Hmmmmmmmmmmm, is anything divided that clearly? I mean, if they time share and resource share, while being anti-social, or solitary animals. Wait, if they were, they would have no need to do those. Well anyway.
I am positive, if they are social, and i believe they are, they also include time sharing, resource sharing, plus all sorts of other behavioral labels. I don't know, maybe hundreds at once.
The problem I have with this is, how the heck am I suppose to know which is which, dang, they all sort of seem like social. And if they do several at once, man am I going to be confused.
In these pics, can anyone pick out any of these behaviors or others?
or in this group?
To me it seems like they are being curious, social, sharing(time and resource) and defensive to boot. Maybe even a bit protective. One even looks like she wants to kick my butt. And they move from one to the other in seconds or less. Heck they can change this while sitting and staring at me.
Please understand I can speak a tiny bit of science babble(please no offence) But this is not science, its a hobby and we should have our own hobby babble.
I wonder if the model airplane industry, has the same exact meanings are words from the airline industry?
We are required to have fun with our hobby. With that in mind, If the monitors look or act or appear social to me, I am going to call them that, and good old science, can do what ever blows there skirt up. Again no offence. If a pair of monitors appear to bond, as a hobbyist/herpetoculturist, (heck with that, i will use hobbyist) I feel compelled to say, they are bonded.
But please, its our hobby and we can call it anything we like.
If science has never seen them bond, why would they care if we call our bonded monitors, bonded.
If science has never seen social monitors, why would they care if we have social monitors?
If science says monitors do not multiclutch, why would they care if ours do?
Maybe ours multiclutch because they are social and bond. hahahahahahahahahaha actually, who cares, they just do.
To be more accurate, we, not only "can" call them whatever we like, we should. As we are the ones talking and comunicating to eachother. If we call one of the pics above, social, and another keeper things its the same, then thats how terms and words are coined and created.
Please understand, if science wants to say, nope that ain't that, this is that! Well thats fine, but I have to ask, why don't they keep it to themselves. Please not in a harsh way, but if they want to call it something different, they can and please do.
What is wonderous to me is, we hobbyist are doing just fine with the terms and lauguage we use, they seem to want us to change and do this their way, which has not shown to be all that successful.
My personal opinion is simple, they complicate and confuse, which leads to failure and misunderstanding. (personal opinion)
We are doing just fine being simple and uncomplicated. If it appears social, then it is. Smells like, feels like, looks like, then lastly if it tastes like, yuck, it must be?? FR
