A Question About the "Cat Kind"

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not sure if you are actually trying to assert anything about biology...?

I'm not sure the Bible was either.

 

[dust1n]

I'm not sure the Bible was either.

Ah, well, it obviously wasn't important enough to expand upon at that time, that, and you know... lack of magnifying glasses and stuff.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ah, well, it obviously wasn't important enough to expand upon at that time, that, and you know... lack of magnifying glasses and stuff.

That's what RF is for.

 

[David1967]

C'mon, some one has to know how the "cat kind" works!

Y'know, you say that, but I would argue that all house-cats seem to remember being one-ton killing machines with a serial-killer's "special knife box" for a face. They certainly act like it, anyway.

I know what you mean. My wife says our cat is two faced. She (the cat) comes up to us all sweet and affectionate...and then completely rips apart anything smaller than her and leaves the leftovers in front of my door to proudly show me what a killer she is.

 

[Skwim]

But it still doesn't address my concern. If a Puma, Leopard, and Tiger are all of the same kind, why can a Puma sometimes mate with a Leopard, but never with a Tiger, but a Tiger can also mate with Leopard, but never a Puma.

Didn't know that tigers couldn't mate with pumas.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Didn't know that tigers couldn't mate with pumas.

I can't mate with supermodels because they keep refusing...does that make them a different species?

 

[Skwim]

I can't mate with supermodels because they keep refusing...does that make them a different species?

Just to be serious for moment. At one time the inability to mate and reproduce fertile offspring was a credible criterion in differentiating species. However . . . in your case it still holds true. So, yes, the two of you are different species: Homo allurus and Homo frustratus.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Just to be serious for moment. At one time the inability to mate and reproduce fertile offspring was a credible criterion in differentiating species. However . . . in your case it still holds true. So, yes, the two of you are different species: Homo allurus and Homo frustratus.

Perhaps Homo toougly.

 

[Ouroboros]

Conclusion, there is no such thing as a "cat kind" based on a premise that kinds of things that reproduce stay in their kind.

Maybe they have their own category?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Maybe they have their own category?

Not in the Bible. They probably fit into the kind, "beasts of the earth."