By accepting the Greek references, we can now look at the geographic distribution of the polecat to see if it can provide any clarity to the question. According to modern species distribution maps, neither polecat is currently found in Greece. However, both polecats are found in areas of Europe that correspond to ancient Macedonia, just to the northeast. Paleontological and zooarchaeological evidence suggest that once the two polecats had a wider distribution that extended into northern Greece, but the data are skimpy. However, even if polecats were not found in ancient Greece during the time of Aristotle, Aesop, and Aristophanes, trade was extensive in that region and time, and it would not be a stretch to assume polecats could be frequently imported. Besides, who said the Greeks domesticated the polecat? It could be that at the time of the Greek writers, the ferret had already been domesticated, and they had simply been traded into that country. There is a historic document from 1826 that is of interest, which describes an AD 1221 Mongol hunting circle at Termed (or Termez, now in Afghanistan). In this account, Genghis Khan used ferrets to drive animals out of burrows during his "lets kill every animal within our circle" hunts. If this document is correct, it raises some interesting implications, most importantly, where did he get the ferrets? If ferrets were domesticated in the west, did he trade for them, or were they spoils of war? If so, since the lifespan of ferrets is relatively short, were they bred to steppe polecats to increase numbers or continue possession? Or, were they independently domesticated, with only the idea of domesticating ferrets moving eastward? These questions lack an answer, but they do imply that there was a considerable amount of steppe polecat bred into the ferret. There still continues to be some modern ferret book authors that persist in insisting that the ferret was domesticated in Egypt sometime before the cat. Can this be possible, and if so, can it answer questions of which polecat was the progenitor of the ferret? For the ferret to be domesticated, there has to have been a progenitor, yet Egypt--indeed the entire region from the mountains of Morocco to the mountains of Lebanon--lacks polecats of either kind. There is no word in ancient Egyptian for polecat or ferret, there are no ferret or polecat mummies, and the hieroglyphs used to support the idea actually illustrate various mongooses or otters. Polecats lack the physiology to survive in such a dry and hot climate. There are no historic documents describing ferrets or their use in Egypt. In short, there is no linguistic, archaeological, paleontological, zoological, physiological, or historic evidence supporting the idea. It is a hypothesis that has been falsified; ferrets were not domesticated in Egypt, so looking to that region will not help us determine the progenitor. So, even by using multiple points of attack, including historic records, genetics, geographic distribution, linguistics, and morphometrics, we still haven't been able to identify the progenitor of the ferret. But that is also a very important clue, and one few students of domestication have perused. In fact, I believe it gives us the answer if we look at it in the correct way. First, what are the actually possibilities utilizing the available evidence? 1) The ferret could have been domesticated from the steppe polecat, then later hybridized with the European polecat. 2) The ferret could have been domesticated from the European polecat, then later hybridized with the steppe polecat. 3) The ferret could have been independently domesticated from both polecats, then later the domestic forms could have been hybridized. 4) The ferret could have been domesticated from European polecat_x_steppe polecat hybrids, and later independently hybridized with both species. 5) Any combination of the above. All these possibilities explain the historic documents, the genetic findings, the physical similarities to both species, and the geographic distribution of the progenitors and the early domestic versions. In short, it is probable at least one of these possibilities provides the best answer to the question. The bad news is that it will be extremely difficult to identify the exact possibility. The good news is, while the exact mechanism of domestication may not be known, we can still be sure of one thing: during the ferret's long history of domestication, both polecats were utilized to develop our beloved pet. So, what does all this mean? It means the ferret is probably neither a domesticated European polecat, nor a domesticated steppe polecat. Ultimately, it is probably a hybrid of both. Because the keeping of ferrets shifted westward with the Romans and the introduction of the rabbit and rat in greater Europe, introgression with the European polecat has influenced many of the characteristics of the ferret, making the western species appear to have a greater genetic contribution. In the final account, because introgression to both polecats has made the distinction quite difficult--if even possible--and because the ferret is most likely a hybrid of both, the most suitable scientific name for the domesticated ferret would be "Mustela furo." Bob C [log in to unmask] [Posted in FML issue 4730]