Please,



If you would post without that chip off your shoulder, we surely could get a little farther.



I did not say ritualized combat DEFINES social, I asked if it could be a behavior included with social animals. After all, birds do it, mammals do it, bees do it, etc. In itself does not define anything, but added to other behaviors possibly does.



All you do is deny all facts, observations and behaviors, instead of thinking about them. If ritualized combat is not or cannot be a behavior that can indicate social behavior, then what the heck is it? Why do reptiles do it? what is its purpose? Why do other animals do it?



I do not want to hear, what it is not. I want to learn what RITUALIZED COMBAT IS. WHAT IS IT BY YOUR DIFINITION? tell me, give me a clue. After all, there must be a purpose, there must be a reason these individuals(both sexes do this) do not simply kill the other individual. After all, they are fully capable of doing so. And in some cases, they do attack and injure other individuals.



So you have behavior that includes a ritualized combat and a formal combat. WHY?



About monitors being wet, again, you would rather fight then think. Please think about context. First, If you keep a captive water or any monitor in a "wet" cage. Sir, that will not last to long as wet cages will surely cause sickness and death. We are talking about cages and what happen in cages. Wet cages are a no, no. In the original case, a keeper was placing a large bowl of water(compared to cage size) The reality is, the monitor would go in and out of the water and soak the whole cage, causing the cage to become useless in the successful keeping of said monitor. Get it? Context is very important.



ALso, why do water monitors bask more then land species? Why are they commonly seen out on the side of water canals, ponds, rivers, on branches, etc. much more commonly then land species? Are there more of them, or are they out more. WHY? you like to call yourself a biologist or scientist, but you surely hate to think You do understand it is not offensive or painful for you to actually think about something without having to judge it right or wrong. But your training does not allow you to. YOU have to judge.



So speaking of judging. How do you judge those nests and eggs????? Where they good, bad, awful, superior??????? I do find it so very odd you do not comment on the major part of the post, the nests. WHY? You see, your outlook is based on this behavior of yours, you only comment in a negative way. Things you disagree with. What about those nests and eggs, is there something there you disagree with(other then they happened at my house(out of country of origin) the day before I posted them. Or do you agree with them? What do you think? can you think in any way other then the negative?



So, what about them? Why not ask questions about those nestings? You know, what you as a biologist should ask, How, why, when, where, what, type of questions, the questions that should help YOU understand how they came to be. If you were really interested in monitors, you would ask those questions. You don't. In my mind, your not interested in monitors, your only interested in me. kiss, kiss.



You see, in my little pea brain, those nestings are great. That is what I as a keeper long to see. A perfect nesting with perfect eggs. This expresses we have done something right. You do consider that right don't you? I believe this is the goal of many keepers(including science and zoos)



If you consider, these nestings are results of husbandry, then you must also consider that husbandry was also right to have allowed these nestings. YES? Is this why your afraid to talk about what caused these very good nestings. Then if you consider, the females that laid these eggs were also nested here and hatched here, in the same manner, which indicates repeatable results(a science thing) Why not talk about the nests. Which if your listening is the results and more specifically the results of a specific type of husbandry. As I posted, the parents ARE in groups and act in a social manner. Man do you hate to hear that. So where their parents and their parents parents, and their parents, parents, parents, hahahahahahaha, parents.



So you may be getting a picture. In captivity, it WORKS, to allow these monitors to be treated in a social manner. That is, to allow them to be in groups and have constant association with group members. I call it a worksdonut(It works doesn't it). you see, there is really no need to question something that works and expresses desired results.



To be more specific, these groups, do not fight, or raid the females nests or hinder eachother in any negative way. In reality(captive reality) they help eachother. All they do is express lots of "social" type behaviors that result in those nests and eggs. Which I believe is what the result is suppose to be with wild monitors. To result in successful nests which result in successful recruitment. Yes, is that so? Isn't that what they are suppose to do in nature. Result in recruitment?????



As an educated person, I am sure you understand math and more specifically algebra. You understand equations(the act of making identical) Simply put, there is information on each side of an equal sign. One side equals the other. So if you think about it, there is a base math forumula for recruitment. H = R, very simple, H=husbandry and R=recruitment. Consider, recruitment equals continued exsistances in both nature and captivity.



So lets compare two formulas, one for captivity(H=R) and the new one for nature, NC=R. So if the values are the same, R still equals recruitment, but what is NC? NC=natural conditions.



So again in simple algebra, both nature and captivity equal R, to recruit is to stay in exsistance. Is this not so? So the question is, is does H and NC, equal? In math, it has to, doesn't it.



So the formulas, H=R and NC=R, both result in recruitment. So that indicates that H and NC are the same, or at least very similar. Sir, this is math and you as a biologist live by math. So use it here too. Can you show me how this is not so???????



Ok, we all know, that its not so simple, but as a base formula it has to be accurate. So on a base level we are accurate, we have provided conditions in captivity that EQUAL NC(natural conditions) in that they both result in R(successful recruitment)



Sir, this is the goal of keepers and nature. The goal is the same. So now we have a similar goal, to exsist. We have similar results, successful recruitment. So in fact, The formula is accurate, H=R is NC=R. And according to the rules of math, H(husbandry) must equal NC. That is so.



Yes I know, you going to jump up and down and scream and holler and say math this and math that. But remember, this is the same math you fellas throw at us, ALL THE TIME. So please, you cannot have your math and eat it too. hahahahahahahahaha



While this is fun and its really something I hope people find entertaining, its also deadly serious, IN A SIMPLE WAY, that formula is very very accurate and meaningful. BOTH H and NC when equalling the same, R(recruitment). Have to be the same.



As an open minded person, I realize the details do not have to be the same. There is millions of variations, but the end results are the same and are equal. The goal of living enities is to R(recruit). The goal of captive husbandry is to allow recruitment. This is biological law. Therefore, if R is achieved by both, that has to be called successful.



As a field biologist, I also understand, that NC(natural conditions) Also is not consistant. That is, it too is full of variables. Which brings up the point, again, both H and NC are similar in that they both vary.



It also brings up another point. and to me, this point is profound. The animals in question have their own inherent set of behaviors to deal with those variables. Is this not so?



So lets add this to the forumula. Each species has a set values, lets call that, SSA(species specific abilities) So lets see, H(SSA)=R then compare that to, NC(SSA)=R Woooooooo, Ain't that cool, its still the same thing. H still equals R and NC still equals R. Lets see, H(SSA)=NC(SSA), then divide both sides by (SSA) still equals H=NC. dang this is fun. and its true too. Can't argue with math hey? Oh by the way, I constructed the formula in this manner because if you increase H, say make it 2H, then it also increases R, equally to 2R. So 2H(SSA)=2R and 2NC(SSA)=2R dang this thing actually works. You really gotta like that math.



So you get the picture. All these years I try to explain to you that something we do in our captive conditions equals the same as what you see in nature. But all you do is fight and kick and scream. So maybe this approach may be better. In a very simple way, its very accurate. We in captivity are in all reality recieving the same desired results that nature is trying to achieve. I do understand, H and NC both contain levels that can fail, and both can achieve superior(above normal) results. But indeed both are indeed equal in this manner.



That you and your friends argue this is what is so odd to me and very non scientific. On the otherhand, I am very scientific, I ask lots of questions. And I also follow science.



To bad you don't question what your taught, It may effect what you see. That you do not question what your taught, is why I call you prejudiced. You are not seeing the reality. Those pictures are reality. Simple again hey, Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]