Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This goulds female is about to lay eggs(successfully I hope) They bred a while back, yet, they still choose to be next to eachother.

I understand they are in a cage, but the cage has lots of places to escape contact with eachother, yet, they feel the need to be hands on. That is, they seem to want to touch their mate. They constantly have a foot or some part of their body touching the other. Surely this is not forced on them. They do not have to do this.

When we have monitors that do not get along(not like these) one will stay as far away as possible. Often going down in a burrow and staying there for long periods of time.

Around here, this type of behavior(attracting, social), whatever you want to call it, is a daily occurance. Whats very funny is, the successful ones are the ones that do this, not the unsuccessful ones. With monitors that are anti social in behavior, success is rare and hard to come by( but possible)

Which is very important. As my opponents do not lie, they do not have monitors that work in a social manner, therefore they are not so successful with their results. I am sure, they do not see repeatable success(recruitment) with the anti social monitors in nature or captivity.

Of course I am guessing about the above paragraph. One author that supports monitors being anti-social(random, his word) Told me, that in his two year study, he saw one copulation, or supposed copulation, as it only lasted a few minutes(not normal for varanids). And only one possible nesting, yet had no proof it was a nest. He did not dig it up or see babies come out, or even wait until after they hatched and found egg shells. He only saw a fat lizard go in and a skinny lizard come out(not very scientific).

Even if those two events were true and real. One reproductive event over two years. That is not logical. As there must be far more then that. After all, he listed over 5000 observations. But only those two reproductive events. If that reflected reality, monitors would quickly become exstint.

So if your a keeper like me, you read the paper and see thousands of observations, yet none of interest. The animals participating in actual recruitment. Any form of recriutment. Again, to recruit is to exsist. Without it, there is not exsistance. That paper is of no real interest.

So before I go, on and on, I still wonder why our and others, successful monitors(recruiting) seem to volunterily particate in social behaviors. They seem to want to be around their mates and even other individuals.

I know I am an odd ball, but its easy for me, hahahahahaha. You must work from a goal. If monitors reproduce in nature, to stay in exsistance, then shouldn't that be the main focus of any stinking paper? The most important event a monitor does is to reproduce, to recruit. Yet, why is this information missing from their papers?

Which leads to the question, why do they say anything without supporting information. They are calling monitors anti social, because of what they do not see, not from what they DO see.

For you advanced thinkers out there, this should raise a red flag. A red flag should also be raised by other biologist and their peers. This is not proper science. The lack of information can never override real information.

You can argue that monitors are different in captivity, a very naive arguement in my opinion. But truth still exsists, we have lots and lots of real evidence that monitors are NOT anti-social, or random in behavior. They attract others of their own type and participate in group behaviors. These behaviors include but are not limited to copulation. They include but are not limited to securing prey. They include but are not limited too, dormate(winter) behavior.

Of course they are not social like ants(are ants social?) or any mammal, but then if you think about it, social behaviors varies from animal to animal, and from individual to individual even amoungst the same species. So yes, science can say, they are not social, but then they should realize, whatever this is, social or something else, it exsists and needs its own name. You know, something that means social. hahahahahahahahaha

What has bothered me about these particular biologist is, science is suppose to enbrace the unknown, in fact, its suppose to investigate and explain the unknown. Thats the purpose of science. Yet these fellas see fit to deny, dimiss, ignore, and cover their collective ears and eyes and let real time, hard evidence of something new(only to them) slip right on by. To me, that is very very sad. So please understand, I do not hate them, I actually feel sorry for them.

But the real problem is not them, its you keepers. You need to understand, you are getting good information here(stuff that works) and bad information(what does not work) on these forums. How do you decide what to use???? Not by degrees I hope, not by proper spelling, or not by who yells the loudest. LOOK FOR RESULTS, just like those biologist are suppose to do, if they were doing a good job. Cheers and again, I apologise for the rant. But surely you must understand, the pain being inflicted is on the monitors. They are what will benefit or be hurt. Think about that. Cheers

"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 eachother. But just because they don't doesn't mean they are social, just that they are able to tolerate eachother a lot more than most people think they can.

Saying a monitor is social is a lot like saying you "tamed" a monitor. We all know that tame isn't the word, because monitors will never be tame ... just like we can't say monitors are social just because we see monitors tolerating eachother so well it's unbelievable to most.

This is not a matter of being social or not, all animals have a sociability in accordance to there rank within the food chain, the highest ranking species are the most socialised, the rest is fair game. Of course this has nothing to do with size, it’s about numbers.

Varanids defend territories, they defend nests, some species hunt in groups (survival skill)
There survival depends on prey availability, there babies are a source of protein for many other species, that’s why they produce large numbers of eggs.

Monitors are a contributing specie!
Social is a human term, we define what is social without any consideration of biology and ecology of species. Funny coming from an animal that offers little contribution to nature, in fact we have no natural selection.

I am not social my neighbours will tell you, but I am forced to raise my kids in accordance to social stigmas, little room for individualism.

I keep lizards that express interesting behaviours, there actions are never random but well structured, why we need to categorise them is beyond my comprehension.

I thought social animals naturally in nature, not captivity, seek out one another and live together in group for social benefits such as rearing youngs and protection against predators or others of the same species. You see ants living together because they help each other take care of their young, defending it against predators and feeding it to ensure the survival of the species. Lions do the same thing. They defend their young against predators such as hyena and other lions from different pride. Tigers are not social animals, but in captivity they learn to live together, but that doesn't mean they are. It is only so because people contritbute to their social behavior; it is not inherant in their genes like other true social animals. Monitors do not come together and rear youngs, protecting it and feeding it. They lay eggs and they leave them to hatch on their own, and the babies fends for itself after hatching. In fact, the babies are fair game for the adults, which cannibalize on the youngs. If they were social, they would help each other rear offsprings. It doesn't even have to be to the degree of rearing youngs together, but at least live together in the wild with the dominant male and female.

Exactly!

You guys try to pigeonhole the term social the way it applies to totally different groups of animals: insects, mammals and primates. Instead of going by a standard that is suitable, for..heck not even monitors, just reptiles would be ok.. you guys compare monitors to ants, likely the most social animals on the planet or advanced mammals. Why not look at animals that they are related to and compare social aspects that way. Reptiles don't need to raise their young together to be considered social, but if they do repeatedly choose to be in each other's company (better yet in physical contact) when given the option to be away from one another, that leads me to believe that they are showing social tendencies. I truly don't understand why some folks don't get this. This is basic stuff, basic common sense for anyone who has any real experience watching these animals. This brings up another important point... people who have kept reptiles in captivity and have seen them in nature for...hmmm, lets say decades, through repeated experience, come to realize that herps express the behaviors that they are designed for (nature) in captivity, they aren't programed with a whole different set of built in captivity behaviors, all of their captive behaviors are based on the abilities they are programmed with (instinct), or have learned (but based in instinct). Yet, the ones who troll here to bait Frank don't seem to understand that. They don't seem to get that these animals come to the table with a set of basic behaviors that they utilize (when allowed) or eventually die.

The reason that this is so frustrating to read over and over again is that those who offer sound advice on captive husbandry are having their credibility questioned, by those who offer no practical information at all as it relates to the poor monitors in the care of the noobs on this forum. Kids listen to those who have the fancy initials after their names (specifically PhD) when in reality the theory that they offer as advice is worthless as it applies to the care of these captive monitors....and the monitors keep dying. Provide sound basic husbandry and your monitors will act in ways that is clearly social. They are social because mother nature has programmed them with that set of behaviors that they can express in suitable conditions. Sorry for the rant, but is getting rediculous.

Will

Good points, except I would not exclude monitors from your definitions. For instance, people think monitors eat their babies, yet we have let eggs hatch in the cage and they did not eat them. How funny. I also found, many species of odatria, where adults would found sitting with babies. This included both ackies and storrs(which is most surprising)

The truth is, we have no idea what is actually going on. For instance, recently there are reports of rattlesnakes protecting their young. Where an adult actually gathered its offspring in its coils. Once I found an adult female blacktail rattlesnake coiled RIGHT ON TOP of six babies. Only the babies were a different species. They were banded rock rattlesnakes. Hmmmmmmm no worries mom was only six inches away. These types of things indicate, we do not know much.

ALso years ago, I reported Large males of V.tristis, in breeding groups, became more of a watchdog, and would not breed. I had to add another male to these groups, so I would get fertile eggs from the group. ???????????????? I saw that with several species.

You see, I have seen far to many "odd" behaviors to rule out all social behaviors. I have seen far to many that fit your discription.

The problem is lack of all ability to understand these animals. For instance, WE keepers have our own rules, like a male and a female in a cage. And the cage designed with that in mind. You sir, and others here do not think in terms of group cages. With that in mind, you do and so many others do not allow them to express what they are. You control what they are. Cheers

" You see, I have seen far to many "odd" behaviors to rule out all social behaviors. I have seen far to many that fit your discription. "
I completely agree with you.

"This is not a matter of being social or not"
To FR this is. His entire argument is that "acedemics" are wrong by not labeling monitors as social when he has seen what he has determined to be social behavior within his cages.

"all animals have a sociability in accordance to there rank within the food chain,"
I agree with you, but this isn't what his arguement is about (and the people he has argued with will confirm this). Again, he is trying to prove by posting all these pictures and making all these posts that monitors fit the defeinition of social when they do not.

"Monitors are a contributing specie! "
No one said they weren't, and I don't know why you felt the need to say that.

"I am not social my neighbours will tell you, but I am forced to raise my kids in accordance to social stigmas, little room for individualism. "
Okay?

"I keep lizards that express interesting behaviours, there actions are never random but well structured, why we need to categorise them is beyond my comprehension."
I don't remember anyone saying lizards were basically big bags of random ... and because you said categorizing animals is beyond your comprehension I won't bother with that.

The term "random" came from the paper i referred to, in order to predict the behaviors they did not see, they use a math formula that predicts trends. But in order for that formula to be accurate the subject must not be prejudiced, that is, have perferred movements. The subject cannot attract or repell others of its own kind(or any kind). Or the formula will be void. Its not that the formula is so bad, but the researcher, must understand and program the behaviors in order for the formula to work. So I guess it was easier just to say their movements were random.

I agree with Jobi, I think all their behaviors are prejudiced and the do attract and repell others of their own species. Of course I think important parts of the population are weakly to highly gregarious. Whether you want to call them social is up to you. I call them social for ease of understanding.

The problem is, they do call them anti social, loners, etc. Which in my opinion, occurs within a population, but is not an important part of a population. Cheers

"Whether you want to call them social is up to you. I call them social for ease of understanding."
Social has a definition and at this time monitors do not fit it which is why I think this has become such an issue. I understand what you mean though.

"The problem is, they do call them anti social, loners, etc."
In my opinion this is a great thing.
Can you imagine how many more captive deaths there would be if everyone called monitors social?
A lot of new monitor owners are barely able to provide minimal care to just one monitor. Now, imagine the number of casualties when that owner feels they NEED to pick up three or four monitors to put in their glass aquarium. This forum would be filled with, "my monitors keep fighting", "why don't my monitors like eachother" posts.

If people understood they are gregarious, then they would allow them from a young age, as you would all social animals. Consider, what you happen if you raised any social animal without contact with its own type. You do know don't you, they fail, just like monitors raised that way.

We raise our monitors in groups, and we do not have anti social problems.

For instance, I breed lacies. That means I raise Lacies, they have huge teeth that are very sharp. They are very aggressive feeders, Yet I feed them with throwing food in with groups. They do not fight for food. The reason is, they learned how to feed together from a very young age.

On the otherhand, if I raise them singlely, then after they are adult pair them up, then throw in food, they tear eachother to pieces. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm they display social ignorance.

This is but one behavioral trait that is modified by them learning from a young age. There are many.

Now if you compare monitors to other social animals and treat them the same, you will see similar results. Raise them together, they get along, raise them apart, they don't. Works with dogs too. Cheers

great point from a breeding view point, but what other benefits come from keeping them in groups from a young age?

Well they exhibit most of there behaviours when allowed to communicate with others of there kind, not allowing this is condemning them to a stagnant life.

99% of varanids keepers have never seen this with their captives. Should peoples like Vivian de Bufrenil see how my niloticus interact together, they would completely change their views on them. Personally I have no interest in solo animals, I practically give them away, in fact I exchanged a solo lace monitor for a group of uromastyx.
Of course a group of lace would have been most fascinating for me.

Read me slow or you will miss the good stuff.

Yes! I was outwitted by your well written and well thought out response. You clever cookie, you.

I don't keep monitors but have been reading about them a bit and actually find this forum VERY useful for the arguments between Frank and others. I think a forum is in trouble when everyone agrees with a single point of view. It's like preaching to the choir. Progress doesn't come out of continuity. Anyone with any interest in science, biology, etcetera should understand that. You have to question things.

I also find it entertaining that Frank keeps making some solid points along with pictures about how monitors have the ability to be social, but the biologists and herpotologists (are any of these people arguing against him even herpotologists?) aren't able to respond and just demand that captive and wild are two entirely separate dichotomies. While I see absolutely no reason why that is or should be true, that's not exactly a reason.

All this commotion and argument has actually attracted at least one reader. It's so boring reading a forum where all people do is give the same responses to husbandry questions. I like to read new or thought-provoking information sometimes. And I give this forum an A compared to very many others in that realm...

The science community, at least the one involved with varanids don’t really have the tools to argue with experienced keepers. I wish they would come and try or at least exchange but seems like reputation is a priority for them.
Not that we don’t behave or anything like that.
Today I was reading Mertensiela2 sent to me by a summit varanophil a few years ago, I haven’t read it before simply cause I had better thing to do. The book is an amalgam of studies on varanids by those we call the science commune. It’s all excellent literature but none of any use to me or my captives, this is the controversy.

As a former monitor keeper (who doesn't really belong here ), I have to agree this has made for some fascinating reading. Frank is in truly rare form in some of these posts. And yes, that is a great thing for this forum (and a personal treat for me).

I think it should be pointed out though, that an assorted group of ...people have glommed together over the years, and spent much of that time burning their collective toast over Frank Retes, what I would call a "hobbyist approach" to varanid keeping, this (beautifully put, Bob) "lower rung of herpetoculture", and in one notable case, humanity in general. I find it really alarming that people would equate them with herpetology as a field, or worse, scientific study as a whole. Science is the most poweful, elegant, and wonderful too humanity has ever devised. These are some angsty fellows on the internets (regardless of their qualifications). Everyone, please try not to equate the two.

I'd like to imagine that one would be hardpressed to compare these internet "herpotologists" arguing against Frank (and trying to bring his demise to every forum on the internet...? haha) with the bread and butter of the best of them. Of course, the real ones have more important things to do than troll on an internet forum, and if any of some real, qualified biologists ever came to argue with Frank, I'd seriously like to imagine that their posts would be structured far better with real information than the current objectionists.

Like, what is the purpose of ritualized combat in a solitary, nomadic species. Or, Scientifically speaking, how does a monitor completely change in captivity. After all, most are wild one day, then captive the next? How can that make them social/gregarious?. Or even, How does one generation in captivity change a monitors behavioral makeup? Two generations, ten generations? etc.

Of course I do not think it changes them one little tiny bit. Of course is you offer them stimulis they are not genetically suited for, then you will see behaviors that are most likely rare in nature. But most likely they will die or become placeholders( a zero, no behavior)

Unfortunately I only took enough science(third year biology student) To understand the basics. I was taught that, a leopard cannot change its spots, so to speak. You can rearrange their behaviors to suit captivity better, but you cannot change them.

I do not believe any solitary or anti-social animal has become very social in captivity. Particularly within a couple generations in captivity or directly out of nature.

These base arguements must be discussed before we can go farther.

Of course, only if learning is their intent. Which does not seem to be the case with these folks.

So thanks for understanding I do not hate biologist or science. As I mentioned, many of my good friends fall into those catagories. I truly respect anybody thats good in those fields. I just don't understand why these folks do not practice science.

Also I hope people understand, a good scientist loves a challange, and would respond with appropreiate information in context. Why these folks are even on this forum or any captive monitor forum is a wonder, its out of their context, they don't keep monitors or are not good at it. Its always a wonder when someone NOT good at something, has to give advice on the subject they are not good at. See, that is very unscientific. Cheers

I agree. Where would we be without science and sciencetists. Can you imagine the life expectancy, how short it would be, without proper medical knowledge. Or how about just to get to the grocery store without a car...no electricity...no computers. I think science has its place in captive care of our monitor, but I don't think anyone with brain wouldn't come and argue against someone like you. I think they have better things to do and are too smart for such an insignificant event.

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

They do live in organized comumities. The adult breeder pair up, the non breeders do not, the young live in groups and grow up together. They organize and gather for reasons other then copulation.

The point of all this is simple, you do not understand or look deep enough to see the indications that this is so. You do not look(research)deep enough in the field, neonates hang out together, I hope you know that. I am sure you don't. I am sure you do not know anything about baby monitors. My bet is, you see very few of them. How many babies are hatched a year in your area? compare that to how many you see. Now how does what you see, represent what they do? have you seen anything other then an occasional wandering baby? Sir, if you see a thousand babies in nature a year, and they are random. I would agree with you. But if you see a thousand and they are in groups. A group is not a sack or box. A group is monitors within walking and sight distance of eachother. Same as with all other social animals.

Ants are a great example. You surely can find an ant here and there, one all by itself, but if you look deeper, you can find a trail of ants, and if you look farther, a ant hole and a colony of ants. This is the same with monitors, you see the lone monitor, but do not look deep enough to see where that leads.

Sir, I really do not know what you have seen, I can only think this because of what you say. You should not get mad at me. But get mad you yourself and LOOK DEEPER, which I suppose is called to RESEARCH.

You do not allow then to make choices in captivity. My guess is, you understand so little about them, you are to busy barely keeping them alive(meeting basic husbandry).

So yes, I understand, what you have not seen, but please do not think all people are YOU.

These varanids do organize, they do group and segregate. They preform many of the events that are included in being soical. They also display many of these social appearing abilities, Where do they get them? Do they make them up? your so very foolish and unscientific if you think they can simply make them up. Sir, that is wrong, and science will stand behind me on this. An animal cannot make up new behaviors. You simply do not understand the animal.

All in all, I am glad you do not have the foggist idea what monitors are, it gives you lots to do in the future.

Lastly I do understand, you can make up and use any definition you like, so can I, I say ants are not social because they do not think and only work on instint. Therefore, they are programed. Its not a choice. hmmmmmmmmmm then nothing is social but humans. Cheers

Posted by: FR at Wed Aug 2 12:27:34 2006

"They do live in organized comumities. The adult breeder pair up, the non breeders do not, the young live in groups and grow up together. They organize and gather for reasons other then copulation."

While myself and many others would love to accept this, such a statement lacks any evidence. If what you claim is true, where is your proof? Such a claim is a rather bold statement, which defies all of what is presently known about wild monitor lizards. Such a statement warrants evidence in order for people to accept it as truth and abandon the present understanding that we have about wild monitors (this is the scientific method). Where is the proof?

Posted by: FR at Wed Aug 2 12:27:34 2006
You do not allow then to make choices in captivity. My guess is, you understand so little about them, you are to busy barely keeping them alive(meeting basic husbandry).

Frank, what you are failing to understand is that you yourself are failing to offer your own captives one of the most basic, yet significant choices that wild monitors are always allowed to make- the option to stay away from one another. Is this not a choice? Does captivity allow for this choice?

Posted by: FR at Wed Aug 2 12:27:34 2006
"These varanids do organize, they do group and segregate. They preform many of the events that are included in being soical. They also display many of these social appearing abilities.

Again, another claim which I would love to see be true about wild monitors, but we are faced with the same problem. No proof. Where is your proof which supports this claim, if you are so sure that this is how monitors occur in the wild?

Anybody can make statements and claims about wild monitors, however until those claims are supported with evidence, proving the validity of such claims, they are nothing but heresay. The scientific method prevents radical claims which lack evidence from becoming accepted as fact.

One thing which I often question.. In your extensive travels and 'research' in Australia with wild monitors, and of all the social behaviors you have allegedly "seen" in wild monitors, why do you not have any photographs of such social behavior to support your claims? You have posted numerous wild photos of individual monitors, monitors you have captured by hand, various different habitats, landscape scenery, and other Australian wildlife (Kangaroos, Crocodile nests, etc.) during your travels in Australia, yet no photos which support your claims of the sociality you have seen out bush.

Again, this is why you see opposition to your claims. They are nothing more than claims- unsubstantiated heresay. Many people take offense to, or are willing to refute claims stated to be fact, which lack any supporting evidence. You will continue to be refuted until the day you are able to shut such opposition up by supplying evidence proving your sociality in WILD monitors.

Exactly how many times have you observed wild monitors in their natural habitat? Surely you must have vast experience tracking these animals to have formed such strong opinions.

I mean it's not like your some guy with a few monitors in his basement..........is it?

Posted by: rsg at Wed Aug 2 21:22:07 2006

"Exactly how many times have you observed wild monitors in their natural habitat? Surely you must have vast experience tracking these animals to have formed such strong opinions."

I was not aware that observing monitors in the wild was a mandatory prerequisite for being able to ask for proof of a statement which goes against all of what is currently known and accepted by science.

So because I have not observed monitors in the wild, you are suggesting that I must believe all of what is dictated to me, regardless of its source, validity or truthfulness?

While this train of thought may be fine for someone who is of a spiritual background, being a firm believer in the scientific method , I remain a skeptic, and thus require proof of something before I accept it as fact.

Strong Opinions? Not really. I simply choose to wait for proof before believing such a claim.

Still waiting....................

I'll take that as none, zero, nada.

Alrighty then.....I've just read a book on the internal combustion engine and now I'm off to argue with a NASCAR mechanic about tuning a carburetor.........

>> These varanids do organize, they do group and segregate. They preform many of the events that are included in being soical. They also display many of these social appearing abilities, Where do they get them? Do they make them up? your so very foolish and unscientific if you think they can simply make them up. Sir, that is wrong, and science will stand behind me on this. An animal cannot make up new behaviors. You simply do not understand the animal.
>>

I finally just figured out. You really have not seen any of this in nature. You have only seen it in captivity! I would laugh, if I did not waste time responding to this garbage. Sure! Science will stand up behind you on that one? Even though no one in history has ever seen this in nature? So, who is the one that is going to stand up for you on this? No evidence other than what you have seen in a box over 10,000 km from their home ranges in an environment that is not anything close to what they would be found in?

Monitors can not change their behaviours in captivity? So we can go up to monitors in natures and rub them on the neck; we can just pick them up? This is why your V. prasinus used to dig burrows (so V. prasinus is actually fossorial because it happens in a box in the SW American desert?- you say they can not make up a behaviour). You see where this is going?

I am so happy. All I have to do now is set my monitors in some nice enclosures now. I do not need to go in the field and observe what they do, because all of this can be seen in their enclosures. One problem though, what they do in the confines of a box thrown together is not what they will always do in nature. Their behaviours ARE modified.

As far as the babies go, I do not see them often in my local area. I have not seen them often in most areas; however, in one study area I do see them. I found the same individual hatchlings (yes, individuals) of different populations, separated by km’s in the same area (within a district of a province) I previously found them almost every time over weeks and guess what FR? There were not any others for at least 100m, sometimes 100’s metres. So, no the babies do not ‘hang out’ together either.

Yes, I am quite aware that you can make up your own definitions. I have not even visited this forum for a year and have seen you redefine many terms. It is just too bad that no one else seems to call you on it, but seeing your behaviour when you do redefine well known terms, maybe I can understand. I suppose they are just happy to see you drown in your ignorance of their meanings.

Cheers

(Just thought I would post a picture that had nothing to do with the subject also, but it least it is from an area where monitors are found)

"As far as the babies go, I do not see them often in my local area. I have not seen them often in most areas; however, in one study area I do see them. I found the same individual hatchlings (yes, individuals) of different populations, separated by km’s in the same area (within a district of a province) I previously found them almost every time over weeks and guess what FR? There were not any others for at least 100m, sometimes 100’s metres. So, no the babies do not ‘hang out’ together either."

I sure hope this is not the burden of proof that you hold science to. By your own statement, this own study site is the exception, and now you are making blanket case assumptions off of it. I would question why you can't find many 'babies' elsewhere, and then question how you would know there aren't any within 100's of meters. The only logical conclusion from your statement would be that you can't reliably find 'baby' monitors.

--Robert

>>I sure hope this is not the burden of proof that you hold science to. By your own statement, this own study site is the exception, and now you are making blanket case assumptions off of it. I would question why you can't find many 'babies' elsewhere, and then question how you would know there aren't any within 100's of meters. The only logical conclusion from your statement would be that you can't reliably find 'baby' monitors.
>>
Yes, a trend is shown by multiple individuals over multiple populations. That the primary rainforest offers less ground cover than the high, often over 2m high grass in the central floodplain swamps or the tangled masses of vegetation in the mangroves easily explains why they are easier to find. In my own home area, I rarely find them. One of these hatchlings made his home outside a hide that I occupied for several days. One large monitor came within a metre of me, surely if these hatchlings lived in groups, I would have seen one of his group, since I had other monitors come very close to my position or maybe this is just one of the ‘homeless’ monitors that everyone else sees, but one problem, it did have a home, right outside of my hide.

(The hatchling that stayed outside of my hide for days)

Since this area of protected rainforest is not often disturbed, that is the key, not often disturbed, so, yes, I am confident that I can reliably ‘find’ baby monitors. Can I find adult monitors more reliably? Of course! Medium and large sized monitors are not easily missed, compared to a 20-50cm ‘baby’. So, where in the field have you seen or anyone seen groups of hatchlings hanging out in a group? Sure, I could throw a bunch of hatchlings together in a box and presto; they are living in a group. They will assimilate through their forced proximity or they will die of stress from the inability to assimilate (otherwise all monitors would get along). Sorry, that is not the way things work ‘outside the box’.

Cheers,
Michael

"Yes, a trend is shown by multiple individuals over multiple populations."

Perhaps, but you have not proven that.

"So, where in the field have you seen or anyone seen groups of hatchlings hanging out in a group?"

Ohhh.... So your lack of proof, is proof that it doesn't happen?

I'm not saying anything how wild monitors behave, I'm saying your proof sucks.

"They will assimilate through their forced proximity or they will die of stress from the inability to assimilate (otherwise all monitors would get along)."

This statement really shows you are completely ignorant of the dynamics of it in captivity.

Cheers,

--Robert