Reptile & Amphibian Forums

My concern with advice from some of the people like that one is, how did they come about it? I have asked that many times.

They simply make broadbased statements across the board, that include all species of varanids, without any visable means of knowing what they are saying.

An example of that is from below. It always comes down to, I did this and saw that, and the other ones counters by saying, your bragging, making it personal, and all you think about is breeding. Now lets take a close look at the reality of the conversation.

The claimed scientific approach is coming from a fella who claims to be a PHD, has done field work with crocs and has little experience with monitors. As far as I can tell, his history to date is, he has raised up three baby lacies to adulthood. These are the first he has raised. He, as of yet has not reached a second generation. He raised them in standard cages, with a few natural or unnatural elements in them, all indoors. Then moved them into a large custom rock wall enclosure. Please remember, these are Lacies and lacies are known treedwellers.

The claims he makes are that captive monitors do not show behaviors of wild monitors.(across the board, all behaviors) None of the things longterm experienced keepers see like, pairing, the social and the closely related anti-social behaviors, nesting, basking, temperature selection, humidity selection, substrate selection, etcs, are similiar to what wild monitors do. That also means such hardcore preferences like basic survivable and basic useable temps and humdities are also not the same(????).

My concern is, how does he know with limited experience. He has not raised and bred(run thru lifecycles) any numbers, he has not attempted to do that in many different conditions, has not tested different elememts and conditions. To me, in order to make comparisons, you would have to actually do different things to compare, I know that sounds simple, and it really is simple.

But yet, this person or type of person wants to argue with someone(anyone/ me) who has done all those types of comparisions, that has, in reality, raised many generations, and do so in many different conditions, including indoors, outdoors, both indoor and outdoors. Raised them in groups, from four to three to two and even by themselves. Tested all sorts of substrates/materials/temps. Has done all this for many years. To add to that or subtract(whatever the case may be) Has also done that with many species.

If you compare reasources, this person with three monitors, has devoted a portion of his living room to his monitors. The opponent has devoted, whole buildings, acres of land with all sort of cages, from very large on down, and has construction shops on site to support those investments.

If you compare time, one has devoted a couple of years and the other has been successful at seeing generations of monitors for over a decade.

Personalities aside, to me, no matter who the people are, there is simply no way a person with three monitors in two cages, can experience the same things as a person with hundreds of monitors, in over a hundred cages, set up in all sorts of ways. Then add the time element.

Also to me, a person with three monitors, does not have a base experience to make judgements as to what monitors are really like. Not in captivity or in nature.

Which brings us to the other side of the coin, nature. The discussion is about whether monitors in captivity reflect behaviors of those in nature.

Again this particular person has not seen monitors in nature do steps that are normal to their lifes. He has not seen them(in any number) as babies, or has he seen them mate, or nest, or grow up, or in the case of his area, overwinter or many other things.

With that in mind, I again have to wonder, how does he make any comparision, if he has not seen these basic things. Please remember, biology does require numbers(quantify) in order to be valid. That is, seeing the same thing many times. But in this case, he has not seen them at all or very very few. He admits to seeing monitors at parks feeding, a couple of times one chasing the other. I also believe he has seen that with his two males in captivity as well?????????

Please remember, to compare, you must see apples to apples events. Starting with neonates, then young individuals, do they start to breed at the same sizes and ages, are the clutches the same, do they nest the same, are they choosing the same conditions to do these things. Do they pick an choose their mates, do they stay with them. All of these and more, must be viewed in both nature and in captivity to actually make a comparision. Did this happen????? No it did not.

With the above in mind, he has little possiblity to "know" anything that monitors do in either captivity or in nature. You cannot tell what animals are doing, from not seeing them do it. So, he must get his ideas from somewhere else. My question is where? He did get them for experience with other species of monitors? I do not believe so. So where. From other people, I think this is a strong possibility. In science, I think that is called heresay.

How does this concern this forum. It does, you know. You, the readers must understand that the information and advice givin here comes from various sources and these sources are not reviewed for accurracy. The information may be correct or it may be totally wrong. On the internet, people can say whatever they like, with or without experience or proof. Please understand that and check to make sure your source is really what you think it is. Also make sure, in discussions like these, that the ability to debate is not of importance. What is important is results. What has produced results, whether its curing a sick monitor or allowing monitors to grow properly, diet, temps, etc. Check to make sure, the person is not a information parrot(repeating what other people say) and has real experience in what your question is. Thanks and sorry for wasting some of your time. FR

Well said Frank and maybe sometimes we do jump the gun as keepers trying to make the best for our animals by listening to what he said she said, when all we need to do is let the monitors tell us what we should do through their actions.

Have a good day

I read all of this discussion about monitors being social or anti social.

To me it seems people are not looking at the defenitions loosley. Social and antisocial are wide terms. I believe the old terms of calling a tiger solitary because it is alone for most of it's life correct. But however it does seek out a mate, may share in the hunt, etc. By some of your defenitions you all would call it then a social creature. Now on the other hand lions live in a pride and are considered communil. They stick together as a family group throughout there lives. But there are animals inbetween both of these extremes.

I for one do not know anything that is all out non-social. If it was it wouldn't be around long as it would never reproduce.

Now if you stick with the terms of do monitors get along Yes, do they bond Yes, do they share prey items Yes, do they reproduce Yes.

Are they found in the wild in packs or groups like a lion is? I know I am comparing apples to oranges but all fruits grow on tree's. So that has little to do with this.

This was a good topic but seems to have strayed into a big mess. I feel it is because most did not have anything else to say other then the samething. You can only repeat yourself so many times before it gets to you.

Frank I know you have seen them in the wild so I would like to hear about them. If you are sick of talking about it on here then feel free to email me. I only have my experience with captive animals. I only experience the wild animals through others or T.V. or books. The only wild animals I know are the native ones around me well and some non native ones.

I beleive we all make personal remarks on here to people. I know I have and still do and will keep doing so.

Oh and Frank yes Thanks for wasting my time LOL

To say that monitors are social or anti-social is making a broad-based judgement on animals who's behaviors in the wild aren't even that well known. Other's (not mine..I'm just making a forray into monitors) captive experiences seem to suggest that monitors have rules of behavior when meeting another of their species or another species of monitor altogether. All animals, to some extent, have this same feature when meeting others of their species. If they weren't social to some degree then these rules and behaviors governing a meeting wouldn't exist. This just happens to be my opinion,, not fact and not meant to be conveyed as such..

In my opinion, Monitors are semi-social. They come together at certain times whether to breed.. to feed or to claim territory. Each meeting has certain "rules of engagement" meant to keep killing violence to a minimum. If monitors killed every other one they met.. the species would have died out. If they didn't have social behaviors then every meeting would end in a fight for the right to whatever resource they're trying to share. In most instances...a fight never occurs...just a lot of bluffing and some minimal contact to see who would be the more plausible to win.

With keeping them in captivity in close quarters, they cannot escape each other so are forced to use those social regulations that have compiled over many generations. While captive monitors may be MORE socially inclined than wild monitors, assuming that the behaviors noted in captivity will not apply to wild monitors is simply foolish. Those behaviors had to develop somewhere, sometime and it certainly wouldn't be just from being kept in a box with others of your kind.
-----
Lucien

1.0 Columbian Redtail Boa (BCI)(Sutekh)
2.2 Leopard geckos (2 Blizzards (Caine and Goliath), 1 het Blizzard (Lilith) and 1 Tangerine Albino (Tequila Sunrise ...Tiki for short))
0.1 Savannah Monitor (Kiros)
13 rats
5 Gerbils
2 Dogs (Loki and Storm)
2 cats (Sahara and Hercules)

these are different things.

No one has said that solitary animals never mate. Polar bears are solitary, yet there are still polar bears out there so the males and females must mate. Do males and females travel around together all year round in the wild? No. Even if you found one pair that did, it wouldn't negate all of the thousands of solitary polar bears that are and have been seen.

Now, polar bears aren't anti-social, for that would involve really nasty stuff, like attacking or even killing each other when they meet. They are just not social, which means they don't seek each other out for things other than mating.

That doesn't mean polar bears are never together. At garbage tips they will happily dine close to each other. Near Churchill Manitoba they gather every November to wait out the freezing of Hudsons Bay, so they can migrate across the bay. While there, they may even play with each other, even adult males. As I said, they aren't strictly anti social. These gatherings are for common reasons or common resources, rather than seeking out the pleasure of each other's company.

In captivity, you can keep pairs of polar bears together and they'll get along. They'll play, they'll mate, everything is rosy. Watch them all you want, though, and it will not change what the wild ones are doing.

Now, read all of the above and replace polar bear with, say, lace monitor and you'd get an idea (except, perhaps, for the Hudson Bay bit and the playing). I haven't said that you never see them together, I have seen groups of lace monitors, but there's always been a reason. Generally, they are seen on their own.

Seeing one or two of any monitor species sharing a crevice, a fence post, a picnic area, a road kill, or hunting, basking side by side doesn't suddenly negate all of the thousands of observations of solitary individuals of the same species by others. That would be like viewing a couple of murderous people and saying that all humans are murderous.

"Now if you stick with the terms of do monitors get along Yes, do they bond Yes, do they share prey items Yes, do they reproduce Yes.

Are they found in the wild in packs or groups like a lion is? I know I am comparing apples to oranges but all fruits grow on tree's. So that has little to do with this."

Hey Dk so your answer to my above questions from my post would be? Monitors are not like lions they are like tigers, or polar bears as you put it?

Do you have anything new to ad to this discussion other then repeating in your words what I said?

You see them in the wild. What have you seen them as? Only together for a resource and not for being a pack, pride, communilsm?

So with the word used before are you calling them social? Or do you feel thats to wide of a term and you need to use solitary and communilsm or some other form of the words?

Thanks for sharing and please let me know your thoughts on this.

Jody, my post was below Lucien's post, not yours. I was explaining to him the difference between social, not social and anti social.

Sorry for the confusion

I believe they are solitary. Lace monitors, anyway, for those are the ones I have seen the most of in the wild. Every time I've seen more than one monitor together, even with other species, there's been an obvious reason other than just social contact.

In that case, they are tigers rather than lions, but tigers that would ignore others at a carcass if there was enough food to go around.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Your lucky to be able to see them in the wild. Thats gotta be awesome. I wish I was so lucky. I guess I could go up and watch the lose nile monitors just north of me LOL

Sorry about not realizing that wasn't a reply to me above. I just read both of your posts and thought it sounded like a re-worded form of what I said.

Glad to see someone not minding me going out of the box, and using tigers and lions as a model. it is just easier sometimes with something more people can relate to. I felt if I added that maybe more people would be able to dicuss this.

no problems, Jody. I use analogies all of the time for the same reasons.

As far as seeing wild ones, one of my favourite areas for observing lace monitors, the nearest reliable habitat (guaranteed sightings on a sunny day), is under threat of bush fire as I type this. Parts of the national park have already burned (600 hectares so far) and I'm hoping they contain it before it is too late.

Hi Jody, In the original discussion on this over on varanus.net, I posted picks of several pair found together in nature. For me, finding monitors in nature in pairs and trios, was a commonplace occurance. I also mentioned that my whole family saw that when they went with me.

In truth, its hard and disruptive to take photos of pairs and groups and they are normally in a crevice or hole, so tearing that up or digging them out, just to take another pic like the pic you took before is a waste and should not be done.

Also, in most cases, the larger monitors can be found in groups at parks, hotels, rubbish tips, etc. When they are found together in other areas, they are usually gone in a second.

I did post a pic of a gravid V.p.rudibus, that I found because I saw where a male was watching. Then found their tracks together, then found the female exactly where he was looking.

I also spend lots of time tracking mertens and mitchells, their tracks often intertwined and connected and followed for long distances. I also, do have photos of pairs of mertens basking on the same rock. In these photos the female does not appear to be gravid or in condition. In that same area, i found a heavily gravid female stacking out a nesting area.

I even have pictures of mertens and mitchells hunting side by side, within inches of eachother. In one photo, there's a gravid mertens hunting with a gravid mitchells. I guess i must go on a pic search, as these are all slides and are put away. F

It sounds like they are alot like captives. Although I would say the cage/walls do change them and mold them a bit.

I wish I had experience with wild monitors, the closest I get is imports. LOL If you find pictures please post them.

So would you say wild monitors live communily? In groups? Or solitary and come together under certain circumstances (food, sharing a resource)?? Or is it inbetween?

You're still taking shots at 'claimed' phd's and what not.

There IS a reason people have academic educations, and a reason that there are grants being paid to individuals who have been trained not just in basic biology, or chemistry, but also in calculus, statistics, and other fields, that enable them to take QUANTITATIVE data, and use that to come to conclusions in specific situations. This approach is in fact 'listening' to the monitors as others have put it.

This is opposed to QUALITATIVE data this is all the data that isn't numerical, this is the part YOU FR are displaying this is the portion that is OPINION. DK, and others are using quantitiative data to back up their opinions, others like Sam Sweet are also using QUANTITATIVE data to back up the statements they are making. I've read the study that Sam sent me on V. glebopalma, and V. glauerti. This study was very well done, all the steps of the scientific method were followed, each portion of the study has a control, and a variable. Sam generally gives references, dates, and species. Don't post pictures, because these are subjective.

I'd like to see your numerical data, your statistics, and some extrapolations from that data. I'd also love to hear about where you went to school, and what sort of academic backup you have. We know DK and Sam, are as you say.. "Claimed" PHD's. Are you also DR, FR?

I myself have a measly BS. from Oregon State.

Just me 2.423 cents.

Ya big ding dong, hahahahahahahaha, This is indeed an individual person talking to another individual person. We are discussing personal experiences from personal observations. This is not a book or vague discussion, its a person talking to another person. The advantage of the forum is just that, people talking to people about personal experiences.

If I wanted to hear what a book said, I would read the dang book, not listen to someones interpitation of the book. Guezz.

About the PHD thing, I would indeed think of him in the same way, whether he is or not, in that sense its not important. I just do not know if he is or not, I have heard both. He goes by names such as Crocdoc and such.

I have to imagine there are personal things that have nothing to do with monitors, and these are not for here. But anything he does thats included in his varanid experience can and should be introduced into a discussion about monitors. Thanks F

this has nothing to do with any qualifications I may or may not (included that for your benefit) have. You should treat me like anyone else.

Wow

It doesn't get more personal crap than that. That entire post was all about me, what I do, how many monitors I have, what I know and don't know.

As for this paragraph:

" The claims he makes are that captive monitors do not show behaviors of wild monitors.(across the board, all behaviors) None of the things longterm experienced keepers see like, pairing, the social and the closely related anti-social behaviors, nesting, basking, temperature selection, humidity selection, substrate selection, etcs, are similiar to what wild monitors do. That also means such hardcore preferences like basic survivable and basic useable temps and humdities are also not the same(????).

If putting words in my mouth makes you feel 'right' and me 'wrong', that's a strange way to hold a discussion. Making up things I have said then telling me how wrong they are is a very strange thing to do, in my eyes. Do you really think I would say that nesting, basking, temperature selection, humidity selection, substrate selection etc would be different in captivity than in the wild? Where have I said this? Please point me to the post in which I have said such things.

But this isn't about me. In fact, I have an idea, let's remove me from the equation. You seem stuck on me and what I do, don't do, have done, haven't done. It's no longer about me, now. Let's focus on you and your experience, Frank, and the facts (not theories) you have about monitors. Let's also keep to the subject at hand, which is the behaviours of monitors in the wild (social behaviours in particular, but some others as well), because that's what this is all about. You want to change the discussion to other things and keep trying, but let's keep on track.

Before you get excited, we aren't going to talk about your experience with captives but your experience with wild monitors because what we are talking about is what wild monitors do and don't do. To narrow it down a bit, we'll talk about wild lace monitors. To get facts about wild lace monitors, you need to see wild lace monitors. To watch captives and assume wild ones do the same would be pure theory.

You are absolutely correct when you say this, in reference to wild lace monitors:

"He has not seen them(in any number) as babies, or has he seen them mate, or nest, or grow up, or in the case of his area, overwinter or many other things."

I have seen none of these things in the wild, other than 'grow up'(I've seen the same wild monitors several times over a few years and have an idea of how quickly or slowly they grow).

I take it by your statement that you have seen all of these things. Let's talk about that, shall we?

You've mentioned a couple of times that you've made 14 trips to Australia, and that the duration of those trips adds up to around a year. You've also once said to me (in an IRC chat - remember it well) that you've seen, in the wild, courting, mating, nesting and hatching in 95% of Australian species. I'm not going to go into the logistical improbabilities of that statement, but anyone that has spent more than a minute in the Australian bush watching wild goannas would guess my take on that one. All exaggeration aside, let's say you've spent time with a conservative ten species and let's assume that you have divided your time equally between those ten species.

That gives you a little over a month with wild lace monitors.

Now let's talk about some of the things you state as fact, things you have seen in wild lace monitors, things you have told me either in IRC chats or in these forums in our many discussions. Again, facts on wild lace monitors, not theories deduced from captives (I am the theoretical one, remember?):

1. wild lace monitors grow as quickly as captives. Now, I'm guessing that your month with lace monitors was divided amongst different trips, a day or two on this trip and on that trip so that you could take measurements of the same animals over the course of a year. Since you don't believe in telemetry and some of these animals have massive home ranges, you'd have to allow at least a lost half day each time trying to find the suckers

2. wild lace monitors remain active and feeding through winter, in order to achieve no. 1. So, some of your little trips would have to be in winter as well, fair enough.

3. hatchlings remain together in colonies and grow up together. I guess you'd have to spend time with the same hatchlings for a while, clearly over a month. I'll have to think about that one.

4. inbreeding is common - I'll leave this one for a bit, for observing this in the wild would be similar to no. 5.

5. young pair bonded animals produce most of the young, the rest of the adults are non-breeding 'goons'. Righto, to study this and no. 4 is possible, by taking blood samples from large populations and comparing the DNA. Man, if that didn't take up most of your month! Big study, requiring much funding. Surely your funding body would demand a paper or two. Care to give us details of the publication?

6. monitors pair up in winter and often share their winter hide spots together, so they can mate in spring. Not sure how this fits in with them being active in winter, but to see them in a log together in winter and know that they continue to remain together to pair in spring is going to take more than a month of watching, for sure. I guess while coming back to measure the growing young you can have a peak at this

7. bonded pairs stay together throughout the warm months. Okay, the warm months in my part of the world go for at least 6 months. Those little one or two day trips to measure the growth in the young ones are starting to get a bit busy, what with seeing if the wintering animals stay together and whether or not your bonded pairs stay together throughout the warm months. Without transmitters, finding them by.. I don't know, sniffing them out?

8. they multiclutch. Well, between mating and egg laying in this species, we are looking at at least a few weeks, so unless she produced that second clutch a week after the first you'd be hard pressed to see both clutches in your month. Ah, I forget the little one to two day measuring trips. You must be a blur of movement when you get to Australia.

9. they pair for life. Now THAT is hard to measure in a month, you have to admit. It's even hard to measure in your own collection. Gracie is dead, so George and Gracie can't be the pair you referred to below. Besides, she produced a few infertile clutches one year, then a good clutch of which you hatched two, which is where you got your second breeding pair from. Now THEY have pair bonded for life, but at this stage 'life' is, what, three or four years? How old are they now? But wait, didn't that female also mate with your unrelated male? Pair bonding out the window. But that's captivity, and we are talking about the wild.

Now let's compare some of the above (winter activity, inactivity, social behaviour, pair bonding, multiclutching) with studies done by zoologists on wild lace monitors. I can think of two people that have done four year studies on them each, most of which was spent in the field. Do you want to hear their findings on some of the above, or can you guess?

See? Nothing to do with me and my captives.

when I said I hadn't seen all of those things in wild lacies, I have actually seen termite mounds that had been burrowed into by females for nesting. Not that it has anything to do with the rest

>>Wow
>>
>>It doesn't get more personal crap than that. That entire post was all about me, what I do, how many monitors I have, what I know and don't know.
>>
>>As for this paragraph:
>>
>> " The claims he makes are that captive monitors do not show behaviors of wild monitors.(across the board, all behaviors) None of the things longterm experienced keepers see like, pairing, the social and the closely related anti-social behaviors, nesting, basking, temperature selection, humidity selection, substrate selection, etcs, are similiar to what wild monitors do. That also means such hardcore preferences like basic survivable and basic useable temps and humdities are also not the same(????).
>>
>>If putting words in my mouth makes you feel 'right' and me 'wrong', that's a strange way to hold a discussion. Making up things I have said then telling me how wrong they are is a very strange thing to do, in my eyes. Do you really think I would say that nesting, basking, temperature selection, humidity selection, substrate selection etc would be different in captivity than in the wild? Where have I said this? Please point me to the post in which I have said such things.
>>
>>But this isn't about me. In fact, I have an idea, let's remove me from the equation. You seem stuck on me and what I do, don't do, have done, haven't done. It's no longer about me, now. Let's focus on you and your experience, Frank, and the facts (not theories) you have about monitors. Let's also keep to the subject at hand, which is the behaviours of monitors in the wild (social behaviours in particular, but some others as well), because that's what this is all about. You want to change the discussion to other things and keep trying, but let's keep on track.
>>
>>Before you get excited, we aren't going to talk about your experience with captives but your experience with wild monitors because what we are talking about is what wild monitors do and don't do. To narrow it down a bit, we'll talk about wild lace monitors. To get facts about wild lace monitors, you need to see wild lace monitors. To watch captives and assume wild ones do the same would be pure theory.
>>
>>You are absolutely correct when you say this, in reference to wild lace monitors:
>>
>> "He has not seen them(in any number) as babies, or has he seen them mate, or nest, or grow up, or in the case of his area, overwinter or many other things."
>>
>>I have seen none of these things in the wild, other than 'grow up'(I've seen the same wild monitors several times over a few years and have an idea of how quickly or slowly they grow).
>>
>>I take it by your statement that you have seen all of these things. Let's talk about that, shall we?
>>
>>You've mentioned a couple of times that you've made 14 trips to Australia, and that the duration of those trips adds up to around a year. You've also once said to me (in an IRC chat - remember it well) that you've seen, in the wild, courting, mating, nesting and hatching in 95% of Australian species. I'm not going to go into the logistical improbabilities of that statement, but anyone that has spent more than a minute in the Australian bush watching wild goannas would guess my take on that one. All exaggeration aside, let's say you've spent time with a conservative ten species and let's assume that you have divided your time equally between those ten species.
>>
>>That gives you a little over a month with wild lace monitors.
>>
>>Now let's talk about some of the things you state as fact, things you have seen in wild lace monitors, things you have told me either in IRC chats or in these forums in our many discussions. Again, facts on wild lace monitors, not theories deduced from captives (I am the theoretical one, remember?):
>>
>>1. wild lace monitors grow as quickly as captives. Now, I'm guessing that your month with lace monitors was divided amongst different trips, a day or two on this trip and on that trip so that you could take measurements of the same animals over the course of a year. Since you don't believe in telemetry and some of these animals have massive home ranges, you'd have to allow at least a lost half day each time trying to find the suckers
>>
>>2. wild lace monitors remain active and feeding through winter, in order to achieve no. 1. So, some of your little trips would have to be in winter as well, fair enough.
>>
>>3. hatchlings remain together in colonies and grow up together. I guess you'd have to spend time with the same hatchlings for a while, clearly over a month. I'll have to think about that one.
>>
>>4. inbreeding is common - I'll leave this one for a bit, for observing this in the wild would be similar to no. 5.
>>
>>5. young pair bonded animals produce most of the young, the rest of the adults are non-breeding 'goons'. Righto, to study this and no. 4 is possible, by taking blood samples from large populations and comparing the DNA. Man, if that didn't take up most of your month! Big study, requiring much funding. Surely your funding body would demand a paper or two. Care to give us details of the publication?
>>
>>6. monitors pair up in winter and often share their winter hide spots together, so they can mate in spring. Not sure how this fits in with them being active in winter, but to see them in a log together in winter and know that they continue to remain together to pair in spring is going to take more than a month of watching, for sure. I guess while coming back to measure the growing young you can have a peak at this
>>
>>7. bonded pairs stay together throughout the warm months. Okay, the warm months in my part of the world go for at least 6 months. Those little one or two day trips to measure the growth in the young ones are starting to get a bit busy, what with seeing if the wintering animals stay together and whether or not your bonded pairs stay together throughout the warm months. Without transmitters, finding them by.. I don't know, sniffing them out?
>>
>>8. they multiclutch. Well, between mating and egg laying in this species, we are looking at at least a few weeks, so unless she produced that second clutch a week after the first you'd be hard pressed to see both clutches in your month. Ah, I forget the little one to two day measuring trips. You must be a blur of movement when you get to Australia.
>>
>>9. they pair for life. Now THAT is hard to measure in a month, you have to admit. It's even hard to measure in your own collection. Gracie is dead, so George and Gracie can't be the pair you referred to below. Besides, she produced a few infertile clutches one year, then a good clutch of which you hatched two, which is where you got your second breeding pair from. Now THEY have pair bonded for life, but at this stage 'life' is, what, three or four years? How old are they now? But wait, didn't that female also mate with your unrelated male? Pair bonding out the window. But that's captivity, and we are talking about the wild.
>>
>>Now let's compare some of the above (winter activity, inactivity, social behaviour, pair bonding, multiclutching) with studies done by zoologists on wild lace monitors. I can think of two people that have done four year studies on them each, most of which was spent in the field. Do you want to hear their findings on some of the above, or can you guess?
>>
>>See? Nothing to do with me and my captives.