Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I fell out of reading posts for the past few weeks and wished to bring this back up from below. Each post on the topic omitted a crucial part of the invasives equation.

It is tentatively agreed upon that many (most?) monitor species are generalized in their life requirements. Generalized is relative. What are species generalized for? Climate? Precipitation? Soil characteristics? Floral characteristics? Geomorphology? Water chemistry? Generalized species, as we define it for invasive species, usually means able to adapt to human alteration of these environmental characteristics. Invasive species can be truly generalized as are Norwegian rats the world over, or they can be specifically generalized (how’s that for an oxymoron???) as is the green and black poison dart frog in Hawaii’s less-impacted forests.

Modern peninsular Florida is actually a series of rather specialized environments with regard to the above environmental characteristics. Even in its drastically modified state, it is still a near-tropical (functionally tropical) region with many microhabitat zones (both native and altered).

As aforementioned, generalized species make good invasives because they are able to adapt to human modification of the given environment. Again, generalized is relative. Based on range and locality records, Nile monitors seem generalized for a tropical moderate- to high-impact environment. Their environment invasion ability checklist is currently met by south Florida. That is not to say that they would not have succeeded as Florida invasives fifty years ago in a less-impacted environment. The coupling of present-day environmental degradation and likely annual increases in number of liberated captives has resulted in this species getting a foothold. The second part is the “important part” I mention in the header. It is the obviously mandatory part. Nile monitors wouldn’t be in south Florida were it not for herp keepers.

Humans are not only acting as mechanical precursor in the spread of invasive herp species by way of altering environments, but are more importantly acting as the behavioral VECTOR for these species by way of our trade in them. The black and Norwegian rats that have spelled doom for many island-nesting seabirds and herps did not gain a foothold AFTER human alteration of the island environments occurred. They demolished native species prior to this. So it has been with rats, cats and pigs in the Galapagos. So it has been with cats, rabbits and dingoes in Australia. The large scale herp trade that caters to impulse buyers has proved to have the same propensity for introductions as did 17th and 18th century trading ships.

I’ll use a more state-specific example. Take the replacement of the green anole by the brown anole across much of Florida. Did the brown anole replace the green because the brown is better-adapted for a disturbed, human environment?

Anyone who would answer yes to that question has never been through south Louisiana. The replacement of the green anole by the brown anole over much of Florida is a product of the brown anole being a far more aggressive species, NOT a product of the green anole being less suited to human environments. The green anole proved inferior in adaptability to human environments only once humans threw a more vicious competitor into the mix. When the brown anole came in on houseplants, it was not better at living around the houseplants than was the green anole. Rather, it was better at displacing the green anole than the green anole was at displacing the brown. The species replacement is thus a product of humans acting as the brown anole’s vector, since the green anole lives fine (better?) in completely disturbed habitat in regions where winter frost keeps the brown anole out.

At my place (Baton Rouge), one green anole guards the outbuilding door and adjacent wall, one guards the hutches, one guards the grill, one guards the smoker, one guards the antenna, two or more guard the wisteria bush (juveniles like this spot), three or more take care of the camper (another juvenile hotspot), and none occur on the water oak (the one darn natural physical feature in the yard that was present before the house/neighborhood went up thirty-some-odd years ago).

The brown anole does not seem to be as strong in more natural areas of Florida. However, the process of ecological adaptation (one of many shelves of fitness adjusted by evolution) takes many generations, even in anoles. We cannot properly judge a process initiated only a few of decades ago. When humans act as vectors for invasive species, even if the new species does not outcompete the native species in native habitat initially, further competitive adaptation over generations can change this. We cannot draw conclusions on an invasive species’ adaptive fitness by observing only the obvious, i.e. only the present.

The biologists who are sounding the alarm are not unfounded. They are fighting a battle of ecological maintenance that was already lost decades ago when Florida established itself as a herp import hub with a booming human population eager to buy cheap, temporarily impressive animals. The well-meaning (i.e., non-politically driven) biologists do deserve applause in their own right. However, the risk some offer is via thinking a measure of success will be achieved by acting with further preemptive species-specific litigation. This is in part true (Target potentially invasive species and keep them out of petshops and/or trade), in part false (What if too many, or unlikely-to-be invasive species are targeted? What if a ban craze takes over and empirical evidence for a given species being a potential invasive is no longer demanded on a case by case basis?).

The problem with legislation of this nature at both state and federal levels is that it will be biased by the drafters, who may understand the biological implications of the laws but have no clue about practicable application of the laws. Such was the case with Geochelone pardalis and G. sulcatta, where two of the three most commonly captive-bred and traded tortoise species now have to go through expensive vet inspection before crossing state lines. This is because the legislators’ species-specific law did not discriminate between dirty (imported tick carriers) and clean (captive-bred) animals. So what do most impulsive shoppers do instead of buying now-more-expensive, albeit safely captive-bred animals? They buy cheap imported Russian tortoises which are subject to no vet inspections. Thus, the solution had terrible effect in application. Better would have been to simply outlaw importation in the two species and leave it at that. Or to require vet inspection of all imported tortoise species. Legislators often exact extra measures for safety, especially in an age where news broadcasts train us to fear “man-eating lizards in Florida”. Unfortunately, they are often misdirected extra measures. Lawmakers can be smart about writing laws. But do they train to be smart about EVERYthing for which they write laws? Herpetocultural wisdom is likely to remain low on the list of legislators for many moon.

It is important that herp keepers recognize the problem is not simply that of humans turning environments upside down. The most apparent problem to the herp-ignorant masses is us changing species emigration (influx) with our trade, and they are largely right. This becomes clear when Burmese pythons turn up in the middle of the Everglades (especially bad press when they show themselves to attack and eat big gators). In a human-altered Florida historically devoid of herp pets, we would see no Burmese pythons, no red-eared sliders, no Nile monitors. All we would see would be the adaptation or extinction of native species (that is, if we discount those species for which the floral trade is responsible!). We cannot place heaviest blame for invasive herps onto lot developers (at least until they bring in nursery plants). An expensive captive-bred Argus monitor could likely acclimatize to Florida’s altered environment just as readily as a Nile monitor. There are numbers of both species in the state. The current difference is that one still costs money and usually goes to a buyer who won’t liberate the equivalence of a couple hundred dollars. The other is always readily available for thirty bucks or less and consequently appeals to a higher number of more impulsive, less educated buyers.

Ownership and trade of many heavily imported species will be restricted in upcoming years because of the biologists that actually do voice concern for the native species of their respective focuses (or for far-fetched reasons of homeland security in the case of those species like V. niloticus which eat people). It will be a shame if ownership and trade of many heavily captive-bred species becomes restricted on behalf of the same root problem – keepers-gone-liberators.

Despite its complete "artificiality", this guy was very attatched to his (literal) house. Don’t mess with his turf or baby, you’ll get burrrned. Ben

Its all a bunch of huey(pooooo) All those words are made by man. They are invented to suit his needs. Sometimes words are made to define and comunicate something to other men. Sometimes they are just labels.

The problem is, they are or can be(depends on how off they are)totally meaningless. Meaningless to the animals or enviornment, or nature in general. Nature or its denizens does not care what you call its enviornments, nor does it care what you call the habitats humans modify. It doesn't care if you call, out of place animals, feral or invasives. It doesn't care if a habitat is called generalized or specialized. All it cares about is bio-mass, nature provides a constantly changing supply of habitats for its bio-mass to exsist in.

Man comes along and changes that. Then expects of same life forms that were there before man changed it, to be there after he completely changed it. Thats fairly ignorant of man to expect.

In fact, I don't believe man or WISH&WILDLIFE or academics, really expect that, I think if all a bunch of huey made up to fool the public, not fool nature.

So man makes up words, makes up definitions, and then thinks or expects they will apply to nature, they don't. A simple comparison is, people here put a box in a cage and put some stuff in the box and call it a next box. How naive is that? its just a box with stuff in it. A dirt box, if your will or a leaflitter box or a carefree box. To be a nest box, or nesting area, it has to have a history. That history is, it needs to be nested in to be a nest box. So man, mucks up something, then calls it something, then expects it to be what he called it, how funny is that?

Whats even funnier is, he will now change is words and definitions and expectations to something else(redefine). Althought history has shown man will be wrong again, as he was all the other times.

I took some biology and worked in biology all of my life. So I know, man already understands the problem. He understood it long ago, in order to keep a set of species, you need to preserve the enviorment they occur in, Man knows that. If you muck with any part of that enviornment, it will change the makeup of that enviornment. Man knows this, and knew it for a long time. It does not matter what you call a species, specialized or general, or if they are feral or invasive. Those are meaningless words. Made destorys the enviornment and keeps destroying the enviornment. So he should be darn happy there are any animals that will life in his new world. He should not care if they are invasive or feral or specialized or generalists. He will be unlucky if anything lives.

IF man keeps up his mucking around, man will be begging for anything bigger then a pathogen to life in his world. Cheers.

You do have to understand the point of all those words to see any sense in them. Of course words don’t have meaning to animals or to their environments. Words weren’t invented for animals or for environments to understand. They are meant to convey thought, from one person to another. Big words serve the purpose of summarizing concepts that would otherwise take an overly-descriptive sentence. As in, I could replace the last sentence with “Me wordy, you frank.”

The issue of invasives/ferals/aliens/whatever your favorite word for that genre of creatures, is not a black and white one. We should not rest content knowing that we are negatively impacting overall diversity just because we see that species replacement can occur. Sure, we damage “X” number of native species by modifying the environment, but does that mean that we should bring in a couple of new species that further damage an additional “Y” native species? In other words, why should indirect damage (by invasives) be dismissed simply because it follows direct damage (by us)? Do you really think such secondary infection should be acceptable? Do you think it HAS to occur?

Yes, changing environments result in changing biomass. Changing environments result in changing species assemblages. Over long enough periods (or sometimes very short ones), changing environments result in extinctions and the rise of “new” (different) species.

What we can impact via our introductions is WHICH species will change with the times, as with the green anole/brown anole example. Brown anoles in Florida have been evaluated as distinct (yes, whatever that means) from the source subspecies that came to Florida. Meaning, Florida browns are already morphing into a geographically distinct metapopulation (all the populations in Florida, again, “wordy). Had we not brought brown anoles to Florida, it would be the green anoles changing with the times. Where climate doesn’t suit the brown anole, it IS the green anole changing with the times.

You can’t preserve anything, native or non. But, we can control which species will be able to conserve themselves (i.e., persist by adapting to current environmental trends). The overall scenario is a combination of people yearning for a natural world and simultaneously wanting to play the master of it.

Fire ants are here to stay. “Overpopulated” (i.e., a population size that is matched with current, human-influenced habitat provisions) raccoons are here to stay. Chances are good that Nile monitors are here to stay. I do think it is silly to brainstorm about undoing all of that. As a nation we funnel more conservation funds to Hawaii than most (all?) other states. We do this hoping to re-establish a “natural” Hawaii, even though mass extinction actually began when the Polynesians hit. All this preservation finance and work for some rocks that will be at the bottom of the ocean in time, hey? Rather than continuing war on an enemy we cannot match because of the nature of the battles, we should invest our full capacity in figuring out how to prevent future competition from not-yet present invasive species (i.e., in HI continue targeting the brown tree snake; forget about Jackson’s chameleon). I was not implying we need to redefine our words to clarify our perception of environmental history. I am saying that we can learn from it and move forward in a more conservative fashion.

That’s where people in the herp hobby/business come in. Especially business. How many monitors have you sold to Florida? How many cities/states that you sold monitors to in the past now have restrictions or prohibitions? Restriction will be an increasing trend as more and more people of low responsibility obtain these animals. Figuring out how to prevent THAT invasive plague (further legal tangle) is the responsibility of everyone involved in the sale and/or purchase of monitors or any herp species likely to be targeted for control. Often when you write a post likely to be perceived as “inflammatory”, you pretext it with the US being a free country. Yes, it is, but with each bit of legislation (you want to talk about truly pitiable words) cast to protect “the public” from irresponsible herp keepers, some of your (business) freedom evaporates. Only once herp keepers/sellers are the ones influencing the words of pertinent laws will the laws favor herp keepers/sellers. Darn, I made another one with simple implications long and wordy. I’ll leave it there for now. Thanks. Ben

It has nothing at all to do with irresponsible herp keepers, I has everything to do with irresponsible bulldozers. Surely it cannot be the people driving those bulldozers, so its the bulldozers.

Just think what a world this would be if bulldozers and chainsaws were banned for conservation reasons. I can only dream. Cheers

Granted, as I already agreed, environmental degradation by people has filliped many invasive species the world over. But, how do you explain the invasion of undisturbed islands by oh-so-many gecko species? In Hawaii, nearly half of the herp species reported as established by 1990 occur predominantly in UNdisturbed habitat. Invasive animals and plants alike have colonized the Galapagos, but those islands didn’t see any development until very recent decades. Why are Burmese pythons coming out of the middle of the Everglades?

It doesn’t take disturbed habitat to allow establishment of foreign species. It takes people getting the foreign species to the spot of invasion, disturbed or not. That is where irresponsible herp keepers have EVERYthing to do with the matter. Well, them and the unrestricted sale of multiple species that should not be permitted in petshops. I’ll use you as a comparative example (hope you don’t mind), albeit with limited knowledge based on that which I’ve read on this forum.

As far as I’ve seen over the years, many people who buy from you ask the million “stupid” questions first, get ready for their purchases, and then send money and receive an animal(s). After that, thanks to this forum, they have virtual 365 day/year customer support. Even that doesn’t weed out all of the irresponsibles. Even with your rather high market (expensive, compared to Niles, savannahs) species, some folks out there buy impulsively because a whim begot the urge for a less common monitor in the house. You can’t sort 100% of your clientele through emails or phone calls, nor do I suppose it is your job to. Unless you encouraged purchase by customers who are clearly not suited for monitor keeping, your sales approach should be viewed as valid. As in any market, a certain percentage of negligent customers is inevitable.

“Haha hi fRank. I really like the moniter you sent too me. He got hear just an hour ago. Hes’ really cool and he LOVES to be handeld haha how do you breed your moniters to be so tame? Hes’ doin great in my new Vishion Cage. I got it for part of my birthday present. Well I tell everyone your moniters are top notch because this one is the best I’ve ever seen. Thanks Frank peace out buddy.
Ben
0.1 leopard gecko
1.1 garter snake
1 red ackie
0 clue”

Now, let’s consider a different scenario where the above is the norm instead of the nuisance occasion.

Let’s turn your sold monitor species ($flaviargus, ackie, lacie, etc.$) into a species that ANYone can afford (say, Nile). Let’s turn your business into a public shop that anyone and everyone from the area can walk through. We in turn convert the MAJORITY of customers from marginally- to well-researched people (how else did he/she learn about some guy in the desert with a real life GOANNA ranch?) into true Average Joes. Finally, You change into either a teen who’s more knowledgeable about how an iPod functions than how a reptile functions working at a big corporate petshop for the summer or into a mom or pop petshop entrepreneur. Do you know anything about the monitors you paid $5 for and need to sell before the stress of your inadequate setups kill the animals completely? Do you care? Do your customers know how big the animals will get if they don’t kill them through negligence first? Do they care?

You don’t sell captive-bred Niles or savannahs, right? Have you ever? Why? Couldn’t afford to feed the adult breeders since petshop import prices would keep your offspring prices so low? Why should petshops across the nation be allowed to offer imposing species to customers who are usually not cut out for the responsibility? Why should conflicts derived from this scenario (like Niles in Florida) put a potential damper on your business? Why would you excuse it? Since legislators don’t normally distinguish between the source of species targeted for restriction, this has everything to do not only with irresponsible keepers and sellers, but with the responsible ones, too. Thanks for the discussion. Ben

What the heck are you getting at? Man made planes, he made boats, the same man that made bulldozers and chainsaws. So if he impacts areas or the world, its wrong. If a hurricane moves animals about, from island to island, its normal.

Is it that you want to blame keepers? irresponsible keepers(your words) Of course you can blame them, but the real problems are not them, or the monitors that are loose or the feral/invasive everything. All things change naturally and unnaturally. The real question is, what do/did you expect?

As I have said many times, I find it odd that anyone would expect the same animals to live in a different enviornment. So if you do not want different animals, do mess with with the habitat. But you know that ain't going to happen.

The question remains, Whom is at fault? On what scale? Country by country? state by state? Counties? individuals? The Church? governments? yea, thats the fault all right.

My question still remains, what are you getting at. Get over it and do whats right, blame yourself. After all, your man. Cheers

I think he is trying to make a difference Frank, from his point of view and a very valid one at that. For our sake do not speak for the reptile lovers or we look ignorant to the problem. After all, there is a problem. So what we need to do is come up with a solution that is in both parties interest. The problem that chainsaws and air pollution etc etc are creating already have ordinances and laws to be more environmentally friendly. Just like eventually Florida will have similar laws to protect its habitat. Why do more damage just because some is lost or even most. A lot of rainforests are down to 10% of the original forest, but I would think even more important to stop introduced species. Marine Toads in Australia, fire ants in New Caledonia...we have to at some point take steps to protect and still enjoy our hobby at the same time. Find a medium, the gray area and all of us will be half happy. I would not want anyone to prevent me from getting imports, but some species really don’t need to be coming in anymore. Like Ben said, these Nile Monitors are easy for armatures to acquire and this is our problem. The hobbyist who wants to obtain and breed something that truly has not established itself in the hobby is not the problem. So the focus should only be on the problem species. I know this can cause problems but it is better to push for those species instead of these guys focusing on all reptiles. Just my "words" so take them how you like.
-Shane

First make it illegal to rearrange, redesign, reroute water ways, destroy wetlands, woodlands, swamps, forests, grasslands, jungles, and deserts. Stop all construction of housing in these areas, set up quotas on the maximum number of kids a couple thats married can have, and make it illegal to have kids out of wedlock, sterilize offenders (sound like a Chinese idea a bit??) Set quotas on maximum human populations, and cut the maximum number of bosc, nile, etc monitors to a few a year total. You will see a big difference in say a decade, but we wouldnt be in America anymore would we. Solving this would be very difficult wouldnt it?
I can give you the example of the feral cats in my neighborhood, I live at the edge of what was formerly a glassland field, and was a farmers field for years, bordered by woodlands, wetlands etc. At one time I could have found copperheads, rattlesnakes, foxes, bobcats, coyote, etc, now we have feral cats, groundhogs, rabbits, squirrels, and chipmunks, do you know what caused the other species to disappear? The fields and woods were torn down in many places and housing developments sprung up like geysers everywhere. Why mention the cats, Ill tell you, the cats do not hunt or even make use of the fields, they stay around the houses, habitat loss is what allowed the cats which were eaten by some of the others to take over.

All of the cats are that well trained? I have had cats in the past kill local lizards for fun and a gift to me at my front door. If they where actually hungry I am sure it could be all the lizards in the neighborhood.

I see neighborhoods with coyotes or other large predators keep the cat population down and you have fence swifts and alligator lizards all over the place. Without those predators and a lot of cats, I hardly see the lizards.

Something to think about.

Those natural predators existed around here, there were few if any feral cats, and dogs. After the housing developments started to spring up the natural predators disappeared, or died off from habitat loss, first feral dogs started to appear, they didnt last long between the lack of suitable resources and those who decided to get rid of them. What feral dogs that were around died out after a few winters, the cats in turn just kept reproducing and doing well. I also discovered that years ago a neighbor nearby set up a place for feral cats to come and go as they please in their garage, with all the food they could ever eat (they thought it isnt right to keep cats indoors and that strays deserved to live as good as they can). These people admitted that they had 23 feral cats that spent time regularly in their garage, of course since that time a good strong winter with deep snow (years ago) killed off around 6, these were replaced by others since. From years of roaming the local fields and woods here I have seen very very few feral cats, but around the housing developments they thrive, life is so much easier there.
I guess if you live in an environment that allows them to live easier in the woods they will spend less time around houses. I can also tell you that the coldest weather, and when snow is on the ground I can set a trap and catch a cat in hours, but it may take days to weeks in warmer weather or with no snow on the ground. If you look at feral cat crap around here in spring, summer, and fall, it seems to consist mainly of undigested insect shells, this tells you what is most commonly eaten at that time of year, during winter they seem to prefer squirrels, voles, rabbits, and hand outs from people.

You can leave behind the concept that habitat disruption is a necessary precursor to species invasion. You may also dismiss the notion that native species don't adapt to changed environments. Those are both proved falsities. That makes human action upon the environment one variable affecting species establishment, but not the only one.

What am I getting at... This need not be a big picture issue, but you're trying to make it just that. It is often near impossible to effect change on a big picture (human degradation of Florida). One can, however, manage a subset of a big picture (humans furthering degradation by introducing competitive foreign species through the reptile trade). If that subset amounts to addressing the ramifications of unchecked distribution of imported monitor species in the general pet trade, this forum seems a reasonable place to do so.

Most people can’t change a big picture, but to dismiss all of its results, such as human-mediated species invasions, as expectable and thus acceptable seems to me almost as negligent as liberating a pet monitor. Apathy is a huge portion of the environmental problem in this (and every) country. How is dismissing human-mediated invasion by additional foreign species different than assisting it? Again, thanks. Ben

I agree with you totaly the anoles are a perfect example. Also the different igauna species I've seen in central america do just fine living in brickwalls of heavily populated cities with no jungles for miles. I think the importers and jobbers are more to blame than anyone, I know of one case in southern florida that a jobber was given three warnings by wild life and fisheries before he was shut down for not properly housing animals. If wasn't for his neighbor having a problem with tegus running all over his yard no one would ever have known. What if a law was put in place that said pet shops have to inform buyers of what they're getting into feeding, size, temperment the problem invasives cause ie. don't let this animal loose. It could be a standard form written by some expeirenced herper that cares. It won't stop the problem but atleast buyers would be properly informed. In the end we have to learn to police ourselves if we don't want someone else to police us and our hobby.

You know, the ability to dismiss the big picture. To be able to not consider the real cause and the real results. To be able to make things the way you want them and for what reason?

You see, it does not matter, niles live there because there was a void. A void that could not be filled by native species. That is the reality. That is the result.

If you would actually use the brain your gifted with, those areas in question have been exposed to hundred of species over the last decades, native/feral and invasive. There has been importers(not careless irresponsible keepers) releasing thousands of species into Fla. for many of decade. Yet only now, niles are taking a foot hold, for the moment. And you think its because someone let one/hundreds loose.

Check the history of south fla. Its history is of hundreds of importers, from the Charles Chases, to the gators of miami, to Safaris and many many more. Check the records of all the species that have been know to take a foothold around those areas. What happened to them, wheres the walking catfish? wheres the love bugs? What about those Cuban treefrogs, how about the giant Knight anoles, iggies, etc. Sir, the niles are not the lone ranger nor are the burms. They are just the current focal point of a long list of current focal points.

The massive encroachment of Fla. over the last fourty years, surely must not have effected native species, did it? How much can they take? The simple reality is, there is no old fla. left. Theres only good weather(heat and no cold) and lots of water, which does support lots of stuff(retired people,ferals,invasives) exactly how they got there is of no concern, NOW, be it planes, trains, cars or boats or hurricanes. The enviornment has been rearranged by man. So man should not expect it to be like it was before this rearrangement. Thats common sense sir.

Yes, its nice to live in your world. To not look at the big picture, to not look at results, but to sit around and theorize a blame, how cool is that? Have fun with that, I am sure it will prove to be very effective. In my opinion, useless. You can get rid of the niles, you can outlaw them, but something gives me the idea that something else will replace them. And it will not be something native. Most likely RATS and other vermin. Cheers

It's nice to find a topic I can have an opinion about on this forum.
Firstly the main cause of this problem is undoubtably the demand and supply of cheap disposal baby giant lizards. Dug up in Africa and shipped to you for $20 and they look so cute. But then they grow big and ugly and nobody wants them anymore.... we are all well acquainted with this one. This isn't a case of a few lizards escaping, it's the consequence of hundreds or thousands of them being thrown away year after year. I don't think the argument that they can only survive in Florida because of the way people have destroyed natural habitats is justified because (secondly)the lizard is a generalist but it can also live as a remarkable specialist eating foods that are too hard for most other animals. Either way if it gets enough food it can be EXTREMELY prolific.

It's hardly surprising that people are concerned that extremely prolific giant lizards are well established in Florida. It's unfortunate that they used speculative claims about burrowing owls as their main justification for doing something because I would be very surprised if they will be able to support this with evidence from stomachs. It would be even more surprising if they can actually do anything about it. If they don't burn out by themselves Florida had better get used to it and maybe just be grateful that the croc monitor population is still small.
-----
Mampam Conservation

After reading some of this i came to think about the real invasive species. Humans are the real invasive species.

Hi Daniel, hows it going? well I hope.

If you read the terms of service(TOS) it clearly states amoung other things, conservation. Isn't that your gig?

You mentioned you see nothing of interest here, yet, your the reigning expert of Farm raised Savs. Couple that with the ongoing debate of farm raised monitors, both in Africa and in indo. So yes I think you have lots to say.

Lately several here have been going on and on, about how they believe these farm raised monitors, really are captive bred. I would think you would indeed have something to say about that. So please do sir. Cheers

There is no theoretical blame here. Monitors wouldn’t be in Florida if monitor sellers had not brought them there. Monitors wouldn’t be in Florida if monitor keepers didn’t buy them there.

If it weren’t for you and people of similar interest, would monitors have made it to Arizona? Surely, it wasn’t you that brought V. glauteri to Arizona; it was the lot developers and their burgeoning subdivisions. The burgeoning subdivisions brought you there, so it’s mankind’s fault. Right.

For the final time, foreign species don’t need disturbed habitat to become established. They need a vector. A transport. We’re that transport. Yes, it matters greatly that the transport is us and not a hurricane. During the entire course of monitor history, despite all the hurricanes, all the earthquakes, all the tectonics, no monitor became established in the western hemisphere. Why? There was no transport. It doesn’t matter? It does. Our transport happens much more frequently and effectively than does any natural transport. The results of our transport happen much more quickly.

Not only have our introductions radically changed the cast available for present species assemblages, but with each additional introduction, we further change what assemblages will become in the future. We are guiding the species pool for future community evolution. That is simultaneously a very fascinating and a very suspicious thing.

We can’t truly preserve anything because no species lasts forever. Environmental change will change species. However, the rate at which we are now causing environmental change puts critical stress on the ability of current species diversity to persist, let alone increase. By adding foreign competitors to the concoction, we may further complicate the viability of species diversity. Then again, as you suggest, we might increase species diversity in disturbed habitats with recruits from Ghana, Indonesia, Turkey, etc. That is a very different philosophy, and it’s one that I do not entirely embrace. Why not?

Foreign species that establish themselves in disturbed habitats do not stay within the borders of the disturbed habitat. They prosper and divide and spread. The thickest fire ant population I’ve seen is in Blackwater State Park, a much more natural Florida than you suggest for invasives. They affect many species within the Park. Payne’s (spelling?) Prairie is another part of Florida that reportedly had a rather natural herp community until invasive fire ants came in from adjacent disturbed areas. Such must be the case with the pythons in the Everglades, the spiny-tailed iguanas on less trafficked beaches, on and on. Even the foreign species that have to get their footholds in disturbed areas can and will expand and target natural areas.

Did you ever consider, perhaps the reason foreign species appear so successful in disturbed habitats is not because they require disturbed habitat, but because we place them in the immediate vicinity? If that’s the case, their initial presence in only-disturbed-habitat would simply be temporary, since it’s where we let them get their start. Man, species introduction is starting to sound less dismissible.

You say, we change the environment by degrading it so we should expect foreign species to invade and we should be glad about their success (remember, that anything would live in our modern world at all?). You say this with dismissal of the results that many people will perceive as ramifications. That is my point. With dismissal comes negligence. With negligence comes a larger problem. The concepts I am addressing are becoming complicated because of being watered down by should-be interested parties. You really don’t care if a future law precludes you from selling monitors to Floridians? I don’t care, as I don’t sell monitors and I don't live in Florida. I am not an alarmist by nature and I don’t encourage others to be, but the spread of specific foreign species into new habitats because of our trade in them should be addressed by optimistic parties of interest before politicians alone address it. Otherwise, as was mentioned below, you’ll have alarmists suggesting these “monsters” will single handedly cause the extirpation of burrowing owls, beach-nesting terns, maybe tomorrow even humans. And, no, most alarmists will not acknowledge the big picture of environmental degradation as playing a role in the establishment and spread of said foreign species. They are the ones who will push for laws against herp keepers while fully ignoring lot development. I’m simply the one encouraging you and others to consider your amount of investment in the matter. Thanks.

First understand, you say invasives, that includes thousands of potential species. What we are not talking about thousands of species. We are talking about Nile monitors primarily. As this is a monitor forum. The invasive niles is what started this thread.

Most invasive species in the U.S. do need desturbed habitat to take a foothole. Insects being the huge exception. Some species in other countries do not. They have a totally different bio-mass.

Niles have be released into South Fla. for 40 years, that I know of. I use to go to the dealers that long ago and I worked at a Fla. reptile park. It took 40 years for them to take a foothold(if they actually are breeding in this new habitat, thats still being debated)

The actual number is also still being debated. Known herpetologist have not been able to verify anything more then a few actual sightings of animals. Only politicians and reporters.

They have NOT been reported from natural habitats in Fla. yet.

So why have you come to the opinions you have? Why are you even arguing something you have no actual experience with. You seem to love reporters reditions of this.

Is it all about burrowing owls. As far as I know, they are marginal in fla. Fla. does not naturally offer their habitat of choice. They have become invasive in desturbed habitats as well. They invade plowed down dry soils. They live naturally occur in open fields. In SoCal and western Az. they have become established and super abundand in and around agricultural fields, in one mourning or evening, you can count literally hundreds of them. But as soon as you leave the fields, the owls stop. Not to be found in the desert.

So one invasive species if messing with another(althought they occur in two entirely different habitats) I get it, ones real cute.

So what else occurs where the niles are NOW. Iggies, brown anoles, cuban treefrogs, rats, nutria, armadillos, introduced bass/game fish, burms/other snakes, baslilisks, amievas, med geckos, day geckos, house finches, english sparrows, rock doves(pigeons), starlings, a number of introduced roaches, house cats, dogs and people. I am sure, I missed most of the feral/invasives that are sharing this area. Oh what a fun arguement.

So why are Niles a problem?? In a generation or so, all these will be considered normal native species.

The next thing your going to tell me is, the niles will impact both nutria and armadillos.

As you probably have thought, I think people are very funny creatures. For some reason, if change comes and a new animal occurs, its feral or invasive. But only if it happens during their lifetime, or when they are an adult. If it occurred before that, its not feral or invasive, its natural. Take the lovely dingo. Its introduced, but treated as a native species, as are much of whats in Fla now.

So I ask, how do you come about your thoughts and better yet, WHY? Cheers

Very good points. Your observations on the burrowing owls is very accurate here in Florida front yards highly developed neighborhoods seem to be the preferred habit. They have no trouble dealing with all types of nest robbers in addition to dogs,cats ,and foxes. The Niles are nowhere to be seen.If they were I have a feeling that they would be the ones under attack not the owls.

As for the Niles taking over .The " experts" are quick to point out all the dangers of the giant lizard invasion ,killing water birds ,raiding burrowing owl and alligator nest ,killing small children,cats and the elderly, etc . very dramatic but I can`t ever recall one of these reports mentioning that there are quite a few animals inhabiting the same waterways that would love to feed on baby Niles and raid their nest . I believe that otters,alligators ,predatory birds ,foxes ,skunks ,even fish ,to mention some and all of which are very common in the area of the alleged invasion would do a great job of keeping the scary lizards in check. Doe`s anyone think a monitor nest would present much of a challenge for a raccoon ? The bottom line is that the Niles are being introduced into an environment that is loaded with animals that will predate on them and while they may be able to survive in small numbers realistically there is no way they could ever populate to epidemic proportions as the scare writers propose.To this point after being introduced for 40 years I haven`t seen any proof that they have even managed to establish the area in even tiny numbers let alone "taking Over" . I think it`s almost as likely to see a unicorn along one of the canals as it is to see a Nile. Ernie Eison

Being in FL. I have recently went to see for myself. I couldn't find 1 nile. I was instead pointed out places that they have been seen. Lots of back yards or near a canal. I also spoke with a friend who went on a search with some trappers. They saw foot prints but no live evidence. The trapper mentioned he has managed to capture a few though. So they do exist but seems odd if there are such high numbers why are they so hard to see?

BTW if you want to start talking of invasives, then there is a very long list in FL. and if you look you will probly find invasives in your own back yard throughout the U.S.. Just so happens they are not getting the 15 minutes of fame. I wonder who they will talk about this time next year...hmmmmm.

The nile monitors are actually probably a good thing for Florida as they are probably eating the other invasive species.

What I am not wrong about is that many introduced species have shown themselves able to impact native species in undisturbed habitat. I don't care if Nile monitors or Tyrannosaurs live in Florida suburbs. The second one might actually open up more human niche space, hey? Florida's cost of living would fall and we could move to the Sunshine State and enjoy watching monitors in the wild, if even for the lifespan of a cricket.

Here's the flaw (as I see it) in your concept on species establishment (as I currently understand it). You seem to think that a natural environment has all available niches filled to capacity. That would be to say that there is no chance of a foreign species establishing a new niche, no chance that anyone from afar could add a department. It is also to say that there is simply no unfilled niche. This is naive.

Evolution shapes species to fit optimally within their environments. However, biogeography affects which species are available for evolving in a given region. We know that native species assemblages amount to series of billions of competitive interactions that are constantly shaping and being shaped by the environment in which they occur. There is no stasis in these interactions, always fluctuation, so they do not occupy 100% of anything. There is always room for improvement by others, be it from near or from afar.

Species assemblages are a major component of what a native environment is, so when we alter species assemblage by adding new species, we alter the environment. No chainsaws required. We know that biogeography restricts the spread of species and higher clades within discrete zones. It is us humans that have eradicated the natural zoning process. We bus species the world over. Many of them, vertebrate or no, do not need disturbed habitat to succeed. So they can start in disturbed habitat, then multiply, then expand into undisturbed habitat. Agreed, there’s nothing out there yet to suggest that Niles will do this in Florida, but many other species already have.

You say, you are glad that manmade Berkley pond has red-eared sliders living adjacent to the Muscovy ducks. I agree with you, and then pensively comment that I hope the redears don’t expand into the nearby stream where Pacific pond turtles still live without issue. Ben

" Here's the flaw (as I see it) in your concept on species establishment (as I currently understand it). You seem to think that a natural environment has all available niches filled to capacity. That would be to say that there is no chance of a foreign species establishing a new niche, no chance that anyone from afar could add a department. It is also to say that there is simply no unfilled niche. This is naive. " Ben

I'm not sure how anyone could logically come to that conclusion based on my post. At no time did I make any blanket statements regarding the impact or non impact of all invasive's. I`ve remained very focused on the actual point . And that is can or do the brown anoles eradicate the greens simply by their introduction and that ALONE.The answer is a clear cut NO. In this scenario in order for the introduced species to displace the native species the naturally existing conditions must FIRST be altered or both species will co habitat the area . Case in point,

The brown anole is one of the first non native species to be noted in the US going back 125 years and probably longer but it wasn't until the mass urbanization began to take place that the decrease in greens was noted.This is not a coincidence but the direct cause and effect of changing the natural environment to better suit the browns and putting the greens at a disadvantaged.

The flaw in your concept is that your equate a species ability to survive under unnatural conditions with out the presents of competition and then try to simply blame it`s demise on the introduced species that is brought into the equation AFTER the environment has already been changed away from native species naturally evolved habitat with out acknowledging that if the habitat FIRST altered the introduced species would not have been able to displace the native species .Plain and simple, putting the carriage before the horse.

You say, you are glad that manmade Berkley pond has red-eared sliders living adjacent to the Muscovy ducks. I agree with you, and then pensively comment that I hope the redears don’t expand into the nearby stream where Pacific pond turtles still live without issue. Ben

Actually no and I`ve never made any reference that would imply anything like that . Clearly all my post haven`t been on anything other then the relationship between the brown and green anole and the direct environmental implications of this Specific interaction.The situation you just described is so far removed from that scenario.That as Frank did ,I have to ask and I quote,

"What the heck is this guy talking about."

Ernie Eison

“in order for the introduced species to displace the native species the naturally existing conditions must FIRST be altered or both species will co habitat the area.”

Both species will not necessarily co-habit in an environment disturbed or not. The introduced species could fail, the native species could fail, or finally (and generally least likely) the species may co-habit. Do bear in mind, the introduced species has to be introduced. If it is not introduced, the less-adapted native species could continue to live in the altered habitat as it has elsewhere.

“The flaw in your concept is that your equate a species ability to survive under unnatural conditions with out the presents of competition and then try to simply blame it`s demise on the introduced species that is brought into the equation AFTER the environment has already been changed away from native species naturally evolved habitat with out acknowledging that if the habitat FIRST altered the introduced species would not have been able to displace the native species”

When a native species exists in unnatural conditions until an introduced species pushes it out, we should see that habitat alteration is not the primary cause for the displacement of the native species. This is obvious. Habitat alteration merely paves the way, but we have to bring in the competition. In the study you cite and believe, did habitat alteration push the green anoles up into the trees, or did the presence of the brown anoles? You say this study’s results are obvious, so you should understand it was the import of a new competitor that displaced the original species and not habitat alteration per se.

”Clearly all my post haven`t been on anything other then the relationship between the brown and green anole and the direct environmental implications of this Specific interaction.The situation you just described is so far removed from that scenario.That as Frank did ,I have to ask and I quote,

’What the heck is this guy talking about.’”

The important question would be “WHOM the heck is this guy talking TO?” To keep track, you gotta count up the little boxes that precede the headers for these posts. Also measure header indentation. My above response to which you responded was to FR.

I am not taking sides but why are you guys not including the fact that prey of both species can be the same. Therefore the more aggressive Anoles eating first and driving the less aggressive eaters to less nutrition and resulting in less production.
Or the fact that one species can introduce a parasite not yet adapted to.
Or the fact that the native species has possibly not fully evolved the strongest to its environment and the introduced species is, by way of a more hostile original but similar environment?
To say that an introduced species is not a threat or we should wait for an actual problem can and has been disastrous.
Also something to think about is these actions are a force of evolution and maybe for the first time we can actually witness evolution happening due to our pressure placed on species by our actions. They either change to survive or go extinct. As long as we protect enough to allow native species to have the adaptation time they will still be here with a few genetic modifications. Right? As long as they are not ecosystem lawn mower like some toads, ants, humans or rats I think we will be fine.

While you can and do think of all kinds of possibilities. The reality is in results. The results are, extinction. Recent history has showned extinction is happening. So I imagine, thats a more accurate guess, then your hopes of possible re-adaption of current species.

We are in a current wave of extintion, that rivals the lose of the dinos. Hummmmmm only on a smaller scale(humor) cheers

So you think there was one mass extinction, then now a small one? We are actually in our sixth major decline due to humans. All other mass extinctions where natural and out of our control. We do have control of this one. There has also been small hits on our biological diversity many more times due to smaller natural desasters. Also man has caused continental extinctions as man entered new teritory. With all of this we still have a much greater diversity in life than the distant past. Going up more than its small spikes just like a great stock would do.
This is a little more information for you to use as my youth has lended me new information and your age has lended you the old information...question for you Frank, is the world flat?

what does this have to do with the monitor forum?

It has to do with import laws in Florida, the hub of most import monitors in the US. If you have any monitors and they are imports, they most likely came through Florida.

i was curious because i couldnt understand what the heck he was trying to say. still dont , but thats ok.

I think Cas is trying to make niles monitors and their keepers the culprid(the bad guys) and place blame on only those two.

I, on the other hand, place little blame of niles, their keepers, and even importers. I blame the changed enviornment. As in, man changes the enviornment and wants the old lifeforms that no longer fit the new Fla. to still be there like it was before man moved in and destroyed the native habitat, or maybe rearranged it to fit us and something new(rats, armadillos, nutria, pigeons, english sparrows, starlings, plus these new ones, the list is endless)

The concept is simple, he wants to blame a small segment. Something you possibly can get a handle on. You know, make it illegal to have/hold/pocess/trade/sell, niles, then all monitors. And irradicate the invasive niles. And he wants to ignore the real cause, the enviornment has been modifyied to no longer be acceptable to native species. Which is a much harder task to fix.

Only his approach, is a bandaid approach and will not fix anything. It will just give him and a few politicans, peace of mind. For a moment. But surely it will not fix anything. Cheers

I guess it fits the terms of service, by being about conservation and niles. Both of which are included in the TOS. Thanks

What would you want to talk about? this forum is extremely slow, with around one subject a day or less. This forum goes days without anyone posting about anything. In subject or not Heck anything is better then nothing, hey? Cheers

well i dont know , not politics anyway . im not to much for posting forums.I like to read what kind of knowledge i can learn from others , see whats worked what hasnt.Ive got a pair of ackies, with 4 more on the way. OH , even on ocasion ive posted a question but no replys. see march 3 post if you care.

later sjatm941

You could always reword and ask again.

You may think about sharing and discussing instead of taking information. I am sure if you posted pics and just talked about your monitors, you will get far more and better information, then, relying of asking questions. I know, I get very tired of answering questions(getting grilled). But I do not get tired of talking about monitors. You know, it does not always have to be about a specific problem.

You may understand, many many people view this board and they have many many different interests. The problem with invasive niles, is something that may effect you in a very direct way. If they decide, to bann monitors because of the problem with niles. It will be a very personal problem for you. And that is the kind of things that happen. They happen, because they do not want to take responsibility for the damage caused to the enviornment. So they blame the nile.

You see, its not de niles problem. If niles do not fill that niche what will? Rats? Cheers

mayby i will . i dont have much to share at this point in the game , but mayby i can take a couple pics sometime and share my interest. here is a pic of my frst ackie cage i had a couple years ago. 55 gallon tank, i didnt have dirt in that cage but im using dirt now. I kept them(3) for a month before needed the money so i had to let them go. ive got a way better job now so the money isnt a issue anymore and wont be, im in a company that has promoted me beyond what ive ever been. i manufacture waterjet machines/parts. im just getting back into monitor keeping , so you may see a post or two in the future. my speeling and grammar sucks so , pardon me!

sean

Thats not a lot different then what I raise babies in. A little dirt on the bottom, a glass tank, only I use stacks of boards(retes boards) For them to hide in and regulate temps. Of course a water bowl.

enjoy

you got to remember , that was a old pic of my first attemt at ackies(lasted a month). MY new set up is bigger and ive got plywood steps for basking. although i like yours , smaller areas for them to cram into. mine the gaps are too big , ive been thinking of making the gaps between boards smaller for them to fit snug. ill have to do that. here in the next week or so ill have to snap a pic or two and post a bit .

later
sean

The eggs are ackie eggs. The little fellas hatching are a cross between two types or real dwarf monitors. V.gilleni(adults average 10 to 12 inches)and V.caudolineatus(adults average, 8 to 10 inches) This is the third clutch to hatch this year.

You can tell how much smaller they are then ackies, its funny huh? cheers

thats is really cool . are those some of the rarest small monitors in captivity? id like to see some pics as they get older .

sean mcc

I have to disagree.The anole analogy that was given is not true.The reason for the success of the brown anole is due DIRECTLY to it`s far greater adaptability to various habits in particular it`s more terrestrial nature and ability to survive in areas that are depleted or nearly totally defoliated .The brown anoles don`t displace the greens in fact in places where I was able to observe both species living literally side by side the incidence of aggressive interactions between the two species was virtually non existent. It was clear that there was room for both species to co-exist as long as the habitat provided suitable conditions for both.The one thing that did cause species displacement was when the habit was disturbed and altered the removal of shrubs , weed whacking the reduction of foliage is what caused the demise of the green anoles .Not the competition. Brown anoles are far more durable then greens and thrive under conditions that quickly kill off the greens.

South West Florida and the great Nile monitor invasion. I live in the heart of the invasion and in the past five years I have seen two. I`ve heard plenty of story`s about residents who are terrified about the giant lizards but haven`t met any of these people. The people that live along the canals that the nile`s inhabit are accustomed to seeing large alligators and are aware of animals such as diamond backs,coral snakes.......... etc. in the area so the presents of a lizard isn`t exactly a horrific thought to say the least and their presents certainly won`t be the down fall of the native species that inhabit these areas.It`s amazing how the press ,biologist and the like try to create horror story`s. The press likes a good story and I guess biologist need a reason to justify their jobs even if there isn`t one but the truth is nobody is in a panic over the giant lizard invasion. Especially when so few are actually seen.

On that note I read an article where a biologist was given 50k to come an eradicate the giant lizards.What a joke .If anyone wants to rant about the problems caused by irresponsible pet owners the place to start is with DOG owners. The number of loose dogs running around South Florida is a far greater problem then monitor invasion is now or will ever be. Florida may be inhabited by many introduced species but from what I`ve observed few of them pose a threat to native wildlife and many would have probably never survived had they been introduced into an unchanged Florida but as it stands their just another part in the mix of an already radically altered environment. Thats` my take on it. Ernie Eison

I agree with you. I have to wonder, do the people in Africa where the niles naturally occur, get attacked by them and do their dogs and cats(pets) also get consumed by the monster niles? Or are they simply a future meal. Thanks

Have you made comparisons with green anoles outside of Florida? You fail to mention observation in any area where frost (a climatic factor that the otherwise-generalized brown anole cannot tolerate) is a limiting factor for brown anoles. I do have to say, come to Louisiana, or Mississippi, or southern Arkansas. Ernie, you will see green anoles in areas perfectly degraded, defoliated, just like the areas of Florida in which you will see only browns. If you have no other areas for comparison, there is no valid method to your conclusion. You will interpret your observations however you prefer, with regard to anoles in Florida, and only in Florida. Am I wrong? Am I missing a region in which brown anoles do not occur where green anoles have been permanently extirpated following the same level of human development you mention as necessary for extirpating them in Florida?

Your commenting on the effect one species has on another in areas where only one of the species occurs ? While my observations are based on watching the direct interactions of the two species and the effect environmental changes has had on each of them under the exact same conditions. Cause and effect. I`d say my observations are pretty valid . Green anoles may be able to survive in areas where the foliage has been greatly reduced but these are far less suitable conditions and put them at a large disadvantage. While a species may continue to exist in these circumstances sooner or later it will catch up with them. On the other hand environmental changes that increase the preferred habit of a species is to their advantage and their success will increase.In these greatly altered conditions the brown anoles are far better suited and this is what in enables them to increase their numbers while the now less then favorable conditions for the green is ultimately it`s demise.The bottom line is had the environment remained in it`s original condition the green and brown anoles would exist together but change it to give one species a huge advantage and it`s a different story.This isn`t " what if " speculation but a scenario that I observed on multiple occasions. Think about it an animal that turns bright green as part of it`s evolutionary development is taken from a leafy green area and placed into an open rocky setting with few plants. I would say now turning bright green puts at a huge disadvantage . Now put an animal that is much more terrestrial ,stays dull brown to black in color and who`s defense is to run to the ground and hide in between rocks in those conditions . I think it`s common sense that animal will flourish and not because it`s pushing the other species out but because it`s FAR better able to take advantage of the newly altered habitat. And yes you are wrong habitat destruction has taken a toll on green anole populations like many other species in many areas other then Florida but for the record Florida is the ultimate place to study invasive species ,habitat displacement and the resulting impacts.

Ernie Eison

In our discussion, he eliminated the broad view and anything else that did not support his point. That makes it very easy to support his thoughts. You know, eliminate anything that counterdicts your point of view.

But sirs, thats OK, this is a discussion group, we are not actually a performance group, are we? Our task is to present different points of view.

Besides there is no real problem, only a potential problem. The broad view(overall) is, if we keep up with this global warming, the potential is, we may be lucky enough to catch Niles outside of New York City. Cheers

So your answer is no? No observation of green anoles in disturbed habitat in regions where brown anoles cannot exist (compete)?

When the green anoles begin to occupy the open spaces with the onset of spring, remind me to snap some pictures to show you just how ungreen many of their preferred places in disturbed habitat are.

Oh, and adaptation to their environment did not make them green. It gave them a choice between which they can bounce back and forth, green OR brown. That would seem to be an advantage over a species which gets to choose hues of brown/black only. Thanks. Ben

"Oh, and adaptation to their environment did not make them green. It gave them a choice between which they can bounce back and forth, green OR brown. That would seem to be an advantage over a species which gets to choose hues of brown/black only. "Thanks. Ben

And oh, The adaptation was evolved and did come about as product of their environment .To give them a choice and obviously that choice was centered around the presents of foliage. Turning green is an advantage when there's something green to hide in but remove the plants and now it`s the brown animals that are better adapted to ground living that will take control of the situation and survive .The greens still turn green plants or not they don`t stay brown just because all the plants are gone. I think it`s easy to see who gets eliminated in this contest first.The greens can`t turn back the evolutionary clock fast enough and stay brown to handle to changes in their environment that happen to be ideal for the competition.The point as stated is both species can (And DO) survive together if conditions that suit the green are availble.This has been already proven .When studied The browns became dominate in rocky more open and lower settings while the greens were able to survive and do well along with them because they took take advantage of denser foliage and being able to live higher up in the plants. The greens weren't eradicated by the browns because they were able to use their evolutionary skills to the fullest because the environment was in it`s natural state .Remove the plants and it`s an entirely different end. Ernie Eison

What would your pictures prove? Your not comparing apples to apples only projecting speculation.The question was never if greens can survive to some degree after their natural habitat has been defoliated when there's no direct competition .

The point to this is your trying to say that brown anoles eradicate the greens. And it`s been proven that unless the natural and preferred habitat ( foliated areas) of the green anoles is no longer available doe`s this occur.As long as theres ample greenery both species can live together. Ultimately it`s the loss of the surrounding plant life (habitat destruction) that doe`s the greens in and is the real culprit not their inability to cope with the browns when all the natural options are availible to them. Ernie Eison

As I had discussed, green anoles can adapt to changes that development will catalyze. However, ADAPT. This means, change. That's the drum I've been beating and I'm still beating it. Along the western Gulf Coast (above the "frost line" where development has cleared much of the medium and upper level story, green anoles occur on or near the ground. Yes, they occupy territories a few feet to 0 inches from the ground. This is adaptation.

If green anoles can occupy ground level habitat where brown anoles do not occur, then what must the problem be in Florida? It doesn't really matter whether you think competitive exclusion occurs via color, territory height, aggressive behavior, nasty language. The brown anole trick, in whichever expression, is preadaptation. Brown anoles already have whatever it is the green anole needs. The point is that we brought in a species that can push the green anole out. We brought a replacement for the equation in which Florida green anoles might otherwise have adapted to just as well as they have from Alabama to Texas.

I don't think we differ over the point of this example. We have negatively affected the adaptive success of the native species by bringing in a species that is already better at interspecific competition. Again, whether you think it's color, territory height, aggressive behavior, doesn't matter. The species replacement happens. And it's because we brought the brown anole to Florida. That's what is pertinent to this at-first little example. I wonder how long before the forum police find this thread to be completely outside of the terms and give us penalty...

Green anoles have always occupied from ground level up. And indeed they occupy desturbed habitat. As a person who has lived in New Orleans(twice) Once while starting the rebuild of Audubon park zoo. And again working on the Aquarium. Green Anoles were very common thru out the city, picking low brush and Cicads as perferred habitat.

To think they have adapted to that is silly and naive, they have always been able to use that type of habitat. Its included within their abilities. To adapt is to change abilities. Cheers

Yes, go out in the bush as I'm sure you did while living down there/here (there is a lot of it, although nowadays much tresspassing required...).

In more natural habitat, green anoles seem to prefer higher reaches. Could it all point to a three-step sequence? Green anoles prefer upper levels. Green anoles lose canopy cover and adapt to live at lower levels. Brown anoles move in and remind green anoles where they came from. That's still adaptation and species displacement, even though in a quirky fashion.

In the Bahamas, brown anoles are arboreal to avoid curly-tailed lizards. Go figure.

You are simply applying your restricted opinion on something now so restricted. As in, most reptiles have a range of perfered habitats. Not one single habitat. This is what defines a species as specialized. How much variation a species can use. For instance a Fla, worm lizard, has a very restricted habitat, a narrow range of soil types and moisture levels(drainage)its specialized.

The green anole has a much wider range of habitats. I have to ask you, do you really think green anoles in San Antonio have the exact same habitat has green anoles in the everglades, or individuals from northern fla, compared to New Orleans. Or individuals from the Barateria(sp) compared to individuals from cypress swamps north of New Orleans.

As a species, Anoles carolinis(sp) has a range of habitats that have allowed it to exsist in all the above varied and different habitats. That range is included in that species. Green anoles are not so specialized as the worm lizard.

This ability also is included in varanids(an attempt to keep this within the TOS) A single species of monitor also has a wide range of perferred habitat. For instance Ackies of the same published subspecies occur for tropical rain forest(Mitchell river falls) very near the equator. To south of the hammersly in arid deserts with little or no rain. Yet they are still ackies.

About the Bahamas, your not going to fool me. I have been from the bahamas to Ven. thru most of the ST. islands and thru the upper and lower Antillies. So I have seen many types of brown anoles and curly tails. To make an example of what one anole or one population of brown anoles do is very very weak, and you really need to make better points.

You must consider, my opinions of what reptiles do is not only based on reading about them. Its based of spending my whole life looking at them over the world and reading about them, as well as successfully keeping them in captivity. Which is kinda why I have a little different point of view.

Back to the point of Niles(the THREAD) I have voiced many times that monitors are very generalized. I voiced this opinion because over much of the world(that they occur in) they seem to be like anoles, brown and green, or house sparrows, or many other invasives, they are far more successful in disturbed habitat then in natural habitat.

That along with what it takes to successfully keep them in captivity. You know, "Heatum and feedum" along with the ability to nest(this can restrict them like it does many bird species) makes them what I have often called them. Monitors are reptilian rats.

What man has done with these reptilian rat species(many many) is offerred extensions to their ability to exsist. Naturally they occured in pockets(populations) thru out any givin area. Now they have that and what man offers them.

Of course man offers food, insects, rats/mice and garbage. Man offers habitat, all sorts of nice plants from other areas(which allows more prey types) trash, wood piles, tin piles, old buildings, etc etc. Man offers food shelter and the key, man kills of their real predators. Their important controll predators are no longer in exsistance.

Back to the point, to adapt, is to show change, Have the green anoles expressed a change? have they changed their toepads, their dulaps, the ridge down their back, etc? have they done that. Not that I know of YET, so no, they have not changed.

Green anoles have not changed anything because they still occupy their natural habitats.

You mentioned brown anoles are changing as they spend time in this new invaded habitat. Yes, that is possible, they no longer have the same simple tools of external adaption, they no longer have the same birds or snakes that feed on them, so they indeed will aquire more suitable colors in each area they colonize. But color/pattern change is a fast changing character. Just look at a many species of reptiles, that have slight changes in each area.

Cas, it appears you have some passion for your thoughts, but before you fool yourself into believing them, you should go look for exceptions, not what agrees with you.

What your doing, denying. Is very common in the academic world. Its common to investigate to confirm your beliefs, its not common to investigate to find exceptions to your beliefs.

To me, this is the difference between a good investigator and a poor one. I want to read and learn from an investigator that includes all bits of information, not only what proofs his point.

You seem to pick up what only prooves your point. Go out and look for what proves you wrong. Doing both will give you a far better understanding of reptiles.

A note on brown anoles, While you mention them as an exsisting species, I do not believe that is the case. The original investation of brown anoles occurred in the Homestead area(us old herpers that is was fun to catch these new species) There were members of several species, I believe Haitain and Bahaman species were both included in the genisis of our brown anoles

Cheers and thanks for the conversation.

The original green anole example I gave wasn't meant to imply the evolution of altered physical characteristics. I was speaking of adaptation of behavior which can be very local right down to the level of the individual or very wide ranging across the whole species.

Your mention of the brown anole hybrid swarm is interesting, I’ve heard about that. Cutban specimens supposedly played a role in Florida, too. Brown anoles are believed to be introduced in the Bahamas. Delineation of current species/subspecies divisions in such a wide-ranging and quickly-changing species is of little import to me, since I think it’s more interesting that Florida's brown anole colonies (should they be hybrids) show hybrids to “act” as a valid species, as we define it.

You seem to misinterpret my approach. This isn’t surprising, since it’s tricky for me to use tone on a message board. I’m aware that I don’t have all the answers, but I can only type about the answers I do have, i.e., observations I have made and, more tentatively, that which I’ve read and evaluated.

You say I pick up only on what proves my point. That I make thoughts and then strive to believe them. My thoughts are based on what I’ve seen, which is limited. More so than you; I’ve had substantially less time. Obviously, my thoughts are skewed and I can’t compare them to the exceptions I have not yet found. Exception equals something that is far less likely to be found. That does not mean I don’t take equal note of exceptions or that I try to mask found exceptions. I know that sort of irresponsible behavior is typical among certain wordy fellows, so I don’t take exception (pun?) to your assuming me so negligent.

Do understand, if I waited to witness exceptions to my observations, I would never get to say anything at all. As a member of the compulsive communicator species, that’s no fun and it impedes my learning. Why? Yes, it’s my own job to challenge my hypotheses, to try to prove the null hypotheses. That is the ultimate objective to scientific inquiry – not to prove, but to disprove – the expectations. But, that takes time and luck. Easier is to post hypotheses here and let others peruse them and suggest their takes.

Do you think I jump into these discussions every once in so often to prove myself? Heck, I’m even more selfish than that. If I couldn’t learn from these exchanges, I’d be outside chasing critters. Thanks. Ben

I`ll keep it short over and over your ignoring key facts noted in arguing your point .In case you missed it ,

"Floridians grew up with the green anoles all over the outsides of their houses. Now they see only brown anoles. But usually the green anoles are just higher up, not gone," says Campbell. Thickly vegetated gardens provide urban havens for green anoles, and at least for now, outside the most urbanized areas, brown anole densities are lower and many green anole populations continue to thrive. " Campbell

The above is the conclusion was drawn after years of scientific study and not only is it a common sense conclusion but it fully supports what I've been saying. The point once again isn't if green anoles can adapt to urbanized areas the point is and has been can the brown anoles simply replace the greens if the natural habitat remains unchanged or even some what close and the answer is a clear cut NO.The only time this happens is when the browns are given a huge advantage. Defoliation topping the list. Beat away.

Ernie Eison

You needn't get agitated. We're on thin ice as it is by talking about little green menitors here.

Most areas of Florida in which I've observed only brown anoles (what you call really degraded habitat that gives browns huge advantage) were in habitat that, further north (where browns aren't), supports green anoles.

The citation you mention where the two species "co-occur" doesn't represent areas of true microsympatry, because the green anoles have a high-altitude alternative from which to choose. It shows that there is a most fine line between discriminating habitat that will result in species displacement vs. species replacement.

Brown anoles are better adapted to disturbed habitat then Green anoles. The reason is, disturbed habitat is more similar to Brown anoles natural habitat. Which means disturbed habitat(urban) is less similar to Green anoles natural abilities. So Brown anoles can indeed out compete them in this new habitat.

Again, I have been to their natural habitat and the islands are not very lush. They are very dry and somewhat arid with short scrubby plants. Of course inlands have a wet side(windward) and dry side(leward). But normally the wet side is much smaller then the dry side. This allows island species to contain successful traits that are much broader. Just something to think about.

Being from floridaaaa.I love it Yes we have parrots/monkeys walking cat fish/burms /iguanas/monitors/geckos/caimen/pirrahana And alot more.Now how many species have or biologist introduced Lets see.grass carp to eat hydrilla/moths to eat paper tree by the way they introduced to dry up everglades.austalian pines introduced for wind block.all kinds of invaisives.I work doing wetland recreation.We spend billions a year to fix these screw ups.As far as bad press I did see a gator eating a burm on news.You don't see much on that part of introduced species providing food for our native species.They are just trying to get more restrictions for all of us.Look up all intoduced species to florida our goverment introduced to get rid of the very same invaisives they introduced which turned out to be a mistake.Oh grass carp are supposed to be sterile.OOPS now they are reproducing and eating native aquatic vegetation.A few monitors burms and scare stories will help push for new restrictions.Sorry for long post and bad spelling .
Just tired of hearing scare tactics.Personally I love seeing parrots iguannas and all these things I wish we could introduce endangered species fron madagasgar here to give them a chance.
Mike

Let's introduce more exotic species to Florida for our own personal enjoyment... That's a brilliant idea. Obviously your work(restoring wetlands?) has not taught you a darn thing...
-----
Treemonitors.com

The same poor attitude I have, better to see wildlife, then no wildlife. After all, no one going to stop the degradation of the remaining natural habitats. Lets hope something besides people can live in the future Fla. Cheers

I have observed the same, I have both green and browns living in my area. From what I have seen they do not go around fighting one another off. I have seen greens breeding the browns as well as browns breeding the greens. The greens tend to hang out in the foilage, while the browns are on the ground or lower parts of the tree trunks. In my nieghborhood as well as other parts of FL. I think it is safe to say they can co-exist without either being eradicated. Of course if you tip the scales to favor one over the other you may see one slipping, but that slip will not be a direct cause from the other.

I'd like to see how many of these people talking about the niles have actually come down and observed them or even came down to try, or looked over the area in which they are supposed to be.

I am not taking sides but why are you guys not including the fact that prey of both species can be the same. Therefore the more aggressive Anoles eating first and driving the less aggressive eaters to less nutrition and resulting in less production.
Or the fact that one species can introduce a parasite not yet adapted to, resulting in less production or death.
Or the fact that the native species has possibly not fully evolved the strongest to its environment and the introduced species is, by way of a more hostile original but similar environment?
To say that an introduced species is not a threat or we should wait for an actual problem can and has been disastrous.
Also something to think about is these actions are a force of evolution and maybe for the first time we can actually witness evolution happening due to our pressure placed on species by our actions. They either change to survive or go extinct. As long as we protect enough to allow native species to have the adaptation time they will still be here with a few genetic modifications. Right? As long as they are not ecosystem lawn mower like some toads, ants, humans or rats I think we will be fine.