NEW MANGROVE SPECIES

Here is something interesting to talk about. Its not a question, but maybe we can get these forums going a little. I don't know if anyone has heard, but a new species of mangrove has been classified. Varanus indicus has been split and many of the mangroves that were thought to be larger than normal are actually Varanus juxtindicus. It was just recently named. Juxtindicus gets larger, has a shorter, more blunt shaped head, and the tail is more round. Just something interesting I thought I would share. If anyone has any other info on this I would like to here about it. I haven't been able to find much on it. Thanks.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com

Hi Tony,

This is the first I'v heard of seperate status being official. Theories
have abounded for years but I'v not kept a variety of mangroves
and therefor didnt have much input to add (same here).
Keep us updated if you find out anymore. It will be interresting
to see how this affects breeding and marketing. I can already hear some of those lovely people just itching to call someone elses mangroves "hybrids".LOL

God Bless
Ben@C.R.C.

Interesting post Tony.

I somewhat disagree with elevating the larger Mangroves to full species status. I have seen many examples of both "versions" and feel that they are more or less just regional variations or subspecies instead of full species. I've always thought they were interesting, but never thought of them as totally different species before, nor do I now. Both will breed together with no problems and from my limited understanding, they both come from pretty much the same places.

I'm curious where you found this info Tony. I haven't been able to dig up anything in my searches over the last couple hours since reading this. I'm not trying to dog you or anything, but your source was credible right? I have sometimes seen wholesalers and retailers proclaiming new species and subspecies on their lists without any basis in fact just to boost sales. Hopefully this is not the case.

And Ben, yes, it will be funny(assuming this new designation is accepted)to see all the people come out of the woodwork claiming all the horrid hybrid breeding that's been done over the years(not that there's been much breeding with Mangroves, though).

I recieved the info from John Andragna at Cybersalvator.com. I think he is pretty credible. I have 1 male of this new type and 2 females of the normal type. The females lay infertile eggs about twice a year, but every time I put them in with the male they flip out. They want nothing to do with him. He shows interest though. Personally I agree with you, it should be a subspecies, but not its own species. They are still very similar. You know how it goes with monitors, they get changed back and forth all the time. They say the Blue Spot Monitor is not a type of Timor. Who knows for sure. Thanks for the responses.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com

Tony, I forgot to thank you for posting the info for discussion

But yes, definitely the larger forms of V. indicus should at the most be raised to subspecific level. I personally think that most of those SE Asian monitor complexes need some revision, though. Especially when it comes to the Timor and Indicus groups. My biggest beef with the V. indicus complex is how vague and encompassing it is. It includes some animals that in my opinion it really shouldn't. For example, V. doreanus are often considered members of the V. indicus group. I am not a super taxonomist or anything, but you can look at a Blue-tail and tell it is very different than a Mangrove. To me they resemble V. salvadorii most(of course on much smaller scale).

And when it comes to the Timors, PLEASE don't get me started. lol If you ask me, they are all the same animal with just minimal variation from island to island. I've never thought the "blue-spot" Timors were anything special or all that different from the "normal" brown and white or brown and yellow forms. Again, I think it is just a case of moderate regional variation within a species that some people are seemingly capitalizing on to name a new species. Even though to ME taxonomy is a BS science, but oh well, I'll stay off THAT soapbox for now

I have kept both blue tails and crocs for several years. We have a captive bred croc from Ron St. Pierre that is super tame. We were trying to breed blue tails for about 3 years, but quit. No Luck. I have to go with you on that one. They are almost identical especially when you look at their heads and teeth. Blue Tails have huge sharp teeth, just like the crocs. Mangroves are much smaller. If they are making each Timor a different species, why don't they do it with chondros. Arus and Jayapuras come from different islands right? Just kidding. Thanks for the replys.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com

Blue Tails have huge sharp teeth, just like the crocs.

Croc monitors have a dentation that is different from every other monitor species in existance...

Most Monitors the teeth meet in a manner that is almost point to point, the tips of the lower teeth meeting the points of the upper teeth (or close to it anyway), crocs the teeth interlock.

I did not know that. All I know is that I have seen both of them up close and the closest thing I have seen to a crocs teeth are blue tails. The shape and size is very similar. That is probably due to their diets though. Thanks.

Tony Alles
www.reptileguru.com

Tony,

you are right on the chondro thing. There are insular variations that show significant differences to the mainland forms and to each other, however, all forms will breed together without a problem. Not to mention that since the species is highly variable anyways, it is likely that certain animals displaying traits not recognised as part of that locale's phenotype could crop up just as easily as animals that are more conforming to the accepted phenotype. They are not broken down into separate species or even subspecies. The same is true for Timors, it is regional variation. Although, from what I've seen of the breakdown of the Timors, it seems more based on some slight size differences(expected in insular populations)and colors, whereas chondros seem to have more of a base for distinction from one another(size differences, difference in the structure of the head and tail, differently sized teeth[at least that I've noticed], etc.). If there are more differences in the Timor populations please let me know, but I've seen quite a few of the different races and I haven't noticed anything that would make me jump up and say, "wow, this is so different it must be a new species."

But to get on my soapbox for a minute about taxonomy, it is an entire science based on regional variation. New species are named based on vague or arbitrary standards. Every few years, someone else has an idea and renames a group of animals or regroups them with another set of animals. Then it is all done over again when someone else comes up with another idea. Although I do think it important to have names and/or labels for things, I think that taxonomy goes a wee bit far. For instance, how exactly do you define a species? A population of animals that does not breed with others unlike themselves(or something along those lines, sorry, don't have my Webster's in front of me). However, you have animals like, Cal Kings and Corns, separated by thousands of miles and separated taxonomically into different genera and species, that if given the right conditions, will breed together and produce viable offspring. Definition of a species dissolved, right?

Anyway, sorry to get on the soapbox like that. lol

However, you have animals like, Cal Kings and Corns, separated by thousands of miles and separated taxonomically into different genera and species, that if given the right conditions, will breed together and produce viable offspring. Definition of a species dissolved, right?

::Sets up his own soapbox, clearing his throat::

A species is a naturally interbreeding group of animals that commonly produces viable offspring.

Kings x Corns are foul abominations against nature, wretched mutated disgusting hybrids that should be thrown into sacks and set on fire, along with the people who breed them... Not that I have a problem with hybrids or anything...

Herpers have a responsibility to maintain animals in a naturally viable manner that mimics the natural genetic selections as closely as possible. Color morphs that do not occur frequently are inappropriate and damaging (it's become difficult to find normal corn snakes), subspecific crossing that does not commonly occur is damaging, crossing local specific animals that are clear and distinct breeding populations is damaging and hybridization the worst of the lot.

Besides, the wild phenotypes look best anyway.