As you all know, lately a certain mister science decided to label wild monitors "real" and all others, by lack of association, not real.
Mister science has also, labelled monitors in various other ways, like not being social.
Of course you know my opinions on this. So, I recently had the oppertunitiy to ask various experts in the field. So who better to ask then working scientists in the field. These scientists were either giving or attending talks at the IHS conference in Daytona. Some are good friends of mine others are new friends. Now we have a apples to apples response. Phd's to phd's.
What is a real monitor. A real monitor is any and all monitors period. The reason is, a monitor is a living unit, containing genes. These genes express traits for a specific life form. They also react to a specific set of stimuli. They react to these stimuli in a real and controlled manner. In other words, they have no choice.
The question is not whether the correct stimuli is applied, but how these genes react to any and all stimuli. Its been written, life is the ability to react to a stimuli.
Another question is, are the stimuli keepers providing the same as what nature provides. The answer is, not all of them, but indeed some of them. Remember, this has nothing to do with the monitor being real.
In other words, the proper stimuli will express the exact same reaction from the monitor, in either captivity or nature. The reason why science applys tests to subjects.
If the results we recieve are useful, i.e., growth, reproduction, and comparable longevity, then the stimuli applied, must be also similar to whats applied in nature.(again science) similar results=similar stimuli.
In a nutshell, monitors are monitors, its all about the stimuli provided.
Now to behavior, and more specific, social. This question is very interesting. Because of several past discussions(arguements) I found a PHD in biology(evol. bio) that happens to be from australia and actaully works with the government and successfully keeps and breeds reptiles, including monitors.
I first asked, do monitor occur in groups in nature and have you seen them. The answer was, yes, He had seen many of the smaller monitors in groups, acanthurus, gilleni, storri, etc. I asked what about the larger monitors, then I added, they must be within 10 meters. Again he said yes, but included, with the larger monitors, its very difficult to approach them(wild monitors), and see this. But its common to find groups of tracks. Its also common to find them in groups where they have become accustom to people(parks, cities, garbage dumps, beaches, etc)
The question of being social, I asked, are they social? he responded, of course they are(yes), but the degree is the question. Remember, the question is a, yes or no, not to what degree.
I also asked about such things as muliticlutching and the answers were all similar, if it happens in captivity, then the possibility is there for wild monitors to do, the question is, when, why and how.
Then I asked, how our mister science could say and think the things he does. Again the answers were similar. They did not know. But the common thread was, science(biology) is not about making hard fast statements, Its merely about learning to ask better questions.
I also showed the same pics that I have showed our mister science. Of monitors in pairs or groups, both in captivity and in nature, again the answers were similar, they appear to be together volunterily in the company of eachother. The question is, what caused this.
About UV, they also, pointed to results, it appears many many people have raised, kept, bred, many forms of lizards without the benefit of the sun and UV bulbs. Again the question is not can or cannot, its about how?
The real point to be made is, I or mister science, cannot say they are this and that(all of the above) but to continue to learn to ask better questions, in order to explain this and that. That is what science is, not about labelling. Thank you for your time.
