Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I understand the example of Lacies congregating at a place where people frequent and there is food to be had, for instance. I have never seen it but it is frequently mentioned and I don't doubt it for whatever reason(s).

I do find it strange to think that reptiles (or any creature) ,or monitors, in a given habitat, that are distinctly "solitary", find their choices so incredibly limited on any given day that they have to share a single rock or burrow with another animal(s) to get what they need. I surely understand the limited number of options they have in captivity for things like burrows and basking spots, but in the wild? On some hypothetical day in Australia, in ackie country, two solitary animals in their respective "ranges" have to share a single rock/space to meet their temperature regulating needs? Only one rock/space meets those needs? In all of that wild space within their "ranges"?

I guess from one perspective, that must be the case, because why else would animals that are very much solitary in their existence tolerate being in such close proximity to each other?

Just to be clear, regardless of how social I believe monitors or any reptile(s) to be, I was specifically interested in conversation regarding the necessity of resource sharing in the wild. And not resource sharing on a large level, but on a very specific level, like the need to share a single burrow.

Thanks for your time and input,

Ian

Some of the areas in which one finds ackies are really high density areas, so if you turn enough of the right sort of rocks or pieces of wood you'll find that they aren't that far apart. I've yet to see two side by side, but it wouldn't surprise or bother me if I did, as I've seen similar things with other non-social reptiles.

It's also not necessarily a thing of need, it could just be desireable. The lacies that frequent picnic areas don't need to go there for food, it just happens to be an easy, convenient source (in much the same way, bears in North America used to congregate at garbage tips and picnic areas before national parks changed their garbage management plans. They are normally solitary animals outside the breeding season, too).

As far as hide spots under rocks etc, there are desireable ones and not so desireable ones. Sometimes we can be pretty good at picking out which ones are likely to be desireable (after a while of herping, it gets easier to look at a rock and say 'there's bound to be one under there'), but as we aren't monitors we can't always see why one hide spot is preferable over another. When I've been herping for other reptiles, it isn't uncommon to occasionally find more than one under the same rock. This doesn't automatically imply social behaviour, although if they were almost always found in pairs under rocks I'd start to wonder. Or even if I saw them out hanging out in pairs. However, this isn't the case: sure, sometimes there will be two, but sometimes three, sometimes four, most often just one. No pattern.

A lot of people start mentioning other, social reptiles as though I don't believe any reptiles are social. This is not the case. I know of places where pairs of water dragons can be found hanging out and every time I go there I will eventually find both of them. I have also watched groups of Cunningham's skinks out foraging together. Just not monitors.

I think your wording is off a bit. I would call any animal that tolerates or shares space performing social behavior. That is what social is.

I am not sure if I would call it a social species, or a colony of some sort. But it is in fact social behaviors.

A solitary creature should fight over space food etc. and probly only tolerate one another during breeding if that. Take some of the solitary big cats, they do not take kindly to their space being invaded. Even during mating it can be a brutal scene. But however they still have time when they share space, resources to me that is displaying a social behavior.

As more animals get studied we will learn more about these wonderful creatures until then there will be conflict no matter what side of the line your standing on. It doesn't make one side bad or the other good. It only means we are all still learning.

I found it interesting that Steve irwins recent study of crocs has shown more then one large male to exist in the area, previously it was thought only 1 dominant male could be found iwithin it's range and the others had to get out. He has shown lately quite a few big males sharing the same area of the rivers.

I am sure more is to be learned of monitors as well as all other animals. We would be further along with the research if it wasn't for mans ways of thinking he was superior to all. It wasn't to long ago we thought all animals were stupid creatures with no brain and limited thinking. We have been proven wrong on that many times over. I guess thats what happens when you are studying something so alien to ourselves.

I myself I stand with them being more social then solitary. they are not very far removed from the wild, all wild behaviors should be right there at their disposal. If I try to put other solitary animals in the same cage out of the wild they will fight, or stress one another to death. I do not see this happening with my monitors in my cages. Instead they tolerate one another. Are they that strongly in survival mode they will forget the wild ways of being solitary they will put up with one another in a cage, to the point of sharing everything? living breeding within a confined space?

I think for us to think we have changed them that much by putting them in a box is naive and much like the past when we thought of ourselves as superior and all the other animals as being dumb creatures.

"I think your wording is off a bit. I would call any animal that tolerates or shares space performing social behavior. That is what social is....A solitary creature should fight over space food etc. and probly only tolerate one another during breeding if that. Take some of the solitary big cats, they do not take kindly to their space being invaded."

You may be confusing non-social with anti-social. I'm not making any claims to monitors being anti-social (fighting off any others of their own species) but non-social (they don't seek the company of others of their own species, but if there happen to be others there when they find a resource they tolerate them).

If you want to redefine the word social so that it fits resource sharing as well, then so be it, but the discussion we have been having up until now has been whether or not monitors fit already existing ideas of social behaviour in animals. The discussion has been 'are monitors social?' rather than 'can we redefine the word social to include the behaviours shown by monitors?'.

"I myself I stand with them being more social then solitary. they are not very far removed from the wild, all wild behaviors should be right there at their disposal. If I try to put other solitary animals in the same cage out of the wild they will fight, or stress one another to death. I do not see this happening with my monitors in my cages. Instead they tolerate one another. Are they that strongly in survival mode they will forget the wild ways of being solitary they will put up with one another in a cage, to the point of sharing everything? living breeding within a confined space?"

Most of the people sharing your stance have only ever observed captives, also. If we were talking anti-social behavoiur rather than non-social behaviour, you'd be correct. Every zoo I've been to keeps their bears in pairs and they get along, breed etc., yet if you were to study wild bears they are solitary. If you'd only ever kept bears in a cage you'd find it hard to believe they were solitary, but if you lived out in bear country you'd find that most of the bears you see are on their own.

"I think for us to think we have changed them that much by putting them in a box is naive and much like the past when we thought of ourselves as superior and all the other animals as being dumb creatures."

Not sure where this is coming from. I am not naive, nor do I think other animals are dumb creatures. Social vs non-social isn't a sign of intelligence, as there are many intelligent, solitary species out there and many highly social animals that live on instinct alone, with no reasoning powers (insects). As far as changing an animal by putting it in a box, I've never claimed that was what happens. You've just changed their options.

If putting my two lace monitors together in a box changed no aspect of their behaviour by reducing their options, a study of what wild monitors must be like based on my captives might include the following 'facts':

1. The home range of adult lace monitors is less than 3 metres square
2. Male and female lace monitors bask on top of one another
3. Male and female lace monitors are never more than 3 metres apart

Oddly enough, if I go out in the bush and watch wild lace monitors, they don't seem to follow this pattern. Has being in a box affected my captives? It hasn't physically changed them, but it sure has limited their options.

I am not talking anti-social. I am not calling them social or solitary. I do not want to redefine words maybe you would like to?? Solitary means Existing, living, or going without others; alone

I do not think you understood me. I was saying you can say they show social behaviors, as even bears, big cats etc. do. They also show solitary behaviors. Nyala are found in herds of 30 but yet found solitary at times. You could call this showing a solitary behavior.

I guess I differ from you as I see the term solitary or social merely as a label given to them from humans. It is not what the animal actually is. I instead let the animal be what it is and only label its behaviors.

"I think for us to think we have changed them that much by putting them in a box is naive and much like the past when we thought of ourselves as superior and all the other animals as being dumb creatures."

The above is not pertaining to just you, notice I said for us as myself included or anyone who thinks this. To say we made them do this or do that, we made them better in a cage then in the wild, etc. that is naive to me. they are what they are it is upto you to let them reach that potential or to hold them back. That is all we can do and all they are capable of.

"Solitary means Existing, living, or going without others; alone...I do not think you understood me. I was saying you can say they show social behaviors, as even bears, big cats etc. do. They also show solitary behaviors. Nyala are found in herds of 30 but yet found solitary at times. You could call this showing a solitary behavior."

Yes and no. Solitary animals can and do encounter others of their kind at certain times for certain reasons. One is mating, for sure, but the others can be resource sharing. That doesn't make them a less solitary species. If you want to define a solitary animal as one that never encounters another of its own kind, then there are no solitary animals. They are all social. Or if every time a social animal spends a few minutes on its own it stops being a social animal then there are no social animals. The term 'social' has to do with an animal's behaviour in general.

This is what I meant about our definitions of social. Unfortunately, there are already definitions out there and we are asking whether or not our understanding of wild monitor behaviour fits that description.

"I guess I differ from you as I see the term solitary or social merely as a label given to them from humans. It is not what the animal actually is. I instead let the animal be what it is and only label its behaviors."

Yes, this is fine, but it is us humans having this discussion and the discussion happens to be about whether or not they fit the known definition of social. The label 'social' applies to animals that show social behaviour most of the time. Solitary means they don't seek the company of others.

I didnt realize this discussion was only about fitting them into how we define the word social and solitary.

I thought it merely was asking if we felt them as solitary or social. My thought is as I stated I look at the behaviors and label the behavior and not the animal.

I did not know I couldn't state my opinion if it differs from others. I do not mind how you see them. I merely am talking about my opinions. Why are we not discussing what the animals do rather then two words and their terms?

I gave examples of social animals acting solitary, I did the same with solitary acting social. I said and I will say again I would then label the social behavior as being in a herd or seen living together just that a social behavior. If I see them acting solitary and alone then at that point I would label that behavior as solitary.

Again this is my opinion you have the right to yours.

"I didnt realize this discussion was only about fitting them into how we define the word social and solitary.

I thought it merely was asking if we felt them as solitary or social."

These, to me, are the same thing. If we feel they are solitary or social, aren't our feelings guided by how we define solitary or social?

"My thought is as I stated I look at the behaviors and label the behavior and not the animal....Why are we not discussing what the animals do rather then two words and their terms? I gave examples of social animals acting solitary, I did the same with solitary acting social. I said and I will say again I would then label the social behavior as being in a herd or seen living together just that a social behavior. If I see them acting solitary and alone then at that point I would label that behavior as solitary."

This IS all about behaviours. Unfortunately, the terms solitary and social are terms given to animals based on their behaviours. If they usually behave in a solitary fashion, they are considered to be solitary animals. If they usually show social behaviour, they are considered to be social animals. Lions are social, so a lioness wandering off on her own doesn't make them a solitary species, even if that is social behaviour. Polar bears are considered to be solitary animals, but if many gather together near Churchill in November waiting for the ice to form on Hudson Bay that doesn't make them a social species. They may even play with each other then (very social behaviour), but that doesn't take away from the fact that most of the year, most of the time they are on their own wandering the ice in search of seals.

With lace monitors, they don't interact like that even when they are all together at a food source and the rest of the time, well, they are nowhere near each other. I don't expect them to actually play, but even show signs of seeking each other out (a definition of social, I'm afraid) rather than just being at the same place at the same time and occasionally squabbling over food.

"I did not know I couldn't state my opinion if it differs from others. I do not mind how you see them. I merely am talking about my opinions."

We are all talking about our opinions and there is nothing wrong with you stating yours. However, if we are talking about whether or not monitors are social, there are clear definitions of what social means.

If the discussion were "I think monitors are social as long as social is defined by..." I'd be cool with that. No one has done that so far.

I guess in a way i am saying monitors are social in that they.

As I am only calling the behavior as I see it. I am not calling the whole animal social or solitary. I am saying well when doing this it was social when that it was solitary. You can probly find social behaviors in all animals as well as solitary.

I took your statements as to saying monitors are only solitary and neve rhave a social behavior. You talk of the sharing resources etc. is that social behavior? or are you just calling that the term of sharing resources?

I think we are both on the same book, maybe even the same chapter, but not on the same page in our thinking.

The way I see resource sharing is like this: The monitors have gathered because of something else, other than the presence of other monitors. In other words, they are in picnic areas because of food, not because they want to hang out with other monitors. If you watch their interactions (mostly non-interactions) it agrees with this assumption. Each one is usually aware of where the others are and what they are doing, but they keep a safe distance from each other. If they interact at all, it's usually one chasing the other over a morsel.

To say an animal is social, doesn't mean they are going to go play a pick up game of basketball.

To say an animal pair bonds doesn't mean they are "in love".

Social structure isn't always defined by our terms.

"Social structure isn't always defined by our terms."

But, unfortunately,it is we humans that have coined the term 'social'.

As I said, if we are talking about redefining the word 'social' to include what monitors do, then that's an entirely different discussion and I have no say either way.

Up until now, however, I have been talking about whether or not monitors fit into what we already define as 'social'.

as my other post, you called water dragons social, and (if)monitors did the same, then they too are social. You just need to see it. FR

Don't you find it odd that I can see it so regularly and clearly with the water dragons but have never, in 24 years, seen that same behaviour in lace monitors?

Even if I went out and found a pair hanging out together out of the breeding season this year, it wouldn't take away from the many I have seen on their own. On the other hand, I have seen pairs of water dragons on countless occasions, so it comes as no big surprise to me when I see them in pairs.

This is the point to my whole discussion. It doesn't surprise me when I see animals that form pairs, in pairs. It does surprise me when I am told that animals I never see in pairs form pairs and I'd like to know why they are always on their own.

Your looking in the wrong place. Please please do not take that bad. I is merely a fact.

I agree, a certain percent of any population of varanids or other, are solitary. So finding solitary individuals is normal, In fact, they are the easy segment to find. They are constantly out and on the move. Pairs do not move and are rarely out. Therefore, you must learn the conditions the pairs prefer and then you will find them.

If anyone ever bothered to ask, which they haven't. I would answer, in my opinion only about 20% of the total population pairs up. But I feel that 20% is a very important part of successful recruiting. We have seen this exact stradgy with our field study(rattlesnakes) and my personal field study(gilas)

Please understand, there are lots of knowns and unknowns. People view a lone male lacie out all the time as successful. You know, the one moving from female to female. Yet as backwards as I am, I view the male that stays in proxcimity to the female, as the successful one. Just for kicks, how long did your male actively court the female?

I have refered to wandering individuals (80%)as gooners or street people. Here, if humans were collected, the street people who have no homes would be the most common encountered. Just some thoughts for you. FR

There are only a few problems with that theory.

One is that, if 20% of the population pair bonded and stayed together, I'd still see them together some of the time rather than never. Keep in mind that I do, and have done, a fair bit of bushwalking, driving, horse riding, mountain biking, herping, rock climbing and generally mucking around in the bush for 24 years and have never witnessed it. During those 24 years I have probably had hundreds if not thousands of sightings of lace monitors.

Secondly, in the areas that I have seen lace monitors I have seen hatchlings, juveniles, males with scars from combat, gravid females and nesting signs on termite mounds, so it couldn't be that I am looking in non-breeding areas.

Thirdly is that it isn't just myself that doesn't see pairs. My friends who have been herping their entire lives in this area agree with me: lace monitors are solitary animals. Even if one turned around tomorrow and said that he saw a pair together out of the breeding season hanging out together, it wouldn't amount to 20% compared to all of the solitary animals out there.

I visited a friend in sandlewood or some such town, just northwest of Beerwha(where irwins park is), he said, Frank, follow me, I said ok, first there was a lacie living in his roof, i followed him a mile or so up a ravine, he point to a hole under a boulder, there were three lacies in it. What can I say? That was on my second trip to oz.

I can only say, you must not have looked in the right places, what do you expect me to think, I saw it and the fella that showed me the hole saw it too. He use to work at the park, before steve was grown, and at the time I was there, he guided eco tours on Frasier Island. He led me to the area with the lacie below was, but I believe my wife spotted the male, then I spotted the female. I believe one difference is, I am looking for a particular occurance that I am very familiar with. I fear, your prejudiced and are looking to maybe not see it. Really, I do not what else to say. Today, I spoke with my field partner(hes one of you, a masters in herp) and one day maybe he will come and verify what I am telling you. FR

What time of year was it?

So at this stage we have one instance of three lacies in a hole vs perhaps thousands of sightings of solitary animals (not just me, but my friends and my friends' friends). It's still not enough evidence to start calling them a social or pair bonding species.

Why don't you shoulder the responsibility and talk for yourself, not your friends or friends, friends, you know thats called hearsay.(this is what you do to me u know) I think if your to learn, you should think for yourself. Sorry but you have that coming. Learning is to do something and do it until you get it right, being made aware is to read or hear. Start learning.

You do understand, I offer, my experiences and my photos and my sightings, not the worlds. The reason is simple, its my opinion and experience, vs. your opinion and experience, when you bring in hearsay, your lost. FR

This isn't about winning or losing. When I mention friends I am merely stating that many very good herpers I know have had the same experience as I, seeing solitary monitors everywhere. That's many man hours of field time combined. We can ignore them if you like and stick to the evidence at hand.

1.You have shown us many great photographs of your captives doing all sorts of things - hanging out together, digging, laying, moving eggs around. Clearly you have no issues taking good, clear photographs.
2.You have shown us photographs of wild monitors, so clearly you have no issues taking photographs of wild monitors.
3.You have told me that you have no problems finding social monitors in the wild and that 20% of lacies form pairs. You have also told me that you have followed monitors around and that they remain paired for months, long after the breeding season.

Here's the catch: Given 1, 2 and 3, why do you not have a single photograph of a pair of wild monitors?

That's a rhetorical question, you needn't answer it. We really should stop these to and fro discussions because we'll never convince each other.

But I will have to find them, hahahahahahahahahahahaha. and i will in due time.

Now please understand this. When I was taking pics of wild monitors, I did so for my own reasons, and these reasons varied over the years. I did not take pics 14 years ago, in anticipation of having this conversation with you. Yes, maybe I should have included the male in this pic, but I will tell you what, I am thrilled and overwelmed that I got a OK pic of a gravid lacies by her nest. How many have you shown or better yet, borrow one from your mates and post it.

About finding the pics, while I fool around on here a bit too much, Its really not important to me to do more work than I already do. If my wife finds them, then I will post them. I have asked her to find them, maybe a whip is in order.

The focal point is still the same, I have expressed far more evidence for my views then you. You have not shown anything. I have shown comparision sets of many things, you only use hearsay. While I surely understand that is not science, and neither are you.

What bothers me is, If you said, my lacies did this, and I said, no they didn't. No one on gods earth or I, have ever seen it and I have lacies too. What would you do???????? Would you show pics of this thing they did? Then what if I said, nope, thats not it. What would you think? Well sir, thats what I think of you. FR

"The focal point is still the same, I have expressed far more evidence for my views then you. You have not shown anything."

Actually, I have. Over the years I have posted many photos of solitary monitors in the wild. As have you. We've both posted photos showing evidence of my views. Your view is that they pair in the wild, I have not seen those photos, yet.

"What bothers me is, If you said, my lacies did this, and I said, no they didn't. No one on gods earth or I, have ever seen it and I have lacies too. What would you do???????? Would you show pics of this thing they did? Then what if I said, nope, thats not it. What would you think? Well sir, thats what I think of you."

This would be a valid analogy had you actually shown photographs of pairs out in the wild acting normally and I denied it.

"I am thrilled and overwelmed that I got a OK pic of a gravid lacies by her nest. How many have you shown or better yet, borrow one from your mates and post it."

The 'nest' bit of this is purely conjecture. Unfortunately, this is where coming here on holidays in dribs and drabs has its downfall: you don't get to experience the full seasonal changes over a year. Had you spent a full year in that area you'd realise that eggs would die if laid in that tree. Despite the tourism ads, Queensland isn't always the sunshine state. A wet week mid-winter would drop the temperature of those eggs to below 18C and keep them there, a hot spell in summer would take them over 40C.

I didn't mean to open a can of worms.

I think that all social species are that way out of necessity, be it companionship, survival, or circumstance.

very good, glad someone saw what i was talking about.

To look at an animal and put our terms to them is wrong. As of course they will be different then we are. they won't gather together and feast or hold hands at church.

That is why I would rather see the animals called what they are and not what our terms limit them to.

"To look at an animal and put our terms to them is wrong. As of course they will be different then we are. they won't gather together and feast or hold hands at church"

Now you're putting words into the mouth of others. This was never an argument about whether or not monitors were a primate (human) level of social.

i never said it was comparing them to primates. i dont recall saying they are. I recall saying they are not. i used that phrase to show that we cannot look at them as we look at ourselves. We have to look at the terms as it fits the animals not the terms as it fits humans. So actually we agree on that by the sounds of it.

Yeah, they're definitely not primate social.

Unfortunately, where we part is that I don't think they are reptile social, either.

I think we'll all have to agree to disagree.

I also think everyone needs to spend time watching wild ones before forming strong opinions on what they do in the wild. Captivity really does limit their options. If I had only kept my captives and never seen wild ones, I might have been arguing from the other side of the fence, for their tolerance of each other in captivity can easily be interpreted (misinterpreted, in my opinion) as being social.

then I agree to disagree no problem with that. I would rather agree to that with you then some others,atleast you keep it about the topic, dont go personal or postal haha as some do when talking and discussing.

Thanks you DK

Now what would you say if those Water Dragons were ackies? Would you call them social.

My point being, I have seen ackies doing the same thing. Just like you did with the water dragons. But you are where there are no ackies, so its theory.

It a case like this, I imagine its ones experience, against another. FR

I don't spend time watching ackies, no.

I do live where lace monitors live and I can definitely say they do not act like those water dragons.

Lacies are not ackies, but do act like them, only there space is comparibly greater. I do imagine, that if you used a ruler and decided at a certain distance, than this will decide hey.

Again, I did find groups of Lacies and even get a pic of a gravid female by her nest. The male was at the base of the tree. Is that close enough.

Now compare it to two of my captives

I hope you can pick out some key details in this pic, they are there, if you look and observe.

Now I know this bothers you, but when I see like behaviors, I get the feeling, they are like. But if they aren't is not a problem, it still works for me and my lacies. Thanks FR

It's not a matter of whether or not it works for captives - keeping them as a pair certainly works for me and I can supply many many photos of my monitors together.

What I'd really like to see, though, is some photos of wild monitors hanging out together like that. Maybe a couple of lacies in a tree, or doing something together. Do you have any like that you can share with us? You should have taken a step back and got a photo of the male at the bottom of the tree, then you would have had a shot you could show us all. Telling me it was there is fine, but it's not convincing evidence of your theory.

The first picture I see a female in a tree, appears gravid and basking. Probly hanging in the same manner as my cycling females in order to take the load off. I believe they also do this to thermoregulate the eggs. Or she could just of ate a large meal and is basking to digest it. She seems quite content and non stressed. You said there is a male at the base of the tree. Probably gaurding or watching over her much like I see with my captives.

The second picture I see a pair in a cage, basking in a tree branch. It compares very well to the wild lacie. Both are quite content at sharing space with one another.

I would call both sets as showing social behavior. But not sure if I am one to ask, I haven't studied wild lacies. I just study the many captives I have and compare to them. It was pointed out to me that is not the right way to go about things.

if you look, there is a hole in the tree, just below the base of her tail. This is her hole. Possibly here nesting hole. Look at how the tree gets very wide at the bottom, and how its IN THE SUN. That last part was not yelling at you, but others who fail to look and see.

In the captive pair, the important part is the same, its not about the male, whether he is close or far. As pairs in nature can wanter far and wide, but they return to the same hole. Hmmmmmmmmmm just like your captives, they may sleep in the same burrow or hide or one very close. But not as far apart as they can. stop hahahahahahaha, there is also a hollow log just to the right of the pair, they sleep in there, and hopefully will use that to nest in.

A fella I know, Richard Jackson, works at Irwins park. He told me of a pair of lacies on a tree like this, but he saw them very close together.

thanks FR

I missed the whole in the tree. I think I see what you are talking about though.

Steve Irwin keeps a trio of perenties together last I talked with him. I wonder what his take on the social or solitary aspect is?

I wish I had pictures of them in the wild but I do not. So I cant show examples other then in my setups. With that I have a ton of pictures from pair bonding, to nesting, to everything in between. But in this case I don't think it will help this argument much.

Thanks for sharing the pictures I for one enjoy them.

Happy Thanksgiving

They say a picture paints a thousand words. Those thousand words will differ, depending on who is looking at the picture and how they already view the world.

You have looked at the photo and have made several assumptions about nests etc, things that can't actually be seen in the photo. Yes there's a hole, but it's a big leap to assume it is a nest.

Let's look at the photo really objectively, first of all, before I add my personal slant: If I interrupted a three year old glued to the TV watching Sesame Street and showed the photographs, he/she would say 'one goanna, two goannas'. The wild photo shows one goanna, on its own. The captive photo shows two goannas together.

The wild photo shows a number of trees in the background. The captive photo shows wiring on top and in the background. There are only three logs visible in the photo.

Now I'll add my personal slant: The wild goanna can choose any of a number of trees to bask in, although it will probably return to that hole to roost. The two captive goannas have less choice. The wiring would limit the number of choices.

We can go back and forth forever, FR, and we have had this same conversation several times in the past. I'll be convinced when I see pairing behaviour in the wild, and lots of it to counter all of the solitary sightings I have, and do, make. The evidence you have shown so far is not convincing. In fact, the photo of the solitary monitor in the tree supports my view. At the moment you are showing me a photo of one thing and asking me to believe another. That's not a personal attack or statement, I am merely stating what I see. There is nothing personal in any of this. I understand you'd like to be iconoclastic and rip apart the paradigm of monitors being viewed as solitary in the wild, and perhaps one day you will - all power to you, but the only way that will happen is if you have convincing evidence.

In the case of ackies, if some of these areas they occupy are high density, does that have any significance in and of itself-if they do not live on an island? (I know very little about ecology by the way) That is to say, if you look at the extent of the known ability of ackies to range (contiguous geographical real estate), is it of any significance, for the purpose of this and recent discussions, that there are these areas of "high density"?

It seems to me that how social monitors are or aren't is one of the most exciting and entertaining episodes of this soap opera of a forum. And it seems that the "non-social" camp is generally of the opinion that they are by and large solitary animals. I agree that since "as we aren't monitors we can't always see why one hide spot is preferable over another". But I still think it is funny to think that in any community/range of individuals, they "find their choices so incredibly limited on any given day that they have to share a single rock or burrow with another animal(s) to get what they need (desire)". It seems strange that there would be only one place that is desireable or meets a certain need. That seems statistically? unlikely to me - to the point that I would think it was silly if someone thought that.

And I would have to agree with Jody/where I think Jody is coming from that things are inevitably complicated by applying our concepts and "definitions" to animals/things that we may not know that much about. Even with the understanding that
"social" in human terms is generally meant to describe this and that and "solitary" is generally meant to describe this and that and "anti-social" is generally meant to describe this and that... I must admit that I feel the infinite? possibilities of interaction (amongst monitors) combined with what I regard as a (our) relatively youthful understanding of these animals makes for something no where near black and white. But I guess that's what keeps us nerds up on these forums all night. It is a lot of fun...

If there is 100% to know about monitors, what percentage of that knowledge do you think is documented/widely known of within the circles of people one might expect? I understand this question conflicts with my "infinite" hypothesis above.

Thanks,

Ian

that monitors(ackies) are not continious across suitable habitat. They occur in certain areas and not in others across the same habitat. I call these colonies.

I would think if DK thought about it, he would understand, he goes to certain places to find lacies, and not others, not others that are just down the way. The reason is, there are in certain places and not others. Even if they are not sitting on eachothers laps, they are not evenly spread across suitable habitat.

Also in my experience, they stop occuring in these areas after a period of time. Of course its common sense to think they use up the resources then move on. but I really do not fully understand why they stop occuring in one area. I think they may age out too. again a guess.

The problem here is, I most likely am the only fool that will travel 9000 miles to see if a colony is doing ok or changed. Or the only fool to watch the same group of reptiles for 25 continous years. FR

Yes, I was curious about why they are not more evenly spread out across suitable habitat... People's thoughts on that...

You would go 9000 miles to see how a colony is doing. I might go 9000 miles to see a colony in the first place. Maybe you are just a little more sick. Course I think all the regulars here are pretty sick. It's fun to have company.

Thanks,

Ian

Looking at a range map and looking closely at the habitat are two different things. Any species may range right across parts of Australia, but within those ranges only certain habitats are suitable. So if one area is densely populated, it may be because it is a sort of island. An island of suitable habitat amongst large areas of unsuitable habitat.

FR is partially right in that I look for lacies only in certain areas, but those are areas of suitable habitat. I ignore areas that aren't suitable habitat. Usually if the habitat is suitable there are lacies there. I've driven through new areas and have thought 'good lacie habitat', then would see one shortly afterwards, so I don't think they are in small hubs at all.

No, I'm not saying that they occur in the same density in all suitable habitats, but they certainly do occur in all suitable habitats (provided the habitat is within range and not surrounded by urban development on all sides).

They even occur in quite unsuitable habitats. I've seen lone animals out in really open farmland out west, with only trees by the river to act as a corridor.