Graphic Picture Warning: New cagemate

[AmberNichole]

No i defiantly think it is a great study, and the best one I have seen. I just meant that it would be more accurate and even more interesting to have the same study done in their natural habitat.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

I completely agree. We can keep hoping that someone will do one in the future...

 

[moogle73]

It's easy to say 'yes they do eat small vertebrates in the wild', but to what extent? What percentage of the natural diet of wild chameleons is actually composed of small vertebrates? And is it only because there is nothing else available or are they choosing to eat those despite plenty of bugs around? Without taking these factors into consideration that statement is really too incomplete to be a valid argument scientifically. Unfortunately this is one area of study (of the many involving chameleons) that is lacking so we only have a few sources to go on for true evidence. In this report of 'wild' Jackson's chams in Hawaii there is a complete analysis of the stomach contents of 34 chams: http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/publications/pdf/chamaeleo-report.pdf. Vertebrate prey species isn't even a notable percentage. So to say 'this is natural' is a bit of a stretch. Just because it happens on occasion in the wild does not make it a natural behavior if it is not a consistent behavior. I have no doubt some of the larger species like oustalets or parsonii may consume a higher percentage than smaller species, but I still do not think it is a significant contribution to their diet enough that we need to try to replicate it. And, there is no reason to do so imo as a chameleon can live a very healthy long life completely through well rounded gutloading. Giving them a 'boost' is not a valid argument either. Just like people don't take one big vitamin once a month. The key is solid nutrition consistently over a long period of time to promote better health. Is one vertebrate prey item the end of the world? No. But to argue this is natural so there's nothing wrong with it is flawed deeper than the emotional component attached to it.

I wouldn't say it "wasn't even a noticeable percentile" according to the paper, a little over 12% of the chameleons with something in the stomachs had something other than insects (either 2 snails or 2 small lizards). Now 12% isn't some earth shattering number (6% each), but its still more than a "negligible" or nothing, and does show that chameleons (at least out of those 34 in the study) do look at other objects besides just insects as potential prey.

But unfortunately scientifically, 34 is nothing LOL. I wish there were a much broader research done in it, for all you know those 4 might be "fluke guys" and really its more like 4 out of 100 instead of 4 out of 33, or maybe those others were low, and its really more like 10 out of a 33. No way to really know with out a larger field of specimens with more data. Also its unfortunate its from Hawaii too and not Madagascar, maybe in Madagascar there is a larger abundance of small vertebrate pray, making up more of the general consumption or vice versa, it could be completely different from Hawaii and I'm sure it is.

Thanks for the link though, its a good read, I love science and data

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Your numbers are a bit off. It was 2 lizards out of 795 prey items consumed total. So the percentage of vertebrate prey consumed was 0.25%. And snails don't count because they are invertebrates. So, not a notable percentage.

A total of 795 dietary items from 48 taxa was retrieved from our sample of [chameleons]. Twenty-six of these dietary taxa were identified to species, 17 to genus, and five to family. This comprised 43.3% of dietary items identified to species, 45.2% to genus, and 11.6% to family.
All chameleons but one had food items in their digestive tracts (97.1%); all but four food items were arthropods. Non-arthropods included two landsnails (Oxychilus alliarius) and two lizards (Lampropholis delicata).

I will be the first to admit that I wish that there was more research data to use and compare to truly natural environments! But it doesn't exist so we have to make do with what we have until it does.

 

[moogle73]

Your numbers are a bit off. It was 2 lizards out of 795 prey items consumed total. So the percentage of vertebrate prey consumed was 0.0025%. And snails don't count because they are invertebrates. So, not a notable percentage.



I will be the first to admit that I wish that there was more research data to use and compare to truly natural environments! But it doesn't exist so we have to make do with what we have until it does.

Ah yes, I miss read it, I simply saw the "all but 1 lizard had items in their stomach, with 2 having snail, and 2 having lizards" but that was stated after the 795... I wish we had more data

It would also have to be an all male study if possible, as they are much larger than females, they would be more likely to peruse larger prey (if in fact they even do on a consistent basis)

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

I forgot to move the decimal at first. But still, 0.25% is very small. I keep searching for more papers on dietary analysis hoping to find a good one but sadly I don't think one exists yet.

 

[z0mbies fear me]

AmberNichole Congratulations on your post. I do believe that this thread has set a new record for most views and comments within a 24 hour period. It has been a most entertaining read so far.

 

[LazardLizard]

LMAO..... Right!

AmberNichole Congratulations on your post. I do believe that this thread has set a new record for most views and comments within a 24 hour period. It has been a most entertaining read so far.

 

[Julija]

Hey everybody!

To the OP - it's an interesting issue you have brought up with your post. Bummer that it has gotten so much off track to begin with, but it looks like it is back on track now, so I would like to add a point.

Parasites have been mentioned here as a possible threat when feeding with wild-caught prey. It is indeed very true, and becomes even more relevant when feeding a reptile to a reptile. From an evolutionary perspective the closer the feeder animal is to the animal being fed, the bigger the risk of eventual parasite being able to infect your pet. In this case both the chameleon and the brown anole belong to the same order - Squamata. Then, of course, there are parasites that are not as "picky" about their host, or have different intermediate and final hosts.

 

[Yarinil]

I have seen people ask way more important questions on this forum and get very few responses. Yet this girl posts a pic of a cham eating another LIZARD AND THERE IS A 5 PAGE ARTICLE HERE LOL PRIORITIES PEOPLE. I know it's not nice to look at but if you give it attention and comment on it then you draw more attention to it. Just let it fade away down the news feed and there yah go. the more you post the more you bump it. This is why people fight and argue a lack of common sense.

OMG I'm totally with you..

I'm new cham's keeper and New at forum. I'm trying to learn all the stuffs and I research by links of plants enclosures and care sheets. I tried to ask here for some doubts that i can't fill with links so i get like 2 responses... sad but true... if this "newbie" didnt found the answers of all the stuff i need to know i'll probably would be a "EX" chams keeper and then ppl here willl scream and said that im bad to let my cham be sick (he's not sick) or dead or whatever... I'm a reptile lover (well i'm a animal lover) and i'm not gonna scream about a cham eating a lizar cuz thats nature... in wild they would do it right?

my question is.... If you have a cham that ONLY would eat reptiles.... what would you do? let it starve?

and BTW for the future please post a WARNING so we dont get this surprises (yes i was surprised at first)

Good night or day people