You don't even have to call it something, there are no captive Correlophus belepensis because they were just recently discovered as a population on Belep islands, north of Grand Terre. All Crested geckos that are in the trade should have their origins in Correlophus ciliatus from the south or Ile de Pines.
I'm not disputing the existence of these separate species, I'm just not confident that the animals that exist in captivity are completely pure C. ciliatus. I do refer to these animals now as there proper names, but I was trying to make a point that there is little assurance that they were all collected from those areas. I did import and export for years, a lot of the animals I received from fishermen (mainly did fish) were not what they were labelled or caught from where they said they were. So I understand that while most exporters say they this animal from this place, this is not always the case unfortunately.
C. belepensis is not newly discovered, just newly named by science. The gecko has existed on those islands for the long time, and there is good chance that it has probably come in contact with humans on a regular basis. It's not far fetched to assume some C.belepensis (which just looks like a brown, not heavily fringed ciliatus), could have gotten mixed up in the exports from NC.
So yes while I know the animals I have are Correlophus sp. I can't be completely confident they are absolutely pure ciliatus. However I'm not stupid, I understand that there is a good likelihood they are.
Just some food for thought:
We should keep in mind that part of the reason that a rift (or, rather virtually no collaboration between both parties) exists between scientists and hobbyists is simply due to not respecting and acknowledging each other’s side. I suppose that if I were a scientist and the National Science Foundation grant committee found it appealing to fund my research (perhaps supplying more than $1,000,000 in research grant money) – than I must know what I’m doing in order to gain the investment from a massive organization that gets piles and piles of grant proposals every year. So here I am as a hobbyist, setting in the central part of the USA, with my field guides, online resources, opinions from others in my similar position, and come to some hypothetical reasons why I do not believe that this article should be 100% accepted/true. That is the most profoundly pompous and misplaced/unqualified opinion I can imagine in this case. The authors of this article are qualified and experienced to measures that even myself cannot comprehend. The most rudimentary measure of respect that I can put forth is to follow these ideas, revisions (and subsequently new and current names) and continue to embrace and follow along with the evolution and progress of science that pertains to the animals we all keep, breed and research (in our own ways). Alternatively, I could put forth a better scientific (qualified, experienced, funded and reviewed) reason as to why their work is erroneous. I know that will not be happening with any online gecko forum participant any time soon;-)
What you can be confident in calling your "cresties" is Correlophis sp. (although you certainly have C. ciliatus) and your chahoua is Mniarogekko sp. until you determine which species you have.
BTW: my “two cent ideas” are numerically inferior to those who have published $1,000,000 backed ideas.
Jon
Jon, again, I apologize if you think I'm disputing the existence of the species in the wild, or arguing with the work of these very dedicated scientists. I am not. I'm simply throwing a wrench in the discussion, trying to stir up this discussion. Too many people read something at face value and just follow it as law. The wonderful thing about science is that it is always up for debate, otherwise it in itself is self defeating.
For Correlophis ciliatus, I'm less wary, of course. Like I said above, while it isn't without possibility, it is most likely all ciliatus, are just that. However with M. chahoua and jalu debate, there is a long history of debate regarding the accuracy of the "mainland" - "Pine Island" chahoua.
We already know people will sell nice ML, or MLXPI crosses as PI because they demand a higher price. A lot of people argue that every chahoua that exists is just a mutt of the two different forms, and there are no pure chahoua either way. Others argue that it is easy to trace these animals back. With respected parties arguing either way, and no one putting up real evidence it's hard to form a critical opinion.
This exact same thing happened with the uroplatus complex. For a long time sikorae and samiti were imported as the same species, then subspecies, now it seems like they are completely separate species, many people think some U. giganteus got imported as fimbriatus, there are now several ebenaui and henkeli variations that may eventually become separate species. Paroedura bastardi complex had similar problems. It's a good chance that somewhere along the line sikorae and samiti got crossed and ended up in other collections as sikorae. Luckily we can still import wild uroplatus to make our collections more "pure". We don't have this luxury with New Caledonian geckos.
Finally, by saying we might as well just call them Rhac. ciliatus, chahoua, whatever. I was simply stating that if we determine that we cannot confidently trace all animals on the market back to their wild origins, than we cannot be confident they are purely those species as now distinguished by science. If the animals aren't actually pure ciliatus or chahoua isn't there no harm in continuing to call them rhac. whatever as trade names, or at least as you suggested Correlophis sp. or Mniarogekko sp.
However while we are on this topic, Mr. Boone, what is a "Boone line" chahoua? I purchased one from an order Neil brought in from you. I figured it was a mainland chahoua, but I'm not sure.
Thanks,
JMorash
