Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Since youve attained a level of experience where you obtain viable eggs on a regular basis, do you currently use ground nesting for all of your monitors? Or do you use any kinds of arboreal nesting boxes?
Im not aware of what all youre breeding at the moment, and if you have any indo varieties.
When you have bred the indo. monitors, did you have success with ground nesting?

rgrds

All monitors are ground nesters first and foremost, they only nest above ground when no1 no suitable nesting NO2 to avoid floods, in these case all monitors can nest above ground. Your problem is not about specie or substrate! Any species can use a multitude of substrata, it’s the conditions and support that really matters. Your weakness is better understanding of varanids biology.

But I wasnt asking for advise. For you to say that all monitors first choice of nesting is on the ground, is such an extreme generalization. How can you possibly know such a thing?

This is not advise! I stated your weakness then added some general varanids knowledge.
Its you right to learn from this or not as its your right to turn in circles trying to get a grip on varanids propagation for the next decade (as many here do)

As for how can I possibly know such things?
I know a guy that knows a guy that keeps monitors

Dont you just love how it sort of buggles a situation even more? The internet is both a blessing and a curse.

I didnt understand what you were saying, funny how slightly different wording suddenly clears up misconception...

We should just all set up web cams. (well.... umm... on second thought. heh) Maybe not ALL.

haha

As Jobi said, there are monitors that nest in the ground and monitors that cannot because the ground is not suitable.

Forgive me as I did not read this post that closely. But in your first post you mention indo and aboreal.

First, monitors that are aboreal are not restricted to indo, and not all indo monitors nest in what you think as aboreal areas.

Most of the indo species I worked with nested in the ground, but dirt is not a perferred nesting material.

Which brings up another point, what the heck is aboreal? Specially when you consider, most cages are in a house, and houses have 8 foot ceilings. As far as aboreal is concerned, 8 foot is the bottom of a tree not aboreal.

Now within that distance, that 8 foot, how does a monitor know what is aboreal and what is subterrainin?? I mean, if you have a tall cage on the first floor of a building, is that aboreal, or if you have a short cage and you live on the tenth floor of an apartment building? Is that aboreal.

Would argus not nest by burrowing down in the dirt, when on the tenth floor of a building?

What I am getting at is, aboreal is a, I am trying to be nice here, not very smart concept when you have cages less then 15 feet tall. As I have said before, I have seen all sorts of teresterial monitors in short trees, including ackies(about 15 feet up)

So back to Jobis comment, I think its more important to think of nesting in terms of suitable big enough conditions, then whether its off the bottom of a cage or not.

Truthfully, I do not think the monitors are confused by this, only people. A monitor knows what up is and knows what down is, and surely knows that 8 foot is not up. They also know what is suitable. Cheers FR

"As Jobi said, there are monitors that nest in the ground and monitors that cannot because the ground is not suitable."

Ahhh, yes. This does make sense. I suppose there could be a good amount of reasons for the ground not being suitable. Less then ideal substrate, or even particular predators for a given region?

"Most of the indo species I worked with nested in the ground, but dirt is not a perferred nesting material."

Which did not? What did your salvadorii and indicus take to more readily? Ive primarily only heard of your success with aussie monitors. I would be intriqued to hear more.

"Which brings up another point, what the heck is aboreal? Specially when you consider, most cages are in a house, and houses have 8 foot ceilings. As far as aboreal is concerned, 8 foot is the bottom of a tree not aboreal."

What I meant by "arboreal type nesting" was somthing similar to that of a tree being utilized. The way some people build tall boxes with little holes in them. In essence, attempting to replicate the tight, secure confines of say a hollow, rotting tree trunk. It seems that species like macraei, prasinus, and that black one... (the name always escapes me) have taken a liking to these sorts of "arboreal type nesting" boxes.

"Now within that distance, that 8 foot, how does a monitor know what is aboreal and what is subterrainin?? I mean, if you have a tall cage on the first floor of a building, is that aboreal, or if you have a short cage and you live on the tenth floor of an apartment building? Is that aboreal."

Hahahaha! good stuff.

Do you think that a person should be able to calibrate all the aspects of nesting (humidity, temp, substrate consistancy, security of nesting, etc) and apply it across the board? So that, even a species like an olivaceus, or prasinus, etc., will nest on the ground if all of the above conditions are met?
Has it been done?

The point is, most people get stuck(confused) trying to solve problems that do not exsist. My suggestion is, work on what needs work.

I think many think keeping animals in captivity has nothing to do what them in nature, Others think its all about what they are in nature. Of course, I think its all about captivity, because for gods sake it IS captivity. But then, nature may offer hints at ways to solve problems. So indeed, I will research them in nature to solve a problem. But I see no reason to confuse myself when there is no problem.

So people dwelling on indo, or Ozo or africo or aboreo or this or that, seems to me, they're inviting problems. I use stardard techiques and adjust as necessary.

These techiques have been dicussed ten thousand times.

The thing is, I understand most of the basics, therefore, if I have to change for a species or a individual, I will. no biggie. FR

An example, if there are 20 key elements to keeping and breeding all species of monitors successfully. Then 10 to 12 of these are consistant across the board. Like basic temp range, basic diet, basic physical needs, etc. Then that leaves 8 to 10 elements, substrate/nesting perferences, etc) that may be species specific or group specific or as mentioned individual specific.

IF you understand that of these 8 to 10 elements, you know or vaguely understand 5 or 6 of them(that apply to different species or habitat types). That gives you an understanding of 15 to 18 out of 20 elements.

That does leaves 2 to 5 elements out of 20 that your weak with or flat do not understand. Are you following?

In application, if you apply those 10 to 12 common elements, and the other slighly different 5 or 6 elements, then the reminding few are such a small percentage and usually take care of themselves or at least narrow the unknown to something so small thats its very likely you can figure it out.

The problem I see with you and others. You seem to dwell on what you precieve as different and unknown, and not concentrate on the application of what is known. That is a recipe for failure, I do not care what your working with.

So as I have suggested so many times, you should solidify your foundation, work on strenghening your basics, learn them well, apply them well, if you do, those few things that are not understood, either go away or are so small, they are easy to overcome.

My success has been from the application of the basics and not dwelling on theory and the unknown. Thanks good luck, FR

Thank you for your responces.
Really though, I had asked these questions because I wanted to hear what you did with those animals.I have heard the most about your sucesses with the aussies, so that why I brought up the question, because you had mentioned briefly about having worked with indicus, and someone had said something about you may have had worked with salvaodorii as well. I was curious to find out where specifically you ran into deifferences in nesting.

You have mentioned vaguely that there are varying nuances....
What did you personally find that had to be varied? Have you ever utilized a nessting box similar to what Bob Mendyk(the guy who breeds tree monitors) does? Or a rubbermaid tote with indicus, the way "jungleshadows" has. Do you think that they(tree monitors, etc) would nest on the ground if they "could"(if they were given what they needed to do so.)

k, that is all
=)

But I have shown all sorts of species and have done so, repeatedly. If you want that I only bred auzzie monitors, then good on you. You do understand, ozzie monitors were the last to be bred not the first.

Indo and african monitors have been bred for decades, just read Danniel Bennetts, Little book of monitors. The states in species after species of indo monitors, were bred at this zoo and that zoo or this collection and that collection.

I had to remind him of that when he asked the same question.

Anyway, I stopped giving details a couple years ago, All it did was cause grief, but then so does generalities. I bet if you look, you can fine pics. FR

"But I have shown all sorts of species and have done so, repeatedly. If you want that I only bred auzzie monitors, then good on you.
Anyway, I stopped giving details a couple years ago, All it did was cause grief, but then so does generalities. I bet if you look, you can fine pics. FR"

I have no preconcieved notions. Just cruiosity. Sadly, I never got the chance yet, to read anything you have written about your work with other species. =(
When you had mentioned to me your work with the banded variety of indicus, my interest was wetted to hear more. hehe
See the can you opened?

you mentioned you have no preconcieved notions. I am sorry but we all have them and lots and lots of them. Our task is to not let them get in the way.(this fits in the best advice catagory)

You original cage design was chock-o-block, in preconcieved notions. So is your approach. Consider, preconcieved notions do not mean they are wrong. They are just, things that are thought of, before you gain actual experience. I would bet that a high percentage of all preconcieved notions are wrong. I know most of mine are, thats why I test them. FR

I was referring to you. Having preconcieved notions about you. You mentioned that I can believe what i want to about what youve bred. So I said, I have no preconvieved notions. Thats all i was talking about there.