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.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

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...

__________________
Jenna
www.prismchameleons.com

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

__________________
Derrik

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.

__________________
"In Target earlier today I learned there is really no good way to answer a 5-year-old asking you why you are looking at his mother's butt so much..."

[quote=Prism Chameleons;53969] 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

__________________
http://raisingkittytheveiledchameleon.blogspot.com/
Dedicated to promoting superior care for Veiled Chameleons

They are all F. pardalis.

-Brad

__________________
http://raisingkittytheveiledchameleon.blogspot.com/
Dedicated to promoting superior care for Veiled Chameleons

Responses in red.

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.

__________________
"In Target earlier today I learned there is really no good way to answer a 5-year-old asking you why you are looking at his mother's butt so much..."

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

hairfarm,



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.

__________________
"In Target earlier today I learned there is really no good way to answer a 5-year-old asking you why you are looking at his mother's butt so much..."