"The Crying Tortoise"

[Kapidolo Farms]

Hi All,

So I got this book as a must have, recommended by Tom - 100% correct, it is excellent, and for me a can't put it down book.

But with new information comes new 'wonderings' and the follow-up question.

The author specifically states that sulcata are very homogenous across their range, as they were actually used as money, and gifts. That there range was 'artificially' extended by virtue of their value, and being traded about. Apparently this is recorded to have been going on over 1,000's years.

So what makes any sulcata a mutt?

And again, thanks to Tom, for suggesting I get this book.

Will

 

[L82lalaland]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

What is the name of the book and where did you get it.

 

[N2TORTS]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

"The author specifically states that sulcata are very homogenous across their range, as they were actually used as money, and gifts"

... and food ......not only for the locals but also for the explorers while traveling the Ivory Coast... they were threaded on a rope ...easy to carry aka'
"meat necklace" plus you got a free utensil out of the deal~

 

[sibi]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

First of all Will, this is a loaded question because you give no information for the basis of your question. This idea that sulcatas are ..."very homogenous across their range, as they were actually used as money, and gifts" tells me nothing about whether or not sulcatas can be mutts. This is why my sulcata is NOT a mutt!! I don't see how anyone can call any sulcata a mutt because I don't believe that they've been cross bred with another species. You can have a Sudan, but that's just location. I know Sudan sulcata are higher domed and generally larger, but so are Wisconsin women. Would they be from a superior, pure stock of people; thus, making them better than other women? I think not. When you compare sulcatas to say, people, who determines what is pure and what is not? As far as the human race is concerned, we all come from the first pair of humans, whoever they were. Sulcatas too came from one species, and while there are those torts that display desirable characteristics, that doesn't make any sulcata a mutt. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it unless and until you provide more information.

 

[DeanS]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Humans are mutts too...unless you can trace all your ancestors back to a specific locale! I NEVER heard the term 'mutt' when describing a tortoise until Tom and I picked up the Sudans from Brad. Brad is the first person I ever heard refer to sulcatas as mutts...and it's all about the fact that there really are no true 'pure strains'...save for the Sudan sulcatas. My wife, for example, is half Italian and half Spanish...does that make her a mutt? Of course (but I'll never tell her that ). All my family tree traces back to Ireland...so am I a mutt? Well...maybe not in the true sense of the word...but who knows. Of course, Sibi has a great point! Since we're all descendants of OG man...are we African (the presumed location of the Garden of Eden? Or are we ''evolved'' from Australopithecus? I like this topic

 

[Tom]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Most of the sulcatas in North America are descendants of wild sulcatas from multiple parts of the sulcata range. This makes them "mutts" by my definition. Just as with dogs, which are different variants of the same species, so it is with sulcatas as we know them here. Sudan sulcatas, or Senegal Sulcatas, or sulcatas known to be from any one part of their range and have distinctly different physical characteristics, are simply location specific animals. Certainly, they are not "better". Just different than the norm. If you look a pics of Brad's adults, they are quite different looking than most of the adults that you see elsewhere, including my own. The term "mutt" is not intended to be derogatory in this instance, only a way to describe the mixed lineage of most of our animals. Just as the term "Sudan" sulcata is not intended to assume some sort of superiority, only that these animals are from a known location and of a certain "type" that will breed true.

And Will, so glad you liked the book. Dean and I both re-read it several times, and it is so full of new info (new to me, anyway) that I was left with MANY questions too. My friend Tomas is one of the people who provided the author with info for that book. I grill Tomas every chance I get and pick up tidbits of info every time.

 

[sibi]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Based on your own argument, Dean, you would be a mutt too. There's no such thing as a "pure" breed in humans. Wow, it would be like Hitler saying that the Germans are the only "pure" race. Bull...and you know it. Tell me this, if the Sudan salcatas are the pure specie, then what is the plain salcata mixed with?

Tom, I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't tell me what's the multiple parts of the salcata range. Maybe I should read the book so that I can see what you guys are thinking. It's all about information and sharing it.

 

[Rambo]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

are there any good ones for leopards ?

 

[N2TORTS]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

This is a good thread …..the same mumbo jumbo happens in the Redfoot world. There is no way in hell , with the 1,000’s of years of evolution a so called “pure breed” exists just because of location. Unless your talking about an isolated island that has never been touched by man . ( and then still you would have chance of debris/currents washing ashore other life forms from afar)

---

Tom .....this is a great statement "sulcatas known to be from any one part of their range and have distinctly different physical characteristics, are simply location specific animals"..... a much better term than "pure" .

 

[Yvonne G]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

What is the name of the book and where did you get it.

The name of the book is "The Crying Tortoise." (Bernard de Veaux)

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

What is the name of the book and where did you get it.

The name of the book is "The Crying Tortoise." (Bernard de Veaux)

Thank you for un-loading my "loaded question" emysemys. I so carefully hid that fact in the subject header, shame on me. I bought the book from a used book dealer found at the Pomona Reptile Super Show, just a matter of lucky timing for me, they are difficult to come by.

As for isolated populations and the idea that some parts of a range are genetically distinct from other parts, there is no debate.

i.e. Radiateds are from five distinct sub specific populations (not sub-species, but sub specific), their genetic fingerprint (for a lay term) is identifiable from/to different parts of their range based on rivers and other natural features of the landscape keeping them more-than-less separate.

i.e. Leopards are from several distinct sub specific populations.

I do not know of an English language paper regarding RedFoots, I wish there was one. That would be a huge undertaking to sort that out.

Take further into account the now well established distinction between Desert tortoises on one side of the Colorado River from the other.

As for suggesting that 'founder effect' can only be seen in physically isolated populations, that is just not true. Ernst Myer used islands to exemplify founder effect, but it has been recognized in sub-populations based on behaviors, physical barriers, and by shifting/variable 'stable state' 'climax communities'.

As for scientific mumbo jumbo, seriously N2TORTS, there are better tools now, for better observation, less nano tech would be metaphysical, as we can not actually see what is happening, but we have the tools and reasoning to know what is happening better all the time. Observation leads to hypotheses about what can be further found without direct observation, new observation abilities/tools confirm or refute those earlier hypothesis, which now leads to newer better ones. I suspect I just preached to the choir there, apologies.

Systematists are in a revolution of new tools and reasoning.

I do not know of a good similar book for leopard tortoises, but there is a paper, that describes the status of population and taxonomy. It is what many might consider dry science. Kelly Hull has it on his webpage, he is here on TFO as Tortadise.

The book, "The Crying Tortoise" the subject header of this thread, is a fun, can't put down read, as it is in a very personable narrative style, as if when you read it, someone is talking to you.

Will

Quick digression here...
And indeed humans are very distint in populations of races. Before more Hitler hyperbole is invoked read a National Geographic for intelligent comment's sake. You see there is no shame or political incorrectness to recognize people are not all genetically homogenous at the population/race level, it's a scientific reality. We are NOT talking about eugenics. One gene has lead to a huge population of a European family group, to have no high 'bad' cholesterol no matter how much fatty foods they eat, traced back to a single individual. It's NOT a bad thing.

 

[L82lalaland]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

BTW... I did look up the name in your subject header in various places and could not find any mention of it that is why I asked the question on the name...
Thank you emysemys for taking the time to answer my question.

 

[mctlong]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

I have not read that book, but I'll look it up. Does anyone know if there's an e-version available?

I don't see how anyone can call any sulcata a mutt because I don't believe that they've been cross bred with another species.

“Mutts” are not a cross of different species. We generally use the term "mutts" in reference to dogs. Dog mutts are created by crossing different breeds of the same species. We don't use the term "breeds" when we're describing tortoises. However, if we're going to use the term mutts in reference to tortoises, the equivalent to crossing different breeds of dogs would be to cross either 1.) different subspecies of a single species of tortoise (such as sulcatas) or 2.) cross two tortoises of the same species that have not yet been classified as a subspecies, but show clear physical divergence resulting from evolving in different geographical niches.

I know Sudan sulcata are higher domed and generally larger, but so are Wisconsin women. Would they be from a superior, pure stock of people; thus, making them better than other women? .

Your Wisconsin comment made me giggle.
But seriously, when we're talking about mutts or cross-breeding, we're not judging one breed over another. No one is saying that one subspecies, breed, race, or whatever term we decide to apply, is better than any other or any combination thereof.

Of course, Sibi has a great point! Since we're all descendants of OG man...are we African (the presumed location of the Garden of Eden? Or are we ''evolved'' from Australopithecus? I like this topic

Technically, the australopithecines originated in Africa, so, either way, our ancestry lies in Africa.
And for the record, I consider myself a mutt too and am proud of it.

Based on your own argument, Dean, you would be a mutt too. There's no such thing as a "pure" breed in humans.

Absolutely true since the term "breed" doesn't apply to humans. Most folks prefer the term "race" to "breed" because it makes us feel superior to animals. But even if we use the term "race", we can argue that there is no true or pure human race. This is because anatomically modern humans are prone to migrate. Even in prehistoric times, groups of people would cross whole continents and even oceans. In these travels, they would come across other human communities resulting in a mixture of genes and resulting phenotypes. Most scholars would agree that trying to define a “pure” race is impossible.
This brings us back to the OP. If sulcatas are not geographically isolated (i.e., they've been dispersed though trade), then can there be any geographically distinct varieties left?

Wow, it would be like Hitler saying that the Germans are the only "pure" race. Bull...and you know it.

Not to go too far off topic, but I think we can all agree that Hitler was an idiot and didn’t know what the h*ll he was talking about.

Tom .....this is a great statement "sulcatas known to be from any one part of their range and have distinctly different physical characteristics, are simply location specific animals"..... a much better term than "pure" .

Agree, the term “location specific animals” applies better to this discussion than the term “pure.”

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

no one would have known you mentioned the name of your book in your titled thread.

Apparently, based on responses many people sorted that out right away, that the book title was the Subject, it was not presumptuous of me. A pause to respond about what you did not know was answered by following and reading the thread, just a few posts in.

I take no responsibility for your feelings, you have sought to identify me by a vilification term (elitist), and I had not singled you out. You self identified.

Will

---

Tom, I think hit the nail on the head, and it correlates well with what many snake people do, use the idea of 'location specific', and let it mean nothing more or less than added information about the animal in question.

Just that term mutt kept running around in my head since DeanS used it, for my first encounter with the term. I better get the meaning now. Thanks for the well reasoned responses.

That's all for me in this thread, thanks.

Will

Most of the sulcatas in North America are descendants of wild sulcatas from multiple parts of the sulcata range. This makes them "mutts" by my definition. Just as with dogs, which are different variants of the same species, so it is with sulcatas as we know them here. Sudan sulcatas, or Senegal Sulcatas, or sulcatas known to be from any one part of their range and have distinctly different physical characteristics, are simply location specific animals. Certainly, they are not "better". Just different than the norm. If you look a pics of Brad's adults, they are quite different looking than most of the adults that you see elsewhere, including my own. The term "mutt" is not intended to be derogatory in this instance, only a way to describe the mixed lineage of most of our animals. Just as the term "Sudan" sulcata is not intended to assume some sort of superiority, only that these animals are from a known location and of a certain "type" that will breed true.

And Will, so glad you liked the book. Dean and I both re-read it several times, and it is so full of new info (new to me, anyway) that I was left with MANY questions too. My friend Tomas is one of the people who provided the author with info for that book. I grill Tomas every chance I get and pick up tidbits of info every time.

 

[L82lalaland]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Mtclong i checked for an E version of the book could not find it...

 

[sibi]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Thanks for setting the matter straight. So, I want to go back to the matter of sulcatas not being geographically isolated, can there be any geographically distinct varieties left? I would like to read this book so that I may see for myself what theory the author gives to make his conclusion.

I have not read that book, but I'll look it up. Does anyone know if there's an e-version available?

I don't see how anyone can call any sulcata a mutt because I don't believe that they've been cross bred with another species.

“Mutts” are not a cross of different species. We generally use the term "mutts" in reference to dogs. Dog mutts are created by crossing different breeds of the same species. We don't use the term "breeds" when we're describing tortoises. However, if we're going to use the term mutts in reference to tortoises, the equivalent to crossing different breeds of dogs would be to cross either 1.) different subspecies of a single species of tortoise (such as sulcatas) or 2.) cross two tortoises of the same species that have not yet been classified as a subspecies, but show clear physical divergence resulting from evolving in different geographical niches.

I know Sudan sulcata are higher domed and generally larger, but so are Wisconsin women. Would they be from a superior, pure stock of people; thus, making them better than other women? .

Your Wisconsin comment made me giggle.
But seriously, when we're talking about mutts or cross-breeding, we're not judging one breed over another. No one is saying that one subspecies, breed, race, or whatever term we decide to apply, is better than any other or any combination thereof.

Of course, Sibi has a great point! Since we're all descendants of OG man...are we African (the presumed location of the Garden of Eden? Or are we ''evolved'' from Australopithecus? I like this topic

Technically, the australopithecines originated in Africa, so, either way, our ancestry lies in Africa.
And for the record, I consider myself a mutt too and am proud of it.

Based on your own argument, Dean, you would be a mutt too. There's no such thing as a "pure" breed in humans.

Absolutely true since the term "breed" doesn't apply to humans. Most folks prefer the term "race" to "breed" because it makes us feel superior to animals. But even if we use the term "race", we can argue that there is no true or pure human race. This is because anatomically modern humans are prone to migrate. Even in prehistoric times, groups of people would cross whole continents and even oceans. In these travels, they would come across other human communities resulting in a mixture of genes and resulting phenotypes. Most scholars would agree that trying to define a “pure” race is impossible.
This brings us back to the OP. If sulcatas are not geographically isolated (i.e., they've been dispersed though trade), then can there be any geographically distinct varieties left?

Wow, it would be like Hitler saying that the Germans are the only "pure" race. Bull...and you know it.

Not to go too far off topic, but I think we can all agree that Hitler was an idiot and didn’t know what the h*ll he was talking about.

Tom .....this is a great statement "sulcatas known to be from any one part of their range and have distinctly different physical characteristics, are simply location specific animals"..... a much better term than "pure" .

Agree, the term “location specific animals” applies better to this discussion than the term “pure.”

 

[mctlong]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Mtclong i checked for an E version of the book could not find it...

Thank you for checking. I appreciate it.

 

[Tom]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Thanks for setting the matter straight. So, I want to go back to the matter of sulcatas not being geographically isolated, can there be any geographically distinct varieties left? I would like to read this book so that I may see for myself what theory the author gives to make his conclusion.

This thread is making me want to re-read my copy again. I swear I'm going t wear it out with my eyes...

It has been out of print for ten years or so. Finding a copy might be a challenge. I doubt there is an e-version. It's actually a French book, but with an English translation included. Kind of odd. Never seen it done this way. A new book is othe way. As of Novemebr of 2012 a publisher was being sought. The new book will included burrow temps and humidity. More on the habits, range, and behavior in the new book. I've already told Tomas to send the first 100 copies to me for distribution among the forum.

I don't recall what the book says about geographically distinct populations, but my info comes from my friend Tomas Diagne who founded the African Chelonian Institute in Senegal. I know of no single human being on the planet that knows more about wild sulcatas than he. According to him there are at least three distinct "types" of sulcatas throughout their enormous range that looks like a horizontal belt across the middle of the entire continent of Africa. The three types are easy to distinguish from each other visually, at least as adults.

 

[sibi]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Wow! I really want to read up on this now. I'm going to make some phone calls to my French friends. Perhaps one of them can search there for the original book. We'll see. In the meantime, If you get those new books, please let me know so I can place an order, if that's how you're doing it. Meanwhile, I've gotten interested in this thread. I've got some homework to do.

Thanks for setting the matter straight. So, I want to go back to the matter of sulcatas not being geographically isolated, can there be any geographically distinct varieties left? I would like to read this book so that I may see for myself what theory the author gives to make his conclusion.

This thread is making me want to re-read my copy again. I swear I'm going t wear it out with my eyes...

It has been out of print for ten years or so. Finding a copy might be a challenge. I doubt there is an e-version. It's actually a French book, but with an English translation included. Kind of odd. Never seen it done this way. A new book is othe way. As of Novemebr of 2012 a publisher was being sought. The new book will included burrow temps and humidity. More on the habits, range, and behavior in the new book. I've already told Tomas to send the first 100 copies to me for distribution among the forum.

I don't recall what the book says about geographically distinct populations, but my info comes from my friend Tomas Diagne who founded the African Chelonian Institute in Senegal. I know of no single human being on the planet that knows more about wild sulcatas than he. According to him there are at least three distinct "types" of sulcatas throughout their enormous range that looks like a horizontal belt across the middle of the entire continent of Africa. The three types are easy to distinguish from each other visually, at least as adults.

 

[cemmons12]

RE: The Crying Tortoise

Its a very good read, and I thank Tom for telling me about it!
Is it me or does there seem to be a lot of arguments (or whatever you want to call it) in threads these days?