about siklback and their husbandry

Hello,

That post from CheriS is posted on a UK forum to help them out. They have had problems over there as well, due to them importing from the US. In some earlier posts, she had even told them to be cautious if purchasing from the US due to this virus. She also told them to please test if buying from the US before breeding as well. She has been very helpful to those folks over there as they are trying their best to keep it from spreading to the point that it has here.
I have read quite a few of the sources that were posted here, on the Adenovirus in the wild. True, while all species of animals do get sick, & contract types of virus' in the wild, what more than likely happened, is initially when they started breeding, someone caught a wild one with the virus & began breeding without knowing it had a sickness. It was not caught in time. I do not think it is prevalent in Australia like it is here. They quickly get things under control, & their quarantine is very good. At least that is what Dr. Franciscus Scheelings has told me anyway. He is a practicing veterinarian in Australia. He has told me that Adenovirus is not a problem over there.
The documented case in Auckland Park, New Zealand, was a very isloated case at that time from what I understand. That was very early on. While we may have imported some sick animals, once we discovered the virus we had alot of chances to keep it at bay to keep it from spreading but didn't.

Tracie

The case in Auckland Zoological Park was not a Pogona Vittaceps, it was a Barbatus.

Hello,

You are right Sherri, I knew that but forgot to mention it. The Pogona Barbatus is a completely different species. So, who's to say that they have different virus' while still in the same agama family.
There are husbandry differences in the vitticeps & barbatas as well.

Tracie

Originally Posted by Drache613

Hello,

You are right Sherri, I knew that but forgot to mention it. The Pogona Barbatus is a completely different species. So, who's to say that they have different virus' while still in the same agama family.
There are husbandry differences in the vitticeps & barbatas as well.

Tracie

Just a curiosity question here. Does anybody happen to know when they switched from Amphibolurus to Pogona? I've been searching all morning, and can't even hunt down a year that took place. I know it has to be out there somewhere.

Originally Posted by Saladragon

Just a curiosity question here. Does anybody happen to know when they switched from Amphibolurus to Pogona? I've been searching all morning, and can't even hunt down a year that took place. I know it has to be out there somewhere.

I can't seem to find anything on when it happened either, Tere. Sorry.

But I do have a question regarding the Adenovirus update from U of Fl.
In section 2.2.3 it says "PCR is a highly sensitive technique, and the potential for false positives from slight contamination throughout the process from collection to laboratory is high."
Wouldn't that explain why there is such a high infected rate at U of Fl. ?

Tere, this was written by Melissa Kaplan...

Bearded dragons are agamid lizards belonging to the genus Pogona (formerly Amphibolurus, under which name they are found in books published up to just a couple of years ago). There are seven species, of which the most common in the pet trade is the P. vitticeps, the inland or central (also called the yellow-headed) bearded dragon is the most widely available. In smaller numbers, the common bearded (P. barbata) and the Rankin's (P. henrylawsoni) have become more widely available and the number of captive-bred animal slowly increases. The other Pogona dragon species include the western (P. minima), the dwarf (P. minor), the Northwest bearded (P. mitchelli), the Nullarbor (P. nullarbor), and the P. microlepitoda. (This article discusses the care associated primarily with P. vitticeps and P. barbata.)

So Pogona Vittaceps is a relatively new name, I'm guessing.

The name Pogona is itself relatively new. Before Glen Storr of the Western Australian Museum assigned these lizards this name, in 1982, they were lumped into the genus Amphibolorus with a number of other Australian agamid species.

http://www.smuggled.com/pogona1.htm

Hey...just a suggestion - maybe you guys could continue the AV discussion on another thread with Adeno in the title...so if people are looking for information on AV they can pick it up from the thread title. If I were looking for discussion on Adenovirus I wouldn't open the one titled "about silkback and their husbandry thread."

I can also say that I was feverishly seeking AV information in March 2007 and having the subject name in the thread title really helps. Of course, there are so many other topics going on here you could probably split this into several threads....just imho
Angie

Hello,
That was the site I was going to suggest, smuggled. That is an excellent article.
Yeah, 1982, it is under taxonomy. I am glad that they changed the names though, to reflect the differences in the species, it was warranted. It didn't need to be lumped in with a different type of lizard.
Sorry, but alot of the Adeno discussions had importance concerning the silkbacks, & we felt it necessary to be brought up, yet again.

Tracie

Originally Posted by whiskersmom

I can't seem to find anything on when it happened either, Tere. Sorry.

But I do have a question regarding the Adenovirus update from U of Fl.
In section 2.2.3 it says "PCR is a highly sensitive technique, and the potential for false positives from slight contamination throughout the process from collection to laboratory is high."
Wouldn't that explain why there is such a high infected rate at U of Fl. ?

This concerns me even more than when I read in the middle of the night that Adenovirus had been found in a boa.