I have no idea, maybe some primatologist knows the anecdote behind it’s naming? Maybe the naming biologist found that one of his colleagues had neglected to name it, or to include it in a taxonomic list, or something like that

Unfortunately Amber Rudd has taken the fall for mistakes by Theresa May and many politicians on all sides.

Let’s see if Sajid Javid will continue with the good work started by Amber Rudd with the buffer zones outside abortion clinics.

Read:
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/women/an-open-letter-to-sajid-javid-from-35-groups-amber-rudd-made-a-promise-to-women-we-expect-you-to-keep/

Personally I’m tired of both Conservatives and Labour, and especially Jeremy Corbyn.

Yeah. I don’t think there’s just one explanation. I never thought my idea applied to all situations.

I think it’s highly improbable that cats looked different in the past, and I think that theory should be abandoned. Evolution tells us that’s not likely.

Despite the cat with the empty bowl, I still think cats did not have overwhelmingly human faces previously 🙂
Your theory is not as far-fetched as it appeared prima facie .
On WEIT we had:
1 – Cats were considered so human-like that these painters gave them human-like faces, more important than life-like cat-faces.
2 – The Medieval cats actually had human-like faces (The Egyptian mummies and images -as well as some good medieval cat portraits (eg Dürer)-, as well as genetics appear to make that highly unlikely).
3 – Several of these Medieval painters were broddlers/daubers (a few undoubtedly were), but then why could so many of them paint other things so life-like? ( I retracted the second part, most were, only very, very few painted animals -or humans for that matter- realistically)
4 – Cats were associated with sorcery, it would be dangerous to paint them life-like.
Dough added no 5 (close to no 1, but not identical):
5 – Cats with human faces had some symbolic significance that has been lost over time.

Note, that the latter comes very close to your hypothesis too, if one strips it of the modern connotations of ‘caricature’ and Mr McCullum as a tortoise.

Have been looking at some bestiaries. This is a good site with loads of pictures and good context:
http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beastalphashort.htm
Just choose an animal and click ‘galleries’.
All of these animals are absolutely lousily depicted (just check the crocodiles) as realistic depictions, but it becomes very clear that these animals were just emblems, some lesson, for human foibles, failings or habits. In that sense no 1, no 5 and your theory (6) are the real deal, methinks. Nevertheless, no 3 (broddlers and daubers, basically Jerry’s hypothesis) remains applicable. It is clear these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
I think we have been closing in quite well now.

It was more likely a bit of fun at the time – not meant to be recognition in perpetuity.

A lot of the statues, paintings, and even stained glass windows in churches are real people. Parishioners donated extra to have their likeness used. A stained glass window of a butcher, baker etc is likely just what that person looked like in real life. Also, faces are hard. It was easier for an artist to copy a real person than make something up. Local baddies were likely to get their faces on paintings of people heading for hell, while upright citizens were honoured by how close they were to Jesus.

Churches were a riot of colour back then – walls were covered in murals which have now worn off. They were a visual reminder of the Bible at a time when most were illiterate, and it was only available in Latin even if they weren’t.

Yes possible and ingenious, but not very probable.
How would people back then have recognised those people, since no photos and few portraits available, without some ‘clue-giving’ props??

Why go to war yourself and risk all that going to war entails if you can manipulate the big but dumb and hubristic bully on the block to do it for you?

I agree.

However, the world’s opinion means very little to Trump. He and the republicans are suckers for Netanyahu’s view and have been for years. Obama was not. What I don’t understand is, if Netanyahu wants to go to war with Iran then he should just do it and leave all of us out. Is he such a chicken he cannot simply do it but must sucker the U.S. into his war on Iran. It is all so obnoxious it makes me sick. I have no patience for this middle east crap and vote myself out.

And I bet he knows them all! As you probably know, the official language of Vatican City is Latin. Even the money machines are in Latin.