Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Have "ritualized combat"? Its well known that monitors do this. Is in not, a social practice? Then why is it "Ritualistic"?

Isn't "Ritualistic" conbat a method to arrange the social ladder? Hmmmmmmmmm I get so confused. Isn't "Ritualistic" behaviors long been understood to be of social benefit. Or else it would be plain old combat(anti-social)?????????? just a thought for the day. FR

p.s. "Ritualistic combat" is a series of behaviors that lead to a winner and a loser, without inflicting injury.

p.p.s. which leads to the question, why do monitors have both "ritualized combat" and strait olde kill the sucker combat? very curious.

Hy FR,

is it neccessary that a fight without injuries is something we would call "social". I mean, if monitors (or every other animal) could find a way to win the best position for spreading their genes without taking injuries and risking their lifes, wouldn't they choose this way? On the other hand arn't we humans social too? And arn't we killing or at least hurting each other for one or the other reason?
With that said I don't think "ritualized combat" isn't the point to think about if talking about social behavieur.

Just a thought late at night after a hell lot of wine,

best regards,

Timo

I am not sure I follow your responce.

People are social, social includes lots of elements. It can ideed include very non social behaviors, wars for example, are socially based. Hermits are an example of non-social elements of human culture. Things like culture, religion, and politics are social and cause for war.

I would like to mention, non-injury combat has to be socially based. How could it not be. To eliminate a competitor is by far the best way to secure you spreading your genes. To keep your competitor around does not secure anything. The question here is, do monitors have the ability to eliminate their competitors? oh heck yes is the answer to that.

Non-social, does not include behaviors that are social. If an animal is non-social, that it cannot and does not include social behaviors. Of course animals can be seasonally social, partially social, mildly social, etc. But a saying non-social, must exclude all social behaviors.

About whether "Ritualistic combat" is a good example or a place to start, is not the question. I imagine its a good a place as any. Of course, I have lots of social type behaviors that need to be explained. Thanks FR

If you were to see how quickly a monitor can kill another monitor, theres no hesitation, it takes seconds. If you see a monitor with an injury that can heal on its own from a spat between cagemates, yet it appears to possibly be fatal, if you see 2 monitors fight over a home, a mate, territory, etc would you still believe the loser of the fight got away with its life, or would you believe social behavior, sometimes with all (nonsocial) species like ourselves a fight happens and the loser walks away with his pride hurt but still very much alive or intact, that I believe is a social civil behavior to allow the loser to go on their way without finishing them off. It also helps to secure your territory and prevent the extinction of your species. Of course many dont believe in civility anymore.

Just a thought from a former soldier who saw both sides of war, the civil and the horrible.

As Frank said the question if monitors are social must not be fixed to one certain behavior but to the total of interactions between the individuals. Therefore I think it to be wrong to ask if "ritualized combat" is an expression of social behavior because the fight alone doesn't answer the question. Fighting is not social whether it is a fight until death or just ritualized combat.

But I have to admit that there are a lot of behaviors that look like "social". But I am not sure if two newly introduced monitors that finally stop fighting have anything to with social behavior. Futhermore I've read about people claiming that their monitors "share" food. I never saw something like that - mine were just trying to get the biggest part of the prey.

That all leads just to one question: What afterall is social behavior?

(hahaha - just thought I sound a bit like Frank himself; saying a lot and then questioning the lot at the end. I am learning Frank )

Best regards,

Timo

By definition living together in communities, involving allies or member of a confederacy.
Social behavior allows for one to allow his ememy or competitor to survive after a violent confrontation, fighting itself for any reason is a social behavior, if it wasnt it wouldnt occur, after all its a way to settle differences between 2 of the same species.
Ritualized combat is just that its a competition between 2 males, or females of the same species with a strict always followed set of rules which a test of strength, balance, etc which doesnt involve the risk of death so that the matter is settled. Ritualized combat rarely involves any biting or little clawing, when they want to kill each other they go straight for the head and crush, if you ever see it youll never forget it.
Social behavior is, yes, eating together and yes, 2 monitors that get along will eat together, will bask together, etc but one will be in charge (dominant), 99% of the times that can be settled without any combat simply by posturing, etc. They can live in groups 2,3,4,5 etc but they have a way of knowing if they can. They need property (lots of it), resources (food, water, etc), a home or multiple homes to live in larger groups, or they cannot live togther. Sometimes as in any species 2 individuals dont get along, you wont know until they are introduced.
Social behavior is not just shaking hands, flirting etc its a broad range of behavior. Also as I said last post its about settling a difference without one being injured or dieing, it helps to carry on the species more sucessfully.