Rick Sisco - Sisco Reptiles

Personally, since none of them are actually from the Chaco region of Argentina, I feel it would be dishonest as worst, confusing at best, to keep the Chacoan name. I will still be dropping the term "Chacoan" and sticking with "White Heads", I will also rewrite my description to explain exactly what they are. Not regional morphs, not color phases.. just prettier or larger, high white headed Argentine Black & Whites.

The original denomination of Chacoan was not meant to be deceptive, it was just a "fancy" name (just as Mojave ball pythons cannot be found in the Mojave desert!). Deceptive? Only if the seller claims his animals actually originated in the Chaco when he doesn't have a clue where they are from. Although the original tegus imported in the U.S. are likely from Argentina (and maybe quite a few from the Chaco itself), they could have also originated in Paraguay, Brazil or Uruguay. The point is that Argentinian black and white tegus is also just a denomination, and NOT a locale.

Dan,
Just a minor disagreement. I think the use of the label "Chacoan" in this case, even if innocent, is at least a far poorer choice than the use of the word "Mojave" in ball pythons, for two reasons important to the argument here:

1) As you note, the Chacoan Plain is a specific geographic designation, where tegu's are found. It is therefore grossly misleading to potential buyers to label a tegu "Chacoan" which is not from that region. In the extreme, use of the term "Chacoan" would be of dubious integrity in a legal review if someone claimed they paid for a tegu of "Chacoan origins", based solely on the implications of the name, in that the buyer would have a case, and the seller a liability. I do not think the seller needed to actually "claim" it was from Chaco in order for it to be viewed as deceptive, whether intended or not, and on that point, I disagree with your take. An explanation would be required to keep it from being deceptive, intentions not mattering.

2) Secondly, and more importantly here, since it meant nothing to all the sellers regarding the actual origin of the "morph", if it is even that, in a peer sense it was fair game for anyone to pretty much use it as they saw fit. Bobby's argument was rooted in some sort of claim to the word "Chacoan" as he defined it, and he owned no such definition in any review, as others had applied it differently, and geographically incorrectly, before him. Which gets me back to my first point. Once the legal veracity of the term "Chacoan" became moot to all involved, they had no basis on which to claim any new meaning as proprietary.

For differing portions of both of the above arguments, it seems all parties have dropped it.

I think we're in 99% agreement on all things here anyway .

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

Dan,
Just a minor disagreement. I think the use of the label "Chacoan" in this case, even if innocent, is at least a far poorer choice than the use of the word "Mojave" in ball pythons, for two reasons important to the argument here:

1) As you note, the Chacoan Plain is a specific geographic designation, where tegu's are found. It is therefore grossly misleading to potential buyers to label a tegu "Chacoan" which is not from that region. In the extreme, use of the term "Chacoan" would be of dubious integrity in a legal review if someone claimed they paid for a tegu of "Chacoan origins", based solely on the implications of the name, in that the buyer would have a case, and the seller a liability. I do not think the seller needed to actually "claim" it was from Chaco in order for it to be viewed as deceptive, whether intended or not, and on that point, I disagree with your take. An explanation would be required to keep it from being deceptive, intentions not mattering.

2) Secondly, and more importantly here, since it meant nothing to all the sellers regarding the actual origin of the "morph", if it is even that, in a peer sense it was fair game for anyone to pretty much use it as they saw fit. Bobby's argument was rooted in some sort of claim to the word "Chacoan" as he defined it, and he owned no such definition in any review, as others had applied it differently, and geographically incorrectly, before him. Which gets me back to my first point. Once the legal veracity of the term "Chacoan" became moot to all involved, they had no basis on which to claim any new meaning as proprietary.

For differing portions of both of the above arguments, it seems all parties have dropped it.

I think we're in 99% agreement on all things here anyway .

Jim,

I hear you, and as Rick stated it's "confusing at best". This is true and would probably require from the seller to be constantly disclaiming the true origin of the animals. What happens is that recently we have all grown increasingly sensitive to the names used to describe the animals. When labeled as "Chacoans" by the original breeders/keepers, I'm almost certain none of them even thought about future implications. Different times, and probably a different contexts if you will. The "Congo" ball python is such an example. But I hear what you are saying. It's easier to avoid misunderstandings and drop the name altogether than having to be constantly explaining where they are from.

Regards.

I don't know where this post went wrong, but I'm still going to stick with my first post on this thread.

Even though Rick and I have had our disputes, I'm still standing by my word when I said that his business transaction was extremely professional and the quality of his tegus were exceptionally high. Just because we've had problems in the past doesn't mean its going to change my answer.

Back to the topic guys.

Considering that everything was wrapped up nicely over a month ago, I would say everyone has been on topic for at least 30 days, lol. If you read the entire thread you would see that Rick came out pretty good on this one.

Ah, didnt see that. I just happened to see this thread on the side of the website on fauna's main page.