Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Bit of a mix of views below on what monitors do with their tongues and how this can help them make their livings. Three parts here, then: first, what's going on when monitors use odors; second, a quick comparison of vision, olfaction and hearing as information media; third, what monitors seem to be learning about their environment by using their tongues.

Part i. Most lizards use their tongues both as sensory organs and to manipulate prey while chewing, but advanced Scleroglossan lizards (teiids, lacertids, anguids, and varanoids) increasingly specialize the tongue for a sensory role. In varanids and snakes the tongues are wholly sensory, and what used to be the rear, manipulative part of the tongue of other lizards has become the sheath into which the foretongue retracts. Properly speaking, the tongues of monitors and snakes should be called foretongues, but we'll ignore that. The tongues of monitors have a stiff, smooth surface enclosing an elongate muscle. There are no 'taste' or 'smell' receptors, and only a small number of 'touch' receptors on the tongue itself – it's just a chemical-collecting wand.

When a monitor retracts its tongue, materials adhering to its surface are wiped against the roof of the mouth at the openings to a pair of blind sacs, the vomeronasal or Jacobsen's organs. These are lined with ciliated cells (that move molecules around on the wet inner surface of the sac), and with various kinds of chemical receptors. The vomeronasal organs (vmo for short) are not connected to the nasal cavities, and have their own branches of the olfactory nerve. Monitors are also able to 'smell' (as we do) using a range of specific olfactory receptors in their nasal linings. Monitors smell while they breathe. There isn't a term for what they do with their tongues, which is neither smelling nor tasting, but something somewhere in between. For the heck of it, let's just call tongue/vmo use "sensing", to distinguish it from "smelling".

Monitors smell airborne odors, but "sense" heavier odorant molecules that are usually resting on some surface. Smells can travel a long way, while "odorants" usually are too large to be airborne; likewise, smells come and go quickly, while odorants can lie around for a long time before they are washed away, oxidized, or broken down by UV light, bacteria and so forth. Many odorants undergo chemical changes as they age, and this carries information too.

Part ii. There are lots of ways to learn about the outside world, but only vision, hearing and olfaction are "distance" senses. Vision is the most informative: most things reflect light (in characteristic ways), and light travels in straight lines – there is a huge amount of information to process, but it is all laid out in 3-D as a geometrically accurate and complete "picture" of the surroundings. Hearing sucks by comparison (as long as you are using only existing sounds, rather than creating sounds and processing their echoes), because most things don't make any sound at all, and you need to compare arrival times and intensities between both ears to localize the source, and to already know what it is to determine how far away it is. To tell if a sound source is moving, you need to remember both where it was and when you last heard it. At least sound tends to travel in straight lines, but it bounces around some too.

Compared to these two, olfaction REALLY sucks as a way of getting realtime information about 99% of the world around you. Odors are only vaguely concentrated toward their source, get blown all over, etc., etc. About all they tell you is that something stinks (or maybe used to stink) sort-of over that way. It's a little better with the heavier odorants, because they tend to stay put. You can follow what left them.

Part iii. So what's a monitor doing with its tongue? It's not smelling (that's in its nose). Monitors do not have huge numbers of receptor cells in their noses (nothing like a dog, for example), and the betting is that these are tuned to a fairly small number of especially relevant odors (such as those of cycling females, carrion, maybe some slow-moving predators such as snakes, things like that). They could be super-sensitive on those channels, but there's no way they'd beat a decent dog. Contrary to some of the suggestions in threads below, there is no evidence at all that monitors are primarily 'smelling' animals – they simply haven't got enough of the receptors to make that possible.

Things get closer to the mark with the vmo "sensing" capabilities, although the numbers and kinds of things you can find that way depend on what leaves such scent trails. It is certainly not a way to get around in life in the absence of other sensory information, especially vision, but vmo sensing tells you about things that used to be there, and maybe where those things went. Many of these odorants are waxy or oily and can last a really long time. It's not at all out of the question that a monitor walking across an area learns a great deal about the recent history of that place – that some female (likely known individually) went that-a-way yesterday but isn't cycling, that a python went back and forth around here several times in the last week or so (watch out, and don't hole up here), that there are more skinks running around here than over there, or that this is my turf because it stinks like me everywhere. Vmo sensing is an important adjunct to vision, but not a substitute for it.

One last thing, to tie this into monitors in captivity and give my pal Frank and his ignoranti something to rave about. In the wild, odors and vmo compounds initiate behaviors – in other words, there are new ones all the time, and different information crops up in different places. Some of these vmo compounds surely act as pheromones – chemicals that are physiologically active, or kick off hormonal responses, like increases in circulating testosterone or corticosterones. In captivity, all this stuff builds up, to levels that are hundreds or thousands of times greater than would ever be encountered in nature. Either of two things happens then – the animals get 'saturated' and no longer respond to these cueing stimuli at all, or they respond-respond-respond and get their hormonal balances all out of whack. This aspect of monitor-keeping is ignored by just about everyone, but ask yourself, what are the alternatives? If monitors are so cued-in to chemical signals, what happens when they lose the ability to use them?

You sir don’t fool me, half of what you said is speculation and the rest is debatable, if only you’d have real husbandry experience you’d know that even hatchlings will sent mark a new enclosure to establish hierarchy (nothing to do with visual cues) farther more you and your pears seems to know nothing about olfactory imprinting in varanids, don’t count on me to fill you inn. When you have more captive experience I may consider you as an opponent, meanwhile keep at it. You don’t interest me! And sure don’t impress me with your high education, any low life can call peoples names.

Do you have anything informative to add, or are you just going to ignore content?

Where on Earth did this animosity between captive husbandry and scientific study come from? I reread Sam's post several times and I can't find anywhere in it that he states monitors DON'T scent mark. Actually the last paragraph talks about scents and how they can become over whelming in an enclosure (I am guessing from less natural washing away of these scents). Gives me something to think about with my husbandry. How will it effect it overall, I have not a clue yet.

Just because someone like Sam or Mark or etc etc etc doesn't show the husbandry experience that someone like Frank has, does not mean the scientific information should be disregarded. It should be treated like everything when dealing with monitors, take away what helps with your monitors and store aside the other stuff. I can't imagine even someone like Frank who has gobs of experience started off strictly winging it. He observed monitors in the wild, probably read some of the scientific stuff, talked with people, and took what he new about other reptiles that he had been working with. The stuff that worked he used, the stuff that didn't he changed. He talks about this in most of his posts. Thanks to people like him we know things we didn't twenty (or even two) years ago. But his husbandry and methods have changed since he first began, as has the science of monitors.

Just because scientists said thirty years ago that monitors needed a basking temp of 90 degrees does not mean what they have learned since then is wrong (and even some of what they knew then still holds true). We take what works for us in our husbandry and set aside the rest. It's a continually learning experience and for anyone to comepletely disregard any little tidbit of information that they can grab hold of is just plain stupid in my book.

So thank you for that post Sam (and the three below). And thank you Frank for starting this debate.

And my last little thing. Monitors are diurnal. It is a scientific label. Period. It means that the majority of their activity and their evolutionary biology is designed primarily for daytime activity. Are they active at night? Yes. But as active as they are during the day? No. Can they be forced to be active at night by things like night feedings etc? Yes. Does forcing them to do so make them nocturnal? No. Is it helpful to understand that they are infact active at night? Yes. How much will it effect my husbandry? No clue yet, but every little tidbit helps.
-----
-Andrew

its been ongoing for some time

the main reason is that this is a captive monitors forum and not a monitor theory forum

andrew

This isn't the first time I saw somebody refer to this forum as being specifically for monitors in captivity. This is what KS says about this forum:

Welcome to the Monitor Forum. Here you may post messages or questions pertaining to all aspects and issues regarding the keeping, breeding, health, and conservation of Monitor lizards.

Now if "all aspects" and "conservation of Monitor[s]" does not include scientific knowledge and field work I suppose I must reexamine my understanding of of what those terms mean.

I just had to come out of the woodwork to say that I personally am interested in discussion of "ALL" aspects of monitors.

Returning to lurk mode,
Paul

Personally, I find it sad when I see people who keep any species of reptile, not just monitors, that have no interest in the biology of their captives. Whether it's the physiology. behaviour and/or ecology of their wild counterparts, regardless of the applicability of the information directly to the husbandry of one's captives, I would think anyone with a passion for a particular species or group would find it fascinating.

I know, it was going on six or seven years ago when I first got into monitors. But I would have figured considering I was away from "the club" for a few years that things might have settled down a bit during that time. Now don't get me wrong, I love debates (kind of hard not to being the only capitalist pig in a family of enviromental lawyers), but there is a line between healthy debate and useless arguing that alot of people (myself included sometimes) like to cross where the exchange no longer serves a purpose.
-----
-Andrew

This is not about captive breeders or "private" breeders, keepers, etc, against science or the printed word. Its not nearly so broad. Its simply about me and some others here and our experience, against these two, MS and libraian, and their interpitation of written information on monitors, and to some degree, their warped interpitation of science.

Please understand, it may not even be about liking eachother. Personally, I do not think I have to agree with someone to be friends with them. I am simple in this, we only need to be friends. But thats neither, here or there.

So please take it for what its worth. For me, Its real life experience, against their, interpitation of what they read. Again understand, both have not "done" anything exceptional in the field of captive husbandry. They are both very normal beginer keepers.

Yet, for some reason, they consider themselves "THE EXPERTS". The reason, neither shows any pics or anything other then, the name calling and your wrong is, they have nothing to show.

As a teacher, Sam Sweet, should fully realize that the written word, books etc, is to prepare you to "do" something, its not the "something". The relationship is, we "do" the something, yet we are wrong.

This is so often shown here as in this recent topic. We have seen wild and captive monitors, active at night and active in dark liteless areas(in the day). So Sams responce is, that does not happen, and heres why. The problem with this approach is, it did and does happen, no matter what he thinks or says.

This approach is widespread, we have had monitors commonly multiclutch, he says they don't, we have them, behave in a social manner, he says they don't, we see them pairbond, he says they don't. I have seen this or strong evidence of this in nature, he says he hasn't seen such things, then asks me why he hasn't. Well, i have no answer for why he hasn't, I just know I not only saw it commonly, I even took pics and showed him. His responce is, he discards and denies. If he was a scientist, he would question, investigate and then make his own conclusions. But that does not happen, he simply makes his own conclusions and then calls names to anyone who has EXPERIENCED other.

Why I believe, its a matter individual science(his interpitation) is, he also, disagrees and discards all others, including other scientists. In this case, its published that several monitor species experience, nocturnal behaviors(activity), but of course, he discards things he does not agree with.

Please understand, all this is normal behavior for humans in many walks of life, but like many of these walks, we the doers, have actual results, and they the thinkers, have none. Until he can consistantly show results of his theories, then hes simply a wantabe(as far as keeping monitors is concerned) Again please understand, theres nothing wrong with that.

What you should question is, why his he pretenting to know, when he has done nothing to actually learn from. He has only read and theres nothing wrong with reading, its a darn good start. Thanks FR

Just some numbers I pulled out of my data files and publications; not for you, Frank, since I know that your "interpition" isn't based on very much field work. This is part of what I am basing comments about nocturnal activity in wild monitors on.

V. glauerti (527 individual observations); 34 nights between Feb and August, 1-3 hours after sunset. Number active, 0.

V. glebopalma (1404 individual observations); 45 nights between Nov and August, 1-4 hours after sunset. Number active, 0.

V. scalaris (12,806 individual observations); 41 nights between Oct and August, 1-3 hours after sunset. Number active, 0.

V. tristis (7956 individual observations); 39 nights between Nov and August, 1-3 hours after sunset. Number active, 0.

That's only 22,693 instances of radiotracked animals observed (that means seen) being diurnal, as opposed to zero being outside of refuges after dark. That's part of why I say that monitors are diurnal, but you can also have a look at their eyes, whose structure says the same thing.

These days you are mostly coming off as a comic, Frank.

"Small dogs wet low on the post"

Hi Sam,

One should also take into consideration 'time-sharing' in varanid population closely associated within a small geographic area where interaction increases. Some animals may bask/forage earlier than others, before/after others, after others during the dawn, day, dusk hours.

Because there are a few reports on nocutrnal activity reported in wild population does not presume to equate they are all nocturanl/diurnal apex predators. They are "predators" and that does not leave much room for "interpitation" (= haha). They are opportunistic and highly adaptable animals, able to adpt to varying habitats, habitats, scenarios within their niches.

I have a photograph of a V. exanthematicus literally "sleep-walking", but that is only 1 incident out of keeping V. exanthematicus from 1981-1995, or 5,110 nights. As you have observed, that is indicative a behavior steered towards diurnal based activity periods. Varanids are adaptable, and perhaps these rare nocturnal behaviors observed are merely examples of their pre-egg deposition behaviors, where egg deposition for the most part takes part during the nocturnal hours - and there are reports of them also doing this during the dawn and dusk hours as well - but basically deposit eggs at night. Why do they do this? Instead of burning books, try reading them!

You might learn a thing or two or three, and for some of those you do not read as often as they should, it is known in pre-school years that exposure to words, whether they can spell or not, spelling and reading does improve with this exposure...and some people posting here regularly/hourly sure could use a few lessons in spelling...or just get a dictionary...they work quite well for helping one to learn how to spell. One does not use words like 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocius' here, but they do use words like "interpretation" (= in-tur-pre-tae-shun, 5 syllables, etc.).

Cheers,
mbayless

All until the last paragraph.

Please keep in mind, this is a forum for monitors and not spelling. In trying to offend me, your offending many others.

Please consider, I am happy with my natural gifts, being lefthanded and very possibly brain damaged, I see things in pictures and not words. I feel words by themselves are not important. My abilities allow me to draw, sulpt, paint, and do many other non-normal activities, they also allow me to "see" monitors from a "different" direction. This has proved to be very successful.

In other words, in the case of this forum, monitors, I would rather have the ability to allow monitors to do what they do naturally(achieve life events) then to worry about spelling, interpitation. Thanks for your concern. Hey Mark, I bet I can beat you arm wrestling, or even plain old wrestling, or boxing, or do more pullups, or situps, or run farther or faster or hike up hills better, then you, does that make me a better person then you????? I hope not. So, why are you worried about my or anybodies spelling? sheers, FR

Fr,
I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT DRAWING, SULPT (= SCULPTURING?), PAINT, ETC...AT ALL - I SEE A FELLOW WHO COULD WORK ON HIS SPELLING IS ALL; I DO NOT CONDONE THIS SUMB DOWN APPROACH THAT MISPELLED WORDS ARE OK - WHY SHOULD IT BE OK? SHOULDN'T EVERYONE ASPIRE TO LOOK 'UP' THAN LOOK 'DOWN' IN BEING A BETTER PERSON AT WHATEVER THEY DO - YOU CERTAINLY REMIND US OF THAT WITH EACH AND EVERY POST YOU MAKE HERE ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ETC...SO WHY NOT INCLUDE SPELLING. WE ALL DID THIS IN 3RD GRADE ONWARDS....I DID NOT INSULT ANYONE ON THIS FORUM ABOUT THEIR SPELLING, ONLY POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO SPELL CORRECTLY IN THE TECHNO(-CRAP) WORLD.... YOU AND I HAD TO COPY THE DICTIONARY IN SCHOOL, OR AT LEAST I DID, BUT NOW COMPUTERS TELL PEOPLE HOW TO SPELL, WRITE SENTENCES, DO MULTIPLICATION ETC...SO WHAT IS LEFT? KEEPING VARANIDS, PAINTING, WORKING ON (OLD) CARS, AND OTHER STUFF... WHY SHOULD BE NOT BE EXPECTED TO WRITE CORRECTLY? BECAUSE THIS DUMB-DOWN SOCIETY SAYS IT IS OK? I DO NOT THINK IT IS OK, AND IS CREEPING INTO EVERY CORNER, CRACK OF SOCIETY, AND I DO NOT LIKE IT. IS IT SO HARD TO LOOK A WORD UP IN THE DICTIONARY?

AND AS FOR VARANIDS NOCTURNAL BEHAVIOR, WE ALL HAVE SEEN THIS IN THEIR REPRODUCTION BEHAVIOR, SO WHY IS IT SO SURPRISING TO SO MANY? tHEY USE THEIR TONGUES ALOT WHEN DIGGING = I HAVE SEEN THIS NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE ANIMALS THAT LIVED WITH ME, AND THAT IS WHAT MY MONITORS TOLD ME....NOW WHY THEY USE THEIR TONGUES SO MUCH IN THIS WAY, SAM HAS A BETTER IDEA ABOUT THAT MOST HERE IN MY OPININON. WHAT THEY DO WITH THE EGGS, WELL, YOU HAVE ALOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT KNOWING THE SUBTLE LITTLE THINGS ABOUT A VARANIDS BEHAVIOR IS WHAT TRIGGERS MY INTEREST IN THEM, NO WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG....AS YOU KNOW, WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT, AND WE KEEP AGREEING TO DISAGREE, AND THAT IS FINE WITH ME - OUR MONITORS TELL US DIFFERENT THINGS, AS WE ALL SEE DIFFERENTLY, DEPENDING ON WHAT OUR PAST EDUCATION ABOUT THESE ANIMALS (AND OTHER THINGS) HAS TAUGHT US...

CHEERS,
MBAYLESS
All until the last paragraph.

Please keep in mind, this is a forum for monitors and not spelling. In trying to offend me, your offending many others.

Please consider, I am happy with my natural gifts, being lefthanded and very possibly brain damaged, I see things in pictures and not words. I feel words by themselves are not important. My abilities allow me to draw, sulpt, paint, and do many other non-normal activities,

Me Fail English, that's unpossible.....
-----
TheOdatriad

I have progress with my writing and spelling, but you have not progressed with monitors at all. heck, I have continued to progress in that area as well. Thanks FR

Sam being a comic would be absolutely great, unfortunately, your beating me at it.

The point is not, in or about your numbers. Its simply about the ones that were active. Why, where, when, how? questions, you always neglect to ask.

Mountain out of a molehill, something you love to do. First, I am not concerned what they do or what you think they do at night. Why would I be? Natural monitors will go on doing what they do, and my captives will also go on doing what they do, even if its at night. If you could actually read, you would have read in my post, monitor behavior is predominately diurnal. I really hate to explain what that means to you, OK, I will, that means, most of their Behaviors(at least human observed behaviors) have been diurnal. Nocturnal active behavior are rare, but it has been noted(in nature) Please understand, many things common to monitors is rare to mans observations, you know very simple things like nesting and breeding(in nature)are rarely observed. Yet, I am positive, these all occur on a regular basis. Nocturnal behavior in captivity is commonly observed, period. Just ask the people here Sam, oh yea, you do not ask questions, why is that Sam?

My real concern, you seem to miss,(I've said it over and over) what are they doing in dark areas in the day. I hope you understand, monitors spend most of their life, inside something. Oh by the way, Dennis King(ver. com.) told me on his Flavi study, on average they only came out, parts of 2 or 3 days a week. Hey, he may have published that.

Now with that in mind, were they asleep all day, when inside, and sleeping all night too?

If I may, If i would take your approach, that would mean, They are sleeping 24/7 for five days= 120 hrs. Plus the nights of two days=24 hrs. So, if they are active two full days, 12 hrs a day, then two days is=24 hrs. Subtract the 24 active hrs a week, from a total of 168 possible hours and the result is, THEY ARE SLEEPING 144 HRS A WEEK. Is that how we are to interpit his statement? To be accurate, he did say, 2 or 3 days a week, so lets make it, THey are sleeping between 132 to 144 hrs a week. Remember, thats if they were active at least 12 hrs a day, which I believe is not normal.

Well, that does seem like a lot of sleeping, what am I to make of that?

Now please understand this Sam, your believes or preaching, have no effect on me. They do nothing to my monitors either, They(the monitors) will continue to, hatch, grow, breed, multiclutch, hatch, then grow, breed, and multiclutch in spite of you. They(many species) will continue to do this for generations, as they have in the past. Also, they will continue to be social animals and pair bond, in spite of what you say.

I guess the point is, in elementary school terms, They(my monitors) and by association, me, have the bag of marbles, and you don't and by association your monitors don't either, sad hey.
In real terms Sam, your infinite knowledge of monitors, has not gotten you very far with your captives, and my poor, comic, ignorant knowledge has gottem me very far. I wonder what kind of formula this fits? FR

Good post. I'm not even going to touch the 'science vs captive husbandry' part of the discussion. That's got to a point where people don't bother reading what the others have actually said, but post a 'response' based on preconceived ideas of what they think the person means, and those preconceived ideas are flavoured by arguments they've had with that person in the past. It gets old, really quickly.

As far as the whole diurnal vs not debate, you've pretty much reiterated my thoughts as posted earlier:

"As far as the whole nocturnal/diurnal debate, part of the problem appears to be people wanting absolutes: diurnal animals should never be active by night and nocturnal animals should never be active by day. That's rarely the case with any animal. Monitors are referred to as diurnal simply because for every one sighted at night you'll make 500 daytime sightings. The reason everyone can quote a paper or documentary about night activity is that someone has bothered to write a paper or make a documentary about it because it isn't the norm. You don't see scientific papers with the title of 'Diurnal activity noted in a monitor' because it's commonplace for them to be active by day..."

Andrew theirs no animosity between me and Sam whatsoever, this is a clever man that can outsmart most of us, he enjoys the extra flavour this forum offers. Tons of varanids information have is and will be passed via these pseudo arguments threads, sharing doesn’t have to be boring! Let’s not make everything about good and evil.
I on any given day would leave on a varanids safari with Sam and have a ball, but the man will not impose his vision on me. Goes both ways!

I'm glad to see the lack of animosity. It can sometimes be difficult to tell when dealing with written word on a forum. Of course I was referring to a broader range of people who present themselves as taking one thing as gospel as opposed to stopping and thinking about anything said, good, bad, ridiculous or anything inbetween. Imagine twenty years ago if someone (and maybe they did) piped up with "Hey, give your spiny tail monitor a basking spot of 200 degrees, they'll love it". Heck, that is enough to slow cook a turkey, no way I am doing that. What a loon to suggest that. Now though, well 200 degrees still seems a little warm to me, but 150-170 seems just right and that is not too far off (still can heat up some hotdogs on the basking spot if you get hungry). So call me a loon but no matter how dumb an idea might seem I'm going to atleast give it a little thought, and I hope everyone here (new, old, argumentative, helpful and lurking) does the same.
-----
-Andrew

I enjoy reading the info from everyone on this forum. I even like to read the answers to questions that have been posted hundreds of times.

Personally, I would like to go see Franks place and see how he keeps his monitors. Then I would like to go with Sam in the field and study the animals in nature. Then I could come back home and give my monitors as natural an environment as I possibly could (from Sam) and make sure they were kept captive as well as possible (from Frank).

Just because I can see an elephant in a zoo doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t want to see and study them in Africa/India.
-----
Ed

There are chameleons, pythons, and monitors in my jungle room.

>the animals get 'saturated' and no longer respond to these
>cueing stimuli at all, or they respond-respond-respond and
>get their hormonal balances all out of whack

So what are the effects/results of this in captivity, how does it differ from a monitor kept in a sterile (bland) non-changing environment? What exact steps have you done to prove this, and to prove that it is something we need to be concerned about?

--Robert

Um, what have you done to prove that it isn't?

Why would I need to disprove it? I wasn't the one that represented it as fact.

I see no husbandry problems with presence of smells, in fact I have seen more behavorial stress in monitors kept in sterile conditions, than non sterile. I do however feel that monitors should be periodically given different things to smell and see (cage changes) , only in a vain hope of reducing the obvious monotony that captivity must be for an animal.

--Robert

Because there's a world of endocrinological effects of pheromones, that are well-documented to affect all sorts of behavioral, reproductive and metabolic patterns and cycles. When we keep monitors in close quarters, we are making a huge change in their olfactory environment with 24/7 saturation by compounds that have large effects in tiny doses. Nobody has studied these things in hypomelanistic female Tanzanian Niles (left-handed ones), but the funny thing is that almost exactly the same patterns show up in all reptiles that have been studied that you also see in birds, and in mammals -- in other words, it ain't specific to monitors. You can ignore it if you want because your animal is right-handed....

There is nothing to ignore, because as I said I don't see negative effects/results, that is why I asked you in the first place.

Nevermind, I know the answer now.

--Robert

This answer about Sam is very very simple and very accurate, he cannot see the forest thru the trees. He confuses himself to a point he cannot allow his own animals to do a thing. Then he has picked me(or us) to yell at.

I still wonder why someone whos proven to be unsuccessful at keeping monitors, consistantly tells those that are successful their understanding of captive monitors is wrong?

Have you wondered why MS, has rationalized stacks of plasable reasons why all this stuff we do is wrong, yet does not know or better yet, do, any that have proved right? I know the answer to this too.

A little example for your enjoyment. I once owned an exhibit building company, I had employees. Well one day a real nice fella who worked for me(he had a degree in biology) came up and explained how this Lion enclosure I had him in charge of was, wrong, all wrong, like really really wrong. I responded with a Donald Trump, I said, well, your fired. He responded with this odd look. He wanted an explanation. So I gave him one. I said, I put you in charge and pay you the big bucks, for one reason. The reason is, to do your job right. There are hundreds of wrong ways and hundreds of right ways, your job is simple, pick one of the hundreds of right ways and DO it. I explained, any fool can sit around a pick out whats wrong, but not everyone can pick and do whats right. I said, go back, decide on a way to fix the problem and come back. He did, I ok'ed it, and he learned alot.

In this case, Our mister science, is the "any fool", only hes a really smart one. He has super-complicated theories on why things shouldn't/don't work. But has yet to find any right ways, complicated or not.

Mister Sam is trained on debate, but the sad part is, he cannot debate with his own monitors, they will not listen to him, so he picks me. Unfortunately, I am with his monitors, I do not listen to him either. You see, I, like his monitors, am simple, both his monitors and I are waiting for something usable to come out of him. We will sit and wait. FR

Thanks Frank, a story is always good. I must be really dumb, because I keep thinking that maybe he has something valid, but when it comes down to it, he NEVER uses his own animals as examples, I can only presume because he can't.

Science without application is completely useless. I'm astonished someone in the scientific field would ever think differently. Of course, the application might not always be obvious, straight forward or immediately recognized.

--Robert

Ok Sam this is your view on the matter based on your science and related studies, however my view is based on observations and captive husbandry with many species both left and right handed male’s and female’s at all stage in development. I really hate to educate you in a field in witch you have so many misconceptions, but tell me who will?
The only olfactory saturation that captive monitors are submitted to are ammonia built up and toxic essences from cedar, pine and other type of organic debris, hormones do not affect captive monitors anymore then there wild counterparts, observation shows that in closed (saturated) confinement monitors scent mark very few and far between, while in open and regularly washed cages they sent mark more often, hose your cage every knight and sent marking will become a daily routine for your monitors. Yes it seems that monitors understand there need better then we think (you think) they do.

Good one, wish I had thought of that. FR