Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Just some questions I have about your (and others) studies and I am going to borrow your aboriginal analogy.

“what is a real Australian Aboriginal? Same people, sometimes the same individuals. Nowadays, some of them retain their culture and live on their ancestral lands, using accumulated knowledge to live pretty darn well in a very hostile environment. It has been said with some justification that until a few hundred years ago, Australian Aboriginal people had the highest standard of living on earth, as gauged by the overall health of individuals, and the small percent of time they had to spend simply meeting survival needs (in other words, lots of leisure time). These were and are real Aboriginal people.

Also real are the Aboriginal people who now live on the fringe of white Australian society, eating whitefella food and contracting diabetes, drinking whitefella grog, sniffing whitefella petrol, bashing each other and rotting in whitefella jail. To a certain extent these conditions are imposed on Aboriginals who have lost their land and their culture; many of them do not have a choice anymore, or are presented with choices that are not in their best interests in the end.”

Now lets say I visit OZ and I am interested in learning about the natives. I “find” some natives on the fringe of “whitefellas” society and learn about their culture. I am not able, for whatever reason, to learn from other natives who are still part of/practice the original aboriginal culture. Let’s say for the sake of argument, since I am a dumb whitefella, that I don’t even know these folks exist.

Now I think I know about aboriginal culture. How they live, where they live, etc. When the truth is, I only know a tiny portion of the puzzle. I think (hope) we all agree on this.

Now the real question is what part of the puzzle are we looking at? The successful aboriginals? The majority of Aboriginals? The failures? The semi-failures? What can we compare them to?

Now what about the monitors you (and others) study? Which ones are they? How do we know? How much of the puzzle do they represent? What can we compare them to?

Jefe

p.s. this is similar to the World Famous “Street Persons” argument somebody on here is known for. Surprised he didn’t bring it up.
-----
Gone Goannas
Varanus.net

I felt it was more important to compare, cultural differences in aboriginals and cultural differences in monitors. You see, if its about culture, then that means monitors are social. I do believe, everybody knows, culture and society, go hand in hand.

But of course, Sam avoided that conversation, like the plague. Thanks FR

Culture can also be a reflection of characteristic forms, whether aborigine, aztec, eskimo, and 'maybe' goanna to available resources; often strange 'behaviors' can be attributed to adaptations to particular ecological conditions, hence a group of animals or a population may behavior in a certain characteristic, as compared to the same species elsewhere - this was all thought out very carefully, and I think brilliantly by
Marvin Harris in his 'accurate' (vrs fooey-hooey of the afore- mentioned aborigine book by baker) 1977 book, "Cannibals and Kings: the origin of Cultures" - Dr. Uwe Krebs, a fellow Varanus Researchers has examined this culture-aspect and varanids and finds striking comparisons, but no proof one way or the other -if you're interested look them over...but then you fellows do not rely on Vara-books too much as they never have much relevant information in them (in your opinions) ...those who do not learn from books burn them (G.S. Patton, 1945).

So some animals, man included may appear to have culture, hence a society, but may actually be responding to external stimuli, which is after all what 'behavior' really is, stimuli to their environment, and in higher animals can become learned (and retentive) behavior (not including instinctual behavior)(Tinbergen, 1965).

And yes, you're getting into the ethological aspects of varanids, and this is a very grey area of virtually strict personal interpretation of a few people on an entire Genus; could it be these interpretations need to be based a species by species level? A V. acanthurus is so very different from a V. salvadorii, yet they have all the basic genotype that says they are all related: varanus.
cheers,
mbayless

I also gave a talk of population cultures(within species), at the All Fla. herp Soc. meetings a few years ago.

I agree, but really thats not in question here.

I seems culture is directly related to being social and at the very least, its related to "tight groups" which also relates to being social.

You should consider the effects of having no social abilities, or ramdom, has Sam puts it. If that was so, these find authors of which you speak would be wrong.

So, Mark, in this rare case, I do agree with you. Thanks FR

You should consider the effects of having no social abilities,or ramdom, has Sam puts it. If that was so, these find authors of which you speak would be wrong. -fr

"Social ability"? Reptiles are reptiles - not mammals, which have a higher processing brain. Being social does not 'have' to imply 'culture', but culture does imply being social.

Crocodiles are not social, but solitary most of their lives, with intermittant breeding sessions throughout their lives. They do cannibalize one another, breed with the largest males/ females, usually by the females choice, and feed together when large food sources are available = ALL these attributes can be seen in other apex predators too: White-shark (Carcaradon carcharis), Varanids, Hoatzin bird, and may in fact be indicative of an apex predator status by these behaviors demonstrated. But does this make them social?? I am not sure, but I do not think so....the evolution of social behavior among animals is fairly straight forward, and one separation attribute between higher animals (mammals, some birds, some fish) and lower animals (amphibians, fish, insects (except Hymenoptera), reptiles, some birds) is communication. The sophistication of communication between a species/population etc depends on level of communication: auditory, visual, chemical cues. Communication comes in many forms among the three afore-mentions cues, and depending on them you get language (as from whistle communication between peoples of the Marquesas Islands, to babble talk of the French (haha), to languages of the United Nations).

There is a very good papers (Young, 1998; Akeley, 1931), with a few scant reports in the last 125 years of varanids communicating in format other than the 'hiss' = so what is this all about? I don't know, but if it is a type of 'language' (level of communication)we are not aware of, then maybe we're in for some surprises; so far it seems endemic to the relict species so far as studies go (V. salvator, V. niloticus, V. griseus). I know a few zoologists who specialize in vocal dynamics of lower animals looking at this very thing now.

I do not think Marvis Harris was wrong in his assessment of culture or its origins - but in 'science' (Mr. or otherwise) "Science" has a way of refining itself through proof and experimentation; with biological entitities involving ethology, this is a very slow process and too many factors to mention here must be done before an ethological note on a species can be applied to a species as so: case in point: When fellow varanophile Rodney Williams observed his V. albigularis methodically and repeatedly removing, destroying ticks (Aponomma exornatum Koch) from their own bodies and killing them with their massive jaws and using their chins as a battering ramm to smash them into powder was it proved - time and time again, and then we wrote it up as so (Williams & Bayless, 1998. Tick removal behavior by a white throat monitor lizard (Varanus albigularis). Chicago Herp. Soc. Bull. 33(5):101-102). Behavior of this type (= Tick grooming) are extremely rare in literature for varanids/reptiles. I will say this for captivity and husbandry of varanids: you can only see this type of behavior in captivity - I doubt you would ever see such natural behavior as this in the wild as time constraints, their flight behavior predisposition, and the rarety of this behavior. I am sure there are other behaviors we have no idea that varanids do - like one a nice fellow on this forum shared with me of his V. salvadorii only looking at him through the door of his enclosure by his reflection in the water tank between them - that is an illuminating piece of information about V. salvadorii!

Culture requires language, other than those auditory, visual, chemical cues required for instinctual behaviors (i.e. imprinting, flight or fight etc...) and I do not think varanids have this - but like other 'lower animals with sophisticated communication cues' they may be quite sophisticated - more so than we realize today.

A V. salvadorii is probably one of the most acutely aware (and dangerous) varanid species known, but does that give it a culture? No - just a 'top dog (- killer)' very efficient design and effective part of its ecosystem.

mbayless

I agree with most of what you say, in this post. Yes, monitors comunicate in many ways, eyes, noise, posturing, etc. This is what indicates them being social. They also understand group hunting/killing and feeding, another indicator.

I also agree, very little on this is published. If you want to remember this correctly, I begged authors to come and publish our results and observations. only daniel did so. I even asked you and Robert Sprackland. But no takers.

About social, you are being the dreaded word, anthropromorphic(sp)(applying human qualities to animals) Only in this case, your applying mammal qualities to reptiles.

No one ever said, monitors are social like mammals, they indeed are not mammals. Nor are birds or fish, mammals. All these groups of animals are indeed, not like the others and should not be. Birds flock, and fish school. Some consider those social. But yet, some do not flock or school. To be social, must have benefits.

Reptiles, monitors in this case, are only social in a way it applys to monitors. Please understand this.

Social is to gather in groups. There does not have to be a direct reason or lenght of time. For instance, we have dinner with friends once a week, that is a social gathering, no real reson. To voluntarily gather.

Monitors gather to feed, to mate, to overwinter, etc. They live in populations that are isolated without fences. That is, there are monitors in some area, and not in other areas of identical habitat and resources.

How social they are, depends on the quality of these events. I never said or intented to say, they are social like people or dogs(mammals)(sometimes equal)

They pick mates and avoid other potential mates, that again, brings in the question of a social choice. These types of behaviors are now commonplace.

Indeed, they do these things on their own accord, and its in your literature. Indeed some of these things are nearly impossible to see in nature.

Please remember, its at this time. I can imagine the day, when cameras will replace radios, and the truth will be told. That day is when there are huge memory chips and cheap cameras, which is on the way.

You must consider, that all the past and all the future is indeed the story. To live only in the past, will not complete the book. We need the past, the now, and the future to tell a more accurate story. In other words, the story is still being told. So my advice is to listen to the story. Judging will happen sometime in the future.(thats about social/non-social and whos closer to right or not) To say, all monitors and all species of monitors are not social to any degree, is indeed, misguided and wrong. We do not know enough to judge that.

Again thanks for the post, I enjoyed it. FR

To always live in groups together, or to flock. But to consider cannibalism as a benefical behavior to a society or a local group. As crocodiles and monitors both do, they eat the young of their own frequently to prevent overpopulation and to prevent the overuse of resources, after all if all of the food runs out in an area then all will die in one season, if excess offspring are eaten it increases available food, as well fills the need for a full stomach, recycling back into the ecosystem, therefore allowing the stronger specimens to survive and reproduce.

To field an inquiry from an independent point of view, Jifi. But I think you're taking analogies too far here. I had two points in mind in my original post in this thread – first, to agree (because people seem to be missing the point that I do agree) that wild and captive monitors are both "real monitors". The second point is the more important, that there are layers, or levels, of that reality.

Monitors in the wild are constrained by a host of environmental factors, and they are obliged to make a go of things within those constraints. For example, it may be a dry year or a wet one, and this may affect food resources, the prevalence of parasites, or the abundance of predators, competitors, or mates, to cite a few. Wild monitors are adaptable within limits, and when those limits are approached or exceeded some breed and some don't, some live and others don't, and so on. That doesn't change the fact that they are monitors.

They are also monitors in captivity, where some constraints are lifted and others, including new ones, are imposed. We decide how this happens, the monitors don't, but if we are doing a good job (by asking the animals), this involves lifting the most serious constraints (for example, death by starvation, predation or parasitism) while minimizing the number and nature of novel constraints. What's novel? It's the whole set of potentially deleterious conditions resulting from substituting a box for the outside world. That set is not defined by captive animals, it's defined by wild animals.

My point is that, for those comparisons, the "real" monitors are wild ones. What they can do in captivity is less relevant, for two simple reasons. First, we have already decided what their options are – they didn't choose 'em, we did. Second, all monitors (wild and captive) are adaptable and resilient, at least to a point. The fact that some species "do OK" or "do great" is not a proof that our husbandry is ideal – all it really shows is that some individuals of some species can adapt to those conditions. In other words, we are not outside the envelope, because they live, grow, breed, etc. If that's good enough for you, you're easily pleased. I continue to believe that we can do better, by paying attention to some optional constraints that we impose.

This isn't what your post was about, as you seem to have the idea that 'winners and losers' form two categories for wild animals. However, it ain't that simple. The 'losers' lost a long time ago, and have been losing every time for millions of years – in that sense there are not many losers left by now, right? All we have are the descendants of thousands of generations of 'winners'. In every generation there are still some animals that succeed and others that don't, but natural selection has long ago cut this cloth pretty carefully, so that accident, not adaptation, plays the major role in success or failure.

What that means is that we are all studying the same monitors.

I did not bring up "real" monitors or captivity in my post. In fact it had nothing to do with that...as you noted in your last paragraph...which also had nothing to do with my post.

You can spin all you want Sam, but it seems you're a bit dizzy now. Thanks for being consistant though, not talking about substance but rather being being clever (read sarcasm) and changing my name.

Jefe
-----
Gone Goannas
Varanus.net

Maybe I didn't understand your post, Jiffy, you don't make much sense when 2/3 of your post quotes mine, then you ask about it and I reply, and you don't like that. Tell us again what your post is about, please.

---My point is that, for those comparisons, the "real" monitors are wild ones. What they can do in captivity is less relevant, for two simple reasons. First, we have already decided what their options are – they didn't choose 'em, we did. Second, all monitors (wild and captive) are adaptable and resilient, at least to a point. The fact that some species "do OK" or "do great" is not a proof that our husbandry is ideal – all it really shows is that some individuals of some species can adapt to those conditions. In other words, we are not outside the envelope, because they live, grow, breed, etc. If that's good enough for you, you're easily pleased. I continue to believe that we can do better, by paying attention to some optional constraints that we impose.---Samsweet

Sorry, I copy and pasted your writings. It also consists of more than 3/4 of my post.I'm trying to pick and grab what I can use, but always get lost. The question still remains the same, what have you done in captivity with your monitors, that is different from what most of us are doing.Not that there is a norm, but what have you done different? Not trying to pick on you, just asking you a question.

The answer is "not much, really", which may seem surprizing in light of all the kerfuffle it generates. As I've said repeatedly (that's why there are archives), the principal things I do differently involve keeping animals so that each has its own exclusive turf (but allowing them to meet on neutral ground when they choose), using natural light cycles, and using UV-B bulbs. I always want larger (and especially taller) enclosures than I have, and am a big fan of elevated hide tubes for arboreal species.

Most everything else I do would be familiar to anyone here. Note that I do not claim that anything I do is new or unique -- all of these things are common features in zoos and among European monitor keepers, both of whom seem to pay more attention to monitor biology than does the crowd posting here.

So you keep monitors seperate. Ok got that , thanks. Do you cycle any of them before you introduce em for breeding? Do you cool em? Lower light cycles? Both? Maybe more,less?

I lost you when you mentioned the whole european thing.Do they know something we dont? I'm all ears. Feel like I'm digging dirt and constantly hitting roots here lol. Thanks for your input, Sam

In Europe, where varanid husbandry really began 30 years ago, especially the Germans, but Dutch as well have excelled in breeding many rare species 20-25 years ago (see Horn, 1999, Eidenmuller, 1977, 79, 81,83, 85 etc...2002; Kirschner, 2001; and a hole lot more) reports of Varanid breedings they have done there, and continue to do, to F1->F2->f3 levels.

When a new species comes in, a herpetoculturalist (I won't name names here) will go to the original locality cited or reported to him, and see how the animals live, eat, hide and so on - come back to Europe and duplicate it as much as possible, and bing-bango have hatchlings and successful breedings there-of... it has worked well and they are consistant.

Why do you never hear about these? Do you subscribe to Herpetofauna (Stuttgart)[vrs Herpetofauna, Sydney], or Salamandra, or Monitor (DGHT), or a few others = and all are written in German, with the ocassional english summary there-in.

I believe this is what Sam was referring to - not to mention 99% of the encounters with European herptoculturalist are extremely pleasant and up-front, unlike the American varanid breeders who bash the European breeders with past threats and so on, are terribly rude and undermine anyone who disagrees with their dogma = which group of people would you prefer to deal with?

cheers,
mbayless

It doesn't really matter to me where they're from. That would be dumb to classify europeans as being better.

It is not dumb to say one is better than the other - lets just say the Europeans publish what they do, and back it up with afore-mentioned literature 150% more than any American does - I don't know why? Passion before business maybe?? Does that make the Europeans better? It is better if you want to read about it, rather than make 100 posting to Varanus.nl, Snakescom, KS forums, but if you have time to make such numerous/lengthy inquires than the post of a postage stamp, by all means go ahead...I prefer the postage stamp myself. Of the 4,126 letters I have written requesting information on varanids, I have a 64% return rate - and that is alot of information (that includes only first mailing, not follow-ups) - or about 16,000 entries in my varanid files alone, not including the geographic files, habitat files, paleotological files on varanids.

cheers,
mbayless

Hahahahha, I don't care man. I keep Varanids.

and so do they - more species and types than you can imagine.... V. pilbarensis, V. rosenbergi, V. spenceri, V. olivaceus, V. griseus koniecxnyi, V. flavescens, and so on - and bred most of them many times....

mbayless

Have been discovered, improved upon, and the useless points have been dropped or replaced with better more consistant methods here in the US in the last 15 or so years. No, we didnt originate the hobby but we vastly improved, actually I should say the majority of that work and contributed daily to this day comes from FR. His basic ideas for reptile husbandry can be applied to almost all species, its amazing to just try it for yourself and see of course with minor changes for individual needs how good it works. I myself havent bred monitors, I dont have the room, but Ive applied his ideas and an open mind to my monitors to produce what I have today as well a never ending supply of beardie eggs, from a female that completely recovers physically in 3 days time (yet unless you pic her up youd never know she just layed eggs). I have to dig up 21 eggs every 3-4 weeks, I dont make money off of them and its a hobby, so I feed some eggs to my monitors now.

Hi Shvar,
You cannot treat all monitors the same, a V. acanthurus and a V. mertensi are not the same, eat the same things or require the same temperature gradient - just as a V. griseus if not properly hibernated and skin-sheds twice will be able to breed, and with neither of the afore-mentioned will most likely 98% die on you... ask those keepers who have V. griseus.

As for diet, some species are generalists, other specialists and yet others herbivorous. There are piscivorous, insectivores, carnivoroes, scavengers, herbivores, etc.... You cannot look at all of them the same, as they clearly are NOT the same...

cheers,
mbayless

As someone who has raised both ackies and mertens from hatchlings, I can say they do require the same things.
Mertens just use more water.

As someone who has raised both ackies and mertens from hatchlings, I can say they do require the same things.
Mertens just use more water.-rsg

You just said it yourself - it is NOT the same - one requires more water than the other....it is these differences where you, fr and others differ with Sam and I I think - maybe it is little things, but those little things add up. And yes, you have bred them that is fine and great - but have you considered how much 'different' they might be if the mertens were fed more fish than mice? How would your V. mertensi do if not provided sufficient water as you state they need? They would not fluorish well would they - nope. They are different, have different niche levels, and requirements, no matter how subtle they may be, they are significant, even if in a small way.

mbayless

No...... I said a mertens will use more water, meaning they will swim. An ackie would suffer from lack of water, just as a mertens would. Ackies however are not inclined to swim.

Preferences and requirements are two different things.

As someone who has raised both ackies and mertens from hatchlings, I can say they do require the same things.
Mertens just use more water.-rsg

These are the words you said in the post above...you 'say' they do require the same things = ok - then why does a V. mertensi 'prefer' to use more water then - is this 'preference' not a requirement? They do take hydration through swimming as you know, and could this water uptake be a requirement for V. mertensi more-so than V. acanthurus which is more designed for a spinifex-habitat than a riparian one for V. mertensi?

mbayless

Further, terrestrial-based Australian varanids go through a dry and wet period, as you probably know. In 'wild' During the dry season, the terrestrial Varanids (i.e. V. gouldii, V. acanthurus) have a drop in body weight, and a gain of body weight in the wet season; the reverse is known for V. mertensi as it drops body weight in the dry season and gains body weight in the wet season, as V. mertensi does not brumate/hibernate/ dormancy and is active year-round. Its water -uptake is significantly higher than its terrestrial counterparts in both the wet and dry seasons (Christian, 1996. Energetics and water flux in a semiaquatic lizard Varanus mertensi. Copeia (2):354-362) - does this not 'suggest' they require more water than a terrestrial species, and when available will hydrate themselves whenever possible, i.e. bathing/soaking?? It does to me....

mbayless

"In 'wild' During the dry season, the terrestrial Varanids (i.e. V. gouldii, V. acanthurus) have a drop in body weight, and a gain of body weight in the wet season; the reverse is known for V. mertensi as it drops body weight in the dry season and gains body weight in the wet season, as V. mertensi does not brumate/hibernate/ dormancy and is active year-round."

You stated mertens and ackies have different requirements. I say they don't. All varanids "require" food, water, shelter, etc.

Merten's "prefer" a large body of water, while ackies do not.

Merten's can be kept successfully in captivity with only a water bowl to drink from provided they are given other options to hydrate. A nice humid burrow comes to mind.

However, keeping mertens without a place to swim would be a waste, watching them swim is most of the fun in keeping them.

I know this because I have kept both species, not just read about them.

Terrestrial-based Australian varanids go through a climatic dry and wet period, as you probably know. In 'wild' During the dry season, the terrestrial Varanids (i.e. V. gouldii, V. acanthurus) have a drop in body weight, and a gain of body weight in the wet season; the reverse is known for V. mertensi as it drops body weight in the dry season and gains body weight in the wet season, as V. mertensi does not brumate/hibernate/ dormancy and is active year-round. Its water -uptake is significantly higher than its terrestrial counterparts in both the wet and dry seasons (Christian, 1996. Energetics and water flux in a semiaquatic lizard Varanus mertensi. Copeia (2):354-362) - does this not 'suggest' they require more water than a terrestrial species, and when available will hydrate themselves whenever possible, i.e. bathing/soaking?? It does to me....

So where did I miss your point? You say V. mertensi "prefer" swimming/in the wet than do V. acanthurus - does'nt that mean they require it?? Preference is a choice issue, and V. mertensi do not go swimming for 'fun'? They do this to thermoregulate, hydrate, and stablelize metabolic processes with the addition/deletion of water, which is crucial to their metabolic functions. Some varanids require more water than others, have lower optimal body temps than others (i.e. V. salvator's 85F), hence its constant use or "preference" for soaking/swimming = it does this because it has too, and not for mere enjoyment/pleasure. Varanids are reptiles, and reptiles I do not think they have 'joy'(pleasure, ectasy etc..) in their innate or learned behavior categories. They "prefer" to soak because they have to to sustain their metabolic functions for an animal where they are in the water more than a V. acanthurus. V. acanthurus have adapted through time and genetics to maintain a higher water content in their physiology than V. mertensi, hence they retain their water more efficiently, vrs. V. mertensi which does not but is always associated with water, in water, around water a majority of the time on an annual basis....one does not have to keep varanids to understand this...this is where knowledge of an animal can be important to a herp keeper to know something about the animals in their keep to know which ones 'prefer' aquatic, semi-aquatic, terrestrial, arboreal, habitats and adjust their terraria to them....and where many animals die as they do not understand or grasp this primary requirement to successful husbandry (not necessarily to you, but others reading this)...
mbayless

I don't know how to be more clear.

Mertens and ackies require the same things. How they prefer to get those things may be different.

A mertens can be kept successfully with only a small bowl of water and an ackie can be kept successfully with a large body of water.

The only thing they both require is water.

BTW, the first paragraph of your post didn't make sense to me. You say ackies "versus" mertens then go on to describe them doing the same things (I think), both lose weight in the dry and gain weight in the wet.