why not breed Ambilobe and ambanja?
- Thread starter dodolah
- Start date
Will Hayward
New Member
Why? Because it causes not only a huge headache for others looking for pure wild form liniages, but can also contaminate those pure linages, since females do not show their locales, and some hybrid locales can appear as one certain locale or a mix. On top of that, some studies have shown weakened genes.
Read on an old thread: https://www.chameleonforums.com/panther-hybrids-329/
This is one of many that talk about it.
Read on an old thread: https://www.chameleonforums.com/panther-hybrids-329/
This is one of many that talk about it.
When I first got into Chams I thought crossbreeding sounded like a fun idea. But after reading on it, crossbreeding to me seems like imperfecting what nature perfected, which is what nature does. I guess Im more conservative to the idea since their true home, Madagascar, is going away slowly and Chameleon keepers are almost the only thing left to preserve it.
As long as people keep their lineages well documented it is fine and will not be a headache to anyone. The only problem with cross breeding is that people sometimes do not document these lineages. i really enjoy cross breeding because of the amazing colors you can get. The kammers have a purple barred guy not sure if he is pure or cross bred. He looks amazing though.
Dean Pulcini
Avid Member
You said it, not sure that's the problem in a nut shell.
Will Hayward
New Member
Since you cannot guarantee that;
-Everyone will keep records of it
-That keepers are educated enough to know the differences
-That the records will be passed on as the chameleons are passed to other keepers
-That Wholesalers, who are profit-driven will ensure this
-As always there is a risk of mixing up females, this just complicates it further.
It's jsut one of thsoe things were one person can ruin it for everyone, and so it shouldn't be done at all.
And as said before, or just simply;
-Purebred locales are stunning enough!!!
-There have been documented genetic weakening in mixed offspring.
-Why not strive to breed better pure locales using known liniages, rather than mixing and creating potentially ugly offspring. With cross locales there is an unknown factor, they wont always come out as beautiful as the ones you see from the Kammers. Remember those photos are Holdbacks ("picks of the litter") chosen from likely half a dozen clutches!
-Not speaking strictly about Panthers, but there is a risk of importation of these reptiles being cut off. There may be a possibility that Farm breeding them and captive specimens could help to repopulate the wild. Sure, its a bit wild of a theory, but it's been done with many mammal species and birds.
I'm sure of two things.
One, that there are plenty more reasons why not to do it, than why to.
Two, One of the few if any reasons to, is for potentially nice offspring. Potentially.
-Everyone will keep records of it
-That keepers are educated enough to know the differences
-That the records will be passed on as the chameleons are passed to other keepers
-That Wholesalers, who are profit-driven will ensure this
-As always there is a risk of mixing up females, this just complicates it further.
It's jsut one of thsoe things were one person can ruin it for everyone, and so it shouldn't be done at all.
And as said before, or just simply;
-Purebred locales are stunning enough!!!
-There have been documented genetic weakening in mixed offspring.
-Why not strive to breed better pure locales using known liniages, rather than mixing and creating potentially ugly offspring. With cross locales there is an unknown factor, they wont always come out as beautiful as the ones you see from the Kammers. Remember those photos are Holdbacks ("picks of the litter") chosen from likely half a dozen clutches!
-Not speaking strictly about Panthers, but there is a risk of importation of these reptiles being cut off. There may be a possibility that Farm breeding them and captive specimens could help to repopulate the wild. Sure, its a bit wild of a theory, but it's been done with many mammal species and birds.
I'm sure of two things.
One, that there are plenty more reasons why not to do it, than why to.
Two, One of the few if any reasons to, is for potentially nice offspring. Potentially.
No need to get so defensive, I just think that people should have the option to cross breed if they want, and know the right steps to properly documenting their new generations if they decide to.
Please show me the link to the genetic weakening, I find that very interesting. Also could you post a pic of an "ugly" off spring, I personally have never seen one.
Please show me the link to the genetic weakening, I find that very interesting. Also could you post a pic of an "ugly" off spring, I personally have never seen one.
i would also like a backup link on genetic weakening, as i have also read elsewhere (maybe even a different thread here) that some cross bred chams could potentially be healthier. somebody also mentioned about the different locales of vieled being cross bred for a very long time but nobody seems to care
Will Hayward
New Member
Defensive? Who is acting defensive. What I see is a constructive conversation. If you think I'm acting defensively by writing plenty, well, I'm having to answer to more posters.
Sure people have the option to do it. They always will. However there will Always be people abusing it.
As far as the research done about cross locales, it's somewhere in a past thread here. Jim F. of The chameleon company was one who posted supporting this, with his findings. Also there have been some findings of decreased fertility (I'm not saying there are written articles, but pers. comm and forums posts about it), possibly that the genes aren't as compatible with each other as two specimens from the same geographic locality. This is also described in one of those pass threads.
I'm sure healthier chameleons come from selective breeding of fresh "wild sourced blood", with diverse bloodlines. Now just theoretical now, but lets looks at dog breeds. There are an infinite number of dog breeds that are bred selectively by crossing breeds. They are bred for certain strengths (hearing, scenting, strength, size, etc) but each one has it's own flaws. Large dogs generally have short lifespans and have arthritis at a young age. Small dogs like pugs or bull dogs with flat faces have respriatory issues. The most basic untainted canine is a wolf, one of natures best predators, flawless. Comepare the wolf to the wild panther, and the breathless pug to tampered genetics. Really it's not clearly defined point for either side of the discussion... however it's something to think about.
Locales of veileds? I don't beleive there are any. A predominance to a certain colour through selective breeding, for sure. (That is, if you you are refering to those designer names such as Turquoise, Sunburst, Euro-Blue).
You want me to get you ugly panther photos? Well thats a bit tricky seeing as ugly chameleons wont be shown off as much as pretty ones. My point stands on this though, a crossed locale offspring can be pretty or ugly. And what you are seeing on the Kammers sight, is very obviously picks of the litter.
Furthermore, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And I'm not going to post up a photo of someones pet that I think is ugly, that they love... come on.
Sure people have the option to do it. They always will. However there will Always be people abusing it.
As far as the research done about cross locales, it's somewhere in a past thread here. Jim F. of The chameleon company was one who posted supporting this, with his findings. Also there have been some findings of decreased fertility (I'm not saying there are written articles, but pers. comm and forums posts about it), possibly that the genes aren't as compatible with each other as two specimens from the same geographic locality. This is also described in one of those pass threads.
I'm sure healthier chameleons come from selective breeding of fresh "wild sourced blood", with diverse bloodlines. Now just theoretical now, but lets looks at dog breeds. There are an infinite number of dog breeds that are bred selectively by crossing breeds. They are bred for certain strengths (hearing, scenting, strength, size, etc) but each one has it's own flaws. Large dogs generally have short lifespans and have arthritis at a young age. Small dogs like pugs or bull dogs with flat faces have respriatory issues. The most basic untainted canine is a wolf, one of natures best predators, flawless. Comepare the wolf to the wild panther, and the breathless pug to tampered genetics. Really it's not clearly defined point for either side of the discussion... however it's something to think about.
Locales of veileds? I don't beleive there are any. A predominance to a certain colour through selective breeding, for sure. (That is, if you you are refering to those designer names such as Turquoise, Sunburst, Euro-Blue).
You want me to get you ugly panther photos? Well thats a bit tricky seeing as ugly chameleons wont be shown off as much as pretty ones. My point stands on this though, a crossed locale offspring can be pretty or ugly. And what you are seeing on the Kammers sight, is very obviously picks of the litter.
Furthermore, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And I'm not going to post up a photo of someones pet that I think is ugly, that they love... come on.
Last edited:
exactly. you will never stop people from cross breeding, like it or not. it is here, and it isn't going anywhere. that's why IMHO it is more constructive to encourage proper documentation of any morph crosses rather than be so strongly against it altogether. proper documentation may not always happen, and that's sad, but it is the only real world option when you take the given fact that cross breeding is not going to just go away.
so vieleds must have evolved a teleportation ability to get them from saudi to yemen and back again in order to breed right?
lol... all i am doin here is bringing up what someone else pointed out in another thread- veiled have been cross bred in captivity for years before anyone gave any consideration to the idea than a yemen vieled and a saudi vieled maybe should be kept apart. just somethin to ponder on i guess 
i get the dog analogy. some people want to preserve the 'wild' chameleon in captivity, other people just want cool pets. wild dogs don't make good pets... also i don't have an exact study or anything but i would be willing to go out on a limb and say that some of the human bred dogs actually are healthier and have longer lifespans than wild dogs. naturally (pug), some are not. the point is that we DO still have wild dogs, even after all the breeding humans forced on them, the wild ones are still out there.
just like there will always be people cross breeding panthers no matter how much you love / hate the idea, there will also always be people who want to preserve the wild locale. while cross breeding may make it a little more difficult for anyone to obtain the prime breeding specimen for thier specific purpose, it's not going to kill us. the same thing would have been true for dog breeding... and we haven't wiped out all the wild dogs in the process yet.
and well as for not wanting to post a pic of a cham you think is ugly, because the owner may not... well that is my whole argument against the ugly thing, because there is no such thing as an ugly cham IMO!
Last edited:
Very well put mightyzug.
I thought there was an actual article about genetic weakness from cross breeding, guess not. Would have been cool though.
For the ugly panther picture, it seemed (to you) as if cross breeding resulted in ugly panthers. I guess you were just saying it could have the potential to be ugly, just like it had the potential to be stunning. I thought you had some pictures of cross breed mutants lol.
Point is, to simply say cross breeding is wrong and don't do it, based mostly on opinion, does not help at all. Instead let people know the proper steps to cross breeding IF they do decide to do so, this will prove to be much more helpful.
I thought there was an actual article about genetic weakness from cross breeding, guess not. Would have been cool though.
For the ugly panther picture, it seemed (to you) as if cross breeding resulted in ugly panthers. I guess you were just saying it could have the potential to be ugly, just like it had the potential to be stunning. I thought you had some pictures of cross breed mutants lol.
Point is, to simply say cross breeding is wrong and don't do it, based mostly on opinion, does not help at all. Instead let people know the proper steps to cross breeding IF they do decide to do so, this will prove to be much more helpful.
chris
New Member
cross breeding will always be a hot topic until when or if panthers get scientifically classified into different species or sub-species according to locale. i don't know too much about genetics but there is a certain degree of physical attributes, behavior and gene % difference needed to become a different species, even sub-species. i think it will take a little more than color variations for this to change? its not like crossing a pitbull with a pug. the way it is now a panther is a panther.
each panther locale is just a certain small area so how many locales are there? hundreds, thousands? male panthers in the wild have been known to travel quite far and i don't think it would be impossible for a male to travel a few miles and breed with a few females of a different locale.
but like all animals the bottom line is "pure-breeds" are more desirable and command a higher price. i still like all panthers even if they are mutts
each panther locale is just a certain small area so how many locales are there? hundreds, thousands? male panthers in the wild have been known to travel quite far and i don't think it would be impossible for a male to travel a few miles and breed with a few females of a different locale.
but like all animals the bottom line is "pure-breeds" are more desirable and command a higher price. i still like all panthers even if they are mutts
Sorry people but unless you go and collect your panther in the wild YOURSELF you have no idea what locale it is. I don't care what it looks like to you. Likely most are mixes whether you want to believe it or not... even if it looks like a particular locale usually looks, it could still be half some other locale and you wouldn't even know it.
This whole "pure" locale and don't mix thing is getting a bit ridiculous... none of us knows the true genetic lineage of our chams.
Until someone takes the time to do DNA sequencing on all these so called "different locales" and then we all have all of our own chameleons DNA sequenced we don't know what they really are... except that they're F. pardalis.
I guarantee you can't look at me and tell what my ethnic makeup is and I'm the same species as you. My wife is white as a ghost with blue eyes, but her father is half black (African American). If you were going to lable her with only one "locale" you'd say she was European. But you'd be ignoring part of her genetic lineage because you just gave her one lable that implied a sense of purity that isn't really there.
This whole "pure" locale and don't mix thing is getting a bit ridiculous... none of us knows the true genetic lineage of our chams.
Until someone takes the time to do DNA sequencing on all these so called "different locales" and then we all have all of our own chameleons DNA sequenced we don't know what they really are... except that they're F. pardalis.
I guarantee you can't look at me and tell what my ethnic makeup is and I'm the same species as you. My wife is white as a ghost with blue eyes, but her father is half black (African American). If you were going to lable her with only one "locale" you'd say she was European. But you'd be ignoring part of her genetic lineage because you just gave her one lable that implied a sense of purity that isn't really there.
KevinA
Avid Member
I don't think the dog argument is all that relative, but I understand it's use. That being said, m any genetic defects present in dogs(yes, the ones mentioned and many others) are a result of inbreeding and small gene pools and reverting back to the same line. Fact. This argument was used incorrectly. It is documented that "mutt" dogs genereally suffer from fewer genetice diseases and are healthier. I haven't read about health in "mutt" chameleons.
Not that I think the argument is relative. Just pointing out it's faults
Not that I think the argument is relative. Just pointing out it's faults
Will Hayward
New Member
While I prefer when threads die, and not be revived (Start a new thread when there new information to bring it it, otherwise it just goes back and forth with the same points without cooling off) but I'll reply anyways.
Kevin, you havent read about health in 'Mutt' panthers because such research is rare and not well documented. There are two other semi-recent threads abotu this topic here. In one Jim Flaherty posted something about the issue of health and fertility of eastern and western locale mixes.
Chris, in many cases the "locales" are separated by geographic boundries that would not allow males to cross. Islands, rivers, plateaus, mountains, different vegitation growth are all things that have naturally divided the panthers in ways that allows there to be obvious differences in colouration and body shape. As I posted in one of the other threads here about this, IF more research is done and there is seperate groups of panthers that warrant some type of official sub classification, then it would likely group some locales (as we know them) which are in proximity, together. Sambava +Andapa, Maroantsetra +Tamatave, etc. It's not logical to say without doubt that an North East Coast panther from the Island of Mitsio is exactly the same as one collected from the West Coast Island of St Marie (Borahah) and will have no possible problems mixing.
Kevin, you havent read about health in 'Mutt' panthers because such research is rare and not well documented. There are two other semi-recent threads abotu this topic here. In one Jim Flaherty posted something about the issue of health and fertility of eastern and western locale mixes.
Chris, in many cases the "locales" are separated by geographic boundries that would not allow males to cross. Islands, rivers, plateaus, mountains, different vegitation growth are all things that have naturally divided the panthers in ways that allows there to be obvious differences in colouration and body shape. As I posted in one of the other threads here about this, IF more research is done and there is seperate groups of panthers that warrant some type of official sub classification, then it would likely group some locales (as we know them) which are in proximity, together. Sambava +Andapa, Maroantsetra +Tamatave, etc. It's not logical to say without doubt that an North East Coast panther from the Island of Mitsio is exactly the same as one collected from the West Coast Island of St Marie (Borahah) and will have no possible problems mixing.
ChromaChameleons
New Member
Just because all Panthers are classified as Furcifer Paradalis, doesn't mean they are all the same species. It means, that for now , without further study, they are officially recognized as the same species.
Bradypodiun Fischeri has recently recognizrd that the subspecies , Tavatatum , is in fact not directly related to the other Fischeri members, although officially it had been recognized as such for decades.
I agree that proper documentation of bred chameleons is essential, whether they be pure locale or mutts.
Could someone that had proposed it , please outline how this documentation is presently prescribed and executed and assimilated?
And please don't quote the existance of the defunct CCBTD...
Bradypodiun Fischeri has recently recognizrd that the subspecies , Tavatatum , is in fact not directly related to the other Fischeri members, although officially it had been recognized as such for decades.
I agree that proper documentation of bred chameleons is essential, whether they be pure locale or mutts.
Could someone that had proposed it , please outline how this documentation is presently prescribed and executed and assimilated?
And please don't quote the existance of the defunct CCBTD...
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Joe,
You are only partially correct. You aren't likely at all to get hybrid imports. The exporters are not breeding their exported animals themselves and the animals they send out are the result of wild captures at various locales, most of which have some degree of geographic isolation in one form or another (hence the differentiation in coloration and pattern). The animals you get themselves are going to be pure locales, the issue is with labeling. With males, it really isn't a problem typically as only a few locales are similar enough as adults that you would have a difficult time distinguishing them. The issue is with females and clutches from gravid imports. Females are easily misrepresented as other locales in shipments and could easily be kept with other locales in the holding facility resulting in fertilization of eggs from a different locale. The trick is being able to look at mature male offspring and determine the likelihood of the female being a particular locale. You are correct that we can't know 100% but in most cases, people who have been around panthers for a long time, seen them in the wild or have a good understanding of the characteristics of different locales can provide a very good guess. Part of the original goal of the CCBTD was to provide a means to depict bloodline lineages so that buyers can make that call themselves rather then blindly rely on the breeder who may or may not have accurately assessed the purity to your satisfaction. I fully intend to bring the database back down the road in a revised form to continue to push such responsible practices as it really only benefits the community as a whole. One of the issues I see with intentional hybridization of locales is that since differentiation of pure locales can be so difficult, intentionally hybridizing only makes it more difficult, especially a couple generations of captive breeding down the line when second and third breeders in the line stop keeping accurate tabs. Again, this was something the database was designed to help with. Many breeders won't buy multigeneration CB panthers any longer for this reason and instead stick to WC or the first generation or two CB to have a better ability to obtain pure locale animals. Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before exports are cut further and we should be promoting more multigenerational breeding efforts which I think something like the database would help encourage in that respect. The database will be back and hopefully better utilized when it is reformatted. The goal of it isn't to police breeding efforts but rather to provide buyers and other breeders a means to assess lines and locate potential lines for exchange as well as provide the breeder themselves a means to keep track of their animal's breeding activity and lineage.
Classification is a fluid science, as has been mentioned. Who knows if someone will decide to place different pardalis locales as individual subspecies or not down the line. The example of the fischeri/tavetana is an interesting one. Not only was tavetana originally a fischeri subspecies but after being elevated to species status, it was assigned a subspecies of its own which has just now been elevated to species status itself along with all the other subspecies of fischeri. But, that's a story for another time. There will be an article on the Bradypodion genus classification changes of the last couple years in the E-Zine issue that will be out in a week or two.
Chris
You are only partially correct. You aren't likely at all to get hybrid imports. The exporters are not breeding their exported animals themselves and the animals they send out are the result of wild captures at various locales, most of which have some degree of geographic isolation in one form or another (hence the differentiation in coloration and pattern). The animals you get themselves are going to be pure locales, the issue is with labeling. With males, it really isn't a problem typically as only a few locales are similar enough as adults that you would have a difficult time distinguishing them. The issue is with females and clutches from gravid imports. Females are easily misrepresented as other locales in shipments and could easily be kept with other locales in the holding facility resulting in fertilization of eggs from a different locale. The trick is being able to look at mature male offspring and determine the likelihood of the female being a particular locale. You are correct that we can't know 100% but in most cases, people who have been around panthers for a long time, seen them in the wild or have a good understanding of the characteristics of different locales can provide a very good guess. Part of the original goal of the CCBTD was to provide a means to depict bloodline lineages so that buyers can make that call themselves rather then blindly rely on the breeder who may or may not have accurately assessed the purity to your satisfaction. I fully intend to bring the database back down the road in a revised form to continue to push such responsible practices as it really only benefits the community as a whole. One of the issues I see with intentional hybridization of locales is that since differentiation of pure locales can be so difficult, intentionally hybridizing only makes it more difficult, especially a couple generations of captive breeding down the line when second and third breeders in the line stop keeping accurate tabs. Again, this was something the database was designed to help with. Many breeders won't buy multigeneration CB panthers any longer for this reason and instead stick to WC or the first generation or two CB to have a better ability to obtain pure locale animals. Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before exports are cut further and we should be promoting more multigenerational breeding efforts which I think something like the database would help encourage in that respect. The database will be back and hopefully better utilized when it is reformatted. The goal of it isn't to police breeding efforts but rather to provide buyers and other breeders a means to assess lines and locate potential lines for exchange as well as provide the breeder themselves a means to keep track of their animal's breeding activity and lineage.
Classification is a fluid science, as has been mentioned. Who knows if someone will decide to place different pardalis locales as individual subspecies or not down the line. The example of the fischeri/tavetana is an interesting one. Not only was tavetana originally a fischeri subspecies but after being elevated to species status, it was assigned a subspecies of its own which has just now been elevated to species status itself along with all the other subspecies of fischeri. But, that's a story for another time. There will be an article on the Bradypodion genus classification changes of the last couple years in the E-Zine issue that will be out in a week or two.
Chris
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Another interesting note about official classifications I had. It can be years (even decades) before a discovered species is officially named and described to science. It often takes upward of a year and a half for a paper describing a species or dividing subspecies to be published after being submitted to the journal by the authors. It then can take another year or much longer before the general public and CITES is aware of these classification changes and starts to utilize them. Not only is systematics and classification a fluid science but it is also not likely to always represent the most current feelings from the scientific community. Why wait for official scientific validation to start responsible breeding practices? We know that pardalis exhibits geographically distinct locales and reproductive isolation. Such reproductive isolation is one of the factors used to differentiate species whether that isolation be behaviorally, geographically, actual genetic compatibility or other reason. That isn't the entire picture of species definition (there are many) but to me, I see the intentional pursuit of hybridizing distinct locales as irresponsible.
Chris
Chris
stevereecy
New Member
My two cents
Just read the thread and want to chime on on some points:
1. It would be pretty hard to document that health is improved by cross breeding. How would you even do that without introducing enough error in your study to make the results suspect?
2. While there is no evidence on the health aspect, there is anecdotal evidence on the appearance standard. Most long-time chameleon community members will agree that what is on the marketplace is not as pretty as in the old days. It could be attributed to gene mixing, or deselection of the wild populations from harvesting the pretty ones. I don't believe that is the case because I think the guys harvesting just grab what they find.
I do know that when my preschool daughters start mixing colors with finger paints, the mixture of the first colors look good. Yellow and blue makes a nice color of green. But then more colors are added in there, and does become a muddled mess and the color becomes not as pretty. I believe we have some of the "muddled mess" in most chameleons on the market, whether intentional, non-intentional, or whatever.
3. We need a carrot and the stick approach to hybridization. Folks like me, who believe hybridization (of Panther Morphs) is bad try to discourage it, and build concensus that its bad because the politics do help keep the lines pure. Thats the stick. The carrot is that I also applaud those folks who do keep good records and are honest about it when they do it.
4. There is anecdotal evidence that hybridization can lead to sterility. happens when you cross horses and donkeys. They can breed and reproduce, but their offspring can not. How would you like to pay $300 to $400 for an animal for your breeding program, raise it for the better part of a year, bond with it, and then when you go to breed it, find out it can't reproduce?
5. Lastly, there isn't a color out there that isn't available in pure form. If you want a purple barred panther, you can find one. They are out there. Heck there's one in my storage room. You can find green ones that turn yellow, red ones, pink ones, orange ones, blue ones...every secondary and primary color is available in its natural state.
Steve
Just read the thread and want to chime on on some points:
1. It would be pretty hard to document that health is improved by cross breeding. How would you even do that without introducing enough error in your study to make the results suspect?
2. While there is no evidence on the health aspect, there is anecdotal evidence on the appearance standard. Most long-time chameleon community members will agree that what is on the marketplace is not as pretty as in the old days. It could be attributed to gene mixing, or deselection of the wild populations from harvesting the pretty ones. I don't believe that is the case because I think the guys harvesting just grab what they find.
I do know that when my preschool daughters start mixing colors with finger paints, the mixture of the first colors look good. Yellow and blue makes a nice color of green. But then more colors are added in there, and does become a muddled mess and the color becomes not as pretty. I believe we have some of the "muddled mess" in most chameleons on the market, whether intentional, non-intentional, or whatever.
3. We need a carrot and the stick approach to hybridization. Folks like me, who believe hybridization (of Panther Morphs) is bad try to discourage it, and build concensus that its bad because the politics do help keep the lines pure. Thats the stick. The carrot is that I also applaud those folks who do keep good records and are honest about it when they do it.
4. There is anecdotal evidence that hybridization can lead to sterility. happens when you cross horses and donkeys. They can breed and reproduce, but their offspring can not. How would you like to pay $300 to $400 for an animal for your breeding program, raise it for the better part of a year, bond with it, and then when you go to breed it, find out it can't reproduce?
5. Lastly, there isn't a color out there that isn't available in pure form. If you want a purple barred panther, you can find one. They are out there. Heck there's one in my storage room.
You can find green ones that turn yellow, red ones, pink ones, orange ones, blue ones...every secondary and primary color is available in its natural state.Steve
Similar threads
