Is this possible???

[hustlur]

By the way, if the offsprings are all good and no health problems, what species would they be. Do they get a new scientific name?

 

[Trace]

So this mating wasn't an accident then? You purposely left them together to try and make a new species?

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

No it's not a new species. A species has to be able to sustain its characteristics consistently through multiple generations by interbreeding with others of the same species. Those offspring would just be chameleon mutts.

 

[DanSB]

By the way, if the offsprings are all good and no health problems, what species would they be. Do they get a new scientific name?

HA ha they would be mules just like a horse donkey mix. A dead end mutt most likely. Should you wait for them to speciate you probably need like 20k years. Even if they look awesome and are healthy they are still just mules...

 

[hustlur]

No it's not a new species. A species has to be able to sustain its characteristics consistently through multiple generations by interbreeding with others of the same species. Those offspring would just be chameleon mutts.

Gotcha.

Regarding just the panther or oustalet by itself, is it the same with homo sapiens, which there are only 3 caucoid, negroid, and mongoloid?

 

[hustlur]

So this mating wasn't an accident then? You purposely left them together to try and make a new species?

If that is what you think, that is what you think.
I am just asking a question.

 

[sandrachameleon]

Gotcha.

Regarding just the panther or oustalet by itself, is it the same with homo sapiens, which there are only 3 caucoid, negroid, and mongoloid?

Not the same thing, no. Oustaleit and Paradalis are different species. All humans are the same species. Clinal variation is normal in our species, and as I understand it isnt even sufficient demarcate us into subspecies.

Classificatin of Oustaleit:
Kingdom: animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Reptilia; Ofrder: Squamata; Family: Chamaeleonidae; Genus: Furcifer; Species: F Oustaleti

Classification of Panther:
Kingdom: animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Reptilia; Ofrder: Squamata; Family: Chamaeleonidae; Genus: Furcifer; Species: F Paradalis

Classification for Humans (ALL Humans) :
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

 

[DanSB]

Gotcha.

Regarding just the panther or oustalet by itself, is it the same with homo sapiens, which there are only 3 caucoid, negroid, and mongoloid?

To add to what Sandra has so eloquently pointed out you can think of human ethnicity as more similar to panther locales. Breeding between different locales and ethnic groups actually creates a stronger individual because the genetic make up for reproduction and all bodily function is EXACTLY the same and by introducing genetic mixing it adds.

Remember also taxonomy is not an exact science and trying to draw a line in the sand on something like biology is not really easy. We could all be completely wrong and they could produce viable happy off spring. But when you look at distribution maps and find them in the same area and both are still distinct groups it suggests their offspring aren't really all that viable.

 

[hustlur]

To add to what Sandra has so eloquently pointed out you can think of human ethnicity as more similar to panther locales. Breeding between different locales and ethnic groups actually creates a stronger individual because the genetic make up for reproduction and all bodily function is EXACTLY the same and by introducing genetic mixing it adds.

Remember also taxonomy is not an exact science and trying to draw a line in the sand on something like biology is not really easy. We could all be completely wrong and they could produce viable happy off spring. But when you look at distribution maps and find them in the same area and both are still distinct groups it suggests their offspring aren't really all that viable.

Thanks for the clarification, but why is there such a debate over mixture of panther locales? Would interbreeding panther locales give them a better genetic makeup according to your comment?

Also regarding Sandra's answer(thank you for such detail), can the actual scientist mis-classify f.paradalis and f.oustaleti? VLike all dogs(canis lupis familiaris), there is a great difference in physical atrributes. I would say that an oustaleti and a panther is much physically closer vs. a st. Bernard and a Chiuaua.

 

[TreeTopChameleons]

There is no debate over the cross breeding of panther locales. There is one group of people that believe that the lines should remain separate so that when purchasing a new chameleon there is no grey area as to what your chameleons genetics are, and then there is the group of people who believe that the cross breeding creates some of the most beautiful and healthy chameleons. There is no debate over the ethics involved, just different people with different preferences. It is when people mix species that you get into the debate over whether it is ethically acceptable or not.

 

[DanSB]

Thanks for the clarification, but why is there such a debate over mixture of panther locales? Would interbreeding panther locales give them a better genetic makeup according to your comment?

Also regarding Sandra's answer(thank you for such detail), can the actual scientist mis-classify f.paradalis and f.oustaleti? VLike all dogs(canis lupis familiaris), there is a great difference in physical atrributes. I would say that an oustaleti and a panther is much physically closer vs. a st. Bernard and a Chiuaua.

Pretty much what Treetop said...

In theory a mixed locale would be healthier. In practice I am not 100% sure but it seems like it from what I've heard. Many are afraid of losing the natural appearance of the different locales through cross breeding. Imagine humans were pets and some alien race was collecting us in cages for display. It is point of interest to show the variety within the species, this variety would disappear with breeding between ethnicity.

Domestic dogs are a bad example because they are not at all natural. Left alone there would be no St. Bernard or Chihuahua but an animal that is somewhere between. It has taken hundreds of years of selective breeding to get this variety within the species and yet even today if left alone all domestic dogs would in the next few hundred years look alike with regional differences. This is the key to me in the these two chameleon species occur in the same range yet they are still distinct.

As I said before taxonomy is very complex and I don't mean to give the impression I understand any more than the very basics of it so I apologize if I can't give real satisfying answer. But to be honest I suspect a complete answer to your question would fill an entire encyclopedia and still leave significant gaps.

 

[hustlur]

There is no debate over the cross breeding of panther locales. There is one group of people that believe that the lines should remain separate so that when purchasing a new chameleon there is no grey area as to what your chameleons genetics are, and then there is the group of people who believe that the cross breeding creates some of the most beautiful and healthy chameleons. There is no debate over the ethics involved, just different people with different preferences. It is when people mix species that you get into the debate over whether it is ethically acceptable or not.

Ok, so ........

Cross Breeds ........mostly preffered by pet owners

Pure Breeds .........mostly preffered by breeders

 

[hustlur]

Pretty much what Treetop said...

In theory a mixed locale would be healthier. In practice I am not 100% sure but it seems like it from what I've heard. Many are afraid of losing the natural appearance of the different locales through cross breeding. Imagine humans were pets and some alien race was collecting us in cages for display. It is point of interest to show the variety within the species, this variety would disappear with breeding between ethnicity.

Domestic dogs are a bad example because they are not at all natural. Left alone there would be no St. Bernard or Chihuahua but an animal that is somewhere between. It has taken hundreds of years of selective breeding to get this variety within the species and yet even today if left alone all domestic dogs would in the next few hundred years look alike with regional differences. This is the key to me in the these two chameleon species occur in the same range yet they are still distinct.

As I said before taxonomy is very complex and I don't mean to give the impression I understand any more than the very basics of it so I apologize if I can't give real satisfying answer. But to be honest I suspect a complete answer to your question would fill an entire encyclopedia and still leave significant gaps.

That is fascinating. I have seen studies done on foxes that are contained in a small environment for farming purposes for their fur. It showed that they started developing diffrent morphs of their fur coloration. Could this would have happen to panther chameleons, since they vary different patterns and coloration, plus with those colorations it really keeps them visible to predators? Could it be possible that oustaleti was morphed into panther?

 

[DanSB]

That is fascinating. I have seen studies done on foxes that are contained in a small environment for farming purposes for their fur. It showed that they started developing diffrent morphs of their fur coloration. Could this would have happen to panther chameleons, since they vary different patterns and coloration, plus with those colorations it really keeps them visible to predators? Could it be possible that oustaleti was morphed into panther?

I am not an expert on Chameleon evolution but I would imagine Chameleon evolution on Madagascar started with only one or two species before it broke off from the African main land (or it just so happened that a few made it out on some sort of raft I don't know the timeline but the former seems more likely). Either way there were fewer species / Genus on the island.

What would have happened is that they would have remained in isolated breeding groups for either small behavioral or geographic reasons until genetic drift over time rendered them different enough to not be able to produce viable offspring together. (That last part does not define the species but is a good indication)

Likely the Oustilets and the Pardalis were separated completely for many thousands of years until either climate or population pressure in their home range caused the the Pardalis to begin migrating around the island. As the panthers moved around and for whatever reason breeding groups began to isolate their genetic drift began diverging into different morphs. This is partially for either reproductive fitness or simple survival and likely just some blind luck from whatever Genes were present in the first in the range.

Once the Panthers made their way to the home range of the Oustilets they had already changed enough from their common ancestor enough that they would no longer inbreed and when they do their offspring aren't viable.

In general speciation will not occur as long as two groups are trading genetic material (breeding with each other). And if for some reason and of the specific Panther morphs would continue to not breed with other groups they could over time become their own unique species. But keep in mind by over time we are thinking in the thousands (or even millions) of years time frames.

I hope that makes sense this is just all from memory of far too many biology courses over ten years ago. I know that some thinking on this subject has changed but I think I have the general "how it works" down and we'll let people with PdDs beofre their names debate the details.

 

[pssh]

That is fascinating. I have seen studies done on foxes that are contained in a small environment for farming purposes for their fur. It showed that they started developing diffrent morphs of their fur coloration. Could this would have happen to panther chameleons, since they vary different patterns and coloration, plus with those colorations it really keeps them visible to predators? Could it be possible that oustaleti was morphed into panther?

If you dont have many panthers, perhaps you haven't seen how well they can blend even with their bright colors. I have trouble finding mine all the time, even the bright pink females.

As for morphs, generally (at least with snakes) morphs have certain genetics that cause the morphs (dominant, recessive, etc.) I don't know if that is the same in the foxes, but I would assume so (by going off of dogs, which maybe I am wrong to do so.) In panthers, there have been no such "morphs." I don't think any chameleons, except veileds with the translucent genes, have developed any "morphs" in that sense.

Like others have said, dogs are a poor example to compare chameleons to because they have been hand picked by humans to have certain characteristics. If you look at wild dogs (real wild dogs, not dog relatives or feral dogs) that were domesticated and then ended up becoming wild again, they have, over time, developed certain characteristics based on their environment. Wild dogs do not look like a chihuahua or saint bernard.

 

[sandrachameleon]

Domesticated dogs are a sub-species of the wolf (the split between dogs and wolves happened around 100,000 years ago). Dogs can interbreed, even the chihuahua and saint bernard, and the offspring still be dogs, viable ones.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis (up to this point, includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals)
Species: C. lupus (down to just dogs and wolves now)
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris (dogs)

 

[hustlur]

Domesticated dogs are a sub-species of the wolf (the split between dogs and wolves happened around 100,000 years ago). Dogs can interbreed, even the chihuahua and saint bernard, and the offspring still be dogs, viable ones.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis (up to this point, includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals)
Species: C. lupus (down to just dogs and wolves now)
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris (dogs)

That was my question regarding Sandra's post. Is it possible that Panthers could be a subspecies?

 

[DanSB]

That was my question regarding Sandra's post. Is it possible that Panthers could be a subspecies?

That is an interesting question. I think likely not but I would be interested if anyone can give an educated answer as to exactly why not.

 

[sandrachameleon]

That was my question regarding Sandra's post. Is it possible that Panthers could be a subspecies?

no, all panthers are the same species
F Paradalis

if you are meaning to ask if the various colours/locals of panthers are each a sub-species of F Paradalis, then as far as I know No, they are not so classified. at least not yet. Its possible that the various localities are in the early stages of divergence.

If you want a more in-depth answer, read Chris Anderson's opinion in this thread (the second to last question): https://www.chameleonforums.com/interview-chris-anderson-66414/#post619266

 

[hustlur]

no, all panthers are the same species
F Paradalis

if you are meaning to ask if the various colours/locals of panthers are each a sub-species, then as far as I know No, they are not so classified. at least not yet. Its possible that they are at the various localities are in the early stages of divergence

I am very suspicious, because verrocosus, oustaleti, and paradalis have very close to similar physical attributes. It just makes me wonder. Another thing, I find oustaleti a much more hardier animal than paradalis, which makes me believe that oustaleti has been here longer than paradalis......just my own theory.