water / nile

what are the major differences between the two? as far as color, pattern etc goes. what's the easiest way to tell the difference between the two?

Differences are pretty large (IMO) but I also have a trained eye.
First and foremost they come from two separate parts of the world. Water monitors are from Asia /Indonesia, Nile monitors from Africa.
Water monitor = Varanus salvator
Nile Monitor = Varanus niloticus

Water Monitor (Varanus salvator)
A long - streamlined lizard with a very long, whip-like tail, and stout, sturdy legs for running, leaping, climbing, and swimming. They are generally darkly colored, brown or black, with a spattering of blacks and deep browns. They have a few yellow spots on their underbellies that disappear as they age but some have been known to maintain the high yellow colors as adults. Water Monitors weigh between 2 - 6 pounds on average but have weighed as much as 20 in adult captive males. They can grow up to 8 foot in length average being between 6-7 foot. The large scales over their heads and the smaller scales on their backs are keeled.





Nile Monitor (Varanus niloticus)
The Nile monitor is a large - hefty, powerful lizard with a long neck and tail. A flattened ridge down the back of the tail aids in swimming and is more pronounced usually in males. The ground color varies from white to yellow-green, with markings of gray to black forming a band across the eyes, hashes crossing the mouth, chevrons down the neck, bands of spots across the body, spots on the limbs, and rings around the tail. Size is 4-6 foot average is around 4-5 foot but some have been found at 7 foot but that is very rare.






Both species feed on the same stuff and have the same husbandry requirements but water monitors on average get larger and require everyday feeding and yes seem to need more water.
Physically the differences are slight but there. Waters are more streamlined where as Niles are a bit more bulky. Again it's a slight difference.

The main ways to tell them apart is one being locality and two markings. Sumatran water monitor markings are noticeably different then a Niles. And I am not sure how to explain it. lol Should I try?? lol

I think I covered everything.

If you have more question let me know. Please PM. It's easier.

Originally Posted by TailsWithScales

Differences are pretty large (IMO) but I also have a trained eye.
First and foremost they come from two separate parts of the world. Water monitors are from Asia /Indonesia, Nile monitors from Africa.
Water monitor = Varanus salvator
Nile Monitor = Varanus niloticus

Water Monitor (Varanus salvator)
A long - streamlined lizard with a very long, whip-like tail, and stout, sturdy legs for running, leaping, climbing, and swimming. They are generally darkly colored, brown or black, with a spattering of blacks and deep browns. They have a few yellow spots on their underbellies that disappear as they age but some have been known to maintain the high yellow colors as adults. Water Monitors weigh between 2 - 6 pounds on average but have weighed as much as 20 in adult captive males. They can grow up to 8 foot in length average being between 6-7 foot. The large scales over their heads and the smaller scales on their backs are keeled.





Nile Monitor (Varanus niloticus)
The Nile monitor is a large - hefty, powerful lizard with a long neck and tail. A flattened ridge down the back of the tail aids in swimming and is more pronounced usually in males. The ground color varies from white to yellow-green, with markings of gray to black forming a band across the eyes, hashes crossing the mouth, chevrons down the neck, bands of spots across the body, spots on the limbs, and rings around the tail. Size is 4-6 foot average is around 4-5 foot but some have been found at 7 foot but that is very rare.






Both species feed on the same stuff and have the same husbandry requirements but water monitors on average get larger and require everyday feeding and yes seem to need more water.
Physically the differences are slight but there. Waters are more streamlined where as Niles are a bit more bulky. Again it's a slight difference.

The main ways to tell them apart is one being locality and two markings. Sumatran water monitor markings are noticeably different then a Niles. And I am not sure how to explain it. lol Should I try?? lol

I think I covered everything.

If you have more question let me know. Please PM. It's easier.

Hmm I dont mean to step on any toes but "water monitors weigh between 2-6 lbs" Thats...not right. They hold the record as longest lizard (and second heaviest) with a reported specimen from Sri Lanka measuring 10ft 3in, no idea of the weight. At 6ft they usually weigh between 20 and 30 lbs, going all the way up to 8ft and weighing 100+. Im not aware of any water monitors that only reach 6lbs, Savannah monitors maybe.
And the animal in the bottom 2 pics is not a Nile, its an Ornate Monitor (V. ornatus)

-Ditto- Common varanus niloticus average 7 feet, when given the proper husbandry, at this average size they can weigh in the 20-40 pound range. The largest varanus niloticus was a female shot in Pretoria, South Africa in 1994. She was an inch shy of 2.4 meters. The largest varanus ornatus was 2.5 meters found on Boiko Island, off the coast of West Africa. Bohme found the skull of this largest confirmed male ornate.

Salvator get huge, with a little more overall mass they could top komodos.




and so do ornates..

Originally Posted by TreeCroc

-Ditto- Common varanus niloticus average 7 feet, when given the proper husbandry, at this average size they can weigh in the 20-40 pound range. The largest varanus niloticus was a female shot in Pretoria, South Africa in 1994. She was an inch shy of 2.4 meters. The largest varanus ornatus was 2.5 meters found on Boiko Island, off the coast of West Africa. Bohme found the skull of this largest confirmed male ornate.

Salvator get huge, with a little more overall mass they could top komodos.




and so do ornates..

While I won't dispute that water monitors get large, I don't think they would rival a healthy adult Komodo.

And that first image looks photoshopped. Something fishy about the shadows and how the lizard is in the water. Looks superimposed.

Photoshop? Unlikely. Not only is that woman touching the lizard with a stick, her shadow is cast over it. Thats one of the massive Sri Lanka animals, unavailable to the pet trade and the largest of the waters. John A would know more about this.

Originally Posted by SwampDonkey

Photoshop? Unlikely. Not only is that woman touching the lizard with a stick, her shadow is cast over it. Thats one of the massive Sri Lanka animals, unavailable to the pet trade and the largest of the waters. John A would know more about this.

Look at the photo again, pal. The woman (actually looks like a little girl to my eyes, but may just be a petite individual from that area of the world) is not touching the lizard with a stick, although there does appear to be a string hanging down from the stick touching the monitor.

However, all is irrelevant, as any of this can still be photoshopped. [Actually, in my experience, shadows are one of the easiest things to photoshop!] Your last statement shows how little you know about the software and what could be done with it. I could photoshop the picture and make it more realistic, if that gives you any perspective.

I'm not saying that the photo isn't real. I'm just pointing out that certain elements of it look fake to me. I'm a graphic designer and I use photoshop everyday. I've seen countless "giant record-sized" reptile photos where either the animal in question was shot in perspective or the image was manipulated. I'm not some greenhorn making an ignorant comment.

In a world where photo manipulation is so easy and special effects, etc, one can't believe everything they see on the internet. Tis all I'm say and the main point I'm making.

well your photoshop comment is quite possible, however YOUR comment shows how little YOU know of water monitors. Real photo or not salvator get huge and are thee 2nd largest lizard.

Originally Posted by TreeCroc

well your photoshop comment is quite possible, however YOUR comment shows how little YOU know of water monitors. Real photo or not salvator get huge and are thee 2nd largest lizard.

Oh, I definitely agree they're 2nd largest. I just don't think they tie for 1st, which was what you were implying earlier.

I'll admit when I first saw the photo, I didn't look closely at the person, and assumed it was an averaged-sized adult woman (5'6"+?) and by comparison, the salvator looked unrealistically huge. After a closer inspection, I did see that the person in question is either a child or a petite woman, and the lizard (while still sizable!) didn't seem so monstrous.

Originally Posted by MDC_Ophiuchus

Look at the photo again, pal. The woman (actually looks like a little girl to my eyes, but may just be a petite individual from that area of the world) is not touching the lizard with a stick, although there does appear to be a string hanging down from the stick touching the monitor.

However, all is irrelevant, as any of this can still be photoshopped. [Actually, in my experience, shadows are one of the easiest things to photoshop!] Your last statement shows how little you know about the software and what could be done with it. I could photoshop the picture and make it more realistic, if that gives you any perspective.

I'm not saying that the photo isn't real. I'm just pointing out that certain elements of it look fake to me. I'm a graphic designer and I use photoshop everyday. I've seen countless "giant record-sized" reptile photos where either the animal in question was shot in perspective or the image was manipulated. I'm not some greenhorn making an ignorant comment.

In a world where photo manipulation is so easy and special effects, etc, one can't believe everything they see on the internet. Tis all I'm say and the main point I'm making.

Point taken, "pal". I hope you feel better now that you've vented, Mr. Graphics Designer. And I have no doubts that its possible for this to be a manipulated photo, but the fact remains that it is a realistic size for this species. They DO get that large, like it or not. Check out CyberSalvator, theres a guy with an enormous Sumatran nearly 9ft long and some kind of insane weight. But the Sri Lanka animals are even BIGGER and thats what's in the picture.
Hell, the average wild Sri Lankan water would dwarf virtually all the "huge" Bivitattus we see all the time.






I really think you dont have any idea of just how big these guys are. TreeCroc is correct, the Komodo beats them by a slim margin.