Some may remember a passing motorist reporting a "cougar-like" cat at Tornaveen in Aberdeenshire on 11 th May 2001. A witness who had been observing it with binnoculars said it was almost certainly a wildcat.

Smaller cats can certainly be mistaken for larger ones, especially where there is nothing nearby to judge scale against and only a quick glimpse has been had, especially if it's at night. Of course, a long, clear look at a cat by somebody in familiar surroundings or who is familiar with wild and domestic animals is another matter.

Christina Smith, Scottish Big Cats

I think the "Shoulder" stuff is vegetation. I thought that straight away, when I took a blimp at it. Messing around a bit makes it 75%+ obvious or more so, to me. Can no one else follow the pretty well straight line of its back, *through* the browner lump of the "Shoulder"? Even if ye can't then I'd question what sort of animal has such a (deformed) large and roundly lump where we'd expect a more angular shoulder blade to appear.

In fact, on here, there's no question what so ever that the cat is flat. I could walk along the demarcation line between puss and his lump. It's a clear, unbroken line.

Colour: I'm sorry I haven't re read what people were saying above. Very hectic and I'm racing to get this down and get a respite here. But, again, I'm getting distinctly (I *believe* the cat world still calls it?) " Civet " patterning. NOT " Tabby ". You all know that sort of marbley, stripes and spots blend? Looks good on a Blue animal? That's what I see. In actual fact, if pushed for a colour, I'd suggest smokey. More blue than brown.

The face was the first thing I noticed, when Chris flashed this one up. My first thought was that that is like no face I've ever seen on a domestic type moggie. Probably run half a mile, if I did! It smacks of "Rabbit Headed" to me. But then, it's been so long since I looked at that "Rabbit Headed" thing, I'd reserve judgement.

I remember people are saying things like "Eastern cat" though and I'm all for that. No way is that a regular, 'round skulled' puss, is it?

Again, those incredible ears! I've never conciously looked at a pet and seen such ears. Burmeese? Do any of those wierd breeds have quite such ears?

Young? I don't know. But it's a Fit animal! No waste on it, is there? Long and slim is my immpression. A Very capable looking creature. I'll be that one could do things to amaze Tiddles.

As for the surroundings: All I can say is that that looks about as typically lowland, south end of england as it gets. I was in Kent in June '99. I'm perfectly happy that that could be Kent. Absolutely. East side? Unfortunatly, I have no idea what species of small tree that is, to the right there. Alder? I'd be searching through and around it for Warblers. Have, on many occassions. Thus it's completely familiar to me in shape, size and structure, even if I haven't got a clue what it's called. But it grows in the moister places. That'll be low lying ground, prone to mild water logging in the rainy season.

Heh! And That probably covers about 75% of Kent which isn't arable, housing, a ditch or tarmac!

That's my verdict, anyway, for what it's worth. Can someone please point out to me why it's NOT my old personal favourite, the good ol' Swamp / Jungle Cat? Compactly headed and a hell of a set of ears on them. (Birders Law: We see a stunning rarity and always - rather than focus on why it's such a rarity, battle against that and try to prove why it IS a 'Lesser' find. To me, a Jungly is fine. The more exotic names I'm hearing....?)

Steve.

Just a few quick points:

Shoulders: Well done Steve! Yes looking closely it does look like the "shoulders" are in fact background!

Is it real: I don't know the photographer personally, but I don't think there is any reason to doubt that it is a genuine photo.

Colouration: it certainly looks as if there's spots there.

Jungle cat? Yes, there was something, maybe the ears, that was suggesting possible jungle cat to me too, although I can't be certain. Spotting on a jungle cat though?

Could it be some sort of hybrid? This is an interesting page by Sarah Hartwell, although with not as many photos here as she often has.

Christina Smith, Scottish Big Cats

THAT'S the markings, Chris! Bottom cat, on the right! That's the exact markings And Colour I'm getting!

Yeppers. Well, anyway, what ever the cat laying at the bottom is - I didn't stop to read much - That's our boy. Markings 100%. Coulour 75%+.

Nice one, Chris!

Steve.

re: "as we all know it can be very hard to gauge an animals size at distance."

I would agree with this when it comes to photos (virtually impossible to gauge the size of a cat shape unless it is close to sth of known size) but would not be so dismissive of a reliable eye-witness' report of the size of sth at a distance. if one lives in the countryside, one is used to seeing sheep, cattle, rabbits, foxes and everything else at varying distances, and gets pretty good at judging distance in relation to size.

A friend of mine, a farmer's wife, saw a big black/dark cat on Cannock Chase a few years ago. She was in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the size of it (from a few/ hundred yards or so away) and when i asked her if there was any chance it might have been a domestic cat... She looked at me as if I was completely crackers! she knew exactly what she had seen.

re: the mystery cat, I agree with steve, the shoulder area definitely looks like blurry vegetation. maybe it's just me but it looks as if it has a black collar on (running almost vertical, just in front of its left shoulder) but steve assures me that enlarged on a hi-resolution screen like his, this is not the case... thank heavens for that....

It looks as if the cat is walking in a bit of a trough (like the ones made by tractor tyres/plough at the edge of a field) or behind tussocks of grass, because only about 1/3 of its legs seem to be visible.... is it possible to guess at its probable height?

Kerry

I think it's the African Golden Cat, Felis (Profelis) aurata that can reach up to 50lbs. (13.5-18kg)

It's that old Golden Cat Confusion scenario again, we should get Chris involved!

Reuel Chisholm, Press Officer, Scottish Big Cats

These two species can be very confusing, (African Golden Cat and Timmicks Golden Cat) no matter which authority we rely on. According to the Audubon Society Field Mannual, the African Golden Cat may reach 40 pounds. Much less study has been done on Timmicks, but the general consenus is that it's the larger of the two.

With either cat, forty pounds makes for a very big cat whenever we compare them to a domestic. Here, when hunters bag a 25 pound bobcat they estimate it to be 45. I can only wonder how large one of the 69 pounders would be.

Ben Willis

Having looked at many images of the Asiatic Golden Cat I can safely say that they vary greatly in appearance, cover a massive range and probably include many subspecies not yet properly categorized.

I also agree that differences in weights & sizes, depending on which book/source you read, can vary substantially.

Here's a link to a page on Asiatic Golden Cat research in Thailand

http://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/feline/asiatic_golden_cat.htm

If you save the photo to computer you can attain a much better quality pic, interesting to see size of human/cat, not saying all AGC's are this size though.

Reuel Chisholm, Press Officer, Scottish Big Cats

The Golden Cat situation is complicated by the fact that the African Golden Cat Profelis aurata (previously Felis aurata), was discovered and named by Temminck in the early 1800s. The Asian (or Temminck's) Golden Cat was discovered at London Zoo in 1827 and the fellows named it Felis temminckii (now Catopuma temmicki) in honour of Temminck. So Temminck's Golden Cat is actually the one that Temminck didn't discover. Confusing, isn't it!

Although they were originally thought to be very closely related, each is now placed in a seperate genus. Certainly both Asian and African Golden cats have spotted and even "ocelot-type" coat variants.

Christina Smith, Scottish Big Cats

Okay one and all, to clear a few things up. The cat photo is not a hoax but neither is the picture available of the cat running, however, the cat is not that big at all despite the deceiving muscularity in the photo. The 'running' shot shows a cat Jungle Cat-sized, with a dark brown coat (not dark enough to look black in the distance) with a lighter underside. In the 'running shot' the cat's tail also does not seem as long or hooked as in the standing photo and the hind quarters of the cat does show some spots. The head is very much 'Kellas'-like. However, as we are mainly discussing the 'standing photo' I simply do not believe the cat to be overly large, although it appears to be around three-feet in length. The photo WAS taken on Kent marshland in '98, and the guy who took the picture did not believe the felid to be that large because he at first felt it was an Italian wild cat that he'd seen on a friends computer!! Not once did he suggest he'd seen a 'big cat'.

Neil Arnold Ð KENT BIG CAT RESEARCH

" a dark brown coat(not dark enough to look black in the distance) with a lighter underside."

I was discussing our mate here with Kerri earlier on Thursday. She mentioned something about why she'd expected a paler belly colour on this customer. I pointed out that, at the angle of this shot, any such lightening would be drenched in shadow and so not show. Now Neil tells us it has indeed got a lighter belly.

" In the 'running shot' the cats tail also does not seem as long or hooked as in the standing photo "

Again, to my view, the extra long and "Hooked" tail is another illusion. I personally considered the tail, well; *Tailed off* in that grass. The dark formation behind which, I imagine, some may be guessing is the upturned (Hooked) end is, I believe, simply another piece of stick, or whatever, in the grass.

" and the hind quarters of the cat does show some spots. "

Bingo! As I was explaining before, on my screen the cat appears, well; I settled on the term "Marbled", simply for lack of a better, known to me, word. Having taken on board George Markie's assertion that the coloured spots and longer markings I can discern were in fact nothing more that distortions of the PC image, I've re examined puss and would rhetorically ask George Markie where these distortions originate.

My simple point being that, for the screen to stretch, spread, magnify or condense markings on the cats coat, there have to *BE* such markings *TO* so distort. It remains clear to my vision that, what ever their true size and width, these marking are there.

Futhermore, these markings are obviously of both a (distorted?) spot And 'line' nature. (I hesitate to say stripes, as the markings show bent lines, as opposed to the straight ones which, to my mind at least, "Stripes" conjures up)

" The head is very much 'Kellas'-like. "

While, here, my instinct is to bow to Neil's advantaged knowledge of the Kent cats appearance - he having been privelidged to have studied a further shot - I would rather suggest that we must, surely, all be able to see what shape that head is. I tentatively suggest Neil, by use of the term " 'Kellas' - like " might be referring or more mentally influenced by what many of us refer to as the *Rabbit Headed* form of cat which, I believe, some consider a sort of sub form of 'true' or 'normal' "Kellas Cat".

Either way, puss here shows a bowed 'face' and extended muzzle quite unfamiliar to me except on the man made monstrosity now referred to as the " English Bull Terrier " and / or that absolute monstrosity we know as the " Rabbit Headed Cat ". I really have no opinion on the origins of RHC and so can offer none on this chap. Perhaps his mother thought him beautifull?

As for those huge ears; Again, I'm not familiar enough with domestic varieties of cat, but I'd venture to suggest such as those would only, normally, be found on the more exotic - quite probably 'Eastern' types. They would certainly be considered remarkable on a regular, domestic (or feral) mogg.

" I simply do not believe the cat to be overly large, although it appears to be around three-feet in length. "

And that, Neil, is what made me start writing this. More precisely, it was the crude, experimental judgements I have just made which lead me to advance this further appraisal of the shot:

Ben, most certainly, is at a slight possible disadvantage among us. This is because I don't imagine he's too personally familiar with our British countryside. I'm sure parts of USA must look strikingly similar, but that's really not the idea.

For those of us with a lifetime of wandering about the place though, it's almost instinctual to recognise - if not by scientific name - that sort of pale, dry, stalky grass. We've all walked through it a million times and I would suggest a fair rule of thumb would be to say it usually grows to about the 24" mark. On me, an average man, that's just above my knee. That stuff appears to be at a wayside position and there such grass seemingly always grows even longer. Agreed? (Go out and check, if ye have access, please).

Now, taking my *Two Foot Rule*, I measured the grass, on my screen. 1 1/4" seems a fair estimate of its average height. Catty measures a bit over 1 1/4". Thus, by this rough rule, he is, indeed, aproximatly 26 - 27", tip of snout to base of tail. Now, I don't *like* moggies and so am not familiar with what length one should be, in inches.

However, looking at that span on my Stanley, I'd suggest that's 'One big cat!' No. *NOT* Leopardy type 'Big Cat'. But surely one nightmare for mice. If we allow that the grass, thus positioned, is very likely well in excess of 24" inches? Then I think catty represents something fast approaching even a moggie's worst dreams.

Perhaps George Markie, Terry, or any others among you with a better grasp of the physics of all this could work into the above equation the likely effect of the distance between cat and grass? I recognise guaging how far 'behind' catty the grass is may be virtually impossible, with much accuracy. I'm more interested in the simple rule of distance with relation to scale. I.e. Would the hypothesis that the grass is, eg. 24" behind cat there mean we may have to adjust our grass to cat ratio up or downward? (Is that a clear enough presentation of my question?)

" The photo WAS taken on Kent marshland in '98 "

Never entered my head to question that personaly, Neil. I'm familiar with Kent's marshlands and many other South Coast marsh areas too. If ye hadn't told us, I'd likely have guessed a marsh, 'Somewhere in the *south*'.

" the guy who took the picture did not believe the felid to be that large because he at first felt it was an Italian wild cat that he'd seen on a friends computer!! Not once did he suggest he'd seen a 'big cat'."

Again, I do not know what an "Italian Wildcat" is supposed to look like, having never, knowingly, seen one on This computer. However, again, it never once occurred to me that anyone was suggesting we *should* consider this a 'Big Cat'. A " Fair old CAT ", yes. A cat it would be stretching a point to suggest was a moggie? I'd think so. To me, it would seem almost as absurd to suggest this cat is *either* a cougar / Leopard scale monster *Or* simply a moggy. It just doesn't conform to either example.

In conclusion? I don't think I'll live to regret stating here that this character, now that I've so been able to examine him, probably represents the most convincing evidence I've personally seen since they ran that one over at Hayling Island. And that one, preserved and mounted and right now, I believe, displayed in Havant Museum, has been conclusivly identified as a " Swamp " or " Jungle " cat. Chaus? Perhaps somebody could provide the definative answer?

Kent Cat a Chaus / Chaus Hybrid? I'm not qualified to hazard a sustainable guess. Now what do ye all say?

Steve.

"Again, to my view, the extra long and "Hooked" tail is another illusion."

Yes I'll agree with that, can't say for sure whether the tip is there or not.

"It remains clear to my vision that, what ever their true size and width, these marking are there."

Can't comment too much on the 'marbling' (as I can't really see it), but I do see browns instead of black.

"I would rather suggest that we must, surely, all be able to see what shape that head is. "

I think we should always be hesitant at discerning what the true form/shape of an animal appears to be, when looking at long fuzzy shots like this. The head may very well be this shape, but then again it may not. Check out the Golden Cat profile

(There is a slight distortion on the bridge of the nose due to a leaf behind the cat's head).

"Either way, puss here shows a bowed 'face'"

Maybe.

"Kent Cat a Chaus / Chaus Hybrid? I'm not qualified to hazard a sustainable guess. Now what do ye all say?"

I think Ben went for a 35lb Jungly of some sort and I wasn't so bold so plummed for something in the region of 25-40lb, also Jungly (that's not a scientific name by the way, and in my brain includes all medium sized cats, from the jungle!).

Reuel Chisholm, Press Officer, Scottish Big Cats

Second photo of exotic felid in Kent

Taken by Harry Matthew 1998.

I managed to track down the 'running cat' photo regarding the photo I sent you previously, as discussed on your site, of the marshland Kent cat. This picture now shows the animal in its full glory, no muscle in the shouler, no long, curving tail, so hope you can post it on your board and see what people think now.

All the best,

Neil Arnold Ð KENT BIG CAT RESEARCH

Many thanks for the other photo. It looks very like a Jungle Cat-like to me, or possibly a hybrid.

Christina Smith, Publications Officer, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

Yes, it seems to be very Jungle Cat. And it also differs quite a deal from the original photo which seemed to show a muscular shouldered cat with a hooked tail.

Neil Arnold Ð KENT BIG CAT RESEARCH

This second photo is an interesting addition, but I think the photo itself causes more questions than answers. The leaping cat image was undoubtedly taken with a quality camera using high speed film. This being the case, I'm surprised that the first image was so fuzzy and distorted.

If anyone considered that the animal was a leopard or puma, this image solves that mystery. However, I don't believe this cat is a typical domestic moggie. It appears to possibly have white spots on the backside of the ears, and the tail-base is higher than the rump. This is not a characteristic of felis-catus, nor is the chest which appears more robust. The tip of the tail also shows some white, which could only the underside. I wouldn't fully discount this as illusions in the photograph, but I'm inclined to say the cat is something exotic.

Ben Willis, President, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

The animal is clearly not one of the big cats - but does possibly have some lesser cat in its make up. Again some scale would be useful. It could be a large domestic but the gait is also unusual to me. The back legs appear long relative to the front. I think the white spots on ears are fairly typical of marmalade cats - my own male kuril bobtail has them to go with his ginger fur - so I'm not sure this is indicative of anything.

I think it may well have mixed ancestry - the coloration aside, the profile is similar to a jungle cat from what I can tell, or even a serval with smaller ears. Clearly it is not one of these, but could it be the result of a hybridisation?

Phil Crosby, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

Neil Arnold is one of the researchers who I respect and would trust implicitly. He is one of the few people who spends the majority of his time in the field and he has amassed an amzing amount of convincing evidence and (not by chance) has more personal sightings of cats than anybody else that I know.

However, Ben and Phil have raised extremely interesting questions concerning the relative quality of the two images - the stationary cat being a little out of focus, while the image of the running cat is much better quality. I do remember Neil pointing this out when he sent us the original image.

Christina Smith, Publications Officer, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

There exist two photographs of the Kent 'cat' taken by Harry Matthews. Those posted on the Scottish Big Cats site differ in quality simply because one photo was taken straight from the net, the other was one I managed to get from a newspaper, which I scanned in myself, that is the only reason the quality differs.

I will also be able to send a much larger image shortly, in black and white, of the 'running cat'.

Most who observed 'spotted' hind legs on the felid would be correct, and also notice how there is a much less muscular gait to the animal, if there was one at all, after the comments on the first photo of the cat merely standing in the long grass on Kent marshland. The tail also appears less 'curved', and the animal also appears to be only slightly longer than a domestic cat, but the cat has a white tip to the tail, the head remains the same as in the other photo and also the colour, a darkish brown.

When interviewed on local television in 1998 about the photograph, witness Harry Matthews said, "...it was big enough not to want to have it sitting on your lap!", and that the animal took off once his camera went off.

I will seek out a better quality photo.

Neil Arnold Ð KENT BIG CAT RESEARCH

I'm certainly no expert in photography, but I suppose if the photographer had used high speed film, the excess light in the first image could have caused some distortion. A few times, I've gotten a better image of a moving target than a still one using night film.

It would seem odd that the poor image was displayed, while the good one was held back. Of course Neil has explained that he's just come across the better one.

Regarding the 'spots', 'm not sure we're talking about the same type. I was referring to what might possibly be called "thumb-spots", seen on leopards, tigers, and bobcats. I wasn't aware that any of the domestic breeds had these, but I might be mistaken.

I had Shirley Wagner in Alabama look at the image. Her opinion is that the cat is one of the Oriental breeds of domestic. She also says the tail appears too long for a wild species.

I'm more inclined to agree with Phil, that the cat is too muscular for a domestic, at least a loose pet. I also see other characteristics that suggest something more exotic. I would concede however, Shirley Wagner having some fifty years experience in wild and domestic felines has more expertise than Phil or I.

At the risk of being obsessive/compulsive, I would have the list look at the following images and share your views.

Ben Willis, President, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

Interesting photos.

I think the colouring is certainly interesting as the Kent cat might be described as a "Golden cat". ;-)

However, in build it looks much more sprightly than golden cats 2, 4 and even 5, although Golden cat 3 is fairly slim.

The ears also seem to me to be bigger than the Golden cats.

I think will stick to Jungle cat, or Jungle cat hybrid. I've take the liberty of adding a Chausie (This one is 75 % Felis chaus) for comparison.

Christina Smith, Publications Officer, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

I might would have selected the jungle-cat, except for the tail. Note how the rump is raised in the Kent cat in relation to the tail. This charactersitic is most noticeable in both the puma and golden-cats.

Also, most Jungles and Chausies have a ringed-tail which should be visble in the image. Most importantly however, is the tail length. Almost all chaus and it's hybrids have a shorter tail, and I've included another photo as an example.

Ben Willis, President, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

While I still believe the cat is Jungle cat-like, I think the point Ben makes about the markings on Jungle cat tails is valid - all the jungle cats and chausies that I can remember seeing have had striped tails, while, as far as we can se from the photo this cat's tail is not striped.

Christina Smith, Publications Officer, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

As with most all the mystery cat images, an abstract view is needed. From everything I see here, Felis aurata, the African golden-cat cat fits all the elements I can see. The head-shape, legs, markings,ears and contrasting coat color most resembles that species. That is in consideration of both images being the same animal.

Searching through feline descriptions, I find some very good images of the Aurata pelt along with some detailed information of the coat characteristics. " The tail reaches the middle of the back only. The hair-line on the neck is directed toward the crown. Two whirls, standing very close together on the shoulders" Vet.admin.ch/artenschutz

These descriptions might provide an explanation for the unusual rump I see in both images, and what appears to be tall shoulder muscles in the first photo.

This cat has varied coat phases and I've included one.

Ben Willis, President, Scottish Big Cat Trust.

---

---

Return to index	Return to Scottish Big Cats	Return to Photo Album

---