Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Jody, comments like those you made below reflect why these discussions go on so long: "To look at an animal and put our terms to them is wrong.... That is why I would rather see the animals called what they are and not what our terms limit them to."

Whose terms would you use? Do monitors speak English? What did Tyrannosaurus do, since in its entire existence as a living thing it had no name? You can't 'call them what they are' -- if monitors "know" each other at all, it's not a name but a smell! Seriously, any term only means what we humans agree that it means, and terms like 'social' are abstract concepts that are agreed to represent some set of conditions. DK and I use the term in the sense that biologists do, which probably differs from the sense of the term as understood by others.

One of the persistent lines of argument I see here is that since monitors do not always fight to the death or run each other off, they must be social to some degree. This confuses two things: sociality and territoriality. Territorial animals defend a resource, usually a patch of turf, and individuals that could threaten that possession are challenged, fought, and run off. The correct view, according to generations of lizard biologists, is that monitors are not territorial about home ranges, and therefore they don't engage in the sorts of displays and fights that we see in many other groups of lizards. Being non-territorial does not automatically make an animal social, but if monitors are not territorial it makes them appear less antisocial than are things that are chasing after each other all the time.

It turns out that this claim isn't quite true. I published evidence that male V. glebopalma are in fact strongly territorial, and have evidence that both male and female V. scalaris are also territorial. This is not what other lizard biologists expected to hear, but so far the evidence I presented has been accepted as documenting a first case of territorial behavior in monitors. The evidence for territoriality in V. scalaris isn't published yet, but when it is I am hopeful that it will be seen as a starting point for looking at other species more carefully. Using the same methods, I found that V. glauerti and V. tristis were not territorial.

First suggestion? You can't call animals what they are except by using human terms. Given that we haven't an alternative, we should of course try to use the most accurate human term we have, and if we're talking biology we should use the terms in the same ways that biologists do. Secondly, don't include hidden assumptions – animals can embody combinations of sociality and territoriality. Lions are social and territorial, leopards are nonsocial and territorial, bison are social and nonterritorial, and some (but apparently not all) monitors are nonsocial and nonterritorial.

Did you read everything I said or only that 1 small very small paragraph?

I already explained this as being how I see it and my opinion, am I not allowed my opinion? or should I only agree with you or someone else? Sorry for cutting my own path and not following in anothers but thats how I do things.

I stated I call an animals behavior as being social or being solitary. They can and will do both. You are calling them social or solitary, or anti social or not as social as others etc.

I simply am seeing a behavior they do at that time and say they are being social or being solitary. I use these human terms according to their actions , different term for each action. You are clumping saying well 10% of its time it's social, 20% it is territorial, 70% it is solitary. You then say one out weights the other and then you put a term to the animal itself such as in this case solitary. I keep it at the percentages and use the terms only on the actions.

You keep saying biolgy this and that, well sir this is not a biology class, this is a forum. I am not here to talk biology with you or anyone else. I left all of that back in college. However I will offer my opinions on how I see things and how I think. I believe that is allowed. If you do not like how I see things then don't read my posts, but please do not kick and scream into my ear.

What is your beef? Nothing in my post is critical of your right to have an opinion. I am simply pointing out that there may be hidden assumptions in the way that people here are using terms, and that if those assumptions are identified, we may have less trouble understanding one another.

I have no beef, I have no hidden assumptions. I simply have opinions.

I took your post as directed at me as you did mention my name and quoted from me. If you were talking to everyone then you should of talked to everyone then it wouldn't seem so personal.

I really hate when others(on there side) do this, and I normally never do this, but, I am going to do this.

Nice post Jody, I agree, we can have our opinions without insult(name calling) and a spanking. Particularly when I(we) have positive results, derived from our huge lack of biological understanding. All and all, this will always defy my silly logic. Logic suggests, good results comes from good understanding. Not good/great or even cutting edge understanding coming from lack of or no understanding.

I really don't think what you label things is all that important. Social, only social in a velvet ant way, but not a primate way, or a zebra, or a dugong, but maybe in a polar bear way. Dang dude, if one individual picks another to be around and they are not breeding at the moment, then thats social. If its only when their breeding, then thats sex and we all know, sex is not a social thing. See, I told you I should not have said this. FR

Hahaha social is to lion as solitary is to?

I wonder if a lion calls itself social? do they call themselves a pride or a pack and if they call themselves a pack do wolves call themselves prides?

What a mess I am glad my mind is warped and I don't think straight, but hey atleast I am not solitary oops I mean alone.

if sex is found in a group setting is that social? hahaha

"I published evidence that male V. glebopalma are in fact strongly territorial, and have evidence that both male and female V. scalaris are also territorial. This is not what other lizard biologists expected to hear, but so far the evidence I presented has been accepted as documenting a first case of territorial behavior in monitors. The evidence for territoriality in V. scalaris isn't published yet, but when it is I am hopeful that it will be seen as a starting point for looking at other species more carefully. Using the same methods, I found that V. glauerti and V. tristis were not territorial."

Are you sure they are territorial? or were they merely acting out cause of an alternative means , much like the shared resources pushing them to be social?

How did you prove them to be territorial? what are they pretecting? a home range a mate, a nest, food, a burrow? One could argue that signs of territorial dispute can follow along with being social.

the one called, a lacie comparision, and tell me what you think. Thank you. FR

Read it yourself:

Sweet, S.S. 1999. Spatial ecology of Varanus glauerti and V. glebopalma in northern Australia. Pp. 317-366 in H.-G. Horn and W. Boehme (eds.) Advances in Monitor Research II. Mertensiella, vol. 11 (DGHT, Rheinbach).

Or, I can explain it here, if you like.

I am here, so post it. I am sure others might want to read it.

I just hope it answers my questions and doesnt just give me something to read.

that would be great

Sorry, I can't post it. DGHT owns the copyright, and I do not even have the thing as a .pdf myself. It'd be a huge download, 50 pp. of text and 23 figures. Anyone who'd like a hard copy can e-mail me with their mailing address.

I don't know if it would help you keep monitors or not, Jody.

aim sure you wouldn't mind explaining in yur own words?

Canada is a country so square that even
the female impersonators are women
- Richard Brenner

Be happy to, except that I haven't seen any indication that you are anything but a troll, mate.

You can e-mail me for your very own copy, as I said.

How useful it will be to his monitors at home.

Please understand, I do find your papers interesting, but then I find "fear factor" interesting too. Please have some humor, Thanks FR

a couple questions.

1) How does it relate to husbandry or keeping of monitors?

2) How did you come to these conclusions (w/ husbandry)?

3) What evidence do you have that your conclusions are correct?

--Robert

Robert, this is where there is a clear distinction between herpetoculture and herpetology. Most scientific studies are not designed to help people with their captives - that isn't their purpose. It's to find out what the wild ones do.

I agree Dave, that was the point. I don't care much how they are social in the wild (it interests me but doesn't effect me), I do care, that raising them and keeping them together gives both the monitors and me more leeway in making adjustments.

--Robert

I realize that they might be any of the above options.

From what I have seen in the wild and read in books etc., it appears that monitors may be both social and territorial.

Just like the lions.

I think to dump all monitor species into an overall label would be pretty much stupid, they are different species after all, live in different climates and behave differently (as Sam noted in a few of his posts). I understand the biological labels applied have a criteria, and by that criteria most monitor species and monitors are not going to be labeled as "social." That being said, here is my take on the social behaviours of monitors utilizing the gobs of captive and field research experience I have (which would be very little for those keeping count)...

The label that most makes sense for a monitor, of any species, is going to be "loner." Sort of like the man who lives in his house by himself, might rarely be seen having a guest over, walks by others and will say good morning and be polite. "Good morning Mrs. Smith", but no real deep conversation. Like monitors resource share, the man would work in an office with people and interact with them on that level. Yes, I definitely think "loner" would be a good title.

Now of course if you take that same human cross comparison a little further you actually will start to see the true proper label of a monitor. They start off young killing bugs and other small critters, and then move up to rodents and lizards, and finally they might even kill other monitors. So taking that same man above, if he started off killing small animals, moved up to what some may consider pets, and finally other humans.

It should now be very easy to see, monitors are in fact "Serial Killers". They are loners, neighbors would describe them as quiet, kind of shy, yet they have a body count miles long. MY GOD I LIVE WITH THREE SERIAL KILLERS!!!!!!!

And that my friends and colleagues is the social behavior of monitors. hehehehehehe