Which of these pets have you ever owned?

Back to Survey

Rating	Total	Female	Male	Unspecified	Average Age
Good	21	12	9	0	37.6
Bad	3	3	0	0	24.1
No Opinion	75	47	28	0	39.1

Type	Number
Abstainers	11
Male	35
Female	62
Unspecified	0

Qualifiers:

User	Vote	Comment
cody	reasonable	posted 28-Feb-2001 3:06am Oh, by the way, I looked around a little more and depending on your source there is also a family called "Cricetidae", but it depends on where you look. The main sources I used only labelled it as cricetiNae a sub-family.
cody	old	posted 28-Feb-2001 1:07am Oh, yes, and one last clarification. The terms "Species" and "Genus" take on new meanings when applied to animals which are less developed. Generally, a German Shepard is considered a Sub-Species of dog, despite having sufficient differences from the smallest dog that it would be be classified as a different species (and maybe even super-species, subgenus, or genus) were it anything but a dog. THis occurs because it is easier to talk about and classify breeds of dogs (being more commonly discussed), than it is to talk about breeds of mice. It is more prudent to differentiate further between smaller and less common animals, considering that we rarely have developed other ways of differentiating between such animals.
cody	old	posted 28-Feb-2001 1:01am [You cant make this crap up]
cody	old	posted 28-Feb-2001 1:01am BTW, "Rattus norvegicus", or the Norway rat, is merely one type of rat. Incidently the most pesky. It is called the Norway rat, instead of the Norway mouse, because it is over 5.5 inches in length.
cody	old	posted 28-Feb-2001 12:59am BTW, survey creator, good survey.
cody	old	posted 28-Feb-2001 12:55am Total bullcrap MSG [spidertea, they]. Prepare to be ripped a new one. I am telling you something *I* already know, but in order to fully explain it to *you* I had to do some research [which took about an hour of my time, so say "thank you"]. This is not off the top of my head and I am too lazy to list references. Granted, my original comment is an oversimplification, mainly due to not wanting to have to go to resources. Take a deep breath everyone. There is a family of animals known as Muridae. All Rats and Mice are contained within this family. The family has 17 subfamilies; Arvicolinae, Calomyscinae, Cricetinae, Cricetomyinae, Dendromurinae, Gerbillinae, Lophiomyinae, *Murinae*, Myospalacinae, Mystromyinae, Nesomyinae, Otomyinae, Petromyscinae, Platacanthomyinae, Rhizomyinae, Sigmodontinae, and Spalacinae. Sub-Families Cricetinae, Arvicolinae [also known as Microtinae], Gerbillinae, and Myospalacinae, will hereafter be ignored due to the fact that no "rats" or "mice" are present in these groups. {Well, technically there are "sand rats" in group gerbillinae, but that is figurative speech, like "Sea lion".} There are 13 sub-families which contain rats, mice OR both rats and mice. The sub-family murinae is just one of them. The sub-family murinae includes all old-world rats and mice, and includes over 525 species. Please note that all reference to locations are to be considered "Originally" unless otherwise stated, as humans coming along with boats have screwed things up. Sigmodontinae includes all NEW WORLD rats and mice, in excess of 400 species (probably a lot more). The new world rat, has more in common with the new world mouse than it does with the old world rat, why? Because it is genetically similar. The difference between a mouse and a rat, is purely arbitrary. A length, set by humans, 5.5 inches in adult length without tail. If you are over this length, and you are a mouse or a rat, then you are a rat. If you are under, you are a mouse. Now, there ARE "rat species" [and rat genera and sub-families for that matter] and "mouse species" [and mouse genera and sub-families]. That is to say, that naturally, that if a certain group contains only big animals, naturally, all species within that group are going to be rats! BUT~ Rats and mice are NOT different branches of evolution. Sure, at the lower ends of the chart, (As msg pointed out), naturally, there are big and small species, which are then classified as rats or mice based on their size. One instance of this is Rhizomyinae, all 15 species in this subfamily happen to be over 5.5 inches, therefore they are all considered to be rats. The single species in Mystromyinae, is also a rat (over 5.5). The species within Dendromurinae, and Petromyscinae are all mice (under 5.5). The single species within Lophiomyinae is a rat (over 5.5). Otomyinae are rats (over 5.5). Platacanthomyinae are mice (under 5.5). Spalacinae, Rhizomyinae, rats. (Over 5.5). Cricetomyinae are mourats with pouches, which is weird, so we will ignore them. No one really knows wtf Calomyscinae is, but because it is under 5.5, it is called a hamster-mouse [and presumably, if it were over, it would be a hamster rat]. After eliminating all sub-families which consist entirely of mice or entirely of rats, we are left with 3 mixed subfamilies. Sigmodontinae (new world), Murinae (old world), and Nesomyinae (madagascar). In EACH of these 3 subfamilies, there are both rats AND mice. Granted, never within the same species, because a significant size difference is alone a justification for a new species classification. I do not know for certain if there are any cases of both a rat and a mouse species existing within the same genus. Theoretically, that significant of a size difference is enough to start a new genus as well, and in this case one would be tempted to. Point being, the New world rats have more in common with other new world mourats, than they do in common with madagascar rats, or old world rats. Generally then, it would be more appropriate of you to break them down by "I have owned a new world mourat". "I have owned an old world mourat". "I have owned a madagascar mourat". If you INSIST on the rat/mouse differentiation, please also include "I have owned a big cat." "I have owned a small cat". "I have owned a big dog" "I have owned a small dog". You see, tomorrow, the scientific community could decide to round it down to 5.0 and 1/10 of the mice in the world would become rats. This is why there is no REAL difference. No act of scientific renaming could make a dog a cat. Or for that matter a cow a horse. Why? Because they are DIFFERENCT ANIMALS, different branches of the taxonomical and evolutionary chart. RATS, are an arbitrarily created group which includes all animals within muridae containing certain characteristics, which are ALSO OVER 5.5 INCHES. When your child says "I want a rat" they are not talking about a specific animal, they have effectively said "I want a big species of mouse". Just like the kid saying "I want a Big dog". Its hopeless.
darkshadowsseeker	reasonable	posted 28-Feb-2001 12:12am
Richard	reasonable	posted 28-Feb-2001 12:06am
Strider	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 11:59pm
spidertea	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 6:49pm msgman is correct.
smurf	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 6:08pm
hildagard	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 5:45pm
lara	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 4:55pm
mandy	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 4:31pm
Pooh_Bear	reasonable	posted 27-Feb-2001 3:45pm
they	old	posted 27-Feb-2001 10:19am Thank you msgman.
msgman	old	posted 27-Feb-2001 8:19am Rats and mice are different species! The scientific name for the common mouse (house mouse) is Mus musculus, and the brown rat is Rattus norvegicus. This means that they are not only a different species, they are a different genus as well (the next step up in the classification system). Mice and rats are related, in that they are both branches of the subfamily Murinae. But that's no closer than many other different species within a family, and in this context I don't think it warrents linking them in the same option!
cody	old	posted 26-Feb-2001 11:34pm Allow me to explain further. All types of mice, whether evolutionarily related or not, which are over 5.5 inches, are called "rats". Let us define a Mourat as a mouse or rat. There are Mourats in australia and america. Let us define further, and make knew names for already existing things. The Australian Mourat will be called an australian rat if over 5.5 inches, or an australian mouse if under 5.5 inches. The american mourat will be called an american rat if over 5.5 inches, or an american mouse if under 5.5 inches. They are not different things, merely different terms. This is best illustrated by the fact that the Australian rat is more closely related to the australian mouse, than it is to either the american rat or mouse.
cody	old	posted 26-Feb-2001 11:26pm RATS AND MICE ARE THE SAME DAMN THING! The difference is equivalent to the difference between a German Shepard and a GreyHound. A mouse becomes a rat when its length exceeds 5.5 inches. That is the main difference. There are other differences too, but the main difference is size, they are the same animal.
msgman	old	posted 26-Feb-2001 8:56am I agree with those who say hamsters and gerbils should be separate. The fact that they are similar in size doesn't even remotely make them the same species Also, there should be an option for mice. Rats and mice are not the same either!
they	old	posted 26-Feb-2001 8:47am "Rats are generally considered mice" What? No they are not. Rats are generally considered to be rodents. Totally different thing. Rats are like 5-20 times bigger than mice. I don't care if the survey creator doesn't add any more options.(would be similar to Twist's brit TV show survey) I just want him/her to separate the hamster/gerbil option.
Strider	old	posted 26-Feb-2001 12:19am
cody	old	posted 25-Feb-2001 10:47pm But I must admit the hamster gerbil thing is slightly annoying.
cody	old	posted 25-Feb-2001 10:45pm Rats are generally considered mice. Maybe Survey Creator isnt interested in other.. worst case it is a nitpick in case SC WANTS to add it. The hamster/gerbil scenario is indicative of the authors preferences. All NW votes should have been nitpick. Nothing actually WRONG with the survey, jsut people trying to exercise control over creator. Generally it is nice to point things out SC maybe didnt think of, but that is a nitpick not needs work.
ASB	old	posted 25-Feb-2001 3:02pm This needs an option for other since you have not named every animal that could be kept as a pet. I also agree with theys comments.
Pooh_Bear	old	posted 25-Feb-2001 9:45am Agree with Kate and Richard
darkshadowsseeker	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 10:11pm You need an "other" option.
Richard	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 7:59pm I agree with ferretlover & they
ferretlover	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 7:43pm Glad that you put ferrets :) But what about mice? And other?
they	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 7:37pm I am still bothered by the fact that you didn't separate Hamsters and Gerbils... and why did rats get their own option? What about mice?
smurf	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 7:36pm
ASB	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 6:48pm Should have an option for other.
Prissy_Gurl	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 5:05pm
princeton222	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 4:24pm
lara	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 3:03pm
mandy	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 2:15pm
Pooh_Bear	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 1:08pm Could you include rabbits? They are becoming very popular pets.
Prissy_Gurl	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 11:49am I think it's lamah or lammah. Not sure.
they	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 8:54am What everyone else said... Gerbils and Hamsters are two different animals... why are they in one option? 'Lama' is misspelled... look it up. Add an other option. You might also want to change the word "owned".
hildagard	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 8:33am What's wrong with all those people? Does anyone know how to space properly? Question should be: 'Which of these pets have you owned?', and not 'Which of these pets ,have you owned?'
lara	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 8:07am Lose the comma in the middle of the sentence.
smurf	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 2:41am
princeton222	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 1:17am
Strider	old	posted 24-Feb-2001 1:16am