# The ultimate list?



## Meg90 (Jan 11, 2009)

I was just wondering if we could maybe compile a list of all of the torts commonly (and uncommonly I guess) kept as pets...

After joining this forum, I have learned about alot of species that I didn't even know existed. And I tried to google a list, but to no avail...(just for kicks this semester in my writing class, I am writing a mini tort care book about Greeks--but would love to include a listing of the species too)

These are the ones I am aware of so far:

African Sulcata 

Pancake Tortoise

Aldabra Tortoise

Galapagos Tortoise

Hermans Tortoise

Marginated Tortoise

Hingeback Tortoise
---Forest/Homes Hingeback
---Bells Hingeback
---Spekes Hingeback

Leopard Tortoise (more than one subspecies??)

Greek Tortoise
---Golden Greek
---Jordanian Greek
---Libyan Greek
---(I know there are more than that...would love to have them all)
---Black Greek? (?--saw this on a website, what is it really?)

Indian Star

Burmese Mtn. Tortoise

Red Foot Tortoise

Cherry Head Red Foot Tortoise

Yellow Foot Tortoise

Spider Tortoise

Elongated Tortoise

Russian Tortoise

Egyptian Tortoise


Would love input on this! Hope I am not just being a waste of bandwidth here, but in my defense, I was suuuuper bored!


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 11, 2009)

Homopus and Speckled padloper

Yvonne

Also, the Burmese forest tortoise


----------



## SFCMARK (Jan 12, 2009)

I have a Madagasgar Spider Tortoise.....the sub species are the Common Spider, The Norther Spider and the Southern Spider. Mine is the Northern Spider


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 12, 2009)

Here's a list of the species Meg  with sizes 

Southern Albermarle Galapagos tortoise, _Chelonoidis vicina_-----------150cm
Aldabra tortoise, _Dipsochelys dussumieri_---------------------------140cm
Southern Indefatigable Galapagos tortoise, _Chelonoidis porteri_--------130cm
Northern Indefatigable Galapagos tortoise, _C. sp_---------------------120cm (soon to be named)
Northern Albermarle Galapagos tortoise, _C. becki_---------------------105cm
Abingdon Galapagos tortoise, C. _abingdonii_---------------------------98cm
James Galapagos tortoise, _C. darwini_---------------------------------97cm
Chatham Galapagos tortoise, _C. chatamensis_-------------------------89cm
African spurred tortoise, _Centrochelys sulcata_-----------------------84.5cm
Duncan Galapagos tortoise, _Chelonoidis duncanensis_-----------------84cm
Yellowfoot tortoise, _C. denticulata_----------------------------------82cm
Leopard tortoise, _Stigmochelys pardalis_------------------------------78cm
Hood Galapagos tortoise, _Chelonoidis hoodensis_----------------------75cm
Redfoot tortoise, _Chelonoidis carbonaria_-----------------------------61cm
Asian mountain tortoise, _Manouria emys_-----------------------------60cm
Plowshare tortoise, _Astrochelys yniphora_----------------------------49cm
Radiated tortoise, _A. radiata_----------------------------------------45cm
Patagonian tortoise, _Chelnoidis chilensis_------------------------------44cm
Bolson's tortoise, _Gopherus flavomarginatus_--------------------------40cm
Marginated tortoise, _Testudo marginata_------------------------------40cm
Greek tortoise, _T. graeca_--------------------------------------------38cm
Star tortoise, _Geochelone elegans_------------------------------------38cm
Desert tortoise, _Gopherus agassizii_-----------------------------------38cm
Gopher tortoise, _G. polyphemus_--------------------------------------38cm
Hermanns tortoise, _Testudo hermanni_--------------------------------36cm
Elongated tortoise, _Indotestudo elongata_----------------------------36cm
Travancore tortoise, _Indotestudo travancorica_-----------------------34cm
Chaco tortoise, _Chelonoidis petersi_----------------------------------32cm
Forest hingeback tortoise, _Kinixys erosa_-----------------------------32cm
Celebes tortoise, _Indotestudo forstenii_------------------------------31cm
Impressed tortoise, _Manouria impressa_------------------------------31cm
Russian tortoise, _Agrionemys horsfieldii_------------------------------28cm
Bowsprit tortoise, _Chersina angulata_--------------------------------26cm
Burmese Star tortoise, _Geochelone platynota_------------------------26cm
Home's hingeback tortoise, _Kinixys homeana_-------------------------25cm
Texas tortoise, _Gopherus berlandieri_--------------------------------23cm
Bell's hingeback tortoise, _Kinixys belliana_----------------------------22cm
Speke's hingeback tortoise, _K. spekii_--------------------------------20cm
Geometric tortoise, _Psammobates geometricus_----------------------20cm
Pancake tortoise, _Malacochersus tornieri_---------------------------20cm
Lobatse hingeback tortoise, _Kinixys lobatsiana_----------------------17cm
Natal hingeback tortoise, _K. natalensis_-----------------------------16cm
Karoo cape tortoise, _Homopus femoralis_----------------------------16cm
Spider tortoise, _Pyxis arachnoides_---------------------------------15cm
Tent tortoise, _Psammobates tentorius_-----------------------------15cm
Egyptian tortoise, _Testudo kleinmanni_------------------------------14cm
Serrated tortoise, _Psammobates oculifer_----------------------------13cm
Flat-tailed tortoise, _Pyxis planicauda_-------------------------------12cm
Parrot-beaked tortoise, _Homopus areolatus_-------------------------12cm
Boulenger's cape tortoise, _H. boulengeri_----------------------------11cm
Namibian tortoise, _H. solus_-----------------------------------------10cm
Speckled tortoise, _H. signatus_--------------------------------------9.5cm

There are a few here you won't see in captivity, private or public.
The Geometric tortoise being one of those.

Danny


----------



## purpod (Jan 12, 2009)

Goodness Gracious, Danny ~ Sounds like _you_ should be writing a book, lol ~ xllnt reply, Bud! 

Purpod


----------



## Kristina (Jan 12, 2009)

I have wanted a Homopus signatus for years... They are just too precious!

Kristina


----------



## Isa (Jan 12, 2009)

Wow Danny
amazing list, thanks a lot.


----------



## kevantheman35 (Jan 12, 2009)

great list!


----------



## Meg90 (Jan 12, 2009)

I love the Speckled Torts...I did a net search on them a few weeks ago, and I cannot believe how tiny they are!


Thanks Danny!


----------



## Kristina (Jan 12, 2009)

Meg90 said:


> I love the Speckled Torts...I did a net search on them a few weeks ago, and I cannot believe how tiny they are!
> 
> 
> Thanks Danny!



About the size of a 6 month old Sulcata, lol. It is too bad that they are so difficult to care for. They are not readily available in the pet trade because they only lay one egg a year!

Kristina


----------



## SFCMARK (Jan 15, 2009)

The Northern Spider Tortoise female will lay one egg every 3 years. That one egg will take 12-14 month to incubate. VERY hard to reproduce, which is just one reason why they are on the "critically endangered" list


----------



## brymanda (Jan 6, 2010)

Just came across this list - impressive! I thought it would be neat to revive it and maybe get people to add characteristics onto each tortoise, such as environment (arid, mediterranean, humid), lifespan, difficulty of care?


----------



## GBtortoises (Jan 6, 2010)

I had a trio of 2.1 Speckled Cape tortoises, (Homopus signatus signatus) about 18 years ago.

I also had a group of Parrot Beak tortoises, (Homopus areolatus) at the same time. Nice but still didn't compare to the Speckled Capes! 

One of the most awesome tortoises I've ever encountered.


----------



## stells (Jan 6, 2010)

I really don't want to sound rude here and hope i don't... but was wondering how you will write a carebook on "greeks"... when they are so variable? You really can't bundle them all into the same catagory and have a good care book....


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 6, 2010)

Well, it couldn't be a sort of "Greek Tortoises for Dummies." There would have to be chapters on each specie that needs different care. Sounds like a pretty big job, but I'll bet someone could do it.


----------



## stells (Jan 6, 2010)

Someone who has kept nearly all of them... * cough... Danny*


----------



## GBtortoises (Jan 6, 2010)

I agree with Stells. The care and needs of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and North African tortoises is different in several aspects. Even within those three regions some subspecies are found in different microclimates making their captive needs slightly variable. 

The only way they can be considered in one book is to give them different chapters or sections based specific to each subspecies needs.


----------



## Meg90 (Jan 6, 2010)

stells said:


> I really don't want to sound rude here and hope i don't... but was wondering how you will write a carebook on "greeks"... when they are so variable? You really can't bundle them all into the same catagory and have a good care book....



It did sound rude to me, but what do I know right? 

If you reread that post I said "mini care book" IE just the basics like diet, substrate, heating, lighting, etc.

Its not that difficult.


----------



## stells (Jan 6, 2010)

Oh but it is.... as some need more night time heat than others... some don't like to much of a drop in temps... some need to come in if there is a cold day... others will hang with it... My graeca graeca for example will graze on grass... my Ibera won't... My graeca graeca are very personal... my antakyensis are the grumps... their personalities are also completely different... Some hibernate... some don't there are quite a few differences within the different subspecies... quite a few variations within the natural habitats... Some are more prone to RNS than other... the list is endless

Tunisians are another... although i don't keep them... but plenty do over here... but they can be ultra sensitive.... 

You can't just clump them altogether...

Sorry for being honest...


----------



## Meg90 (Jan 6, 2010)

Well, considering I was focusing on Jordanians, its not that big of a deal. I got through several sections before my semester ended. 

But the way you are speaking, lends me the idea that you don't believe in general care books? Are there not several different types of Red foots? Hingebacks? The general care does not differ that greatly within the same species. I have seen books of this type for years. There are even box turtle care books, and the sub-speciation among them can be quite diverse. 

Its not the honesty that's prickly. Its the tone. Everyone has the right to their opinion, usually its the delivery of said opinion that sets people off.


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 6, 2010)

If you did do just one subspecies or type, than yes you could do a basic care book 

Though the hingeback analogy doesn't quite work now that _Kinixys nogueyi_ is back as a subspecies of _K.belliana_. 

Time to redo the list too  They have raised the subspecies of Galaps to species level. They aren't recognizing _Dipsochelys hololissa_ and _D.arnoldi_ as species and at best they would be subspecies of _D. dussumieri_

Danny


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 6, 2010)

stells said:


> Someone who has kept nearly all of them... * cough... Danny*



LOL!! I didn't want to point fingers, but he's who I had in mind!


----------



## stells (Jan 6, 2010)

Tone... i will remember that next time.... practice what you preach and all that  

In my defence i did start my post with... I really don't want to sound rude here and hope i don't... that usually means... i hope i don't sound rude 

General care books... i have the Star one by the Fifes ... but when something is so variable then no... sorry i don't

Yvonne... great minds and all that lol


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 6, 2010)

Just FYI- 'Cherryhead Red-foots' are not a separate species (yet) or even really much of anything other than a marketing term, but if you are breaking Red-foots up into care categories it would be Northern and Southern forms.

Also jut FYI- i love the idea of your mini care book! A lot of the posts I make are parts of a book I am working on very casually on Red-foots that I would LOVE to expand to ALL Forest Tortoises. The idea would be that Part 1 would be natural history and science, Part 2 would be general cares- the importance of humidity and how to achieve it, etc., and Part 3 would be chapters on how to apply the info on Part 2 to each species. So far tis but a dream, though.


----------



## GBtortoises (Jan 7, 2010)

I think generalized tortoise care books were good "back in the day" because we didn't know as much about the specific needs or micro-environment of each individual species. This hobby has come a long, long way since then. We now know that certain species sometimes have specific needs. I think by attempting to lump a group of tortoises together in a book based on their common name (Greek) or by their habitat designation (forest or desert) a book will not be able to cover specific needs for the various species involved. That is unless the author is willing to address each species, it's environmental and captive care needs individually in seperate chapters or sections.


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 7, 2010)

Hey! I just read through this thread, and I am offended, deeply offended, that there is no Chaco tortoise on your list! When I revealed this omission to my Princess Pinto Bean, a large tear trickled slowly down her cheek from her sad dark eye...and with a wee sniffle of resigned anonymity, she shuffled softly back into her warm dark hide.

How could you?!

Now the only way you can redeem yourself is to add Chacos to the list, and send my Taco some grape leaves...if they really exist.


----------



## GBtortoises (Jan 7, 2010)

"Hey! I just read through this thread, and I am offended, deeply offended, that there is no Chaco tortoise on your list!"

Calm yourself and check Danny's list again.


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 7, 2010)

Yes, I was reacting to Meg's list. 

You know I won't be able to shame Danny into sending us grape leaves!


"Chaco" isn't highlighted or bolded in the appropriate prominent position it should have anyway, even in Danny's list...(peddle, peddle)!


----------



## GBtortoises (Jan 7, 2010)

I'm picking up what you're putting down now.


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 7, 2010)

I updated the list 

This coming up year (2010), as well as naming the new Galapagos tortoise species, they will be adding a second species to the _Chersina_ genus.
You will also notice that there are now 2 species of Chaco tortoise. What was _Chelonoidis chilensis chilensis_ is now _C. petersi_ and _C.c.donosobarrosi_ is now _C.chilensis_.
_Kinixys nogueyi_ is now back where it belongs as a subspecies of _K. bellianna_

Danny


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 7, 2010)

So what does that mean for Stephanie? What is her Chaco?


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 7, 2010)

_Chelonoidis petersi_ 

Danny


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 7, 2010)

OH! Sorry...that went right over my head. I was forgetting that there was a chaco redfoot. Or am I still up in the clouds?


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 7, 2010)

egyptiandan said:


> I updated the list
> You will also notice that there are now 2 species of Chaco tortoise. What was _Chelonoidis chilensis chilensis_ is now _C. petersi_ and _C.c.donosobarrosi_ is now _C.chilensis_.
> _Kinixys nogueyi_ is now back where it belongs as a subspecies of _K. bellianna_
> 
> Danny



So...not to belabor the issue, but what is the difference between my Taco _Petersi _(that will now be her legal last name) and the Chaco/former _donosobarrosi _and current _kinixys nogueyi _(both of which would have been excessively unwieldy last names anyway)? 

Does the new designation indicate any change in the micro-climate I need to provide her?

Gotta grab that Danny advice whenever he's around!

(And thanks for advocating for my Taco, Yvonne. She appreciates it.)


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 7, 2010)

Sorry  I needed a period before I started in on the _Kinixys_ genus (nothing to do with Taco ).

It's just a name change  and nothing more  

The former _Chelonoidis chilensis donosobarrosi _now (_C. chilensis_) gets bigger and has dark centers and light edges to all the carapace scutes. It's the opposite for _C. petersi_.

There is a Chacoan redfoot Yvonne  but at most it would be a subspecies of redfoot and not a seperate species.

Danny


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 7, 2010)

Interesting. Thanks, Danny. Hope all your Chaco's are healthy and smiling.


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 7, 2010)

egyptiandan said:


> There is a Chacoan redfoot Yvonne  but at most it would be a subspecies of redfoot and not a seperate species.
> 
> Danny



So far, Danny... so far!

What is your source for the updates and such?? I'd love to have a good link for that sort of thing.


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 8, 2010)

Here you go Mark http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/checklist/

The only thing is  The new list is now damaged and doesn't come up. I saw it once and am kicking myself for not saving it than.
The list from early 2009 is working fine. I'm hoping they get it fixed soon.

Danny


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 8, 2010)

egyptiandan said:


> Here you go Mark http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/checklist/
> 
> The only thing is  The new list is now damaged and doesn't come up. I saw it once and am kicking myself for not saving it than.
> The list from early 2009 is working fine. I'm hoping they get it fixed soon.
> ...



It opened OK for me (odd), and I find I already have it saved- cool! Thanks!!


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 8, 2010)

Now that I've fiddled with it  It's working for me again too. 

Danny


----------



## -EJ (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm getting in on the tail end of this discussion... but... splitters suck.

Danny... do you have a thought of your own?

Don't get me wrong... you probably are more up on the current litterature than me. The problem is that the current litterature is about 'me' if you can understand the point.

How many species of Chacos do you think there are?

There is a new influx of chacos that are supposed to be from Argentina... what do you think of those?



egyptiandan said:


> Now that I've fiddled with it  It's working for me again too.
> 
> Danny


----------



## Meg90 (Jan 8, 2010)

The current literature is written about You, Ed? Care to share the actual names of the publications?

This post makes ME bristle, and its not even me being insulted.

I don't even see a legitimate reason for it.


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 9, 2010)

I think I've mentioned before I'm a middle of the road guy  and yes I do have my own thoughts. 

With the Chacos I have seen pictures of animals that fit the description of _Chelonoidis chilensis donosobarrosi_, but the ones that David says he has just look like big _C.c.chilensis_ to me. So it sounds like they are just variable depending on the enviromental conditions they are found in. The new ones coming in look like typical _C.chilensis_ to me. So I think with the animals they are talking about they are all one species. But  there always has to be a but . I have a reverse trio of animals that came from a friend that bought them from Russ. He said Russ had had them for 8 or 9 years and he had them for a year or 2, so they came in 10 years ago about. They are different than all mine. They are small, female 6 1/2" (said to have laid by Russ), males between 4" and 5". They are all adults with no growth in captivity. These by far are the smallest Chacos I have seen that are adults. They also are very elongated (even the female) and have pinched in rear ends. The supracaudal scute being the furtherest point that sticks out, so it forms a V (the rear end) when looking from above. I don't ever remember seeing Chacos that look like this trio before or since.

Not sure I agree with making the Galaps all different species, but I haven't seen all the new DNA work that has been done.

Danny


----------



## -EJ (Jan 9, 2010)

You missed the point. Current taxonomy seems to be ego driven. In the tortoise community... how many name changes have we seen in the last year alone. In the last 10 years the taxonomic list has changed umteen times. Now... go back 40 years which is not a long time and look at the changes made.

When I said 'me' I did not mean me.



Meg90 said:


> The current literature is written about You, Ed? Care to share the actual names of the publications?
> 
> This post makes ME bristle, and its not even me being insulted.
> 
> I don't even see a legitimate reason for it.


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 9, 2010)

Can't forget the turtle community Ed  In the last 20 years they have gone crazy when it comes to taxonomy. Some good and some very bad. It has, like you said, become a very "me" driven science in the last 20 years. People seem to need to get out there and leave their mark and have gotten themselves into "trouble" in the process.
Your right, 40 years ago you really had to have something different and new to be naming it. It would be nice if the egos could be taken out of taxonomy, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Danny


----------



## -EJ (Jan 9, 2010)

Danny, first, let me say the 'your own thoughts' comment was thoughtless and rude... sorry.

On the Chacos... there probably are different races. I got 50 from Paraguay. They do have a distinct look. I got a bunch of photos, from Jim Buskirk, of Argentinian Chacos... They have a distinct look but the photos I got are of big worn adults.

Jumping tracks here... have you seen 'giants' of species that are thought to be small. I know of one Egyptian and I had a Flattail that is 12 inches scl and 1 kg in weight.

The point is that if the animal has the opportunity to grow it will. That sounds kind of silly but if the animal is not predated and has an opportunity to grow it will... in the wild

I believe if you cannot obviously see a difference... it is not a species as defined in most biology text books in terms of taxonomy.

The younger taxonomists have a new toy... genetics... and I believe they don't know how to play with it. They seem to be loosing sight of the purpose of taxonomy... giving a lable to all living organisms that all can distinguish.



egyptiandan said:


> I think I've mentioned before I'm a middle of the road guy  and yes I do have my own thoughts.
> 
> With the Chacos I have seen pictures of animals that fit the description of _Chelonoidis chilensis donosobarrosi_, but the ones that David says he has just look like big _C.c.chilensis_ to me. So it sounds like they are just variable depending on the enviromental conditions they are found in. The new ones coming in look like typical _C.chilensis_ to me. So I think with the animals they are talking about they are all one species. But  there always has to be a but . I have a reverse trio of animals that came from a friend that bought them from Russ. He said Russ had had them for 8 or 9 years and he had them for a year or 2, so they came in 10 years ago about. They are different than all mine. They are small, female 6 1/2" (said to have laid by Russ), males between 4" and 5". They are all adults with no growth in captivity. These by far are the smallest Chacos I have seen that are adults. They also are very elongated (even the female) and have pinched in rear ends. The supracaudal scute being the furtherest point that sticks out, so it forms a V (the rear end) when looking from above. I don't ever remember seeing Chacos that look like this trio before or since.
> 
> ...


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 9, 2010)

No need to apologise Ed  your fine 

I agree there are subspecies of Chaco tortoise, just don't think they deserve to be species.

The size of these Chacos is interesting, but I'm more going on the shape of them as being different. Be nice to breed them and see how big any hatchlings would get. 

Yup I know about the big female Egyptian (seen her in person and got Darrell to send me pictures). I haven't though seen your Flat-tail 

I agree with you on the new DNA toy that taxonomists have. They have gone and relied on it much to much. It's fine if you want to use it to give creadence to a species you've described, but to use it exclusively isn't right. Case in point, 2 of the new species of Leaf turtle, _Cyclemys fusca_ and _C.gemeli_, one found in Myannmar and one in Bangladesh (don't ask me which is which ). They look exactly the same only they are different geneticly. I'm sure they are the same species. 

Danny


----------



## -EJ (Jan 9, 2010)

I don't think we've ever agreed on a point so much... at least on line.

The first time I saw that Egyptian was in Orlando. I pestered George to let me get some photos of it every year after that. He never brought it to a show after that. I guess I need to contact Darell.

I do have some nice shots of the flattail and it is not unique. I've heard of two others that size.

Have you seen Buskirks paper on the Chaco tortoise?



egyptiandan said:


> No need to apologise Ed  your fine
> 
> I agree there are subspecies of Chaco tortoise, just don't think they deserve to be species.
> 
> ...


----------



## stells (Jan 9, 2010)

You two are scaring me now....


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 9, 2010)

I do have that paper 

He didn't find any differences in the southern populations other than they were flatter than northern populations and they dug burrows. That could all be due to enviromental conditions (it being colder). It's a really good paper.

We're scaring you  Why might that be. 

Danny


----------



## gummybearpoop (Jan 9, 2010)

egyptiandan said:


> Not sure I agree with making the Galaps all different species, but I haven't seen all the new DNA work that has been done.
> 
> Danny



I don't agree with making the Galaps all different species.


----------



## stells (Jan 9, 2010)

Its just weird you two having a conversation where you kinda agree... i don't know if i can handle it... hmmm a drink is in order.... you have turned me to it...

If this is what Daytona is like i might have to have second thoughts lol



egyptiandan said:


> I do have that paper
> 
> He didn't find any differences in the southern populations other than they were flatter than northern populations and they dug burrows. That could all be due to enviromental conditions (it being colder). It's a really good paper.
> 
> ...


----------



## -EJ (Jan 9, 2010)

Jim is definately not a splitter. It does appear that the southern race is bigger but that could be due to environmental conditions as you point out.

I'm going to put together a presentation on the Chacos and I'm going to use Jims observations for the natural history observation part. I've got a good amount of photos from him.

Do you remember where you got that paper from?



egyptiandan said:


> I do have that paper
> 
> He didn't find any differences in the southern populations other than they were flatter than northern populations and they dug burrows. That could all be due to enviromental conditions (it being colder). It's a really good paper.
> 
> ...


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 9, 2010)

You ask the hard questions Ed  

I have no clue where I found the paper. I'm sure it was a google search but don't remember the website.

Be interested to see that presentation. 

Danny


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 9, 2010)

-EJ said:


> I believe if you cannot obviously see a difference... it is not a species as defined in most biology text books in terms of taxonomy.
> 
> The younger taxonomists have a new toy... genetics... and I believe they don't know how to play with it. They seem to be loosing sight of the purpose of taxonomy... giving a lable to all living organisms that all can distinguish.


I know I am preaching to the choir for you two (Danny and Ed), but for the other viewers, the original purpose of the 'binomial' naming system developed by Linneaus was to help group plants and animals logically, and it was originally done by physical characteristics. If it looked like a cow, it was related to the cows. Based on this, all shelled reptiles were clumped in the Genus _Testudo_.

Since then, things have gotten fuzzier. They TRY to incorporate evolutionary history and/or genetic compatibility into the definition now- if two animals can successfully interbreed, they should be the same species or very closely related. If they can breed but produce infertile offspring, they are not as closely related, and if they cannot interbreed, they are not closely related, etc. But this is slippery since a lot of animals that should not successfully interbreed do (based on this), and vice versa. 

So, now we use DNA, anatomy, etc. to try to help determine how closely things are related. Which would be fine if we had a perfect understanding of DNA.

They take DNA samples from a group of animals with known histories and compare the readings. If all of them have virtually similar DNA, at least in key areas, they are the same species. If there is a difference, they will sort them out and try to figure out what is going on. Is there a consistent difference between groups 1, 2, and 3's DNA? If all of group 1 shows some physical characteristic and comes from the same region, it might be a candidate for a species.

There are obviously flaws here- too small of sample sizes, not being sure which are key sections of the DNA, no absolute rule for when a difference is big enough to count, etc.

Just FYI, according to Joseph Collins, there is also a strong push to eliminate subspecies- they are either the parent species or a different species. This affects tortoises mostly in the Mediterranean but it also affects a LOT of turtle species.


----------



## -EJ (Jan 9, 2010)

Daytona is the chats 10 fold. 



stells said:


> Its just weird you two having a conversation where you kinda agree... i don't know if i can handle it... hmmm a drink is in order.... you have turned me to it...
> 
> If this is what Daytona is like i might have to have second thoughts lol
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 10, 2010)

egyptiandan said:


> I agree there are subspecies of Chaco tortoise, just don't think they deserve to be species.
> The size of these Chacos is interesting, but I'm more going on the shape of them as being different. Be nice to breed them and see how big any hatchlings would get.
> Danny



Hey Danny, speaking of hatchlings, how's your BIG Chaco egg? Any idea when the stork will drop in?

Ed, is that paper by Buskirk available to the general public? Do you have a link?


----------



## egyptiandan (Jan 10, 2010)

This is off topic  but it hasn't come out of the cold yet  It'll be going back in the incubator at the end of this month. The other 3 eggs will be going in the end of February.

Danny


----------



## ChiKat (Jan 10, 2010)

stells said:


> You two are scaring me now....



hahaha this made me laugh out loud 

All I can say is this is all way over my head


----------



## Murziano (Jan 11, 2010)

If you are so interested in Chacos and can read Spanish you should check this:

TORTUGAS DE LAS REGIONES ÃƒÂRIDAS DE ARGENTINA (turtles and tortoises from the arid regions of Argentina) by ENRIQUE RICHARD

A masterpice. A lifetime work, not a holinday in Argentina taking pictures and measures of tortoises.

http://www.lola-online.com/

Click "ZOOLOGÃƒÂA" and then on "TORTUGA"

He doesn't seem a splitter whatsoever but the guy finds strong ecological, evolutionary and morphological reasons for that.

Regards,
Marcos


----------



## -EJ (Jan 11, 2010)

I do have that reference. My spanish sucks but I can get the gist of it.

I also suspect that that the majority agrees with my point.



ChiKat said:


> stells said:
> 
> 
> > You two are scaring me now....
> ...


----------



## Murziano (Jan 12, 2010)

-EJ said:


> I also suspect that that the majority agrees with my point.



Yes, so do I. 

I just wanted to mention Enrique Richard's opinion which I very much respect. He rejects petersi but not donobarrosi and he thoroughly explains why. He doesn't seem to be a "tax-ego-nomist" as the majority of them.

I am far from a splitter. In fact I am nobody, but I do have an opinion.  Maybe subespecies status would be right.

Marcos


----------



## -EJ (Jan 12, 2010)

I just noticed... your last line is quite offensive. While Jim might have been on holiday its purpose was specificly put together to research the Chaco tortoise. He ended up bringing back 12 or so animals... legally. For that to happen it would have had to be very well researched and planned.

Jim Buskirk is one of the best researchers I know... and he is 'just' a hobbiest.



Murziano said:


> If you are so interested in Chacos and can read Spanish you should check this:
> 
> TORTUGAS DE LAS REGIONES ÃƒÂRIDAS DE ARGENTINA (turtles and tortoises from the arid regions of Argentina) by ENRIQUE RICHARD
> 
> ...


----------



## Murziano (Jan 12, 2010)

I didn't mean to be offensive and I wasn't referring to Jim Buskirk. I was talking about splitters. Maybe the problem is that English is not my mother tongue. Think about what Pierh and Peralla are doing with the testudo genus (they just take into account morphometrics)

The have raised every little difference beteween the testudo graeca complex to species status, and now others have to create a new genus for the hermanni group, and in the future someone will have to create a new genus for kleinmanni and marginata. The thing is, if they go on like this, in the end, we will have genera instead of species: testuo= graeca, eurotestudo=hermanni, whatever=kleinmanni&marginata. Why not leaving everything just as it was?

My own taxonomy hihlights similarities between animals rather than the differences. A chaco tortoise is a Chaco tortoise, which is something tou can easily tell apart from a redfoot if you are interested in tortoises, for instance.

The species status Enrique Richard gives to them I think it is too much IMHO. A subespecies status seems more sensible to me, because his reasonings are quite coherent.

My favourite approach I have read about this issue is in "The Sonoran tortoise book". There are two main groups of desert tortoises according to genetics, ecology and distribution in the western US. We don't give a fiddle fart about names.

Marcos


----------



## -EJ (Jan 12, 2010)

I'm not going there... on the greaca.

OMG... you're a splitter...



uote='Murziano' pid='100838' dateline='1263330463']
I didn't mean to be offensive and I wasn't referring to Jim Buskirk. I was talking about splitters. Maybe the problem is that English is not my mother tongue. Think about what Pierh and Peralla are doing with the testudo genus (they just take into account morphometrics)

The have raised every little difference beteween the testudo graeca complex to species status, and now others have to create a new genus for the hermanni group, and in the future someone will have to create a new genus for kleinmanni and marginata. The thing is, if they go on like this, in the end, we will have genera instead of species: testuo= graeca, eurotestudo=hermanni, whatever=kleinmanni&marginata. Why not leaving everything just as it was?

My own taxonomy hihlights similarities between animals rather than the differences. A chaco tortoise is a Chaco tortoise, which is something tou can easily tell apart from a redfoot if you are interested in tortoises, for instance.

The species status Enrique Richard gives to them I think it is too much IMHO. A subespecies status seems more sensible to me, because his reasonings are quite coherent.

My favourite approach I have read about this issue is in "The Sonoran tortoise book". There are two main groups of desert tortoises according to genetics, ecology and distribution in the western US. We don't give a fiddle fart about names.

Marcos
[/quote]


----------



## Murziano (Jan 13, 2010)

> OMG... you're a splitter...



If you say so...


----------

