" the mother carries her kittens. It should also point out that the behaviour links to mating as well. During mating the male bites the female on the back of the neck, and it is noticeable that many cats will adopt a 'ready' posture, when not in heat or even male cats, when grasped by the scruff. 62.49.6.17  
I've added this, see Cat#Skin Think outside the box 

 Scientific classification 

It appears that the current use of F. silvestris catus as the main scientific name is the result of a somewhat misguided interpretation of developments in taxonomy. I propose it is changed back to F. catus. First, this is a continuation of a lot of past discussion; most recently:
/Archive 8#Species name, and
/Archive 8#Scientific name
This discussion seems to have petered out into inactivity. It was noted that publications had started using silvestris catus, but no such citations were given. The article in its current state (under #Scientific classification) cites ICZN opinion 2027. However, as was noted in the prior discussion, this is a misinterpretation of the ruling, which was specifically aimed at wild animals and did not affect domestic animals; see this note, specifically reading from ""This erroneous nomenclature"" and the preceding paragraphs. ITIS was also cited in discussion. This clearly prefers catus as the conventional name, although it cites MWS in noting that silvestris is also a synonym.

It would therefore be much more NPOV to acknowledge F. catus as the usual name. If catus and silvestris are indeed the same species then this should be discussed under #Scientific classification. Currently, this section should have {{disputed-section|Scientific classification}} put on it, because its interpretation of the source is wrong. I would do this, but I'm a new user, so semi-protection is stopping me. It would be even better if somebody can provide a source explaining the equivalence; all the most cited, most reliable sources in this discussion so far have favoured F. catus.

Also, while this is still semi-protected, I'd like to point out that both inline citations of Mammal Species of the World should be removed. The first is uncalled for by WP:LEAD#Citations. The name ""cat"" is common knowledge and is recognised by all 62 other references in the article body. The second deals with specific species names for cat breeds. MSW doesn't even mention these names, so it's unfair to synthesise from that that Wozencraft, let alone all feline biologists, does not support them. However, MSW is a useful reference, so I suggest moving the citation to external links, or a probably-needed ""Further reading"" section.   
Works for me. My opinion last time was that we should go with whatever the reliable sources say and F. catus is now the accepted name, then so be it. ''''  {chat} 
MSW3 is the canonical listing of mammalian taxonomy. It uses Felis catus and notes there is some controversy. We should do the same. -  (talk) 
I view this with suspicion. If 's interpretation is true, then ITIS should not report the domestic dog as Canis lupus familiaris, and call Canis familiaris invalid. The ITIS webpage has no entry at all for Felis silvestris catus, not even to call it invalid. Felis silvestris catus is used more and more frequently in the scientific literature. I draw this from scholar.google.com: 
From 1982-1991, 0 uses of Felis silvestris catus, many uses of Felis silvestris f catus'' whatever that notation means.
From 1992-2000, [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num;=100&btnG;=Search+Schol