Dogs vs Cats

[Gerald Tarrant]

I thought this was kind of interesting

When it comes to pursuing prey, dogs do it much more efficiently than cats. So do humans, for that matter. The fact that cats are generally considered better hunters shows that evolution doesn't always favor efficiency. It all depends on what kind of niche a species can carve out for itself.

"It is usually assumed that efficiency is what matters in evolution," Daniel Schmitt, an evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University, said in a news release about the latest dog vs. cat research. "We've found that's too simple a way of looking at evolution, because there are some animals that need to operate at high energy cost and low efficiency."

Take cats, for example. Schmitt and his colleagues videotaped six housecats (Felis catis) as they moved along a 6-yard-long runway in pursuit of food treats or toys. Then they analyzed the biomechanics of their gait in detail.

The results, published Nov. 26 in the open-access journal PLoS ONE, show that cats could reduce the muscular work required to move forward by no more than 37 percent as they pursued their "prey." In a stalking posture, the cats' efficiency was even worse.

Dogs and other species that specialize in long-distance chases can run much more efficiently, reducing their work by up to 70 percent. The researchers surmised that the feline hunting style - used by a housecat stalking a bird, or a cheetah stalking an antelope in the wild - trades off efficiency for stealth.

"These data show a previously unrecognized mechanical relationship in which crouched postures are associated with changes in footfall pattern, which are in turn related to reduced mechanical energy recovery," the researchers wrote.

When a cat slinks close to the ground, it moves its front and back ends in a relatively inefficient, self-canceling pattern that results in a smooth, flowing forward motion, Schmitt said. "If they're creeping, they're going to put this foot down, and then that foot down, and then that one, in an even fashion. We think it has to do with stability and caution," he said.

Humans vs. cats vs. dogs
Previous research has shown that humans are even better than dogs or cats at long-distance runs. In fact, Harvard anthropologist Daniel Lieberman and his colleagues have argued that the human body (with our hairless skin and sweat glands, our springy tendons and twistable torso) is uniquely suited to long-distance running under conditions that would give other animals heat stroke. That's why we're the only animals that voluntarily run marathons.

Such findings mesh with Schmitt's research into the origins of human bipedalism.

"It was only a little more than a million years ago that we developed the long-legged, striding gait in which we exchanged energy efficiently," he told me today. "Our early ancestors, 3 million years ago, walked along like apes with their knees bent, and they weren't able to exchange energy."

The news that there was a hunting-related category where dogs did better than cats came as a bit of a surprise to Leslie Lyons, an expert on cats at the University of California at Davis. "Actually, I find that kind of interesting," she told me.

But she still thinks cats hold the edge in all-around hunting skill. "Overall, they've fine-tuned their system," she said.

Are cats a breed apart?
What's not surprising is that dogs and humans are more alike in their hunting style than cats and humans would be. DNA analysis has shown that dogs and humans have co-evolved for tens of thousands of years - while cats appear to be more recent companions for the human species.

"We can somewhat argue that cats are in the domestication process right now. ... Definitely the cat domestication process is more recent, occurring once agriculture got started, maybe 8,000 to 10,000 years ago," Lyons said.

Cats are definitely a breed apart when it comes to running, Schmitt said. Most other species appear to have undergone selection for a style of locomotion that favors low-oxygen consumption and low energy use for high-yield movement. "We thought cats would be the same, but we saw that they were sacrificing this to be stealthy," he said.

Schmitt emphasized that he and his colleagues weren't trying to set off a cat vs. dog controversy ... although that kind of debate always draws a crowd. "What really excited us about this paper is less the cat vs. dog angle, but more the idea that animals need to make compromises," Schmitt said.

Feel free to weigh in on the issues raised by evolutionary biology in the comment section below. And if you want to argue over which is better, cats or dogs, I won't stop you.

Link
I can see how cat stalking behavior is energy intensive, cats're getting all tense and poised to pounce. Also I hope no one objects to the violation of the CvD moratorium

[Darth Onasi]

So basically, dogs run faster, cats are more stealthy?
DUH.

[Bounty]

When it comes to pursuing prey, dogs do it much more efficiently than cats.

Obviously, since cats don't "pursue" prey. They trade the energy spent running after birds for energy spent creeping up to them and breaking their neck before they can even think of escaping.

That's like saying a shower is inefficient at heating food. Yes, of course it is, it's optimized for a completely different purpose.

[Coyote]

I saw that. It was not well thought out, IMO, since they also neglected to really look into the fact that dogs are social hunters, using pack tactics, whereas the cat tends to hunt alone. The topography of the "hunt environment" as they envision it will be completely different. Cats don't really "hunt" so much as they "ambush"... it adds a variable I think is neglected in the research.

[Phantasee]

I saw that. It was not well thought out, IMO, since they also neglected to really look into the fact that dogs are social hunters, using pack tactics, whereas the cat tends to hunt alone. The topography of the "hunt environment" as they envision it will be completely different. Cats don't really "hunt" so much as they "ambush"... it adds a variable I think is neglected in the research.

That's a good point. If you're alone, you only get one shot, you don't have any backup to keep the prey from bolting.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, the writing of this article is profoundly ignorant. The idea that evolution was always assumed to favour efficiency up till now is just pure bullshit. Scientists have known for ages that many traits were inefficient, like the brilliant plumage on peacocks which attracts females but which serves no other purpose, consumes resources for growth and maintenance, and increases visibility to predators.

[salm]

I think they´re not using the term "efficiency" broadly enough. Efficiency means that a species is efficient in surviving and reproducing, not necessarily efficient in a specific ability.

[Shogoki]

I saw that. It was not well thought out, IMO, since they also neglected to really look into the fact that dogs are social hunters, using pack tactics, whereas the cat tends to hunt alone. The topography of the "hunt environment" as they envision it will be completely different. Cats don't really "hunt" so much as they "ambush"... it adds a variable I think is neglected in the research.

That's a good point. If you're alone, you only get one shot, you don't have any backup to keep the prey from bolting.

There's are events where they overlap, though, in Africa, where lion prides and wild dog packs hunt the same pray most of the time (gazelles and baby wildebeests), and the dogs' hunting success rate is much higher, as in, once the target is chosen it's deathwarrant is pretty much signed, while lions are lucky to get up to 30% IIRC.

[Glass Pearl Player]

I saw that. It was not well thought out, IMO, since
they also neglected to really look into the fact that dogs are social
hunters, using pack tactics, whereas the cat tends to hunt alone. The
topography of the "hunt environment" as they envision it will be
completely different. Cats don't really "hunt" so much as they
"ambush"... it adds a variable I think is neglected in the
research.

That's a good point. If you're alone, you only get one shot, you don't have any backup to keep the prey from bolting.

I think the problem is not that the prey might bolt. The problem is: Where does the prey go when it bolts?
For wolf packs hunting large animals, the answer is: Somewhere we can follow - wherever a deer can get to, a wolf can get there as well or even better. So they run with it. If its a long run, that's even better, it means tired prey giving less of a fight at the end.
Cats hunting fish, mice or birds DO get only one shot, but not because they're alone. It's because their prey is either caught or gone for good. Mice can hide in holes, fish dash for deeper water, birds simply get airborne. In neither case does efficient running or extreme endurance do any good. Retractable claws not clicking on hard ground and a gait that allows you "to cancel a step" when it would make too much noise do.

[Coyote]

It always seemed to me-- not being a zoologist-- that getting an animal to run was part of the wolfpack's plan. To get it tired and separated from the herd, and then drive it to a place where it can be ringed and picked apart.

The big cats have a totally different approach (Cheetahs being an exception)-- the slow stalk, stealth... and the one fast strike. Or even the pounce-from-the-tree trick. I think cats also try to get the animal on the ground and hold onto the neck for back-claw raking, like running in place. Wolves/Dogs dart in, nip at vulnerable areas, then back out. When the cornered animal turns to face the wolf, he's turned his back on another wolf, who does the same...

[Alyrium Denryle]

It always seemed to me-- not being a zoologist-- that getting an animal to run was part of the wolfpack's plan. To get it tired and separated from the herd, and then drive it to a place where it can be ringed and picked apart.

The big cats have a totally different approach (Cheetahs being an exception)-- the slow stalk, stealth... and the one fast strike. Or even the pounce-from-the-tree trick. I think cats also try to get the animal on the ground and hold onto the neck for back-claw raking, like running in place. Wolves/Dogs dart in, nip at vulnerable areas, then back out. When the cornered animal turns to face the wolf, he's turned his back on another wolf, who does the same...

Dogs are more of the "Run it until it died of exhaustion" predators. They use the "nip them to death" strategy when the animal is to exhausted to effectively escape or defend itself.

Cats (cheetahs included, they take it to an extreme for big cats) get as close as they can without being detected and then pounce, lions being the primary exception to this, and they still rely on a coordinated stalk-pounce. The big cats just do a bit of chasing because their prey is REALLY good at detecting large cats.

Frankly, the writing of this article is profoundly ignorant. The idea that evolution was always assumed to favour efficiency up till now is just pure bullshit. Scientists have known for ages that many traits were inefficient, like the brilliant plumage on peacocks which attracts females but which serves no other purpose, consumes resources for growth and maintenance, and increases visibility to predators.

Efficiency is constrained by the strategy. I am sure that the cats have a very energy efficient stalk.

The peacocks tail is an honest signal of male quality. A male looks at that thing and it tells her that the male who has it can not only produce the feathers, but the energetically expensive protein-based pigments, and feed himself, and dodge predators. He must be all that and a bag of chips. That is why it is so ridiculous. Every generation ups the anty as the lower male rung are selected out, shifting the mean tail brightness and size (within the constraints of heritability)

As for this study... if the reporting is in any way accurate, I never would have funded this, or let it pass peer review. The question was frivelous and the hypothesis... frankly worthless.

[Vendetta]

Frankly, the writing of this article is profoundly ignorant. The idea that evolution was always assumed to favour efficiency up till now is just pure bullshit. Scientists have known for ages that many traits were inefficient, like the brilliant plumage on peacocks which attracts females but which serves no other purpose, consumes resources for growth and maintenance, and increases visibility to predators.

Science journalism by the mainstream media is shocking. It comes as no surprise that they completely ignore actual science in order to talk up the study they're reporting on (they are, after all, sensationalist by design, so making a study out to be "Brand New And Shocking" rather than "Confirmation Of Things We Already Knew" is much better for them.

[Coyote]

The media, when it comes to science, just plain does not give a fuck. They have a very "Game Show" mentality, with flashing lights and contrived difficulties.

If one person said the moon was made of rock, and another person said the Moon was made of green cheese, the media would report "Controversy About the Moon!" as if the green cheese claim had a shot at legitimacy. They want the argument, not the facts.

[Plekhanov]

I saw that. It was not well thought out, IMO, since they also neglected to really look into the fact that dogs are social hunters, using pack tactics, whereas the cat tends to hunt alone. The topography of the "hunt environment" as they envision it will be completely different. Cats don't really "hunt" so much as they "ambush"... it adds a variable I think is neglected in the research.

That's a good point. If you're alone, you only get one shot, you don't have any backup to keep the prey from bolting.

There's are events where they overlap, though, in Africa, where lion prides and wild dog packs hunt the same pray most of the time (gazelles and baby wildebeests), and the dogs' hunting success rate is much higher, as in, once the target is chosen it's deathwarrant is pretty much signed, while lions are lucky to get up to 30% IIRC.

That kind of stat doesn't really tell you much about efficiency though unless you also know how much energy is expended in an average lion or wild dog hunt.

[The Yosemite Bear]

let's not forget camoflage, dogs haven't exactly adapted profile disrupting dazzle patterns to their fur either.... (Tigers, Leopards, Lynxs, Jaguars and Domestic Cats have)

[Coyote]

let's not forget camoflage, dogs haven't exactly adapted profile disrupting dazzle patterns to their fur either.... (Tigers, Leopards, Lynxs, Jaguars and Domestic Cats have)

Actually, they have, to an extent, just not as much as some cats.

Wolves and many dogs tend to have light fur on the bottom, darker fur on top-- that serves as a contrast to the idea that "lower part = shadows" and "higher part = light". But they usually do not have the distinctive patterns of, say, a tiger. Just more of a shadow disruption pattern.

[FSTargetDrone]

let's not forget camoflage, dogs haven't exactly adapted profile disrupting dazzle patterns to their fur either.... (Tigers, Leopards, Lynxs, Jaguars and Domestic Cats have)

Check out this picture-packed page featuring dogs with brindled fur patterns. Some of them are quite similar to the animals you mentioned, though less defined as Coyote says.

And once again, I will proudly display the picture of my sister's Boxer/Retriever. He has brindled fur with a white underbelly (not visible here).

[Crown]

Frankly, the writing of this article is profoundly ignorant. The idea that evolution was always assumed to favour efficiency up till now is just pure bullshit. Scientists have known for ages that many traits were inefficient, like the brilliant plumage on peacocks which attracts females but which serves no other purpose, consumes resources for growth and maintenance, and increases visibility to predators.

I think Schmitt has a little ideological axe to grind with his other fellow evolutionists. I remember reading an article way, way back in a fitness magazine about running, in particular long distance running and why humans are so good and adept at it. IIRC Schmitt (if it is even the same guy) was arguing that our early ancestors would basically 'hunt' by running prey to ground, just giving them no respite until the animal died of heat stroke. He provided examples of the huntsmen of the Serengeti doing this exact tactic today.

Basically he's hypothesis was our modern day form was a derivative of our early hunting techniques; or as he liked to call it 'we were born to run'. Something which other evolutionists were saying was a 'bit of a stretch'.

Anyway, it's from memory, but this article smacks of the same thing as the one I read a long time ago.

[Akkleptos]

Well, while both dogs and cats have evolved to be top predators, it is also true they hunt in very different ways. As previously stated throughout the thread, dogs (just as wolves, of whom they're but a domesticated subspecies) rely heavily on pack-style hunting -thus their heavy evolutionary expense in a superior sense of smell, social hierarchy instinct, etc- whereas cats rely essentialy -in the
case of most wild cats- on the ability to stalk and pounce on prey. This of course calls for different physical abilities, and, as previously clarified, energy efficiency in locomotion is only a part of the equation.

If a cat has to stalk and approach its prey stealthily to have dinner, well, so be it. It's its niche. Do they have a low kill ratio compared to canines? Well, considering energy expenditure, how does the "low-efficiency" stalking and stealthy approach of one cat compare to a whole canine pack's running and withering attacks, in regards of food obtained?

As mentioned before by Darth Wong, the angle and phrasing of the article is rather flawed from the beginning. Nevertheless, if it all came down to that, I'd be willing to bet that, in a fight, a kilo
of cat beats a kilo of dog, every time; meaning that given equal mass, a cat is just more efficient a killer in direct confrontation than a canine (say, house cat vs Chihuahua dog -I've seen this one, even though it could be dismissed as anecdotal- or a puma against a dog of comparable weight).

Another interesting bit is the fact that many different species of cats have survived up until today -when they're driven towards extinction by destruction of habitat, poaching and hunting), whereas the canine species today cannot compare in either size or strength to the cat's heavyweights that are still around, such as tigers, lions, leopards and jaguars, (not even the legendary dire wolf would be a match for, say, a hungry leopard) suggesting that canines are great pack-hunters, whereas cats mostly rely on stealth, stalking, brute force and their fomidable fangs and claws to finish up prey way heavier than themselves in a matter of minutes (sometimes even seconds, as is the case of big cats and buffalos -the real ones, not bison- or large antelopes).

Of course, if you want a great pal that can also be guardian and a quite effective burglar deterrent, you'd go for a wolf (dog, scientists have determined they're not far apart enough to call them different species), but we're not discussing pets here.

__
Anyway, sorry about the lengthy post. I'm just excited as this is my first post after lurking around, reading threads all over the place for quite a while now. Greetings to all!

[Akkleptos]

Sorry about this back-to-back posting but I really need to plead:

Please don't let this thread go necro!

[Crown]

Sorry about this back-to-back posting but I really need to plead:

Please don't let this thread go necro!

Unfortunately, all that needed to be said, has been said. I know this being your first thread you might think you've had a bit of an auspicious beginning, but don't fret it. Believe me, I'm the touch of death to threads, you just haven't figured that out yet.



Oh, and welcome to the board.