Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cat Meows Have Evolved Because of Humans

Posted by timothy on from the as-if-this-weren't-obvious dept.

GuyMannDude writes: "ABCNews.com has a story on research being done at Cornell University's Psychology of Voice and Sound Laboratory on cat meows. The scientists believe that over generations, cats have learned how to meow in different ways specifically in order to hook into human perception tendencies and get what they want."

49 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. fascinating by tps12 · · Score: 4, Funny
    I have to say that I don't think any of us would have predicted this. I am completely astou--

    One moment, Tiger needs something.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:fascinating by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2
      Cats' mind control doesn't work too well when humans take them to the vet to be neutered.

      Seems as if widespread sterilization would refute the 'evolution' argument as well. No animals with successful traits would reproduce! Nobody wants a big strong tomcat, or a fat kitten factory.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  2. The difference between cats and dogs by Ivan+the+Terrible · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dogs think, "You feed me. You must be god."
    Cats think, "You feed me. I must be god."

    1. Re:The difference between cats and dogs by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the ever-popular:

      Dogs come when you call them.
      Cats take a message.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  3. Sneaky by Deanasc · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew those cats were up to something. Oh well at least the dog isn't trying to manipulate me.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  4. Cats = Aliens? by airship · · Score: 5, Funny

    We feed and take care of cats despite the fact that they do absolutely nothing for us. Do they have some kind of psychic mind control over us?
    It is believed by many that Egyptian culture was delivered to humanity by a race of alien beings. At just about the same time, Egyptians began worshipping cats. Coincidince?
    Even though they are supposedly mammals, cats have those weird slitty eyes. No other mammal has eyes like that. Are they really of this earth?
    The Discovery Channel should do one of their pseudo-science specials on this subject. I'm sure it has just as much credence as any of the other goofball theories they've broadcast 'documentaries' on.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
    1. Re:Cats = Aliens? by richardalan · · Score: 2, Informative

      > We feed and take care of cats despite the fact
      > that they do absolutely nothing for us.

      In rural areas cats are kept in barns and other such
      buildings to keep the rodent population under control.

    2. Re:Cats = Aliens? by saveth · · Score: 2

      I just like to pet my cat. She is warm, purrs, and listens to me when I need to rant. I think I noticed her perk up when I mentioned a LART, once. :P

    3. Re:Cats = Aliens? by cowtamer · · Score: 2

      They might be Kzinti, be careful!

    4. Re:Cats = Aliens? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

      I believe that some of the Face on Mars sites believe that half of the face is human and the other half is feline.

  5. evolution or learning? by oyenstikker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are they basing this on survival of the fittest? Cats that don't meow well die? I don't think so. Cats learn what sounds get a response, and use them. Kittens learn from their parents, who learned from their parents. . . This is learned behaviour, not evolution.

    --
    The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    1. Re:evolution or learning? by sydb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alternatively, it might be that humans have bred cats to meow, subconsciously favouring the more 'appealing' animals when pairing mates.

      The domestic cat is quite far removed from anything natural.

      You don't need to be fit for a 'natural' purpose to survive, providing the environment is suitably artificial.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    2. Re:evolution or learning? by sydb · · Score: 2

      Hate to reply to myself but my comment was stupid. If humans had bred cats in favour of a particular level of noise, then they would come without vocal cords.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    3. Re:evolution or learning? by oyenstikker · · Score: 2

      Cat will never lose vocal cords. "Evolution" through survival of the fittest brings out certain advantageous genetic traits. For example, when the pollution made the trees in London dark colored, the moths with the darker wings became more prevelant, because the lighter ones stood out and were eaten. When London was cleaned up, the lighter ones survived. The moths didn't turn colors. No genetic mutation happened. Just that the ones with more desirable traits (wing color in moths would be analagous to, say, eye color in humans) survived in greater numbers. If the sound of a cat is in fact a genetic trait, this may happen. But some large genetic change, such as lack of a vocal cord, will not happen.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    4. Re:evolution or learning? by quintessent · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it would be interesting to know if the research tries to account for this. Maybe find a domestic cat and a desert cat who were separated from their parents and raised in the same environment, and then compare them. The article doesn't go into this level of detail, unfortunately.

      --
      Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
    5. Re:evolution or learning? by darkonc · · Score: 2
      This is learned behaviour, not evolution.

      It's probably a bit of both:

      Cats that learn to meow in like human babies cry get human adult attention -- as such, they are more likely to get food and other assistance. This makes them more likely to survive.

      Cats that can't meow human-like don't get the resulting survival benefits.

      Cats that genetically tend to meow in a human-like way are much more likely to 'learn' that this kind of meow gets them what they want.

      Even if there is a learned response element, it can still be an evolutionary driving force.

      This leads me to an ineresting speculation: Psych labs that have been running rats in mazes for the last 20 years may have accidently bred a maze-running strain of rat. The question might make for an interesting psychology/genetics experiment one day.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    6. Re:evolution or learning? by TheLink · · Score: 2

      The subset of cats vocal abilities, cat preferred vocalisation in situation, human hearing, human preferences - approx: meow.

      e.g. they screech too and most animals including humans would agree that screeching = negative vocalisation, so what else can they do that we can hear? purr, meow, yowl.

      As for the rat speculation. Maybe - but do they breed rats depending on their maze performance or some other criteria? If they do breed them based on maze running (e.g. not necessarily finishing maze - but at least willing to run around and not just stay put and go to sleep ;) ), then yeah. But if they are bred based on other criteria then I doubt you'll get a maze running strain of rat. e.g. bred not to bite researcher's fingers off.

      Anyway I think you can order the sort of lab rat you want nowadays - they've got many breeds for various lab uses. So maybe they have a maze rat.

      Cheerio,
      Link.

      --
  6. Re:interesting article... by nucal · · Score: 3, Funny
    But I don't understand why this story is categorized as "it's funny, laugh."

    Because there's no "it's catty, meow." category.

  7. I had to say it... by leviramsey · · Score: 3, Funny
    "I think cats have evolved to become better at managing and manipulating people." [says the researcher in the article]

    How it is it news that a pussy can manipulate people?

  8. Evolution of a Cat's Meow by Peapod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our society has become so dominated by the evolutionary theories that whenever something changes over time, it doesn't change, but evolves, as if it were a change in the make-up of a cat's genetic code.

    1. Re:Evolution of a Cat's Meow by DietFluffy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Our society has become so dominated by the evolutionary theories that whenever something changes over time, it doesn't change, but evolves, as if it were a change in the make-up of a cat's genetic code.

      That's exactly how it's supposed to happen. All evolution by natural selection as described by neo-darwinism involves a change in a specie's genetic pool.

      If you are trying to debunk evolutionary as only a "theory", something George W. Bush said recently, please note that the scientific definition of "theory" is very different from the layman's definition. An idea has to be able to withstand unrelenting scrutiny in order to earn the title "theory." Evolution through natural selection is an easily observed occurance and can be proven through statistical and mathematical analysis. Neo-Darwinist principles should be renamed "The Law of Evolution through Natural Selection" just as we currently have "The Law of Gravity."

    2. Re:Evolution of a Cat's Meow by Debillitatus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Woah, there... no need for a kneejerk pro-evolution response.

      I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.

      Incidentally, the hyper-Darwinstic viewpoint is not accepted by most scientists, either. (By h-D I mean, as I stated above, the conception that all change is evolution.) The mechanism for evolution is a random process. We can only hope to understand it in the average, large-scale dynamics. And a good amount of the time, a random change will not lead to progress. It's just that since there is a selection bias towards things that work, you do see it.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    3. Re:Evolution of a Cat's Meow by cp99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.

      The popular conception which you descibe is infact correct. Evolution is change over time. Evolution doesn't have to use the mechanism put forward by Darwin and refined by various others. Stellar evolution is a example of this.

      Your post is also misleading in stating that the "The mechanism for evolution is a random process". Random processes are only a part of evolution. The natural selection bit also plays a very considerable role. To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
    4. Re:Evolution of a Cat's Meow by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      Actually, I'm kind of confused as to why my original got modded to "Flamebait"... mod it "Redundant", or even "Crap", but, hey, it was politely worded... Anyway:

      >>I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.

      The popular conception which you descibe is infact correct. Evolution is change over time. Evolution doesn't have to use the mechanism put forward by Darwin and refined by various others. Stellar evolution is a example of this.

      What you have just stated is, IMHO, a confusion between two different meanings of the word "evolution". It is unfortunate that the scientific community uses the words differently, and the example you showed was a good one. For example, as a mathematician, I'm forever talking about "evolution equations" when I don't mean anything biological or Darwinistic, but just a physical process which changes in time.

      On the other hand, the usage of the word in biology, and in this article, was that of biological evolution which arises from natural selection. And, yes, my point is still valid: in the popular conception of evolution, whenever we see speciation, or change in a biological organism, it is expected that there is some sort of evolution going on which is driven by natural selection, and this is simply untrue. Sometimes change is just change. In fact, most major changes in the genome are highly detrimental (e.g. go hang out in Chernobyl for a while). Just because they happen does not imply evolution in any Darwinian sense.

      Your post is also misleading in stating that the "The mechanism for evolution is a random process". Random processes are only a part of evolution. The natural selection bit also plays a very considerable role. To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.

      This last paragraph of yours is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe I'll get "Flamebait" again, but there's no polite way to tell you that you misunderstand the issues in a fundamental way.

      All evolutionary change is as the result of a random process. If you think anything differently, you are a creationist (or some other type of "directed evolution"ist) yourself. The fundamental mechanism for evolution is a random process. What you call natural selection is a selection bias in this random process. Obviously, organisms which work better are selected for, and those which don't are selected against. So of course there is a mean drift in the direction of "better" organisms. But the assertion that this is not random is, quite frankly, creationism.

      This is exactly Darwin's (and others') fundamental insight into the field, that a random process can drive a progression towards more complicated lifeforms. This is the most misunderstood part of Darwin's theory.

      The shame is that the armchair scientists (so to speak) play down this part of the theory, since it's a difficult thing for a layman to wrap his mind around. The anti-evolution arguments always state "Well how can these complicated objects arise randomly?", but this is the beauty of the theory. "Defenders of evolution" do it a disservice by cutting this part out so that it is more palatable to its enemies.

      Because, let's be honest. The creationists aren't going to buy anything the scientists say at all, no matter how beautifully worded, because they don't buy the scientific method. So fuck 'em.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    5. Re:Evolution of a Cat's Meow by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      Frankly, I think we're saying the same thing in principle. But, using the correct vocabulary, the whole thing is just one random process. Of course, you can take the mechanism, and call it two mechanisms, but that's an overcomplication.

      Consider a simple example: a random walk on a line. Start off a particle at x=0. At each time step, say the particle has a 50/50 chance of going right or left. We know intuitively what we expect to happen: the expected position of the particle is of course 0. The math backs this up, and tells us even more: that after N steps, we really expect to see the particle between \sqrt{N} and -\sqrt{N}. We can analyze this situation even fuirther, but it's not important.

      Now, make the example more complicated. Let's say that at every time step, the particle has a 70% chance to go right, and 30% to go left. (It's not too interesting to consider the case where the particle can sit still, since we can just rename our timesteps to be the times of motion.) Anyway, what you see mathematically is what you expect: a mean drift to the right. Now, you won't always see motion to the right, but the longer you wait, the more you expect to see right-ward motion. In particular, the statement is that as N goes to infinity, the probability that the particle is to the right of 0 goes to 1. (In particular, in this case, as N goes to infinity, the probability that the particle is to the right of any integer goes to 1.) Now, of course, this is a simple example, you could let the probability of going right be dependent on the place you're at, etc.

      But this simple model is somewhat reminiscent of the natural selection case. According to mathematical terminology, this section case is still considered a "random process", just with a mean drift. Think of it as natural selection, where right is somehow "better" than left.

      Again, it's ok to say that natural selection is not random (of course it isn't), but as we see from the above example, the whole mechanism can be put in the framework of a random process, which makes it of course more elegant conceptually.

      For anyone who's really interested in the math, this is an absolutely wonderful treatment of the subject (although quite advanced mathematically).

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

  9. interesting theory, but... by spood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's much more plausible that humans have adjusted their opinion of what an 'urgent' meow and a 'contented' meow are, rather than the cats adjusting to our 'language'. We observe a contented cat and the associated meow and we learn to recognize the difference. Which do you think is more likely? Cats have evolved a language to speak to humans, or humans have learned to recognize cats' language?

    Comparisons to feral cats in zoos, let alone the wild makes no sense. It might make more sense to raise a feral cat in one's house from kittenhood and see if it made the same language adjustments. I very much doubt that the language is herditary.

    --
    ---- Just another spud server.
  10. Powerful Language by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cat thought of the day -
    A meow might get her attention, but she'll really notice if you crap on her sweater.

  11. me too by Polo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Funny, I tend to meow differently to get the attention of cats.

    (weird, but true)

  12. My cat by gnovos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My cat had a way of mimicing my speech in a limited scope. If I would walk into a room and say "hi" she would respond with a very short "mmw" but if I sait "hello" (two sylables) she would respond with two of her own "mmw meow". I wonder if other cat owners had seen similar things...

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:My cat by doooras · · Score: 3, Funny

      my mother was sure her dog would say "i love you" and the cat will say "what?" if you ask it a question. surprisingly, she doesn't have a history of crack addiction.

    2. Re:My cat by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Actually, my mother used to up one of my cats and hugs him while he was upside down until he made a certain sound. She thought the murmured double meow sounded like, "Mama." I thought it sounded like, "Put me down, you crazy bi..."

      Never mind.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  13. And in other News of the Obvious... by Nyarly · · Score: 3, Informative
    Who hasn't noticed that housecats sound like the cries of babies? (There's some thought that this is part of the "stealing babies' breath" myth.) There's been a lot of research that suggests that humans are hardwired not to be able to ignore the cry of a baby, and it seems resonable that housecats might have hooked onto that long ago.

    I've noticed several times how a cat will adapt to be more and more attention grabbing as time goes on, and how her housemates will learn particularly effective behavior quite rapidly.

    --
    IP is just rude.
    Is there any torture so subl
  14. Meows by FattMattP · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always thought they were saying "Me Now." :-)

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  15. Cross-species universals in vocal tone by texchanchan · · Score: 2

    Suppose they did not evolve to fit with our perceptions, but rather that the cats' high vs. low frequencies, rising vs. falling tones, short vs. continuous sounds, and so on, are used for roughly the same meanings (food! alarm! momma!) as among other creatures that communicate vocally. If this is the case, our sounds and Kitty's probably echo calls heard in the primeval swamps. How about that!

  16. Not much contradiction, really by twilight30 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure where I heard this tidbit exactly; I think it was a video documentary about cats. Anyway, it seems that cats by themselves do not meow to each other or to animals other than humans -- it's something that they only do with us.

    It's not only a parental thing handed down the line either -- we have one cat that was separated at birth from her mother, and she is very good at indicating when she wants affection, a trip outside, or food. As to her emotional needs beyond that short list, I'm afraid I'm not evolved enough to pick those up. The other cat, being a glutton, only asks for food whenever possible, though she does trill a lot.

    --
    ========================================
    Death will come, and will have your eyes
    -- Pavese
    1. Re:Not much contradiction, really by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've seen footage of big cats in the wild who grumble to themselves when something goes wrong. Didn't catch that springbok? Mwor! Walked into a spider web? Mewal! Stepped on something sharp? Reiow!

  17. manipulating people by kilroy_hau · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I think cats have evolved to become better at managing and manipulating people."

    That's why catbert is the human resources director, not dogbert

    --


    Kilroy was here!
  18. Score (+1 insigntful, -1 half baked) by Bastian · · Score: 2

    Good point about learned behavior. The researcher in question might do well to see if he can study the meowing habits of stray cats, which presumaby wouldn't have learned to meow towards humans' likings as well due to less exposure.

    But your concept of natural selection is bunk. Natural selection has just about nothing to do with living and dying except insofar as it assists reproduction.

    If we look at mechanisms of evolution and take into account reproduction and not just survival, there is plenty of room to see how humans could unconsciously affect the evolution of cats. The situation that comes to mind for me is a family with only one cat. If they find that first cat pleasing to be around in some way, they will be far more likely to get more cats, thus providing the first one with potential mates (assuming they don't fix their pets).

    Now spread that out over 5,000 years of feline domestication. Noticeable evolution has happened in far fewer generations than that before. . .

  19. Bathing Cats by Samus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe thats why they sound like people dying when you try to give them baths. :-)

    --
    In Republican America phones tap you.
  20. Pavlov's Cat by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Analog SciFi once printed a poem called Pavlov's Cat. I wish I could remember it as a poem, but the gist is that while Pavlov is training his dogs, Pavlov's cat repeatedly rubs up against his leg, meows, and walks to the door until Pavlov finally lets him outside. By the end of the poem, Pavlov's dogs are salivating at the sound of a bell and Pavlov is automatically letting his cat out when it meows.

    Dogs have masters. Cats have staff.

    --
    FreeSpeech.org
    1. Re:Pavlov's Cat by acrollet · · Score: 3, Funny

      Couldn't find the poem, but this was funny:

      Everyone has heard of Pavlov's Dogs and many have heard of Schroedingers Cat. But what of Shroedinger's Dog and Pavlov's Cats?

      Let's not concern ourselves with Shroedinger's Dog, a creature so stupid it has difficulty being in one state at a time let alone in two states simultaneously. When put into a box with a decaying vial of poison which might or might not release the poison, Shroedinger's Dog chewed the vial thus ensuring it ended up in a dead state every time.

      Pavlov's Cats is a far more interesting a subtle experiment into feline-human behaviour. Pavlov was a Welsh behavioural scientist who conducted experiments into ringing bells and cats eating food. Went something along the lines of:

      Day 1: Rang bell. Cat buggered off.

      Day 2: Rang bell. Cat buggered off.

      Day 3: Rang bell, but cat put paw on bell so it only made a 'thunk' sound.

      Day 4: Rang bell, cat said he'd eaten earlier.

      Day 5: Tried to ring bell, but cat had taken batteries out of bell.

      Day 6: Cat rang bell. I ate food.

      (found at http://members.aol.com/moggycat/pavlov-cat.html )

    2. Re:Pavlov's Cat by David+Gould · · Score: 2

      I couldn't fine the poem either, but I really want to read it. 3 points to anyone who can find it.

      This does remind me of a ST:TNG episode, though, with Data explaining to Geordi how he's trying to train his cat -- he succeeds about as well as one would expect:
      Geordi: "So how's it working?"
      Data: "Not very well. Apparently, Spot isn't a very intelligent cat."
      Spot: "Meow."
      Data: (looking down) "Hmm?"
      Spot: "Meow."
      Data: "Ah!" (gets cat food)
      Geordi: (starts laughing)
      Data: "Huh?"
      Geordi: "I don't know about your project, but he's got you trained pretty well!"

      As for me an my cat, I'm not such a good subject. With us it's more like:
      Pavel: "Meow."
      David: "Fuck off."
      Pavel: "Meow."
      David: "Get it yourself!"
      Pavel: "Meow."
      David: <kick>

      What's interesting about him, though, is the apparent intelligence with which he's learned to irritate me. He obviously knows that if he wants something, it's not enough to tell me about it -- the only way it'll happen is if he can be so annoying that I'll give in and do it just to shut him up. Early on, he discovered that the sliding doors of my closet make an incredible amount of noise when pushed just right, so standing up in front of them and batting on them with his paws is the best way to get let out at 4:30 AM. He can make almost as much noise scratching at the glass door from outside, making that the best way to get let in at 4:37 AM. He has further learned that nothing gets me to react faster than the sound of his claws in my couch, making that his doorknob whenever I'm in or near the living room.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    3. Re:Pavlov's Cat by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

      This "Cat rang bell. I ate food" stuff is from a routine by the British comedian Eddie Izzard.

      graspee

  21. Dialogues with stray dogs by ynotds · · Score: 2

    Actually, I lie, it is really me that is straying and the dogs that are locked safely behind tall fences, but it sounded better that way.

    I guess I first noticed it with a much missed pet, but have noticed it more and more since I learnt to walk without the aid of my own dog.

    But I am now quite certain that at least some dogs import significance to the number of repetitions in a short sequence, be it the dog's own barks or the human's poor imitations, or even clicking vocalisations.

    The only cat I know that meows a lot is stone deaf.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  22. Transcript by saqmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Aw, you want some food?
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Ahh yes you do!
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Would you like some chicken honeybunny?
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Here you go then.
    Cat: *gobble*

    I don't see the intelligence in that, especially in the owners corner ;)

    --
    "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
  23. I have no doubts... by Nos. · · Score: 2
    Anybody who owns a cat would believe this. Can you not tell when your cat wants something, or when it just wants attention. Now while they may have learned to "meow" in such a way that we can more easily interrprut their desires, I think they have also learned to "listen" to us as well. Every cat I've knows has been able to understand a sharp loud vocalization (ie: "No") and softer quieter tones (ie: "Here kitty, kitty, kitty"). I think there's more to it than that though. I have two cats at home (with very different personalities) but they both seem to understand "outside". If I ask them if they want to go out, they will usually head for the back door.

    Kinda scary when you think about it. They're learning to communicate with us better. And not just us. Ever seen a cat sitting in a window watching a (bird|squirrel|mouse)? They will try to vocalize a sound I've only heard from a cat in this situation. Sort of a chattering. Maybe Star Trek's Universal Translator was nothing more than a few cats.

    1. Re:I have no doubts... by nuggz · · Score: 2

      Every cat I've knows has been able to understand a sharp loud vocalization (ie: "No") and softer quieter tones (ie: "Here kitty, kitty, kitty").

      You mean just like every other living animal?
      Dogs do the same thing on tone, babies and young children do the same thing on the tone of your voice.
      Heck if you don't understand the language you can guess if something being said is positive of negative.
      Many languages have a soft for affirmative (yes, ya/ja, oui ..) and a harder for Negative (no, nein, never, non...)

      I like telling babies they're just little stinky poop machines in a cute voice so they giggle and laugh about it, it's the only revenge you can get.

  24. What nonsense by frog51 · · Score: 2

    All the cat's I have ever seen (except one deaf, stupid albino cat that lived next door for a while) have meowed at other cats and some other animals. They even use recognisable meows so you can tell what their issues are (you know, the "That's my space" meow, the "I will hurt you" meow, and the "I need some pettin' and a lovin' on my rain soaked hide" meow)

  25. I know by macdaddy · · Score: 2

    All I know is that my cat (Tux of course) loves to watch the movie Cats and Dogs, even though the cats get beat in the end. He literally stares at the TV. That's the most attention he's paid to anyone thing since the 7 double rolls of Cottenelle he dismantled in the bathroom. Talk about a huge pile of fluff. No piece was bigger than say 1.5 x 1.5 inches. He was curled up in the middle of it, waiting to get his ass beat I think...