Is this true?
- Thread starter GooglezNvincent
- Start date
summoner12
Avid Member
In an ecosystem they were never meant to be part of? ..such as?
What not to do?
Meant to be a part of? are animals built for a particular part of the earth and dropped there? or do they develop and deal with their surroundings? I am not one for the creasionist theory... So I assume these animals weren't deposited by some being in Yemen and only meant to survive there.
The excitement is to see them out, in a natural environment doing what they do. Since not many of us can afford to fly half way around the world to see them in 'the wild' seeing a colony in FL would be great, even if it isn't their 'intended' place on earth.
jojackson
New Member
LMAOYes, "never meant to be part of". Theres a long distance between Yemen and Florida mate. Are they gonna float across the oceans on an accacia branch? Creationism has bugger all to do with it, silliest argument I ever heard, its natural (geographical) evolution. Human interferance not withstanding, they simply didnt evolve in Florida.
Yes, a species finding itself displaced will ofcourse adapt (or not) and find a niche, often to the detriment of a native species, generally to the detriment of the local ecosystem.
Fair enough. Atlleast you said 'a' natural enviroment.
For you perhaps, many would beg the differ, myself included. Ask the locals there if they think seeing Green Iguanas 'doing their thing' is great.
Last edited:
Pure
New Member
That's not exactly a fair statement when talking about Chams. Iguanas are doing massive damage to private gardens, really pissing people off. Veiled eat bugs, this is seen as a positive thing for those with said gardens. I think they may pose a threat to other insect eating animals but their effects on the ecosystem have yet to be determent.
Kev, Fort Myers (26°40’59.5”N, 81°48’4.5”W) The GPS location of the largest known population of veileds in Florida as of 2003. I can only imagine the size of it now. Wanna come take a trip with me?
Eric Adrignola
Avid Member
Well, there can be much learned form them in the wild. Just like we can learn from them in captivity. Also, one must really appreciate the complexities of evolution. Nothing is simply unnatural or not meant to be. Ok, there are a few things, but still...
Animals being transplanted by other animals, floating across oceans, hitchhiking on ships - being deliberatly transplanted - wherein lies the difference? Think about it. Where is the real, bioilogical, evolutionary-significant difference?
There is one, but, in my opinion, it is inconsequential in the overall sense.
Humans are part of nature. Our actions are just as valid as those of other animals. Everything we do to affect nature is subject to the same natural laws and biological consequences.
Sure, we do things that otherwise don't happen often - we are nature's catalysts (I've been wanting to trademark that...hehe.) We dont' do anything that's technically impossible according to natural laws, they're just not very liekly - we accelerate these events by many many orders of magnitude.
a log could float across the sea, transporting a bug or lizard. A land bridge could form, allowing some animals access to lands they never could before. A bird could puke up a living fish in a pond, or carry eggs from one to another. I think this happened at our pond - there are fish species in it we never put there!
So it's safe to assume that veiled chameleons oculd and would never get to Florida from Yemen. True. That does not mean thet their adaptation and further evolution IN Florida is invalid in a sense. Ecology in a human sense is just that - it's what we percieve. Nature doesn't care. Put an invasive species in a new habitat, and evolution takes hold as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Often, the results are quite significant changes. Other times, not so much.
Still, a lot can be learned by them in Florida. It may not be very "green" of me, but I'm not too concerned with the veileds being in Florida. Their negative impact potential is so insignificant compared to other species - large constrictors and venomous snakes, monitors, invasive birds, insects and most of all plants. Bad news, invasive plants.
In a NC Herp Society meeting where I lectured a few years back, a representative from Miami Dade Venom 1 unit was speaking. About the scariest stuff I could imagine. Several non-native species bites recorded in Florida. A few Cobras, Mambas, vipers, etc. The scary part? Several were in the WILD. Yeah. Florida not only has veiled chameleons, burms, iguanas and cuban tree frogs - it has green mambas and king cobras. beautiful, eh?
I'd like to get a hold of the idiot that lost/let go of THAT gravid female...
Animals being transplanted by other animals, floating across oceans, hitchhiking on ships - being deliberatly transplanted - wherein lies the difference? Think about it. Where is the real, bioilogical, evolutionary-significant difference?
There is one, but, in my opinion, it is inconsequential in the overall sense.
Humans are part of nature. Our actions are just as valid as those of other animals. Everything we do to affect nature is subject to the same natural laws and biological consequences.
Sure, we do things that otherwise don't happen often - we are nature's catalysts (I've been wanting to trademark that...hehe.) We dont' do anything that's technically impossible according to natural laws, they're just not very liekly - we accelerate these events by many many orders of magnitude.
a log could float across the sea, transporting a bug or lizard. A land bridge could form, allowing some animals access to lands they never could before. A bird could puke up a living fish in a pond, or carry eggs from one to another. I think this happened at our pond - there are fish species in it we never put there!
So it's safe to assume that veiled chameleons oculd and would never get to Florida from Yemen. True. That does not mean thet their adaptation and further evolution IN Florida is invalid in a sense. Ecology in a human sense is just that - it's what we percieve. Nature doesn't care. Put an invasive species in a new habitat, and evolution takes hold as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Often, the results are quite significant changes. Other times, not so much.
Still, a lot can be learned by them in Florida. It may not be very "green" of me, but I'm not too concerned with the veileds being in Florida. Their negative impact potential is so insignificant compared to other species - large constrictors and venomous snakes, monitors, invasive birds, insects and most of all plants. Bad news, invasive plants.
In a NC Herp Society meeting where I lectured a few years back, a representative from Miami Dade Venom 1 unit was speaking. About the scariest stuff I could imagine. Several non-native species bites recorded in Florida. A few Cobras, Mambas, vipers, etc. The scary part? Several were in the WILD. Yeah. Florida not only has veiled chameleons, burms, iguanas and cuban tree frogs - it has green mambas and king cobras. beautiful, eh?
I'd like to get a hold of the idiot that lost/let go of THAT gravid female...
Pure
New Member
Where did I say they are harmless? I was agreeing with you mate.
As for the iggy/cham thing. My point wasn't if they are doing harm one way or the other. My point was more that what harm they may do by removing beneficial insects pales in comparison to the good they do by removing pest insects. Not to say the chams are selectively taking out the pests, just that there are far more pest insects than beneficial ones. Also the damage done by the iguanas to gardens is what is causing most of the hatred toward this species. It brings them to light with the general public.
Getting a lil off topic here.
As for the iggy/cham thing. My point wasn't if they are doing harm one way or the other. My point was more that what harm they may do by removing beneficial insects pales in comparison to the good they do by removing pest insects. Not to say the chams are selectively taking out the pests, just that there are far more pest insects than beneficial ones. Also the damage done by the iguanas to gardens is what is causing most of the hatred toward this species. It brings them to light with the general public.
Getting a lil off topic here.
chamelisa
New Member
You are guaranteed to produce genetically inferior animals.
.
Acceptable ? Can't wait to see a vendor/breedor advertise that "this colorful critter was produced by breeding a daughter back to her father". Amazingly, I have never seen such credits in an ad. Don't think I will in the future either.
Of course you won't see that advertised. And to produce offspring from related animals without disclosure is unethical. Especially when one stands to make a few bucks from it.
But aside from that, what about breeding to sustain a species? I am not talking about calyptratus or pardalis.
Would it be unacceptable if I bred clutch mates of the wiedersheimi wiedersheimi to sustain the species in my collection? Or would it be a complete disappointment and possibly too much of a risk on the life of the only female wieder wieder I have.
By the way, if anyone does see wiedersheimi wiedersheimi come in, please contact me.
Pure
New Member
It's done in zoos all the time for that very reason Elisa..It eventually does become a problem, but in this case the benefits of keeping a species on the face of the earth far out weight the negatives.
At the current price of 50,000 USD an animal for cloning, I don't see that being a foreseeable solution to extinction...but cloning is a whole other can of worms. lol
As for your wiedersfeimi (jealous BTW) just try to keep from mating siblings as long as possible.
At the current price of 50,000 USD an animal for cloning, I don't see that being a foreseeable solution to extinction...but cloning is a whole other can of worms. lol
As for your wiedersfeimi (jealous BTW) just try to keep from mating siblings as long as possible.
GooglezNvincent
New Member
................ so we strayed of topic like what 3, 4 pages ago?! lol start a new thread, see how many views and posts it gets! i got what i wanted out of this thread a while back. Thanks for all the input every 1
jojackson
New Member
Absolutely, Ive read lots of blogs/stories about them crapping in folks pools!
Well this is true enough Eric, and well said. Its something Ive said myself before.
I think describing humanity as 'nature's catylist's' is putting a deliberately rosy light on it though. Optomistic way of saying, 'most destructive species on the planet' imo.
Our behaviours may be as 'valid' in that context as any other species, but the big difference is that we have choice and are intelligent enough to know better.
Venomous exotics like cobras wild in Fla. is a case in point. Nature may not care, but we should!
Im not saying that observing natrual behaviours of Florida's veilds, isnt intresting, particularly as a reptile enthusiast, I just dont see it in quite the same light.
sandrachameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
summoner12
Avid Member
I was watching wild pacific last night. It was the episode where they talk about the animals and plants that inhabit the islands of the pacific. Most of the plants and bugs made it to the islands via the wind, from storms (so they say) and that the only mammals to make it on their own are the fruit bats. and only a hand full of reptiles made it to the islands without any help via floating debris cause by storms or tsunamis. If it weren't for the Polynesians who sailed to the islands 35k years ago (or was it 3.5k years?), there would not be any more than a hand full of species on these islands if it weren't for us humans. Maybe the retard who lost or let his veileds out in the wild in FL will be thanked many years down the road?
inbreeding is not ok
Ok I am a little late to this one, but as some people have asked for documented proof that this is bad I can point to some documented proof. I suggest all those who have not buy a copy of "The Panther Chameleon: Color Variation, Natural History, Conservation, and Captive Management" In his book he has a chapter called conservation, and a section called Farming and the Problem of Inbreeding Depression. This section has some very detailed info on this subject. I would type some of it out, but I am too lazy! It does go over the fact that zoos who strive to setup breeding programs have serious problems with this and have to setup exchange programs. It also talks about the fact that this is done with other reptiles to try to bring out traits.
Basically, to sum it up, its a big problem. Yes there is documented proof. In many differant species of reptiles and amphibians. If you REALLY want to know more take some time and do research. This may not be simple, you may have to get some contacts with zoos and universities that have programs which focus on these animals. Jim Flaherty perhaps lashed out rather quickly on this subject, but as with many reptile and amphibian "species communities" this is very common when this issue comes up and a long time breeder hears people carelessly saying "it seems like its harmless." If I am not mistaken Jim keeps and breeds more Chameleons per year than most of us will ever see in a lifetime.
Is this worth trying just to prove a point? Well, you might try, but most people, like Jim has pointed out, will not purchase inbred stock knowingly. The book I sighted has alot of scatered info about incompatible genetics, including the fact that some locales of panthers which when crossed the offspring are sterile. I dont know about you, but if I found out I had a sterile stud, I would be very upset!
Ben
Ok I am a little late to this one, but as some people have asked for documented proof that this is bad I can point to some documented proof. I suggest all those who have not buy a copy of "The Panther Chameleon: Color Variation, Natural History, Conservation, and Captive Management" In his book he has a chapter called conservation, and a section called Farming and the Problem of Inbreeding Depression. This section has some very detailed info on this subject. I would type some of it out, but I am too lazy!
It does go over the fact that zoos who strive to setup breeding programs have serious problems with this and have to setup exchange programs. It also talks about the fact that this is done with other reptiles to try to bring out traits.Basically, to sum it up, its a big problem. Yes there is documented proof. In many differant species of reptiles and amphibians. If you REALLY want to know more take some time and do research. This may not be simple, you may have to get some contacts with zoos and universities that have programs which focus on these animals. Jim Flaherty perhaps lashed out rather quickly on this subject, but as with many reptile and amphibian "species communities" this is very common when this issue comes up and a long time breeder hears people carelessly saying "it seems like its harmless." If I am not mistaken Jim keeps and breeds more Chameleons per year than most of us will ever see in a lifetime.
Is this worth trying just to prove a point? Well, you might try, but most people, like Jim has pointed out, will not purchase inbred stock knowingly. The book I sighted has alot of scatered info about incompatible genetics, including the fact that some locales of panthers which when crossed the offspring are sterile. I dont know about you, but if I found out I had a sterile stud, I would be very upset!
Ben
Pure
New Member
For starters, the end result of sterile offspring is usually the penalty for true hybridization. Not same species, different color morph crosses. This furthers my beliefs that there should be some genetic testing done to see if some of the different locals are actually different species or at the very least sub species. Often in nature when there are geographical obstacles preventing animals from breeding with others from different locations they form into separate species/sub species. I won't get into greater detail as this is way off topic. I will admit that sterility can be and end result of constant inbreeding. But crossing locals is anything but inbreeding.
I don't think anyone was doubting Jim saying it causes problems. I think more so that they wanted to know exactly what were the problems he encountered. As for myself I want to know at what generation did these problems become problematic. Some problems are to be expected but often don't show up in every individual in a clutch. It's only after constant inbreeding that this becomes true. Least IME with doing this. Again I welcome Jim to correct me and inform me on what exactly happened when he did it with chams.
For the record, could you please show me where anyone said "it seems harmless" very few in this thread have spoken with experience in inbreeding any animal, and most involved in this thread know better than to make such a statement. I could be wrong, it is a very long thread.
Your "proof" as you put it, isn't telling us anything we don't already know. Again no one said there are no problems involved around inbreeding. What we want are the details.
You are also being kind of selective in the fact that you are only speaking about panthers. There is a lot that can be accomplished by working with other species of cham. I actually think that in this thread it was kind of a basic understanding that to do this with panthers was overall a bad idea. Especially seeing as we can't guarantee their genetics in wild populations isn't already inbred.
And finally, your assumption about the attitude of long term breeders coming in and having issues with people talking about this with other species of reptile is completely false. If you do not agree with me then you better never buy a leopard gecko, bearded dragon, ball python, or king snake. Heck you better just stay away from any reptile that has been bred in captivity for any length of time.
I don't think anyone was doubting Jim saying it causes problems. I think more so that they wanted to know exactly what were the problems he encountered. As for myself I want to know at what generation did these problems become problematic. Some problems are to be expected but often don't show up in every individual in a clutch. It's only after constant inbreeding that this becomes true. Least IME with doing this. Again I welcome Jim to correct me and inform me on what exactly happened when he did it with chams.
For the record, could you please show me where anyone said "it seems harmless" very few in this thread have spoken with experience in inbreeding any animal, and most involved in this thread know better than to make such a statement. I could be wrong, it is a very long thread.
Your "proof" as you put it, isn't telling us anything we don't already know. Again no one said there are no problems involved around inbreeding. What we want are the details.
You are also being kind of selective in the fact that you are only speaking about panthers. There is a lot that can be accomplished by working with other species of cham. I actually think that in this thread it was kind of a basic understanding that to do this with panthers was overall a bad idea. Especially seeing as we can't guarantee their genetics in wild populations isn't already inbred.
And finally, your assumption about the attitude of long term breeders coming in and having issues with people talking about this with other species of reptile is completely false. If you do not agree with me then you better never buy a leopard gecko, bearded dragon, ball python, or king snake. Heck you better just stay away from any reptile that has been bred in captivity for any length of time.
Pure
New Member
Please understand that my response wasn't trying to be argumentative. I was just trying to correct you. You are the one that came in here making accusations about what others have said. You should always be prepared to back that up. My response did come off abrasive, that wasn't my intention at all.
Agreeing to disagree isn't what this thread is about. Opinions on inbreeding are just that, opinions. This thread was actually trying to find some facts on the subject. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I in no way try to take that away from anyone. But you shouldn't allow you opinion to cloud the subject at hand. If you can provide evidence to support your opinion, then please do so. We all would be interested.
Agreeing to disagree isn't what this thread is about. Opinions on inbreeding are just that, opinions. This thread was actually trying to find some facts on the subject. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I in no way try to take that away from anyone. But you shouldn't allow you opinion to cloud the subject at hand. If you can provide evidence to support your opinion, then please do so. We all would be interested.
tkilgour
Member
peoples opinions vary here. I recommend not line breeding. I would find a genetically sound female from another bloodline and breeder you can trust and breed this way. Line breeding isn't for me. Some do it w. success. So I guess the sky is the limit. I just have my personal pref. about this.
Please see post #56 pg 6
Yah, I saw that post. It is very good info. I had actually never heard of inbreeding depression before that book I posted. I just dont really have much reason to learn about it because its so easy to not do it.
