Hybrid Panther Chameleons

[Chris Jury]

genetically it does make sence! and based into genetics comes diet. if both parent of a human child pig out on crap they are opening their genetics to change(if 2 people eat so much and become diabetic(type2) their children are more likely to become diabetic than if their parents had not).

No, acquired characteristics are not heritable. Look up Lamarckism and Lysenkoism and you’ll find info about the idea and the evidence that disproves it. Suffice to say, that’s not how genetics works.

just like on a genetic level eskimos are prone to diabetes without some sort of whale in their diet! and i could go on....

Adaptation is fundamentally different from inheritance of acquired characteristics. Adaptation occurs in all populations whereas inheritance of acquired characteristics does not occur.

like i said hybrizing could prove good or bad. but they are genetically different animals. each locale has markers as to what makes them different, and stop saying its just color and pattern. ambanjas surely do have huge rostral horns! st maries are huge bodied! and likewise other VARIATIONS to the GENETICS!

I don’t think anyone disagrees that the regional variation has a genetic basis, but as far as I’m aware, there’s no data available on the population structure of F. pardalis in Madagascar (but please correct me if I’m wrong), so we have little idea what the underlying structure is like, how divergent the subpopulations might be, or how much gene flow there is among subpopulations. However, none of this would lead us to think that cross-breeding among subpopulations should lead to less viable offspring. As far as I’m aware, the only evidence of a significantly isolated and diverging population is that on Reunion, which likely arose due to oceanic dispersal: http://www.nature.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/nature/journal/v415/n6873/pdf/415784a.pdf

im sure in the wild they are all at the same elevation and eat the same exact thing tooo (sarcasm).

So what? Are you suggesting that regional variation in color and morphotype is related to local adaptation to elevation and food availability? Where’s the evidence for that???

the genetically sensitive material i mention come from some of the largest class breeders that have worked with panthers for many genterations. generation after gen, panther babies lack the vigor and size of previous generations, along with clutch rates on hatching. i didnt say hybridizing is a bad thing, i said it could be, and also said it could be the opposite.

I have no doubt that producing vigorous offspring generation after generation is difficult, but claiming that genetics is behind this is 1) makes no sense (i.e., is wrong), and 2) diverts attention from the real problems, which must be related to one or more aspects of the husbandry.

cj

 

[fluxlizard]

Another interesting read:

Diet drives generation changes

8/1/2003 - A mother's nutrition can be so important that it can alter her offspring's usceptibility to disease by changing gene expression, say researchers who claim to have explained for the first time how maternal nutrition can predetermine risk of obesity or cancer.

Scientists from Duke University in the US showed they could change the coat colour of baby mice simply by feeding their mothers four common nutritional supplements before and during pregnancy and lactation. The supplements also lowered the offspring's susceptibility to obesity, diabetes and cancer.

"We have long known that maternal nutrition profoundly impacts disease susceptibility in their offspring, but we never understood the cause-and-effect link," said Dr Randy Jirtle, senior investigator of the study, published in today's issue of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

"For the first time ever, we have shown precisely how nutritional supplementation to the mother can permanently alter gene expression in her offspring without altering the genes themselves."

In experiments, pregnant mice that received vitamin B12, folic acid, choline and betaine (from sugar beets) gave birth to babies predominantly with brown coats. In contrast, pregnant mice that did not receive the nutritional supplements gave birth predominantly to mice with yellow coats. The non-supplemented mothers were not deficient in these nutrients.

A study of the cellular differences between the groups of baby mice showed that the extra nutrients reduced the expression of a specific gene, called Agouti, to cause the coat colour change. Yet the Agouti gene itself remained unchanged.

This is called ‘DNA methylation', and it could potentially affect dozens of other genes that make humans and animals susceptible to cancer, obesity, diabetes, and even autism, said Jirtle.

I guess changing DNA isn't really the right expression. Rather diet can turn things off and on that are then expressed not only in the one eating but in offspring of the one eating.

My guess is this is the lock that is the problem. The key will be figuring out what is missing in our captive chameleon diet that they are getting in the wild...

 

[Hoven]

One study I remember reading was certain populations experienced famine during WWII in Europe. One generation later the obesity rate skyrocketed amoung their descendents.

I think we still have a largely incomplete understanding of genetics in general (I regularly read journals suggesting that at lot of that "junk" in the genetic structure is not, or that if you look at active genes rather than just genetic structure there is a much larger difference between Chimps and Humans than then 5% or so often quoted).

My understanding is that the actual genetic code does not change due to diet/stress/generational concerns. However the expression of that same code can (genes can get turned on or or off or become active in different ways in response to the environment or their parents environment). Which could at least explain part of this. I really appreciate all the responses and has got me thinking. I don't think it is viable to "recreate" the exact environement they lived in in Madagascar however their might be a few husbandry factors that could play a role in their future reproductive health. It would be interesting if we could find some of them and maybe improve success with multigenerational breeding.

One thing I have always wondered is why we use the plants we do(pothos, umbrella, ficus, and hibiscus are the most common I hear), does anyone know what plants they normally live on in Madagascar? The other is food, does any know what insects they normally eat in Madagascar and what those insects in turn normally eat? I have been looking for this info for awhile but can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[pssh]

I believe in Madagascar their diet include 20 something different insects on average, with stick insects and grasshopper like insects making up the bulk of it. Grasshoppers eat grass and other stuff that provides calcium as well as nutrients.

 

[Syn]

it doesnt make alot of sense to me that it would weaken the animal. some of these locales are only a few miles away. im still a firm believer that they cross breed in the wild all the time.....ITS AN ISLAND!!!!!

It's an island with rivers, etc. I doubt locales would be made if there weren't barriers... there was a thread a while back about this.

 

[jcal]

ahhhh. havent you seen Jurassic park?

its all really just speculation. i havent been there. who has?

 

[Olimpia]

Sometimes just distance is enough to start making a difference. Take the example below:

A group of salamanders in California illustrate this point beautifully. At the South end of the Central Valley, you find two very distinct species, Ensatina eschscholtzi and Ensatina croceater. However, as you work your way up and around the Northern tip of the valley, you see a constant blending from one species to the other, and when they meet back up again at the tip, they are two separate species. But a specimen from the Southern part could mate with one from 20 miles further north, as that specimen could mate with another salamander another 20 miles further north, continuing on in an unbroken chain around to the other species back at the origin of this loop.

(from http://xdd.xanga.com/d808356156000204919712/w89220540.jpg, copyright to Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb)

In this example only distance really separates the different subspecies of salamander. And they can breed with nearby subspecies and do, as in the illustration where it points out areas of greater hybridization.

 

[pssh]

I dunno about you, but I don't think they cross oceans and faster moving rivers (if they do at all...) Technically, a specific locale is at the town that they are named after. As you move further away, the less 'ambilobe' they become. The animals that are picked further away from the towns aren't really 'pure' I guess. The only way to know for sure that your animal is a specific locale is if you hand pick it in the wild. Sure they cross breed in the wild when they come across others. They aren't sub-species or anything, they are just generally in specific populations that can have a general pattern or color.

Chris Anderson explained why the crossing doesn't mix up the locales in another thread.

 

[jcal]

Chris Anderson explained why the crossing doesn't mix up the locales in another thread.

after reading some of his posts(and others) i have a better understanding of whats going on.....very knowledgeable people on here.

 

[Ace]

you know , not to steer away off topic but damn...must be difficult to fine pure female panthers even though you base it on geographical locations and what types of pnather locales are in the area..lol

 

[facelesdoll]

no not at all. people are not genetically sensitive. it is good for us much like dogs.

 

[Ace]

no not at all. people are not genetically sensitive. it is good for us much like dogs.

woof...???

 

[facelesdoll]

lets wait for the kammers they use a geneticist

 

[jcal]

lets wait for the kammers they use a geneticist

do they really???

 

[pssh]

after reading some of his posts(and others) i have a better understanding of whats going on.....very knowledgeable people on here.

You learn something new every day. It is a really confusing subject.

Faceless: I still dont know what you mean by genetically sensitive.

 

[critterguy]

So much speculation in this thread it is incredibly hard to follow-and not much meaningful has been written in it.

It would be interesting to have verified claims(from the breeders themselves) that panthers cannot be bred past f5 or whatever. I would also be inclined suppose it is some lack in husbandry.

Not much can be said about the genetics of panthers because as far I can see(a simple googlescholar search could prove this) no one has done studies on the genetic differences in panthers across their range. I think avoiding the creation of hybrids should be done simply to maintain the wild phenotypes in captivity.

Comparing this to humans and dogs is quite a bad analogy-btw.

 

[fluxlizard]

This is found on Kammers website:

Babies are 56.25% Ambilobe x 15.625% Nosy Be x 12.5% Tamatave x
6.25% Ambanja x 6.25% Sambava x 3.125% Maroantsetra

I think that is pretty decent evidence enough that the idea that crossing is the problem behind multi-generational production is probably not valid. If it were I don't think they could get that much variety in one lizard.

I think avoiding the creation of hybrids should be done simply to maintain the wild phenotypes in captivity.

This is a popular view, but when I read it I always want to ask "why?"

The idea that I am looking at a "wild variety" is interesting from a novelty standpoint. But I don't see it much beyond that for myself.

The other 2 reasons I can think of is the market demand for "pure" strains. A very valid reason to keep things pure, to be sure. And then the possibility that some cross or other might be an infertile hybrid. With those individuals with genetic heritage from 6 locations scattered around Madagascar from Kammers, looks like infertility is unlikely.

Panthers in the USA are not going to be repopulating madagascar now or ever. People breeding bearded dragons, kingsnakes, cornsnakes, etc didn't have this mental hang-up. I find it interesting that panther chameleon fans do.

I would miss the pure strains if they were to be completely bred out though. But I think there is a place for crossing as well.

I really wish forum members who are larger scale breeders who use the forum for advertising purposes would offer comments on threads like this one. It would be really interesting to know if any of them have gone beyond 5 generations without introducing wild caught blood and to hear their speculations. I guess I understand why many possibly don't- it opens a can of political worms that could effect business...

 

[pssh]

I just think that random people who do not regularly breed should not cross them knowingly. It's because who know where those babies will end up, and who knows how clear the communication was between the seller and buyer? Who wants to breed pure nosy bes and buys a 'pure' female who happens to produce orange and blue babies? I think that's the problem with crossing them. Sure, it's not hurting anything as long as everyone is truthful, but if messages get crossed or someone lies, it can mess it up for someone else. You know? I don't think crosses themselves are bad at all, just the honesty aspect of people is the problem. I think it would help a lot if people culled some of the females, but a lot of people are against that.

 

[critterguy]

Their is probably nothing biologically wrong with such hybrids-you are correct. But to me the whole hybrid thing takes away the connection of the animal to the wild in our eyes and makes them sort of like living art. The thing with other reptiles which have been morphed to no end is that often the originals were not very variable to begin with.(and their is a quite large following of locality king/corn keepers in truth trying to preserve the variety present in these guys). Few people look at the crazy leopard geckos available nowadays and give thought to their wild ancestors. So in a way, animals closer to the wild phenotype do help a bit with conservation by being better outreach tools. It would be a shame to lose or compromise the diversity of various locales of panther chameleons in the US. But this is all personal opinion.

With that above mentioned cross-I would be willing to bet that breeders can get beyond f5 with no problem. Its interesting that even with such popular species as veileds and panthers we are still figuring things out. I noticed one old thread on here about premature jackson births and the conclusion immediately leaned towards genetic defects. Perhaps-but highly unlikely.

 

[jcal]

I just think that random people who do not regularly breed should not cross them knowingly. It's because who know where those babies will end up, and who knows how clear the communication was between the seller and buyer? Who wants to breed pure nosy bes and buys a 'pure' female who happens to produce orange and blue babies? I think that's the problem with crossing them. Sure, it's not hurting anything as long as everyone is truthful, but if messages get crossed or someone lies, it can mess it up for someone else. You know? I don't think crosses themselves are bad at all, just the honesty aspect of people is the problem. I think it would help a lot if people culled some of the females, but a lot of people are against that.

this i completely agree with. i see no problem with people like the kammers.
they clearly have their genetics down to a science. but if i wanted a pure chameleon and joe blow sold me something unpure it would ruin small breeding projects.

but as for those that knows what they are doing.....mix it up!