I. Various deformities of the domestic cat.
By F. Schwangart (Dresden University of Technology).

Among our pets, the cat is known for a special conservatism regarding its physical shape. Characteristic of the predominant impression is C. Kronacher's (1928) judgment: "On average, the cat also remains below the size development of the wild form. On the whole, the cat is conspicuously constant.“ As the expression "de-moulding" already indicates, it is essential to remain separate for emotional views. [Shwangart uses "de-moulding" instead of "deformity" but there is no direct translation, a literal translation would be "deviation from the normal type."]

Regarding breed differences, until recently only the differences between longhairs (Angoras), the short-haired Siamese and the "ordinary" shorthair cats were known. With both longhairs and shorthairs, official cat breeding only paid attention to colour specializations, not even considering the significant marking patterns. It also tended to regard special biological cases, such as the sex-linked inheritance of "tortoiseshell" and certain discrepancies, such as the tail defects, as "breed" characteristics.

In a series of publications (see the reference list), I have developed before the close-knit forum of breeders a more deeply rooted racial system, the first in the currently strongest German breeding association, the "Association for Cat Breeding and Cat Protection", based at Dresden. I have also given the non-evaluated, breed features and emphasised the marking patterns. Where the tail shape and length are part of these breed descriptions, they are never deviations, but are slight differences that harmonise with the overall conformation.

There is also little known about deviations in the domestic cat due to domestication. The general view is that the cat lags behind other domestic animals in this respect. In the leading animal breeding works (Adam et al., Kronacher) and specialist literature on breeding biology include tail deformity, polydactylism, the deafness of many blue-eyed white cats, the coupling of lethal factors to certain types of white hair (Adametz, according to Crew), "insignificant shortening of the muzzle" as one of their very minor changes due to domestication (Kronacher), with respect to short-jaws (Hilzheimer) approaching pug-headedness. From the Siamese it is known that these tend to have strabismus. From popular cat literature there is the image of an alleged "lop-eared Chinese cat" whose existence has never been proven since the publication of the image. If it is not a fantasy creature, it was perhaps one of those specimens, as happened to myself, that suffered a buckled ear at birth.

Z. Züchtg.: B. Tierzuchtg. U. Zuchtgsbiol. Vol. 22, Issue 2.

The great importance of pets for animal psychological research is well recognized. Among them in the broader term we will take the first "Heimtiere" [home animals, pets] (my expression [1] meaning mankind’s home companion animals): the dog and the cat.

They offer us methodically the advantage of restricting affect-related obstacles, such as those in talent tests which cause misunderstanding, and give us the advantage of having safe control and influence over environmental conditions. Pet ownership gives us comfortable comparisons between the two pet animals among themselves, with humans, with more distantly domesticated animals in the home, as well as with wild housemates. Just think of Bastian Schmid’s domesticated Wolf.

For details of the comparison between the two I refer to my study "Dog and Cat" (2), which aims to be a "suggestion" for "comparative pet reseaerch". I also hoped to promote mutual understanding between so-called "dog-people" and "cat people".

The basis of the deep psychological differences between the two animals is found throughout their whole being. The differences are rooted in biological and ecological origins. It is also psychologically significant to investigate the extent to what extent similar circumstances of pet animal life are able to affect and change psychological creativity.

The cat exhibits a large number of its own traits, such as the immensely wide range of personal differences, making it a first-class object for studying animal personality characteristics, explainable from its solitary nature and the previous neglect of its breeding and raising. I also recall their propensity for sterotyped behavioural, whose study can be valuable in comparison with similar human phenomena. Thus, Sommer (3) strives for a "common psychopathology of man and animals" through, among other things, the importance of studying animal stereotypes, which appear normal here as much as they are less common in human children, and which draw attention to the investigation of psychopathic events in humans. There are also observations supporting the existence of "eidetic" [strong mental imagery] phenomena in the cat. In humans, "eidetic phenomena" are most common among children. Here the nature of "shyness" and comparisons between the cat and the horse, these species being comparable due to the sexually-psychologically important castrated males. The list alsos include "infantilism" in the cat [. . .]