IN TOUCH WITH NATURE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22612, 2 July 1935, Page 2

IN TOUCH WITH NATURE

WILD CATS DESTROY NATIVE BIRDS. Fy J. Decmmond, F.L.8., F.Z.S. Most of the hordes of wild cats reported by Mr E. T. Frost in northern districts of Auckland province probably, as he believes, are descendants of cats left by gumdiggers, but the pedigree of many go back 130 years and more to the whaling era, their ancestors having come with the whalers. Neither the present cats nor their New Zealand ancestors can be classed as genuine wild cats. They are domestic cats, Felis catus, that reverted to a hunting life. Rats, mice, lizards and rabbits are their chief food. They also gratify their instincts by lying in wait for small birds. Mr Frost does them no injustice when he blames them in part for the destruction of native birds. Twenty-four years ago Mr P. A. D. Cox reported that a colony of tortoiseshell cats ravished native birds on Mangere, an islet in the Chatham group. Their ancestors wen placed on Mangere to destroy rabbits, then present there in large numbers. "I do not know if they have killed out the rabbits,” he wrote, “ but they certainly have exterminated some small native birds on the island.” They aided and abetted collectors in exterminating the Chatham Island rail, found nowhere except on Mangere. Wild cats, apparently, are less plentiful on that island now. Mr B. M. Guest last month noted the presence there of parrakeets. A domestic cat belonging to a lighthouse keeper discovered a little wren on Stephen Island, a rocky islet In Cook Strait, its only home. That cat is blamed for blotting out the species. There is one specimen of this wren in the British Museum. .Canon Tristram had one in his collection ill England. There are eight specimens in Lord Rothschild’s museum at Tring, England. There was one in a collection of 025 specimens of New Zealand birds Sir Walter Duller, of Wellington, sold to the Carnegie Museum at Pittsburg, America, for £IOOO. The Stephen Island wren was always rare. It had weak wings, and was never seen to fly, and may have been flightless. It ran or hopped on the ground like a mouse. The cat is blamed, but collectors may have had as much to do with its fate as the cat had.

Sixty-five years ago wild cats—their popular name, although not quite correct, may bo retained for convenience—were fairly plentiful in parts of Central Qtago where there was fern, scrub, or other cover. Their origin was ascribed to domestic cats kept by miners and shepherds. They seemed to have had the same traits as the wild cat mad with wounds with which Macaulay illustrated the fierce assault, the sudden spring, In “Lays of Ancient Rome,” Sir Robert Stout wrote of them; “ They grbw to an immense size. If attacked they were game to the last, and no dog would tackle one single-handed. They were always in the pink of condition, which may be accounted for by the abundance of food ip the 'shape of wekas, ducks, and rats, with perhaps a dead sheep or a bullock occasionally. When rabbit poisoning came in, that class or variety of cat disappeared. Other cats were turned out, but rabbit trapping prevented their increase. They were much smaller than the wild cats of the seventies.”

Cats had a commercial value in New Zealand when sheep farmers were alarmed by the xapid increase of rabbit*. Domestic cats bought In the towns were turned out on the sheep stations, especially in the back country. These cats and their progeny killed many young rabbits. A Canterbury sheep farmer estimated that one wild cat .killed more rabbits in a month than a stoat or a weasel killed in six months.

Mischief by wild cats was exaggerated by Dr E. Dieffenbach, naturalist to the New Zealand Company, when he wrote that they tended to destroy many native species of birds. He was astray in stating that wild eats had resumed the streaky grey colour of their wild ancestors. Misled by Dieffenbach, Charles Darwin accepted wild cats in New Zealand as proof of a strong tendency by the cat race towards reversion when it abandons domestication, Mr G. M, Thomson pointed out that at the time of Dieffenbach’s visit, 98 years ago, oats had not long been brought to New Zealand, and there had not been time for such a marked result from domestic animals going back to a wild state. If Dieffenbach saw grey cats in New Zealand their ancestors were grey. More probably, he relied on settlers’ reports. Mr Thomson found many colours in wild cats in Central Otago. Mr R. Henry referred to red wild cats at Manapouri Station in 1881. Mr H. C. Weir saw genuine wild cats in Sutherlandshire, Scotland. They had a tigerlike stripe. He never saw that character on grey, yellow, and black wild cats on his station at Ida Valley, Otago. The genuine wild eat seems to have become extinct in England, where, formerly, it was common. It is seen, in parts of Scotland, but not often. There Is no evidence that it ever was in Ireland. The genuine wild cat, as defined in “The Cambridge Natural History,” has a proportionately longer body and limbs than the domestic cat, a shorter and thicker tail, and the pads of its toes are not quite black. The domestic cat is regarded as the descendant of an Egyptian species, which the Egyptians may have taken ' from' Persia. There is evidence that the domestic cat is not a native of the British Isles, but was introduced from the East and mated with the genuine wild cat, which was in England before it. Investigators find some support for this theory in the legend of Dick Whittington’s cat. They say that the reference to the domestic cat in the legend shows that it wjs rare and valuable, having been introduced not long before the legend had a start.

Few animals have been written up so thoroughly as the cat. Few have earned such widely different feelings from human beings. Its structure, physical characters and psychology have been intensively studied. Odious comparisons are made between it and the dog. The most slanderous references to the oat were made by an anonymous writer: “ Its youthful sportiveness, beautiful fur and gentle demureness of manner in after-life dispose mankind to regard it with kindness, but in many cases attempts to cultivate its good qualities are said to be followed by slight success, and to meet with much deceit and ingratitude. Its treacherous calmness of disposition needs, we are told, slight provocation to be changed to vengeful malignity. When hurt or much alarmed, it is ready to attack its best benefactor with as much fury as a stranger. Being highly sensitive and fond of ease, it evinces little anxiety except for the continuance of its enjoyment, and it is ever prepared to seek more comfortable quarters whenever the condition of its patrons renders a movement politic.”

Sir J. Arthur Thomson, of Aberdeen, was fairer. Following is his summing up: “Has any human being the hardihood to say that he or sire understands a cat? Affectionate but capricious, attached but reserved, proverbially tame but with hidden wildness, sociable but

walking alone, the. cat is a bundle of inconsistencies. It has no enthusiasm. Fond of master or mistress, it prefers the house to either of them. It has been dependent on man for thousands of years and with no end of polite ways, yet, when not pampered, full of lurking wildness. Nobody can call a cat a friend. A dog becomes low-spirited if you do not assure it of your approbation and affection. A cat does not turn a hair. It likes to be petted in moderation and purs delightfully, but it can go without and be quite happy. Of its intelligence there is no doubt. A dog is clever; a cat is a Sphinx. After we have granted intelligence, the cat, in respect to feeling, remains a mystery.”