Reptile & Amphibian Forums

OK. I just feel I need to say a few words in response to the volume of emails I have been getting about my F2 parsonii hatchlings. To be sure, I am proud of this accomplishment. But to think that the hatching of these chameleons somehow changes the status of parsonii in captivity is misguided.

To base my argument on fact, there have been no captive bred parsonii in the USA that I know of since the year 2000, until this limited hatching I am currently in the middle of.

Worldwide to date there are only 181 documented hatchlings born alive from 29 clutches of eggs produced by the more than 19,000 WC specimens legally exported to zoos and the pet trade from 1977 through 1996.

Do my hatchlings change this picture? Not in the least. Have I learned a lot. You bet. And one of the things I have learned is that parsonii are definitely NOT a good candidate for captive breeding programs.

Think about it. . . it took me more than 5 years from hatchling to hatchling. And in the final paper I publish on this subject I will lay out a pretty compelling argument that shows that I went too fast with this species. A more realistic time table may be 7 to 9 years. Hardly a viable candidate for any real captive breeding program.

While I share everyone's joy in the success of this event, it is important that it be put into perspective.

Hey Mike, glad to know that someone is at least trying to do something right. I, as a chameleon enthusiast and lover, must thank you for your research. Let me ask you a quick followup question based on your studies on Parsonii. After you concluded what you have in the opening post, do you think this species in general will become extinct because of its slow nature to reproduce, knowing there is a constant destruction of Madagascar's habitat?

Sorry to barge in on this, but I also think about the wild populations of species like parsonii. It is very hard to predict whether a species will become extinct. We know almost nothing about the wild population's genetic health, sex ratios and age class structures, the range of the species in the first place, how isolated the specific local groups are becoming, whether some (or enough) of the the surviving groups are reproducing at all in the current habitat conditions, if some groups are adapting to "artificial" forest structures such as coffee plantations with overstories of large fruiting trees, all sorts of things. If you go to the regions in Madagascar where parsonii (white-lipped, yellow lipped, or cristifer) occur you may see juveniles that were obviously born after the major forest destruction occurred. BUT, just seeing juveniles doesn't necessarily mean all is well. And on top of all the habitat problems you have illegal collection from locales that do have healthy breeding populations. We don't know how much illegal collecting is going on. There are so many unknowns it is probably a question that can't be answered at the moment.

Very well said. There is nothing I can add to this post other than to say it is my very strong belief, based on my personal experience and on the extensive importation/mortality data available that parsonii are not good candidates for captive breeding programs as a means of preventing possible extinction.

If someone else has a different opinion, I would like to know on what data they base it.

The degradation of Madagascar's primary forest is ongoing but not to a significant extent within protected areas. Madagascar has recently pledged to set aside triple the area currently under protection, so this will benefit the future of many species, but not necessarily Calumma parsonii parsonii. No records exist of what the natural habitat of parsonii was, and they are only known today from anthropogenic vegetation, primarily coffee, breadfruit, and other tree crops with a natural overstory that provides dense shade for this species. These agricultural groves are not subject to slash-and-burn or degradation because they produce cash crops for the villagers, so parsonii can continue to exist in this habitat into the future. The biggest threat to parsonii in nature, therefore, is the continued harvest of specimens for the commercial pet trade.

Although the importation of this species was banned by CITES in 1995, the illegal trade in this species has continued non-stop to this day. If this species is to be preserved in nature the best and most effective means is to stop all commercial trade and prosecute traffickers. This would only be possible with an Appendix I listing on CITES because an Appendix II listing has not provided adequate protection for a species that is in high demand in the pet trade and is sold at prices that are the highest for any chameleon species in the world.

This species has one of the poorest records of captive reproduction and they are highly unlikely to be preserved from extinction with a captive breeding program. In nature they reproduce at a rate consistent with large reptiles that mature late and have a long lifespan, maybe more than 20 years. If Parson's chameleons become extinct it will be primarily due to harvesting more than 25,000 of them for the pet trade in the last 20 years, and only partially due to habitat destruction that may have reduced or restricted distribution of sub-populations a hundred years ago.

Mike,
Congratulations on your recent hatchings. It’s my opinion that ANY offspring produced by captive breeding is the highest compliment of proper husbandry efforts. That alone is its own reward.

There are however, a couple of points that you made that I would like to make comment on. These issues are statements you made concerning Parsons as a captive breeding candidate, the continued exportation of them and your statement about raising their status to App I.

Every accomplishment, if it is shared, changes people’s perspectives and the chances for continued success. In fact, I don’t really believe that Parsons are any harder to keep and maintain properly than many of the other species. Yes, the captive breeding record is poor for Parsons but not any poorer than most species. Look at any of the species besides pardalis and calyptratus and tell me of peoples continued success? You’re lucky to find anyone capable of captive breeding and successfully incubating fischeri, dilepis, or any of the “more expendable” specie. Also, what about melleri? People can’t even sex them let alone breed them. Compared to the Parsons the import numbers are even higher for this specie, the successful breeding numbers even lower and yet they are still available for $100 each.
Also, in controlled and professional situations all animals are good candidates for captive breeding programs. If the results, both good and poor are published then valuable information can be disseminated. The primary problem with most of the larger species of reptiles, as I see it, is the length of time it takes for them to mature and length of the incubation period required of the eggs. Hell you need the patience of a Saint to wait 5-7 years for offspring. Most people in our want-it-now society are more in for instant gratification. That’s why many of the WC chameleons are purchased. Plus they are readily available and dirt cheap. It’s the price of most chameleons that dictates their expendability and the care level that they receive. You pay $20 for a Veiled Chameleon then is it worth spending $500 to have various medical problems taken care of? You pay $2K for an animal and you bet the animal is taken to the vet for regular checkups.

You have also made mention concerning the continued harvest for the commercial pet trade? Look at the numbers reflected on LEMMIS and TRAFFIC for the years they were eligible for export and I would think the current illegal numbers are rather negligible compared to them. Albeit certain poaching and illegal activity is always present but I don’t think they are even close to the numbers prior to 1995. That is unless, you have specific information that I’m not aware of?

Personally, I don’t believe that Appendix I status would make any difference in providing more protection for the species. You look at many of the Appendix I animals and the illicit and illegal trade is still there. In fact, it might even heighten poacher’s awareness of the animal and increase the illegal trade. It’s the $ amount, that they fetch on the black market, that makes them profitable enough to take the risk for. Appendix I status would certainly raise the price and probably increase this black market activity.

I appreciate what you have done for the chameleon community in being one of the early pioneers in making chameleon information publicly available. I’ve enjoyed our past correspondence and glad to see you reappear and sharing your good news.

Regards,
Kenn Mease

Hello and thank you for your words of support!

You are absolutely right on with most everything you say, IMO. The only caveat I would add, though, is this:

While other species have had abysmal captive reproduction and high mortality rate, parsonii brings to the table a couple of additional special challenges because of their size and the long timeline involved in trying to reproduce them.

Counting on captive reproduction as a means of saving any species should always be, IMO, a very last resort - preserving them in nature the top priority. With chameleon species that have already proven to do so poorly in captivity, counting on captive reproduction as a means of saving the species seems like a very high risk proposition, especially with a species that presents the special needs of parsonii.

Also - I fully understand your arguments about app I status. However, an additional fact is also true. . . prices are now in the $2000 - $2500 range. Those prices keep many people from considering a purchase. If the prices go higher still (which is the basis of the argument against app I status) the numbers of people willing to pay the price will decline farther.

You are right about the fact that there are always unscrupulous people willing to do all kinds of bad things to make a buck. It is sad but true. But increasing the risks and costs associated with illegal activity I can not see as a bad thing.