Found this on Craigslist here in Florida. Not native. Too big. Looks to be about 16-18 inches..? I know it's not a sulcata...maybe old leopard?need help IDing the species of this tortoise
- Thread starter teresaf
- Start date
Found this on Craigslist here in Florida. Not native. Too big. Looks to be about 16-18 inches..? I know it's not a sulcata...maybe old leopard?I'm going to guess a Greek tortoise. But I'm probably wrong.
I would guess that it is an old leopard tortoise.
I think its a sulcata based on this pic. Got any other pics?
That's what I thought as well until I saw where the OP said that it was not a Sulcata.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,397
The OP could possibly be mistaken. The front legs look quite sulcata-like from what I can see of them. As Tom said, more pix would be helpful.
Im guessing it's not a sulcata. I think they sold it since they didn't get back to me on it but it's bugging me what it is. The coloring is way wrong. I've seen full grown sulcata tortoises here in Florida and they look like sulcatas. I agree it has the shape of a sulcata but the coloring of an old leopard... Perhaps I'll just keep emailing the dude until they finally gives up at least what type of tortoise it was.... There's always the chance that those ceramic tiles its resting on aren't the 12in sized ones and are actually the 18 inch which would make it more like 22 or 23 inches long....
It reminds me quite a bit of the older, faded leopard tortoises. Too bad we can't see the head. Leopard tortoises have two elongated spots above the nose. Very identifiable.
That's exactly what I was thinking! I was thinking I wanted it if it was a female leopard but it looks suspiciously like a sulcata too....It reminds me quite a bit of the older, faded leopard tortoises. Too bad we can't see the head. Leopard tortoises have two elongated spots above the nose. Very identifiable.
Could it be a burmese brown mountain tortoise? The head doesn't look like a sulcata, and it's shell doesn't look like a leopard.
Nope definitely not a Burmese Brown mountain tortoise. I have a couple of the blacks...
I considered this possibly too as I ran through my mind eliminating variables. The leg scales can be similar in both species, especially if they are worn down by digging in abrasive soil or rubbing on abrasive walls like cinderblock.
One clue that it might be a sulcata and not a MEE or MEP is the lack of a nuchal scute. Manouria have one. Sulcatas don't.
I don't agree. The coloring looks correct to me for an adult that lives outside and it looks like this tortoise is a little dirty.
Good call, I didn't notice that.
Ok, the more I look at it, the more I think it's a sulcata that it's shell is dirty and somewhat sun bleached. I was just thinking Mee because of the shape of it's head, but as Tom pointed out, the nuchal scute.
All of its physical features shown in that single photo fit with a sulcata, but more (and better) photos would be helpful.
Since the Manouria thing came up -
The lack of a nuchal scute would not disqualify it as a Manouria species, but everything else about its appearance would (this animal is not any kind of Manouria). I have a phayrei that lacks a nuchal scute (which is part of why I have her) despite the majority that have them just like I have had a carbonaria which possesses a nuchal scute despite the majority of carbonaria which lack them (or like how an occasional gigantea is hatched that possesses no nuchal scute). One feature's presence or absence does not necessarily make or break an identification attempt. It is more about the overall constellation of features. There was someone here who (relatively recently) received an emys emys that has touching pectoral scutes. Producing hundreds and hundreds of babies from a repeated pairing can sometimes result in one or more like that (and this has nothing to do with intergrades despite that also being capable of producing the same physical result). I have also seen an isolated phayrei pair in TN produce over 300 neonate offspring over several years and one year produce two that had one pectoral scute touching the midline plastron seam and one not. Their genes remained the same. They were just as legitimate as they had always been. Sometimes you get a funny one (or a few funny ones). I have seen an elegans star not develop stripes. Most X have Ya, Yb, Yc, and Yd features, but not having specific feature Ya does not make an odd X something else. It can sometimes be as simple as an atypical X. Some people like to default to an argument of impurity because the oft-repeated stereotypes for constellations of traits are more convenient to keepers if maintained (incorrectly) as absolute fact. A Brazilian carbonaria tends to have the enlarged and elongated/spike-like elbow/forearm tubercle as one among the Brazilian phenotype's constellation of features. I had a pure male born of pure stock that lack those spurs. Happens. The pressure from people repeating things other people have told them leads sellers to do bad things. If a person has a low-color Brazilian, he might just sell it off as a non-descript redfoot. Then that animal gets plugged into a Northern group later on. Intergrades result. It would be one thing if the person knew and could pass that information on in labeling, but it is usually not declared when that original baby is sold off because the seller simply does not want the fight of a dozen people telling him it cannot be what it is because it does not fit the stereotype they hold to be absolute truth. Small/runt/stunted Sri Lankan elegans males get sold off as Indian males. Larger than normal Indian males get "reinterpreted" as Sri Lankan males (I had a 7" Indian male that most people refused to believe was not Sri Lankan). Some people think the same thing about wide/thin bands/rays in the elegans species, too. Bloodlines vary. Individuals within bloodlines vary. When the small percentage of South African leopards that are stateside (compared to those in South Africa - where there is much higher variability) hatch out with single (or no) scute areolae dots, do you know what happens most of the time? They get sold off as East Africans. Why? Because of that community pressure. When the occasional multi-dotted animal hatches out of a singled-dotted or no-dotted East African pairing that has only produced "true to type" animals until then, do you know what happens most of the time? They get sold off as South Africans. Why? Because of community pressure. Your average mild-mannered seller producing in volume does not want to fight with people who believe they know it all. This mislabeling phenomenon is simultaneously the fault of many sellers as well as many buyers. There are also predatory sellers that try to take advantage of these community expectations by selling a $150 animal for $300, but then there is the bulk of the guys who sell something that could get $300 for $150 simply because they would much prefer to have dinner with their families and some rest than stay up late at night arguing with people about the topic on the internet. Most old-timer/seasoned locality/subspecies breeders I know figure out of the gate that it is not worth the hassle. A lot of great people are in this category. Far better breeders than I. That is a both-sides community-based point of failure and a real shame.
Back to the primary matter of the tortoise itself, one feature (among several) to consider that the photo shows is that the anterior marginal scutes scallop out in a sort of "petal"-like shape. This happens very commonly with sulcata, but usually not as pronounced in pardalis. Another significant feature is the shape of the first vertebral scute.
Thankfully, no one has yet tried to call it a hybrid. As a keeper of true hybrids (and many more pure animals), it is annoying when people toss hybrid labeling at just about anything that they cannot personally identify. Not how things work. I am glad to see that did not happen this time.
Since the Manouria thing came up -
The lack of a nuchal scute would not disqualify it as a Manouria species, but everything else about its appearance would (this animal is not any kind of Manouria). I have a phayrei that lacks a nuchal scute (which is part of why I have her) despite the majority that have them just like I have had a carbonaria which possesses a nuchal scute despite the majority of carbonaria which lack them (or like how an occasional gigantea is hatched that possesses no nuchal scute). One feature's presence or absence does not necessarily make or break an identification attempt. It is more about the overall constellation of features. There was someone here who (relatively recently) received an emys emys that has touching pectoral scutes. Producing hundreds and hundreds of babies from a repeated pairing can sometimes result in one or more like that (and this has nothing to do with intergrades despite that also being capable of producing the same physical result). I have also seen an isolated phayrei pair in TN produce over 300 neonate offspring over several years and one year produce two that had one pectoral scute touching the midline plastron seam and one not. Their genes remained the same. They were just as legitimate as they had always been. Sometimes you get a funny one (or a few funny ones). I have seen an elegans star not develop stripes. Most X have Ya, Yb, Yc, and Yd features, but not having specific feature Ya does not make an odd X something else. It can sometimes be as simple as an atypical X. Some people like to default to an argument of impurity because the oft-repeated stereotypes for constellations of traits are more convenient to keepers if maintained (incorrectly) as absolute fact. A Brazilian carbonaria tends to have the enlarged and elongated/spike-like elbow/forearm tubercle as one among the Brazilian phenotype's constellation of features. I had a pure male born of pure stock that lack those spurs. Happens. The pressure from people repeating things other people have told them leads sellers to do bad things. If a person has a low-color Brazilian, he might just sell it off as a non-descript redfoot. Then that animal gets plugged into a Northern group later on. Intergrades result. It would be one thing if the person knew and could pass that information on in labeling, but it is usually not declared when that original baby is sold off because the seller simply does not want the fight of a dozen people telling him it cannot be what it is because it does not fit the stereotype they hold to be absolute truth. Small/runt/stunted Sri Lankan elegans males get sold off as Indian males. Larger than normal Indian males get "reinterpreted" as Sri Lankan males (I had a 7" Indian male that most people refused to believe was not Sri Lankan). Some people think the same thing about wide/thin bands/rays in the elegans species, too. Bloodlines vary. Individuals within bloodlines vary. When the small percentage of South African leopards that are stateside (compared to those in South Africa - where there is much higher variability) hatch out with single (or no) scute areolae dots, do you know what happens most of the time? They get sold off as East Africans. Why? Because of that community pressure. When the occasional multi-dotted animal hatches out of a singled-dotted or no-dotted East African pairing that has only produced "true to type" animals until then, do you know what happens most of the time? They get sold off as South Africans. Why? Because of community pressure. Your average mild-mannered seller producing in volume does not want to fight with people who believe they know it all. This mislabeling phenomenon is simultaneously the fault of many sellers as well as many buyers. There are also predatory sellers that try to take advantage of these community expectations by selling a $150 animal for $300, but then there is the bulk of the guys who sell something that could get $300 for $150 simply because they would much prefer to have dinner with their families and some rest than stay up late at night arguing with people about the topic on the internet. Most old-timer/seasoned locality/subspecies breeders I know figure out of the gate that it is not worth the hassle. A lot of great people are in this category. Far better breeders than I. That is a both-sides community-based point of failure and a real shame.
Back to the primary matter of the tortoise itself, one feature (among several) to consider that the photo shows is that the anterior marginal scutes scallop out in a sort of "petal"-like shape. This happens very commonly with sulcata, but usually not as pronounced in pardalis. Another significant feature is the shape of the first vertebral scute.
Thankfully, no one has yet tried to call it a hybrid. As a keeper of true hybrids (and many more pure animals), it is annoying when people toss hybrid labeling at just about anything that they cannot personally identify. Not how things work. I am glad to see that did not happen this time.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 13,454
Could it be a giant yellow foot ?
The animal in the first post of this thread is not a denticulata. Giant or otherwise.
I have met the animal (and its "sister" as well) in the photo you posted several times, by the way. A real treat.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 13,454
Is that you with the yellow foot ? I pulled that from a website.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,397
So if you have seen them in person, do you know what species they are or not? Is the sister also very light in color? Years ago, I had a female sulcata which had almost the same light coloration, and I am leaning toward the tortoise being a Spurred Tortoise.
