Ambanja??

Just out of curiosity, how can anyone say it is 100% ANY locality without any collection data or knowledge of it's lineage?

While I agree that it looks to have some Sambava-type qualities, you don't usually see the red pattern along the spine that this one has in Sambavas. Ambanja? No. But this animal does look somewhat similar to one of my old holdbacks that was wc Ambanja x wc supposed to be Ambanja female.

It would be pretty much impossible to have positive locality data, and even some importers get them them mis-labelled... To open a shipment labelled Nosy Be (for example) and see what appears to be anything but, you have to question the exporter. To call them what they're labelled when they're clearly not would be careless. Green tree python owners/breeders have the same problem (and there's lots of commotion between them because of it), but they breed less true than panther chameleons in my opinion, and resemble the other locales more (different locales of chondros have very minor differences, but panther chameleons are more defineable between locales).

There's a few staples that are true 95% of the time with Sambavas, perhaps more than any other locale. Without getting into them, nearly all crosses would have some amount of blue in them, whether they were partially Ambanja, Nosy, Ambilobe etc, it's just a dominant color. There's exceptions to any rule, but the red on yellow with the perfect "U" shaped bar and zero blue makes it pretty clearly a Sambava. Details vary between individuals (red along the spine etc).
 
Joeraffa

I think you are getting heated over a simple question.
The post was a simple question Ambanja or Sambava. The experts are only giving there answers too the question. You are now starting to bring in your wifes DNA and all that other stuff that has nothing to do with chameleons.
 
Yes, I did feel that the lack of blue, and the strong presence of the other colors, gives a strong indication toward Sambava.

It's ironic that chameleons have been so selectively bred that the "heirloom" specimens perhaps do not resemble the "aboriginal" specimens as much as we would like to think. Before you know it we will have to start labeling the imported wildcaught specimens as "archaic" bloodlines. (Just yanking some chains, with that last sentence, ya'll. ;))
 
Last edited:
It would be pretty much impossible to have positive locality data, and even some importers get them them mis-labelled... To open a shipment labelled Nosy Be (for example) and see what appears to be anything but, you have to question the exporter. To call them what they're labelled when they're clearly not would be careless. Green tree python owners/breeders have the same problem (and there's lots of commotion between them because of it), but they breed less true than panther chameleons in my opinion, and resemble the other locales more (different locales of chondros have very minor differences, but panther chameleons are more defineable between locales).

Thanks for filling in the holes. I've been saying this for a while and am tired of typing it all every time it applies. As to the characteristics of what makes a Sambava-type, this animal has some things that make me wonder if it's "pure." Besides that, there is high variation in and around Sambava. I just saw with my very own eyes, video of animals on the beach at Sambava that look nothing like this one. Nothing. Regardless, he's a pretty animal. Unless you or someone you know collected it or it's ancestry, adding the suffix -type to whatever it ends up being called is probably appropriate.


Joe, I made the same mistake about the word hybrid. Check websters.com or dictionary.com, it does now apply to mixing localities, breeds, etc.
 
Kent what videos at the beach are you watching ?
HUH?????
I think the majority of expert breeders have said its a Sambava.
I think they know what they are talking about. They only work with these animals on a daily basis. Lets just end this and say he is a SAMBAVA !!!!!!!!
 
Haha, for the record I've only been working with panther chameleons consistently for 17 years and have a collection of books, magazines, scientific journal articles, assorted pictures, and a few videos from madagascar (pretty much everything I could find) that would blow your mind. The video I'm referring to was taken by Abate, Kalisch, and Risley and is not part of the CIN dvd you may or may not even own.

All panther chameleons from Sambava do not look like this one.
 
It was very relevant.

Sorry, but the "purists" rile me up with their snootiness.

Basically, there's 2 options. You can label them according to this accepted set of "staples" for each given locale (as we've done since locales were first identified), or you could say screw it, they're all panther chameleons and just cross them all, obviously not a smart idea.

Which of the following do you suggest we do:

1: Don't track them at all, don't worry about preserving locales. They're all panthers - breed them.

2: We gas every chameleon in the country and start over by going to Madagascar ourselves with a GPS, and micro-chipping the captured animals as well as the kids to avoid confusion.

Your position leaves no other option. Without any concrete locality info, there's nothing else you can do. Think about it a little bit and don't be so agressive without having a point.
 
Tyler, I posted another mystery cham today that someone stated resembled a cross you used to own. Could you take a look at it and let me know what you think? He's under "another mystery panther". Ohhh, never mind, I'll just have the current owner ask the little guy :).

I see you did answer the other post- that was quick- thank you Tyler.
 
Last edited:
I guess my stance is that I believe an expert can tell when an animal is crossed, but they can't tell if one is "pure". I hope you guys understand why.

Thanks,
 
Also, i thought there was often a lot of variation within each locale....
Doesn't that make things that much more difficult?
 
Basically, there's 2 options. You can label them according to this accepted set of "staples" for each given locale (as we've done since locales were first identified), or you could say screw it, they're all panther chameleons and just cross them all, obviously not a smart idea.

Which of the following do you suggest we do:

1: Don't track them at all, don't worry about preserving locales. They're all panthers - breed them.

2: We gas every chameleon in the country and start over by going to Madagascar ourselves with a GPS, and micro-chipping the captured animals as well as the kids to avoid confusion.

Your position leaves no other option. Without any concrete locality info, there's nothing else you can do. Think about it a little bit and don't be so agressive without having a point.

Thank you Mr. Stewart and I'm sorry for the agressiveness. That comes not from you guys, but from years of arguing this very same thing with Phelsuma and Morelia enthusiasts...

To answer your question, I suggest that you try to keep them pure if you like, but unless YOU collect an animal from the wild yourself, you make it clear that a person can only speculate about its lineage. Other wise you either don't understand how an animal might appear pure, but still be a mix, or you are being purposely misleading. "Your position leaves no other option..."

Thanks, and sorry again for the tone earlier. This topic just really frustrates me for some reason...
 
Back
Top Bottom