Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi Robert,
I have 35mm slides of V. salvadorii basking on the ground on an offshore island of West Irian (= Irian Jaya) taken a few years ago, maybe 1998 or so. They do come down to the ground, they do bask in groups, as has often been depicted of komodo dragons basking in the morning hours soaking up the UV. But of course, this single recordeed event does not mean they are social, or anything other than poikilotherms basking...but it is documented.
FYI. There is a great deal about V. salvadorii we do not know, but surprisingly, quite about more than most people realize that we do know about them: they are essentially a giant V. prasinus, but of course much more cunning and dangerous.

Cheers,
mbayless

Hate to disagree, Mark, but one thing that crocs are not is "giant prasinus", either phylogenetically or ecologically. As you well know, crocs are the sister species to varius and komodoensis, and this group of three species is pretty remotely related to the subgenus Euprepiosaurus, that contains the indicus and prasinus species groups. If Varanus were to be partitioned, crocs and prasinus-group species would be in different genera.

You are certainly right that there isn't a lot of information on the natural history of crocs (or on prasinus, for that matter), but the fragments that we do have point to very different animals in ecological terms. Both are arboreal (adult crocs less so) and occur in lowland New Guinea, but after that the similarities are actually rather few. Prasinus-group monitors are active foragers out in the leafy parts of the canopy or in vine tangles along the forest edge -- methodical, slow-moving things that search for large insects and stalk them. Crocs do not seem to do much active searching (though I have a report of one digging Chondropython eggs out of a staghorn fern) -- instead, it appears that they are ambush hunters.

Biologists who work in lowland New Guinea often remark about how few small mammals or ground-dwelling lizards or birds there are, both in terms of species diversity and population densities. There just isn't much for an animal the size of an adult croc to look for, compared to, say, what a lace monitor might expect to find in a day's wanderings. Instead, it appears that the resources that crocs exploit are point sources, such as megapode nest mounds, flying fox roosts, and fruiting trees. I plan to sort this out when I get to New Guinea, but for now most of the casual observations made by others are consistent with the idea that crocs know where all the megapode nests, bat roosts and fruiting trees within their home ranges are, and simply go hang out in those places. You can imagine a croc lying in the ferns and orchids on a large branch in a bat roost or fruiting tree, and simply waiting, waiting until something lands nearby. If you've watched flying fox roosts or trees packed full of feeding pigeons and parrots (of which New Guinea has many-many species), it's not that long before something flops onto any nice branch.

Captive crocs certainly behave like ambush hunters -- they do not rush food brainlessly snapping and jumping like argus or lacies, but more or less wait for it. Sure they will pursue live prey, but they'll also wait for the animal to get close before jumping it. In my experience, the more they want something (whether food or a piece of you), the quieter they get, which is sure not like too many other monitors.

So, fill us in, please. Why do you think that crocs are just giant prasinus?

Hi Sam,
Don't waste your energy on 'hate' - you're too nice a guy to expend your energy negatively...let the 'other' people do that. haha.

I was speaking 'generally', not literally. You know full well what you posted above that I know it too, as we have both discussed this marvelous animal with one another and with mutual associates at length, not to mention all the written materials we have both reviewed - I was speaking generally as to their life in the canopy, much as V. prasinus complex does, except that the prasinus-complex does not have to go far for its meals, but V. salvadorii does -> it goes to the ground in seach of larger vertebrates via ambush and stealth. That is what I was speaking of, nothing more to infer on that. I can see how you might have been confused by my post, but don't sweat it. As for taxonomic affinity, I am fully aware of where it has been assigned, and where it fits in the Family Varanidae.

I will say here that I am entirely skeptic and do not agree with Bohme's assessment of changing the Varanidae Genus into a plethora of new Genus' (Varanus, empagusia, Euprepiosaurus, megavaranus = Papuasaurus(?), polydaedalus etc...) based merely on hemipene morphology; the taxonomists who were going that way with tongue color now realize tongue color is not a mutually exclusive taxon characteristic, as tongue color can change...so maybe there is something about hemipene morphology that will say for some taxonomists this Genus Varanus need revisions, but for me, it is not so using that single criteria only - I am not for that at all...yes, I am a clumper, not a splitter for the most part, but I take each species one at a time, and do not like this almost 'arbitrary' revisions that seems in our mists without further analysis, based on morphology alone; how about mitochondrial dna? anatomy? paleontology? ethology? rather than a single determinant factor as (hemipenal) morphology.

I do believe Varanus emerge as species in 'complexes' first, then split from there based on the factors of evolution as we understand them...as we have seen especially in Indonesia, a species diverges when islands become separated from mainlands, when 'founder effect', 'speciation' take hold and allowed to follow through enough for an island form to divert from the main population (gene pool) phenotypically to become a full species = this as you know is a very nebulous area, and 'fun' too to study, as Ernst Mayr says in his newest (and probably last) book.
cheers Sam,
markb

It was a joke.

I do respect you, but please understand, I don't really care if monitors are found talking about the Packers game while smoking cigars and drinking scotch. It still interests me (and the additional information is welcome), but it simply has no effect on my monitors. They are today, what they were yesterday. There really is little useful practical information coming from the so called 'science' side. I understand that is not their intent, and that is fine, as long as that is clear.

My problem, is with so called 'scientist' all of a sudden knowing and understanding all about captive husbandry, and trying to set back the clock on husbandry. What if some poor fool, let's say gets a jobiensis, and raises it up from a young monitor to a mature female, thinking that they need to be separated anyway, what is the harm... See what sex it is and then find a mate. Well the harm is, it can be the most troublesome method to get monitors comfortable to breed, and one of the better ways to have to learn how to suture up wounds. Surely it is not always this way, there are always exceptions, monitors have diverse behaviors and can not be pigeon holed like that, and there are methods to control this. But it is not the simplest way, and there is no evidence it is better, in fact the evidence is on the simplest way working better.

One other truth, is we are not Bernd, telling when a female is cycling, and her mate as well, is hard enough, and incredibly error prone. Mix this with the previous mentioned violence and comfort card and it just does not make sense to keep/raise monitors alone as a rule, if they are ever to breed.

--Robert

I have to ask this, as this is used as a common acquisation against me/us. What are the intentions of keeping varanids. I am falsely blamed that I only keep them to breed them, to a missguided and false point of being attacked as a puppy mill. Unfortunately, engaging good husbandry does equal many offspring, with can and does lead to that assumption.

If you keep your monitors seperate, and introduce them to breed. Then its very clear, you are purposely and with direction, trying to breed them. Your sole purpose in putting them together, is to breed them. When seperate, there is little to observe other then feeding and basking. I ask, which method is directly attempting to produce offspring?

Lets consider, if you keep monitors in pairs or groups, there is far more to see and learn, its no longer, to breed or not to breed. Copulation and nesting and resulting hatchlings are now only a part of the overall picture.

The overall picture includes, attracting, and repulsing, as in bonding, or fighting. It includes learning that normally males only breed females during when she is receptive. Males that attempt to breed at all times, have other issues. You observe many many interactions, which can be called, social, as I have no other term that fits. Not primate social, oh except that kissing thing, you know, the nose bumping. Thats sorta human like. So many behaviors can be seen, like them learning to share

(which does occur in nature), which brings up issues like, if they can learn to share, how is that possible if they do not have the inherent ability to learn that. How can they learn to be in groups without the ability to learn how?

Back to the point, When keeping monitors together, there is a far greater ability to learn, enjoy and progress with captives, then keeping them singly. I know for me, the joy of keeping monitors is they can be fun. The silly things they do. But kept alone, they are not nearly so silly and of less fun.

Now, once you learn how to successfully keep them in pairs or groups, odd things happen, like multiclutching. I have wondered, if folks like Bernd, would have kept his monitors together, would he have recieved more clutches then a max of two. Its very possible, that the captives were supported for more then two clutches, but he failed to recognize they were cycling or he was in a paradign that he thought they "should" not and put them together. I do understand why he didn't keep them in groups. In europe, I did notice a problem, they had small houses, small rooms and small cages inside those room. Which means, no room for two. In other words, the controlling factor in cage design and resulting information, was not the monitors, but instead the human housing. Please understand, we all have controlling factors. Our job is to recognize them and limit them.

Again, when kept in pairs or groups, you learn they will indeed cycle many many times. You also, now have the oppertunity to learn the failure after a couple clutches is not a product of not being able to, but a product of lack of keeper support. Remember, the keeper controls all, not just the enviornment, but primary support like food and water.

For instance, I normally do not feed on a set schedule, I feed when the monitors hunts. IF they hunt everyday, then I feed them everyday, if they do not hunt, I do not feed. I have to wonder, how this becomes over support? In have to think, if they hunt here, they would hunt there. IF they hunt, they must have REASON to hunt.

The comments on food supply in nature vs. captivity, are more or less plain stupid. The reason its stupid, is there is no standard. In both places its variable. Nature withholds support on "bad" years, and on good years, has an abundance of support. Same goes for keepers. They sometimes simply run out of food or have a ballgame to go to. Or the pub. Again I wander. Theres also such things as population dynamics, which occurs in both nature and captivity, thats when the increasing population, begins to limit the food supply. Nothing new here folks.

This thread is about keeping monitors singly, or in groups, my comment is, there is far more to learn with pairs and groups, then with single individuals. The fact that it has worked, is fact that its possible. The fact that some do not understand the dynamics of group behavior, is fact they need to learn and not deny.

Also, my old saying of, they(they monitors) are not windup toys) applies here too. Group dynamics, changes with time and age. This is common with all animals including people, that are social. Also, entertain this thought, any animal including people, when keep alone(solitary confinment) have lots of trouble in a group setting. I think this also is common with mice and crickets. Try raising them singly, then after half their lifespan, forming groups, they fail as well. again I wonder.

Yes, there is much to learn, but I still have a feeling, that if they never had the ability to comunicate with eachother, they could not learn to comunicate with eachother. To me, that is the real question. How do they do, what they were not designed to do?

I get it, maybe monitors use to be social, a thousand years ago, or when we are not looking. For your constant entertainment, FR

P.S. for any who my poor spelling offends, please, copy and paste this in a word program and run it thru spell check, THEN READ, hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Do you start keeping and raising monitors in groups from the time they are babies?

What happens if you inadvertantly keep two males together and don't find out they are both males until they are almost adults?

Can you later introduce a female? Should you take out one of the males?

I would like to acquire a pair of baby monitors and am worried that I may end up with two of the same sex.

As a person who once was a mechanic and a maintainceman. You learn proper troubleshooting procedure. Which is, simplist things first.

In our context, keeping monitors, you want to attempt to do it(whatever "it" is) the way with the best chance of success. Not the hardest or least chance of success. Lets not go into why science seems to want to do this backwards.

If you end up with two of one sex, at least they understand what it is to share a cage. How bad is that?

Of course, you then proceed to the next simplest step, pair them up, with another individual raised in groups or pairs.

I can go on step by step, but you get the picture. So I will jump to the worse case, thats two old haggerd adult wild caughts.

The problem with many people is, they want to "expect" something, and that is asking a little too much with monitors. Thanks FR

Great post Frank. I remember when I had a single sav. I would mostly watch it bask and sleep with some digging. Since I started adding cage mates they have become more active, which equals more fun.
As for them communicating, I beleive they do. I see mounting for dominance, head shaking and nose bumping as a form of communication. They are telling each other something.
When my young male sav walks up to one of the girls and starts head shaking and she lowers her head while raising her tail base, he is saying "I am in charge here" She is saying "I understand, now leave me alone" If it wasn't for this commincation we would have injured or dead lizards.

Scott
-----
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.