I wrote this on another forum, I thought if may be of interest here.
I understand most of you do not need to think about why you do what you do. As an old timer, It does interest me, as I was envolved in the thing. Its not really a, for or against type of post, just an explination and some thoughts of mine and others.
When I am in the field with my partner, and other herpers, we often discuss this matter.
Of zoo guys and academic degrees, they have a different view point as most here and I. They like to make jokes of possible triple hets for another triple het, etc. As field guys, they simply do not see it, AT ALL.
As some here already know, I do not consider anything non phenotypic, as pure. Once it comes out of nature and does not appear phenotypic, its no longer phenotypic. So its not pure. In other words, for a species to be pure, it must represent the average phenotypic specimen from its local.
For instance, local specific is something that represents a local. Not a species or a genus or even a region.
Anyway, heres what I wrote,
Hi, First off, The first cross was an accident. That is, the books at the time, had and still have no idea what this complex is.
When I obtained flavis, I needed a male. I bought a male at the San Diego show. It was different looking so I looked it up in a book, many books. I found a picture of one exactly like it. It was called V.g.flavirufus and its common name was EASTERN FLAVI. At the time pure flavis were called V.g.flavirufus. and there was no such thing as V. gouldi(due to a error in type specimens)
So I bred that animal with my flavi, even if it was not nearly as pretty as the Female flavi.
Once I started going to Oz, I found out lots of things in the books were wrong, not just wrong, but way wrong. Particularly concerning the gouldi complex. I also found out that there was no such thing as a eastern Flavi. As they actually come from the center, and another type from the west(the books call those two types the same).
About gouldi, they come from nearly the entire continent of australia, yet they are all V.gouldi. They are many many different kinds, and different colors, and different sizes and different builds, yet all called V.gouldi. Hmmmmmmm At least ackies only occur in about half the country, so they are half a screwed up. They too come in many many models, and have three or four names to cover several dozen types.
So I had flavi/gouldi crosses. Then I bred Argus into them.
The offspring were every bit as nice and in many cases far prettier. Then any gouldi or argus, but there are some very pretty pure flavis.
The offspring were very captive friendly, and very active and easy to observe.
So I decided to produce the members of the complex pure for a decent price. And crosses for a very low price. That way, keepers can have pure species and there would be a VERY GOOD beginers monitor at a low price.
So your question about why there are so many is not about how easy they are to breed, sorry Jon, varanids are easy to breed, all of them. Its about price I imagine.
The inexpensive monitors sold like hotcakes and the expensive ones did not.
So I produced more crosses and refined them, less "pure", by making very colorful inexpensive monitors.
So now I rarely dig up eggs of all the above.
About pure and crossing. I really do not get it. Doing lots of field work and traveling the world, I wonder about what we call pure or species, etc. When you get in the field, that question is not asked by the animals. And the animals do not name themselves. We name them.
As I mentioned above, the gouldi complex, as well as ackies, is a total mess(other species too) But gouldi, a real mess.
So your happy if someone tells you its pure, and it really isn't, that is funny to me. Or your happy if someone tells you its pure, even if it has no resemblance to the animals in nature(phenotype).
For instance, I have showed pics of natural occurring crosses between Gilleni and caudolineatus. I found them many years ago(and took pics). Now those crosses are a species of their own(V.bushi). Even thought no two look alike and totally vary from local to local.
So I can sell you a caudoleni(gilleni/caudo cross) and you will not like it because its a cross, but you would jump over walls to get a V.bushi(I believe) Which is a naturally occurring gilleni/caudo cross.
See what I mean, its really not about the animals, its about us. We name them, they do not name themselves. Or the aboridginals name them. Mulga monitors, they named them that because they live in mulgas(type of legume). Even thought several species live in mulgas and have the same aboridginal name. Which is just as accurate as what science is doing with varanid species or populations.
After decades I am starting to figure this out. People like to collect things, anything and everything. From barred wire to stamps to buttons, etc. Those collectables are a thing, and to say you have one, means you have THAT thing. For instance, if you have a baseball with two holes drilled in it, is it a button?
Now with animals, its different, as they are an animal and a type of animal. So you get the postage stamp collectors that want a thing(a pure species for instance)
Then you have those that want an animal.
A cross is as much an animal as any pure species. In many cases more, as when they are crossed, it tends to generalize their behavior. So you get the base animal not the refined specific behaviors of a certain species. Which for all intents and purposes is much better in captivity because we do not keep any varanid in a way its species requires. Or those cutting edge(species specific behaviors) require. We do not provide what controlls what a phenotype allows.
So within a generation or two, those phenotypic behaviors are lost and they are as generalized as any cross or hybrid. Even the phenotypic color and pattern is lost very quickly. You do know what phenotype means, don't you? goggle it.
The real truth is, only a wild caught individual is pure. After that, its characteristics that make it pure are lost in captivity as we do not select for what survives in nature, we select for what survives in captivity and what sells the best(pretty)
I imagine this is way people collect and produce morphs, then call them pure. This is why theres a huge morph market. ITs also why they keep them in shoeboxes and never look at them(snake morphs) As they are like collecting buttons, I have that type button in that box and the other type in another box, I can open the box and show you the morph. Yet there is no attention to what the animal really is, Its behaviors are not reflective of what morph it is.
IN your case, you have ackies, the founders to your stock(whatever they were) were phenotypic individuals back in the late eighties or early ninties. Since then they have been totally mucked up in captivity, Yet you call them pure.
I know I know, someone needs to explain that to me as all this time in the field and captive breeding these things has without question screwed my brain up. Cheer, good luck and please help me figure this out.
Please no wars, opinions are welcome. Cheers
