Can you identify this guy ? - Page 2

dank7oo · 07-29-04, 09:51 AM

I think Chris was referring to genetic studies that show different genetic make-ups for different color variations.

Let me know if I am correct in this Chris.

Jason

Chris_Anderson · 07-29-04, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by panther_dude
well if there hasnt been any genetic studies then how can you go and tell me that panthers are locals and not sub-species. Do they not determine this through genetic studies.
Is it not possible that one of the forms of panther chameleons today was the original from madagascar that eventually spred out throught time and eventually ended up adapting to there different environments through things such as colouration and marking. If the original still exists it could have become extinct hundres of years ago. I find it hard to beleave that in the begining of panther history there were many different forms of the same animal. I geusse we can call upon darwins finches for an example.
So Chris how can you argue with me about locals and sub-species if the proper research hasn't been done.
It seems you really just want to argue with me and prove me wrong any chance you get.

Panther Dude,

Before I even start with you, Jason is correct. I was refering to studies one the make ups of the locale specific color variations.

As far as your statements that I'm in the wrong for correcting you for refering to locales as subspecies, you obviously need to gain a better understanding of systematics. I really recommend you take some classes in evolution, vertebrate ecology or even intro to bio as this is a general topic that is discussed in these classes. Systematics is not based exclusively on genetics. While phylogenetic studies are one way to examine speciation, it is relatively new, and the majority of work remains, and continues to be centered on morphological variation. F. pardalis locales have not shown researchers significant enough variation to be scientifically classified as subspecies. They are what conservationists call distinct population segments. The whole thing is kinda like why Asians, Africans and Caucasias aren't considered subspecies. Bottom line, scientifically, until someone officially describes these locales as a subspecies with proper supporting evidence (which once again, has yet to be found), you're wrong, I'm sorry you don't like it, time to move on! God help anyone who tries to help you with your knowledge...

Chris

meow_mix450 · 07-29-04, 05:42 PM

panther dude please dont starrt another agrument here, and chris wasnt agruing in the first place so just chill

Meow

panther_dude · 07-30-04, 08:59 AM

using human as a comparison is totally wrong. We all know we evovled from a single species homo erectus. And it would be considered racists and immoral to divide the human races into sub-species. Not the best example. And yes I have taken all the university entrance courses for bio its just been three years since I did so its not as fresh in my mind as I would like it to be.
Sorry I dont have the money to take these courses in university. I'll barely have enough to take my biz courses. Also I was not arguing I am simply trying to understnd what chris is talking about. And now he has finally explained it properly.
Also I'd like to appologize to everyone for my crude behavior. If you guys actually knew me youd understnd why I am like I am. Manly I'm just kinda messed in the head right now and really need a shrink. Not even joking. So again i'm sorry for all the damage I have caused. And would really like to work on getting a bettter relationship with you guys and gals. We really do all need to work together.
So its a promiss right here and now that I will try to control my stupid outbursts.
I think I really need a vacation lol

well peace out gents
please forgive my selfish ways

latazyo · 07-30-04, 10:39 AM

sounds good Wade, good luck

but I think that comparing them to humans is a perfect andclear example in this case

dank7oo · 07-30-04, 12:25 PM

Sounds good Wade

Just one correction though, homo erectis evolved from homo habilus, which is from what we all evolved

Jason

panther_dude · 07-30-04, 01:45 PM

yes i know this but homo erectis was the last form of evolution, but this has nothing to do with chameleons so its all good.
And just to state that not knowing wheather a chameleon is a sub-species or a local does not mean that you cannot breed the animals. This is just getting into specifics about the animal has nothing really to do with husbandry am I not correct?

Oh yes thank you for not making fun of my mental state. I will really try and get better. My biz really depends on it. I know no one would want to deal with me with the attitude I have now. I know I wouldn't. Thats probably the hardest thing seeing yourself doing these things but not being able to control it.

Chris_Anderson · 07-30-04, 03:12 PM

Wade,

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anyone making fun of your "mental state."

Anyway, I think the comparison to humans is actually quite appropriate in the case of F. pardalis locales. All humans originated from the same ancestoral species/genetic state. All panther chameleons originated from the same ancestoral species/genetic state. Over evolutionary time, both humans and the panther chameleon evolved to adapt to local conditions, thus leading to a change in the gene frequencies for certain phenotypic traits. With humans, we now see Asian, Caucasian and African (among other) phenotypes and in panther chameleons, we see Nosy Be, Ambanja, Amkaramy, etc., phenotypes. In both cases, the different phenotypes are representative of the same species, simply a divergence of adaptive traits. Now, the gray area is when this divergence and change in gene frequencies becomes significant enough to make the transition from distinct population segments to subspecies and then to species status. The more traditional approach is to examine these populations for significant morphological variation. With chameleons, this is often done with hemipenal and lung morphology. Recently, more work is being done with phylogenetics. This approach has a wide range of uses. It basically allows researchers to determine the relationship of speciemens or groups of specimens to eachother. From as small of a group as a family to as large as full taxa, similar groupings can be compared. Once again, we encounter the question of when do these relationships to eachother become significant enough to constitute reclassification. Another thing about phylogenetics and cladistics that is nice is that it can incorperate genetic and morphological variation. Using cladistics, studies have been done on the F. pardalis locales looking at their relationship to eachother (based on color display). It has shown interesting relationships that generally have pointed to the northern locales like Diego Suarez as being an intermediate (not necissarily oldest known form) color form with east and west coast species being closer related to themselves. At this point, however, neither human nor F. pardalis variation has shown itself to be significant enough to taxonomists to warrent reclassification.

As for your other question, it is my opinion that inorder to correctly provide and work with these animals, a deep understanding of their natural history, in addition to their captive care, is of absolute necessity.

Chris

panther_dude · 08-01-04, 10:19 AM

yes it may be nessasary in your mind. But not understanding there natural history is, is not going to stop me from breeding my two chameleons. They arent going to say "Hey udont know enough about our history so we wont mate for you."????
I dont think so. Now if your going to be doing a research paper as I know you have done then yes you should know these things. Plus if your going to be selling these animals maybe but not nessasarliy. In my mind yes I would love to know everything about them before I start selling them. But as of right now they havent even bred yet so I have a year to study and your just making it that much easier. Being someone who has had the chance to do research on these Nosy be's. I geusse its a good thing your on here eh chris.

Chris_Anderson · 08-01-04, 09:54 PM

I would never purchase a locality specific animal from someone who didn't know what it was they were guaranteeing me. If someone is serious enough to take the care to ensure that type of purity and accuracy I'd want from a breeder, they'd have a pretty good grip on basic natural history of the animals they are working with.

Chris

panther_dude · 08-02-04, 05:47 AM

Yes chris but your also studying to be a herptologist. There are meny people out there that dont even know what a sub species or a locality is. Now obviously im not going to be selling to people who dont have the right information for the specific species im selling them. Just so we dont get that confussed.
But hey I geusse now I know so I dont see any problemes. Can't learn everything all at once. And never have I said I know everything, as I know some of you think that I think I do. lol.
Ive only done some real hard studying on 7 or 8 out of 200 something species. But man would I love to know everything bout all of them.lol.

panther_dude · 08-02-04, 05:49 AM

Yes chris but your also studying to be a herptologist. There are meny people out there that dont even know what a sub species or a locality is. Now obviously im not going to be selling to people who dont have the right information for the specific species im selling them. Just so we dont get that confussed.
But hey I geusse now I know so I dont see any problemes. Can't learn everything all at once. And never have I said I know everything, as I know some of you think that I think I do. lol.
Ive only done some real hard studying on 7 or 8 out of 200 something species. But man would I love to know everything bout all of them.lol.

Oh yes I was being real when I said thanks for not making fun.