Uh oh, I felt like writing today.

It is humorous, the amount of resolve this forum has put into discussing single whole-prey diets, considering that two “groups” of squamates that are fed little if anything other than the exact same dietary staple in the US (mice for bigguns, crickets for littluns) have shown us that single item diets can work through many generations in many, many species.

I’ll put that into simpler terms. Captive generalist colubrid constrictors eat mice and nothing else (boids go for rats and up). When they’re small, they eat little mice and when they’re big, the sizes of the mice go up accordingly. This has been done for years to the point that it should seem safe to assume that the method is appropriate (for all reasons of practicality). Even many lizard-eating specialists have been successfully broken onto a mouse-only diet.

Small squamates such as leopard geckoes and many chameleons are supported on diets that consist of little to nothing other than crickets. Crickets aren’t even a very good (dietarily) whole prey item due to that calcium/phosphorous imbalance thing. However, herpetoculturists did not select crickets among all other prey insects. Much like lab mice, they made use of a commodity that was preemptively available for ready supply. So, I guess we can get over the metabolic shortcomings crickets provide for (especially with supplements now available in every corner, for the species that need it).

I think that most of those who emphasize variety in captivity don’t have a grasp on the concept that it is unnecessary for the animals’ metabolisms, so long as an appropriate food species is selected (or a slightly inappropriate one such as crickets are supplemented for the species that prove to need such). Most of these people also seem unlikely to have large numbers of animals, as anyone who maintains a multitude of species/specimens will know it is impossible to provide variety with any consistency (i.e., other than the occasional treat, which should do little to alter the metabolism, positively or negatively). I am assuming that most of the insistence upon variety comes from how enthusiastic monitors are to eat whatever. Again, this is an adaptive radiation. It is the opposite of specialization and does not similarly constrict the species that subscribe to it. It is much easier to support a generalist on a basic one-species diet than it is to break a specialist onto a one-species diet outside of the specialization.

Now, as diet is not the main concern of this post (Wow) I’ll bleed into the other part –currently more cryptic aspects of husbandry that continue to be suggested as bigger potential problems.

As with food, many of the shortcomings with regards to monitor maintenance stem from inabilities to sieve and apply appropriate data in a correct and practical fashion. In short, as plenty have said, it’s the keepers’ faults.

The faulting in turn stems from keepers wanting to over-complicate the variables (as we’ve seen recently with food). It has been stated on this forum that monitor behavior is the complicated part. I disagree unless we’re talking that heavy word as of late – theory (or if we’re discussing the intraspecific relation of one specimen to another/others). Theory (here) pertains to sorting out the fine details of natural history (of species, populations or single specimens) that we don’t have enough cumulative data to make proper sense of yet, and then applying those details to captive husbandry. However, the most important aspects of behavior that pertain to physiology in each and every specimen equally are understood. We have a fair grasp on thermoregulatory processes (behavioral and physiological) and consequential water balances, and how “hiding” affects both of these. Wow, behavior is intertwined with metabolism.

It is always curious to see such inquiry as, “What basking temps are needed?” and the response “This species shows a preferred temperature of 92F in the reference ‘Cutiest Monitors for Home and Garden.’” This is irrelevant. A brief lesson in economics as it relates to biology… Opportunity costs are the biggest challenge for all organisms each day. Organisms constantly choose among tradeoffs. Bask exposed to feed and digest well, or hide safely with metabolic inefficiency? To avoid elaborating on this part, monitors, and all thermoregulatory ectotherms (basking cold-blooded animals), know their set-point temps (optimum temps for operation), and they choose their use of spaces and heat based on this. Provide a big gradation of temps and they’ll find and use the right ones. This has been discussed before (multiple bulbs, hide racks, etc.). It hasn’t to my recollection been discussed here as so integral with the animals’ natural behaviors in the wild, exactly as it is in captivity. This is part of the wild you want to take home with the animal. Temperature choices. You see, these “cold-blooded” animals are not controlled by their environments so much as they control themselves based upon available parameters. They control their surroundings outside the body, and they control their circulations inside the body. Now some would say that the surroundings control them, by way of what temps, humidities, hides, etc., the environ supplies on any given day.

Perhaps nowhere is this thought more sensible than for animals in captivity. When keepers provide improper parameters (temp, humidity, and hiding that permits proper regulation of both), the animals are indeed negatively controlled by the environs, as caged animals cannot escape the negative restrictions. Provide the proper parameters (i.e., close enough such that you don’t fail on every front) and the animals can’t help but to succeed. You see, that is the thick of the biological ingenuity in all organisms that lets them persist. Sole goal = succeed. Wowie wow. The blade of behavior/metabolism cuts both ways.

Other sources of failure, nesting substrate, incubation, etc., are also based upon fine details. That’s a hard part only if you try to apply comprehensive-deficient data to captive animals. So-and-so’s paper on rudicollis said that specimens laid clutches in abandoned dome nests of Przevalski’s giant fur-soled dipterocarp tree squirrels, so, I need to simulate that. Wowie wow WOW. Two problems. A lack of ingenuity on behalf of the keeper, and a fear of change/experimentation. “Being scientific” is often used by some on this forum in a derogatory or chiding fashion. No wonder many people are still failing with monitors. Being pragmatic begets experimentation with which to find answers. Answers equal understanding the path to the goal, and the goal, if you recall, is success. Maybe that’s too long an equation? Okay, we’ll try it this way. Don’t be afraid of change. The animals aren’t, at least with regards to stuff that doesn’t work for them. When sand doesn’t work, instead of bringing moisture up from -500 kPa to -150 kPa with Abita Springs bottled water since this or that reference implied very moist sterile substrate for the species, try bringing in some construction grade soil (with the reasoning of smaller grains facilitating more moisture?), or go dig your own soil. Try putting leaves over the soil/sand. Pack the substrate tighter. Loosen it up. Change it again to something else. Sink a log to give a point of anchor. Do a rain dance without embarrassment. Try stuff and the animals will let you know. It’s their behavior that actually tells you whether you’re close enough or far away. Nothing hard about that unless you are too busy reading cumulative-deficient data sets to read the animals. Or to learn how to read the animals. That shouldn’t come overnight; remember how long it took you to learn how to read the words in the data sets? There’s not a monitor paper or care guide in the world that can strike a perceptive ability towards application into readers. You can tell the person it has a brain, but you can’t make it think. I’m going to copyright that last line, all you analogists out there. Thanks for reading.

[ Show Entire Thread ]