Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Has anyone ever mixed merumontanus and xantholophus?
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

np

I suppose they could physically do so, but it might not produce viable babies, or if there were babies they might be sterile anyway.

Give it a shot Alan. If you get it to work let me know I want one!
-Tyler Stewart

>>Give it a shot Alan. If you get it to work let me know I want one!
>>-Tyler Stewart

No please don't give it a shot. There is enough trouble keeping up numbers of pure chameleon species without wasting effort on what I personally view as irresponsible practices. Crossing localities is one thing (which i still don't like) but crossing subspecies or species is detrimental to everything breeders should be doing. When there are as many CB specimens of each chameleon species/subspecies as there are CB burms or retics, then go ahead and cross them like you would a burm and retic to create a "bat-eater" or whatever that particular cross is refered to. I personally think that until that time, keepers and breeders should not be wasting their resources.
Just my 2 cents...
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/

I didn't know there was a problem keeping subspecies pure. Please explain this reasoning to me. Jacksonii Jacksonii and xantholopus interbreed naturally. It seems this would make for a strong cham since there would be asolutely no inbreeding. Do you think Jackson's will need to be released in Africa to help the gene pool?

>>>>Give it a shot Alan. If you get it to work let me know I want one!
>>>>-Tyler Stewart
>>
>>No please don't give it a shot. There is enough trouble keeping up numbers of pure chameleon species without wasting effort on what I personally view as irresponsible practices. Crossing localities is one thing (which i still don't like) but crossing subspecies or species is detrimental to everything breeders should be doing. When there are as many CB specimens of each chameleon species/subspecies as there are CB burms or retics, then go ahead and cross them like you would a burm and retic to create a "bat-eater" or whatever that particular cross is refered to. I personally think that until that time, keepers and breeders should not be wasting their resources.
>>Just my 2 cents...
>>Chris
>>-----
>>Chris Anderson
>>parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
>>Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
>>Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/
-----
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/alanvines2002
2.5 Jacksonii Xantholophus (two red phase fem}
35 Jacksonii Xantholophus neonates
0.0.2 Phelsuma M. Grandis
2.3 Anolis C. with 3 neonates
1 neonate texas blue spiny

I think the main reason is that there is not a surplus of breeders of jacksonii, especially j.jacksonii and meru's. There are tons of xanthalopus in captivity but relitivly no merus and jacksonii. Interbreeding with jacksonii is possible(I haven't read that they do, but it seems probable) but I don't think breeding with meru's would be, too much of a size difference, I think...

It would cause some problems for people trying to get the rare subspecies established, decreasing the amount of available breeders in captivity in a species which there are few to begin with will just make it that much harder to establish the subspecies. It's not a moral problem, if they CAN interbreed, then it's almost definatly a natural occurance(like veilds and C.chameleons=C.calyptratus.calcarifer), sterile or not. Heck, this is probably a way some genes are released into populations and lead to new species over time.

However, while there might not be a problem crossing xanths and jacksonii, I would hope people tried to breed more jacksonii instead--there are not enough in captivity to warrent such experiments.

WHEN they are commonly available(hopefully) in a few years, go ahead, see what happens. You might get some that are viable after a time. This could lead to even larger jacksonii, with possibly the brighter colors of C.j.jacksonii.

NOTE: when big cats are crossed, the resultant offspring, while usually sterile, is often MUCH MUCH larger than either of its parents. Ligers, a lion/tiger cross, can get to be over 900lbs. that's almost twice the weight of a big tiger. Lion leopard crosses are bigger than lions, despite the fact that loepards are significantly smaller than lions.

Some ligers that have been bred ARE fertile, and have produced viable, HUGE, offspring. It mars the defintiton of what a species is, and makes an interesting subject for someone interested in evolutionary biology. For all we know, that might be a new species. If they can reproduce, they can survive.

I don't see it happening with merus though...IF i were to try, I'd use a xanth female and a meru male...don't want to kill the poor thing with oversized babies.

Some people can't stand it when people "cross" morphs of pardalis. Some of the morphs are actually reproductivly isolated subspecies, and when mated, do not produce viable offspring. some crosses, like nosey be/ambanja, are perfectly viable. If you crossed a sambava with a nosey be, or a tamatave with an ambanja, you might get a mule.
There's nothing immoral about it, unless the size differences result in a tiny female with giant babies, and you just know she's gonna die from the load of eggs...
Some people are line breeding for coloration. fine, that's what they want. In the wild, the coloration is not as distinct as it is in captivity, and they vary quite a bit. for marketing purposes(and a tight quota) most pardalis exported are of certain color varieties, and have very striking markings.

IF you were breeding to maintain good genetic make-up, you'd simply breed an animal with one with compatible genetics. Crossing two different colored panthers, provided they produce viable offspring, has no moral or ethical problems. In fact, ot can lead to colorations that are incredible, and the greater genitic variation may lead to healthier, larger, animals.

Crossing two locales that might not be compatible(different subspecies) CAN have some problems. You're producing "dead end" animals, sterile, and not capeable of breeding. If you're selling to someone who don't want to breed, fine, but THIS HAS TO BE CLEAR--I would be ticked off if I didn't nwo it might be sterile, then tried to breed it....
The issue causes people to get upset because they see people doing this and they think it's a waste. Like buying a parsonii, and not intending too breed it...Well, I can see that it might tick people off, but that's about the extent of it. IF I had two subspecies, and I WANTEd to breed them, then I would.
I just think that in certain siituations(lack of genetic diversity in captive collections/few breeders available)it's not the best choice. But when parsonii are widely available, threr'll be nothing wrong wiht having one, and when there's no shortage of C.j.jacksonii, nobody will complain that you shuldn't cross them.

I'm bored at work, can you tell...

Eric A

>>I think the main reason is that there is not a surplus of breeders of jacksonii, especially j.jacksonii and meru's. There are tons of xanthalopus in captivity but relitivly no merus and jacksonii. Interbreeding with jacksonii is possible(I haven't read that they do, but it seems probable) but I don't think breeding with meru's would be, too much of a size difference, I think...
>>
>>It would cause some problems for people trying to get the rare subspecies established, decreasing the amount of available breeders in captivity in a species which there are few to begin with will just make it that much harder to establish the subspecies. It's not a moral problem, if they CAN interbreed, then it's almost definatly a natural occurance(like veilds and C.chameleons=C.calyptratus.calcarifer), sterile or not. Heck, this is probably a way some genes are released into populations and lead to new species over time.
>>
>>However, while there might not be a problem crossing xanths and jacksonii, I would hope people tried to breed more jacksonii instead--there are not enough in captivity to warrent such experiments.
>>
>>WHEN they are commonly available(hopefully) in a few years, go ahead, see what happens. You might get some that are viable after a time. This could lead to even larger jacksonii, with possibly the brighter colors of C.j.jacksonii.
>>
>>NOTE: when big cats are crossed, the resultant offspring, while usually sterile, is often MUCH MUCH larger than either of its parents. Ligers, a lion/tiger cross, can get to be over 900lbs. that's almost twice the weight of a big tiger. Lion leopard crosses are bigger than lions, despite the fact that loepards are significantly smaller than lions.
>>
>>Some ligers that have been bred ARE fertile, and have produced viable, HUGE, offspring. It mars the defintiton of what a species is, and makes an interesting subject for someone interested in evolutionary biology. For all we know, that might be a new species. If they can reproduce, they can survive.
>>
>>I don't see it happening with merus though...IF i were to try, I'd use a xanth female and a meru male...don't want to kill the poor thing with oversized babies.
>>
>>Some people can't stand it when people "cross" morphs of pardalis. Some of the morphs are actually reproductivly isolated subspecies, and when mated, do not produce viable offspring. some crosses, like nosey be/ambanja, are perfectly viable. If you crossed a sambava with a nosey be, or a tamatave with an ambanja, you might get a mule.
>>There's nothing immoral about it, unless the size differences result in a tiny female with giant babies, and you just know she's gonna die from the load of eggs...
>>Some people are line breeding for coloration. fine, that's what they want. In the wild, the coloration is not as distinct as it is in captivity, and they vary quite a bit. for marketing purposes(and a tight quota) most pardalis exported are of certain color varieties, and have very striking markings.
>>
>>IF you were breeding to maintain good genetic make-up, you'd simply breed an animal with one with compatible genetics. Crossing two different colored panthers, provided they produce viable offspring, has no moral or ethical problems. In fact, ot can lead to colorations that are incredible, and the greater genitic variation may lead to healthier, larger, animals.
>>
>>Crossing two locales that might not be compatible(different subspecies) CAN have some problems. You're producing "dead end" animals, sterile, and not capeable of breeding. If you're selling to someone who don't want to breed, fine, but THIS HAS TO BE CLEAR--I would be ticked off if I didn't nwo it might be sterile, then tried to breed it....
>>The issue causes people to get upset because they see people doing this and they think it's a waste. Like buying a parsonii, and not intending too breed it...Well, I can see that it might tick people off, but that's about the extent of it. IF I had two subspecies, and I WANTEd to breed them, then I would.
>>I just think that in certain siituations(lack of genetic diversity in captive collections/few breeders available)it's not the best choice. But when parsonii are widely available, threr'll be nothing wrong wiht having one, and when there's no shortage of C.j.jacksonii, nobody will complain that you shuldn't cross them.
>>
>>I'm bored at work, can you tell...
>>
>>Eric A

Excellent reply Eric! Just FYI though, Ch. calyptratus calcalifer is a cross between Ch. arabicus and Ch. calyptratus although that isn't of any real importance, just thought you might want to know. In this case, i find it distinct from the issue at hand in the sense that this is a naturally occuring cross rather than a man made whim. I too have never read about Ch. j. jacksonii interbreeding with Ch. j. xantholophus in the wild so I would be interested in this source.

I'm going to try to explain why I feel this is a bad idea so bear with me.

Ch. j. jacksonii is native to the highlands of Central Kenya with the exception of the eastern face of Mt. Kenya. Originally Ch. j. xantholophus is from the eastern slopes of Mt. Kenya but introduced populations have also been established in Hawaii and parts of California. Ch. j. merumontanus is from a narrow elevation ban on Mt. Meru in Tanzania.

Due to their native ranges, it is theoretically possible that there are naturally occuring crosses between Ch. j. jacksonii and Ch. j. xantholophus specimens. You however are talking about crossing Ch. j. xantholophus with Ch. j. merumontanus which cannot cross breed naturally.

Kenya does not export its animals and with virtually no specimens of Ch. j. jacksonii in US collections, there is nowhere for us to get more legally. Now that Hawaii has stopped the commercial exportation of Ch. j. xantholophus and the populations in California are too small and secluded to harvest, there is no longer an outlet to bring in pure blood that has not been manipulated. Since Hawaii stopped exporting, Ch. j. xantholophus have become less common and I fear that this trend will continue as we are forced to rely on our own captive breedings to continue their supply in captivity. I see people who decide to play around and deplete the captive blood as a major cause of possible problems in the future. Crosses make it difficult for others to keep their lines pure over extended generations and also cut down the potential gene pool over these same generations.

To summarize and conclude, this cross:
1)Would put two subspecies that do not naturally interbreed in the wild into a breeding situation due to the whim of their keeper. Animals breed to pass on their genes and ensure the future of their species. The energy required for a female to have babies is very high and I think it is immoral to put the female through this stress simply to create an animal that goes against the natural instinct and goal of the parents. Unlike humans, chameleons don't breed for pleasure.
2)Would take away from a potential clutch of a pure subspecies that would help ensure that we have to take fewer animals from the wild and help prevent the possibility of the subspecies loss in captive collections over time.
3)Would create animals that taint the supply of captive blood for reproduction and maintainance of the captive population. This in the long run could make further efforts to maintain purity difficult.
4)Could potentially endanger the female in question. The morphological differences between these subspecies are significant and the potential effects could threaten the mother.

At this point I do not think these animals exist in captivity in the type of numbers that would make this type of experimentation worth it. There are other reasons that this is not a good idea but these are the ones that pop into my head first.
Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/
Chameleons Online E-zine - http://www.chameleonnews.com/