The ultimate list?

[-EJ]

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?

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

Danny

 

[Meg90]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[egyptiandan]

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]

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?

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

 

[stells]

You two are scaring me now....

 

[egyptiandan]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[-EJ]

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?

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

 

[egyptiandan]

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]

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]

Daytona is the chats 10 fold.

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

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

 

[Stephanie Logan]

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]

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]

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]

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

TORTUGAS DE LAS REGIONES ÁRIDAS 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 "ZOOLOGÍA" 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