Why are paradalis still so highpriced

[Jeweledchameleons]

Dude, OK...
I agree with you and as I've said it's academic.
I can only mention it to give some people food for thought
that it might be a valid issue ok?

Hope that you have a great holiday and the best to you and yours.

Sincerely... me~

Oh yeah... tossing unwanted young in the freezer has been mentioned
to me a few times already by a few people... So it's been done before.

I Kinda think that the panther morphs were a result of unintended crossings
from a miss ID on a female early on.
That is why they were generally sold below standard price.
but then I could be wrong... just theorizing here...

 

[Kent67]

Dude, OK...
I agree with you and as I've said it's academic.
I can only mention it to give some people food for thought
that it might be a valid issue ok?

Hope that you have a great holiday and the best to you and yours.

Sincerely... me~

Oh yeah... tossing unwanted young in the freezer has been mentioned
to me a few times already by a few people... So it's been done before.

I Kinda think that the panther morphs were a result of unintended crossings
from a miss ID on a female early on.
That is why they were generally sold below standard price.
but then I could be wrong... just theorizing here...

Hey, I hope you didn't take that post the wrong way. I was the first response to this thread and never uttered another word in it until I was brought back up and it seemed like you were implying that I am either breeding or promoting mixed locales of whatever species. I am not.

Now that I've been brought back into it, here's another way I see it. The animals bred here in the US will never be returned to the wild. It is not a valid argument for keeping locality-types pure (remember, there's no such thing as locality-specific bloodlines with our poor import data.) The way I see it is most people prefer "natural" looking panthers right? I do too. But, since I've never heard a reason that I thought was valid enough for declaring that all panthers should be bred "pure," then I know it's really just my personal preference for a natural look. Since they're not going back to Madagascar, I really don't see any reason to make ethical judgements about what other people do with their animals, that they paid for, since what I want is....my personal preference. And it is not better than theirs. As well, I know that there will always be people breeding and providing locality-types with reliable results. If everyone started breeding crossed locality-types only, then it might be an issue of concern but it doesn't appear that we're in danger of that happening anytime soon. There's no reason for me to sit around worrying about it, you know?

I know that several of the people in this thread who have spoken against crossing locale-types of panthers do so with other species of reptiles. Why is the issue so important with panthers but not your other animals? Am I missing something?

There is not accurate collection data for this species. In fact, the first group of panthers that came in this month were being sold as Ambanja when I have it on good authority that they were actually East Coast animals, most likely Tamatave. All those females were just bought as Ambanjas. Sorry, I don't think all the clutches from these females should be euthanized once it's discovered the exporter to seller chain had incorrect import data. It's not reasonable to expect and I personally find it rather cruel. "A human effed up. Sorry, you all have to die."

From a money-making, business stand-point, there is money to be made in designer panther chameleon morphs, just like there is in every other hobbyist species. Look at the veiled chameleons: sunburst veileds, blue veileds, orange phase veileds, translucent veileds, etc. Not natural occuring locality-types. Are these morphs hurting the species in any way? A couple of breeders imported the translucents from Europe and sell babies for $1000 each! They are different and rare. The same could happen with a pardalis morph. There's a certain panther that gets posted on this site frequently that is a spectacular looking animal, but most likely of crossed-locality heritage. It is a stunning animal that was very popular looks-wise. If a line of animals that look like that could be proven out, I'd be willing to bet they'd sell for more than locality-type breedings because of their outstanding looks and relative rarity. Let me specify since that point always gets interpreteted the wrong way, the first clutch from that animal wouldn't be worth an arm and a leg, although grown-out adults that resembled the father probably would be. But, if you got a few clutches deep with the same reliable results....who knows? There are several morphs of ball python that command prices in the hundreds or even thousands that I honestly couldn't tell the difference between those and wild caughts. The differences are too subtle for me, and I've been around that species for almost 20 years! It doesn't matter whether you agree with the heritage of that panther chameleon or not, it doesn't matter whether you're into chameleons or not. That panther I'm referring to would stop people in their tracks. There is value in that.

Last, but certainly not least, Ron, I believe breeders have told you they've euthanized cross-locales in the past. I don't debate that. However, I have a very hard time believing they actually did it. The idea of spending the time to incubate eggs, and then caring for babies and spending money on feeders for 3 or 4 months+ just to kill them in the end, I don't know. For one, the babies could easily be passed off to a second party vendor to recoup some of the loss and even turn a profit, without their name involved. Second, I hope that like the veileds, captive breeding will eventually take the pressure off wild caughts. Pet quality panthers count towards that goal and in my opinion, should not be killed because of a human's personal preference for color. How cruel and selfish, really.

 

[phelsumatic]

One of my issue's with crossing is that some breeders will sell them as pure local's knowing they are actually a hybrid. I dont think killing the offspring of an accidental crossing is the answer but neither is selling them for 350 to 400 buck's.
Eventually some of the recipient's of these hybrids are going to breed there animal's then what buy an unknown local female then just keep crossing until they eventually get an animal that looks similar to a specific local and sell as such.
I guess this will be a never ending battle and I am glad that there are people with similar view's as mine with regard's to hybrid's

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

Part of the solution is an educated marketplace that deals with reputable breeders
and not pet stores or wholesalers of dumped or imported animals.
Self regulation among ourselves will be key and letting people know
what it best to have.

I'm of the opinion that some sort of guild or association be formed in the near future
to deal with any such problems and to establish norms of behavior
and evaluation of breeding lines... as well as prizes for quality animals.
That'll motivate and increase the momentum to breed not for numbers but for quality as well.

Right now the sale of morph crosses or "rainbows" are at a lower price point
then for "clean lines" discouraging lax breeding. Part of that will be if the
different locals can be cleaned up to the point where people can tell one type from another.
It's all about educating the public / marketplace.

The only thing that is really in favor of keeping successful breeding in the
hands of those that have taken the time and done the footwork required
to realize the importance of such preservation.
Is the difficulty and lack of ease in breeding these animals.

Ironically, in this way forums such as this are counterproductive.

 

[Trace]

I'm of the opinion that some sort of guild or association be formed in the near future
to deal with any such problems and to establish norms of behavior
and evaluation of breeding lines... as well as prizes for quality animals.
That'll motivate and increase the momentum to breed not for numbers but for quality as well

Isn't that is what the chameleon database is/was for? Too bad nobody ended up using that...

Trace

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

Yeah I know.
I kinda think it was premature
different people have to be gathered and encouraged to take part
as a part of doing business.

A breeders association with logo and certification for breeders
would set members above any tom dick and harry outfit and bring in more business.

We can't stop the random hobbyist from breeding
but we can prevent them from having equal footing in the marketplace.

 

[Trace]

Yeah I know.
I kinda think it was premature
different people have to be gathered and encouraged to take part
as a part of doing business. A breeders association with logo and certification for breeders
would set members above any tom dick and harry outfit and bring in more business.

That's kind of what Jason and Chris and a few dedicated keepers like myself tried to accomplish...

We can't stop the random hobbyist from breeding
but we can prevent them from having equal footing in the marketplace

Oh my! That's kind of an elitist attitude isn't it. One that keeps the prices high. (LOL! Here I am; the pot calling the kettle black because I'm the biggest chameleon snob there is.)Anyways, why the worry abewt the little guy? Big name breeders aren't the only ones doing making strides with chameleons.

A few more cents...
t

 

[Chris Anderson]

But, since I've never heard a reason that I thought was valid enough for declaring that all panthers should be bred "pure," then I know it's really just my personal preference for a natural look.

There have been a number of published reports and cases where decreased fitness of cross locale offspring has been noted. To me, that clearly indicates that certain locales have become isolated enough over time that while they may not yet qualify as separate species or even subspecies, that they are genetical significant populations in the process of speciation and breeding between the locales is counter productive to the health of the progeny and maintenance of distinct populations types in captivity.

If everyone started breeding crossed locality-types only, then it might be an issue of concern but it doesn't appear that we're in danger of that happening anytime soon. There's no reason for me to sit around worrying about it, you know?

Having seen many of the locales in the wild and watching a lot of breeders show offspring from their "pure" locales, I have to say that I am highly suspect of many of the lines available from various breeders. I also see these lines mixed into other breeders lines thinking they are pure and as time goes, I see a lot of lines I think are tainted. Obviously there are still lines around I'd be comfortable with but personally, I don't like how a lot of lines look.

Look at the veiled chameleons: sunburst veileds, blue veileds, orange phase veileds, translucent veileds, etc. Not natural occuring locality-types. Are these morphs hurting the species in any way?

I think the difference is that we're talking about variation within a species presumably across it's range when referring to color phases of veileds (with the exception of translucents) compared to geographically distinct variations in panther locales. In that case, there is presumed to be variation within the species across the range and random mating in captivity is assumed to be no different then it would in the wild.

Second, I hope that like the veileds, captive breeding will eventually take the pressure off wild caughts. Pet quality panthers count towards that goal and in my opinion, should not be killed because of a human's personal preference for color. How cruel and selfish, really.

I do agree with this. Hybrid locale animals are excellent specimens to go toward such a goal. I simply wish better care was taken in their production.

Part of the solution is an educated marketplace that deals with reputable breeders
and not pet stores or wholesalers of dumped or imported animals.
Self regulation among ourselves will be key and letting people know
what it best to have.

I'm of the opinion that some sort of guild or association be formed in the near future
to deal with any such problems and to establish norms of behavior
and evaluation of breeding lines... as well as prizes for quality animals.
That'll motivate and increase the momentum to breed not for numbers but for quality as well.

Right now the sale of morph crosses or "rainbows" are at a lower price point
then for "clean lines" discouraging lax breeding. Part of that will be if the
different locals can be cleaned up to the point where people can tell one type from another.
It's all about educating the public / marketplace.

Yeah I know.
I kinda think it was premature
different people have to be gathered and encouraged to take part
as a part of doing business.

A breeders association with logo and certification for breeders
would set members above any tom dick and harry outfit and bring in more business.

We can't stop the random hobbyist from breeding
but we can prevent them from having equal footing in the marketplace.

This is exactly what Jason and I tried to do with the Database. We put out articles on it, had threads about it all over everywhere, had logos and certificates for breeders using the database and everything. Everyone raved about how great an idea it was but no one bothered to utilize it. We had numerous large breeders agree to get on board and use if but almost no follow through (and Jason and I were very persistent about it). To be honest, we had more over seas use, small scale breeder participation and little-guy use then anything. I simply do not think there is enough of a core in the chameleon community that cares about such an effort to get anything like it going.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

There have been a number of published reports and cases where decreased fitness of cross locale offspring has been noted.

I'm aware of these reports. However, speaking with people like Ed and Liddy Kammer who have crossed locality-types into the 5th and 6th generations now without seeing any decreased fitness or fertility issues makes me skeptical. Especially when the author of one of those publications has been made aware of their success but apparently refuses to discuss it. So, yeah, if I was convinced of this, it would be a valid reason for keeping the locality-types "pure" but I am not, yet.

I have to say that I am highly suspect of many of the lines available from various breeders. I also see these lines mixed into other breeders lines thinking they are pure and as time goes, I see a lot of lines I think are tainted.

I agree, but that goes back to a buyer knowing what they want and being informed. You also can't descredit the possibility that some of the lines you're thinking of are "pure" and merely the result of selective breeding over several generations, similar to the captive vs wild blue-phase males. Like I said in another thread, unless there's accurate collection data (GPS ) on females especially, this is a never-ending cycle.

I think the difference is that we're talking about variation within a species presumably across it's range when referring to color phases of veileds (with the exception of translucents) compared to geographically distinct variations in panther locales.

Hmm, all the wild caught imported veileds and the pics I've seen of animals in Yemen have been rather average looking. I've always thought the high blue, high yellow, etc veiled bloodlines were the result of multiple generations of selective breeding based on that. Is that not the case? Are the high-blue, high yellow, etc animals distinct populations or...localities??

 

[Chris Anderson]

I'm aware of these reports. However, speaking with people like Ed and Liddy Kammer who have crossed locality-types into the 5th and 6th generations now without seeing any decreased fitness or fertility issues makes me skeptical. Especially when the author of one of those publications has been made aware of their success but apparently refuses to discuss it. So, yeah, if I was convinced of this, it would be a valid reason for keeping the locality-types "pure" but I am not, yet.

I think a lot will depend on which locales are bred together. Obviously certain locales are going to be more distinct from some locales then others and this would play into fitness and progression in any speciation process. There are a number of examples where seperately classified taxa can interbreed with adjacent taxa, which can interbreed with further adjacent taxa and so on only to find that at a certain point, the taxa can't interbreed back to the original taxa mentioned or when they do, the offspring's fitness is negatively impacted. Obviously, with panther chameleons, such reports have been limited in detail and no quantification has occurred that I know of so we really can only speculate but to me, it seems like common sense to do whatever you can to keep lines straight. Obviously, common sense to me in this case is to a certain extent subjective with the lack of background studies but the practice of cross breeding locales has always irked me.

I agree, but that goes back to a buyer knowing what they want and being informed. You also can't descredit the possibility that some of the lines you're thinking of are "pure" and merely the result of selective breeding over several generations, similar to the captive vs wild blue-phase males. Like I said in another thread, unless there's accurate collection data (GPS ) on females especially, this is a never-ending cycle.

Absolutely, buyers need to be educated and informed and one of the things Jason and I originally tried to do with the database was establish a means for potential buyers to look back along a bloodline's family tree to examine for themselves the blood inputs so the buyer could determine for themselves what they thought about the purity of the line. As selective breeding of "choice" specimens of a locale progresses, the resulting offspring are bound to move away from the "typical" representative of that locale, for better or worse. Some would argue that it isn't weakening the lines while others would argue the opposite. We really don't know. I doubt anyone would disagree, however, that random mating within a large founder group of diverse individuals from a particular locale is the ideal breeding situation for genetic diversity while maintaining locale purity. Obviously, selective breeding for individual traits isn't the best representative of this type of breeding program and while it may not be harmful, we can't always say that it isn't.

Hmm, all the wild caught imported veileds and the pics I've seen of animals in Yemen have been rather average looking. I've always thought the high blue, high yellow, etc veiled bloodlines were the result of multiple generations of selective breeding based on that. Is that not the case? Are the high-blue, high yellow, etc animals distinct populations or...localities??

The majority of wild caught import veileds are rather standard looking but particularly nice individuals do come in from time to time. The original transluscents, for instance were wild imports (three individuals I believe) that showed the transluscent phenotype. To the best of my knowledge, however, individuals with above average blue, yellow, etc., are intermixed randomly in the population rather then being a particular locale but I don't have data directly supporting that. I would assume a mutation like the transluscent would be locally common as an evolved genetic mutation in a particular area rather then a general example of variation within a species as I suspect high blue and yellow individuals to be. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has seen some of these specimens in the wild to hear about their distribution and prevalence in a natural setting.

Chris

 

[Kent67]

I think a lot will depend on which locales are bred together. Obviously certain locales are going to be more distinct from some locales then others and this would play into fitness and progression in any speciation process. There are a number of examples where seperately classified taxa can interbreed with adjacent taxa, which can interbreed with further adjacent taxa and so on only to find that at a certain point, the taxa can't interbreed back to the original taxa mentioned or when they do, the offspring's fitness is negatively impacted. Obviously, with panther chameleons, such reports have been limited in detail and no quantification has occurred that I know of so we really can only speculate

I've heard about the geography thing too. East coast x west coast panthers = viability and fertility problems. Without getting into a one page post, I'll just say that there are so many potential variables once you get up into multiple generations, with the species as a whole, that problems are bound to occur from time to time. Panthers, and chameleons in general, have very high reproductive rates because they have such high mortality in the wild. In captivity the mortality rate is HIGHLY skewed for panthers. Many of the animals that are bred in captivity would not only have not bred in the wild, but likely wouldn't have even survived more than a few months of life. There are plenty of other captivity issues that could result in failure of multiple generations to thrive as well. If some people have chalked up their failures with multiple generations of crossed-locales to genetic differences, I can't argue with it because I've not bred any crossed locales beyond one generation personally. But, when I see friend's clutches that are, whatever, 92% Ambanja-type and 8% Tamatave-type, I'm not convinced it's a genetic incompatibility that we're talking about.

the practice of cross breeding locales has always irked me.

Personal preference....But, could it be stopped? Many of the imported animals have had incorrect collection data for as long as I can remember and that continues with no end in sight. I wonder how many people are going to breed the East Coast Ambanjas they just purchased....

I doubt anyone would disagree, however, that random mating within a large founder group of diverse individuals from a particular locale is the ideal breeding situation for genetic diversity while maintaining locale purity. Obviously, selective breeding for individual traits isn't the best representative of this type of breeding program and while it may not be harmful, we can't always say that it isn't.

Absolutely. So who's gonna be the first to start going for random breedings while all the other big name breeders are focusing on "choice" specimens? It is still a competetive business in the end... Also you are correct, we can't say selective breeding for individual traits is hurting captive populations but we can say it is further removing them from any possibility of wild fitness (reintroduction.)

The majority of wild caught import veileds are rather standard looking but particularly nice individuals do come in from time to time. The original transluscents, for instance were wild imports (three individuals I believe) that showed the transluscent phenotype. To the best of my knowledge, however, individuals with above average blue, yellow, etc., are intermixed randomly in the population rather then being a particular locale but I don't have data directly supporting that. I would assume a mutation like the transluscent would be locally common as an evolved genetic mutation in a particular area rather then a general example of variation within a species as I suspect high blue and yellow individuals to be.

Ok, so it is just like I thought. The "particularly nice" looking veileds are a color anomaly within a population, similar to solid blue panthers on Nosy Be. In the wild, there are not populations of either species that yield complete clutches of high blue veileds/solid blue panthers. In captivity, those traits have been selectively bred for over multiple generations and the results of clutches are different than their wild counterparts. The point I was making earlier is that they are not naturally occuring "locality-types" but rather a possibilty within a population. Those exceptional animals have now been selectively bred, but it is not hurting the veileds or panthers, as a species.

I'm very surprised to learn the first translucents were imports! Do you know if they were young or adult when imported? It just seems like that mutation would be one that would be selected out of wild populations. Very interesting.....

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has seen some of these specimens in the wild to hear about their distribution and prevalence in a natural setting.

Do you have the Deas article?


It's a bummer the database never caught on. I always thought it was a great idea, but was on my way out of chameleons at the time I was seeing it everywhere. Perhaps the chameleon "community" will never be ready for something like that. I use the quotations because the community has always seemed rather divided to me. At any rate, I'm going to send you a pm. Are you ever on msn or yahoo messenger? There's a couple of things I've been wondering if you'd have more info on, or photos of