saved sperm or filial canalbalism ? a few observations!

xanthoman

xanthoman

Avid Member
i recently had a unexpected birthing on 01-27-10 of which only 5 were found alive, one dead (i think he fell to his death cause he was bigger and stronger looking than the rest) but was found dead on the floor. first a little history after the birthing on 06-29-09, i tried to discourage another birthing by restricting access by my only (free ranging) male during several months following, but i cannot say with 100% was this the case, so i am not 100% sure whether this was a case of saved sperm (but i believe this is the case). in any event there were only 6 (total) neonates found, and the male (once again free ranging ) was lurking nearby, even for a poorly conditioned female, 6 neonates is an unusually low #, so i have my suspicions if maybe more were born, but possibly eaten (because they were not noticed for several hrs)? what i can say with certainty is that the males was tongue shooting at the neonates as i was trying to gather them up, and he was also tongue shooting at their clear plexiglass .5gal tank once they were set up (he has now been placed under house arrest). the issue of both saved sperm and filial canabalism are both long term classic debates where jacksons (and many other chams) are concerned. there is no question that the male was trying (again) to attack the neonates. so the question(s) are, did the female save sperm ? and if not, would the male (still) have attacked the neonates if they were his own ? maybe because the male (who is a traditionally very picky eater) was free ranging, he was exceptionally territorial? or maybe there is something else in my husbandry that encourages the male to attack neonates (possibly the fact that he is in a constant state of hunger from being such a picky eater ?) in any event (at least for those who are willing to take the scenario at face value) the scenario disproves at least one of the two issues, either it was saved sperm (in which case the male was not attacking his own neonates, but still attacking none the less) or it was a case of filial canabalism ? make of it what you will, you decide, but it was one or the other.
 
In nature it is not uncommon for animals to eat their young after a certain age.
Perhaps the male perceived them as a threat, I doubt the animal is sophisticated enough biologically to instinctively recognized its own young, as well as their age. To him they were other chameleons, challengers in his territory - or so your theory goes. I agree that this is a possibility, and though chameleons are primarily insectivores, if your male was hungry well then its entirely possible.
 
which one?

i think maybe you are missing the point of the story ,the point of the story is not why did the male eat the neonates ? the point of the story is that it disproves one (at least one) of two commonly held beliefs, either jacksons save sperm (it is most commonly believed they do not) or that jacksons ARE capable of filial canabalism (most commonly believed thet are not ), the point being, either jacksons ARE capable of saving sperm (my belief) or that they ARE capable filial canabalism (also my belief) if you believe the facts of the story, then one of the two must be true, because those are the only two possible scenarios. it has to be one or the other so which one is it, do jacksons save sperm? or are they capable of filial canabalism? you decide jmo
 
Very interesting post! It's always neat to hear new stories and observations, however.. this had me curious after I read the whole thread.
xanthoman said:
if you believe the facts of the story, then one of the two must be true, because those are the only two possible scenarios. jmo
Click to expand...

When you say facts.. you also said this:

xanthoman said:
i tried to discourage another birthing by restricting access by my only (free ranging) male during several months following, but i cannot say with 100% was this the case, so i am not 100% sure whether this was a case of saved sperm (but i believe this is the case).
Click to expand...

So how can you be 100% sure that the male did not get with the female somehow, when stated above, that you can not 100% say this was the case?
I'm probably making this more confusing than it needs to be, but I myself am confused! :eek:
 
I believe that the little ones are recognized as wiggling food. I can't say if they were from saved sperm because you aren't sure if the male got to the female or not. However, babies generally hang out low in the forest (smaller feeders down there) and the adults hang out higher up. This would prevent or discourage the eating of the young. I saw a UTube once on here where a little guy was shown being eaten by a bigger guy. ACKKK Many comments on that post.
 
xanthoman said:
i think maybe you are missing the point of the story ,the point of the story is not why did the male eat the neonates ? the point of the story is that it disproves one (at least one) of two commonly held beliefs, either jacksons save sperm (it is most commonly believed they do not) or that jacksons ARE capable of filial canabalism (most commonly believed thet are not ), the point being, either jacksons ARE capable of saving sperm (my belief) or that they ARE capable filial canabalism (also my belief) if you believe the facts of the story, then one of the two must be true, because those are the only two possible scenarios. it has to be one or the other so which one is it, do jacksons save sperm? or are they capable of filial canabalism? you decide jmo
Click to expand...

How did you decide that the most common belief is that T. jacksonii does not store sperm? It seems to be a widely accepted belief that they do and it has been shown in closely related species which further indicates that they likely would.

Also, filial cannibalism generally indicates that the consumption of one's own offspring is an adaptive parental strategy, somehow increasing the chances of successfully passing on their own genes. In a species that does not perform parental care, the only foreseeable adaptive parental strategy in performing filial cannibalism is that they increase their own fitness and are thus more likely to successfully reproduce in the future. The biggest problem I have with your statements, however, is that you've done nothing to indicate in any way that the male recognized the neonates as his own offspring rather then offspring from any other male or just a prey item, which would rule out any adaptive parental strategy.

Chris
 
xanthoman said:
i think maybe you are missing the point of the story ,the point of the story is not why did the male eat the neonates ? the point of the story is that it disproves one (at least one) of two commonly held beliefs, either jacksons save sperm (it is most commonly believed they do not) or that jacksons ARE capable of filial canabalism (most commonly believed thet are not ), the point being, either jacksons ARE capable of saving sperm (my belief) or that they ARE capable filial canabalism (also my belief) if you believe the facts of the story, then one of the two must be true, because those are the only two possible scenarios. it has to be one or the other so which one is it, do jacksons save sperm? or are they capable of filial canabalism? you decide jmo
Click to expand...


Perhaps Im missing something? why should both not be possible? :)

Also, filial cannibalism generally indicates that the consumption of one's own offspring is an adaptive parental strategy, somehow increasing the chances of successfully passing on their own genes.

One would assume Chris, that the strategy is to dispose of weak young, thus providing more prey in a given area to stronger healthier ones, particularly perhaps, during seasons where food availability is low.
Perhaps some young were weak, struggling, giving off pheromones of some kind, hence making them a target?
Though im not sure how much credibility I give to Squamata developing such a strategy for the reason given, weak young are commonly targeted for cannibalism in many species up and down the food chain, if only because they are easy food.
Recognition of ones own young/relatives is recorded fact (cunningham skinks), But again, this may have no bearing on a given case of cannabalism.
I see no reason a particular species should not be capable of sperm storage, this itself is often a strategy for survival, but since xanthoman cannot garantee the male did not mate, there is no reason to suggest this was the case this time, but it's possible.
 
Last edited:
clarification (i hope)

my personal impression was that the more commonly held belief was that jacksons do not save sperm . that seems to be the opinion held by the majority of the posts i have read [despite having read several posts that indicate they most definitely indicate they do hold sperm, (it is my personal belief they do)] i had never even given the issue of filial canabalism much thought, until i made a post after the 06-29-09 birthing that there had been had been an assault by my free ranging male of the then recently born neonates, at which time brad assertively disputed filial canabalism. i am assuming that brad has read infinitely more posts on the subject than me, but my personal experience has been that (at least some) males (whether filial or not) will attack neonates given the opportunity. / after the birthing of 06-29-09 i took steps to physically deny the male of the the female by making it what i thought was physically improbable for him to access her. my cages are in my bedroom and i spend a great deal of time viewing them , since taking those steps i had never seen the male attempt to access her or even indicate that he was interested in doing so, but that does not mean with 100% certainty that it did not happen. i suppose it is remotely possible that he was able to preform some sort of chameleon acrobatics while i wasnt there, so if he didnt access her then it was definitely a case of saved sperm , but in either case he was definitely attacking the recently born neonates right while i was standing there, which would mean (if it wasnt saved sperm ) that filial canabalism does exist. i dont recall making any assertion that the male did or didnt have a way to tell the difference (and i dont think they care). the moral of the story is that i believe jacksons do save sperm, and (filial or not), keep the males away from the neonates or they are likely to get eaten. hope that makes more sense of things, sorry for any confusion
 
If the chameleons are capable of eating feeder lizards and pinkies you really shouldn't risk leaving babies in there with the adults..
 
I am by no means an expert in chameleon husbandry or breeding by any means but I would like to offer this:

Chi-Chi gave birth last summer to 9 babes, did not find any dead in viv so if there were more it would have been canabalism -- but who is to say since there is no evidence of more than 9 birthed.

She has not been mated since that birthing. Start of last month she yielded
20 "cham pearls" of which none showed embryonic development.
 
The first part of the video was kinda funny, until the little one got eaten =/. What kind of chams live in the desert like that anyway?
 
lol- the male and the female will eat babies if they are their own or someone elses. The female will not for a while- but take the babies away for a day or two and bring one back and it will be lunch. I really doubt chams can recognize or even consider if the baby is their own or not. To them it's just lunch. You guys are adding way too much complexity to their thinking...

Don't believe me? take a piece of glass, open your cage, hold the baby on one side of the glass and keep your cage on the other. Any adult that has been hand fed and isn't shy to feed for you will have a try for the baby.

And they won't care if it's theirs or anybody elses. And they won't care if they are healthy or sickly.

They'll think they look delicious. End of thought.
 
xanthoman said:
my personal impression was that the more commonly held belief was that jacksons do not save sperm . that seems to be the opinion held by the majority of the posts i have read [despite having read several posts that indicate they most definitely indicate they do hold sperm, (it is my personal belief they do)] i had never even given the issue of filial canabalism much thought, until i made a post after the 06-29-09 birthing that there had been had been an assault by my free ranging male of the then recently born neonates, at which time brad assertively disputed filial canabalism. i am assuming that brad has read infinitely more posts on the subject than me, but my personal experience has been that (at least some) males (whether filial or not) will attack neonates given the opportunity. / after the birthing of 06-29-09 i took steps to physically deny the male of the the female by making it what i thought was physically improbable for him to access her. my cages are in my bedroom and i spend a great deal of time viewing them , since taking those steps i had never seen the male attempt to access her or even indicate that he was interested in doing so, but that does not mean with 100% certainty that it did not happen. i suppose it is remotely possible that he was able to preform some sort of chameleon acrobatics while i wasnt there, so if he didnt access her then it was definitely a case of saved sperm , but in either case he was definitely attacking the recently born neonates right while i was standing there, which would mean (if it wasnt saved sperm ) that filial canabalism does exist. i dont recall making any assertion that the male did or didnt have a way to tell the difference (and i dont think they care). the moral of the story is that i believe jacksons do save sperm, and (filial or not), keep the males away from the neonates or they are likely to get eaten. hope that makes more sense of things, sorry for any confusion
Click to expand...

My point is that since you can not show that the male had any inclination that the offspring were in fact his own, calling it filial cannibalism isn't very accurate because that term indicates that the infanticide is the result of an adaptive parental strategy. Obviously is they can't tell the difference, there is no strategy.

If the male was selectively eating the weak offspring or, in the case of multiple paternity, only eating those offspring sired by another male, then I would agree that this would be a case of filial cannibalism. Unfortunately, this seems like nothing other than opportunistic feeding on a novel prey item.

Chris
 
i agree, my point exactly, males are subject to viewing young as opportunistic prey regardless of whether filial or not. i dont think they know, i dont think they care. to them it is just an attractive size and shape feeder,with just the right motion, in fact i am not even convinced they recognize them as chameleons. i dont think there is any guilt , strategy or intent involved, to them it is just another meal. jmo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChameLeon_
New veiled chameleon finally arrived <3
Replies
13
Views
506
elizaann2
elizaann2
javadi
Some thoughts on fog/mist/rain + observations from Madagascar. Fog droplet size and fog dynamics
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
kinyonga
K
corynnonthecob
Leone is lethargic
Replies
19
Views
609
ChamelaChameleon
C
NynWitt
Maybe gout? & mouth injury, Help!
Replies
15
Views
583
elizaann2
elizaann2
Redbulllady
Tongue or no tongue?
Replies
18
Views
929
Morpheo's Mom
Morpheo's Mom
Back
Top Bottom