What to call F. pardalis morphs

[Kent67]

I propose a change in light of all the recent discussions. I've been thinking about this for a while, but Jake's response in his thread about having to debate his animal's origins sums it up. We go over this too much for something that CAN'T be proven. Anyone familiar with the green tree python community is familiar with how locales are referred to. Unless an animal is documented to have been collected from a specific locale, or the offspring of documented locale-specific parents, the suffix -type is added. F. pardalis occurs over a very wide area with tons of different color varieties, even within the same populations, just like GTPs. Unless you went and collected the animals yourself, or know who did, all you can really say is that a certain animal looks more like a known phenotype than another. Let's use Jake's Uncle Sam as an example. He purchased the animal as an Ambilobe-type. It appears, however, to be a mixture of different locales. These are usually referred to as hybrids and a lot of people have negative feelings about them. In the GTP community, the sentiment is the same with two opposing viewpoints, except no one calls them hybrids since they are....the same species. Again, let's take Uncle Sam as our example. That is one stunning chameleon. Whatever it's called, it certainly does not deserve a name with any sort of negative connotation. It seems now, with people like the Kammers and other commercial breeders, that many cross-locale F. pardalis are being selectively bred for color. Why not refer to them as "designer" panthers? There can still be two sides, the purists wanting to maintain their -type specific looks and those who don't mind breeding for color or some other desired trait. At least all the back and forths about locales, which can't be proven, would become pointless.

 

[Canopy Chameleons]

Couldn't agree more, well said.

 

[Prism Chameleons]

I'd like to spend some time and say more about this subject, but I am on my way out... I have watched the forum periodically and have seen the occurrences of events in the last 24 hours regarding locales. I myself, have always been a known advocate of not mixing locales as a breeder of panther chameleons. I'm glad to see this topic raised in light of the heated debates that have occurred lately regarding the locales of panther chameleons. Some of which have gone completely out of hand.

I really am pressed for time, so I just want to throw one thing out that has been on my mind that was personally stated by a scientist to me who is currently working in Madagascar. I will have more about his work up on my website in the next couple of months. But, in my correspondence with him he made a comment about F.pardalis and he said, "I find it fascinating to see the trade markets distinguishing the pardalis species as 'Ambilobe, Nosy Be, etc.' as us scientists only see one species... Furcifer pardalis."

Just some food for thought...

 

[Vibrant Chameleons]

I like the idea of naming them "Designer Panthers" also.

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

Hold on.... dude,

You've said quite a lot there and you've perhaps overlooked a thing or two.

Firstly, these "locals" are already being selectively bred for color, pattern and other traits already.
It's just that breeders are using the rough local to obtain as many novel
and distinct variations as possible from the natural populations.

We both know that the images coming from the wild populations show animals that aren't as "refined" as what's already available domestically.
These ARE already designer animals being offered.

Benji was one hell of a cute mutt too.
but dog breeders didn't rename their strays "designers dogs" and we shouldn't either imho.

If these "mutts" are allowed to sell at the same rate as the geo locality types
then there's going to be a real problem with lax and casual breeders mixing up the refined lines and classifying them all in the future.

 

[Brad Ramsey]

But, in my correspondence with him he made a comment about F.pardalis and he said, "I find it fascinating to see the trade markets distinguishing the pardalis species as 'Ambilobe, Nosy Be, etc.' as us scientists only see one species... Furcifer pardalis."

I do not keep a panther, let alone breed or sell them but I have always thought this.
Think of poodles as an example. There are chocolate, ivory, sable...even party mix...but they are all poodles.
Breed your sable poodle with an ivory poodle and you have a poodle.
Breed your poodle with a cocker...and you have a hybrid.

I know this is a bad example as most dog breeds are already hybrids that we have created, but it does illustrate the point.
F. Pardalis is F. pardalis period. And for all you purists, I believe that they get a bit mixed up on Madagascar as well.

-Brad

 

[Brad Ramsey]

then there's going to be a real problem with lax and casual breeders mixing up the refined lines and classifying them all in the future.

They are all F. pardalis.

-Brad

 

[Kent67]

Hold on.... dude,

You've said quite a lot there and you've perhaps overlooked a thing or two.

Firstly, these "locals" are already being selectively bred for color, pattern and other traits already. Did I say they weren't? I didn't mean to.
It's just that breeders are using the rough local to obtain as many novel
and distinct variations as possible from the natural populations.

We both know that the images coming from the wild populations show animals that aren't as "refined" as what's already available domestically.
These ARE already designer animals being offered. They are designed to look like a "perfect" example of a wild phenotype. My use of the term designer carries a different connotation, meaning it does not look like some that could occur in nature. If you don't like the term, do you have a better one?

Benji was one hell of a cute mutt too.
but dog breeders didn't rename their strays "designers dogs" and we shouldn't either imho.

If these "mutts" are allowed to sell at the same rate as the geo locality types
then there's going to be a real problem with lax and casual breeders mixing up the refined lines and classifying them all in the future. Why? These animals will never be introduced back into the wild. I'm curious, if keeping localities pure is the concern, what locality of Ch. calyptratus are you breeding? If it's only about keeping bloodlines pure, that will never be possible because you're trusting humans to not only be honest, but to keep accurate records. I'm sure there's been more than one WC chameleon sold on kingsnake.com that was represented as a Kammer, Scream, etc.

Responses in red.

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

I tried to edit my first post ... but then with everyone replying... blah...
so here it is (again) wiht my thoughts refined.

Hold on.... dude,

You've said quite a lot there and you've perhaps overlooked a thing or two.

Firstly, these "locals" are already being selectively bred for color, pattern and other traits already.
It's just that breeders are using the rough local to obtain as many novel
and distinct variations as possible from the natural populations.

We both know that the images coming from the wild populations show animals t
hat aren't as "refined" as what's already available domestically.
These ARE already designer animals !

Benji was one hell of a cute mutt too and was Uberpopular at the time.
but dog breeders didn't rename their strays "designers dogs" - and we shouldn't either.
True, they're all the same species of dog, horse or whatever. But there are some real solid reasons
why random crossings shouldn't take the same place as the tried and true classification of "Locals" and "breeds".

Firstly, we would obtain several more distinct and varied animal lines
if we were to focus upon refinement of locals rather than just mixing them all together in a race (pun)
to see who can get the snazziest colors or crazy mutations.

I expect crossings to take place.. but not until the establishment of clearly defined lines devoid of muck.
then if you want too... people can go ahead and breed the English bulldog x giant poodle to the Chihuahua x Afghan breeds.

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

Brad, you're missing my point.
I know what a species is.

hairfarm,

Why? These animals will never be introduced back into the wild. I'm curious, if keeping localities pure is the concern, what locality of Ch. calyptratus are you breeding? If it's only about keeping bloodlines pure, that will never be possible because you're trusting humans to not only be honest, but to keep accurate records. I'm sure there's been more than one WC chameleon sold on kingsnake.com that was represented as a Kammer, Scream, etc.

We're not intending to return these back into the wild but that may happen with the way the forests are being destroyed.
Thank you, for the Ch. calyptratus example - the information for the Veilds is lost. All the animals were believed to be one species, bred and crossed bred and completely muddled. When they were more closely examined, it was realized that was in error and most of our domestic population consists of hybreds. We now only have lines of animals that fall into a general color classification what don't breed true among other problems.

I'm trying to prevent that from happening to the panthers.

The same forces that created the differences in the assorted locals would have in time generated different species... in one sense what I'm saying is that we should work to preserve that.
It doesn't mean that selective crossings aren't going to take place.
it just means that mutts aren't going to be as highly regarded as equitable geo locals.

 

[Kent67]

Firstly, we would obtain several more distinct and varied animal lines
if we were to focus upon refinement of locals rather than just mixing them all together in a race (pun)
to see who can get the snazziest colors or crazy mutations.

There will always be people doing one or the other of these options. It happens in so many different reptile species, it is unreasonable to expect the F. pardalis breeding community to be any different. We need to move beyond fighting for which side is right or wrong. You will not change anything. Other than maybe the one person I know of who collected his own, I don't believe there are any other true, locality-specific F. pardalis in the US. If you're going for a specific locale look in your breedings, it is a locale-type because you can not verify where the parents came from.

 

[Kent67]

It doesn't mean that selective crossings aren't going to take place.
it just means that mutts aren't going to be as highly regarded as equitable geo locals.

OK, just two examples: Ball pythons and Green tree pythons. Baby Aru-type gtps go for $3-400 and take a while to sell. Baby gtps from high blue lineages sell for $2000 each and are claimed before they're even out of the egg.

Let's say Jake puts up Uncle Sam for sale at $600. Let's say he also puts up a 100% pure Maroantsetra male of the same age for $400. Which one do you think will sell first?

 

[Vibrant Chameleons]

OK, just two examples: Ball pythons and Green tree pythons. Baby Aru-type gtps go for $3-400 and take a while to sell. Baby gtps from high blue lineages sell for $2000 each and are claimed before they're even out of the egg.

Let's say Jake puts up Uncle Sam for sale at $600. Let's say he also puts up a 100% pure Maroantsetra male of the same age for $400. Which one do you think will sell first?

Uncle Sam would probably sell first. It seems a lot more people are going for the best look they can find rather then the actual heritage of where they originated (pure locale).

 

[kinyonga]

Jeweledchameleons said concerning calyptratus..."All the animals were believed to be one species, bred and crossed bred and completely muddled"...what species are you referring to?

 

[Brad Ramsey]

So is it about money???
Is it about color?
Panther's are all the same....except for color/pattern....what are we talking about?

-Brad

 

[Brad Ramsey]

Brad, you're missing my point.
I know what a species is.

I am so not missing your point.

-Brad

 

[dodolah]

I have to agree with Brad here..
I think locale are really just a specific location where they found the chameleons..
It really is not a big deal.
Off course, naming them a "designer" panther will be good only for people that
are purist in the sense of not mixing locale...

I do understand the heartache of people buying an ambanja hoping that it will become an ambanja.. and turned out to be an ambilobe or something else.

But it truly is, in my humble opinion, has been blown out of proportion.
I am going to use an example that I realized might be a bit politically incorrect.
But, please don't misunderstood me. I just want to make a point. (I have no mean of disrespecting anybody; so, let me apologize beforehand in case i insult somebody).

I like the scientist response that says "to us it's still furcifer pardalis."
It is quite true.
I also get the idea of mixing dog breed although it's debatable.

a better analogy is (here goes...):.

homosapiens.
yes... humans...

I think no one will make a big fuss (i hope) if we see somebody doing inter racial marriage.

Black, white, red, brown, and yellow..
different locale, different coloration, but they all basically the same to us..
at the end of the day, no matter who's the parents, the babies are still humans.

 

[mightyzug]

the human analogy i think is better than the dog one for sure. for example the sherpa 'locale' has evolved bigger lungs / hearts than the rest of us in order to cope with life at altitude. are they eventually going to become a different species too?? i don't think so.

panthers are panthers, and while i respect the notion of preserving locales as they are, i don't see anything wrong with crosses as long as they are properly documented and whatnot. in light of recent BS i do think suffixing -type for unknown / CH specimens is also a good idea.

i'm not trying to step on any toes here but the purist standpoint stems from a more idealistic environmentalist / conservationist view where the pet trade, for the most part, could care less. by that i am not talking about the corporate chain awfulness that we are all familiar with but the end person who is purchasing the pet. usually all they want is a cool pet, and panther chameleon wins. they don't have a clue or care what the locale even means. not to say that there is anything wrong or ok about it, that's just how it is.

there are always going to be hobbyists that are more on the conservation side, or for some reason want to be able to say they have a "pure" animal of whatever origin, which just isn't possible as of yet. though with seeing the way some people are about thier animals or launching personal attacks on others animals i can't help but wonder how much of this trend is due to a legitimate desire to preserve what's wild and how much is due to the coinniseur/elitist type attitude.

i got a crazy idea... how about we just call them morphs?? we could document just what kind of cross the animal is, and then *gasp* report it when the animal changes hands. the problem isn't really what we call them, it's the whole pesky disclosure / honesty concept that some traders just can't wrap thier heads around.

But it truly is, in my humble opinion, has been blown out of proportion.

yea, i couldn't agree more, total understatement heheh

 

[Dyesub Dave]

I find this thread very interesting and funny at the same time. I really like the analogy using humans. Great point.

Whether anybody thinks it's right or wrong we all know crossbreeding is going to happen regardless of what our personal opinions are about it. Some will do it intentionally for colours or other quatlities and others will just perhaps have 2 panthers that they think are from the same background and breed them. I believe it was previously stated that most of us have no idea of the exact lineage of our chams so they've likely already been mixed anyways.

I've noticed on some sites that sell panthers they distinguish the percentage of locales of the offspring to the best of their ability. If some people want to keep purebred chams that's great ... if others want to mix them then that's OK too. If anybody is concerned about the background of the chameleon that they purchase then they can question to seller about lineage. If the seller doesn't know or have records then you can make a decision to buy on that information. (Or lack thereof)

I also keep tropical fish and know people who keep wild strains of let's say Angels who have reputable suppliers and breed solely for the pure strain. And while most people don't care what type of Angel they have some people would rather have the pure strain. To each their own. Most of these wild strain breeders could care less if other people breed for colour or other attributes. They do it because it's their passion.

I just think all this is funny because we're all discussing something that most of us will have no way of impacting the outcome. Perhaps the larger breeders can impact that the majority of chams available will be so called 'PURE' strains or crossbreeds but there will always be people who just breed for the experience and sell their chams to friends and other enthusiasts without knowing the exact background.

Anyways ... these are just my opinions and are not meant to disrespect anyone else's point of view. I would love to get a pair of panther chams and if I was told they were from the same locale I would likely trust the person selling them to me. (Not most pet stores mind you!) I have no experience with panthers so unless there were OBVIOUS differences in the two I would have no idea. I don't know the exact background of the veileds I currently own. One male seems to have a more green colouration and the other a more yellow/orange!

How about all the colour strains in snakes??

Dyesub Dave.

 

[PardalisGirl]

My Turn on this Subject...........

It's my turn to express my feelings.......I have felt and have stated a few times on this forum that I personally preferred that breeding of Panthers in captivity was done similarily to what was happening in Madagascar. Where mixing of overlapping of locales happens but breeding between totally separate locales did not. This was not so I could say I have a "pure" panther, but to preserve the process of nature and limit our impact on it. I've also stated that I understood other people's desire to do otherwise and hoped that they would document it and pass on that information to whoever ended up with the offspring.

The debate in this and another thread have caused me to alter my thoughts on the subject. I started wondering how the locales compared to each other at the genetic DNA level. Do they all have the "same" DNA but differ only in the color traits? Did they all originate from the same place and then move out through Madagascar and develop slight genetic changes to adapt to their locale? I am not a scientist and I am describing this in the simplest of terms. I do believe this happened, just as it has happened with so many other things, including humans. Jenna (Prism Chameleons) commented that scientists consider them to be the same.

Dodolah's analogy using humans really hit home with me. I will follow this analogy further with the hope I don't offend anyone. Throughout history many people have tried to keep various strains/types of humans "pure". They have started wars or committed murder to accomplish this. It still goes on in certain parts of the world. But no matter how hard they try to accomplish this, they have been defeated at any turn. Humans are now moving around the world and having "mixed" offspring at a tremendous rate. It is an exponential process too. A hundred years from now the world's population may be one big soup. No authority or person can control this process. It's happening.

Dyesub Dave's post illustrates this on the pet trade level. None of us really has any control over this process. It's been happening for years to some extent. Comments have been made regarding Panther breeding in Indonesia. We have no control over what breeders in places like that are doing. They are doing things with reptiles other than Panthers too. We have no control over what the buyer of any Panther does with their animal. The more popular the hobby becomes, the less control any one person or group has over it.

I am not so sure the same thing is not happening to a smaller degree in Madagascar. Can you tell me that no locals are collecting and breeding Panthers as pets? Can you tell me that no local has then turned around and let that pet from a different locale loose outside their house? Can you tell me that an exporter has never accidentally let some of the collected Panthers escape from their holding area? Or that a collector let a whole group of collected Panthers loose because a deal with the exporter went south?

I am still going to keep my collection and my breeding activities as separate and as documented as I can. But.........I now realize I may have a couple of things that are potentially not what I think they are. I will still only buy from breeders that also try to document their animals as much as possible. But........although I will do these things, thirty years from now the captive Panther population is likely to be one big soup. It is indeed a good thing that a Panther is a Panther is a Panther