Long but interesting article....
http://www.chamaeleo-africanus.eu/en_index.html
http://www.chamaeleo-africanus.eu/en_index.html
Ch. africanus...project.
- Thread starter kinyonga
- Start date
Fearaffect
Avid Member
God, amazes me just how disgusting our species can be to our planet.....
The mighty $$ rules again.....sickening......
That one cham with the yellow and blue...WOW!!!
The mighty $$ rules again.....sickening......
That one cham with the yellow and blue...WOW!!!
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
While this project has a touching story, the population of Chamaelo africanus in Greece is introduced from the Nile Delta and they do not belong in Greece in the first place.
Chris
Chris
brooklynelizabeth
New Member
very interesting article
They may have been introduced but...
http://www.mvences.de/p/p1/Vences_A17.pdf
"The Peleponnesos specimans seem to differ from the Subsaharian C. africanus by a markedly larger body size and different color pattern."...."The observed sequence differences of the Greek specimen to the subsaharian C. africanus may indicate differentiation at the subspecific level."
BTW..the same has been suggested for Ch. chamaeleons...
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/amre/2008/00000029/00000004/art00009
"The occurrence of an eastern Mediterranean haplotype in Tunisia and of distinct haplotypes in Morocco could argue for a phylogeographic break in northwestern Africa. "
http://www.mvences.de/p/p1/Vences_A17.pdf
"The Peleponnesos specimans seem to differ from the Subsaharian C. africanus by a markedly larger body size and different color pattern."...."The observed sequence differences of the Greek specimen to the subsaharian C. africanus may indicate differentiation at the subspecific level."
BTW..the same has been suggested for Ch. chamaeleons...
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/amre/2008/00000029/00000004/art00009
"The occurrence of an eastern Mediterranean haplotype in Tunisia and of distinct haplotypes in Morocco could argue for a phylogeographic break in northwestern Africa. "
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Lynda,
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with your references so forgive me if what I say is what you mean.
While the Kosuch et al. (1999) paper does state that the Greek specimens differ from the Subsaharian C. africanus specimens (which represent one piece of their overall natural range), that does not mean that the Greek C. africanus population is not introduced or does not originate from the Nile Delta (not Subsaharian) population. All it indicates is that the founder population of the Greek specimens (i.e., the Nile Delta population) have differentiated from the Subsaharian population. Based on the geographic barrier of the Saharan Desert between these populations, this is not unexpected. With that understood, the fact that the Greek specimens are different than the Subsaharian population does not in any way indicate or support that they should be protected or conserved in Greece. The bottom line is that C. africanus are introduced to Greece and do not belong there. Thus, while the africanus-project sounds like a nice effort, as a biologist I have to question it's purpose or value.
Chris
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with your references so forgive me if what I say is what you mean.
While the Kosuch et al. (1999) paper does state that the Greek specimens differ from the Subsaharian C. africanus specimens (which represent one piece of their overall natural range), that does not mean that the Greek C. africanus population is not introduced or does not originate from the Nile Delta (not Subsaharian) population. All it indicates is that the founder population of the Greek specimens (i.e., the Nile Delta population) have differentiated from the Subsaharian population. Based on the geographic barrier of the Saharan Desert between these populations, this is not unexpected. With that understood, the fact that the Greek specimens are different than the Subsaharian population does not in any way indicate or support that they should be protected or conserved in Greece. The bottom line is that C. africanus are introduced to Greece and do not belong there. Thus, while the africanus-project sounds like a nice effort, as a biologist I have to question it's purpose or value.
Chris
Chris said..."While the Kosuch et al. (1999) paper does state that the Greek specimens differ from the Subsaharian C. africanus specimens (which represent one piece of their overall natural range), that does not mean that the Greek C. africanus population is not introduced or does not originate from the Nile Delta (not Subsaharian) population. All it indicates is that the founder population of the Greek specimens (i.e., the Nile Delta population) have differentiated from the Subsaharian population. Based on the geographic barrier of the Saharan Desert between these populations, this is not unexpected"...exactly right.
Chris said..."With that understood, the fact that the Greek specimens are different than the Subsaharian population does not in any way indicate or support that they should be protected or conserved in Greece. The bottom line is that C. africanus are introduced to Greece and do not belong there. Thus, while the africanus-project sounds like a nice effort, as a biologist I have to question it's purpose or value."...it was a long time ago that they were introduced. There are likely hundreds of species of animals and plants, etc. that have been introduced over the centuries...likely even lots that we don't realize were introduced...so where do we draw the line about which ones are worth conserving and which ones serve a purpose and which ones don't. Is there some length of time that they will have to have been in a country/area before they would qualify as being worth saving?
Chris said..."With that understood, the fact that the Greek specimens are different than the Subsaharian population does not in any way indicate or support that they should be protected or conserved in Greece. The bottom line is that C. africanus are introduced to Greece and do not belong there. Thus, while the africanus-project sounds like a nice effort, as a biologist I have to question it's purpose or value."...it was a long time ago that they were introduced. There are likely hundreds of species of animals and plants, etc. that have been introduced over the centuries...likely even lots that we don't realize were introduced...so where do we draw the line about which ones are worth conserving and which ones serve a purpose and which ones don't. Is there some length of time that they will have to have been in a country/area before they would qualify as being worth saving?
Last edited:
Youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2TP62sLemI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2TP62sLemI
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Lynda,
If a species colonizes a new habitat via natural means (rafting, etc.), then the population should be consider a natural range expansion. If a species colonizes a new habitat via artificial means (introduced by man), then the population should be considered introduced. If an introduced population serves to fulfill vital ecosystem functions left vacant by the human driven extinction of another species, then the introduced population may have a purpose worth conserving or protecting. Additionally, if the introduce population is of an endangered species and ends up representing a critical population for conservation efforts of that species, there may be an argument for protecting and conserving that population.
These animals were introduced to Greece by man and on an evolutionary and ecosystem function time scale (what may seem like a long time ago to us is often inconsequential in terms of relevant time scales), they have not been in Greece very long. Because of the short relevant time scale since their introduction and because there is no evidence they are fulfilling any human induced vacancy of a vital ecosystem function and are in no way at risk of extinction across their range, Ch. africanus should not be protected or conserved in its introduced habitat. Thus, I am not convinced of the value of the africanus-project and I do not believe the European Ch. africanus is worth "saving".
Chris
Alexl
Avid Member
Just take a look at the landscape they're living in and at all the other animals living there. This is definitely worth saving. No matter there are still living some chameleons or not.
You said..."there is no evidence they are fulfilling any human induced vacancy of a vital ecosystem function"...so man can move/introduce something if it fills a man-made vacancy of a vital ecosystem function and they should then be protected?? Can you give me an example please?
Should animals be protected when they move to a new area through range expansion then?
(BTW..I did understand the difference between range expansion and being introduced.)
Should animals be protected when they move to a new area through range expansion then?
(BTW..I did understand the difference between range expansion and being introduced.)
BleuSaphir
Chameleon Enthusiast
interesting article...and wow so these species are introduced? Maybe Greece should allow these species to be export to pet trade! It can be there chance to find some revenue!
These species don't seem to be common in the pet trade...and they look beautiful.
These species don't seem to be common in the pet trade...and they look beautiful.
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
The idea of reintroducing populations of animals for the purpose of restoring ecosystem function is part of an conservation effort called rewilding. Many rewilding initiatives are focused on reintroduction of species to habitat where they have been recently extirpated (condors, etc.), however there are efforts being made to introduce species that have been extinct in areas for much longer and even to introduce closely related species of animals that were hunted out in the Pleistocene.
The Bolson Tortoise is an example of a species that was common to the southwest US in the Pleistocene and Holocene but then became extinct across much of their range. A reintroduction program of this species to part of its prehistoric range was started in 2006 in Arizona and New Mexico in an effort to restore soil conditions to their Pleistocene conditions in order to restore grasslands needed for larger herbivores. A similar story is the Musk Ox introductions into Scandinavia.
As for introduction of species to replace extinct species in an effort to fulfill their ecological niche, this is a conservation idea called Pleistocene Rewilding. In addition to the Bolson Tortoise and musk oxen, which are part of this initiative, a park in northeast Siberia (Pleistoncene Park) has been setup and introductions have been underway for a number of years in an effort to restore northern steppe grasslands.
If the species is endangered or threatened across their range and not just in the area where range expansion has occurred, then yes. If not, I don't think the population should be afforded additional protections it does not experience across the rest of its range.
Chris
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Lynda,
As I said, it does not have to be a re-introduction of a species that previously lived there for it to fulfill vital ecosystem functions, those were just examples of rewilding programs. In the Pleistocene Park I spoke of, an example of a different species that has been introduced to fulfill the niche of an extinct species is the Wood Bison, which has been introduced as a proxy for the extinct Steppe Bison. Mustangs (feral horse) fulfill the ecological niche of extinct equids that used to roam north American grasslands. Introduction of dromedary camels to private parks have also already begun as a proxy to extinct camelids. These are all examples of rewilding events which are reestablishing ecological functions left vacant by extinctions, local or overall.
Chris
As I said, it does not have to be a re-introduction of a species that previously lived there for it to fulfill vital ecosystem functions, those were just examples of rewilding programs. In the Pleistocene Park I spoke of, an example of a different species that has been introduced to fulfill the niche of an extinct species is the Wood Bison, which has been introduced as a proxy for the extinct Steppe Bison. Mustangs (feral horse) fulfill the ecological niche of extinct equids that used to roam north American grasslands. Introduction of dromedary camels to private parks have also already begun as a proxy to extinct camelids. These are all examples of rewilding events which are reestablishing ecological functions left vacant by extinctions, local or overall.
Chris
Last edited:
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Alex,
Sorry, I missed your comment until now.
You're absolutely right, the habitat where the Greek C. africanus population is living absolutely is worth saving/preserving. That does not mean that an introduced species in that habitat is, however. In general I believe that if you are trying to save or protect a habitat, removing introduced species is one of the steps in doing so.
Quantifying the impact of invasive species can be very challenging. I'm not aware of any evidence that the C. africanus population in Greece is causing harm to native species or the ecology of the habitat. If they truly are not causing any harm, it may be that C. africanus is not worth removing in an effort to protect the habitat, but I would argue there is no reason to protect the introduced population itself.
Chris
