Hybrid Panther Chameleons

[pssh]

Well, I think it probably is husbandry related, but who knows? Premature births are most likely from husbandry and quality of care of the female, so whoever thinks that every time a jacksons has a premature birth it's the result of defects, needs to do a bit more research on genetic defects and the likely hood of that happening so often compared to the possibility that they just aren't supplying the female with everything she needs.

 

[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.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Unfortunately there are a lot of subtle misconceptions that spread like wildfire and lead to a lot of confusion.

Before getting into the relevant panther chameleon related issues, I want to discuss this quote:

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.

While this is what is taught in most basic biology courses still, this is not true. If you are not familiar with it, you should do some research on epigenetics. Epigenetics looks at the inheritance of acquired characteristics. There is a lot of current research that shows that environmental stimuli can result in changes in phenotype or gene expression that are heritable. Many of these changes to gene expression are heritable due to environmentally induced alteration of the mechanisms that regulate gene expression by processes such as methylation.

Returning to the topic of panther chameleons, the issue of decreased fitness that is of concern to this thread is not genetic but has to do with environmental factors. With the exception of Ch. calyptratus, there seems to be a trend in most chameleon species where offspring tend to become weaker with each subsequent generation removed from the wild. This isn't a genetic issue, its related to our failure to sufficiently replicate certain aspects of their natural environment and it effects the health of subsequent generations. Unfortunately, no one is completely sure what it is we aren't doing correctly but there seems to be increasing instances of multigenerational breeding for a number of species, which I think is a step in the right direction. The issue is that many nutrients and hormones are passed on maternally and the levels of these nutrients and hormones can drastically effect the health of the progeny. This is why many breeders like infusing WC blood, particularly from females, to strengthen their lines.

Now, there has been anecdotal reports from breeders and scientists indicating that crossing of some locales results in reduced fitness of the hybrid offspring. Different locales are genetically divergent from each other (hence the differing characteristics) and naturally more distant locales are going to me more divergent from each other than locales that are closer to each other. The result is that it is conceivable for certain locales to be less compatible to hybridization than others. This results in what are called ring species, such as the Ensatina salamander example that was mentioned. When you consider these aforementioned reports and the geographic distribution of F. pardalis, it is quite possible that this species is at an early stage toward becoming a ring species and that direct hybridization of certain locales may result in weaker offspring.

Regarding what locales are and the interbreeding of different locales in nature, I wrote this post for another thread that may help clarify some misconceptions that have been brought up in this thread:

There seems to be a general misunderstanding about the definition of a locale, the barriers or lack there of between said locales, and what a barrier or lack there of between said locales means. I'm not trying to start a debate regarding the ethics or considerations of crossing locales, my opinion and rational for that opinion are fairly well known, but I do think its important to clarify some of the misconceptions that have seemed to have surfaced in this thread, as they are important to anyone looking to understand what locales are or how they are maintained in the wild.

From a general terminology standpoint, crossing different locales of Furcifer pardalis is in fact a form of hybridization or cross breeding. It does not need to be between different species to technically be hybridizing or cross breeding, it is simply the interbreeding of two groups, whether those groups be species, subspecies, populations, localities, breeds, etc.. By interbreeding two locales, you have hybridized or crossed the locales.

A locality is simply the subset of individuals from the entire population of a species that are found in a particular subsection of the range of the entire species. When a locality name is given to specimens from a given location it is typically because the individuals at that location tend to exhibit a set of characteristic that differentiate them from other named locales. Typically this set of characteristics is genetically coded resulting in a high likelihood of the next generation showing a similar set of characters. In the case of F. pardalis, these characteristics typically are a general combination of colors and patterns shown in the males.

While the range of some localities are easily defined, particularly when the locality is an island such as Nosy Be, Nosy Faly, Nosy Mitsio, etc., not all localities have as clear or defined boarders. For island localities, obviously the surrounding water provides a barrier to the exchange of genetic material with other localities. In some cases stretches of rivers, mountains, uninhabitable environments, etc., can similarly serve as a barrier to the exchange of genetic material. Finally, in some cases, the barrier to the exchange of genetic material between localities is simply distance. An important thing to note, however, is that these barriers are not perfect barriers and there is still genetic exchanges between locales, even to island locales. This exchange of genetic material is called gene flow.

While genetic material is still exchanged between localities, the fact remains that these localities maintain differing gene frequencies that result in the particular color characteristics. This is because this exchange in genetic material is done at such a low level that the localities maintain their characteristic look. This is true even between localities with less effective barriers (i.e. distance rather than a physical barrier).

There seems to be the most misunderstanding regarding cases of mainland locales where there are ineffective natural barriers and the majority of the limitation in gene flow is distance. In these cases, what ends up happening is that a continuum between locales is seen. This occurs because individuals do not move long distances in their generation to breed. If locale A and B are 100km away from each other and each individual only travels 5km in their generation to breed, the overall genetic contribution from locality A is all but washed out by the time any genetic material travels from the center of it's locality to the center of locality B. This is because each parent only gives 1/2 of their genes and it would take 20 generations any contribution from locale A to reach locale B. The result is that there is no change to the gene frequencies of each population even though there is gene flow.

The thing that people seem to misunderstand is gene flow and the exchange of genetic material on this level is completely different than taking an animal from Ambilobe and an animal from Ambanja and breeding them. This does not occur in the wild and arguing that there is no difference simply shows a complete misunderstanding of population genetics and gene flow. Saying there is no fence between locales as a justification for such hybridization being natural shows a similar lack of understanding of these principles. While the right of a keeper to perform such hybridizations in captivity is completely different, no one should ever claim such hybrids are natural or try to use the lack of effective barriers to gene flow as justification for such hybrids occurring naturally.

Obviously this goes back to the issue of how you then define each locale if no geographic barrier exists and distance is the driving genetic barrier. The important thing to remember is that a locality is simply where an animal came from. Our concept of a locality as far as what they look like, however, is simply a representation of what animals from a particular point in the natural continuum look like. While a certain amount of variation at each point is seen, the further you travel away from that point, the more variation you will observe. Therefore, within a limited range of that particular point, you would not expect to see a lot of variation that wouldn't simply be explained by natural in-location variation. Our designation of localities is based primarily on the assumption that an animal exported from a given locale was collected within a range of that locale that would minimize that additional observed variation. When exporter's labels prove unreliable, however, our designation is based on categorizing the animal based on its features and the range we know to be observed within a reasonable range of each given locale.

I'm sure that may have confused a lot of people but hopefully it makes sense to some.

Chris

Anyway, I'm sure there were other things I wanted to clarify but that'll have to do for now.

Chris

 

[Chris Jury]

Unfortunately there are a lot of subtle misconceptions that spread like wildfire and lead to a lot of confusion.

Before getting into the relevant panther chameleon related issues, I want to discuss this quote:



While this is what is taught in most basic biology courses still, this is not true. If you are not familiar with it, you should do some research on epigenetics. Epigenetics looks at the inheritance of acquired characteristics. There is a lot of current research that shows that environmental stimuli can result in changes in phenotype or gene expression that are heritable. Many of these changes to gene expression are heritable due to environmentally induced alteration of the mechanisms that regulate gene expression by processes such as methylation.

Epigenetics is an exceedingly interesting topic, and one I am very familiar with, but is fundamentally different from the “acquisition of acquired characteristics” in the sense that Lamarck used it, or the sense which the phrase is usually used to connote. A very small portion of changes in gene expression experienced during an organism’s lifetime are occasionally passed on to offspring to a limited degree, and affect phenotype (epigenetics). Changes in phenotype experienced during an organism’s lifetime due to injury or normal phenotypic plasticity (acquisition of acquired characteristics, sensu Lamarck) does not occur. Phenotype is always the result of the interplay of genetics and environment though.

Returning to the topic of panther chameleons, the issue of decreased fitness that is of concern to this thread is not genetic but has to do with environmental factors.

Agreed. There’s no basis to think that the problem(s) lie in genetics, but rather in the environment/nutrition.

With the exception of Ch. calyptratus, there seems to be a trend in most chameleon species where offspring tend to become weaker with each subsequent generation removed from the wild. This isn't a genetic issue, its related to our failure to sufficiently replicate certain aspects of their natural environment and it effects the health of subsequent generations. Unfortunately, no one is completely sure what it is we aren't doing correctly but there seems to be increasing instances of multigenerational breeding for a number of species, which I think is a step in the right direction. The issue is that many nutrients and hormones are passed on maternally and the levels of these nutrients and hormones can drastically effect the health of the progeny. This is why many breeders like infusing WC blood, particularly from females, to strengthen their lines.

Agreed again, absolutely. There are most likely some aspects of their requirements that we aren’t (or at least historically haven’t been) nailing all the time, and sure enough, sooner or later we end up with developmental problems, poor health, and poor vigor. The problems must be somewhere in the husbandry, not in the genetics.

Now, there has been anecdotal reports from breeders and scientists indicating that crossing of some locales results in reduced fitness of the hybrid offspring.

But anecdotal reports from breeders have also included that there must be something genetically amiss with the animals preventing breeding them past a few generations, which is simply wrong. It may be true that crossing F. pardalis from very different locations results in less viable offspring in captivity, but if it is true it would be very surprising.

Different locales are genetically divergent from each other (hence the differing characteristics) and naturally more distant locales are going to me more divergent from each other than locales that are closer to each other.

But, unless you are aware of some work done on population structure that I’m unaware of, we simply have no idea how divergent any of these populations are. It may be that the color morphs are under strong selection, but show dissimilar patterns to the rest of the genome making the divergence effectively “skin deep.” Alternatively, the pattern could be the result of multiple founder events and/or genetic drift and not be adaptive at all.

The result is that it is conceivable for certain locales to be less compatible to hybridization than others. This results in what are called ring species, such as the Ensatina salamander example that was mentioned. When you consider these aforementioned reports and the geographic distribution of F. pardalis, it is quite possible that this species is at an early stage toward becoming a ring species and that direct hybridization of certain locales may result in weaker offspring.

I would strongly caution against assuming that physical distance is related to population connectivity. Simply put, distance is often a very poor predictor of connectivity in marine environments (where I work) as well as terrestrial ones. There could well be good gene flow over hundreds of miles, even across presumed barriers to gene flow, whereas in other places there can be strong barriers separating very nearby areas even when there is no obvious barrier present. Connectivity is complex.

It may indeed be that F. pardalis is diverging toward multiple species across its range, however, hybrids are usually perfectly viable (even if they have reduced fitness in terms of reproductive success) even after sister taxa have diverged (e.g., natural hybrid zones among the Ensatina subspecies). It’s possible that cross-breeding F. pardalis from different regions could produce less viable offspring, but it would be very surprising.

Best,

Chris

 

[Chris Anderson]

Epigenetics is an exceedingly interesting topic, and one I am very familiar with, but is fundamentally different from the “acquisition of acquired characteristics” in the sense that Lamarck used it, or the sense which the phrase is usually used to connote. A very small portion of changes in gene expression experienced during an organism’s lifetime are occasionally passed on to offspring to a limited degree, and affect phenotype (epigenetics). Changes in phenotype experienced during an organism’s lifetime due to injury or normal phenotypic plasticity (acquisition of acquired characteristics, sensu Lamarck) does not occur. Phenotype is always the result of the interplay of genetics and environment though.

I think to a certain extent we are arguing the same point. I don't agree with the comments you were responding to either but I was simply clarifying that your comments stating that "acquired characteristics are not heritable" or that "inheritance of acquired characteristics does not occur" was not entirely correct. Also, when you say that "Changes in phenotype experienced during an organism’s lifetime due to [...] normal phenotypic plasticity (acquisition of acquired characteristics, sensu Lamarck) does not occur", I think you mean that changes in genotype due to phenotypic plasticity do not occur as by its very definition, phenotypic plasticity is a change in phenotype.

But anecdotal reports from breeders have also included that there must be something genetically amiss with the animals preventing breeding them past a few generations, which is simply wrong. It may be true that crossing F. pardalis from very different locations results in less viable offspring in captivity, but if it is true it would be very surprising.

I think these reports of something genetically amiss is simply a lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved in weakening subsequent generations (effect of maternally passed stress hormones, etc.). I don't necessarily think a lack of understanding of the mechanism involved negates the validity of their observations of weakened offspring or offspring of reduced fitness. As I mentioned, it is not only breeders who have reported such effects in locale hybrids, but also scientists who spent their entire career studying the ecology, evolution, behavior and nutrition of reptiles, particularly F. pardalis (i.e. Dr. Gary Ferguson).

But, unless you are aware of some work done on population structure that I’m unaware of, we simply have no idea how divergent any of these populations are. It may be that the color morphs are under strong selection, but show dissimilar patterns to the rest of the genome making the divergence effectively “skin deep.” Alternatively, the pattern could be the result of multiple founder events and/or genetic drift and not be adaptive at all.

Thorough biogeographic studies on F. pardalis and other chameleon species have not yet been conducted but Gary Ferguson does have an entire section in his book on F. pardalis looking at morphological variation and speciation in F. pardalis, including cluster analysis of color characteristics resulting in a couple hypotheses regarding their relatedness. All the answers are far from known, but in my opinion, what we do know suggests a certain degree of divergence, adaptive or not.

I would strongly caution against assuming that physical distance is related to population connectivity. Simply put, distance is often a very poor predictor of connectivity in marine environments (where I work) as well as terrestrial ones. There could well be good gene flow over hundreds of miles, even across presumed barriers to gene flow, whereas in other places there can be strong barriers separating very nearby areas even when there is no obvious barrier present. Connectivity is complex.

Absolutely, thats exactly what I was trying to show in the post I quoted regarding locales and the interbreeding of locales.

It may indeed be that F. pardalis is diverging toward multiple species across its range, however, hybrids are usually perfectly viable (even if they have reduced fitness in terms of reproductive success) even after sister taxa have diverged (e.g., natural hybrid zones among the Ensatina subspecies). It’s possible that cross-breeding F. pardalis from different regions could produce less viable offspring, but it would be very surprising.

Well, based on my experience with this species, both in captivity and in Madagascar, as well as the breeding efforts I've seen over the years and the published reports and observations I've read, I would not surprised by the notion of less viable hybrid offspring from distant locales compared to nonhybrid offspring. Naturally there is a lot of research that needs to be conducted into the level of divergence, etc., but in my opinion, F. pardalis does hold the potential to be of interest to evolutionary biologists.

Chris

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

I think to a certain extent we are arguing the same point. I don't agree with the comments you were responding to either but I was simply clarifying that your comments stating that "acquired characteristics are not heritable" or that "inheritance of acquired characteristics does not occur" was not entirely correct. Also, when you say that "Changes in phenotype experienced during an organism’s lifetime due to [...] normal phenotypic plasticity (acquisition of acquired characteristics, sensu Lamarck) does not occur", I think you mean that changes in genotype due to phenotypic plasticity do not occur as by its very definition, phenotypic plasticity is a change in phenotype.



I think these reports of something genetically amiss is simply a lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved in weakening subsequent generations (effect of maternally passed stress hormones, etc.). I don't necessarily think a lack of understanding of the mechanism involved negates the validity of their observations of weakened offspring or offspring of reduced fitness. As I mentioned, it is not only breeders who have reported such effects in locale hybrids, but also scientists who spent their entire career studying the ecology, evolution, behavior and nutrition of reptiles, particularly F. pardalis (i.e. Dr. Gary Ferguson).



Thorough biogeographic studies on F. pardalis and other chameleon species have not yet been conducted but Gary Ferguson does have an entire section in his book on F. pardalis looking at morphological variation and speciation in F. pardalis, including cluster analysis of color characteristics resulting in a couple hypotheses regarding their relatedness. All the answers are far from known, but in my opinion, what we do know suggests a certain degree of divergence, adaptive or not.



Absolutely, thats exactly what I was trying to show in the post I quoted regarding locales and the interbreeding of locales.



Well, based on my experience with this species, both in captivity and in Madagascar, as well as the breeding efforts I've seen over the years and the published reports and observations I've read, I would not surprised by the notion of less viable hybrid offspring from distant locales compared to nonhybrid offspring. Naturally there is a lot of research that needs to be conducted into the level of divergence, etc., but in my opinion, F. pardalis does hold the potential to be of interest to evolutionary biologists.

Chris

All of this is interesting however you may have to consider as well the possiblity of hybrid vigor. Which is a case that the hybrid offspring being produced are stronger physically than both the parents. This has been seen with breeds of beef cattle in ranching operations. This topic in regards to panther chameleons would make a good study and contribute to the study of this topic overall.

 

[reefercheefer]

alot of people on here stress about keeping your lines pure. I choose not to go the route of getting 2 pure captive bred panthers from breeders in the US that i know for sure are going to just produce 2 plain looking chameleons that you see everyday. I started with 1.2 wild caught panthers. Thier locales are really just an opinion or an educated guess at best. ive heard them all. My goal is to produce chameleons that are unique that you cant just order off a website. It was important to me to start my very own project not connected to anyone elses. The same way all your major breeders started, with wild caughts. And they keep purchasing WC's for the same reason. The most exciting part is to see what my lines will produce. If you look in the classfieds at the 3 hybrid panther females for sale you will see that the first one is the most vibrant orange ive ever seen, the second is also has very unique coloration. To me that is what i look for in panthers. I also love that most of you dont like hybrids and it keeps thier prices low

Id love to see a translucent chameleon produced by someone in the future.

 

[cricketkilla]

hopefully this will help without me getting my face bitten off. panther chameleons are a genetically sensitive species in the first place. even if a same locale to lcale breeding occurs, every generation, the genes decline and degrade extenssively. wc's and f1's are the way to go for breeding projects. i am personally second guessing if I or anyone at all should breed them in captivity. without all year round natural sunlight and a variety of feeders this species just simply does not want to thrive. veileds are very different from panthers, and are one of the few species of chameleon that do well in captivity. back to the point is, yes they do naturally inter-breed between locales is a certainty. though there are slight differences in the blood pool from locale to locale. they are the same species but the genes are slightly different. some have larger llengths versus girth etc, larger rosrals or split rostrals. so i in return believe that yes hybridizing could much like dogs actuallymake it stronger or brake its genetics. to which side i am unsure. keeping in consideration it is already a genetically weak species i think it may still degrade the further generations.

From my brief but quite extensive research upon the matter of genetic degradation, I have yet to find anything stating Furcifer Pardalis as being "genetically sensitive" in any academic journal/research study. My opinion is that degradation is a result of incestial breeding somewhere down the line, how do we know for sure that WC specimens do not have relation with our captive bred stock? There is no way to know for sure.. Just my two cents

 

[sandrachameleon]

I have fifth generation nosy be x ambilobe that are heathly. Small sample, but noting that cross local breeding doesnt necessarily degrade the health of the animals. It may be they are healthier even.

 

[cricketkilla]

This is a really interesting thread!

 

[Zen Reptiles]

I love Chris Anderson.

I don't have any personal scientific study to add to the discussion, as usual, just anecdotal opinion. I think the biggest problem we face in captivity is that there are simply 20-40 babies in a given clutch of eggs that all survive.

Any animal that lays that many eggs at once does so for one specific reason; because the young make a great meal.

WC offer something no CB can, they have proven their genetic strength by surviving the trials of the jungle...not only in themselves, but they are the descendants of every strong chameleon to have ever survived the trials of the jungle, they are one of only a handful in an entire clutch that survived.

It's like bringing in the King of the Jungle to breed with the peasants in captivity lol.

Breeders do not cull the weak and we are left simply with too many options and too high of a chance that they are a weaker animal; after f5 there are any number traits that can start to appear. I don't think it is limited to hybrids/crosses (maybe some specific combos are likely to have more issues than others due to pre-existing genetic factors).

Interesting topic, great discussion, and I believe there is much to learn about this still to come.

 

[JackP308]

are you saying chameleons lay so many young because its a great mea l. BTW the weak still die in captivity.


Your right though whoever does survive to adults in the jungle is the Kings and they are the alphas which I highly doubt half the clutch even makes it to adult hood but I have no real proof of any of that.

 

[Olimpia]

are you saying chameleons lay so many young because its a great mea l. BTW the weak still die in captivity.


Your right though whoever does survive to adults in the jungle is the Kings and they are the alphas which I highly doubt half the clutch even makes it to adult hood but I have no real proof of any of that.

In all likelihood, perhaps only one out of every clutch makes it to breeding age. That's the strategy behind laying large clutches of babies, they're just increasing the odds of one or two reaching breeding age.

 

[Zen Reptiles]

I'm saying Komodo dragons are only 3,000 strong. They are one of the top 'Kings' of the reptile predators on earth. If, for argument's sake, 50% are females and they lay a decently large clutch of 20-30 eggs only once a year (panthers lay 2-4+ x a year) , 1500 x 25 = 37,500 offspring for the entire population of Komodos a year.

Only 3,000 in the population? That means 34,500 Komodo dragons die, are eaten, hunted, or destroyed in some way every single year to maintain a population of 3,000 adults.

That is an ~8% survival rate.

Panther chams would without doubt be an apex predator in Madagascar (when an adult, same as Komodos), though to make it to that stage they have to go through the trials of natural selection.

You say the weak die in captivity, I completely disagree. Out of the few hundred panthers I have hatched, I have only had 4 die.

That is a 98%+ survival rate.

Several years ago I watched loggerhead turtles laying eggs and hatching in Bundaberg, Australia. 1/1000 survives to breeding age,

and that is a 0.1% survival rate.

My point: 90% plus of CB chams are not meant to survive, but they do, and they breed, and IMO that is the sum conclusion of this inquiry.

 

[pssh]

The thing is, there are a certain number if them that will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If any one of those babies wasn't there at the wrong time they could grow to adulthood as well. Yes, nature weeds out the weak ones, but even some of the strong get killed too. The weak can even make it to adulthood even if it's less likely. How do we know which are which in captivity?

 

[sandrachameleon]

How do we know which are which in captivity?

we dont. That may be part of the problem.

I've certainly had a few over the years that were on the small side of normal, or otherwise seemed less than ideal examples of the best chameleon. That didnt stop them from living, and usually it didnt stop me from finding them new homes. Sold as pet quality only, but certainly there's nothing to stop the new owners from breeding what I perceived to be inferior animals.

 

[JackP308]

I agree to disagree. One thing I agree with is they have so many babies to ensure they will continue as a species.

If only 2 chameleons were laid I bet they have a heck of a time digging out LOL. Odds are none would make it to reproduce either. Mother Nature knows what she is doing.

 

[pssh]

Exactly. For all we know, the little guys that color up quickly in captivity could be prime targets in the wild! (Maybe someone can disprove my thought?) Who knows?!