theTegu.com - Tegu information, photo gallery, forums, caresheets, diet & nutritional info, taming tips and more for the argentine black and white tegu, argentine red tegu, blue tegu, colombian black tegu and the colombian gold-phased black tegu. Tupinambis merianea, teguixin & rufescens.
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 972270 Location: Central Maine
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: What are Blue Tegus? Answered!!
The Argentine Tegus are found throughout Argentina, but most of the ones in the pet trade are from the cooler middle to southern parts of Argentina. These tegus hibernate during the winter when it is cooler. The main central area of Argentine is hot and humid during the summer (December to February) and cool in the winter.
The Blue Tegus however, are not seen in these areas. They have not been noted in the wild in Colombia either. These animals are known to be less cold tolerant than Argentine Tegus as well. Currently there is no scientifically given species name for this tegu. When seen, they appear very much to be Argentine Black & White Tegus (T.merianae), but with a trained eye you can see the visual differences. Upon closer inspection you will also see that the scale meristics do not match any of the currently described species of Tupinambis.
What are Blue Tegus? Where are they from? Until now it has been unknown. Mostly because they do so closely resemble T.merianae that when spotted or photographed in the wild, they were assumed to be an already described species. Recently some photos of a blue tegu eating a rattlesnake have surfaced. The photos were taken by French speaking photographer, Daniel Heuclin. I contacted Mr. Heuclin with a series of questions, which after some time I received the reply I had been waiting for. The reply to my main question, if you are reading this.. It's your question too... "Where is the Blue Tegu from?"
Well, we now have the answer, from a man, a photographer, beyond repute. A gentleman with nothing to gain or loose from the truth. His answer.. French Guiana!
Mr. Heuclin took these two pictures in French Guiana, which is a territory of France in South America, located east of Suriname and directly above Brazil.
The Blue Tegus range may extend into Brazil & Suriname, but this has not yet been documented.
The weather in French Guiana is completely different from Argentina. In French Guiana the weather and climate is Tropical. The dry season is from August to December; The rainy season is from December to January and April to July. It is hot all year round, with cooler nights. Average temperature in French Guiana is 27°C (85°F).
This would explain why Blue Tegus are not as cold tolerant as the Argentine Tegus. This also explains why it is believed that Blue Tegus do not require hibernation. It is my opinion based on the above information that Blue Tegus brumate rather than hibernate, much like the Ball Pythons. Unlike hibernation where temps are dropped and food intake is stopped, in brumation the daytime temps remain the same and the night time temps can be dropped slightly. Food intake does not need to be modified.
We now have a more detailed name: French Guiana Blue Tegu
I would like to thank photographer Daniel Heuclin for the correspondence. Below are two photographs of Blue Tegus in the wilds of French Guiana.
And for perspective.. Here is a map of South America.
I hope you find this information interesting and informative.
Wow! That is amazing. The Blue tegu's secret indentity has always fascinated me, and this information is music to my ears! Bravo! Did you investigate this yourself Rick, or was this taken from something else? (I am not calling you a copier, just want to know where the info from this post)
Upon closer inspection you will also see that the scale meristics do not match any of the currently described species of Tupinambis.
Not that I wish to start a fight, Rick, but what are they? Any blues I've seen certainly do fit in with other described species, so beings as you say they do not, please tell me where they don't. What about the shape of the hemipenes? Spermatazoa characteristics? Where as I have little doubt about what you claim about where they may have come from, when those photos are presented to A.Abe, G.Colli, P.Manzani and T. Avila-Pires, people who without a doubt have more knowledge of Tupinambis taxonomy than anyone here, their reply each time was that those were without a doubt T.merianae. Now, beings as you claim the blues do NOT fit in the meristics of others, and you clearly cannot see all those meristics in those photos, it makes a big jump to say they are one species and not the other. I'm sorry to say, Rick, but from what you've presented here, your evidence does not clear up any confusion other than where those photos were taken from.
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 972270 Location: Central Maine
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject:
Has A.Abe, G.Colli, P.Manzani or T. Avila-Pires compared a 'blue tegu' with a T.merianae in person, or only from photos?
Back when you and I first debated the blue and the scientific meristics, I had gathered clear images of areas where the meristics are counted (top head, side head, belly, vent area, rear legs, etc) from various blue tegu keepers and made a gallery long ago for you to use, yet you have never taken the opportunity to reply on the subject, why is that? Have you counted the meristics? They were counted locally by a fellow who used to keep monitors, who showed me which scales were which and some meristics matched merianae, some matched rufescens and some matched duseni. I admit that I didn't record that information. I wish I did. Do you want to do more then just poke and pick at posts made on this site? If you want to do more, to contribute positively, you show me a diagram of each meristic pattern and I will get you photo proof to back my claims or to back yours. If you are as willing to do this, as I am, we can get to the bottom of your claim that T.merianae and the Blue Tegu are the same.
I don't recall, is T.merianae reported to range into French Guiana?
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 972270 Location: Central Maine
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject:
And let me go one step further.. Blue Tegus are much smaller than they typical T.merianae, they are not cold tolerant, they have a distinct pattern on the side of their head and nose. Yes, some T.merianae, T.rufescens and Duseni have similar markings, BUT all blue tegus have these markings. Just because a T.merianae can have the darkened nose, if you breed T.merianae's with a dark nose, not all of the hatchlings will have the dark nose. All blue tegus do. T.merianae vary from high white to low white. Blues are never dark. They are always more white.
Now, could these be a regional variance of the T.merianae? Sure. They could be a variance of the T.duseni for all we know. My point is the 'Blue Tegu' is documented, photo documented, in French Guiana. Do you have any photo documentation of them located anywhere else?
Show me a tegu that has all of the visual charateristics that the Blue Tegu has which is in a different location of South America.
I am more than willing to work with you to prove or disprove the blue tegu is a T.mereanae, T.Rufescen, etc., but the tegu we all have, new species, variant of a current species, morph.. It doesn't matter. It is from French Guiana.
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 972270 Location: Central Maine
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject:
And since tone can not be conveyed well in text, these are not combative posts. I am seriously willing to work with you to prove or disprove your theory that blues are T.merianae.
You claim Abe, Colli, Manzani or Avila-Pires say the pictures appear to be T.merianae. That wouldn't be a very scientific opinion on their behalf if it was based on photos only. If they made that observation, it would of course be based on the known species. They would merely assume since it looked most similar to T.merianae, it was T.merianae. Then again, how much do the 'stable' scientific names change and fluctuate? It wasn't long ago that T.rufescens and T.duseni were the same species according to most of those listed above. Perhaps if they went to French Guiana and collected several of these Tupinambis they could make a more informed opinion.
Has A.Abe, G.Colli, P.Manzani or T. Avila-Pires compared a 'blue tegu' with a T.merianae in person, or only from photos?
No, these individuals have never had what is trademarked a "blue" in their hands (ie. St.Pierre derived stock), as far as I know. They have, however, travelled throughout most of the South American continent and seen the various morphs of the various tegus. These are the people who have described most of the species, afterall. They HAVE had in their hands that which OTHERS have insisted were 'blue' tegus and which were incontrovertibly T.merianae.
Quote:
Back when you and I first debated the blue and the scientific meristics, I had gathered clear images of areas where the meristics are counted (top head, side head, belly, vent area, rear legs, etc) from various blue tegu keepers and made a gallery long ago for you to use, yet you have never taken the opportunity to reply on the subject, why is that?
I had taken the opportunity to reply on the subject. The reply was that most of the photos were of insufficient quality to measure a lot of the meristics. You could often get some of the simpler ones such as the loreal or supraorbitals, but such meristics as number of transverse rows or scale counts around the body were impossible from those photos. Furthermore, the 15 meristics which I supplied to you are the "quick'n'dirty" way of telling species apart in the field. There are many more other characteristics that are quite important such as hemipene, spermatazoa and internal anatomy characteristics.
Quote:
They were counted locally by a fellow who used to keep monitors, who showed me which scales were which and some meristics matched merianae, some matched rufescens and some matched duseni.
Whereas some of those scales are distinctly and easily seen on any reptile(again, loreals, supraorbitals, labials), others are very specific on the body or where they are measured (again, such as the transverse rows, number in a transverse row, around the body, etc.) and differ between one genus and the other as to where you measure them. I'm not saying the guy did the counts wrong, but the odds are he got them wrong as much as he got them right.
Had I not looked up in the specific papers where and how the scales were counted, I will fully admit I would have gotten them wrong.
Then there is also being familiar with what is normal and what is an abnormal pattern. Anyone that is fond of turtles will tell you that there are often individuals with abnormal scute patterns. Same thing can and does happen in the scale patterns of reptiles. Unless one is very thoroughly familiar with them, it can be easy to see a congenital defect as a significant difference.
Quote:
you show me a diagram of each meristic pattern and I will get you photo proof to back my claims or to back yours.
This, unfortunately, severely undermines your argument. You tell me you've measured these meristics, you say they are different, and then in this sentence you basically claim that you don't know what these meristics are and need to be shown. Can you understand why I remain skeptical to your claims, then?
Quote:
I don't recall, is T.merianae reported to range into French Guiana?
T.merianae is pretty much reported to be just about anywhere east of the Andes.
Quote:
And let me go one step further.. Blue Tegus are much smaller than they typical T.merianae, they are not cold tolerant, they have a distinct pattern on the side of their head and nose.
Size: Most of the Tupinambis genus appears to adhere to Bergmann's rule, which is to say that populations nearest to the poles are composed of individuals that a usually larger than populations nearest to the equator which are composed of smaller individuals.
Cold Tolerance: Species with large north-south distributions typically display different tolerances depending upon their geographic origin. For example, see:
Reese, S.A., E.R.Stewart, C.E.Crocker, D.C.Jackson and G.R. Ultsch, 2004. Geographic variation of the physiological response to overwintering in the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77(4):619-630.
Distinct pattern on the side of head and nose: such as? This needs to be described.
Quote:
Yes, some T.merianae, T.rufescens and Duseni have similar markings, BUT all blue tegus have these markings. Just because a T.merianae can have the darkened nose, if you breed T.merianae's with a dark nose, not all of the hatchlings will have the dark nose. All blue tegus do. T.merianae vary from high white to low white. Blues are never dark. They are always more white.
This is a problem. You see this as a difference and it is not. You are describing not a difference, but a similarity. Doesn't matter if ALL blues have it, it matters if all of the others do not. What you are describing is good grounds for a subspecies, not a new species. However, do not forget, you are talking about a very narrow gene pool that these blues are coming from. They all came from that supposed original shipment of the St.Pierre's. OF COURSE they are going to be quite uniform.
Quote:
My point is the 'Blue Tegu' is documented, photo documented, in French Guiana. Do you have any photo documentation of them located anywhere else?
This is a false statement, sorry to say. If "blues" and T.merianae are so similar that one absolutely has to sit down to pretty much dissect the animal in order to tell it as one species opposed to the other, then all that photo really claims is a Tupinambis species exists in French Guiana. You say it's a 'blue' because you believe it to be, not because there is anything in that photo that disqualifies it as T.merianae. I am not claiming at all that 'blues' are from somewhere else.
Quote:
Show me a tegu that has all of the visual charateristics that the Blue Tegu has which is in a different location of South America.
What would this prove? I'm not being snide, but I'm failing to follow your logic. So I showed you a picture of a tegu with the visual characteristics that the "blue" has and is in a different location. That means....? And again, I've asked plenty of times, people keep telling me there is a difference between how 'blues' look and how T.merianae look, but all I've ever heard is not a difference, but similarities. A difference is exclusionary. What are these differences people keep talking about but not quantifying that are exclusional and not merely a possibility of seen variation?
Quote:
It doesn't matter. It is from French Guiana.
THIS, Rick, I am not really debating. In all likelyhood, it is. You have a reliable photographer who says that's where he took those photos. Undeniably, then, we can say that a Tupinambis species exists in French Guiana. Chances are, however, that if it exists in French Guiana, then it also exists in Suriname, Guyana and Brazil. Making a claim that it IS from French Guiana could be very premature, but this is a moot point.
Quote:
You claim Abe, Colli, Manzani or Avila-Pires say the pictures appear to be T.merianae. That wouldn't be a very scientific opinion on their behalf if it was based on photos only.
And yet it is acceptable for you to do so? C'mon Rick, you're a better debater than this. If it's not good enough for the goose, it's not good enough for the gander.
Quote:
If they made that observation, it would of course be based on the known species. They would merely assume since it looked most similar to T.merianae, it was T.merianae.
Considering these are the people that went out of their way to describe all the new species over the last 20 years, ie. they saw differences and so they investigated to make sure they were real differences, doesn't this statement seem like it's along the lines of nay-saying....
Quote:
It wasn't long ago that T.rufescens and T.duseni were the same species according to most of those listed above.
Uh, T.rufescens was described in 1885 by Boulenger and T.duseni was described in 1910 by Lonnberg & Andersson. How far back do you have to go? And what does this point really matter?
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 972270 Location: Central Maine
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:24 am Post subject:
Scientific names may be a much more reliable naming system than common names, but it is very unreliable and as such is updated and changed all the time.
As far as you replying to the subject about the insufficient quality in the images supplied in the past for you to take your meristic measurements, you never asked me for better images or I would have supplied them. You did not, because I honestly don't think you knew yourself where all of the meristic counts were located. I think you go on about being all scientific and knowing, but I just think you are good at debating and searching the web for tidbits to backup such a claim.
I had a herper who has kept monitors for years check the meristics based on what you supplied to me. Now you claim he is as likely wrong as he is right, yet how can you even assume that? And then you go on to tell me this tidbit of info, the meristics, you supplied is not all conclusive, yet for your previous arguments they were?
As far as me "severely undermining my argument" about having the meristics checked my a fellow herper, your point is fallible, by the fact that I admitted I had someone else check them and show me as he went, because I didn't know. I also pointed out I did not record this info and I wish I did. That point does not severely undermine my argument at all, it just points out the fact that you are good at reading into something what you feel like reading into it.
How about replying to my post is a manner becoming of an interested scientific student mind and offer to supply me with these meristics (loreals, supraorbitals, labials, transverse rows, number in a transverse row, around the body, etc). Show me the exact location, I am sure you are educated enough to do up a good diagram from which we can all compare with our T.merianae and Blue Tegus and share the results? Instead you completely skirted my request. If you just want to debate everyones posts on the forums, but don't want to contribute beyond babbling nothing more than your opinion, and it is your opinion, what is the point of holding a discussion with you?
Your opinion is that the Blue Tegu is just a T.merianae. Prove this to me, to all of us. YOU show us, visually, the meristic locations on the T.merianae. It would be that simple to prove or disprove your opinion. Claiming Abe, Colli, Manzani and Avila-Pieres, when shown pictures of the "Blue Tegu" will say its a T.merianae is just as corny as any other argument. You yourself will say a photo is no way to prove a species, yet you use it for your own argument. I doubt any scientific mind would state there are no undiscovered or unclassified Tupinambis species out there. That would be completely unscientific. In saying this, you are being completely unscientific. I'd actually be interested in hearing the opinions of these people you quote. I'd love to hear them say that, based on just a picture, that there is no possible way this is a different species. I honestly Sir, think you are full of it.
So instead of me sitting here and having a battle of words with someone who buys his ink by the gallon, why not you put up or shut up? You go from thread to thread picking apart everything and asking for people to back up their claim. Here I offer to assist you in getting the facts, yet you just go on and pick at my post and completely ignore this offer.
If you are not willing to supply these visual meristics that you claim are so easy to get wrong, but that you wouldn't mistake now, if you are just going to post a lame "go look them up yourself" post, if you are going to 'win' this debate merely wielding educated sounding words, or by pointing out my typos, don't waste your time. Either put your time where your mouth is or forget it.
I think tupinambis and myself with both agree here. There are indeed several species of Tupinambis lizards.
Indeed, there certainly are.
Quote:
The breeders are not breeding different colors for the leather trade, they use dye for that.
They do both.
Quote:
Scientific names may be a much more reliable naming system than common names, but it is very unreliable and as such is updated and changed all the time.
It's not so much that the names are unreliable as the people that use them, and no, I am not poking fun at you or anyone else. Specifically in Tupinambis, certain species were described many years ago, sometimes in a language that later users were unfamiliar with. Other cases are that the very first descriptions were not that clear and there were differing opinions in what exactly they were describing. Science is an evolving matter, it isn't something written in stone.
Quote:
As far as you replying to the subject about the insufficient quality in the images supplied in the past for you to take your meristic measurements, you never asked me for better images
Please, Rick, YOU show me how one is to count the scales around the midbody from a photo. Develop that technology and you'll be rich. But as for when those photos were taken, I do remember saying "ok, you can count the loreals, but the labials are unclear" and similar statements.
Quote:
You did not, because I honestly don't think you knew yourself where all of the meristic counts were located.
Did I not send you those jpg's of diagrams on the head for your perusal? You used to have them up.
Quote:
I had a herper who has kept monitors for years check the meristics based on what you supplied to me. Now you claim he is as likely wrong as he is right, yet how can you even assume that?
Simple. Ask 5 different people from 5 different professions to measure the length of a fish without them being told exactly where you are measuring and you will get different values.
Quote:
And then you go on to tell me this tidbit of info, the meristics, you supplied is not all conclusive, yet for your previous arguments they were?
Where and when did I ever say those 15 were the end-all-and-be-all to species identifications? I did say scientists use those meristics, I never said that was all they used. I also remember saying to you and several others that if you would have sent me your real world co-ordinates that I would send you some of those articles (they don't yet exist as pdf's). I know one person that took me up on the offer, you didn't.
Quote:
How about replying to my post is a manner becoming of an interested scientific student mind and offer to supply me with these meristics (loreals, supraorbitals, labials, transverse rows, number in a transverse row, around the body, etc). Show me the exact location, I am sure you are educated enough to do up a good diagram from which we can all compare with our T.merianae and Blue Tegus and share the results? Instead you completely skirted my request.
How about you having a shred of patience? As a matter of fact I had been working on exactly that several weeks ago, but had decided not to finish the project as it became clear to me that most people really aren't interested in finding out the facts, they only want to back up their beliefs. Unlike some people, I do not have the means to snap my fingers and create diagrams instantly. Wait a while and they will be forthcoming (and by a while I mean it may be several days, I have more important things on my agenda and the material I was working on is not on this computer).
Quote:
Your opinion is that the Blue Tegu is just a T.merianae. Prove this to me, to all of us. YOU show us, visually, the meristic locations on the T.merianae.
Actually, no, you kind of have that wrong. As it stands, the idea that the 'blue' tegu is T.merianae is more kind of a null hypothesis. The onus is on proving that it is not. It's not my opinion that the blue tegu is T.merianae, its the fact that I haven't seen anything that says it isn't. And it is much simpler to provide proof of a negative than a positive (actually, you can never prove something is, but you can prove that something is not, but that's a philosophical argument for another time).
Quote:
I doubt any scientific mind would state there are no undiscovered or unclassified Tupinambis species out there. That would be completely unscientific.
Excuse me, what? Are you claiming that no scientific mind believes there are any other species to be discovered, that the seven we recognize are all that's out there, and that I somehow said this? Of course that's unscientific. Where did you get this nugget? I certainly did not state any such thing. And I don't think that's what you are trying to state either.
Quote:
I'd actually be interested in hearing the opinions of these people you quote. I'd love to hear them say that, based on just a picture, that there is no possible way this is a different species.
I showed them the picture and said what do you think this species is? T.merianae was the the response. I said that people were claiming it's a new species, they said they really don't think so, it clearly shows T.merianae characteristics. They didn't say there was no possible way, that's your interpretation. If asked if there were no possible way it was a different species, I'm certain they would say yes, there are possibilities. And I agree, there is possibility. I fully admit that there's a possibility that 'blues' represent a new species. But from what has been shown so far, there is no evidence to support said claim.
Quote:
Here I offer to assist you in getting the facts, yet you just go on and pick at my post and completely ignore this offer.
THIS is your offer of assistance?!?!? My lord, I'd hate to hear your marriage proposal.
But I will agree to supply said materials, you just have to be a little more patient. You claim you want to hear what the researchers say, but then you crap on them for doing so.
Here's a first installment of what I had been working on, basically a little more description of the 15 meristics.
1.Scales around midbody: this one is pretty straight forward. You find the midpoint between the front and back limbs (basically where the animal is usually the widest). You count the scales going in a straight line around this point. Imagine the scales that would be covered if the animal were wearing a belt, and that's pretty much what you count.
2.Transverse dorsal rows: a little harder, but not by much. If you look closely, the scales on their back are arranged in “rows” that travel from side to side. You count the number of rows there are, going down the backbone, from the nape of the neck down to a level corresponding with the rear-most edge of the thigh.
3.Tranverse ventral rows: basically similar to #2, but on the belly. These you count from the gular fold (that indentation at the neck) backwards to the level corresponding with the fore-most edge of the thigh.
4.Ventrals in a transverse row: usually, you find the 19th row from #3 above, and count all the belly scales in that row.
5.Femoral pores: these are the pores on the underside of the leg. The leg ONLY, not including the ones on the belly before the cloaca/anus. You count them per side, not in total.
6.Preanal pores: like #5, but these are the ones on the belly just before the cloaca/anus.
7.Lamellae under the fourth finger: find the fourth finger (digits on the front limbs and are numbered with 1 being closest to the body, 2 and onwards going away from the body). The scales on the underside are the lamellae. Count them.
8.Lamellae under the fourth toe: find the fourth toe (digits on the back limbs and are numbered with 1 being closest to the body, 2 and onwards going away from the body). The scales on the underside are the lamellae. Count them.
9.Supratemporals: these are scales behind the eye, running from the back margin of the eye towards the nape of the neck, just under and adjoining the parietal scale. Counted per side.
10.Loreals: these are the scales behind the narial scale (the one for the nose) and in front of the eye. Counted per side.
11.Supraocculars: supra means above, occular pertains to the eye. You count the group of scales in a semi-circular pattern just over the eye on each side.
12.Supralabials: you know what supra means, labials means lips. You count the scales on the upper lip on each side, from the central scale at the front to the last one at the back of the margin of the mouth.
13.Infralabials: basically the same as #12, but these are the lower lip.
14.Max SVL: this is basically measured in a straight flat line from the tip of the nose back to the cloaca/anus. Pretty much a useless variable unless your animal has stopped growing.
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 972270 Location: Central Maine
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:32 am Post subject:
Quote:
Science is an evolving matter, it isn't something written in stone.
As long as this is something you admit. That the scientific naming & taxonomy of animals is indeed flawed, that it is a constant work and is always being modified based on our new understanding.
Quote:
Please, Rick, YOU show me how one is to count the scales around the midbody from a photo. Develop that technology and you'll be rich.
That's like asking me to create a way to take a picture of a complete round scenery! Wait, that technology exists! It's splicing images together from a certain focal point, it's called panoramic. I am certain I could do similar to that technology, will I really be rich?
Quote:
Did I not send you those jpg's of diagrams on the head for your perusal?
Yes, and they were very useful for separating the Blue Tegu from T.teguixin, but the loreals count does no good for species within the same clade as the T.merianae.
Quote:
Simple. Ask 5 different people from 5 different professions to measure the length of a fish without them being told exactly where you are measuring and you will get different values.
Well, using your example, I did tell one person from an extremely similar profession, exactly where he was to be measuring. Based completely on the meristics I was supplied.
Quote:
I also remember saying to you and several others that if you would have sent me your real world co-ordinates that I would send you some of those articles (they don't yet exist as pdf's). I know one person that took me up on the offer, you didn't.
We had many emails back and forth and you know I am always interested in new information. Obviously I had never seen such an offer, by all means: Richard Sisco, 280 Browns Corner Rd, Canaan, Maine. 04924.
Quote:
How about you having a shred of patience? As a matter of fact I had been working on exactly that several weeks ago, but had decided not to finish the project as it became clear to me that most people really aren't interested in finding out the facts, they only want to back up their beliefs. Unlike some people, I do not have the means to snap my fingers and create diagrams instantly. Wait a while and they will be forthcoming (and by a while I mean it may be several days, I have more important things on my agenda and the material I was working on is not on this computer).
Now why didn't you just state that the first time round rather than just picking at the post?
Quote:
The onus is on proving that it is not. It's not my opinion that the blue tegu is T.merianae, its the fact that I haven't seen anything that says it isn't.
How many blue tegus have you examined to draw this conclusion? Because you haven't seen anything that says it isn't, it's fact that it is? Because I have never seen anything that proves a pigeon is not a seagull, so does that make it fact that a pigeon and seagull are the same?
Quote:
THIS is your offer of assistance?!?!? My lord, I'd hate to hear your marriage proposal.
I don't know about the interest in my marriage proposal or how it relates, but since you and yours enjoy to stir up so much 'debate' in these forums, I'd sure love the pure entertainment factor of one of your marriage squabbles in the future.
Quote:
Here's a first installment of what I had been working on, basically a little more description of the 15 meristics.
See, now THIS is a worthwhile post. This is the reason I put up with the hassle, because sometimes you pull your head out long enough to stop 'debating' and to actually share some useful information. Keep this coming and I will personally supply what is needed once and for all, to put blue tegu species to the test visually.
As I have stated, I don't care if the Blue Tegu is it's own species, a subspecies, a variant based on regional factors, or etc.. I would like to know that info, but I can tell the visual characteristics from a Blue Tegu and a T.merianae. I think anyone who owns several of both, can tell them apart visually. Perhaps some people are more perceptive to this than others. Those in the pictures by the above photographer are what the pet trade refers to as Blue Tegus. Which ever their classification, they are photo documented proof these animals, whatever their genetics, are found in French Guiana. Show me pictures of other tegus throughout South America that carry the same visual characteristics and I would be pleased, but I have yet to see them.
Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Posts: 92 Location: North Jerzey
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: wowies
wowies . . . great posts . . on both ends . . . bout time something of major intrest came about _________________ 1.0.0 Blue Tegu (Jaeger)
0.1.0 Colombian Black & White Tegu (Kilioa)
1.0.0 Red Tegu (Odin)
2.3.0 Black Emperor Scorpions
1.0.0 Ball Python (Lucifer)
1.1.0 Fat Tail Geckos
0.1.0 White Lined Gecko
"You and yours"? I am not anyone's property, and I am completely capable of forming my own opinion and posting outside of what C says; in fact I'm sure he can tell you about how often I listen to him. Thanks Rick. This is now two threads on thetegu.com from *moderators* I find personally insulting and I wasn't even involved with them in the first place. Interesting... but that is kind of the American way, isn't it? If it bothers you so much to have a professional herpetologist and a veterinarian with a strong herpetological, I know I'd have no problem leaving. I only started reading this to have some idea what C was going on about at times. However, you'd still have members posting about putting bleach in wounds...
I just don't understand where any of the posts about blue tegus being a separate species are coming from; what do you think makes blue tegus any different from say, Vietnamese blue beauty snakes? Common in the pet trade, but different colouration and pattern. Big wee... still considered Elaphe (now debatably Orthriophis) taeniuria (well, O. taeniurius) of an undescribed subspecies (though people keep wrongly calling them O. t. grabowski, another blue coloured subspecies, but wrong range, pattern, etc). It kind of makes no sense to me what your aims are. You can look at other species that seem to buck the described characteristics of their species on the basis of small island populations, founder effect, etc... they're still considered subspecies. The "evidence" you present for blues is irrational to me.
Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 1164 Location: panamacity florida
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:55 am Post subject:
tupinambis, I do not have the scalation on these either. But there is a lot of things that are much different between the blue and the T.merianae. Also the tegu pictured in the beginning of this thread is a dead ringer to the ones raised by Ron St.Pierre. So it would not be a case of a small gene pool as you stated above. First off, the Blue tegus are much smaller than T.merianae, they also are more carnivorous than T.merianae. The hatchlings do not have the green heads found with the T.merianae hatchlings. This is also true in the T.Rufescen, they too are not found to have a green head as a hatchling.
I understand that you would look at them as a local. But when you are holding one, you can clearly see they are not the same animal. The Chacoans are said to be a different local. But when looking at them they are much lighter than the normal T.merianae. The same can not be said with the Blues.
But even going past apperence, there are other differences as well. The T.merianaes are IMO much easier to tame than the blue tegus are. Also the fact that they cannot take the colder temps that the T.merianae indure. T.Rufescen and T.merianaes can both take the cold much better than the blues. IMO, I would also say that T.Rufescen would be the second easiest to tame out of these three.
Tegu Systematics
Quote:
TEGU SYSTEMATICS
L. A. Fitzgerald et al. [1999, Copeia (4):894-905] report that at least five species of Tupinambis lizards (Sauria: Teiidae) occur in South America east of the Andes. In Argentina and Paraguay, two species of Tupinambis have been commercially exploited for leather since the 1970s. Current quotas total 1.35 million skins/yr. Despite this large and sustained harvest, few studies have examined genetic or morphological variation in these lizards. The authors sequenced parts of the mitochondrial cytochrome b and ND4 genes and examined this variation in light of morphological characters traditionally used to identify these species. DNA sequences provided a preliminary view of intraspecific and interspecific variation and were used to explore evolutionary relationships among 17 individuals representing T. merianae, T. rufescens and T. duseni from Paraguay, and T. longilineus and T. teguixin from Roraima, Brazil, and Cuyabeno, Ecuador. Kentropyx viridistriga, Ameiva ameiva and Cnemidophorus ocellifer were included as outgroups. Analyses revealed two distinctive groups within Tupinambis; a northern South American and Amazonian clade (T. teguixin, T. longilineus) and a clade (T. duseni, T. rufescens and T. merianae) that is distributed primarily south of Amazonia. Although genetically similar and previously considered synonymous with T. rufescens, T. duseni is morphologically distinct based on squamation, coloration, and morphometrics. This incongruence between the molecular data and morphology suggests that T. duseni and T. rufescens may have undergone extensive and recent morphological evolution or there has been introgression of mitochondrial DNA between these species. Sequence divergence between T. teguixin from Brazil and Ecuador was similar to that found between T. rufescens and T. merianae and may indicate these T. teguixin populations are not conspecific. The T. teguixin clade was sister to T. longilineus. These findings, combined with the large-scale commercial exploitation, suggest an urgent need to address geographic variation and the systematics of Tupinambis.
Note that L. A. Fitzgerald states there are at least five species of Tupinambis. But this would not be limited to these. He also says that T. duseni, T. rufescens and T. merianae) that is distributed primarily south of Amazonia. This would place them much farther south then French Guiana.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login
