Carpet Chameleon (Lat Maj)

[sageghost]

This guy is our Lat Major Carpet Chameleon. We got him last summer, WC. He has one of the most calm and layed back demeanor of any cham we have in our colony.

Ive seen what I thought were Lat Major's before, however this guy dwarfs every so-called Lat Major I have personally seen.

I guess Im looking for a general consensus as to others who have kept/bred Lat Majors as to a relative size comparison. Ive been looking to find a Lat Maj female since Ive gotten him and have yet to find one.

As of Sunday, he weighed in at 101 grams with a 10 1/2" - 11" Total Length.

Thoughts??

 

[ciafardo 4]

Thats insane i have only seen a few major in my time but none were that big may be he's a panther hybrid lol

 

[OntarioLizardman]

pretty cham!

 

[kenya]

Neat looking guy! I know Trace has had lateralis majors in the past; she may be able to steer you in the right direction.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Did you get this guy from Mike (FL Chams)? Mike had one last summer that was the biggest I've ever seen. I've actually spoken about this animal to a few fellow biologists who work with chams and they couldn't believe how large I said this individual was.

Chris

 

[Ryan Jarosek]

send a message to Kent67 , I can't remember if he has a female or a male but I beleive he has one.

 

[sageghost]

Yes! This is the one.

Thats exactly what Mike said when he was telling us about him. He's actually grown since then.

Did you get this guy from Mike (FL Chams)? Mike had one last summer that was the biggest I've ever seen. I've actually spoken about this animal to a few fellow biologists who work with chams and they couldn't believe how large I said this individual was.

Chris

 

[Chris Anderson]

I'm glad to hear he is doing well and its nice to have a weight and length to go along with my memory of how freaking big he was. Never seen or heard of another one that size before. He's a monster.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

Mike showed me that guy too but our consensus was that it's a giant F. lateralis lateralis. Both because of its color and pattern and because the entire shipment was of the nominate subspecies.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Kent,

But the shipment would have had F. verrucosus as well and they would have been collected in the vicinity of where Furcifer lateralis cf "major" are from (Southwest Madagascar). As a result, its completely probable that this individual could have been collected at the same time and been mixed in. Further, technically these are simply a local ecomorph of Furcifer lateralis as they have never actually been scientifically elevated to subspecies or species status. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "its the biggest Furcifer lateralis I've ever seen" regardless of where in this species' range it originated!

Side note - while I push that Furcifer lateralis cf "major" is not it's own species or subspecies, simply an ecomorph, I don't mean to indicate that it might not warrant elevation of it's classification status. I'm simply trying to maintain scientific accuracy.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

Kent,

But the shipment would have had F. verrucosus as well and they would have been collected in the vicinity of where Furcifer lateralis cf "major" are from (Southwest Madagascar). As a result, its completely probable that this individual could have been collected at the same time and been mixed in. Further, technically these are simply a local ecomorph of Furcifer lateralis as they have never actually been scientifically elevated to subspecies or species status. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "its the biggest Furcifer lateralis I've ever seen" regardless of where in this species' range it originated!

F. verrucosus has a MUCH larger distribution than the Furcifer lateralis cf "major". While it is possible that this animal came from Southwest Madagascar as you described, it does not look like what I've seen before as Furcifer lateralis cf "major". Does it look like the ones you had? Since no other specimens of that morph seem to have come into North America (or Europe?) in several years, it has seemed to me that both F. lateralis and F. verrucosus are being collected in other places, presumably closer to exporter's facilities than the southwest would be, like around Fort Dauphin?

I agree, it's the biggest individual of that species I've ever seen as well. However, it's going to be very difficult to find a female Furcifer lateralis cf "major" unless some show up with this year's imports, which is what the first post was about. It is my opinion that he shouldn't necessarily wait to be bred until a female of that particular morph is found, as I don't think that's what he is. Here's a poor pic, but they're quite different:

 

[Chris Anderson]

Kent,

My comment about F. verrucosus was mostly expressing the possibility of the collection of Furcifer lateralis cf "major" and to indicate that its hard to exclude it completely. I don't disagree with you that he doesn't look like the specimens that are typically associated with Furcifer lateralis cf "major" but have you ever seen a "typical" Furcifer lateralis that is anywhere near that size? I guess I'm playing devil's advocate slightly in saying that while he might not be what we think of as Furcifer lateralis cf "major", he isn't what we think of as "typical" Furcifer lateralis either. Obviously he falls broadly into this species' category but he definitely is unique because of his size. In the absence of being able to know for sure where exactly this individual was collected and thus which ecomorph he belongs, you could say that an alternative situation would be to try to breed him to both "typical" Furcifer lateralis and Furcifer lateralis cf "major" females and see what takes and which neonates are the healthiest. Not necessarily the most definitive of tests and obviously Furcifer lateralis cf "major" females are difficult to come by currently but it is something since we can't be sure of his ecomorph.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

Chris,

I get the whole Devil's Advocate thing, and I know it comes down to semantics, but you've said two different things here and it's hard to know how to respond appropriately. I never would have excluded this male from being from Southwest Madagascar either, however, given his color and pattern, and the group he came in with, it seems very unlikely. EcoRegional had an add for some "majors" recently, but they were just very large, typically colored normal lats of both sexes. While I have not ever seen a Carpet of any morph near this guy's size, it does not automatically convince me that he's a Furcifer lateralis cf "major". Andre the Giant didn't look like a "trypical" Homo sapiens, but he was. Again, all I was trying to say is that, given the evidence in my eyes, I don't see any reason for sageghost to hold out for a Furcifer lateralis cf "major" female to breed him with.

My comment about F. verrucosus was mostly expressing the possibility of the collection of Furcifer lateralis cf "major" and to indicate that its hard to exclude it completely.

But the shipment would have had F. verrucosus as well and they would have been collected in the vicinity of where Furcifer lateralis cf "major" are from (Southwest Madagascar). As a result, its completely probable that this individual could have been collected at the same time and been mixed in.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Kent,

True, my initial post's wording indicates a more definite possibility then it should have. The truth is we can't know for sure but I think we can agree that technically there is a chance.

As for his color and pattern resembling "typical" Furcifer lateralis, this may be true but color and pattern are hardly considered reliable differentiating characters for the identification of species/subspecies/ecomorphs. I've encountered similar situations with Calumma brevicorne and C. crypticum recently. In this case morphologically a specimen resembled C. brevicorne while the color and pattern definitely resembled C. crypticum. The added complication was that the specimen was photographed in an area where C. crypticum was known but that C. brevicorne had yet to be recorded since the split of this species. After consulting Chris Raxworthy, I was reminded of the fact that you just can't rely on color and pattern to differentiate species/subspecies and that morphology was more indicative of identity.

Unfortunately we've kind of drifted into a cyclical discussion. This animal's origin is not known and we can't completely exclude collection possibilities. Further, while his size is similar to F. lateralis cf "major", his shipment cohort and color/pattern are similar to that of "typical" F. lateralis. At the same time, we can't rely on color and pattern to differentiate and morphologically, the differences between F. lateralis cf "major" and "typical" F. lateralis have not been definitively outlined. So basically, we just can't be certain about what ecomorph this animal should be placed into at the end of the day or even if he represents an ecomorph we aren't familiar with.

Ultimately, you are probably correct that it might not be necessary to hold out for a female F. lateralis cf "major" and it might be wise to consider trying a "typical" F. lateralis female to see what happens. While it may not work, who's to say a female F. lateralis cf "major" would work any better given that he is different enough from both to draw question about his ecomorph identity.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

Ultimately, you are probably correct that it might not be necessary to hold out for a female F. lateralis cf "major" and it might be wise to consider trying a "typical" F. lateralis female to see what happens. While it may not work, who's to say a female F. lateralis cf "major" would work any better given that he is different enough from both to draw question about his ecomorph identity.

That reminds me of another thought I forgot in my last post. This guy is certainly extraordinary, and in my opinion, efforts really should be made to reproduce him. For what it's worth, I showed an adult male of the typical highland form to a female "major" on several occasions and neither seemed to recognize either as a conspecific. I really think females of the standard form would be more likely to turn this guy's eyes.

Another thought I had earlier was about an imported F. pardalis that I saw at Live Cargo in La Mesa, CA some 10 years ago. It was very old, emaciated, and greyish, kind of like the Nosy Boraha morph. He was absolutely huge, probably 22-24 inches in length. He was definitely longer than most F. oustaleti that come in and I've never seen any others that came close to his length.

 

[sageghost]

I would love to breed this guy, for sure. So any thoughts there would be most appreciated on what channels to go through in acquiring a female. Ive been on the watch for females, to no avail. Atleast not ones that he, IF he was interested, wouldnt kill in the process.

At the time we got him I had a 4.14 Carpet Colony, "Typical" Lat Lats. He showed no interest in any. Neither recognized the other as conspecific, and pretty much ignored each other.

Your recommendations are most welcome!!!

That reminds me of another thought I forgot in my last post. This guy is certainly extraordinary, and in my opinion, efforts really should be made to reproduce him. For what it's worth, I showed an adult male of the typical highland form to a female "major" on several occasions and neither seemed to recognize either as a conspecific. I really think females of the standard form would be more likely to turn this guy's eyes.

 

[Kent67]

At the time we got him I had a 4.14 Carpet Colony, "Typical" Lat Lats. He showed no interest in any. Neither recognized the other as conspecific, and pretty much ignored each other.

Wow, that's really not what I expected. While I still wouldn't think he's a "major," as we know them anyway, that makes me think that Chris' idea of him being from a population we're not aware of could be most probable. Did anyone else see the large normals that Eco had for sale a while back?

 

[Ryan Jarosek]

Wow, that's really not what I expected. While I still wouldn't think he's a "major," as we know them anyway, that makes me think that Chris' idea of him being from a population we're not aware of could be most probable. Did anyone else see the large normals that Eco had for sale a while back?

I almost bought 1.2 them then canceled my order , he agreed they were lat lat after taking another look.

 

[Kent67]

Do you remember how the males looked? Did they look like the male in this thread at all?

 

[Ryan Jarosek]

Do you remember how the males looked? Did they look like the male in this thread at all?

If I remember correctly they were more "bright" in coloration. After it was pointed they appeared to look like lat lat more than the one pictured.