First, let me say this is proving to be one of the hardest topics to follow. What started as a observation about how scientific names can further confuse an already confusing topic for hobbyists quickly deteriorated into a pissing contest.



Truthfully, I can't even see a question in the original thread. But in reading that and the reply posts, the issue does seem to concern the manner in which science classifies animals vs. the direct observations of people with intimate contact with these animals, and which perspective nets more accurate results and "grouping."



Unfortunatly, I don't think there is a simple answer to this. The two schools of thought here ought to be helping each other more than they seem willing too. Researchers use methods and strategies, many times used for generations, because that is a fundamental of science. Without structure, all the field work, testing, research and data collection in the world would be chaotic mess with no manner of organization that can benefit anyone. How this applies to toxonomy is the continued need for a system and basic rules,regardless of its flaws, or for someone smarter to come up with a new system, better than the old, to replace it. Now, I agree with Frank on one point in that a scientist probably possesses a more generalized study of Varanids in most cases. This will absolutely cause problems when organizing the animals because they lack the exposure to the unique traits varanids can posses, many of which are only observed over long time frames. But this does not dispell the benefit of having a researcher who is willing and able to assimilate volumes of data and use an enormous perspective in the thought process behind their decisions. Imagine a librarian who has spent the better part of a year reading every manner of article, case study, survey, test, or oppinion PARTNERING with a reptutable breeder who's off his rocker about reptiles, and which houses manny of the species in question (this excludes newly discovered animals obviously, in which case best the current system is used) that can provide first hand experience with varanid "psychology" and behavior, or even better, share the experience with the researcher. You want the most accurate manner of classifying animals? Take the two experts, and lock them in a room with all the cold-blooded friends. When one considers the difficulty in drawing the lines between species and sub-species, species traits versus regional variances, and when to rename and when to maintain tradition, you would have to have BOTH an extensive reaserch based backgroung AND first hand study of the animals in question to even hope for an accurate classification. Anything other than these experts, each qualified and talented in their own fields, working together will result in a lackluster, marginally accurate result at best.



But hey, the only the only thing I'm an expert in is being a wise-ass. Its easy for me to say all this.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]