For the best explanation of what a "cherry head" is look on--i think--page 75-76 of Vinke and Vetter's South American Tortoises. I was going to quote the section (and still might) but it is kinda long.
What a "cherry" head is
- Thread starter DoctorCosmonaut
- Start date
- Status
A "cherry head" is a name used to market redfoot tortoises from parts of Brazil and South American. There are few things different about them other than the name. All that rhetoric is just their way of saying ----- ( I'm ) not real sure actually. It sells copy. The "same" could be said about what makes a Colombia or Guyana locale!
I wonder what t_mclellan has to say.. he was there when the first ones came into the states back then!
NERD
I wonder what t_mclellan has to say.. he was there when the first ones came into the states back then!
NERD
I agree Terry, it is sort of a social/breeder construct
Are Redfoots one of the species with the most geographical variations and major group differences?
Are Redfoots one of the species with the most geographical variations and major group differences?
DoctorCosmonaut--while the name cherryhead is lame and not particularly accurate, the animals that are called by that name are very different from some of the other races of C. carbonaria. There are quite a few things that competent and observant people can readily recognize about them that make them phenotypically identifiable.
The pages in Vinke and Vetter's book that you mentioned are pretty accurate in describing the various traits that are unique to some of the widespread populations. It stands to reason that an animal that is found over such a large area would in time have distinct characters found in tortoises from differing regions.
I can't agree with those who claim that ALL redfoots from Panama, the Caribbean Islands, northern South America, parts of Brazil and then all the way down to Paraguay and Bolivia (and maybe even a tiny part of Argentina) are all exactly the same or that the differences between them are only slight.
To me this would be like someone taking a group of human beings from Sweden-- lets say five individuals, and then five people from Ghana, Africa. After that, five people from Guatemala, five more from Japan and then five more from Ireland. They put all these different people together and then declare "They all look EXACTLY the same to me. I can't see any real difference at all."
See what I mean? Pretty silly right? The same goes for redfoots.
But there will always be those who want to deny that these distinct populations of carbonaria exist. They are like the little kid who puts his fingers in his ears and then goes "la la la la la la la" when his mommy is telling him something he doesn't want to hear.
I would also take exception to the thought that anyone who can see these obvious populational differences does so only because they want to sell books or in some other way make money.
The pages in Vinke and Vetter's book that you mentioned are pretty accurate in describing the various traits that are unique to some of the widespread populations. It stands to reason that an animal that is found over such a large area would in time have distinct characters found in tortoises from differing regions.
I can't agree with those who claim that ALL redfoots from Panama, the Caribbean Islands, northern South America, parts of Brazil and then all the way down to Paraguay and Bolivia (and maybe even a tiny part of Argentina) are all exactly the same or that the differences between them are only slight.
To me this would be like someone taking a group of human beings from Sweden-- lets say five individuals, and then five people from Ghana, Africa. After that, five people from Guatemala, five more from Japan and then five more from Ireland. They put all these different people together and then declare "They all look EXACTLY the same to me. I can't see any real difference at all."
See what I mean? Pretty silly right? The same goes for redfoots.
But there will always be those who want to deny that these distinct populations of carbonaria exist. They are like the little kid who puts his fingers in his ears and then goes "la la la la la la la" when his mommy is telling him something he doesn't want to hear.
I would also take exception to the thought that anyone who can see these obvious populational differences does so only because they want to sell books or in some other way make money.
cdmay said:
AND that makes "Northerns" and "Southerns" just as different as the Brazilians Carl.. which is the point!
Who's denying they're not different?
Why do these authors take all of that copy to explain how "Cherryheads" are so unique? How much copy was spent on explaining the unique characteristics of the "Northern" and "Southern" ( ssp??? ) .. in comparison?
Could it be that "Cherryhead" has been marketed better? We both know the answer to that one Carl!
Terry K
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,431
Most of the "more scientific" books that I have read on the subject does delineate the different locales and the distinct characteristics of the local redfoots. Some of the books are more for the pictures than the content, those usually split all redfoots in one group and cherryheads in another. It is easier to distinguish the cherryhead's differences from the regular redfoots in the lighter books than say the colombians from the venzuelans, whose differences are noticeable to the experienced eye. Each type of book has its purpose, some for beginners as an introduction and those for the more experienced who want to know the variations from the different locales. I don't think it has anything to do with better marketing, rather, it is that the cherryhead is obviously distinguishable from the other locales of redfoots.
allegraf said:
This is not a condescending question:
How many mature adult Northern and Brazilian redfoots do you have in hand? Or 6" - 8" ones? The colors are not the only differences. And Northerns are not regular and Brazilians are cherryheads.. where does that leave the Southerns.
May I help you understand the term marketing? The mere fact that you ( and others ) refer to the "non-Brazilians" as regular indicates that they have in fact "marketed" the cherryhead name so well. Brazilians have been in the U.S. since the 70's [ as I recall - maybe 60's ].. and the cherryhead hatchlings didn't really hit the "pet" trade until the 90's. All of a sudden the cherryheads were special redfoots.. and the Northerns were now "regular"! What a marketing ploy. And the authors and pet trade fell right in by selling the name.. requiring special attention and prices. In fact now the "Cherryhead" is demanding a totally different species designation in some circles. Fine I don't care.. just relaying what I'm hearing publicly and privately!
Terry K
BTW.. I said "Northerns" and "Southerns" not Colombians and Venezuelans!
Are Redfoots one of the species with the most geographical variations and major group differences?
Ask Danny about the Mediterraneans.. there are a mutitude of ssp? in his book.
NERD
AND that makes "Northerns" and "Southerns" just as different as the Brazilians Carl.. which is the point!
Who's denying they're not different?
Why do these authors take all of that copy to explain how "Cherryheads" are so unique? How much copy was spent on explaining the unique characteristics of the "Northern" and "Southern" ( ssp??? ) .. in comparison?
Could it be that "Cherryhead" has been marketed better? We both know the answer to that one Carl!
Terry K
[/quote]
I honestly don't know what in the heck you are talking about.
Is it "possible" for you to... "type"!!! in a NORMAL fashion without... ALL the "Quotation" MARKS, and other highly distracting! and misused... additives???!!!
In other words, can you simply write what you would like to say in a clear and concise manner so that people with an I.Q. larger than their shoe size can understand you?
Who's denying they're not different?
Why do these authors take all of that copy to explain how "Cherryheads" are so unique? How much copy was spent on explaining the unique characteristics of the "Northern" and "Southern" ( ssp??? ) .. in comparison?
Could it be that "Cherryhead" has been marketed better? We both know the answer to that one Carl!
Terry K
[/quote]
I honestly don't know what in the heck you are talking about.
Is it "possible" for you to... "type"!!! in a NORMAL fashion without... ALL the "Quotation" MARKS, and other highly distracting! and misused... additives???!!!
In other words, can you simply write what you would like to say in a clear and concise manner so that people with an I.Q. larger than their shoe size can understand you?
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,431
If I didn't know the locations of Colombia or Venzuela, I can google a map of south america and I was not inferring that Colombians or Venezuelans were Northerns or Southerns, rather it was a generalization. I am no way an expert, rather far from it but I do have several breeding cherryheads. Also several sub adults and babies.
Just saying that you are not meaning to be condescending doesn't make it so. Your message was condescending which seems to be par for the course with you. Since you are asking for justification, I do know the differences between the locales and the traits that make it more likely than not that I have a cherryhead vs mix vs regular. I do not believe in selling "brazilian bloodlines" when I know that one parent is from Colombia!
Your terms Northerns and Southerns also seems to be you lumping all of the different locales together. The term cherryhead while ridiculous is a common name used. Why cause confusion when it is not necessary?
Just saying that you are not meaning to be condescending doesn't make it so. Your message was condescending which seems to be par for the course with you. Since you are asking for justification, I do know the differences between the locales and the traits that make it more likely than not that I have a cherryhead vs mix vs regular. I do not believe in selling "brazilian bloodlines" when I know that one parent is from Colombia!
Your terms Northerns and Southerns also seems to be you lumping all of the different locales together. The term cherryhead while ridiculous is a common name used. Why cause confusion when it is not necessary?
allegraf said:
This is not confusing.. you are very close to twisting my words. There are distinct differences among north of the Amazon.. Brazil and south of Brazil. My Q? is do these authors take as much copy to describe the differences among the 3 general regions defined or do they spend more copy describing a cherryhead. Not asking for justifications. North and South is a term used by another in this very thread.
It's a shame you had to get personal and accuse me.. especially since we've never spoken before. You are welcome to call or I would be happy to call you - see my number in my signature.
Terry K
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,431
Thanks for the offer to speak but from what I have read...no thanks, I don't think it would be productive. I did not twist your words, rather I responded as they were termed. I don't believe anyone other that you used the terms Northern or Southern in this thread. Condescending is like porn, as the Supreme Court says, "I know it when I see it."
cdmay said:
I honestly don't know what in the heck you are talking about.
Is it "possible" for you to... "type"!!! in a NORMAL fashion without... ALL the "Quotation" MARKS, and other highly distracting! and misused... additives???!!!
In other words, can you simply write what you would like to say in a clear and concise manner so that people with an I.Q. larger than their shoe size can understand you?
[/quote]
Why all the rhetoric about cherryhead being unique and not describing the northerns [ north of the amazon ] and southerns [ south of brazil ] at the same length, like you have called the different regions in the past Carl. I never indicated that Brazilians weren't different. Somehow you read into what I said as denying that Brazilians were; and the next thing you're comparing humans from all over the world.
Jordan indicated that Vinke and Vetter's South American Tortoises explaination of cherryhead was quite long so I aked if they spent as much time explaining the northerns and southerns. Simple as that. And I get you guys replys above! And accused of.......???
Terry K
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 590
Terry, buy the book. It goes into detail of Northerns, Brazilians, and Southern RF's. Don't knock it unless you've read it 
Vinke and Vetter generally describe three major groups of Red-foots- Northern, Brazilian/Cherryhead, and Grand Chaco (an area of special interest of the Vinkes). They spend most of the time on the Northerns, then the cherrys, and less time on the Grand Chacos, which are also less represented in the pet trade overall.
Just FYI, Peter Pritchard describes 7 groupings in "Turtles of South America".
Just FYI, Peter Pritchard describes 7 groupings in "Turtles of South America".
I get what you are saying Terry, and that is often the case, but this book does in fact detail each one equally (by country practically). It also concludes that the origin of cherry heads is debated and unknown for sure, if I understood it right, which you seem to agree with (correct me if I am wrong)? So probably for you this book would contain a lot of knowledge you may already know, but its quite an extensive work and I learned a lot. So I also must agree you should probably pick up the book before you assume too much about it.
DoctorCosmonaut said:
Thank you Jordan for reading my posts! My original reply was based on the info given.. and then I asked Q?'s from there.. my first mistake apparently.
How many times did I ask "how much time did they [ Vinke and Vetter ] spend on describing the uniqueness of each region of redfoot tortoises"? There were 3 times I asked.. and finally got an answer; but not until being accused of assuming they didn't. I wasn't assuming anything.. I was trying to be informed. How it went from that to being accused of all those.. who knows?
NERD
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 590
Redfoot NERD said:
I could be mistaken, but most of what I got from reading your posts in this thread was you complaining about Cherryheads being marketed as if they were the newest pop star or something and Northerns are the former Teeny Bopper fad that just hit puberty. I felt that you were making generalizations about books that it appears you have yet to read. Maybe I'm completely wrong in my observations?
elegans said:
Come on Douglas, stick around and fight the good fight! It's not as if you are busy or anything!
What's all the fighting and accusing about anyway?
Jordan asked for a simple explaination. I mentioned that the term cherryhead was blown out of proportion and a marketing ploy used by the first ones that brought them in to the U.S. decades ago. And there were a few differences in the "cherryheads" and then asked how much copy did the author spend on describing the differences of the redfoots from different regions?
How all the above evolved from that who knows? Is it because too much is read into what or how others type and not trying to understand or accept what they are actually asking? Or just taking things out of context and using it as an excuse to accuse.. or whatever; even to a point where someone actually says 'why would I want to be a part of this mess?' I really wonder how many thought that and didn't say anything? I don't know why this has to be.
These are not questions I'm expecting answers from as much as questions as food for thought.
It is too bad that regardless what anyone says or asks here; someone is going to take issue. How can someone dislike someone they've never met or even spoken with on the phone?
I believe 'most' everyone here is trying to learn.. but as mentioned in other "debate" topics; some just enjoy mixing it up! Too bad.
Cheers...
Terry K
Jordan asked for a simple explaination. I mentioned that the term cherryhead was blown out of proportion and a marketing ploy used by the first ones that brought them in to the U.S. decades ago. And there were a few differences in the "cherryheads" and then asked how much copy did the author spend on describing the differences of the redfoots from different regions?
How all the above evolved from that who knows? Is it because too much is read into what or how others type and not trying to understand or accept what they are actually asking? Or just taking things out of context and using it as an excuse to accuse.. or whatever; even to a point where someone actually says 'why would I want to be a part of this mess?' I really wonder how many thought that and didn't say anything? I don't know why this has to be.
These are not questions I'm expecting answers from as much as questions as food for thought.
It is too bad that regardless what anyone says or asks here; someone is going to take issue. How can someone dislike someone they've never met or even spoken with on the phone?
I believe 'most' everyone here is trying to learn.. but as mentioned in other "debate" topics; some just enjoy mixing it up! Too bad.
Cheers...
Terry K
Oh, people do read your posts Terry. And despite your nearly impossible to comprehend style of writing, we do see what you are trying to insinuate.
In your original reply to Doc Cosmonaut you did in fact state that there are 'few differences' (meaning only slight) between the animals known as cherryeads and other redfoots. Then you stated that there had been much rhetoric involved and used words like 'marketing' and 'copy'. All of this gives the impression that you are trying downplay the fact that they are quite different from some of the other races. Other comments you have made in the past have made it clear that you think all redfoots are basically the same animal with maybe only subtle population variations. Thats OK. Defend that view in a respectful and intelligent manner.
But time after time you make snarky comments that there is some sort of pro-cherryhead agenda designed to boost sales. You have also given the very distinct impression that anyone who actually reads a book is wasting their time since you have a website that is the be all and end all of tortoise knowledge. You have also implied that authors who write books about redfoots do so for fame and fortune. You frequently insult people and come off as incredibly pompous.
And yet, when confronted you predictably back track and claim to be misunderstood. Or that people are not reading you correctly.
You are like the guy who goes and kicks someone in the shin and then when that person responds by punching you in the mouth you cry and claim to be the victim.
In your original reply to Doc Cosmonaut you did in fact state that there are 'few differences' (meaning only slight) between the animals known as cherryeads and other redfoots. Then you stated that there had been much rhetoric involved and used words like 'marketing' and 'copy'. All of this gives the impression that you are trying downplay the fact that they are quite different from some of the other races. Other comments you have made in the past have made it clear that you think all redfoots are basically the same animal with maybe only subtle population variations. Thats OK. Defend that view in a respectful and intelligent manner.
But time after time you make snarky comments that there is some sort of pro-cherryhead agenda designed to boost sales. You have also given the very distinct impression that anyone who actually reads a book is wasting their time since you have a website that is the be all and end all of tortoise knowledge. You have also implied that authors who write books about redfoots do so for fame and fortune. You frequently insult people and come off as incredibly pompous.
And yet, when confronted you predictably back track and claim to be misunderstood. Or that people are not reading you correctly.
You are like the guy who goes and kicks someone in the shin and then when that person responds by punching you in the mouth you cry and claim to be the victim.
- Status
