Watermethis wrote: ”"Of course they are not social like ants(are ants social?) or any mammal,"

This is the reason monitors are not recognized as social. In order for them to be classified as such they need to meet the definition by living in organized communities.

Ants, and meerkats are perfect examples of social behavior in animals. They live in organized societies with "rules", "jobs", they are often ... if not always found living in groups (not pairs), they have "leaders", and they care for their young.

Monitors do not do this, and because of it do not fall under the definition of social.

Don't get me wrong, I see my captive monitors basking together, sharing burrows, and some even seem to be attatched to the hip.

They too have plenty of room to get away from each other. But just because they don't doesn't mean they are social, just that they are able to tolerate each other a lot more than most people think they can.”





This is exactly why monitors can not be called ‘social’. Social already has a definition which is built on what animals naturally do, a large variety of animals, not what they are conditioned to do in the confines of an enclosure.





Sungazer wrote: “I think we can all agree that monitors are not social like a meerkat or a lion, but we can say that they are "monitor social" as FR says it.”





Unfortunately, ‘social’ is already a defined term, partially described above and monitors just do not fit into it. The major problem lies in FR redefining terms to his liking. If FR would have paid attention in his biology classes (3 years and still did not get it?), he could see for himself why ‘social’ does not include monitors. Instead he goes on and on trying to redefine terms to his liking, never realising why he runs into such opposition on this topic. It is not a question of ‘calling it whatever you want’, these terms have specific meanings.



If all these behaviours seen in captivity were described as selection and conditioning, as they would more accurately be described as, as what he has recently described doing, it would be of benefit to everyone. The keeper would know what he needs to do and would not be confused by the attempted redefining of terms. What do you think is the source of more confusion: the redefining of terms that already exist or the proper use of terms that are already in existence?





As Odatriad wrote: “What people quickly forget about on this forum, is that the disagreement between both 'sides' (FR and academia) has absolutely nothing to do with what FR's animals do in captivity. I do not think anybody, academics included, will disagree that monitors, when housed together in captivity will exhibit behaviors which may be perceived as being "social" (sharing basking spots, sleeping together, etc.). This is not what's being argued or disputed.

What is the basis for all this debate and arguing, is FR's claims of social behavior occurring in wild monitors; all of which are unsubstantiated and unverifiable, or have been assigned from behaviors observed ONLY in captivity. FR has never provided any proof or evidence (photographs, video, etc.) to support his claims of such behaviors occurring in wild monitors, all-the-while denouncing the decades of research conducted on wild monitors by both professional and amateur ecologists(all of which report no sociality).”





When we get right down to it, we can say a century, even more, of research on wild monitors, when we compile all the reports on wild monitors and their behaviours, yet, FR takes short trips to Australia and he is the ONLY ONE in history that sees ‘social’ monitors in the field? It is interesting that the only people that are supporting these assertions of social monitor behaviour in nature are people that have never spent any time whatsoever observing them in nature (except the one making the unsubstantiated claim). On the other hand, there have many people that have spent years and some that have spent decades studying monitors in the field with NO report EVER of monitors being social animals.



The whole point of field research is to find something new, not just repeat what has been reported before. Personally, I would love to report something new, like seeing social monitors in the field. So far, I have yet to see it myself and neither has anyone else.



Cheers,

Michael

[ Show Entire Thread ]