Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This is what I believe is the root of the constant question about albigs, and other species.

Its not particularly concerning science for science, but more about science for the people. Its not even a discussion about how science with reptiles, is a world to its own. When science is suppose to be knowledge for the people. Which is us, by the way.

Its much simplier then that. If we take albigs, they are a very good example, but its surely not restricted to them.

So lets take albigs. I and others(I hope) are not arguing that the system of scientific nomenclature(sp) is, good, bad, or otherwise. Or even if its useful. Of course its useful. But it also fails us.

With albigs, we know there are, V.a.albigularis and V.a.mirostictus and what was known as Ionidies, V.a.ionidies That is still all fine and dandy. The problem is, there are more availible to us. There are Cape monitors, Banded Cape monitors, Tanizinan whitethroats, Ionidies blackthroats, and blackthroats. Then there was the whitethroats that San Diego zoo has, which are different then the previously mentioned whitethroats. Then there was the Olga Zoo Whitethroats, which were amazing and distintly different then the previously mentioned whitethroats. There has been other types as well. So what we have are lots of types and two names. Honey why is that?

Heres the thing, those of us who work with these different animals, know from keeping them, that they are indeed different. While we do understand, they are still albigs and not Savs or niles or even lacies. They still are different from eachother.

They are different is many major ways, such as size and reproductive ability. I never heard of a Whitethroat of any kind lay over 50 eggs. Yet, both, mirostictus types have. There are structural differences, skin texture and scalation, tail structure and of course the obvious color and pattern difference.

Again I do not think anyone is saying these are different species, they are something less different. But what is less different then species? it use to be subspecies, but that has somehow, disappeared. Or even with plants, they can be called regional varities or races. But that is not used with reptiles.

That is the problem. There is no discription of local types.

Now for Sam to understand, In our world as hobbyist, we have your names and more. Much much more, even more then the above. We not only have, local specific,(which many specialize in) but we have color morphs(many specialize in) color mutations(etc). All of which are natural occuring. Plus we have morphs that are created in captivity and even crosses and combinations of crosses. Again, many people specialize in these too. Now Sam, I am sure this is starting to make you itch and scratch. But, this is our world, the world of this forum.

I know you want to say, but that is not about science(putting words in your mouth) Well, your right, its about the people, we the people. We are the people and its about us, we are the hobbyist, breeders, collectors, etc. There are thousands of people envolved in this type of industry. They are happily doing what they do, they have done wonderful things. At least they think they have done wonderful things, heck they enjoy them, and heck, some have made a living at what they like. And all staying within the rules of society. So this is our world, whether or not, your science agrees or if its about your science at all. The real honest truth is, it took real science to achieve what has been achieved. But of course, Sam, you may not agree. Thanks FR

If you want to see that stuff addressed by scientists, talk to them. If you can't stand talking to them, publish it, they'll read it. If you won't publish it, it's more stories and speculation, they might ignore it. Simple as falling off a log, stand up.

Hi Sam,
It is no use - I and many others have asked him to publish it many times, but no...no sense beating a dead horse....or man, as Captain Bligh on H.M.S. Bounty did to man during 'Fleet Punishment' in 1778.

cheers,
mbayless

My feet are firmly on the ground and I am doing just fine.

That you keep trying to bring it back to me is odd, I don't care what you call albigs, nor do I believe our hobby does either. We know what we have, and we will call them useful names. Or not, hahahahahahahahahaha yellow ackies and red ackies, did I do that????

The problem is people new to the hobby, they still have hopes, and science supports and is part of our hobby. But you and I know better. Thanks FR

I can paint him any color I want, eh?

I agree we will call them as we see them, they will call them what they see, then change to what they don't see, then again change the name.

I think clumping them all into one is silly when you can look at them and see a difference. I don't call every palm tree a coconut tree, or a timber wolf a red wolf.

What I wonder is why they always change the names of them, yet we in the hobby still use the names we have used for years now.

It's about who gets to see what, Jody, and what they make of it. Face it, it is not too easy to travel around Africa scooping up savs, WTs, BTs, etc. -- you wanna get the permits, do the travel, catch Ebola, maybe a machete? A lot of stuff is imported into the US without any real assurance of where it came from 'out there', and that makes it pretty useless for the sort of analysis that is needed.

As to albigs/exanthematicus, Africa is a big place, with lots of habitat diversity. Are albigs any more variable than milksnakes? How long has it taken to sort out what is going on with the classification of milksnakes?

Common names are completely unstable. What are albigs called in Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Angola, Germany or Japan? Who decided that the common name of an African monitor is in English? Take a trip to 10 countries there, and ask everybody for a white-throated monitor, see how many people know what you're talking about.

Hi Sam and Jody,

I am currently finishing up compiling a list of local names for African Varanus ~400-500 names in length, with local tribes and associated references of course....I wrote a similar list for Pacific varanids this year (see J. Micronesica, 2004).

This will make your trip easier Jody should you decide to go and see for yourself....I'll be glad to hook you up with many many herpetologists, game wardens, and alike who can/will show you around; but you will need armed guards in many places as much of Africa is politically unstable (sadly, a norm)....Jombo!

Cheers,
markb

Why does it always come down to you telling us to travel to africa and catch some critters?

If I go there the names will stay more consistant and not change? I doubt it they will change many times over, the animals will change many times over. They are forever in a state of change you know. So when they evolve in one area ahead of another, they will look different. Will they then have yet another name for the new one even though it is really the old one?

I am sure what they call a whitethroat, blackthroat, etc. in africa is very different. Then again I dont speak their language so it wouldn't matter what they said to me.

Again notice my subject line says About the Hobby/People, it does not say about the scientists or about foriegn countries and what they call them.

Please stay on track, keep it about the subject line if you can.

Hi jody,
the pet shop names are just arbitrary names for the most part - what they call them today would change tomorrow if they can get
1$ more for them...today: black throats; tomorrow: white throats; next day: Ionides cape monitors...etc...

You can look at any regional V. albigularis you wish (as I have): Cape (V.a. albigularis) [RSA]; Transvaal types (V.a. albigularis)[RSA]; Port Lucie, V.a. albigularis [Mozambique]; Gaberone, V.a. albigularis [Botswana]; Port Harald, V.a. albigularis [Malawi]; Dar-es-salaam, V.a. albigularis/V.a. microstictus [Tanzania]; Windhoek, V.a. albigularis [Namibia]; Dondo, V.a. angolensis, [Angola]; Tsavo National Park, V.a. microstictus, [Kenya]; Lake Rudolf, V.a. microstictus, [Kenya];
Ethiopian, V.a. microstictus; Djibouti, V.a. microstictus/V. yemenesis; Mersa Matruh, V.a. albigularis, [Egypt] and their skull structures = ALL of them are Identical in every way in adults....what does this tell you? It tells me they are all the same species and ecological vicariances dictates phenotype morphology, but osteologically, they are monotypic = 1 species across the Continent (Bayless & Sprackland, 2000a-b. Reptiles Magazine, June-July).

So reptile keepers can use all the names they want, when 1 has looked at so many live/dead/dying/way deceased/museum specimens going back to 1860's (as Regenia occellata), and looked at skulls from all of the aforementioned localities and many others (Bayless, 2002, J. of Biogeography 29:1643-1701) one begins to see that what looking at an albigularis is just more than looking at skin type, color/pattern, teeth types (= 2), hemipenes/hemiclitorii, banding, spotting, shere bulk, tongue colors, you see a vast variety of types - and types virtually unknown that defy almost anyones imagination of types I have seen live that come from a 20 sq. km range 'somewhere' in Africa (I know where), the variety is tremendous, and for good reason: their primary predator is the Martial Eagle, which makes upto 50% of its dietary intake Varanus albigularis, and lesser so V. niloticus. These animals need to be well camouflaged against such another enormous predator (Martial's may reach 11 foot wingspan!), not to mention hyena, jackals, lions, leopards, man, rock pythons, and goshawks.... variety of design helps them, or some of them to be better fitted for their local environments than others, hence the populations survive. As Man has over 400 local names for all African Varanus across Africa, they have shared the Continent for a long time....and reports of 8-9 foot V. albigularis are reported, and I believe them to be true if it were not for poaching and bushmeat practices - we would see such animals; I have seen 6'11 V.a. iondesi and it is impressive.

Pet shops see phenotypes and call them different; Scientists can them a few other things: both see the same animals if they look hard enough, but one can deeper than the dirty dusty skin and jaws of these animals, and that is where the difference lies.... If V. albigularis were all different across Africa, then their skull morphologies would also be differentm just as their exterior morphologies are, right? - The skull structures are the same, hence the animals are really the same animal, just wearing different coats depending on where they live across Africa, and that can be answered by looking at my articles/papers (Bayless, 1997. J. African Ecology, 35:354-357; Bayless, 2000a-b; 2002).

Cheers Jody,
markb

Atleast your smart enough to change the subject line to fit what your talking about.

I myself still do not agree with them being clumped into one, no matter how many times you beat me over the head and force me to look at skulls. I see a difference in alot of things they do, how they act, how they look, grow, etc. in my eyes they will always be different. Just as different as prasinus to beccari.

I would never look or have a whitethroat and call it a blackthroat or vise versa. I would instead keep blackthroats as a sub species, a branch off the same tree but not the same branch. Thats the difference you seem to look at the tree and see many branches but yet go back to seeing the tree, and not each branch seperatly.

Now if you show me a whtiethroat of same size, color, shape, growth, etc. and another that only slightly differs such as the sienna whitethroat was it, now to me that is still very much a whitethroat.

Hi Jody,

Ecology seems to have abit of effect on V. albigularis across Africa, behaviors, seasons, climates, elevations, food availability, and alike all make this animal different in different parts of Africa, but their skulls are never-the-less the same in adults - so what is it that makes a species a species? The genetics (= skull morphology) or their environment? This has been a hotbed of discussion among humans since Freud and like began addressing this 70 or so years ago; and it still is - and they concluded both conditions make the animal, or human what they are....maybe this applies to zoologica too? I don't why it would not.

Cheers Jody,
markb

I hear ya, and it will be a question that goes on for awhile.

Until there is some stability it will never level out.

Hey you never commented on my niles below, I figured you might like them. New yellow species haha (Joking)

But I never would of picked the rescued female left in a box at my doorstep to grow into such a beautiful animal. The male was also a rescue given to a friend of mine who in turn passe him down to me. Funny niether were yellow until I got them. Both started gray/white/black. Must be all the yolk in the chicks they eat seeping through the skin haha. Or maybe since the female was yellow first the male just liked the color?

Please let me be nasty, ok i will, thank you.

You and I and many others, Know, percieve to know, recognize, that many of the different localities types are indeed different. We do know this thru practice. Don't we? We know this, because we experience these types in comparable conditions. You know, right next to eachother. We hatch them, raise them, breed them, therefore see the difference.

The problem with the people you are having this discussion with is, they do not have the ability to express the differences. They do not have the expertise or experience needed, to make those comparisions. So, you and I, are arguing with the wind. A wind that keeps changing directions.

We already said, ALBIGS are indeed albigs(the tree), but there are many kinds of albigs
(the branches). They do not seem to be able to recognize that the tree has branches. The reason is simple, they do not know how to recognize that.

Its really difficult and dangerous to read more into a paper, then whats written, and thats all he has, what is written, and its not written to meet this context. Those papers are reports, the rest is supposition of Marks part.

Your experience and my experience is our, hardcase, realtime, experience. Understanding the difference, means, we will never agree with them.

Mark has never checked those localities, he never sampled those localities for variation. He simply reads someone elses papers, and puts them together, as he sees fit. Which in my opinion is not very fit at all. One reason is, hes papers will never produce results, which in our world(at least, my world) means, its meaningless.

For your use Jody, We, you and I, do not use eachothers information as our own. You let me speak for myself(thank you) and I let you speak for yourself(thank me). Yet, they the academics, use all papers as their own work. Hmmmmmmmmmmm How weird is that???? Also, when one of us finds a good technique in husbandry, we incorperate to show results. If it does not show results, its thrown out. With them, they incorperate, without need for results. So it becomes very easy to see how they believe what they read, it never has to result in anything tangible. Its really not very different, but different enough. From their responces, you can clearly understand why there are differences. We have different needs then they do. Which is why I constantly ask, why do they come here to a place thats about the "KEEPING" and not the reading. Reading is fine, by the way, but it does boil down to the keeping, doesn't it? Thanks FR

"You and I and many others, Know, percieve to know, recognize, that many of the different localities types are indeed different. We do know this thru practice. Don't we? We know this, because we experience these types in comparable conditions. You know, right next to eachother. We hatch them, raise them, breed them, therefore see the difference."

--*disclaimer* I am not on anyone's 'side', just trying to sort out what is being said here. And, FR likes to debate..*

I am totally confused with this paragraph, Frank.
You say you know that the different localites of varanids are very different because of your direct experience KEEPING them, vs. Mark's experience just examininig them. Uh-huh. May I ask how many different localities you have kept, raised, bred?
Because as your post reads, you imply you have far more expertise than Mark on ALL the localities, simply because you have bred some of them.

The way I see it, is, you are limited as a keeper, to what you can find a pair of, then afford to buy, house and feed. While your experience as a keeper of pair of animals is surely superior to anything an academic can study, it only applies to those particular animals.
So it makes Frank an expert on a certain region of whitethroat. Great. But Mark gets to see and study many many regions of whitethroat. Could it be that Mark has a different perspective of the subject, without being an expert on any in particular? I think you feel studying paper isn't as great as keeping the living thing. Ok, great point...but you are forgetting that neither did you. So why knock his efforts to classify animals that you can't either? (Remember, you aren't a keeper of them all.) Since no one has the resources to keep and study them all, then the current system is all we have.

Though the slaughter of the first specimens is way beyond stupid. Its a living thing, it will be dead someday anyways. Money, again, is the major factor here...
D.

Thanks Dragoon - good clarifications and questions -

How have you been? Ive almost finished that 'chapter' and you might find it surprising....

Thanx D.,
markb

Well Goon, its for people like you that I fight this fight. I personally have no concern what Marks calls them or thinks they are.

I guess if I am to be real honest, and I know I can be honest with you. I would tell it like it is, instead of beating around this stinking bush.

I do not think Mark has done any studies what-so-ever, he simply gathers papers and then makes lots of assumptions on them. If he has done anything on his own, again he does not show it, or even show that he understands anything about populations.

If he has, then he should show them, the numbers man.

Lets talk about the papers. Most papers are simple species reports. To report, is to convey an observation. Like, we found a V.a.sp. took notes if any, made measurements and in a bottle it goes. End of that story. The authors of reports do the best they know how. But in most cases, these reports are simple and strait forward, they are not meant to draw any conclusions from. Just this was here.

Now take thirty of these reports from different localities. Now you have thirty reports, of animals that are being called V.a.sp. These papers again are not meant to draw conclusions from. They are a report of locality. They may include other data, some do, some do not. They may show habitat type.(remember this) The reason some do not is, most voucher reports are not taken by monitor guys or even reptile guys, they are normally taken by other biologists, even non-biologist. Which means they may leave a lot to be desired. Even, improper identification. But that is besides the point. I mention this to make you aware of possibilities.

So Mark gets these papers and makes conclusions from them, which was not their intent. Doing that is still fine. No problems yet.

Remember, we have all agreed they are V.abigularis. These papers do not tell how these animals are exsisting in this particular habitat. Or if this habitat is different then others containing V.abigularis. Nor do most of these papers give stomach contains or reproductive condition.

How all these papers relate to eachother is extrapolated(=to extent known data points) by mark. Which again is ok. Heres where he fails. His job is to then prove what he extrapolated to be true. This is the body of the work. This is the study, not the extrapolations. Has he shown any actual studies at all, done by him to prove his point. He has not shown that. He publishs extrapolations, kinda why they get published in Reptiles mag, and not a herp journal.

The type of study he thinks hes doing is very expensive and time consuming. You must take series of monitors from each local and test the locals between them. You must plot the differences and similarities, to exact local. Etc etc. This then is suppose to give a clear picture of what species is doing.

Next;

Now lets look at the animals, He freely admits they are different colors and patterns. But he takes no importance in that. While colors and patterns are fast changing chararteristics, they have reason to change. Something caused them to change. So what caused them to change? Do they change, for no reason or just because?

Well, color and pattern, tells you something is different in their habitats. This something caused them to change how they survive.

I could go on and on, about this and I normally do, but its so simple, what caused them to "change their coat" as Mark said, also causes other changes, such as behavior. Different prey, different shelter, different elevation, different plant assoiation, equals different animal. Yet we agree they are still albigs. Please understand, science is still unclear as to how long and how much seperation it takes for these populations to be different species.

We as keepers, recognize these behavioral differences and structural differences. Even if the skull is, more or less the same.

To us, these differences are important because, in part, we are not privy to their actual enviornment.

let me use an analogy, I work with montane rattlesnakes, montane means, lives in mountains(high elevation). These rattlesnakes were more widespread went times were wetter. But as the land dryed out(desertification) they could only exsist in the wettest parts of their former ranges, mountains hold water. As the years passed, these remnant populations adapted to elevation and move higher in the mountians.

To understand this, our mountians are seperated by habitat that is not hospitible to them. So what we have remaining is, islands of populations, that are seperated from eachother each slightly different then the other. As time goes by, each of these populations adapt to their particular range and its resources.

While these populations are still called, Crotalus willardi, some have adapted behaviorally to act very differently and feed on different prey and occupy different nitches. So much so, that they acted more like other species of rattlesnakes.

How this applies to albigs is strait forward, large areas of inhospitable habitat separates or had separated, these populations by the changing of the enviornment, in this case, again drying(desertification) leaving populations of closely related monitors, that have been seperated for X numbers of years. So now, these populations occupy, high elevations, low elevations, dense grown, sparse growth, different prey items, different soils, different season types(equatorial to non-equatorial), different temps. Now, with that in mind Goon, how on earth could they be the same.

In my poor little desert rat brain, his approach with this, is the same as his approach to breeding monitors, he talks about it, he knows about it, he give advice on how to do it, but has never done it to any extent. Again, he claims two clutches in 22 years. Thats proof of misunderstanding of varanids, not of understanding. His papers are the same, in terms of baseball, he does the windup, but fails to throw the pitch, then claims a strike. Thanks FR

That was a elegant 'honest' candid refreshing post aside from your usual posts - thanks.

We agree on a few things, and although you do not care "why" V. albigularis all have the same skull morphology, it is so.

These animals have adapted to their environments and niches across Africa for 2 million years or more, according the fossils. Of course there is diversity among this species, as their is among any single clutch of these animals diversity and variety of color, pattern, sizes of the head, etc...diversity among a population leads to successful existence. We agree on that.

Many of these 'reports' who speak of are merely sighting reports, but when you look at the exact habitat of that locality, 50 years ago, last year, the same year the report was taken, you get such information about them, furthermore, I have written and recieved numerous replies to 100's of these field reports for V. albigularis, and other species in Africa, and along with the locality data, I have "much" on temperature, climate, flora, fauna, soil, etc....so you see, again you mouth off where you do not have all the facts....your next question is why don't I publish them? In time. FYI not all of my articles are in Reptiles, Reptile & Amphibian, Vivarium, etc...but in places like Chicago Herp. Bull. (to help support them), Journal of African Ecology, Journal of Biogeography, Herpetological Bulletin, Micronesica, and a few others; I do not submit articles in some of the herpetological journals as they cost quite abit of money to publish there, and why do that when I can/do publish elsewhere for lesser costs - but costs never the same.

Old information is merely that - when it is applied and re-evaluated, sometimes 'new' things come of it - when you put 3,100 locality reports side by side, you get 3,100 locality reports; put them together and patterns appear, accurate, concise patterns appear, which nobody, not even the Great Robert Mertens had done, and that is new data from old; there are so many 'secrets' locked up in this old data, and somebody has use a key and unlock them - I do what I can, and others do too. We who look at this kind of material, compare and contrast the information with others, like Daniel Bennett, Richard Luxmore, (late) Walter Auffenberg, (late) Dennis King, Claudio Ciofi, and numerous others, and they give their comments, suggestions, and then you publish it, and it starts all over again....sure, some of the articles have been scrutinized, with modifications made to their informations - but that is how 'Science' learns, and that is what it is all about frank = learning of the unknown, sharing information and making mounds out of mole hills where before it was flat as a pancake...if you choose to contribute, fine; otherwise just sit by the side-line and complain and ridicule all you like - and you seem to like that alot!

And as for publishing anything, you have very little to speak of; you do not care for my writings, so don't read them, read them, I do not care frank...you are only 1 person in a population of 6 billion....although you are a bloated loud mouth, your words do not amount to even a whisper in the World out there...only here on this and other forum, which is all but forgotten in a week or so, as the repeated duplicate posts suggest....I recieve emails/letter of my materials written years after I have written them, and they are there for all to see for as long as the written language is maintained....can you say that?
cheers,
mbayless

When I see a cape banded WT I know its a cape banded WT, when I see an Ionides BT I know its a blackthroat, when I see a Sienna Leguaan I know its a sienna colored WT, when I see a Tanzanian WT I can tell generally it is one, but there are some many local versions or subspecies that I cannot identify, that by looking at them I couldnt tell you what they are, examples are Microstictus, Angolensis etc. If I have a V.A.Microstictus sitting in front of me how do I know, and how do I tell it from an Ionidesi? If an Angolensis smacked me with its tail how do I know its an Angolensis? What are the differences between them? Whats important to hobbyists with taxonomy is knowing what they have, what its called, what species it is, what subspecies etc. I mean its nice to know as an example when I originally bought Sobek I was told she is a CBB Ionides monitor, after the purchase I questioned the origin and found she is a BT/WT cross from Rob Faust or more accurately a BT/WT/WT cross, this was fine to me as I kept in contact with Rob and got Shadow from him whos a first generation BT/WT cross.
I wonder as I have had more than a few BTs over the years and have seen, handled, and cared for a few or more WTs, I can see so many differences between them and wonder even between BTs there are many differences. So if I look at 2 BTs (a Microstictus, and an Ionidesi) how do I know which is which? If I pick them up and look closely how do I know which is which? I cant seem to find a description of differences or a list of identifying features of each, what are they? Its nice to know where they come from, its also nice to know what it is to better understand the animal and its origins. Yes they are all Varanus Albigularis, but I want to know how to tell the subspecies apart, no one seems to have ever covered that, at least that I can find.

Hi Shvar,
This is a beautiful example of where keepers and scientists share what they know; Sobeks is a beautiful example of not only where, but how two subspecies 'naturally' coexist. It shows that 'subspecies' are very closely related, and then the degree of variety sets the questions to come - Yes, descriptions of V.a. microstictus are written down, but not readily available in your local reptiles magazine.

V.a. microstictus: described by Dr. John Anderson, M.D. in 1898; although formally described in 1893, and first mentioned in 1843.

V.a. angolensis. Formally described by Karl P. Schmidt in 1934. It is basically a melanistic albigularis.

V.a. iondiesi: Formally described by Dr. Raymond Laurent in 1964. Breviora 199:1-8 PL.

V.a. albigularis: Black Throat. Formally described by Francois Daudin in 1802.

V.a. albogularis. white throat. Formally described by Frnacois Daudin in 1803.

V. ocellatus. Ocellated monitor. Sometimes related to V. albigularis, other times with V. exanthematicus. Known to Sudan, Ethiopia, and N. Kenya, but reported South into central Tanzania. Formally described by Heyden in 1827.

I am working on a paper on just the very thing you want to see; who is whom and why...and it is damn complicated when you look at ALL the old/new materials....but that is half the fun!
cheers,
markb

Well for start taxonomy makes it hard almost impossible to import many species! Why? Because this greedy mad rush to fame (nomenclature) needs to be accepted by country of origin before cites documents are issued, in many cases it will be rejected over and over again, until then many species will be unavailable to hobbyist. Seems like there is a thread amongst the scientific commune to name new species in the most unethical way, Iv herd about some importing large numbers of macraie and bohemeii just before officially naming them, fully aware that importation will be next to impossible afterwards, this leaves little chance for hobbyist to work with them. I know of many new species awaiting this treatment.

Yes, you are right. Every animal should be made available to any hobbyist that wants them. IT'S YOUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO OWN THEM! Imagine having to wait until they are officially described. Silly idiots! What if, after they name them, they discover that this newly described species is actually quite rare in the wild? Then you'll NEVER be able to own them! Where's the fairness in that?! You should write to your government now and have all of this sillyness dealt with right away. Animals are for people to own. It says so even in the bible, that they're put here on earth for us to have dominion over them. How can those government fools argue with that? Don't you just get so mad!

Despite the sarcasm, Dave has an excellent point. The fate of the majority of monitors is a quick death (yes even the expensive ones), and as we have learnt on this forum, even the "experienced" keepers get it wrong when keeping highly prized species. Once removed from the wild the fate of the monitor counts for nada, i know, but it is unlikely it will be bred to quell the demand for WC..so why should these species be kept? But then you knew all that.

Also, whats wrong with an ackie?

Dean
Reptiles of WA

Sorry but it was just a sarcastic piece of garbage, sprouted out by someone without the slightest knowledge about what’s going on regarding indos animal trade. I have in my collection many undescribed species that I do not talk nor show photos of, mainly because of taxonomist nonsense, iv contributed financially to many expeditions aimed at discovering new species only to realise that taxonomist are awaiting like hungry sharks, some of these indo dealers are far more knowledgeable about varanids then any top varanophil I know, they are smart peoples who will hopefully not fall in the taxonomist trap again.

As for ackies why ask? Did I ever say something about them?
I remember not agreeing with them being smuggled in Canada and then legally exported, its quit frustrating seeing this when I pay extra for legit imports breeders. But this is how my government works!

First, understand, I am not totally agreeing with Jobi, or at least the way he said it. but I do have some thoughts.

Do you know what happens to the first individuals, of course you do, Dean, we have talked about it. They are preserved. Well, now we are talking about arrogance, as someone made the decision that its better to stick them in a bottle, then place them in a breeders hands to learn more about them. There are many breeders of monitors,in this world, including in the countries of origin. Heck, whats wrong with placing a dozen in private hands to begin the breeding process. Your know, 2.2 placed in several facilities? I mean really, who cares if some go to the private world and some back to the universities, along with all the information. Wouldn't that be more useful for everyone, then being placed in a bottle, that only a very very few have access to? Remember, they are always be placed in the bottle after a period in captivity.

There are lots of approaches that could or should be taken, and on both sides. So Dean, is it better to preserve them? and publish to the whole world, where they are found and what they are doing? Consider, bulldozers and chainsaws and cows/sheep(hehehehehehe), do not care about names or appendix class. Just wait until your favorite Pilbarensis spot, gets bulldozed by a giant mining company, oh hey, that will indeed happen or one day, you will go there and there will be a Coles/K-mart there. Cheers FR

Yes, I think it is highly appropriate to officially distribute new monitors to only a few select breeders, who can roll them over at $10,000 a pop and pocket that dough, while making sure that evil scientists don't get any information about them. Why not? Well, those scientists would go and learn about them, and publish their information, which everybody could read for free! Heck, they don't make any money at all. Hahahahahaha, boy are they stupid.

And because the animal traffickers will keep their secrets, and the local people get paid 30 cents for every one of those monitors they can catch, that will surely prevent that island from being clearcut or stripmined. That's a lot of money going to those happy little folks hahahaha. We sure don't want any World Wildlife Fund or UN or anything pestering these countries to declare reserves in biodiversity hotspots. It's the dang annoying scientists again, making it hard for us to turn a profit. After all, once the place has all been logged, you can charge even more for those babies!

Sins 97 several new species where named without any consideration for morphology and ecology, that resulted in a total ban on export for these species. I think it’s a deliberate action from taxonomist, if you name a new specie Varanus sweetie from Sorong and the Indonesian authorities don’t accept this name, they will not allow exportation. No population surveys have been made for most of the species described sins 97 and often the peoples that names them have never even been on location, so this protection thing doesn’t apply.
Also in some cases they banned export based on a simple article in reptiles magazine, they believed the specie threatened because the article said so, yet no survey whatsoever was performed. Its not really that important to me that many specie aren’t exported, however when names like kaliback and karlshmiti are still used on CITES documents, makes me wonder why you cant agree with country of origin before naming a new specie or renaming one.

I have always wondered who makes the decision on what is endangered and what isn't.
Is it the politicians?
Is it the scientist?
How do they know?
I understand the loss of habitat and how it effects the population, but who goes and counts the population?
Reptiles are smarter than a lot of people give them credit for and if they don't want to be found, then someone's going to have a hard time finding them to count.
I live in Alabama and we have lots and lots of snakes. We know where there live, but finding one can take some serious work.

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

Wildlife surveys are rarely a simple head count, except for large mammals. There are a number of ways of counting/sampling an animal population that take their proclivity to hide into account.

Oh yes then name one! Or name one person, organism or any official material that indicate any kind of survey on wild population of any PNG monitors.

Theirs is none! Taxonomist get most of there species from 2end or 3erd suppliers.

"Or name one person, organism or any official material that indicate any kind of survey on wild population of any PNG monitors."

You've just proved my point. You would like animals shipped to your turkey farm in Canada while their status in the wild is still unknown, unstudied and unsurveyed.

You keep going back to the pet industry 'taxonomists' and keep skirting around the point of the 'sarcastic garbage' I posted up there. Give me one good reason a relatively unknown, undescribed animal should be sent to live with you in Canada before its wild status has been studied in any way.

People/breeders keeping them for there own personal agendas is evil.

While a scientist/taxonomist taking them and placing them in a jar is not evil?

Or do you just have a problem with people spending money to purchase a pet, while scientists get them for free?

hmmm seeing you yourself keep monitors under the first part you would be evil then too? or wait are you only half evil since you are a scientist? Or is it only ok when you keep them and not anyone else does?

As for someone spending money on them what does it mater if they do, it is there money to spend. Whens the last time you saw someone in the reptile industry owning a jet, island, or being filthy rich off it? I can't think of any off hand.

I don't think I said any of those things, Jody. I find it funny (and revealing) that people reckon it's a right to import monitors, and that neither the originating nor the receiving countries have any business regulating it. It's also funny that some folks appear to feel that the "taxonomists" (whoever they are) are in cahoots with the native countries in some conspiracy to thwart the pet trade, when those same countries are exporting containerloads of monitor skins for the luxury leather trade. I suppose you could imagine an "evil taxonomist", but it would be a pretty funny-looking and ineffectual creature, something Gary Larson might draw a cartoon about.

You will find a range of views among scientists about the pet trade. Speaking only for myself, I regard it as fairly low on the list of evils that affect monitors in the wild. For almost all species, this trade is insignificant when compared to the rate and extent of habitat loss from logging, burning, population growth and other factors, and for some it is also insignificant when compared to the skin trade. What I am against is unsustainable uses, of any kind, simply because I would like to see monitors stick around in nature. The high-volume trade in WC or CH juveniles (as occurs for savs, Niles and some water monitors) can become unsustainable, though I am not aware of any strong evidence that this has occurred -- since these are low-value items at the originating end, collecting for export will tend to fall off if the animals become too uncommon in any particular place. At the other end of the spectrum, high-value species from restricted habitats (such as small islands) could suffer from unregulated trade, here because they may be worth enough at their point of origin for local collecting to persist, even though the animals become quite rare.

I believe that this was the concern expressed about V. melinus early on, and about V. boehmei and V. macraei at present, for example. When there is no solid information about population densities and harvesting effects, it is reasonable that the countries of origin should take a conservative approach to the export trade -- hard to see how that would be controversial except to someone who really didn't give a rat's patootie about anything but getting some for himself. No doubt there are those people, but there is no particular reason to take their self-centered opinions seriously.

Contrary to what some folks here seem to think, scientists (whether they be 'evil taxonomists' or whatever) don't go and fill buckets with hundreds of dead monitors. That's a slightly different topic (why put any in a jar at all?), which I'll address in a separate post.

I don't keep large numbers of monitors, and I have bought some of those -- maybe half of all the monitors I've ever had were "free" (no monitor is free!) in the sense that someone else already had it and gave it to me. That's not different from any other keeper, I suppose, and some of the animals I've bought haven't been cheap. I am not sure where you get the ideas you are putting in your post, in fact.

I am opposed to unsustainable exploitation of wild populations, whether it be monitors or anchovies. That's all. I also agree with DK above that it is pretty funny (and not defensible) when someone feels that they have an intrinsic right to put their personal gain ahead of a concern about unsustainable uses. And of course government regulations are often stupid -- isn't that more widespread than CITES and so forth?

Ok I stopped reading that mid way. It became a bunch of talk after awhile.

What I was getting at is how I read what you said earlier. I read it as a contridiciton. You know one of the well it is ok for me to take them and keep them but not for you type of deals.

I feel it is one way or the other and you do not get to have both. If you want to preach about saving them and so and so not having them then you should in turn not have them.

Since you mentioned it yes I felt the same way about DK's post, as he keeps and breeds lacies. But seemed appauled at Steeves post about importing monitors for personal use.

But maybe I am the only one that sees it as one or the other and you really can have them and complain about others doing the samething? Maybe I should go convince the humane society to start breeding the dogs and cats too.

"Since you mentioned it yes I felt the same way about DK's post, as he keeps and breeds lacies. But seemed appauled at Steeves post about importing monitors for personal use."

First of all, there is a huge difference between conservation and animal liberation. I am a conservationist, not an animal liberationist. Animal liberationists are against animals being kept in captivity. Conservationists are for the protection of wild populations.

How does this apply to monitors? Clearly I am not against keeping monitors in captivity - as you pointed out I keep lace monitors at home. It just so happens that I keep captive bred animals from a widespread, protected species which is safe from exploitation and whose wild numbers are healthy. I also further encourage the keeping of captive bred animals by breeding them myself and selling the offspring to other keepers.

SteeveB wants wildcaught monitors of new, undescribed species, whose status in the wild is still unknown. Many of these species come from islands and their populations could potentially become depleted once the pet trade discovers them and they become popular.

Have I made myself clearer? Please let me know if I haven't.

All that aside, I do have a bit of the animal liberationist in me in that I hate seeing wildcaught adult monitors being brought into captivity. That's something personal that I don't expect anyone on this forum to agree with (so there's no point starting an argument about this), but it's also something that has come from seeing many adult monitors roaming free in the wild and knowing how much they would hate to be put in a box.

But I also disagree.

Dave, what if it was a really cool monitor? You know like a dwarf perentie, lol.

Seriously, you are correct in many ways. It is a shame to take a living animal from what it knows into what it doesn't know.

However, if it never happened none of us would be here.

andrew

SteeveB wants wildcaught monitors of new, undescribed species, whose status in the wild is still unknown. Many of these species come from islands and their populations could potentially become depleted once the pet trade discovers them and they become popular.

Yes I want a few of the new species, but not at all cost!
Aim against the fact that some (no names) import 50 heads then name them prior to any study, knowing this will bring a ban, this is no speculation it’s a tactic that was explained to me by concerned peoples.

I got the jist of what you were talking about and leaned that way with it. Thats why I chose not to reply to your post.

I used you as an example and guess it didn't fit as well as i first thought.

I understand the difference and am glad you do as well. Seems so many others do not and they take the one way trip down contridiction avenue.

np

I'm glad that you can comment on a post you didn't read, and I guess that has a lot to do with seeing things as black or white, never complicated, nothing ever 'depends', and it's never a gray area for you. I'm amazed anybody would admit to that, actually, and best of luck to ya!

I believe that this was the concern expressed about V. melinus early on, and about V. boehmei and V. macraei at present, for example. When there is no solid information about population densities and harvesting effects, it is reasonable that the countries of origin should take a conservative approach to the export trade -- hard to see how that would be controversial except to someone who really didn't give a rat's patootie about anything but getting some for himself. No doubt there are those people, but there is no particular reason to take their self-centered opinions seriously.

Sam I agree with the conservative approach, however I find the rest of your comment arrogant and mean, not to mention totally offensive, now you probably don’t give a rat’s patootie as its me your talking about, aim the one who mentioned these species in this thread. I understand that you may not know what I know about the trade, however if you don’t know why comment? And why wine on how evil taxonomist are, I never said they are evil, I never said they are bad or useless, man shake it off! You sound like a martyr

This thread has been moved from the Monitors forum.
-----
_____

PHWyvern