I accidentally deleted it twice, so I'll be brief. In Google Maps, if you right-click (at least in Linux) there is a tool to measure distances. Using this tool and refining the endpoints by zooming in and dragging them, I find that:

If the Azores count as the Old World, Maine wins: Sail Rock to Monchique Islet.
If not, but Siberia counts, Washington wins: Big Diomede Island to an offshore island near Cape Flattery. If we disallow the offshore islands and go mainland to mainland, it doesn't add much.
If Siberia also does not count, but Iceland does, Maine wins: from its northeast border near Rivière-Verte, New Brunswick, to Bjargtangar is just slightly farther than the previous case.
If Iceland is disallowed as well, Maine wins, but now the nearest point is probably Mizen Head, a beautiful cape in Ireland.

--76.69.45.64 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the user, on his talk page, to come back here and tell us precisely what he means by "Old World". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]