What to call F. pardalis morphs

[Jeweledchameleons]

Kent,
Well I guess I may have answered the phone by saying that (although I doubt it)
I usually answer with "ron here".
(methinks you're imagining things).

re: us agreeing
Well yes and no... let me clear it up
I was using the word "valuable" not to denote monetary value
but genetic value.


"Why does this need to be advocated? "
Well because I feel that the changing of the name hybrid to "designer" for mixed local morphs.
would serve to tilt the public perception in favor of the mixed animals in the uninformed public eye.

We both know that they're all "designer" in fact.
because the process of selective breeding
has resulted in animals that are not truly represented of the wild populations.
But IF there was ever to be a situation where repopulation was attempted.
It would be best to have lines available.

But more importantly, the development of the "locals" would very likely
yield several more distinct variations
than the mass grouping and mixing of all the populations for this species.
given market forces and past history from other species.
(I've tried to explain this all before)

Regarding labeling
Kent, until there is some objective way of determining the locals of different animals (DNA analysis?)
There is no certainty about the existing domestic population here in the USA.

Determination is based roughly upon what differences can be determined from wild populations
and more importantly what traits WE subjectively judged as important by our tastes (Blue "Nosey Be's").

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

Jeweledchameleons...C. calcarifer is supposed to be a naturally occuring hybrid...calyptratus met/meet up with c. arabicus and reproduced....so can you explain what you are saying you want to prevent in pardalis?

The two subspecies of what we now call the Veiled Chameleon were once believed to be a single species. When in fact, there some differences between the populations spread across geographic locals (echoing the panthers). That could have been developed to better express their individual "local" variations in the pet trade.
Added to that were naturally occurring hybrids with another recognized species that thrown into the mix.

All of these got mixed and cross bred domestically resulting in a lot of mucked up genetically "polluted" animals and hybrids.
It's very difficult to develop a good line now due to all the randomness in the gene pool.
I'm not talking about "pure" regional bloodlines
I'm talking about animals that even breed true.
That could have been avoided and should be avoided in the case of the panthers.

 

[Kent67]

Ok, I got too tired to finish this post and just left it sitting last night.

Kent,
Well I guess I may have answered the phone by saying that (although I doubt it)
I usually answer with "ron here".
(methinks you're imagining things).

Usually you do, except for the first time I called you from my home line and you let it got to voicemail. Before listening to the message I left for you, you reverse called my home line and said something along the lines of "Hola, es Ronaldo(.) Bueno(./?)" Wow, check out that memory! (I wish you hadn't just called me and were reading this for the first time now )

Ok, I had a bunch of other stuff written here but I'm tired and deleted it rather than finishing it. After talking with good ol' JC for a while, we realize that some sort of agreed upon categorization would be beneficial. Here is what I propose:

Locality-type breedings: Selectively bred for the phenotypic expression of what each "locale" is generally agreed to look like.

Designer breedings: Multiple generations that have proven to produce offspring with certain desired characteristics. This would apply to animals that result from both mixed or same locale-type breedings. Imagine clutch after clutch of animals that look like Uncle Sam. It was wrong of me to call Uncle Sam a designer at this point, howver, he certainly could be a founding animal in a designer bloodline that would likely be very popular. Also, for definition's sake, the most refined panther chameleon line of all is the "Nosy Be blue-phase." Not only are the solid blue animals somewhat of an anomaly in the wild, the captive-bred bloodlines have been refined for almost 20 years. I prefer to use the term designer to describe animals that come from these multi-generation lines that have proven results.

The last category is for the mutts and mixed-locales in which the mates were chosen out of necessity, rather than for certain characteristics. These include the animals that are bred by average hobbyists who don't have fifty adults to choose from, but rather maybe just three or four. You could get a really great looking animal from one of these pairings, but the odds are that a designer line would be more likely to produce what you're looking for. There are a number of professional breeders working on both locale-type "pure" as well as locale-type mixed bloodlines of designer chameleons.

Once again, I'm just trying to take away the fuel for the locality debate. There is a consensus that there have always been and will always be people trying to maintain loocale specific phenotypes as well as those who mix them. There is also agreement that exporter's capture data is not totally reliable either. For example, when I see WC Ambanja panther, all I know is they're saying that Ambanja was the closest town with an airport to where said animal was captured. Was it caught within the town? No. Was it caught just outside the town? Maybe not. It could've been taken from 20 miles away from the town. Several of the breeders who've replied here or been quoted here accept that even as hard as they try, animals will always be misrepresented whether it's intentional or not. Change the terminology so that definitions of these animals aren't so rigid and reflect that there is no way to ever know for sure.

 

[Dyesub Dave]

Maybe I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about here but isn't the term 'DESIGNER' a little too vague? When cornsnakes are categorized (for example) it is by their colour or lack of. i.e. Snow Corn, Creamsicle Corn ... etc. Or even back to humans. We designate different humas by their colour or race. Wouldn't the physical characteristics of the cham be a better way to classify them with a common name? Such as using their color and/or some physical markings or skin irregularities (spots/bumps/crests/whatever)?

Perhaps I'm missing the point but I don't understand how the term DESIGNER is going to clarify anything about the cham itself. A DESIGNER cham could be any colour from any locale with any physical characteristics.

Dyesub Dave.

 

[Kent67]

Maybe I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about here but isn't the term 'DESIGNER' a little too vague? When cornsnakes are categorized (for example) it is by their colour or lack of. i.e. Snow Corn, Creamsicle Corn ... etc. Or even back to humans. We designate different humas by their colour or race. Wouldn't the physical characteristics of the cham be a better way to classify them with a common name? Such as using their color and/or some physical markings or skin irregularities (spots/bumps/crests/whatever)?

Perhaps I'm missing the point but I don't understand how the term DESIGNER is going to clarify anything about the cham itself. A DESIGNER cham could be any colour from any locale with any physical characteristics.

Dyesub Dave.

It is not a name for a specific look. It is a category that lines that are proven to yield specific looks, fit into. Translucent veileds are a "Designer morph." They are not found in the wild. They have been bred over several generations and proven to produce offspring with the translucent trait. Hope this example clears it up.

 

[Dyesub Dave]

OK ... But they don't call it a DESIGNER TRANSLUCENT VEILED right? It's just a Translucent Veiled. So if breeders and hobbyists started calling the mixed bloodline panthers names such as High Red Panther, Blue Bar Panther, Yellow Spot Panther and so on then we would all know that these panthers were bred for their colours or other attributes. Then we could save the regional designations for panthers that are from pure background. (As far as we can tell anyways!)

I suppose that we in the hobby could refer to these colour/attribute variations as DESIGNER chams but I'm not sure that the average buyer would ever have the need for such terminology. All they would need to know is that they have an ORANGE TAIL PANTHER and the hobbyists would know that it's not of a pure regional bloodline.

They don't call all of the variations of angel fish DESIGNER ANGELS ... they just give it a name that suits it's characteristics. The serious hobbyists know that it's a hybrid to produce those colours. And most don't care if they're not PURE bloodlines unless they want to soley breed that type.

So basically I understand what your saying but I don't understand why we need to use the DESIGNER term!

Dyesub Dave.

 

[Kent67]

*SiGH*

Dave, I didn't say anyone calls anything a DESIGNER TRANSLUCENT VEILED. It is a category that distinguishes REFINED lines from iffy first and second generation breedings where the end result of that little gray one month old can't be accurately predicted.

 

[Dyesub Dave]

*SiGH*

Dave, I didn't say anyone calls anything a DESIGNER TRANSLUCENT VEILED. It is a category that distinguishes REFINED lines from iffy first and second generation breedings where the end result of that little gray one month old can't be accurately predicted.

I realize that you didn't say that .. I was using it for an example ... the same way you were!

I personally think that the term DESIGNER sounds more like something that has been manufactured. Just doesn't sound fitting for live creatures ... in my head anyways. Of course I have no other suggestions at this time! LOL

But to each their own!! When it all gets sorted out let me know what we're calling them so I have an idea what I'm purchasing!!

Dyesub Dave.

 

[mightyzug]

i am also a bit confused here... i mean, of course nobody says 'designer' translucent vieled, because the title translucent alone immediately sets it apart as something special. what i am getting at i guess is why do we need a third category at all? like for the 'nosy be blue phase', what's wrong with simply saying that or 'blue nosy be' or something similiar in the title like that which immediately denotes it as something different than either a locale-type or a morph cross? like calling an albino python an albino and not a 'designer' albino.

i think attaching a special label like 'designer' to a extra category would drive the price for said animals disproportionally higher than any other panther, which is kinda obvious, but i do believe it would exacerbate the problem of people misrepresenting animals for profit as well. on top of that, it isn't really done for any other type of captive animal that i am aware of. we have our locale types, and our crosses, and anything that has been worked on long enough to become a stable 'designer' bloodline should have it's own 'designer' name, like 'blue phase nosy be' , 'albino python' , 'lounge singing poison dart frog' , etc.

i think i just have something against the word 'designer' in particular and not so much the actual idea you're describing here though

 

[Dyesub Dave]

i am also a bit confused here... i mean, of course nobody says 'designer' translucent vieled, because the title translucent alone immediately sets it apart as something special. what i am getting at i guess is why do we need a third category at all? like for the 'nosy be blue phase', what's wrong with simply saying that or 'blue nosy be' or something similiar in the title like that which immediately denotes it as something different than either a locale-type or a morph cross? like calling an albino python an albino and not a 'designer' albino.

i think attaching a special label like 'designer' to a extra category would drive the price for said animals disproportionally higher than any other panther, which is kinda obvious, but i do believe it would exacerbate the problem of people misrepresenting animals for profit as well. on top of that, it isn't really done for any other type of captive animal that i am aware of. we have our locale types, and our crosses, and anything that has been worked on long enough to become a stable 'designer' bloodline should have it's own 'designer' name, like 'blue phase nosy be' , 'albino python' , 'lounge singing poison dart frog' , etc.

i think i just have something against the word 'designer' in particular and not so much the actual idea you're describing here though

EXACTLY !! Thanks for getting that out of my head for me!! LOL

Dyesub Dave.

 

[Kent67]

The designer category really has very little to do with the point of this thread other than one thing. Realizing that a clutch of 6th generation solid blue Nosy Be panthers versus a CH clutch from a wild-taken Nosy Be are not the same thing. I'm talking about lineages that have been refined, that is all. If you don't want to think of them as "designers" that's fine, but the category still remains right? A 6th gen clutch with predictable results is different from a CH, or even F1, clutch. I'm using the term "designer" because it is used with so many other herp species.

There were two recent threads where the origins of a couple different animals were debated by a bunch of people who all had their say. One of those threads got downright ridiculous with people getting nasty and letting insults fly. They both knew they were right, about something NO ONE can prove. It was all pointless. I'm suggesting changing the terminology to reflect the fact that there is no accurate locality data for any of these animals and that because there is so much natural variation, anyway, the arguing about localities is pointless. I am also suggesting this so that when people with very good reputations like Jenna and Vincent (who have acknowledged that it happens despite their best efforts) accidentally sell a Ambanja-type that grows up to appear like an Ambilobe type, or a pure locale-type animal that ends up looking like a hybrid, there is some buyer knowledge ahead of time. Jenna said that she felt so bad about Uncle Sam looking like a cross that she refunded his purchase price, unsolicited. Can you imagine refunding money for an animal that looks like that and has more potential to go?? Certainly a very noble move, but had he been represented in a way that implied there was a lot of uncertainty in what he would look like once matured, she might not have felt the need to give him away.

 

[Kent67]

it isn't really done for any other type of captive animal that i am aware of.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=designer&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=kingsnake.com&as_rights=&safe=images

http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=21&de=451610
http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=59&de=537759

http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=10&de=534877

Can I stop now?

From Greg Maxwell's, perhaps the most-well respected author about and breeder of green tree pythons, website finegtps.com: "I define a Morph as a definable color and/ or pattern trait that makes up a permanent adult appearance. Phase denotes a color or trait that appears for a while but may or may not be permanent, such as a temporary juvenile color. Designer indicates a morph that is not normally naturally occurring. High end refers to any chondro that is an outstanding example of its kind, regardless of whether it is a naturally occurring or designer morph."

 

[Dyesub Dave]

Well I see your point about having to designate them somehow so that buyers will know what they are getting. I checked out your link and didn't know that this DESIGNER terminology was already in use ... I hadn't heard it before.

Well I guess if that's what's commonly used for other animals then there should be no problem using if for chameleons. But I still think it sounds weird!!

BTW - I don't know why everyone would be so concerned about where UNCLE SAM is from or what his background is - unless just for curiosity. As long as the buyer is happy with the purchase and the cham wasn't knowingly misrepresented (Which from what I read it wasn't) then there shouldn't be a problem.

Dyesub Dave.

 

[mightyzug]

i know what your talking about and i think i looked over the one thread in particular, it did get pretty ridiculous. i dunno , the one i am thinking of the person had a CH from a WC locale and was representing it as the locale, resulting in all kinds of crazy argueing.

but again the problem there was not so much what to call the animal, after the smoke cleared and the CSI were called in there was no question that it was a CH from a locale, as we know meaning unknown. but both sides were dead set on claiming this or that locale, or a mix, or whatever. like you said something that can never be proven. the whole thing probably would have been avoided if the guy had just properly disclosed the fact that it was a CH offspring.

 

[mightyzug]

lol yea, that's plenty. like i said, I was never aware of that terminology. of course i have only recently became interested in breeding and never ever had even the slightest bit of anything but disdain for snakes in particular. i know, weird. but i hate em.

 

[Kent67]

i know what your talking about and i think i looked over the one thread in particular, it did get pretty ridiculous. i dunno , the one i am thinking of the person had a CH from a WC locale and was representing it as the locale, resulting in all kinds of crazy argueing.

but again the problem there was not so much what to call the animal, after the smoke cleared and the CSI were called in there was no question that it was a CH from a locale, as we know meaning unknown. but both sides were dead set on claiming this or that locale, or a mix, or whatever. like you said something that can never be proven. the whole thing probably would have been avoided if the guy had just properly disclosed the fact that it was a CH offspring.

Exactly. If the community agreed that there is no way to prove it, and that consensus was to use terminology to reflect that locales can't be proven, then there's no grounds for arguments escalating to the point that the one we've referred to did.

 

[stevereecy]

My two cents

Hey aren't the Ambilobe populations and the Ambanja populations pretty close neighbors? And what do you call an animal collected half-way between them? And how much do the males or females travel? Do they ever wander into other territories? The fact is that we can only do the best we can. Some wildcaught animals that look like Ambanjas may have genetics that look more like a neighboring area. If you cross a dalmation with a pitbull, you might have an offspring that looks like a pure dalmation, but ITS OWN offspring might look more like pitbulls. Nature is funny that way.

All I'm saying is we need to no be hard on one another. We don't have the luxury of collecting stuff from the wild...we get them in the marketplace, and do the best we can.

All that being said, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up the only labeling system we have. Some of us like our animals to grow up with a color pattern that was developed over thousands of years of evolution. Not created by Joe Schmo in his basement because he has one male and a female of another type that is receptive. I think we all should still try to apply the labels as best we can for folks like me who do strive for purity. But be understanding when "mistakes" (if you can even call them that) are made.

Steve

 

[mightyzug]

If the community agreed that there is no way to prove it, and that consensus was to use terminology to reflect that locales can't be proven

i thought the terminology 'CH' implied just that, or am i confused again? ie 'CH ambanja' would imply that it is the same as 'ambanja-type' and no way of knowing parents?

we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up the only labeling system we have.

that makes sense. what we have is already established, and is easier to be more stringent about proper terminology, like the CH locale vs locale argument. there's no need for a new category if we already have one that it fits into.

but speaking as a

Joe Schmo in his basement because he has one male and a female of another type that is receptive

i don't think there is anything wrong with the system we have, the problem is other joe schmoe's who don't keep or report backround info properly. that screws up clutches for others later on down the line and joe schmoe either doesn't know or doesn't care, so he doesn't properly represent the animal under the classification system that we do have. the idea shouldn't be so much to create a better classification system as it should be focused on fostering the one we have.

 

[Kent67]

This ISN'T NEW! There is no new classification. I know this thread is long, but it seems some are responding without ever reading what has already been stated.

Steve,
You cannot say that any of your animals are locale specific, right? Since you can't, why market them in a way that implies they are specific and invites people to argue over what each is or isn't? We already covered the point about animals collected halfway between different locales. You can't call these animals Ambanja or Ambilobe, because they aren't right? What you can do is describe them as looking LIKE one or the other, right? If it looks like an Ambanja phenotype but comes in with no collection data, then it is an "Ambanja-type", not "Ambanja."

I've had some inadvertent crossed locale breedings myself. Even though the female was supposed to be Ambanja-type, the first generation had males that looked like phenotypes from Ambanja, Diego Suarez, and Maroantsetra in the same clutch. Even though they sure seemed to be mixed, should I have marketed them as Ambanja since that's what the parents were sold to me as? Should I have marketed them as unknown mutts just because some didn't look like they came from an Ambanja mother?

 

[Kent67]

All that being said, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up the only labeling system we have. Some of us like our animals to grow up with a color pattern that was developed over thousands of years of evolution. Not created by Joe Schmo in his basement because he has one male and a female of another type that is receptive. I think we all should still try to apply the labels as best we can for folks like me who do strive for purity. But be understanding when "mistakes" (if you can even call them that) are made.

Steve

Why do you think I'm suggesting throwing out a labeling system? Read the thread. I'm advocating clarifying the terms you use, since they are not adequate and cause fights.