# hybrid monitors?



## cavan (Mar 2, 2009)

Have any monitors been hybridized? And if so which ones and has anyone got any pics?


----------



## cavan (Mar 2, 2009)

Anyone?


----------



## Jaymz (Mar 21, 2010)

Hi, havn't got pics but these are the ones i'm aware of,

V. panoptes horni X V. flavirufus X V. Gouldii

Possible V. tristis tristis X V. t oreintalis

Varanus panoptes x Varanus flavirufus

Black and white X Red Tegu = Blue Tegu


----------



## cavan (Mar 2, 2009)

Pity there aint no pics


----------



## NightGecko (Jul 17, 2009)

Gilleni x Caudolineatus










Pilbarensis x Glauerti


----------



## monitor mad (Jun 16, 2008)

Beccarii and prasinus


----------



## NightGecko (Jul 17, 2009)

Jaymz said:


> Hi, havn't got pics but these are the ones i'm aware of,
> 
> V. panoptes horni X V. flavirufus X V. Gouldii
> 
> ...


 
These are not hybrids they are inter-species mixes. "Mixing" of related species happens wherever their natural borders meet and happens in captivity too. Tristis mixes, Acanthurus mixes, Storri mixes etc will all be commonplace in the wild. Most of the "red ackies" offered in captivity will not be pure acanthurus acanthurus as somebody will have tried slipping some 'cheap' brachyurus into the bloodline at some point.


Another one I have heard of is macraei x kordensis (aka "Cobalt Monitor") and as Steve said prasinus x beccarii has been done.


----------



## ShaneLuvsMonitors (Sep 27, 2008)

Damned hybrids although that cobalt monitor :mf_dribble::mf_dribble::mf_dribble: Anyway DAMN HYBRIDS ruining perfectly good monitor species :lol2:


----------



## NightGecko (Jul 17, 2009)

ShaneLuvsMonitors said:


> Damned hybrids although that cobalt monitor :mf_dribble::mf_dribble::mf_dribble: Anyway DAMN HYBRIDS ruining perfectly good monitor species :lol2:


Must agree with you there the Cobalt does look pretty neat, but as for the others I am not so keen. The gilleni x caudo mutts just look like regular gilleni, the only big differences in the two is the tail and size anyway so I'm guessing you just end up with a middle-sized gilleni lookalike with maybe a partial stripe on its tail, which to me is not worth doing they should be keeping both species pure! 

As for the pilbarensis x glauerti..... YUCK :lol2: Took so much visually out of both and just leaves you with that odd looking thing.

And I read they make bad captives :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## 666PIT9 (Sep 23, 2010)

Hybrids shouldn't be Bred or sort after in my opinion


----------



## monitor mad (Jun 16, 2008)

666PIT9 said:


> Hybrids shouldn't be Bred or sort after in my opinion


 
Yep agreed : victory:


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

666PIT9 said:


> Hybrids shouldn't be Bred or sort after in my opinion


The problem with this, of course, is that it requires the assumption that the individuals you have in captivity (or any given individual in the 'wild') is not the product of a hybridization event. This is a *big* assumption, and I would suggest, is far from accurate.

In truth, hybrid speciation is likely responsible for 25-30 % (my conservative estimation) of the species currently extant (more if we consider those now extinct). And large 'hybrid zones' (overlapping ranges) plus a lack of reproductive isolation makes actual hybridization events *very* common.

As has been mentioned, introgression (between 'sub-species' - which is a nonsense) is also common.

I would urge people to think about _what_ they consider a species to _be_, and how robust this definition is. Of course I'm not saying to everyone "go out and attempt to hybridize your monitors", but just to be a little more open minded about the likely origin of the species they keep, and the redundancy of terms such as 'pure'.

Kind regards,

Andy


----------



## i.am.idc (Nov 29, 2009)

NightGecko said:


> These are not hybrids they are inter-species mixes. "Mixing" of related species happens wherever their natural borders meet and happens in captivity too. Tristis mixes, Acanthurus mixes, Storri mixes etc will all be commonplace in the wild. Most of the "red ackies" offered in captivity will not be pure acanthurus acanthurus as somebody will have tried slipping some 'cheap' brachyurus into the bloodline at some point.
> 
> 
> Another one I have heard of is macraei x kordensis (aka "Cobalt Monitor") and as Steve said prasinus x beccarii has been done.
> ...


Cobalt monitor does look gorgeous.... Even though I too am against hybrids :2thumb:


----------



## cavan (Mar 2, 2009)

i.am.idc said:


> Cobalt monitor does look gorgeous.... Even though I too am against hybrids :2thumb:


Can i ask why mate?


----------



## i.am.idc (Nov 29, 2009)

cavan said:


> Can i ask why mate?


Just don't like the idea of mixing species! Prefer wild natural types.
:2thumb:


----------



## cavan (Mar 2, 2009)

i.am.idc said:


> Just don't like the idea of mixing species! Prefer wild natural types.
> :2thumb:


Fair dos, i personally love snake hybrids because of the way they look, and am interested to see hybrid monitors for the same reason, i know there is alot of hybrid haters saying it aint natural, but reptile keeping stops being natural as soon as they are not in the wild


----------



## shiftylou (Apr 27, 2008)

I love hybrids and think that alot of species here in the world today is all to do with hybridization


----------



## liam.b (Sep 2, 2006)

cavan said:


> Fair dos, i personally love snake hybrids because of the way they look, and am interested to see hybrid monitors for the same reason, i know there is alot of hybrid haters saying it aint natural, but reptile keeping stops being natural as soon as they are not in the wild


i think the snakes look nice i saw a pic of a ball crossed with something the other day and it looked amazing. with the monitors theres enough of them so i dont think its necessary but then some of them will look awsome, the cobalt looks awsome so its something new. just down too personal opinion, would love to know which ones could be compatible would be a change wouldnt it breeding hybrid monitors, would just be personal opinion wether its a good or bad change, offcoarse we wouldnt want it to go out of control as to the point where its hard to get the pure species. not much info on it either


----------



## monitor mad (Jun 16, 2008)

In terms of being against "intentional" hybridation of monitors is really what im talking of as imo monitors are difficult to breed at "best" plus a lot will never in the near future be exported from Australia so we have only the ones already here in the EU/US etc to work with.


----------



## ShaneLuvsMonitors (Sep 27, 2008)

monitor mad said:


> In terms of being against "intentional" hybridation of monitors is really what im talking of as imo monitors are difficult to breed at "best" plus a lot will never in the near future be exported from Australia so we have only the ones already here in the EU/US etc to work with.



Crosses in the wild are perfectly natural crosses in captivity on the other hand a big no no you end up muddying the waters and essentially making species conservation in captivity redundant.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

monitor mad said:


> In terms of being against "intentional" hybridation of monitors is really what im talking of as imo monitors are difficult to breed at "best" plus a lot will never in the near future be exported from Australia so we have only the ones already here in the EU/US etc to work with.


This is an important point, but if you look at it from another perspective, introgression between species within a species complex may actually increase genetic diversity (hybrid vigour) thus reducing the negative effects of inbreeding depression (arising not only from full sib pairings, but simply reduced genepool diversity).

Not that I am currently suggesting this as justification, but it is a potentially viable option.



ShaneLuvsMonitors said:


> Crosses in the wild are perfectly natural crosses in captivity on the other hand a big no no you end up muddying the waters and essentially making species conservation in captivity redundant.


Again, this requires us to know something about what is considered a 'pure' species... and this is an absolute mine field. Needless to say, it is pretty likely the waters are already quite muddy.

It is true though, the average keeper should not consider hybridizing their animals. It poses many many difficulties for the offspring (and potentially the parental species).

Andy


----------



## ShaneLuvsMonitors (Sep 27, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> This is an important point, but if you look at it from another perspective, introgression between species within a species complex may actually increase genetic diversity (hybrid vigour) thus reducing the negative effects of inbreeding depression (arising not only from full sib pairings, but simply reduced genepool diversity).
> 
> Not that I am currently suggesting this as justification, but it is a potentially viable option.
> 
> ...


The worst cross i can think of is crossing flavis with panoptes horni these two species would never normally meet in the wild 1 from new guinea one from Aus and as a result of this since aus doesnt export animals were ending up with not knowing exactly what "species" weve actually got and we end up losing two species and ending up with one while fine if it happens naturally not something i feel we should be sticking our noses into. 

The line between V. p horni and v. p. panoptes and v. p. rubidius already blurred as hell p.p. are a larger monitor than p. horni yet there are deffinetly argus monitors out there that typify p. horni yet are as big as p.p. suggesting hybridisation on some level has already taken place as a result of this weve virtually lost two species and ended up with another great if either of these two species were indecline and already showing genetic defects as a result of a naturally decreasing gene pool but since neither is are there fairly common monitors although in the case of p.panoptes there ancestry could be traced back to a couple of pairs imported from Aus 

Certainly food for thought.


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

ShaneLuvsMonitors said:


> The worst cross i can think of is crossing flavis with panoptes horni these two species would never normally meet in the wild 1 from new guinea one from Aus and as a result of this since aus doesnt export animals were ending up with not knowing exactly what "species" weve actually got and we end up losing two species and ending up with one while fine if it happens naturally not something i feel we should be sticking our noses into.
> 
> The line between V. p horni and v. p. panoptes and v. p. rubidius already blurred as hell p.p. are a larger monitor than p. horni yet there are deffinetly argus monitors out there that typify p. horni yet are as big as p.p. suggesting hybridisation on some level has already taken place as a result of this weve virtually lost two species and ended up with another great if either of these two species were indecline and already showing genetic defects as a result of a naturally decreasing gene pool but since neither is are there fairly common monitors although in the case of p.panoptes there ancestry could be traced back to a couple of pairs imported from Aus
> 
> Certainly food for thought.


Hey Shane, you make some interesting points (and in general I agree, but I like to play devils advocate...), but I still think there could be room for a different perspective:

Your first point is very commonly evoked when talking about hybridization/introgression i.e. "they would never normally meet". While this is technically true, it is very important to question the characteristics which have been used to assign specific species status. You will find that many over-zealous taxonomists will (for many reasons) attempt to assign specific species status to populations of the same species along different parts of its natural range (you will often see different species/ sub-species names attributed to European, and North American variants of the same species for example), and given the difficulty of attributing species (i.e. _how_ do you define this taxonomic unit, if reproductive isolation doesn't exist) then you surely struggle to suggest that this is hybridization at all. We know that morphological traits vary heavily _within_ species, thus it is not a stretch (for me at least) to suggest that the level of variation we see between two 'species' could also be natural variation. For me, the genetic data is not so clear. Defining a species can be difficult...

I have no idea whether the species you mention (I assume "flavis" is _V. g. flavirufus_) are capable of hybridizing, and the most recent molecular phylogeny I have seen doesn't have this sub-species on it, so it's difficult to say. For 'political' reasons however, the Aussies are *very* keen for all their 'species' to be protected, thus there is clear pressure to assign species status where perhaps it isn't warranted. (not necessarily the case here of course, but something to keep in mind in general).

Your second point, also very justified, but it is important to remember that this _isn't_ hybridization, as these all the same species (_V. panoptes_) and it is my sincere opinion that there is little to justify attributing sub-species status. Sadly, there is little work done on these species to fully resolve this problem.

Of course each keeper has the right and responsibility to choose what they breed (even _if_ they breed), but I think it is also important to remember that the underlying science here is *not* infallible, and so ostracizing those who breed two 'species' that are claimed to be separate, but not reproductively isolated, is not by default acceptable. 'Species' is, after all, a human term, which is becoming increasing invalid. It is important to many (if not all) to maintain various morphotypes in captivity, and this is great, but again it comes back to what is 'pure', can we actually assume that the individual we have in captivity (or any random individual from the 'wild') represents a 'pure' example of the species... Difficult, but none the less interesting.

One thing I will point out to all those reading this thread, and thinking I am saying hybridization is fine, and thus considering doing it. The resultant offspring (if the cross is compatible) will often have very different phenotypes, behavior, and importantly, physiological requirements, than their parents. This means their care can be _extremely_ difficult. I would urge all considering this, to really take stock of what this could mean for the offspring, and also how difficult it could be to work out the correct requirement while they suffer incorrect conditions.

Thanks,

Andy


----------



## ShaneLuvsMonitors (Sep 27, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Hey Shane, you make some interesting points (and in general I agree, but I like to play devils advocate...), but I still think there could be room for a different perspective:
> 
> Your first point is very commonly evoked when talking about hybridization/introgression i.e. "they would never normally meet". While this is technically true, it is very important to question the characteristics which have been used to assign specific species status. You will find that many over-zealous taxonomists will (for many reasons) attempt to assign specific species status to populations of the same species along different parts of its natural range (you will often see different species/ sub-species names attributed to European, and North American variants of the same species for example), and given the difficulty of attributing species (i.e. _how_ do you define this taxonomic unit, if reproductive isolation doesn't exist) then you surely struggle to suggest that this is hybridization at all. We know that morphological traits vary heavily _within_ species, thus it is not a stretch (for me at least) to suggest that the level of variation we see between two 'species' could also be natural variation. For me, the genetic data is not so clear. Defining a species can be difficult...
> 
> ...


And your point highlighted in red is very true actually it just would be nice to preserve the two distinct morphologies since they have been seperated for a very long time hence the differences 

With the gouldi - v.p.h. cross they actually come from very different climates gouldi hot and dry v.p.h come from a more humid climate so breeding these two species a good idea? This coincides with your last point on the captive care of hybrids. 

Of course the fact that these two species can even interbreed again suggests that species are as you say becoming redundant in that reproductively speaking they arent seperate species at all since they can breed and produce viable offspring


----------



## i.am.idc (Nov 29, 2009)

Some interesting arguments both for and against. Good to see a constructive discussion on RFUK and not WW4 :war: :lol2:

For me the only reason I am against hybrids is because I just like the natural animals.


----------



## ShaneLuvsMonitors (Sep 27, 2008)

i.am.idc said:


> Some interesting arguments both for and against. Good to see a constructive discussion on RFUK and not WW4 :war: :lol2:
> 
> For me the only reason I am against hybrids is because I just like the natural animals.



Ahh what Andy is saying is that are the animals we keep and breed in captivity the phenotype used to identify the species or are they hybrids... who can say?


----------



## i.am.idc (Nov 29, 2009)

ShaneLuvsMonitors said:


> Ahh what Andy is saying is that are the animals we keep and breed in captivity the phenotype used to identify the species or are they hybrids... who can say?


True but can't we tell by comparing them to what we see in the wild? Are there any differences between say a wild Salvator and one kept in captivity? Or any other monitor lizard for that matter?


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

ShaneLuvsMonitors said:


> And your point highlighted in red is very true actually it just would be nice to preserve the two distinct morphologies since they have been seperated for a very long time hence the differences
> 
> With the gouldi - v.p.h. cross they actually come from very different climates gouldi hot and dry v.p.h come from a more humid climate so breeding these two species a good idea? This coincides with your last point on the captive care of hybrids.
> 
> Of course the fact that these two species can even interbreed again suggests that species are as you say becoming redundant in that reproductively speaking they arent seperate species at all since they can breed and produce viable offspring


Of course I agree that it is a 'good' thing to preserve character traits (morphological and behavioral), and this is something I am happy for people to argue strongly for, I guess my main point is how we link these traits to species/ sub-species/ locale status. Sometimes, it isn't clear cut. The 'waters' are naturally 'muddy' when it comes to the genetic background of any given animal, thus perhaps it is more appropriate to think about these things, not in terms of hybridization, but trait preservation (in captivity at least - in other more specific fields, this problem is much more complicated)?

The very specific _V. gouldi_ example raises another point. How plastic (susceptible to change - acclimatization) are these traits? The answer is, we simply don't know... This makes guessing difficult at best. You are right though, there are some crosses (regardless of the potential for viable offspring), which pose too much risk to the offspring for the vast majority of keepers to even consider attempting.

It always fascinates me some of the reasons people evoke against hybridization, i'm just not sure _why_ we have such a big taboo (the initial reason I mean)... Interesting.

Andy


----------



## GlasgowGecko (Feb 23, 2008)

i.am.idc said:


> True but can't we tell by comparing them to what we see in the wild? Are there any differences between say a wild Salvator and one kept in captivity? Or any other monitor lizard for that matter?


The problem is that the natural history of every species, sub-species and population includes admixture events (hybridization at different levels), thus the definition of a 'pure' individual of any species (regardless of if it is captive or 'wild') is flawed. Looking identical, is not the same as having identical history, it doesn't give us any clues as to what their immediate ancestors were.

Andy


----------



## ShaneLuvsMonitors (Sep 27, 2008)

GlasgowGecko said:


> Of course I agree that it is a 'good' thing to preserve character traits (morphological and behavioral), and this is something I am happy for people to argue strongly for, I guess my main point is how we link these traits to species/ sub-species/ locale status. Sometimes, it isn't clear cut. The 'waters' are naturally 'muddy' when it comes to the genetic background of any given animal, thus perhaps it is more appropriate to think about these things, not in terms of hybridization, but trait preservation (in captivity at least - in other more specific fields, this problem is much more complicated)?
> 
> The very specific _V. gouldi_ example raises another point. How plastic (susceptible to change - acclimatization) are these traits? The answer is, we simply don't know... This makes guessing difficult at best. You are right though, there are some crosses (regardless of the potential for viable offspring), which pose too much risk to the offspring for the vast majority of keepers to even consider attempting.
> 
> ...


No me neither really i just dont like hybrid monitors there hard enough to identify 

The flavis crosses in the us seem to do just as well as non-crosses when kept like either "species" but thats proberly to do with monitor being extremely hard lizards and capable of coping with either environment. 

Ill tell you one thing though youve certainly given me a lot to think about when it comes to species or rather groups :2thumb:


----------



## isdrake (Apr 21, 2010)

Jaymz said:


> Hi, havn't got pics but these are the ones i'm aware of,
> 
> Black and white X Red Tegu = Blue Tegu


You will not get a blue tegu by breeding black/whitw with red. The blue tegu is still classified as _Tupinambis merianae_ (Argentine black and and white tegu). Maybe it's a subspecie?

However you can breed black and white (_tupinambis merianae_) with red (_Tupinambis rufescens_) but it doesn't have a name.

Also if you breed black/white, blue and red you will get something called All American tegu, lol.


----------



## mrhoyo (Mar 29, 2007)

I don't mind either way if there are hybridisations going on in captivity but I think it is important to label the offspring as such. If someone wants to buy "pure" specimens they should be able to do so in full confidence.
Microchips containing information of family history should be a legal requirement for all animal sales, in my opinion. I hate seeing animals for sale as one thing and then looking at pictures which identify it as another.

NG, you make good points. It is important to remember that taxonomy is a human creation and nature very rarely makes nomenclature easy. 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk


----------



## DavieB (Mar 15, 2011)

I dont even like the "morph" stuff that goes on in the reptile trade. Too many people breed animals with known problems just because they look nice. Enigma syndrome etc. It seems to get to this magical colour or pattern a lot of animals die and end up ill or with psychological problems.

If hybridising becomes the norm in the reptile trade then surely it is just more ammo for the rspca and other anti-pet keeping organisations .


----------

