Land vs Tree monitors

[Steeve B]

I just had a very interesting talk with H G Horn about monitor intelligence!
Its my opinion that Salvadorii is the most intelligent living monitor, as it turns out this is also his thinking, we talked about the close relation of varius, Komodoensis and Salvadorii, we both think these monitors are the closest relative compared to all other monitors. But my interest was to know why Salvadorii appeared more intelligent then my varius, other then possible brain size, the theory most plausible relies of the fact that land monitor evolved a 2 dimensional perception brain while arboreal monitors evolved a 3 dimensional perception brain, this simple difference has a significant role in intelligence development. To be able to jump from one tree to the next tree requires that a monitor has a sense of perception of distance and height; it also means they are capable of analysing and judgement and not act solely on instinct.

[tabastifur]

Cool!

[LdyDrgn]

Interesting! Thank you for sharing that. :)

[Steeve B]

David asked;

I agree that salvadorii are very intelligent, but aren't varius, komodensis and salvadorii mostly arboreal as juveniles? If they are, wouldn't all of them have 3-D perception?

David

Yes they do but to different extant, In these particular monitors only Salvadorii can be considered truly arboreal while lace and komodo are partially arboreal, komodo being the lest arboreal of these 3 species. It was demonstrated bye recent studies that both lace and komodo only practiced there arboreal abilities as an escape route, they typically take shelter in trees to avoid predation, as opposed to Salvadorii witch is rarely observed on ground in nature and lives an arboreal life even as adult, there morphologies clearly ascertain an arboreal creature. Perss. Observation; Salvadorii when given very height and spacious enclosure clearly demonstrate abilities unmatched by lace monitors, I see lace monitors much like bulldozers running unworried to there food source very focused only on what they see, on the other hand crocs will analyse there surroundings they may even pause while approaching there prey and change route. Often I see even hungered crocs looking at a rat from their highest branch move to an other branch just to get a better ambush position, they always watch there soundings they keep an eye on the rat then look at me and so on, at this time if I was to try and remove the rat, they who’d probably lunge at it or me.

steeve

[Jeff_Favelle]

Perenties HAVE to be more closely related to V. varius than croc monitors are. For sure.

[Steeve B]

Jeff aim realy not qualified to answer this, my knowledge of Parentie is nil, but not acording to Horn and a few taxonomist. let me have a look at this and come back to give you more.

[Jeff_Favelle]

Sounds good Steve. :D

[Steeve B]

Hello again Jeff to answer your question, the latest study by Dennis King, Susan Fuller, Peter Baverstock suggest Giganteus to be related to Gouldii, Mertensis while Varius and Komodoensis are related to Salvadorii, I can email you this study if you want, or you can obtain a copy of Mertensiella 11.
Kind regards

[Jeff_Favelle]

I guess I could see Perenties in the Gouldi complex. But their heads and back pattern look so much like some Lacies. Maybe we should take a trip to the field to study this further, heh heh. Don't we wish!!

Good talking to you Steve.

[CDN COLDBLOOD]

Hey guys. This is an interesting conversation, but I would have to disagree that monitor intelligence has anything to do with 2-D, or 3-D perception. First off, I think that all monitors think, and visualize in three dimensions. Think of an ackie for example, if an ackie in the wild didn't havn't or utilize a 3-D perception, it would be severly exposed to predators such as birds of prey. All varanids are able to percieve distance and height very well, but why do some seem smarter than others?
I beleive you might be thinking in reverse. Evolution has dicatated the intelligence differences between species. Croc monitors aren't smart because they live an arboreal life and had to become smart to survive that existance. Rather, the mental capacity of early "croc monitor ancestors" shaped this behaviour. Individuals who utilized the trees, had an evolutionary selective over individuals who didn't. This behaviour enabled them to acquire more food and encounter less predators, and therefore have better reproductive success passing this inate arboreal tendency to their offspring. Eventually, monitors of the species that that were arboreal outcompeted their terestrial counterparts and became the dominant form. To sum it all up, the smarter monitors learned that they were better off in the trees. This characteristic was passed to their offspring, and eventually the entire population consisted of individuals that were arboreal. The croc monitors intelligence dictated it's use of the trees, the trees didn't dictate it's intelligence.

Just a thought!
Brandon

[Steeve B]

Brandon this post is brilliant! However you’re omitting the important equation (Degree) what degree of intelligence? What degree of arboreal? What degree of 3-D perception?, its all a matter of degree, as I said Salvadorii are more arboreal then Lace, and Lace are more then Komodo.
Prasinus are just as arboreal as Salvadorii, but are they as intelligent? Most scientist see in black and white and don’t bother about the grey zone, I on the other hand love the grey zone as it leaves the door open to endless possibilities, this is not what science is about, science wants a definite answer to any giving question. But I have the luxury to play with theories, to share my ideas and change my perception.
The way I see it, if 10% of what I say is good information that satisfies me plenty.

Darwin said evolution of all animal species is directly related to there environment, its there environment that dictate there level of intelligence on the evolution scale. Kind regards

[CDN COLDBLOOD]

It is impossible for us to assess or even estimate to what degree different species of monitors vary in all of the characteristics listed. Sure we can assume that some monitors are smarter than others by their behaviours, but who knows what is classified intelligent behaviour. We could be, and probably are misinterpreting many of these behaviours. The observation that crocs seem more intelligent than lacies are interesting, but obviously hold know scientific merit because these are animals from your personal collection and it is a very limitted sample size. These would not be representative of the species, because as we know, monitors all have their own personalities, some seem dumb, others seem smart, lazy active, etc. We can say this though, each monitor is smart enough in the wild to endure in their respective niches. The smarter monitor species have evolved so, because they have needed too to survive. For the record, I think ackies are way more intelligent than Croc's. Just kidding.
Brandon

[Dom]

Intelligence to me is survival - Survival of the fittest.. I think (stating this with no stronghold) that 3d perception, has nothing to do with intelligence in monitors as well. Its all selective and relative to the environemental circumstances put upon the animals..

Adapt or be gone.

I also think that were comparing patatoes and apples when comparing the largest trerrestrial varanid to the longest arboreal monitor. They are both defenetly very remarquably adaptable monitors but in there own way and personally I see no way of being able to go "U're smart because ure .." ..

U could aslo look at it as monitors that are alive right now are the true survivors .. survivors for their present time. Evolution is not always for the best .. change one environemental feature and u're "Not as smart" komodos could thrive in such circumstances and your salvadory could be put under such pressure that it could result in total inialation ..

Intelligence is temporary then!

Just thought I'd jump in here.. great chatting guys

Dom

[Steeve B]

Good comments guys, I really like your logistic Dom, to this I will ad we are smarter then our ancestors, but less then our offspring, I think Salvadorii is the mother species of all indo-pacific monitors, I also think they are the most intelligent extant monitors, I do not base this statement solely on captive varanids even if I do have access to 30 species, but wild observation also. Here’s a post from an other forum, just tot you may be interested.

No I haven’t got a chance to visit Sorong, Merauke and Jayapura yet! but I just made a deal with my wife, if she goes to Panama this year aim off to PNG.
As for R,G,Sprackland and Oshea, I really felt sorry they did not find any Salvadorii, obviously they where with the wrong group of locals, as I have discussed with my indo friend all sighting and capture of Salvadorii, only occurred in the same tree species (Gnetum gnemon) Salvadorii live in these trees almost exclusively, when you have a chance to spot one you will always see it year after year in that same tree, so cruising the jungle looking for them is simply like trying to find a needle in a hey stalk if you don’t know where to look, obviously these locals didn’t know.
I have very little information on them as fare as wild observation goes, they appear to stay in close proximity to there home tree, never wondering very far, theirs much I who’d like to investigate on these monitors in the wild, many fascinating observations and hypothesis, such as they regularly defecate at the base of there tree, not only to mark there territory but also to feed on dung beetles attracted to the sent, also egg deposition may exclusively occur in there home tree (Sorong type) witch may explain why they regularly mark the tree base, maybe signalling to possible egg predator mothers close danger. But perhaps the thing that's most fascinating about them who’d be there hunting skills, this is what got me hooked on them, they stalk there prey from above and jump mouth open on there neck with dead on accuracy, I think they may even take much bigger prey then we think (small dears) may be on there menu, there tree home are always located near animal trails. Lately a personal observation as broth me to believe they may have the ability to use a smaller prey to attract a bigger one, I know this sounds crazy but aim convinced they can do this.
On different occasion iv witnessed a female grabbing a rat and depositing this injured rat near the male for him to eat, nothing special as iv seen this in Microsticus also, but lately I put some Tegus next to here enclosure she leaves her rat beside the separation and assume an ambush posture on a branch right above the rat, now I know she’s not trying to feed the Tegu no no she will eat him if only he could reach this rat. I understand what I just said may sound weird to just about every one on this forum, but I assure you we still have much to learn from this specie, maybe we will be surprised. One thing I know aim not leaving this world without going to PNG and study Salvadorii. For now I will leave it at this, as I could fill this forum with observations of Salvadorii

[Jeff_Favelle]

Eventually, monitors of the species that that were arboreal outcompeted their terestrial counterparts and became the dominant form. To sum it all up, the smarter monitors learned that they were better off in the trees. This characteristic was passed to their offspring, and eventually the entire population consisted of individuals that were arboreal. The croc monitors intelligence dictated it's use of the trees, the trees didn't dictate it's intelligence.

I don't see this having much to do with intelligence (however we measure it). Changing a species fundamental and actual niche is a slow slow process and just doesn't happen with smart monitors climbing trees and dumb ones lumbering around on the ground. Lots of dumb animals exploit lots of different niches and has nothing to do with being smarter or dumber. It has to do with being better adapted. ie) having better tools than the next monitor to further exploit the range of conditions faster and more complete so as to fill that niche with future generations of monitors with the same DNA. Its not a matter of intelligence. Its a matter to exploitation. Sometimes that's accomplished by brain capacity, but I don't think so in this case.