Reptile Forum, Reptile Classifieds - CaptiveBred

[Sam Sweet]

Because it looks just like a bengalensis doesn't mean it is one? Now I'm confused. Several people have told you why it is not a griseus, and why it is a bengalensis (I agree with them on this also) -- why is that hard to swallow? Does that mean it hasn't got CITES papers?

[Sean]

This is really starting to annoy me now, First let me say again that I never said it was a griseus koniecznyi what I said was that it was identified as one, by so called zoologists like yourself i.e. "experts in the field" My personal opinion is yes it does resemble bengalensis in the head structure but all I am saying is maybe it is something different because the qualified people who saw this animal said it was not a bengal monitor. How they came up with their I.D. on the animal is for them to answer and not me. As for regards to your comment on CITES papers it wouldn't matter if it was griseus or bengalensis because both are appendix 1 anyway. Also when an appendix 1 animal is owned by the zoo it doesn't come under an Article 10, I thought you of all people would have known this. Also you can own any Appendix 1 monitor without papers as long as you do not gain in a commercial way if you decide to get rid i.e. sell or exchange. This monitor as a microchip and a zoo paper, I gifted the animal to Hugh Holman although this none of your business. Next time try reading the whole thread properly.

Also on the topic of appendix 1 monitors. I have a group of griseus griseus all microchiped with CITES papers issued by Her Majesty Government so please do not tell me what I should have or not by using cynical lines like "Does that mean it hasn't got CITES papers?"

[Sam Sweet]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought of you, have fun.

[Sean]

Sam I don't really care what you think of me for that matter, your comments mean nothing, but I wish I had known your attitude before I paid for the book "Varanoid Lizards of World" in which you have an input.

[Sean]

For those that are interested in the topic the key points is to identify the monitor on page 4 and also if you have any regards to Hugh's monitor as well and also the validity of konieczyni as a valid sub-specie. I welcome your input.

[Sam Sweet]

Attitude seems to be induced. You know what, I bet if you went back to the bookseller and stated your reason, you could get a refund as long as you also promised to forget anything that you learned.

[warhammer]

pic on page 4 looks to me bengalensis its quite a widespread sp look at the salvator complex different location hold different colours ie cummingi togianus, etc could this be the same with this animal we know that there is
already nebulosus could this be another?
as in hughs monitor when he posted it on live foods as koniecznyi it had me puzzled just did not look like a desert monitor to me if koniecznyi does exist surely it will resemble caspius or griseus griseus with marking on its body and more of a shovel shaped snout where the pic of the animal does not show any of these features ,in fact it looks quite a robust animal
i have a open mind on both of these animals and above is just my opinion whether it is wright or wrong
although sean is a very good friend will not be taking any sides

[arborgoanna]

I would have to say that the animal is a V. bengalensis, but not knowing much about this complex, I invited somebody with extensive knowledge of the species group, who in fact lives in sympatry with V. bengalensis into the discussion to provide some valuable insight.

I think there has been a great deal of information provided here which would suggest that this animal is some locality of V. bengalensis.

[Tarichid]

Come on guys...

You are all falling for a troll. Why on earth would someone argue so defensively about such an obvious specimen? Duh.

If someone posted a photo of a V. semiremex, and kept calling it a V. keithhornei, you wouldn't bother responding. So why bother with this fool?

He/she is just trying to rile you guys up, don't waste your breath and fulfill his/her desire for attention.

[Sean]

Come on Tarichid now comparing Varanus semiremex to Varanus keithhornei is like comparing chalk and cheese so who's the bigger fool then. What I am trying to say is if both these animals are indeed bengalensis then surely everyone can see they do look different to each other. What does this mean? possibly with a monitor so wide spread as warhammer hit the nail on the head by implying like with salvator complex that there maybe more than 1 sub-species of bengalensis.

Also I read a while back that maybe niloticus was also under scrutiny of being split into possible sub-species based on various factors.

I remember twenty plus years with V. niloticus and V. niloticus ornatus I knew these animals were different based on my research of various factors i.e. locality, body structure, different shape skulls and off course the tongue colours etc. People then thought as you do now, but now ornatus is a complete species separated from niloticus, I pointed out and argued similar details long before it was recognized to full species status. I always said that ornatus was a different species to niloticus and it is now.

I also think that cumingi and nuchalis should be separated from the salvator complex and elevated to full species status based on certain factors but my research on these does need further work at the moment.