New geckos
- Thread starter mrow1109
- Start date
Sgvreptiles
New member
Good looken geckos man!
lessthantito
Member
wow I wish I could afford some of the borbonica they are beautiful
jeroen de kruyk
New member
They don't look like maters to me,
i also have mater but these are different.
i also have mater but these are different.
Geitje
New member
I also have mater - 15 of them, with varying degrees of coloration, blue intensity, 3 bloodlines, and so-on. These animals were bred by guys in Europe and they have them logged, bred, and distributed as mater. They look like some mater I've seen, and some mater I have.
Nice animals!
Happy mater-ing!
Jon
jeroen de kruyk
New member
There are borbonica species who are borbonica borbonica from each Coast
like i have borbonica borbonica male East Coast( also claimed by some people as Phelsuma Borbonica mater.
but he doesn't have a blue Eyering wich is specific for mater.
photo:
like i have borbonica borbonica male East Coast( also claimed by some people as Phelsuma Borbonica mater.
but he doesn't have a blue Eyering wich is specific for mater.
photo:
jeroen de kruyk
New member
so you can say wich subspecie my borbonica male is?
jeroen de kruyk
New member
i heard that this male was borbonica borbonica East Coast, but there are
a lot of those that are more like mater.
also in the past they didn't know exactly wich subspecie it really was so they named it after the nominate specie and his coastform added.
here in holland we are discussing about that male.
more people say it is borbonica mater. but according to Magnus forsberg it is borbonica borbonica East Coast. i am getting confused, but as i have daygeckos in captivity from Leann and Greg i checked the picture from that borbonica mater and they look al most the same. only the intensity of colour is a different. so I was also guessing Borbonica Agalagae. but that guess was disapeared very fast.
a lot of those that are more like mater.
also in the past they didn't know exactly wich subspecie it really was so they named it after the nominate specie and his coastform added.
here in holland we are discussing about that male.
more people say it is borbonica mater. but according to Magnus forsberg it is borbonica borbonica East Coast. i am getting confused, but as i have daygeckos in captivity from Leann and Greg i checked the picture from that borbonica mater and they look al most the same. only the intensity of colour is a different. so I was also guessing Borbonica Agalagae. but that guess was disapeared very fast.
jaysommers
New member
Jeroen,
No offense, but the book you refer to is ,at best, substandard.It should not be used as a reference(not even generally).The animal in your photo looks like what many call agalegae,just not in "breeding" colors.Photographs ,whether in books or on the net are never an acceptable way to differentiate species.The fact is the barbonica complex is a bit confusing and there is a fair amount of dissagreement regarding their taxonomy.One cannot allways differentiate the "mater/agalegae" subspecies and others claim they are the same animals just different locales.
No offense, but the book you refer to is ,at best, substandard.It should not be used as a reference(not even generally).The animal in your photo looks like what many call agalegae,just not in "breeding" colors.Photographs ,whether in books or on the net are never an acceptable way to differentiate species.The fact is the barbonica complex is a bit confusing and there is a fair amount of dissagreement regarding their taxonomy.One cannot allways differentiate the "mater/agalegae" subspecies and others claim they are the same animals just different locales.
jaysommers
New member
Unfortunately ...no.I suspect it will all be settled in the near future with D.N.A. but I don't know exactly when.I don't know if I agree with all the recent changes allowing D.N.A. to stand alone but using it as a component to differentiate animals whose morphology is so obviously similar is valid,and can't be argued.
With this complex and other species people use color and minor fluctuations in pattern to seperate the "subspecies".This is unacceptable, if it weren't there would be no need for keys of any kind,all we would need is picture books.Can you imagine the definitive work on Gekkonids being published by the likes of someone like TFH or Barrons?People should not use books by hobbyists to define species,unless written by someone credible.Too much room for error(personal,editorial,etc.)The fact is there has yet to be a good book on Phelsuma published.Just because there isn't a better one out or said book is the best one out really doesn't matter to me.I judge most things on their own merits,this includes books.If you want to compare them to one another let's do so.Comparatively all Phelsuma books are similar, they all suck, no difference,you might as well be watching 10 different remakes of Starsky and Hutch.They might be a little different with different actors but the characters are the same and the plot still sucks.The goal has simply not been met.I can think of a few people who are qualified to write such a book but it would certainly have to be a collaboration.The problem is that people are too busy with their animals.The other is that serious enthusiasts are too critical of themselves and strive for perfection.I think if you can't come remotely close to that goal(perfection) you shouldn't write a book,especially just to get your name in print.I think even the most recent (Professional Breeders series)is subpar.It lacks massive amounts of information but is an ok picture book.They call this a bait and switch.Put a bunch of pics in a book to make you think it has some substance.I mean the very name is misleading because to my knowledge none of the authors of any book in that series is a professional breeder and professional breeders don't use them as a reference.I mean if you are allready breeding an animal professionally you don't usually need to read about it to learn how to breed it. Kind of a "smoke and mirrors" act.These might be ok books for beginning hobbyists but beginning or intermediate hobbyists shouldn't argue speculative issues of taxonomy.Know your place,pay your dues crawl before you walk...call it what you will but don't argue opinions.Don't ever refer to a book like Greg and Leannes',Sean McKweown's The General Care and Maintenance of Day Geckos or Rundquist's Day Geckos by TFH to support your opinion and don't defend anything you learn from such erroneous literary works.They are full of conjecture lacking hugely in fact most don't realize it because they don't know better.
By the way,Matt,good to see you back around.Hope it's for good,there are too many mouthy punks in the hobby these days and we need some balance.
With this complex and other species people use color and minor fluctuations in pattern to seperate the "subspecies".This is unacceptable, if it weren't there would be no need for keys of any kind,all we would need is picture books.Can you imagine the definitive work on Gekkonids being published by the likes of someone like TFH or Barrons?People should not use books by hobbyists to define species,unless written by someone credible.Too much room for error(personal,editorial,etc.)The fact is there has yet to be a good book on Phelsuma published.Just because there isn't a better one out or said book is the best one out really doesn't matter to me.I judge most things on their own merits,this includes books.If you want to compare them to one another let's do so.Comparatively all Phelsuma books are similar, they all suck, no difference,you might as well be watching 10 different remakes of Starsky and Hutch.They might be a little different with different actors but the characters are the same and the plot still sucks.The goal has simply not been met.I can think of a few people who are qualified to write such a book but it would certainly have to be a collaboration.The problem is that people are too busy with their animals.The other is that serious enthusiasts are too critical of themselves and strive for perfection.I think if you can't come remotely close to that goal(perfection) you shouldn't write a book,especially just to get your name in print.I think even the most recent (Professional Breeders series)is subpar.It lacks massive amounts of information but is an ok picture book.They call this a bait and switch.Put a bunch of pics in a book to make you think it has some substance.I mean the very name is misleading because to my knowledge none of the authors of any book in that series is a professional breeder and professional breeders don't use them as a reference.I mean if you are allready breeding an animal professionally you don't usually need to read about it to learn how to breed it. Kind of a "smoke and mirrors" act.These might be ok books for beginning hobbyists but beginning or intermediate hobbyists shouldn't argue speculative issues of taxonomy.Know your place,pay your dues crawl before you walk...call it what you will but don't argue opinions.Don't ever refer to a book like Greg and Leannes',Sean McKweown's The General Care and Maintenance of Day Geckos or Rundquist's Day Geckos by TFH to support your opinion and don't defend anything you learn from such erroneous literary works.They are full of conjecture lacking hugely in fact most don't realize it because they don't know better.
By the way,Matt,good to see you back around.Hope it's for good,there are too many mouthy punks in the hobby these days and we need some balance.
First of all..beautiful animals!!!..Phelsuma have no contemporaries
Can you guess my bias?
Jay, Its good to see you never left! I however had to take a hiatus to further my education. Moving every 3-4months on clinical rotations is not conducive to keeping a collection nor some of the long hours of study. Now after a human breeding project my life is much more stable.
I have met some of the new guys that have some of the old ideas some good some bad. I feel that they are missing one of your strongest attributes and that is the ability and desire to seek out scientific journal articles..taxonomy keys, climate data, bio-type research, food research,...etc. in order to properly keep different species..DNA testing/ no DNA testing... looking up research is a move in the right direction. It takes discipline and determination to hold on to lone animals until you can properly identify them back to their origin if possible. This helps to prevent an inter mixing of different sub species...mixing happens often and I have seen it many times. There are so few people keeping these species in the US "keeping the genetic lines separate is imperative" (Jon).
I agree with Jay that some of the books available today have some good information but are geared towards the general keeping of geckos. Pictures can be mislabeled or animals misrepresented and once in print it takes a long time to get it out. It takes much less time and effort to do some homework on the Internet and in libraries than learning by trial and error (a mistake I have made).
Just my 2 Cents...you get what you pay for!!
Sincerely, Matthew Henry
Can you guess my bias?
Jay, Its good to see you never left! I however had to take a hiatus to further my education. Moving every 3-4months on clinical rotations is not conducive to keeping a collection nor some of the long hours of study. Now after a human breeding project my life is much more stable.
I have met some of the new guys that have some of the old ideas some good some bad. I feel that they are missing one of your strongest attributes and that is the ability and desire to seek out scientific journal articles..taxonomy keys, climate data, bio-type research, food research,...etc. in order to properly keep different species..DNA testing/ no DNA testing... looking up research is a move in the right direction. It takes discipline and determination to hold on to lone animals until you can properly identify them back to their origin if possible. This helps to prevent an inter mixing of different sub species...mixing happens often and I have seen it many times. There are so few people keeping these species in the US "keeping the genetic lines separate is imperative" (Jon).
I agree with Jay that some of the books available today have some good information but are geared towards the general keeping of geckos. Pictures can be mislabeled or animals misrepresented and once in print it takes a long time to get it out. It takes much less time and effort to do some homework on the Internet and in libraries than learning by trial and error (a mistake I have made).
Just my 2 Cents...you get what you pay for!!
Sincerely, Matthew Henry