Municipal regulations and humane movement policies often restrict or discourage the use of ‘exotic’ species as companion animals. However, confusion arises because the term ‘exotic’ is used in various ways, and because classifying species as exotic or non-exotic does not satisfactorily distinguish suitable from unsuitable companion animals. Even among commonly kept species, some appear to be much more suitable than others. Instead, decisions about suitable companion animal species need to be based on a number of relevant issues. As ethical criteria, we considered that keeping a companion animal should not jeopardize - and ideally should enhance - its welfare, as well as that of its owner; and that keeping a companion animal should not incur any appreciable harm or risk of harm to the community or the environment. These criteria then served as the basis for identifying and organizing the various concerns that may arise over keeping a species for companionship. Concerns include how the animals are procured and transported, how well their needs can be met in captivity, whether the animal poses any danger to others, and whether the animal might cause environmental damage. These concerns were organized into a checklist of questions that form a basis for assigning species to five proposed categories reflecting their suitability as companion animals. This assessment framework could be used in creating policy or regulations, and to create educational and decision-making tools for pet retailers, animal adoption workers, and potential owners, to help prevent animals from being placed in unsuitable circumstances.

In the last three lines of Catullus’ ‘dead sparrow’ poem (. . . o miselle passer! / tua nunc opera meae puellae / flendo turgiduli rubent ocelli, Catull. 3.16–18), the poet turns his attention from the fate of the passer to the effect that its death has on Lesbia. What is remarkable here is the accumulation of diminutives (miselle, puellae, turgiduli, ocelli), a feature which most translators fail to take sufficiently into account. In particular, the employment of two (comparatively rare) diminutive adjectives is especially striking. The effect of such overkill is mock pathos, but why does Catullus end his poem on a parodic note? I would like to suggest that we view this in the light of the Romans’ tendency to criticise excessive emotional display regarding pets and especially to their deaths, the implication being that Lesbia's reaction is overdone. Catullus’ mocking of his girl's unbounded grief for her pet is also to be linked to poem 2 where, it could be argued, the poet displays jealousy of Lesbia's emotional commitment to the passer.

Twenty-one cat owners from a 100 km2 area, centred on Carnforth, Lancashire, England, recorded each dead prey item delivered by their cat or cats during an 8-week period, following one of three experimental schedules, each of which required each cat to have a bell on a collar for only half of the time. The mean number of items each cat delivered to the owner was 2.9 in the 4 weeks when the cats had a bell attached, compared to 5.5 for the equivalent time when the bell was absent. The bell had no effect on the relative numbers of different prey types delivered, and there was no evidence that the cats adapted their hunting behaviour to reduce the effect of the bell over time.