THE EGYPTIAN CAT 
Felts chans. 
Plate IX. 
The Marsh-Cat or Chaus seems, like many of its congeners, to have rather a wide geographical range. It was 
first described by Gfildensted in the latter part of the past century, from examples obtained in the marshes of 
the Yolga, near the Caspian. It is said to be common in Persia, and extends from Egypt up the valley of the 
Nile into Nubia. It is also found all over India, frequenting busby and moist situations, and resembling other 
Wild Cats in its stealthy and nocturnal habits. 
The specimen here represented, which was exhibited in the Zoological Society’s Gardens in 1852, was from 
Egypt. A former animal of the same species, obtained from India, lived about six months in the Menagerie 
in 1844. 
The Chaus is of much interest as connected with the question of the origin of our domestic Cat, which, as 
it is now generally conceded by the Naturalists who have paid most attention to that very difficult subject — the 
origin of our domestic races of animals—has been derived from more than one feral species. The Fettered 
Cat of Nubia ( Felts maniculata ), for the re-discovery of which we are indebted to the researches of Dr. Riippell, 
is generally supposed to have had the largest share in the formation of our domestic animal. This, however, 
it is usually allowed, has been more or less crossed with the common Wild Cat of Europe ( Felts catus), 
particularly in countries where the latter animal is abundant in a state of nature. In India the Chaus seems 
to have frequently bred with the domesticated animal, and to have had some share in the production of at 
least one of the races of the Indian House Cat. We cannot do better than repeat what Mr. Blyth — than whom 
no one can be more worthy of attention in a case of this sort—says upon this point. Speaking (Journ. As. Soc. 
Beng. xxv. p. 442, 1856) of the two aboriginal types which are indicated by the domestic Cats of Bengal, he 
describes them as follows: — 
“ One is the streaked or spotted type, the colourings and markings of which are not much unlike those of 
the European Wild Cat (Felts catus), only more distinct, and with the transverse streaks more broken into 
spots, especially towards the hinder part of the body. The fur, however, is short, and the tail slender and of 
apparently uniform thickness to the end, showing a series of rings and a black tip: the ears are slightly 
rufescent externally, but infuscated, passing to black at the tip, where there is a distinct small pencil-tuft of 
black hairs; the paws are deep sooty black underneath. I lately saw, at Allahabad, an exact counterpart of 
this alleged wild race in a domestic Grimalkin; but, in general, the domestic Cats of this type — about Calcutta 
at least — are greyer,with the spots smaller and more numerous. 
“ The other type much resembles F. chaus in colouring, but does not at all approximate to that animal in 
its proportions. It is much smaller than the Chaus, with proportionally shorter limbs, smaller ears, and much 
longer tail, which last distinctly tapers at the extremity. Consequently, it exhibits no tendency to the Lynx-like 
form and character, so conspicuously manifest in the Chaus. The body is uniformly grizzled ‘ cat-grey,’ more 
or less rusty or fulvescent, without a trace of spot or stripe, such as may generally be discerned faintly in the 
Chaus; but the bands on the limbs are much more distinct than in that animal, those of the tail equally so; 
and there are the usual marks on the forehead and cheeks (much confused albeit on the former), and a dark 
band across the chest: lower parts more or less whitish or tinged with fulvous, and marked with blackish or 
brownish black spots: ears dull rufous behind, with a slight blackish tip and no pencil-tuft of hairs: the paws 
more or less sooty underneath. Domestic cats of this type abound in Bengal, if not generally over India; but 
such a coloration is utterly unknown among those of Europe: and the proper tabby markings (pale streaks on a 
black ground, peculiarly and symmetrically disposed), so very common in English cats, are never seen in those 
of India! The tabby may be a modification (and a very remarkable one) of the markings of the wild F. catus 
of Europe, a result of domestication; but most assuredly the Cliaus-coloured cats of India would seem to 
indicate an aboriginally wild stock of that colour, no doubt inhabiting the country somewhere. Yet if a truly 
and aboriginally wild specimen were to turn up, it would merely be regarded as a stray member of the 
domestic race, and so would end all enquiry. 
“ The only guide to a probably correct result would be, if it were ascertained, that such an animal inhabits 
a vast range of country, away from human haunts, without exhibiting the variation of colour everywhere 
observable in the domestic races ; unless in neighbourhoods where it might interbreed with the latter, which 
would pass for nothing: though to such neighbourhoods it would doubtless be attracted, just as the Chaus is! 
The question then remains—Do two such feline types exist, or either of them, in an aboriginally wild state, in 
any part of India, as have just been described, and both of which are said to be found wild in the Punjab Salt 
Range ? The difficulty of tracing the origin of many of our domestic animals is well known. I have no doubt 
that several species have contributed to produce the tame cat, one or another predominating in different 
countries; as F. catus in Europe; F. maniculata perhaps, in N.E. Africa, and besides the two presumed types 
above mentioned, F. cliaus, F. omata, and F. ruhiginosa have been known to interbreed with domestic cats in this 
country: probably also F. manul, in Middle Asia, F. planiceps in the Malay countries, and F. cafra in S. Africa ! 
Indeed, I find that examples of the hybrid from F. cafra are in the British Museum.” 
