Will Hayward
New Member
Chris, funny you mention that bit in your last post, as earlier this morning I noticed that CITES was still using the old old classifications like Chameleo pardalis in 2006 (thought they had Furcifer Pardalis in brackets).
why not breed Ambilobe and ambanja?
- Thread starter dodolah
- Start date
Chris Anderson,
I very much agree with everything you said. I guess I just don't know why anyone would want to draw imaginary lines all over madagascar and say that everything on this side is a Ambanja and everything over there is an Ambilobe. I mean, there must be blurry boundaries right? I doubt the mainland panthers are reproductively isolated from their neighboring locales.
I could see island populations being deserving of a subspecies status... although i think the whole concept of a subspecies is bogus to begin with, but i won't get into that.
The trouble identifying the locale of a female by visual ID alone is another thing thats been troubling me lately and I'm glad you brought it up. All it takes is one guy who's selling and ambilobe female and someone comes looking for an ambanja so the guy lies and says, "this is an ambanja". Now this guy goes and breeds it to his ambanja male and says "Pure Ambanja Babies For Sale" and so people buy them to pair up with their Ambanjas thinking their making pure ones... ect..
My point is you can't tell the genetic makeup of a panther just by looking at it. Just like you couldn't tell my fair-skinned, blue-eyed wife is 1/4 black.
Thanks
I very much agree with everything you said. I guess I just don't know why anyone would want to draw imaginary lines all over madagascar and say that everything on this side is a Ambanja and everything over there is an Ambilobe. I mean, there must be blurry boundaries right? I doubt the mainland panthers are reproductively isolated from their neighboring locales.
I could see island populations being deserving of a subspecies status... although i think the whole concept of a subspecies is bogus to begin with, but i won't get into that.
The trouble identifying the locale of a female by visual ID alone is another thing thats been troubling me lately and I'm glad you brought it up. All it takes is one guy who's selling and ambilobe female and someone comes looking for an ambanja so the guy lies and says, "this is an ambanja". Now this guy goes and breeds it to his ambanja male and says "Pure Ambanja Babies For Sale" and so people buy them to pair up with their Ambanjas thinking their making pure ones... ect..
My point is you can't tell the genetic makeup of a panther just by looking at it. Just like you couldn't tell my fair-skinned, blue-eyed wife is 1/4 black.
Thanks
Kent67
Retired Moderator
Since we're talking about CITES quotas and what not, quotas are not always used for Appendix II animals. I believe that when an origin country shows that it has its own adequate trade laws and enforcement in place CITES doesn't issue quotas. Is this accurate?
Edit: Forgot to add that I, for one, can't wait to see that Bradypodion review! Any chance for a sneak preview?
Edit: Forgot to add that I, for one, can't wait to see that Bradypodion review! Any chance for a sneak preview?
Last edited:
Would that mean that none of the species indeginous to the US are are protected under CITES? I believe the ornate box turtle (Terapene ornata) that lives here in colorado is protected under CITES.
Interesting topic...
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Joe,
Interestingly enough, there do seem to be boundaries between many of the mainland locales. Between others there seems to be some degree of intergrade zone but the existence of intergrade zones between what otherwise seems to represent genetically significant locales doesn't scientifically show evidence for a lack of species differentiation. There are a number of examples where adjacent species can interbreed and do along their common geographic range yet maintain the overall prevalence of their own genetic makeup in the rest of their range. Further, the existence of cryptic species is also interesting to point out. Just because two specimens appear the same in almost every superficial respect does not mean they are the same, even if they live sympatrically. To be honest, the species definition in itself is a huge gray line and many would argue a completely bogus designation in itself and that we should delineate between genetically distinct or significant populations. The species designation is a continuum itself that lacks definite definition and as you mentioned, its similar with subspecies designations. I would argue that these locales show differentiation which in itself indicates a differentiation to a degree that is worth preserving, even in a captive environment that is completely removed from the wild population.
Chris
Interestingly enough, there do seem to be boundaries between many of the mainland locales. Between others there seems to be some degree of intergrade zone but the existence of intergrade zones between what otherwise seems to represent genetically significant locales doesn't scientifically show evidence for a lack of species differentiation. There are a number of examples where adjacent species can interbreed and do along their common geographic range yet maintain the overall prevalence of their own genetic makeup in the rest of their range. Further, the existence of cryptic species is also interesting to point out. Just because two specimens appear the same in almost every superficial respect does not mean they are the same, even if they live sympatrically. To be honest, the species definition in itself is a huge gray line and many would argue a completely bogus designation in itself and that we should delineate between genetically distinct or significant populations. The species designation is a continuum itself that lacks definite definition and as you mentioned, its similar with subspecies designations. I would argue that these locales show differentiation which in itself indicates a differentiation to a degree that is worth preserving, even in a captive environment that is completely removed from the wild population.
Chris
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Kent,
I believe you are correct. The lack of a published CITES quota does not necessarily indicate a lack of trade, simply a lack of CITES induced quota due to appropriate other management.
I'm excited about the Bradypodion article as well. The paper on the fischeri complex changes is a 2008 publication date just to give you an idea of how new it is. I got the paper last night from the author who is also writing the E-Zine article on the overall changes to the genus over the past couple years. He's including the updates from this article as well and let me say, it completely shakes up the group. Get ready to start calling things by new names again!
Chris
Kent67
Retired Moderator
I'm not at all familiar with the export of US wildilfe but there don't appear to be any CITES quotas for the US. I assume that's because of our own laws that recommendations by an international group aren't necessary?
Another interesting consideration. Since we know how difficult it is to keep locality-types pure in captivity it might be wise to consider the results of pushing for sub or seperate species status. If that was achieved, all of a sudden you'd have much smaller populations of the species and trade restrictions would likely be imposed to protect them. Bye bye new Nosy Faly blood....among others, I'm sure.
Another interesting consideration. Since we know how difficult it is to keep locality-types pure in captivity it might be wise to consider the results of pushing for sub or seperate species status. If that was achieved, all of a sudden you'd have much smaller populations of the species and trade restrictions would likely be imposed to protect them. Bye bye new Nosy Faly blood....among others, I'm sure.
Will Hayward
New Member
Is that really such a bad thing though? When there is a species that is no longer available for harvesting you might say "aww crap I wanted those" but in the grand scheme of things... we are all chameleon lovers, and the large majority of us would be just as happy respecting a restricted species, and simply admiring photos from the wild. Heck for those of you that have tired of the lame panthers and veileds and have more appeal to less common species, it's pretty much all you can do!
Furthermore, it might encourage farm breeding, within the country, to provide F1 Farm Raised specimens, such as what is happening in The United Republic of Tanzania.
Kent67
Retired Moderator
To me? No, not really a bad thing, however F. pardalis has shown that sustained collecting from different localities with the current quota system has not been detrimental to the species. Furthermore, I think the ability to keep bloodlines of locality-types pure in captivity will be influenced by how much wild blood comes in.
As to the farm-raised thing. There are *cough* farms there already but there is a lack of infrastructure to verify that they are indeed breeding, rather than just holding wild caughts. Until that changes, I don't foresee any changes in CITES recommendations.
Pre-Post-Scriptum: Sorry, this one got long, but I believe details should not be omitted here for a clearer view of the whole idea 
I may be new to chameleons on the practical side of the subject, but cross-breeding is a debate I often had with the Phelsuma species, subspecies and color variants as well. Unfortunately, these day geckos are seldom referenced as far as the color variant's origin is concerned (geographic or habitat-related variants), but the problem is similar considering the subspecies, and there are quite a lot. Interspecific crossings are also possible on some phelsumas, discouraged by most for the same reasons I cite hereafter.
As far as pure genetics are concerned, if the cross-breeding happens between subjects of the same species and subspecies, genetic deterioration is less probable. But as those color variants are each endemic to a certain geographical area and further genetic studies are rare to inexistent (at least as far as I could google them and run them through the biology version of SciFinder we have, which combs through certain specialized journals and publications) , it cannot be excluded, and it is even highly probable, that they should deserve the attention subspecies get. Phelsuma lineata has 5 subspieces - at least - which are mainly color and habitat distinctions.
Therefore, a cross-breeding, more exactly heterosis, as the crossing is intended to enhance visual effect, color schemes, and patterns, can be potentially harmful, as subspecies have subtle genetic differences. Hence the danger of risking the rarefying of a subspecies, generating genetic disorders - most commonly, sterility, though this is more frequent with crosses between distinct species, say Bradypodion and Frucifer for example, theoretically speaking.
As color schemes are related to many a factor, including pigment cells, skin cells, pigment "vessels" in the skin layers, cross breedings can affect those natural traits with adverse effects closely related to those cells: skin defects, melanoma, over- or under-pigmentation, lack of one of the three main pigments, lack or malformation of the pigment "vessels".
Genes are stored in a twisted way on several different chromosomes for close, or seemingly close, proteins. Therefore, a genetic mutation induced by crossing species that are not meant to be can affect other systems as well. A simple example is the Stop Code, a three-nucleotid code found at the end of a gene that tells the organism, "hey, here is the end of the current protein you are producing, the genetic code after that one is gibberish" - there is a Start Code as well. A single nucleotid change - a minimal part of a gene sequence - can induce miscoding and production of useless, damaged or harmful proteins.
This is a worst case scenario, but as the boyscouts say, always be prepared.
Another aspect of mother nature is that it can be possible, but if it does not occur in nature, there is a reason. Either geographical separation of ancestors due to tectonics or deportation or migration; or darwinian elimination of weaker or unviable specimens and lineages.
Cross-breeding has been used in the past, resulting in the various horses bred for speed, build, strength; the different types of sheep or cattle for the obvious reasons of meat, skin and fur, they had specific goals. Go try to find a "wild cow", though some farmers desperately try to keep "old" bloodlines for the sake of preserving the primary variants.
Dogs are also a good example of excessive cross-breeding of a few different variants of "proto-dogs" over a couple of thousand years only.
By trying to improve a characteristic in unnatural conditions (there I mean, no predators, few if any diseases compared to nature, no competitors for food or reproduction, easy access to food, space, hideouts and partners) we would risk the following:
-hidden genetic disorders - that may or may not be harmful, but that further "weaken" the bloodlines by hiding dormant mutations, especially if the colors of the cross-bred animal are welcome by buyers.
-appearent genetic disorders - there again they may not be harmful, but if the colors are remarkable, the disorder will be inherited during further breeding
-sterility - at least there is no risk with contamination of bloodlines there, probably the best-case scenario in my point of view as it can allow for both cross-breeders to be happy without fear, and to study the behavioral differences in a sterile male or female, alone and in community. sadly, the purpose of keeping the species alive and breeding them is not at all a reality in this case
-diminishing the breeding capacity of pure bloodlines, thus diminishing the number of different genepools in the same bloodlines, and reducing genetic variety inside a bloodline. This risks what I would call "incest contamination", genetic disorders due to the very restricted family tree of the subspecies.
-ethical considerations: do we really want to turn our wolves of chameleons into chihuahuas and shi-tsus for our personal satisfaction? the same experiments have been made by others before, with reptiles as well as other families, and some species have been altered for less than that.
(I do not remember the name of the gecko that has almost perished in the attempt of providing more females for reproduction. Breeders got in a low temperature incubation frenzy to get only female hatchlings, and the female population, rare before as they died gravid in transportation or shortly after purchase, almost wiped out the male population. Similarly, a parthenogenic species has suffered greatly as males were hard to sell and almost disappeared of the captive populations, those geckos being capable of reproduction without mating. )
I am not keen on cross-breeding as you can see, too many errors have been made before, and we are probably the worst species at learning from others' mistakes Yet I don't want to impose my point of view, just to add some more details and information that could help some understand why many are against it. Captive breeding induces sufficient changes and adaptation in animals to consider keeping those variations at a minimum - for their sake.
To compare, there are the few positive aspects I found:
-new color schemes - if at all new.
I personally find that the chameleons are sufficiently varied already, and there can be natural variations in normal breeding too. Patience is the way nature works as well
-enhanced physical characteristics
they are hard to obtain, and hard to observe on such small animals. and what for? we'll end up with the Pentaceros or Octoceros species at the end very good if you have cable and satellite, quite secondary of use back in the jungles
Platys, for example, have been documented precisely so late compared to their spread in aquaria that there is only one global name for all the color and morphological variants.
The way I see it, there are more chances for these to go wrong on the long term, that chances of obtaining anything useful - I do not consider different colorations as useful I am more afraid of obtening a Superchamaeleo multimixans with a prime number of horns and the latest Gucci patterns on each side - or more realistically even weaker and harder-to-breed animals - than anything "good" or not harmful turning out of this experiment.
But I stay open to debate, as my predecessors on this topic. For instance, I would consider accepting the possibility of useful, or non harmful cross-breeding, with genetic control of each resulting generation - this would mean a widespread analysis and referencing of the present populations, wild and captive, to assess genetic derivation due to crosses, but there again I don't see other purposes than visual happiness of the breeder
I think the scientist spoke out of me this time
I consider terrarium-freaks as myself to be helpers, trying to breed species to keep them from extinction, to study their behavior, their adaptability, to know the most we can about them so that, if there is one day a need for repopulation, we can be prepared to offer our best knowledge and some specimens that have not really changed. Our hobby and passion can also help reduce captures and exportation of wild specimens, which could save them as well. These are my priorities.
I suggest some read-up on the keywords heterosis, F1 hybrids, as complements to this thread. Don't exclude documents referring to other species, as those questions - and sometimes, experiments - were raised in other circles as well. The basic debate is the same though.
Al
I may be new to chameleons on the practical side of the subject, but cross-breeding is a debate I often had with the Phelsuma species, subspecies and color variants as well. Unfortunately, these day geckos are seldom referenced as far as the color variant's origin is concerned (geographic or habitat-related variants), but the problem is similar considering the subspecies, and there are quite a lot. Interspecific crossings are also possible on some phelsumas, discouraged by most for the same reasons I cite hereafter.
As far as pure genetics are concerned, if the cross-breeding happens between subjects of the same species and subspecies, genetic deterioration is less probable. But as those color variants are each endemic to a certain geographical area and further genetic studies are rare to inexistent (at least as far as I could google them and run them through the biology version of SciFinder we have, which combs through certain specialized journals and publications) , it cannot be excluded, and it is even highly probable, that they should deserve the attention subspecies get. Phelsuma lineata has 5 subspieces - at least - which are mainly color and habitat distinctions.
Therefore, a cross-breeding, more exactly heterosis, as the crossing is intended to enhance visual effect, color schemes, and patterns, can be potentially harmful, as subspecies have subtle genetic differences. Hence the danger of risking the rarefying of a subspecies, generating genetic disorders - most commonly, sterility, though this is more frequent with crosses between distinct species, say Bradypodion and Frucifer for example, theoretically speaking.
As color schemes are related to many a factor, including pigment cells, skin cells, pigment "vessels" in the skin layers, cross breedings can affect those natural traits with adverse effects closely related to those cells: skin defects, melanoma, over- or under-pigmentation, lack of one of the three main pigments, lack or malformation of the pigment "vessels".
Genes are stored in a twisted way on several different chromosomes for close, or seemingly close, proteins. Therefore, a genetic mutation induced by crossing species that are not meant to be can affect other systems as well. A simple example is the Stop Code, a three-nucleotid code found at the end of a gene that tells the organism, "hey, here is the end of the current protein you are producing, the genetic code after that one is gibberish" - there is a Start Code as well. A single nucleotid change - a minimal part of a gene sequence - can induce miscoding and production of useless, damaged or harmful proteins.
This is a worst case scenario, but as the boyscouts say, always be prepared.
Another aspect of mother nature is that it can be possible, but if it does not occur in nature, there is a reason. Either geographical separation of ancestors due to tectonics or deportation or migration; or darwinian elimination of weaker or unviable specimens and lineages.
Cross-breeding has been used in the past, resulting in the various horses bred for speed, build, strength; the different types of sheep or cattle for the obvious reasons of meat, skin and fur, they had specific goals. Go try to find a "wild cow", though some farmers desperately try to keep "old" bloodlines for the sake of preserving the primary variants.
Dogs are also a good example of excessive cross-breeding of a few different variants of "proto-dogs" over a couple of thousand years only.
By trying to improve a characteristic in unnatural conditions (there I mean, no predators, few if any diseases compared to nature, no competitors for food or reproduction, easy access to food, space, hideouts and partners) we would risk the following:
-hidden genetic disorders - that may or may not be harmful, but that further "weaken" the bloodlines by hiding dormant mutations, especially if the colors of the cross-bred animal are welcome by buyers.
-appearent genetic disorders - there again they may not be harmful, but if the colors are remarkable, the disorder will be inherited during further breeding
-sterility - at least there is no risk with contamination of bloodlines there, probably the best-case scenario in my point of view as it can allow for both cross-breeders to be happy without fear, and to study the behavioral differences in a sterile male or female, alone and in community. sadly, the purpose of keeping the species alive and breeding them is not at all a reality in this case
-diminishing the breeding capacity of pure bloodlines, thus diminishing the number of different genepools in the same bloodlines, and reducing genetic variety inside a bloodline. This risks what I would call "incest contamination", genetic disorders due to the very restricted family tree of the subspecies.
-ethical considerations: do we really want to turn our wolves of chameleons into chihuahuas and shi-tsus for our personal satisfaction? the same experiments have been made by others before, with reptiles as well as other families, and some species have been altered for less than that.
(I do not remember the name of the gecko that has almost perished in the attempt of providing more females for reproduction. Breeders got in a low temperature incubation frenzy to get only female hatchlings, and the female population, rare before as they died gravid in transportation or shortly after purchase, almost wiped out the male population. Similarly, a parthenogenic species has suffered greatly as males were hard to sell and almost disappeared of the captive populations, those geckos being capable of reproduction without mating. )
I am not keen on cross-breeding as you can see, too many errors have been made before, and we are probably the worst species at learning from others' mistakes
Yet I don't want to impose my point of view, just to add some more details and information that could help some understand why many are against it. Captive breeding induces sufficient changes and adaptation in animals to consider keeping those variations at a minimum - for their sake. To compare, there are the few positive aspects I found:
-new color schemes - if at all new.
I personally find that the chameleons are sufficiently varied already, and there can be natural variations in normal breeding too. Patience is the way nature works as well
-enhanced physical characteristics
they are hard to obtain, and hard to observe on such small animals. and what for? we'll end up with the Pentaceros or Octoceros species at the end
very good if you have cable and satellite, quite secondary of use back in the jungles Platys, for example, have been documented precisely so late compared to their spread in aquaria that there is only one global name for all the color and morphological variants.
The way I see it, there are more chances for these to go wrong on the long term, that chances of obtaining anything useful - I do not consider different colorations as useful
I am more afraid of obtening a Superchamaeleo multimixans with a prime number of horns and the latest Gucci patterns on each side - or more realistically even weaker and harder-to-breed animals - than anything "good" or not harmful turning out of this experiment. But I stay open to debate, as my predecessors on this topic. For instance, I would consider accepting the possibility of useful, or non harmful cross-breeding, with genetic control of each resulting generation - this would mean a widespread analysis and referencing of the present populations, wild and captive, to assess genetic derivation due to crosses, but there again I don't see other purposes than visual happiness of the breeder
I think the scientist spoke out of me this time
I consider terrarium-freaks as myself to be helpers, trying to breed species to keep them from extinction, to study their behavior, their adaptability, to know the most we can about them so that, if there is one day a need for repopulation, we can be prepared to offer our best knowledge and some specimens that have not really changed. Our hobby and passion can also help reduce captures and exportation of wild specimens, which could save them as well. These are my priorities.
I suggest some read-up on the keywords heterosis, F1 hybrids, as complements to this thread. Don't exclude documents referring to other species, as those questions - and sometimes, experiments - were raised in other circles as well. The basic debate is the same though.
Al
Last edited:
Hehe yeah I guess it is hard to stick with one kind of reptile
More to the point, the bottom line is, there are more possible negative effects than positive conveniences in cross-breeding from my point of view.
Sure, crosses happen often in nature, especially with the phelsumas ( ) and the geckoninae in general, but are we the ones who have to decide of forced, or at least favored, crosses?
More to the point, the bottom line is, there are more possible negative effects than positive conveniences in cross-breeding from my point of view.
Sure, crosses happen often in nature, especially with the phelsumas (
) and the geckoninae in general, but are we the ones who have to decide of forced, or at least favored, crosses?
spatulars
New Member
I don't think it would be that easy to make a purple ambilobe without knowing exactly how chameleons inherit colors, although there has to be someone who knows all about that (totally not me, though).
I have a 3 month old morph cross, 50% ambilobe 50% ambanja. The ambanja side is blue on blue, though. As far as I know, no one really knows how he will look when he gets older, but I'm seriously excited.
I have a 3 month old morph cross, 50% ambilobe 50% ambanja. The ambanja side is blue on blue, though. As far as I know, no one really knows how he will look when he gets older, but I'm seriously excited.
reyesjoshuacruz
Established Member
..........
Last edited:
sandrachameleon
Chameleon Enthusiast
Agreed. Cross breeding may not appeal to everyone, but that doesnt mean crossbreeding is "wrong" .
I too have never seen an ugly panther chameleon. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I own a nosy ambi hybrid, he is lovely, nothing ugly or imperfect about him. His mother was also a nosy ambi cross, and clearly she was not sterile. She was the biggest female I've ever seen and lived a long beautiful life.
I submit that Poorly documented pure breeding is as likley to result in genetic issues as crossbreeding. Infact I'd suggest inbreeding is MORE likely to cause genetic issues, especially in reinforcing unfortunate resessive traits.
Please keep in mind that the chameleons in madagascar also interbreed all on their own. They do not care if their partner is "pure". The chameleons do move around by themselves. Usually slowly, but sometimes they have had help. People have lived there for a long time and interferred (as people always do) - people have moved chameleons around Madagascar - even the ones on islands will be likely to have had some contact with "outsiders".
Further, Please also keep in mind that the "pure" breeds outside of Madagascar are only as pure as the original stock. In the beginning, and somewhat to this day, collectors would sell panthers and call them whatever would sell best - with little concern for where the animal actually did come from. Especially true with females. So it is quite possible that some of the beautiful "pure" chams we see here in North America have a little mixed blood in their backgrounds.
Id also like to point out that the pretty blue NosyBe's we see sold here are not what real NosyBe look like in Madagascar. Breeders here have selected for a blue intensity that is NOT normally found in the wild. Breeders here have selected for pretty colours and size in all the colour morphs, making most of our CB animals beautiful but not really the same as those in the wild. We also select (consiously or not) for those that do well in our artificial conditions, which may have made CB even further different from the wild ones.
It is my opinion that so long as the breeder does his/her best to provide the buyer of offspring with as accurate as possible information about parentage, its okay. If I want a "pure" sambava, I'd like to get a "pure" sambava, not a cross. But frankly if I'm okay with a cross, and am informed of the parentage, why should it matter to anyone else?
