Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Let's take a slightly different approach to the issues that FR wants to debate. There is a large body of observation, and a lot of scientific investigation, that fails to support the interpretation that monitors are social in the wild.

Some of the disagreement is simply terminological, and this is a sterile backwater. Of course monitors come into proximity or contact with each other, for example at mating season, or in situations where there are concentrated resources such as food or shelter, and they get along within certain limits. That's not social, because then there'd be no such thing as a nonsocial animal.

The real distinction is whether, given the opportunity to choose, a wild monitor seeks out and remains with one or more other individuals, or it goes the other way, when mating or resource concentrations are factored out. If Frank and I are set down 50 feet apart in a field, are we going to end up 5 feet apart or 500? Why?

Getting past terminology, what do you see when you set out to observe wild monitors? In the great majority of instances individuals are widely spaced. Sure, you can find pairs and trios together during breeding season, but at other times the same individuals are hundreds of yards apart, and go about their daily lives without any regular contact with neighbors, former and future mates, offspring and so on. You can also find monitors congregated at food resources, whether it be a drying pool on a floodplain, a dead 'roo alongside a track, or a picnic area in the bush. When the food is gone the animals go too, and they go off separately to their own home ranges.

There are dozens, maybe closer to a hundred, carefully-conducted research projects where monitors of many species --African, Asian, Australian, have been observed and studied by biologists, and nobody has documented anything like "bonded pairs" that remain together in the nonbreeding season, "hubs" or colonies, animals "sharing food" or basking piled atop of one another, and so on. We do have good evidence from some field studies that individual monitors recognize their neighbors and behave differently towards them than towards strangers, but so do bears and leopards and rhinos, like many other nonsocial and territorial species.

The biologists who conduct these projects are every bit as fascinated by monitors as are those who keep them in captivity, and it is ridiculous to suggest that all of them have agreed to "not see" or to suppress evidence of the sorts of social systems FR would like to believe exist.

So where else might we look for expertise on the biology and behavior of wild monitors? In Australia, why don't we ask Aboriginal people – for around 50,000 years their survival depended on being skilled field herpers, among other things, and goannas have always been highly prized as a source of fats in an otherwise very lean environment. Aboriginal people, in short, know how to find goannas. They understand very well how to predict concentrations at food sources, or where nesting areas are a limited resource, but at other times of the year they must go looking for them. Do they know about FR's "bonded pairs", about "hubs", about any of that stuff? Nah. If you go out with Aboriginal women who are hunting goannas, or simply drive around with Aboriginal people who never miss a trick when it comes to spotting some good tucker, what you see is pretty much what the biologists see. Having done this, I can report that Aboriginal people find no more goannas than would a similar number of experienced field herpers, and we are not coming up with animals in pairs or in groups out in the bush. It frankly has never occurred to me to ask, but I have a strong suspicion that statements like FR makes would get some response like "why he makin' humbug, nothing to that humbug talk."

So why does FR persist in "makin' humbug" about the biology of wild monitors? It's a mixture of anecdotes and rhetoric, and careens into a sewer of personal invective about science and scientists if anyone presents a different view. Entertaining perhaps, but it's a disservice to monitors and monitor-keeping in the end. Why do biologists twist his shorts? Maybe we get sick of humbug.

Hi Sam,

I can further add that the numerous accounts of Pacific Islands and even Papua New Guinea reports also report NO social bonding or groups, and in only one instance have the native Pacific Islands called male and female by separate names - and as you have seen, I have reviewed thousands of reports of all kinds...

As for bonding, the only species that seems to come close to this kind of behavior is V. griseus caspius studies by Alexey Tsellarius who found out male - females bond for reproduction (only!) and then go their separate ways until next breeding season - so far the best way to keep a good marriage going in my book! haha.

Alot of people humbug the local information by local peoples, but one should also point out, if they paid no attention to locals, V. mabitang might still be an "unknown" with only vague reports of said animals 'somewhere in the Philippines' that I have heard from time to time since early 1990's...

As for what fr thinks, good for him; how many people has he insulted, chased off this forum in years past? Dozens and dozens of nice, good people who also have a passion for Varanus, and NONE of them agreed with fr on much of anything...a common thread perhaps? Chase off any and everyone who disagrees with you, and you 'must be right', Right?!" Its amusing, but old, very old and tiresome ideology to read post after post after post...which I do not bother to do. Like DK says recently, we agree to disagree, and thats A-Ok skippidy-dipity with me.

Thanks Sam, and keep up the good field observations.
markb

"That's not social, because then there'd be no such thing as a nonsocial animal. "

haha thats very true, Thats one of the things I was getting at below in my post. The words being used are very wide terms. I think i would look for better wording. If you have to change the meaning of something so it fits your needs, well then it probly didn't belong there in the first place. Don't put a square peg in a round whole.

I think it is probly safe to say monitors in general are solitary animals. I have not seen them in the wild so I can only take your guy's word on things. I am just trying to get you all to use the right words.

Is there any monitor that fits the bill for living full term in groups, pride, pack , colony, whatever you want to call it?

This is a interesting topic, even if I have to sort through all the name calling. I watch my captives all day so I know what they are doing but I do not know what wild monitors are doing.

Thanks for sharing

Please Sam take no offense.

First, I am not the one trying to be a scientist, your are. Therefore, its not my job to explain what we see to you or science. You need to explain why you have not seen pairs in nature, social or muliti-clutching. Its not my job to explain why I have or why You haven't. I showed actual pics of sevearl pairs I FOUND RIGHT NEXT TO EACHOTHER and asked you to explain that. You failed to do so. I could go on and post pic after pic of the exact same thing, but you ignore my/our effort. If you had half a brain(sorry had to do that) you would realize that I offered you observations and not opinions. You really lost my respect for not even attempting to explain observations. Or to realize they were observations. You see, that reflects on You, if you do that here, what do you do in the field???????

Next, We see in captivity, without a doubt, individual monitors choose to be in the company of certain other individuals. When we let them do this, we see a very high degree of continued reproductive success. That is not theory, that is fact. Again, our job is to let that happen. YOUR job is to explain why it happens. In other words, this is practiced and proven.

When we do as you say, keep them seperate. What we see with that is, all sort of fighting, injuries, eating of eggs, and sometimes short term success. This is also proven and documented. Now I may not be a huge genius, but I am simply smart enough to go with pairs that choose eachother. If this relates to nature, great, if not, great too. Why you do not understand that, is totally magic to me.

Remember, I only need a civil court(public) to verify my evidence, not a federal court(science). If I see monitors in pairs/gourps in captivity, then see them in nature, thats enough proof for me. What you do is simply your problem.

What I find nauseating about the monitor world(academics and paper pushers) is that they believe in the authors and not the monitors. In that I am not a monitor/varanid person, I am a reptile person and I believe in reptiles, not what some good folks say about them. I learned that as a kid, nice people say stupid things about reptiles. If i see a reptile does something, why would I care what YOU(a nice person) said about it?

That our results are different from what these fine authors wrote, is not intended as a insult. Its simply our results. That you do not understand that is sorry.

What else is sorry is, as a scientist, you should not argue/debate this, you should investigate this. Why you do not is centered directly on you. To me, that is the saddest of sad.

Remember, I am not a scientist, I am a captive breeder who also does field work. That I find the two go, hand in hand, is my joy and benefit. That I have experienced what I have is also my joy. Both in captivity and nature.

It does boil down to this.

We, showed(actual pictures of) monitors being social in captivity and in nature. Your failure to explain or understand that, is not in any way, form, or fashion my/our responsibility.

The thought that I should change my methods and beliefs because you do not agree with me, is so very silly. In lite of, you have not shown successs in captivity or in seeing events in the field. You responsibility is to investigate why you are in that condition, not debate why. Dude, how simple is that? F

p.s. The picture is of V.kingorum, they are exactly as found in nature. The male is on the bottom, female on top. Upon further investigation, the female is not with eggs or in breeding condition. Sam if you had captive experience, you would know how to tell. When I am in Oz, i can see this everyday, with many species, and anytime of the year. Sorry if that offends you.

Some of us do take a bit of offense, Frank, because we have checked your claims about experience with wild monitors, and they don't add up. Simple as that, add and divide.

You allow your experience with captives to dictate what you must see in nature. It is quite OK to learn from captives and carry this knowledge to the field, but in doing so you need to factor out the parts that may be artefacts of confinement. When the animals have no choice, they are constrained -- but do those behaviors remain when the animals are not constrained? Maybe, maybe not, but an open mind is necessary. As I've said repeatedly (but it's like talking to a log), there is no imaginable reason why field biologists wouldn't want to see nifty stuff. They might even be better herpers than you are, but that's just a possibility, right?

There is a small bird that comes every morning and beats the bejesus out of its own reflection in my window. It's not gonna win, you know why? Because it's decided on something that's not supported by the facts of the case, and can't see what's really there.

Cheers,
SS

I am sorry Sam, please answer the above questions I posted today.

Also, I begining to think your mearly a fartknocker. As why would I care who is or is not a better herper then I. I simply do what I do. I have done that for a very long time.

In reality, I am still sitting here wondering why on earth do you care what I think and do.

While I am scratching my head, I get the feeling that I am allowed to think whatever I want, whether its right or wrong.

Also while I am scratching my head. It does doesn't explain why our monitors are so successful, for so long and for so many generations. And how i can produce pictures of monitors, together, in nature. You need to explain that, not me. You can tell me I am work until the next millium, but I think I will listen to the monitors, Sorry, F

Remember the little bird, Frank, it operates under what we biologists would term an incorrect hypothesis, but it keeps coming back to pecker away at it -- never learns a thing, and I guess it's happy.