Reptile & Amphibian Forums

mine just don't, see

-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

they sleep together, they chase crickets right next to eachother, they explore together and then of course they do have some alone time, but that is few and far between. no monitor i own spends a significant amount of time alone. but maybe i am doing something wrong.

andrew
-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. Whenever I look at my monitors they are within a couple of metres of eachother!

arghh.... I almost forgot, they can't get more than two or three metres from eachother. They're in a box! lol

oh yeah doc, the size. hate to point out the obvious. but my pilbarensis being in a 4x2x2 would be like your various being in a 24 foot cage, are they?

i will post pics of varius setups this week (without changing anything). all my setups have two basking sites, yes two. all my setups have multiple hides (3 or more). yet the monitors are within inches of eachother in large enclosures, why is that?

andrew
-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

n/p
-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

n/p
-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

everything is relative. In the wild we aren't talking about metres and feet, we are talking about vast expanses without enclosing walls. Those last three words are more important than quibbling about four feet here or a few metres there.

Now, if you said you had a 24 foot cage with dozens of identical (and I mean identical in every way) basking sites, hide spots etc (not two or three) and your monitors still chose to stay in the same ones all of the time (not just at random), we'd really have something interesting. And that something interesting would still only tell us about the behaviours of monitors in a 24 foot cage with dozens of identical basking sites and hide spots, not much more.

The problem with us humans (me included) is that we notice things that seem significant to us and quickly forget those that don't seem as significant. When I walk past my enclosure and notice my pair lying together in a cute pose, I take a photo. When I walk past and they are lying some distance apart having nothing to do with eachother I rarely take a photo, as it somehow doesn't seem as interesting. Our memories take similar little snapshots and for every time we see them sharing a hide or basking spot at the same time, it's easy to forget the number of times we see them having nothing to do with eachother. Keep in mind that at all times, there are only a limited number of resources for them to choose from in a limited space and there is only so far that they can get away from eachother.

like dk, i am also simply playing devils advocate. i think there are two valid sides to this story.

one: what we see in captivity. what we see here is valid. it is how the monitors act within the box. is this bad? no. our monitors do what most would consider "normal." they lay eggs, eat, dig, sleep and poop.

two: what we see in the wild. this is also normal, the wires are cut here. i wonder though if it was normal a couple hundred years ago for varius to eat rabbits? or for glebos to climb fences?

sam, you are a brilliant guy and i buy into quite a bit of your points, i just think the real answer is somewhere in the middle. know what i mean?

same goes to dk and robyn.

andrew
-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

I agree that what we see in captivity is what we see in captivity and is perfectly valid for appication to captivity, but I am a bit confused about what rabbits and fences have to do with this discussion.

As far as your statement "what we see in the wild", I wasn't aware that you've been basing some of your ideas on your observations of wild monitors as well as captives. Now you've really got my interest. What sort of things have you seen in the wild that lead you to come to the conclusion that the answer is somewhere in the middle? I don't mean that in a nasty way at all, I am really interested in your personal experiences, so please do elaborate.

np

i have never seen wild monitors in person. however, i do know that whether a monitor is in the wild or in captivity it is still a monitor.

rabbits and fences have to do with human influence, somewhat like the influences humans have on captives. both are introductions.

andrew
-----
VARANUS CREATIONS

Breeders and Hobbyists of Pilbara Rock Monitors, Kimberly Rock Monitors, Red Ackies, Argus, Argus x Flavi crosses, Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Argus x Gouldi x Flavi crosses, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Bredl's Pythons, Dunn's Pythons, Western Hognose Snakes, South American Boas, Atheris Squamiger, Leopard Geckos and rare Spiders.

Ah, and here is the problem. Nobody with any significant field experience with monitors regards them as being "social" animals, any more than you would regard crocodiles as social. Yes, crocs are rather tender about mating, and they will congregate where food is abundant, and bask nearby if suitable sites are limited -- in other words, they are able to suppress an otherwise rather antisocial demeanor when it is beneficial or necessary to do so. Monitors do the same.
Now, it is also true that you can take a mess of hatchling crocs and crowd them into a pen, and there they will live and grow (to a point), and even "share food". You can also find a bunch of larger crocs lying cheek-by-jowl in various zoo enclosures. Where one goes badly off-course is to conclude that crocs in nature are just like those fellas at the farm or in the zoo, and that croc biologists are full of hooey if they don't see the same thing in the field.
It is perfectly well understood that CB monitors raised together are far more adaptable than are WC animals, and also that it is easier to manage WC juveniles raised in captivity than to start with WC adults. Why is that? CB animals never get to be real monitors, Andrew, and in that sense it's a good thing for the hobby -- go catch a big wild adult argus or lacie sometime, I guarantee it'll change the way you think.

So Sam and maybe DK, First, DK do you believe Crocs are not social? And Sam, if crocs are not social, why do they allow some other crocs to get close and live in the same territory and yet chase others out?

I asked on the other forum, what defines social, and you never answered. I guess what makes them social or not is totally dependant on what "you" call social. And what makes them social is totally dependant on what "I" call social. But what does that have to do with individual animals living out their lifes? Specially when it takes pairs to continue exsistance. F

I believe Nile crocs are more social than porosus. Crocs chase other males which are large enough to compete for mates out of their territories, ignoring smaller ones. By the same token, if you spend time motoring up and down rivers at night in the NT you find crocs here and there, not in groups. I have photographs of hundreds of Paraguay caimans sitting together by a water hole, but I don't think they are social, either. The photographs were taken during the dry season, when sources of standing water are fewer. The caimans weren't interacting with each other, just waiting out the dry season. Similarly, I grew up near the Manitoba snake dens, where thousands of red sided garter snakes gather each year to brumate and have some photographs of them emerging in spring. Social? Well, it turns out that the surrounding area has limestone beneath the soil surface, preventing the snakes from getting deep enough to brumate except for certain limestone sink-holes, which they've been using for thousands of years. When they emerge, they mate, then disperse for the rest of the summer. Not my idea of social.

You've raised a good point, Frank. What is our definition of social?

If mating and procreating is considered social, then every animal on earth (save those that reproduce by budding, parthenogenesis etc) must be social. What I mean when I say social is spending time together outside of the breeding season, for reasons other than a shared resource. So, a herd of bison is social, as is a troup of baboons that travels together from one food source to another and spends the entire year together. A male Alaskan brown bear that spends the entire year on its own, but finds females in his home range to mate with for a brief period and perhaps tolerates the proximity of other bears during the salmon run would be considered solitary.

Thats exactly the point, these are not bears, or cattle, or monkeys. They are reptiles.

My main arguement is, Sam and possibley you, are making "social behavior" an all or nothing event. That is simply not the case with any animal that I know of. There are times and reasons for all animals to be social. With most species that are considered social, there are anti-social members as well. There are species that are parttime social, but its still social.

With reptiles, I find there is a percentage of the population thats much more social then other parts. With monitors there is indeed a portion that is anti-social and a portion thats social. My question is which percentage is more responsible for recruitment.

You should understand, that reptiles can lead a parttime life. That is they exsist(survive) thru harsh times to live in good times. There are also nonproductive elements in any population. What part are we looking at?

You say social is, being together during non breeding seasons, Hmmmmmmmmm then all dens are social. Aside from that, I showed pics of several sexual pairs that were not gravid, in nature, I recieved no comment on this. In reality, I can find that everyday in the field. But then I know where to find that.

With our lacies, we see them pairing off and staying that way, not only for breeding, but for much longer. I would like to say for life, but I have not kept them that long. Of course, i can breed them to other males, but in those cases I must munipulate them. The events are not linear. I must control them. With chosen pairs, all you have to do is leave them alone and events are linear.

You must also consider, I do not do what you do. I have monitors in many many different setups, and have tested each species in many different setups. From indoors to outdoors to indoor/outdoor. Also. from giant cages to small cages. There is little doubt in my mind, some individuals perfer to be in the company of other individuals. What you make of it is not so important. What I make of it is, has been important and has produced results.

About those gardersnakes, do you really think they were there to hibernate? if so, where were the babies, the halfgrowns? You know the whole population? were they there or were only sexual adults there? Are you saying the babies become full grown in a few months? Please think about this. Thanks FR

My definition of social is no less valid than yours, Frank. Wild monitors may be social by your definition (any gathering, no matter what the cause or for how long) and not by mine, in which case we are both 'correct' by our own definitions. As far as who recruits what and which populations are more successful than others, that requires years of work taking blood samples for dna analysis to determine which adults were producing how many, and which, offspring. If you have done such a study on wild monitors in Australia, I'd love to read the paper. No one would do a study like that without getting funding and then publishing the results.

"You say social is, being together during non breeding seasons, Hmmmmmmmmm then all dens are social."

No, what I actually said was "...social is spending time together outside of the breeding season, for reasons other than a shared resource." Dens are a shared resource. I even gave the example of red sided garter snakes as non social animals sharing a resource. Yes they breed after brumation, but then they disperse. Social isn't just groups, it's meaningful groups interacting.

"Aside from that, I showed pics of several sexual pairs that were not gravid, in nature, I recieved no comment on this. In reality, I can find that everyday in the field. But then I know where to find that."

Ah.. the old photo thing. Frank, you've mentioned having shown photos of monitors being social in the wild. All I can recall is a single photo of two kingorum (if I remember correctly) on a rock. Not sure if the photo was taken in Arizona or Australia (certain geological features seem to suggest the former, but I am no expert in these matters). As neither of these kingorum seemed to be bothered looking up at the photographer I gathered they were either captives basking, or wild ones that were cold, asleep or under a rock had just been lifted. Undisturbed, active wild monitors would never allow someone to walk up, lean over and take a photograph from above like that, except for large species in picnic ares. There was nothing in the photo suggesting that they were in any way 'social'. Someone else also posted photos of oranges in a discussion on apples and I missed the point of that exercise entirely.

As far as photos of captives in a pile, I have plenty of those shots of my own, thanks.

"With our lacies, we see them pairing off and staying that way, not only for breeding, but for much longer. I would like to say for life, but I have not kept them that long. Of course, i can breed them to other males, but in those cases I must munipulate them. The events are not linear. I must control them. With chosen pairs, all you have to do is leave them alone and events are linear."

Captive stuff. I see a lot of interesting stuff with my captives, too, limited as my collection is. It remains observations of captives, though.

As far as the gartersnakes go, two things. 1. Young ones are better able to find suitable microhabitats for brumation (they are smaller, fit into smaller spaces). 2. If the adults gathered only to be social they'd do it during their active months. The fact that they gather in autumn, brumate, mate, than disperse in spring suggests that brumation is a huge part of why they do that. Funny thing is, they don't form these huge gatherings in areas where there isn't limestone just beneath the surface, as there are more brumation options available. I'll have to check my photos for smaller snakes.

Are monitors social? Yes.

Do they behave exactly the same in captivity as they do in the wild? No.

Just because we cannot define/understand the social structure of a species does not mean they are anti social. If the species were truly anti social, there would be no breeding, fighting, killing etc.

Society, or social behaviour is based on necessity for any species, ourselves included.

Can we move on? Splitting hairs is getting boring.

This is directed at the entire "discussion" not at any individual. Doc just happened to be the last person to post.

It's a shame I feel the need to clarify that.

"Do they behave exactly the same in captivity as they do in the wild? No."

sigh.. thanks, Richard.

Just for the record, I was never implying that they were anti-social in the wild. Anti-social is the extreme end of 'not social'. Murderers are anti-social, hermits are just not social.

Their whole life after leaving the protection of mother, because they live better and stand a much better chance at survival if they live in social groups. A 6 ft nile croc can steal a fresh kill from a family of lions because he is too dangerous for them and well armored, yet its always easier to do when you have friends to help rip a piece of the kill off. They may or may not eat for almost a year in some cases but they still live in large groups almost all of the time, except females nesting, then its smaller groups and they arent very social to each other then.

Do you have a reference for that? In most situations that I'm aware of, croc populations recruit new individuals annually, and those young get by for a while by being "under the screen" of the large territorial males -- basically, if they can avoid being cannibalized, they're tolerated. However, once animals are 2-3 years old the territorial responses start to kick in, and any teenage male or smaller adult either hits the road or gets torn to shreds. Where croc populations are healthy, these guys get driven from one territory to the next until they're killed or end up in your swimming pool, i.e., marginal habitat.

There may be an illusion that "crocs live in similar size and age groups", but this is the result of a pretty ugly process in which any animal large enough to kill another does so. You end up with approximate uniformity in size in restricted habitats such as a drying river pool for what are decidedly antisocial reasons.

Monitors don't generally have the same sorts of habitat constraints that crocs do, though some species may congregate at a temporary food source. When you see six big Komodos around a dead pig, and no small ones, the same reasons are involved, and it is a mistake to conclude that this occurs for any but the least "social" reasons imaginable!

Chase other males away from that pig after its dead, yet allow any nearby females he likes to eat from it with him no matter how small they are. Maybe if you look at what they do, and do not expect them to do what someone else tells you "this is how it is because I have a degee that says so", then you will see and notice what is happening. Its like the commercial "I dont do shipping, I have an MBA" -response-"Oh you have an MBA, in that case Ill have to show you what to do".

So do you think the rescues are staged too where a person might call the zoo about a problem monitor eating their chickens? Do you think the monitor is placed there to eat the person's chickens or what not for good television? I would be kinda of mad if someone staged a monitor to eat my livestock. I dont think they could afford to pay that many people to let the monitors eat the livestock or else they would be paying lots of money because they do lots of these episodes specially with that new diaries show. I dont know if it is staged or not. The animals dont seem to look like zoo stock to me. They look like wild animals with battle scars poor shedding, big attitudes, nipped tails etc....

His zoo stock animals are pretty and always out of shed with no scars all are really tame except for that huge reticulated he has lol!!! it s freakin huge. anyways my point is they were all solitary so even if wes and others found the animals first for steve why could they not find them in pairs and groups and bring them or show them to steve so he can talk about their "social behaviors"

have a good day

All of the "look!!" and he takes off running after a lone animal and them does a "heres the so-and so snake etc" encounters are staged, it would cost way too much to film the show if they didnt. The tape I have at home shows how they film those drive down the road and jump out and capture scemes as well as the others, by Wes having the animal in a bag or bucket off to the side then he releases it in front of Steve (he admitts it explaining the scene where a camera man almost got bit by an inland taipan, which got away from Steve and Wes jumped in and grabbed the snake dragging it away like a flaming bag of trash, they also showed the making of the driving scenes at night to find reptiles, the same way.
I saw Jeff Corwin Show once that Dennis King I believe pointed out a burrow on Kangaroo Island that they dug up and it had a pair of Rosenbergs Goannas living together outside of the breeding season, and he stated that they live that way most of the year, and in fact he kept track of many pairs living together there.

I agree with you and saw those episodes like you and I agree with you as well that the calls to catch nuisance animals are not staged, but I have a question and you may not know the answer to this, but do you think the monitors you reffered to in the Jeff Corwin episode live so much in the southern Tip of oz that they hibernate for a long period of time? When there are types of hibernations here in the Us and canada dont the rattlers and the garters gather to hibernate in deep caves like DK mentioned in earlier posts? I know a whole bunch of rosenbergs cant congregate to one place because they are the largest members of the gouldii complex. So maybe burrows are dug and only pairs can fit because they do not have the same capabilities that other animals that can dig have to make tunnels with many chambers to fit many animals. A rosenberg digs the burrow and another one or two may join in again maybe they are sharing a scarce resource in a civil manner? How many burrows can house one individual animal in an island ? Limited might equal civil sharing like komodos an adaptation maybe I dont know lets ask Sam or Dk

although I haven't been to Kangaroo Island, I've heard that he rosenbergi there are active most, if not all, year round (unlike the ones around here). It's strange that Dennis didn't mention pair bonding in his book if he was finding it so frequently. I'll have to go re read that part.

Dk so he did not write in his book but he also didnt mention anything about pair bonding if I can remember in the jeff corwin episode either I think it was just an assumption that shvar made that because they found them together then they must be a pair or maybe im misreading it (shvar if I am i apologize in advance)

Fight, reproduce, etc etc which are social behaviors. After all this conversation is going down the tubes. The episode I referred to the 2 goannas were living in a small burrow a few feet long as they were maybe 2.5 ft long each, and the burrow was less than a foot deep. They would not share food (any species if not social), they would try to kill each other or run as they do when most other animals approach, they would not bask together in the wild (which happens), they would not share the same burrows tree stumps, etc. They would not communicate period if they were not a social species.
I like the pic FR put up of the gilas that live together bask together etc and have done so for many years on their own in the wild. My 2 albigs cannot be kept together or aloud together for the males safety but they communicate when they get sight of each other they do through making noise also from one cage to the other. I wish I had a video of their communication last night in a separate room, but it would be considered not social behavior. But what do I know of social behavior I work with criminals all day, ya know gang members (more non social creatures), murderers, rapists, robbers, etc, and to say they are not social is wrong, if they werent my job would be 1000 times easier.

Geez, I didn't know that. When were you in Komodo? Have you read Auffenberg's and Ciofi's books, or do you just watch TV?
Flying donuts indeed.

Do me a favor Sam and scroll down a little bit i put this response in the wrong place. In terms of me being in komodo never have i read the books no why because i didnt know they were out there im new at this i was making an observation as i was trying to engage in the conversation. I think maybe you should wait a little to jump the gun and start talking about donuts ha ha ha ha ha sorry about putting the response on the wrong thread i guess its all confused now

Actually, flavi, my error, as this was a response to SHvar above your post of same title! Why don't we carry this to the top if anybody is interested.

I've no interest in twisting anybody's shorts (except maybe FR's, he's so cute when he's angry).

ok sounds good

am

I dont have someone else funding me to go on vacations. Lets get this away from being personal, after all its a public forum, you see something and say "this is waht happened this day at this location", I say "well this person observed this on this day", lets not turn to insults. Either way many others have observed monitors living in pairs all or most of the year (some species), yet some say it doesnt happen so whos wrong? Niether are wrong, as said before some do some dont, just as in captivity, some wont live that way, Ive seen this first hand, and will try to kill each other, some will just eat all available food etc for dominance but some will live together.
I referred to many others books Auffenburg, Lutz, Trooper Walsh, King and Green, etc etc and a few others along with a few videos.
Keep you doughnuts to your self, I dont eat much sweets.haha..

"Either way many others have observed monitors living in pairs all or most of the year (some species)"

Elaborate, please.

Sorry, I miss stuff 'way down-list. You'd need to be a monitor nut to call what I do a vacation, but we're among those here, so come along 'n eat flies and sweat! Btw, I pay my own travel too.
What bugs me (generically, not a personal thing) is the free and easy anthropomorphic stuff from folks who haven't been out there much. Those of us who have done that bust our a*ses to learn about the biology of the animals, not to prove something, but to learn. We are monitor nuts too -- why we would go to all this trouble only to be blind to some major feature of monitor biology is really beyond my understanding. Speaking personally, I have torn down several "accepted truths", and have no problem going where the animals take me. At the same time, when claims are made that run counter to what I've seen or what I think has been carefully examined by others, I am not going to let those pass unchallenged. There's one fella who posts a lot of wild claims and feels a need to denigrate honestly-done research, and to jump into the sewer in the process. It turns most biologists' stomachs, but I have a strong stomach and a dislike for demagoguery.

These forums are for information, and there's little point in participating if you see misinformation being trumpeted and fail to call the bet.

I dont know if this will help in your argument, but how come on all the croc hunter episodes that are on tv whether it is a rescue, a gathering of an individual goanna for cb program at his facility or even if he is just showing one for the sake of showing one while he is hunting for king browns and taipans and what not why do we always see them alone? I have never seen an episode where he shows a lacie, perentie, sand, or even mertens, in social groups. They are always alone with no other goanna of the same or different species close enough to see through camera or close enough for steve to see mention it and catch it like he does with everything else he sees.

This is not specific to just oz goannas he has also had adventures in Indo where he caught single salvators in the wild and they were alone.

Even in his episode about Komodos most of the ones he saw were solitary unless there was a kill in the area then there would be a congregation of individuals. I dont know if you noticed this, but reading these threads made me think about it alot and I just had to post it

thanks

Sorry mate, this was so far down the page I almost missed it, what with all the feeding frenzy up-list.

I can't speak to the circumstances of Steve Irwin episodes, for I have no idea how they are filmed, but it's certainly the rule that you encounter most larger monitors singly. Remember that they are predators, and that it takes a fairly large patch of turf to generate enough prey to sustain each animal. The larger the home range that is occupied, the more likely that several individual home ranges will overlap, but this also means that finding two animals in the same place is going to be a rare thing unless some resource or feature draws them together. This has to happen during breeding season, but can also result from a local concentration of resources (such as a turtle nesting beach, a big smelly roadkill, or a drying pool on a floodplain). In those cases, sure, a bunch of animals can come together, perhaps from several miles around. When the food is gone, they disperse again.

The only person I know of who claims that large monitors hang out together as a rule is FR, and the only examples he can cite are clearly resource concentrations, such as when several lacies patrol a popular picnic area. If we want some real authority here, at least for Australian species, we can go to Aboriginal people whose lives used to depend on their knowledge and skill in finding things like goannas. When the Aboriginals I know want a goanna feed, they focus on the times and places when the lizards may be congregated at a resource. Otherwise, it's not so easy. When I go bushwalking or driving with Aboriginals we do not turn up any more goannas than a similar number of experienced field herpers would find. I suspect that if you presented Frank's claims to Aboriginals, they'd laugh and say "where does he come up with such humbug?"

Dunno if that gets to your comment, hope it helps.

SS

They set the animal up in a location ahead of time to make for good television, he doesnt just find them that way. All of the animals were physically arranged conveniently where he finds them by Wes and others.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't own a TV.
SS

So do you think the rescues are staged too where a person might call the zoo about a problem monitor eating their chickens? Do you think the monitor is placed there to eat the person's chickens or what not for good television? I would be kinda of mad if someone staged a monitor to eat my livestock. I dont think they could afford to pay that many people to let the monitors eat the livestock or else they would be paying lots of money because they do lots of these episodes specially with that new diaries show. I dont know if it is staged or not. The animals dont seem to look like zoo stock to me. They look like wild animals with battle scars poor shedding, big attitudes, nipped tails etc....

His zoo stock animals are pretty and always out of shed with no scars all are really tame except for that huge reticulated he has lol!!! it s freakin huge. anyways my point is they were all solitary so even if wes and others found the animals first for steve why could they not find them in pairs and groups and bring them or show them to steve so he can talk about their "social behaviors"

have a good day

yes, a monitor is a monitor whether it is in the wild or in captivity, but its conditions change.

For example, a captive cheetah is as much a cheetah as its wild relatives, but sure can't reach the 75km/hr sprints the wild ones are famous for when kept in a box. Does the box stop it from being a cheetah? No, it stops it from doing certain cheetah things, though.

You can watch captive monitors all day every day and see a lot of really interesting things, but be careful which bits you extrapolate onto wild monitors. An alien biologist landing on earth might spend time watching men in a high security prison and come away with all sorts of weird ideas about human social behaviours and sexual preferences.

A good friend has a dog which was raised with two kittens. The three of them get along like a house on fire. They clearly have the ability to get along, so should I start doubting people when they tell me wild dogs are never seen sleeping in a pile with wild cats?

the connection you tried to make between rabbits and fences and us keeping them in captivity is tenuous at best. Keeping a monitor in a box in a basement on the other side of the world can hardly be compared to adding food items and climbing/hiding spots into their natural habitat.

So your saying monitors in cages are not as fast as monitors in nature, if so, then i totally agree. But that has little to do with being social. F

sorry, I didn't word that well. I was implying that the captive cheetah would hit the walls of the box before getting up to top speed, but I do agree with you that captives aren't as fast as wild ones and that it has little to do with this discussion.

This is the sort of thing people usually remember and photograph. This male is so casual around females that he allows them to crawl all over him, even allowing this female to rest her heavily clawed hands on his face

It's easy to think that they are always together, for those are the poses we remember.

Here's the male with another female, doing what they do in the middle of the afternoon.

Sometimes I walk past them and they are piled into the same log, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are both basking together, sometimes they are like this. If I were to take random samples from a 24/7 webcam, my bet is that the 'cosy' bits are mostly either resource sharing, mating stuff or one of the animals checking to see if the other has found some food. Sometimes they are just curious about one another. Even if they did spend all day every day together, if I were to go out in the bush and look at the wild ones tomorrow, would it change what I'd see? No.

If I performed an experiment in a box in my basement that proved gravity doesn't exist, would you step out your door and start floating upward? No.

They still choose to be together. They choose to be together year around. Breeding or not. I happen to agree with Andrew on this one. Again, you judge things without testing for yourself, you see, we all don't use small boxes. Cheers FR

Varanids are Apex predators = top of food chain. Competition between this Genus and species is fierce. Other Apex species like Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) are similar in behavior and niche in their own blue-ice habitat - they rarely if ever tolerate one another at any time, breeding or otherwise, and will kill males, females, cubs, adolencents accordingly and expeditiously.

In 2000, 50 polar bears were observed feeding on a single Finback Whale (Balaenoptera physalus), a site never before known or suspected; consequently, V. salvator have been observed feeding together in groups on Krakatau Island, on Nicobar island, and in India's Madras Crocodile Bank, as food was plentiful and competition was not necessary as food was ample and plentiful - is it social to feed in group? NO! See the film by Rom Whitaker on V. salvator whereby it depicts several 7 V. salvators feeding on a dead beached shark = plenty for all.

These animals are highly adaptable, and can when necessary share and co-habitate for brief periods when it benefits the species, and are also obligate isolationists (like Japan). This is a common enough aspect of Ethology (animal behavior) and represnetatives of almost every species exhibits this, apex predator or not = it benefits the species, and whenever possible, it is easier to run away from a potentially mortal fight and fight another day than to be mortally injured in combat over food, female, basking sites - captivity is an artificial system, and for those with enough insight, all of the qualities required by the keeper for the kept excell their animals, hence behaviors not seen in wild are not seen in captivity, and (hopefully) behaviors seen in captivity have not been seen in the wild (i.e. tick grooming by V. albigularis; tripoding by V. exanthematicus, etc...).

It must also be taken into consideration we do not know a whole lot about most Varanus in the wild and in captivity, and to compare and contrast what is has little merit as nobody has a handle on alot of what many Varanus day-to-day...but there are some people out here, like Dr. Sam Sweet, Dr. Hans-Georg Horn, Bernd Eidenmuller, Steve Blain, Quetzal Dwyer, Trooper Walsh, Dale McGinnity, Michael Stanner, Alexey Tsellarius, Daniel Bennett, Dmitryi Grechanichenko, Eric Pianka, D. Kirschner, etc. etc...who know alot more than the average joe-shmo...

It is not black and white, left or right brain thinking - it is more complicated than that, and like all Mother Nature, a product of devine beauty.

cheers,
mbayless

sounds like a good self help book : )

along the same lines as Mark and the Doc, while there is MUCH to the socializing of monitors, i think too many folks over simplify it and apply human terms- they "like" each other, they are "bonded".

certainly bonding happens, but when there is only one or two basking spots, or one or two hide spots, or more exactly, one IDEAL basking/hide spot, having two or three monitors there at once does not necessarily translate into like, or love. they are restricted in choice.

i see it on the snake forums all the time. some newbie sets up a couple of ball pythons together (or better yet, a ball and a boa) and finds them under the same hide spot, one on top of the other, and says "oh, how cute, they like each other"...

more likely, that is the only hide spot. even more likely, the one animal is trying to assert dominance over the other (not in a "friendly" way but in a "i'll kick your asss" way) and is following the "weaker" animal around at every turn, being a classic bully.

one must be careful not to anthropomorphize with animals that are trying to survive, and not socialize.

it is great to read the animals, but we have to be careful not to misread...
-----
robyn@proexotics.com

Pro Exotics Reptiles

They hate each other. Look how far apart they are!!

Not only that, one has a black beard and is possibly viewing the other as a threat. If they are both males, and one doesn't submit, they might end up with a missing limb. If they're of the opposite sex, it's a good thing that they're far apart, because they could mate and they're far too young for that. I'm not sure if there's headbobbing or not, but just my interpretation based on what was visible.

I was sorta trying to prove a point. IF beardies are that close they probably don't mind eachother that much, thats only what.. 6 feet? If they didn't like eachother you'd think they'd be an acre apart.

Its my breeding pair. She was gravid at the time the photo was taken. He was also headbobbing. She's actually given me three fertile clutches. Off of two copulations.

I guess they are old enough.