Ethogram of the Domestic Cat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a commendable effort to create a comprehensive ethogram for domestic cats, an area of research that indeed lacks a complete visual representation of feline behaviors. However, after a thorough evaluation, I have identified several significant issues that need to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

While the creation of an ethogram for domestic cats is a valuable endeavor, the manuscript does not sufficiently distinguish itself from existing works. The literature review indicates that there are already numerous ethograms available, some of which are referenced in your work (e.g., Stanton et al., 2015; Leyhausen, 1974). It is crucial to clearly articulate what new insights or unique contributions your ethogram provides beyond being a mere compilation of existing data. A more detailed comparison with existing ethograms should be included, highlighting the specific gaps your work addresses.

The methodology described for collecting and analyzing data is not adequately rigorous. The manuscript mentions that video observations were conducted over six years, but details regarding the selection criteria for the animals, consistency in observation conditions, and the potential biases introduced by ad-libitum sampling are insufficiently addressed. Furthermore, the validation process for the ethogram, which relies on student evaluations, needs to be more robustly described, particularly how inter-observer reliability was ensured and calculated.

The manuscript is dense and occasionally lacks clarity, particularly in the methods and results sections. For example, the discussion of “functional circles” and how they apply to the classification of behaviors is overly complex and could be simplified or better explained. The structure of the paper would benefit from clearer sectioning and a more logical flow of ideas. For instance, the transition from literature review to the explanation of methods is abrupt and does not allow the reader to fully grasp the context or importance of the methods used.

Although the manuscript claims to provide comprehensive schematic representations, the quality and clarity of these visuals need significant improvement. Some drawings are overly simplistic and do not convey the subtle nuances of behavior that would be expected from a high-level ethogram. Additionally, the integration of these visuals with the corresponding behavioral descriptions is sometimes disjointed. The manuscript would benefit from a more systematic approach to pairing each behavior with its visual representation, ensuring that these visuals are both scientifically accurate and easy to interpret.

The manuscript briefly mentions that ethical approval was waived for this study, as it did not involve invasive procedures. However, given the growing emphasis on ethical considerations in behavioral research, it would be prudent to provide a more detailed justification for this decision. Additionally, while informed consent was obtained from cat owners, the manuscript does not discuss how the well-being of the animals was monitored during the study. This aspect should be more thoroughly addressed to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

The review of literature, while extensive, could be more focused. The discussion of historical ethograms is informative but could be condensed to make room for a deeper analysis of recent advancements in the field. Additionally, the manuscript should include a discussion on the implications of your findings for contemporary issues in animal welfare and behavior.

Some technical details, such as the description of the software used for illustrations and data management, are overly detailed and could be moved to an appendix or supplementary materials. The main text should focus more on the scientific rationale behind these choices rather than the technical specifics.

In conclusion, this manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of feline behavior research, but it requires substantial revisions. I put my detailed comments below.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 9 to 14: clarify the specific nuances in behavior that your ethogram captures compared to existing ones.

Lines 15 to 29: the abstract is too broad and lacks a clear statement of the unique contributions of this work. It also does not clearly state the methodology used. Specify how your work fills the gaps in the existing literature.

Lines 32 to 42: the introduction needs a clearer problem statement. The justification for the study should be more explicit, highlighting the specific gaps in existing feline ethograms.

Lines 43 to 46: the reference to the need for "clearly defined behaviors" is generic. Elaborate on why existing definitions are insufficient for domestic cats specifically.

Lines 47 to 58: the description of the literature is too broad and lacks a critical analysis. Identify specific limitations in existing ethograms that your work addresses.

Line 59: the transition between the lack of a comprehensive ethogram and your study’s objectives is weak. Strengthen the connection by clearly stating the objectives of your study.

Line 99: the sampling procedure is unclear. Specify how animals were selected, the consistency of the observation conditions, and potential biases in sampling.

Lines 109 to 115: the description of the validation test is insufficient. Provide more detail on how inter-observer reliability was measured and how biases were mitigated.

Line 123: the explanation of the schematic drawings is overly detailed with technical aspects (e.g., software used) that should be moved to supplementary materials. Focus here on the scientific rationale behind the illustrations.

Line 132: the literature review process is not sufficiently detailed. Explain how the ethogram was systematically extended using literature and how conflicts in definitions were resolved.

Lines 141 to 146: the collaborative review process is vague. Specify how feedback was incorporated and how consensus was achieved.

Lines 148 to 154: the claim that this is the “first published visual ethogram” needs to be supported with a more rigorous comparison to previous works. Additionally, provide more examples of how the visual approach improves understanding.

Line 156: the concept of "functional circles" is not well explained. Simplify the explanation and ensure it is clear how these categories aid in understanding cat behavior.

Line 167: the choice of categories for functional circles should be justified with references to relevant ethological frameworks. Explain why these specific categories were chosen over others.

Lines 171 to 174: the brief mention of supplementary materials is inadequate. Clearly state what is included and how it supports the main text.

Lines 236 to 256 (Table 1): the descriptions of behaviors are detailed, but the table format may not fully capture the necessary nuances. You should provide more context or examples in the main text for each behavior.

Lines 239 to 243 (Table 2): clarify how the specific behaviors were categorized into general movement forms. Some behaviors, like "climbing," may overlap with other categories.

Lines 244 to 256 (Table 3): the distinction between orientation behaviors is subtle. Ensure that the definitions provided are clear enough to be reliably used by other researchers.

Lines 257 to 283 (Table 12): the inclusion of vocalizations is a strength, but the connection between these behaviors and the rest of the ethogram is underdeveloped. More context is needed on why these vocalizations were chosen.

Lines 228 to 232: the conclusion reiterates the main points but fails to provide a forward-looking perspective. Discuss the potential applications of this ethogram in more detail, especially in clinical settings.

Lines 270 to 273: the ethical considerations section is underdeveloped. Provide a stronger justification for waiving the need for ethical approval and discuss how animal welfare was monitored.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. We have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript. A point-by-point response has been provided, addressing each of your suggestions. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.

Best regards,

Isabelle Kappel

(representing the research group)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a complete illustrated ethogram for the domestic cat (Felis catus). It is a concise and valuable addition to the literature, that should have broad applications in future behaviour and welfare research.

Overall, the manuscript is of high quality. The main problems are with the description of the methodology and with English language. Detailed comments as follows:

 

Line 34: The term “feral” is applied to cats in a variety of different ways that can be contentious. I suggest instead replacing “some became feral” in this sentence with “some have reverted to living independently from humans” or “some have reverted to living in the wild”.

Line 35: I’m not sure it is accurate to describe the relationship between cats and humans to have “evolved” over the last centuries. Perhaps “matured” or “developed” would be more accurate.

Line 39: Suggest rephrasing. Instead of “the aim of behavioural research…”, consider “Behavioural research devoted to domestic cats aims to…”

Line 63: Delete “expressions of”

 Line 109: Please explain what is meant by “an initial period of ad libitum sampling”

Line 109: Please define “functional clusters of behaviour”. Are these the same as the “functional categories” or “functional circles” described later in the text? Please check through the manuscript and ensure terminology is consistent for groups of behaviours (categories? Clusters?) and for individual behaviours (behaviours? Specific behaviours? Behavioural units? Elements?).

Line 110: Please explain what is meant by “focal animal sampling”.

Line 112: Please describe the working group – who was involved, their roles, and how they were selected.

Line 113: Consider adding “as follows” to the end of this sentence if appropriate.

Line 114: Delete “video”

Line 114: Consider rephrasing this sentence e.g. “Five representative videos, each of two minutes duration, were selected for the validation test.” Please also explain what criteria were used to select these videos.

Line 116: Please explain what is meant by “in focal protocol”.

Line 121: Please explain what is meant by “the growing continuous list of behaviours was cross-checked against the focal protocols.”

Line 136: Consider rephrasing e.g. “The behaviours listed from the sampling described above were matched to definitions from the literature. Where additional behaviours were described in the literature that had not been observed in the sampling these were added.”

Line 154: Please clarify if any of the 132 specific behaviours were not observed in the sampling for this study. Section 2.3 suggests this might have occurred.

Line 155: Please list the 12 categories here and reference the respective tables.

Line 168: Consider replacing “we supplement” with “we add” if these are completely new categories.

Line 170: Should “body postures” be included in this list? I suggest moving this list to Line 155 and including references to the respective tables.

Line 184: Replace “longer-lasting event” with “state” if appropriate. Or please include a definition of a “state”. Delete “often” before “occurs less frequently”.

Line 189: Does “metabolic” refer to the category “food acquisition and digestion”? And does this sentence refer to the behaviour categories or the specific behaviours? Please use consistent terminology.

Line 197: Replace “work” with “literature”.

 Tables: Please check cross references between tables are correct – there appear to be many errors e.g. Table 1.12 says “See table 7.8” when it should be 7.14. Although there are no 7.7-7.13?

Table 1.4 – the caption describes “The eyes are narrowed to slits”, however this is not depicted in the illustration. Please correct the text or the image as appropriate.

Table 12 is not referred to anywhere in the text. Please include some reference to this table in the text.

Yowl recording is of poor quality. Can this be replaced?

Cat chirp recording – it is difficult to hear the chirp over the person talking. Is there a better recording of this vocalisation?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See detailed comments and suggestions above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have read your comments carefully and are pleased about your general agreement with the design and purpose of the study. Based on all the assessments, we restructured the paper and further specified the problem we are solving. We also have completely revised the methods. All the required information on the observation methods, the validation test and the evaluation is now explained in detail. In addition, we have put an overview of the literature analysis and an example of the focal protocol in the additional files and replaced the two videos of vocalisations.

As for the English language, we have followed and adapted all your suggestions, when they were still present after the restructuring. The details can be found below for each corresponding suggestion.

Thank you for the critical feedback.

Best regards,

Isabelle Kappel

(representing the research group)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors made enough changes for the manuscript to be accepted in my opinion