Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I look at the direction these topics take, and it becomes clear, the problem is not about the subject matter, its more about problem solving.

For instance, the taxo discussion, is based on point, counterpoint. That is, both sides express concerns, or facts or theory.

The point is, that is not how one solves a problem. Thats how a problem is created. In that particular discussion, the problem of population types, is a concern. Period. all the counter points or examples in the world, will not mute or eliminate the problem. It exsists to those who think it exsists. The proper method to solve this is to address the concern. I imagine all that science or those representing science can say is, its not our concern or problem and leave the hobbyist to their own devices, Or, investigate and solve it. The only way to solve it is to name them. Science surely does not have too.

This same problem is a major concern with all monitor husbandry. This day and age, there are many choices to choose from. The keepers job is to choose, and make the right decision for them. Its really that simple.

People discuss what method I do at goanna ranch, saying this and that. As you know, I think those folks are "dumb as a stone" if they are commenting on things they have not seen. They have no idea or ability to comprehend, what we do.

What I do is simple, I offer choices, wide range of temps(often too wide) wide range of materials(I perfer natural) wide range of nesting options. And lastly, working animals in a social direction. The details of lites and and such, have proved to be of little meaning to me.

The task of husbandry with "my method", is making decisions, recognizing problems, addressing them, and hopefully making the right decisions. The answers to these decisions is directly related to the quality of the results.

How this applies to these discussions is again simple. In order to solve a problem, you have to recognize(difinition= to see something and realize with it is) the problem in the first place. Again, my method is, to recognize problems and address them as they occur.

Again how it applies here, if you do not recognize something as a problem, then there is no way for you to solve it.

If you ask me why some are good at keeping and breeding monitors, I would have to answer, some are better at solving problems then others. If you ask me, why some people have done well in very little time, I would again have to respond, they made better decisions. If you ask me, why some have done so little, I would again point to, decision making as the problem.

Lastly, if you pick your choices based on personalities, then I would say, thats a very poor decision and not good problem solving technique. Thanks and I truly hope this helps, as its all about the decisions you as a keeper make. FR

Ok, feet first from a neophyte hobbyist. I don't know the scientific names for monitors, it is a foreign language to me (latin to be specific). I recognize alot of the names from seeing pictures along side and from descriptions on various websites and books. If I don't know what the heck someone is talking about, I'll either look for more info or ignore it and take what else I can from the post (usually the later). Eventually the names become more familiar to me, but I still could not spit out the scientific name for my three ackies (but I know the name when I read it).

There needs to be a common name and WIDELY accepted name for monitors. The expansion of the hobby pretty much depends on it (and demands it). The problem is the widely accepted part of the name, as well as determining what is too specific and what is too general.

Dogs have been kept in captivity for many thousands of years, so they have a bit of a head start here, but will make a good example. When you say "German Shepard", people know what you are talking about. There are a variety of German Shepards out there, but you can still pretty much picture one in your mind. There are new "species" of dogs still being recognized which are nothing more than in crossbred species after so many generations or an existing species that has been alterred through generations of specific breeding (minitures for example). Do these new species have scientific names of their own? Who cares but the dog scientists.

Another good example of common names are daschunds (sp?). You can picture what one looks like most likely even with my horrid spelling. There are long-haired, short-haired, mini, standard, wire-haired and a variety of other flavors of daschunds. Something tells me that they all have the same scientific name, but almost every dog person knows the difference when you use each of the common names and can likely tell you which is which and what the traits are.

My gut feeling tells me that alot of these common and widely accepted dog names came from the breeders and organizations supporting the dog populations (the dog shows, like Westminster).

I guess the point of this rather long post is this... The tool is right here to get a common naming convention started. There is a base to work with already so no one has to pull anything out of the air. It does not have to be as complicated as it has become. Yea it would be nice to know the region a monitor came from, but it is more important to know exactly what people are talking about when someone says "Red Ackie".

Just my $1.45 worth
-----
-Andrew

The jack russel terrier is a good example, which if you watch a dog show now you'll note it is called parsons russel terrier.

They too change names just not as often.

Maybe an American reptile Club needs to be started, with stud books, descriptions, pedigrees, etc.. Then we can have reptile shows on TV and walk them on leashes LOL ( I am kidding of course ) Hope i didn't give anyone an idea now.

I am jack's former russel terrier (sorry, Fight Club is on TV right now).

Just think , there can be reptile contests like they have with dogs... The mouse gulping contest, burrow digging competition and the cricket chasing exhibitions. Endless possibilities.
-----
-Andrew

I think your topic could have started some very good discussion with both parties, however I don’t think good discussions are on the menu of a few. Its clear that science messed up big time with varanids taxonomy. Now who will clean up the mess? I bet 50 years from now some new kid on the block (scientist) will wonder how all this happened. Glad I haven’t contributed to this nonsense.

Someone always tries to take it back to breeding montiors in captivity.

Well, SPECIFIC to taxonomy, captive breeding and husbandry has little or nothing to do with how monitors are named and classed at a scientific level. So, IMO, SPECIFIC to taxonomy, captive breeding is not an argument that has any relevance or significance to the debate at hand. That is cetainly not to say successful breeders could not provide an incredible opportunity to put to the test what scientists think they know about monitors. To the contrary, I believe they can and should.

But I must argue that the purpose of scientific classification of animals is not to make it easier for people to breed monitors, or anything else for that matter. To think or say so is to display a profound amount of arrogance in itself. The goal of scientific classification is to organize animals in a manner that demonstrates biological, geographical and physiological relationships. This can provide deeper understanding and key insights into so many far reaching areas such as basic biology and physiology, disease and treatment, extintion patterns and risk, impact of enviromental stress of species groups and how life cycles can provide insight to the bigger impact of the introduction of foreign pollutants and pathogens (indicator species); the list goes on.

Now, certainly if things were easier to follow and understand the impact on the captive monitor community would be huge. And it is not lost on me that with clearer, cleaner organization and an adherance to common rules and practices that are easy to understand, we would not have to figure out for ourselves what a particular seller means by somewhat general terms like "ball python" or "white throat monitor." If things were clearer, we could simply ask "what species." But I think it is very important for all of us to recognize that we attempting to apply a broad system to a specific purpose that doesn't exactly fit all too well.

So, my long winded point, I guess is if I am in need of some insight into what I am doing wrong, or simply might need to try differently for my captive savannah, forums like this and the pictures/posts that I see are just what I am looking for. But if I am curious to know biologically what the closest relative to a particular species is to possibly understand what crosses might occur NATURALLY in the wild, these forums are useless. If I want to know what symptomology and treatment of a certain malady might be, possibly because I keep a very rare species, knowing the toxonomy of that species may direct me to a similar and more commonly kept species for insight and information. I guess the best analogy I can draw is this; telling the scientific community to redo how they handle taxonomy because the general public has a hard time applying scientific names to the pet trade is like telling a surgeon to operate with a broadsword.

One you named "white throated monitor" (varanus=monitor, albi=white, gularis=throat), the problem being with taxonomy to the reptile trade is not so difficult really but in the case I mentioned V.A.Microstictus how id it identified differently from a V.A.Ionidesi, they are all white throats thats simple, but what makes one subspecies different from the other, what identifies one from the other, that was the question I asked, Ive tried reading monitor books over the years (many many of them), none tell the differences that Ive ever noticed, worse yet the pictures of both are interchangeable or are misidentified. I see pics from the foremost experts on monitors showing what looks like a black and white cape banded WT that is called a microstictus, I see pictures of an all black BT that is called a microstictus, I see pics of a V. Exanthematicus that was called a microstictus, now these pics come from a range of people in captive breeding, biology and research of wild monitors, taxonomic studies, etc. So who is right and who is wrong? Obviously the pics of a bosc monitor was completely misidentified, but which is a microstictus, what does it look like, what separates it from any other albig?
That is an example I asked, how to tell them apart, still after asking at least 7 times in a few years Ive never gotten an answer. If someone were to ask whats the differences between a red or yellow ackie I can tell them in detail, but even after many years of keeping WTs, I still dont know how to tell an Ionides, from a Microstictus, an Albigularis from a Microstictus, or an Angolensis from a Microsticus. Maybe the answer is in a book and I dont remember reading it. I can look at many animals I understand less and tell them apart.

I can't tell you how to tell the different (currently recognised) subspecies of V albigularis apart, but I can tell you where to look. Books aren't the answer.

When a new species gets described, the scientist(s) involved must publish the information in a scientific journal. Included in that information is a description of what makes that subspecies or species differ from closely related species/subspecies in the same complex. Don't expect fabulous photographs, but there will be scale counts or whatever feature(s) they've used to distinguish it.

Finding the specific journal which has the description you are after will involve a search through a local university library. You'll have to get the librarian to show you how to search the abstracts for the particular article, or get markb to point you in the right direction by supplying the title and year of the publications.

Varanid taxonomy doesn't exist to "serve the needs of keepers", any more than those of us who study monitor ecology or behavior do so with an eye on utility to the pet trade. Nonetheless, there are crossover benefits, and they can go both ways. It is interesting that in Europe many of the most accomplished monitor breeders publish their observations themselves, or, very often will be found joining forces with the 'science crowd' to publish papers that benefit from such collaboration.

We don't see much of this in the U.S. -- instead, biologists who have some interest in crossover benefits cop a load of rubbish from the ignoranus types. It's pretty funny, actually, to see Wolfgang Boehme slandered by a guy who couldn't wash Boehme's socks with his tongue.

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

PHWyvern