Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Lots of discussion lately on the “necessity” of community housing. I’d like to add my 2 cents, with the hope that it will draw some scientific accountability into the argument.
I have stated here before that I would like to see evidence of this necessity. I agree that Corucia often exist as communities in the wild. However, it is possible that they do so only as a means of protecting their genetic investment. Adult care and community structure benefits the gene pool, and thus the species by ensuring more young live to reproductive age – in the wild. Until I see evidence that individuals kept alone in captivity suffer in some tangible, measurable way (increased mortality, reduced immunity, slowed growth, delayed onset of maturity, inappropriate behaviors, etc), I hold that the “necessity” of community housing is an opinion, not a fact. Show me data to the contrary and I will happily recant.

Jean P wrote: … Think of it as if you were ripped away from your family and your home transported far away and placed with strange items (Toys) and never see another of your kind again. Never to have chidren-to love etc. Would you be happy to have a family?

I cannot repeat enough that animals are not people. It is impossible (and dangerous) to apply the same standards to them that we apply to people. It’s this kind of anthropomorphizing that leads people to feed pizza to their Iguanas, and to attempt to hug bears at the zoo.

-Z

However, you must know that there are many of those out there that will now look at you as a cold unfeeling heal. I can assure you that I am not one of those people. Like I said. I agree with you. You took the words right of my mouth (you just rephrased things better than I do)!

Heh! Most people already look at me that way. What's a few more?

-Z

n/p
-----
Edward
Carpe diem

.

n/p
-----
Edward
Carpe diem

.

SOUTHERN FLORIDA CORUCIA RESEARCH CENTER (SFCRC)

Location: LEE/1.

Z,

How can you have kept Corucia and deny they're a colony species. You and Edward would have fit in perfectly in Galileo's time insisting the world is flat. Only Human arrogence would assume that only Homo Sapiens is unique. It was once stated that Dinosaurs were dimwitted loners. Now we know better. The evidence is everywhere. you can look it up or do the research as I have had. I know and other's can back me up on my reports that Corucia kept alone show definate signs of stress-particularly true of Neonates and males. This evaporates immediately upon introduction and adoption into a Circulus. Females show usually a keen interest in the introduction of a male. I have seen a male standing guard and not moving over A GFO neonate which perished. Sherri has had both parent Corucia remain unmoving from a spot where their Newborn died. I have had GFO introductions into established Circulus enclosures. They introduced young were immediately adopted and frequent tongue flicking commensed by all members of the Circulus. Social hierarchys of Females is a documented fact. I feel as though I debating Creationists. I will tell you what I tell them. Don't go with blind acceptance. The evidence is there. The means are there. Do the research yourself -logically, scientifically and then we'll talk. If this were a Creationist debate On the evolution of Tetrapods from fishes, Yes. I can state facts on Panderichthyid Crossopterygian's shared traits with Amphibians such as being long bodied fishes with a large head that is nearly 1/4 their total length. They have large pectoral fins and smaller pelvic fins, but no dorsal or anal fins. The skull is broad and flat, with eyes on top of the head and rather close together with distinct brow ridges. The external nostrals placed ventrally, close to the margin of the mouth. A cross-section of the large teeth shows a complex form of labyrinthine infolding of the enamel and dentine as occurs in many amphibians. The bones of the skull roof have three pairs of median bones from the back of the skull to the eyes, rather than two as in other crossopterygians. The cheek bones are large, and the jugal bone separates the squamosal from the maxilla as occurs in amphibians.

Ther cheek bones do not rigidly meet the skull roof for some distance, leaving a large spiracular slit along each side of the skull table. The external pattern of the skull roof bones shows that the intracranial joint has fused, so that the skull was not as kinetic as in many other Crossopterygians. The pectoral fins have strongly ossified humerous, ulna, and radius, with the humerus having a longer shaft than for any other crossopterygian fish. The vertebrae are also unusual in having only the ventral component (intercentrum) present with large neural arches straddling the notochord. Ribs are attached to the neural arch and intercentrum, exactly as in Tetrapods. The body is covered in rhombic body scales, but cosmine is absent. In general, the structure of the earlist amphibians is much like that already indicated for Panderichthyids. Onlt the Tetrapods have limbs with digits present while the fish have fins and a more complete series of operculogular bones which cover the gill chamber.'I could state all these things and more, but chances are the creationist party in question would simply cover their ears and say it cant be-The bible tells me so. I feel I'm in this situation here. As I have said, I have done the research, others have as well. Don't believe our word, Examine the evidence yourself. ----> Then, We'll Talk.

Reverentur,
Brian
SFCRC

I was not going to respond here until I saw your nasty little post in response to mine, stating "ignorance is power". If that is the case I will nominate you for president. Anyway, I believe the saying is ignorance is bliss, and it can be worked both ways. Let me explain something to you Brian. I think these posts on anthropomorphism are striking a raw nerve with you for a reason. This seems to be your Achilles heal. Zs post is a very logically stated one. If you cannot see that, it is you that is blind. Baby PTS can be and are separated from their parents with no ill affects. To say that a person that separates a baby from its parents should be reprimanded, and to equate this action to abuse is absurd. To imply that all captive PTS should be bred is also unrealistic, and illogical. To state that you do not care if the PTS that come into this country get here through illegal channels, just so long as they do get here so that we as keepers here in the US have access to their valuable "new bloodlines" is equally absurd, and also very hypocritical. To insist that PTS should only be kept in colonies is inaccurate, as they are also found singly in the wild also. To continue to ignore the fact that they are also often kept and raised in a situation other than a colony is shows just one of the flaws in your reasoning and logic. I read your response, and while it is obvious that you mean to impress, your intentions are also quite transparent, and seem to be an attempt to distract. Impress us with some actual data. Brian, you are a hobbyist like any of us. You have been hoarding up PTS in your home for a couple of years. You do not have a facility, you have a house and some PTS, you do not have a second facility, you have a friend with a house and some PTS in another state who shares your love for PTS. If we go by your logic, many of here would have to be classified as scientists and researchers working in our facilities to save whatever species that we choose to work with. I still am amused at the time when you listed this huge list of scientific accomplishments that Kim had achieved when I questioned her credentials. Nothing against Kim, but she is not a PTS researcher. She is a very concerned person that acted out of compassion and rescued a PTS. You seem to have a bit of flare for exaggeration. By making up some long important sounding title for an imaginary organization, you seem to feel that it gives you the right to force your will on others, and to harshly criticize those that do not agree with you. I do not agree with that, and I am a bit tired of constantly seeing it here.

SOUTHERN FLORIDA CORUCIA RESEARCH CENTER (SFCRC)

Location: LEE/1.

Mr. Wilson,

First off- I regret the ignorance is strength remark and apologise. I was stinging from some of the personal jabs your cohort was sending to me. However, your running on your anthropomorphic kick again when if you read the letter I responded to it was the denial that Corucia zebrata is a colony creature. As I stated, here is not the venue for this discussion-nor the time.

Sincerely,
Brian
SFCRC

Never let it said that you are not a polite and gracious individual.

SOUTHERN FLORIDA CORUCIA RESEARCH CENTER (SFCRC)

Location: LEE/1.

Mr Wilson,

If You doubt my credentials as a scientist, By all means check it out. I sorry if you think all we do here is play with skinks on the coffee table. Measurements and observations are being recorded. You have always since our first coorespondence to have resentment for me. your entitled. For your information, This 'imaginary' organization is budget dry but is linked to several scientific individuals and universities as well as zoos. A visit by Dr Harrell is planned for summer 2004 to do research and measurements on Corucia Jaw strength. I have a scientific paper in the process of publication. How convenient in your tirade that you left out these points and others.

Good day sir.
Brian
SFCRC

I do not resent you as a person. However, I do resent the somewhat arrogant attitude that you often present, and your condemnation of others that do not see things exactly as you do. I do not doubt that you are a very intelligent person with many credentials, but you do have a tendancy toward exzageration with respect to the facilities and the work that is done there, and the researchers that you have working with you. You know what I am refering to. Just be straight up. You do not need to present this grandious image of some facility in order to gain any of our respect. You actually would have it if you would be more objective and a little less judgmental, and a lot more realistic. I have see your point of view in the past, but it does not seem like you are able to do the same for me or many of the other posters. Please do not take this the wrong way. I write this because there is also a great deal about you and what you do that I like, and admire.

First Brian, I don’t deny that Corucia are a colony species. I acknowledge freely that they are such. I only question the validity of saying that they *must* be kept in colonies in captivity. I advocate keeping them in pairs or in colonies if possible, but I am not willing to go so far as to say that it’s detrimental to their health to do otherwise.
I have done literature research on this animal, and nothing that I’ve read supports your claim that rearing or keeping an individual in isolation harms it in some way. You imply that you have such evidence or have references to such evidence. I have asked for it before, and I’ll ask again: If you have any data to back up your statement that it is detrimental to keep Corucia individually please present it. I have a very open mind on this matter and am always eager for more information.
The evidence that you have presented to date – adults guarding juveniles, communities apparently searching for missing members, social hierarchy, etc. - is not evidence of stress to an individual from being alone. You did mention briefly that “Corucia left alone show definite [sic] signs of stress”, but you didn’t mention what they are. Would you please elaborate for me a bit on what you’ve seen? What was the situation, what was the behavior, how often have you seen it, etc.? You keep telling me to examine the evidence myself. I’m happy to do it. Cite me some references or present me with some data. Your opinion on the matter (which is all I’ve heard so far) doesn’t count as evidence.
I’m not really sure what the information on Tetrapod evolution has to do with this particular debate. If you’re trying to teach me about evolution, you’re a bit too late. I already have a degree in Evolutionary Paleobiology (BA from Mount Holyoke College – 1994).
I have to say I’m pretty surprised that the conversation has turned this way. You claim to be a scientist, but so far you’ve yet to show me scientific reasoning on this subject. You have witnessed community behaviors and appear to have extrapolated that to support the theory that lone individuals experience stress. But you have not shown any measurable indicators of the stress. I will agree wholeheartedly that there is a *possibility* that stress occurs, and for that reason it is preferable to house Corucia in groups, but without evidence of the stress (any kind of measurable data!) I am unwilling to say that it *definitely* happens and therefore to condemn those that don’t have community housing for their Corucia.
This is how science works. You can’t say something is fact unless you have measurable data to back it up. Until you have data, you only have a hypothesis. It may be a good hypothesis, but it is only that.
You said: “As I have said, I have done the research, others have as well. Don't believe our word, Examine the evidence yourself. ----> Then, We'll Talk. “

I say: Great! Show me the evidence! I’d love to talk to you about it.
-Z

Here's my 2 cents if its even worth that. Do PTS have to be in groups in captivity to be healthy....no. At the same time I think that it is irresponsible to do so. The main reason being captive reproduction. People get single individuals of any species as a "toy" an item to make their life more enjoyable etc etc. Corucia are in bad enough shape imo that having such toys is harmful to the continued survival of the species. I dont think that they are seriously psychologically harmed by being kept alone, its just that reproduction not recreation should be a responsible keepers goal. As a side note, in my first batch off PTS I got a few years ago, one died about 2 days after I got it from some sort or pathogen id imagine. It stayed on the ground for its entire life in my enclosure. The night that i took it out, the others climbed to its location on the ground and walked in circles tasting near its "spot" for over an hour, and refused to eat that night. They performed the same ritual for 3 nights. Im certainly not implying that they "missed" him, but rather there is likely a strength in numbers and they were searching for that other one.

In the spirit of discussion: I do not see what is “objective” about evoking a human-centered standard of need and harm when deciding to assess the social needs of corucia. The word “anthropocentrism” comes to my mind. It is just the other side of the anthropomorphic “feeding pizza to iguanas.” Since the corucia is a reptile and not a human, and cannot suffer the kind of psychological “harm” that a human child would suffer being removed from its parents, therefore (some seem to imply), it does not suffer the kind of harm that one should be worried about.
Nor do I see what is “objective” about having predetermined a narrow (albeit popular and widely accepted) set of criteria for “harm.” The various, and I must say intriguing corucia social responses described by some posters would not seem to count as significant data within the confines of your model of acceptability. I wonder what is "objective" about ignoring these observations. So, if the corucia do not exhibit some harm as you have defined it, and that definition is a decision made by you and not some “absolute” truth for all time, then you will decide that no harm has been done. It is entirely possible that a harm accrues which falls outside the artificially imposed limits of your observations. Perhaps you might want to widen your perspective.
There is nothing fundamentally objective about deciding that corucia do not have social, and on some level, emotional needs that keepers should be respectful of. It is a decision made within a model of what constitutes “need,” “social” and “emotion.” Other models may produce other decisions. Such is the nature of science. Certainly, your model is very convenient, as it justifies one’s not worrying about corucia social needs. After all, one is merely disrupting a genetic investment, not a feeling creature.
Assuming that corucia do not have some kind of feelings, is not inherently objective. In fact, since we are all in some respects evolutionarily connected, it seems highly anthropocentric, and “unscientific” to think that feelings arose out of nothing and in only human beings, anymore than did our circulatory systems, or five fingered hands. Everything we have in our bodies as well as our cognitive capacities seem to have precursors in more “primitive” life forms. I see no reasonable reason to exclude emotion alone from the vast mix of things that we humans share in some form with other creatures. It seems just as reasonable to say that corucia have some sort of feelings, not exactly like ours but feelings nonetheless, as it is to say that corucia respiration shares some commonalities with our respiratory system—not exactly like ours but, surely, a respiratory system nonetheless. We can choose to ignore this possibility of a reptilian version of feelings because it is not about feelings just like ours, but that is not “objective”, it is a personal choice to value or acknowledge only human versions of this capacity.
IMOH “objectivity,” as the apparent icon evoked by some posters, does not exist except as a useful illusion, an often favorably ascribed label for “agrees with me.” Those who don’t agree can conveniently be labeled “biased” or “unreasonable” or, even (shudder) anthropomorphic.

Denise, I like the way you think. I agree that it’s a bad idea to attempt to apply human standards of suffering to anything but humans. So the trick is to come up with a set of criteria that are applicable to the species at hand. Perhaps we can even extrapolate some from other reptiles that exist in community situations to find criteria. But we do need criteria. Once we have criteria of what indicates stress or harm, we have to see if the criteria are being met or not.

So we start with a hypothesis: Corucia are harmed in some way by being kept alone.
Then we establish the criteria of what constitutes harm, and determine what measures we can perform that will indicate harm is being done.
We take our measures, run our statistics and check the result against the hypothesis.
Voila! We have our answer.

However, we haven’t done this. So far we haven’t gotten past the hypothesis stage. Based on my experience, I hypothesize that no harm comes to Corucia from being kept alone. However, I’m open to evidence to the contrary. This is what scientific objectivity is -- by definition! Staying open to all options until the evidence is in. I’ve seen no evidence, so I’m still open. However, I’ve seen a lot of folks here that have very strong feelings one way or another and are unwilling (unable?) to provide the evidence that they base their theories on.

You said: “There is nothing fundamentally objective about deciding that corucia do not have social, and on some level, emotional needs that keepers should be respectful of.”

I have not decided that Corucia don’t have social or emotional needs. I haven’t decided anything. I merely object to those that vehemently state that they do, with no evidence to back it up.

You also said: “Certainly, your model is very convenient, as it justifies one’s not worrying about corucia social needs.”
Here’s where you have me totally wrong. I do worry about it.

I worry about it so much that I’m practically begging someone to show me some research that gives evidence one way or the other.

-Z

It is indeed good to be open to the possibilities, and I also like the way you think. Regarding criteria, what concerns me is when people do not realize that criteria are always limited. I am not sure that you will be able to find the perfect set. What you must find is the set that you feel is comprehensive enough, and that might be very different from what I would consider adequate, yet we both must be open to the idea that possibilities exist outside of our respective criteria sets. There are probably harms that we cannot readily operationalize--how does one come up with a set of observations that we could claim to indicate what a baby corucia may "feel" when being removed from its social group, for example--and thus even come close to reliably giving you or I the sort of answer that we might want? I find the accounts of corucia behaviour that some posters have shared to be utterly fascinating, for the possibilities that they open doors to. I am not ready to dismiss these possibilities. Perhaps a baby corucia removed from its social group would eat and grow and develop just fine according to our usual set of criteria. But it may also grow up to be a creature that is not as adept at the same protective and other socially important behaviours that a baby left with the group might develop. Since corucia are social creatures, and the babies are protected and seem to be part of a social network within their group, then, barring extenuating circumstances such a parental aggression, why would one not preserve that social dimension in their lives if possible?

I had to get off the computer "right now" for the tech guys to work their magic. I was going to add that I would love to read any articles on this subject, especially those with observations falling outside the usual range of "criteria" I also think this would be an amazing area of research, and if I weren't so bogged down with my current projects, I would look into it further. Have you read Fox's huge volume on reptile social behaviour? I haven't yet, it is too expensive for me to buy (over $500 here) but it is at a science library that I must make time to get to one of these days. Perhaps Fox might have some answers for you.

Thanks for the suggestion Denise. I'll have to look in our library and see if it's there...

Eventually. Too many papers and exams right now.

I need more hours in the day!

And I totally agree with your point about the possibility (and likelihood) of there being more subtle effects than we can detect. However, one must start somewhere.

-Z

Thank you! I agree. So often people go only on anecdotal evidence or what they feel about a situation. Captive herp husbandry has been around for long enough now that we know what our critters need to live a very long life. If evidence shows that we're not giving them what they need, then we should change our practice, but at this point they are living long, healthy lives in captivity. They don't need "family" around (or scrapbooks of the loved ones they lost) to be "happy". They just need to have their needs met to be "happy".
-----
0.3.0 leos, Geo, Tang, Ginger
0.1.1 frogs Buffy the Cricket Slayer, Butrose Butrose Froggy
0.0.5 firebelly newts Wayne Newton, Isaac Newton, Fig Newton, Juice Newton & Olivia Newton John
1.1.0 cats Gus & Mena

I meant to post this WAY up the thread, doesn't fit as well down here, sorry.
-----
0.3.0 leos, Geo, Tang, Ginger
0.1.1 frogs Buffy the Cricket Slayer, Butrose Butrose Froggy
0.0.5 firebelly newts Wayne Newton, Isaac Newton, Fig Newton, Juice Newton & Olivia Newton John
1.1.0 cats Gus & Mena