One day early! Read this extremely comprehensive and well thought article about crested gecko / chahoua hybrids and reptile hybridization in general: Gecko Hybridization | Gecko Time
Aliza
Aliza
Gecko Time: Gecko Hybridization
- Thread starter acpart
- Start date
Embrace Calamity
New member
Great article! I've seen some of these, and they're so cool. It's good to read about them. I like chahouas and cresties, but combining the two makes a hybrid that's even cooler. I'd definitely love to own one someday. 
How much do they usually run for? Expensive, I bet.
~Maggot
How much do they usually run for? Expensive, I bet.~Maggot
Rhacodactyl
New member
Based on what I've seen, they're similar in price to a high end crested most of the time.
Great article! I've seen some of these, and they're so cool. It's good to read about them. I like chahouas and cresties, but combining the two makes a hybrid that's even cooler. I'd definitely love to own one someday.
~Maggot
PLEASE don't breed them further.. owning one is one thing, but people should not be allowed to experiment around with them in F2 generations..
Embrace Calamity
New member
Dude, chill. I never said anything about breeding them. I said I'd like to own one, which kind of makes it tough to breed them, doesn't it? Though, if you noticed, it stated in the article that there have been some instances of parthenogenesis. It also stated that people have gone beyond the F2 generation, so I dunno why you're talking to me about it.
~Maggot
It is even noticed in the text that it is possible to cross hybrids back to one of the mother species. Therefore, you could make a lot of stupid stuff with only owning one hybrid. There are a few people out there who do this and i can't support it. Both of these species are very rare in the wild and maybe in the future, the animals in captivity are the only possible for these species to survive. Just look up about the nickel industry in New Caledonia. 9/10th of the former New Caledonian forests aren't existant anymore. And whilst these species die out in the wild, all we do is mixing up their genes because we consider it beautiful. I believe that there are already "hybrid genes" out there in the C. ciliatus market, and after a few generations, nobody will ever now. I just don't like the thought that a large amount of amateur breeders can decide over the future of endangered species. Just for having cool animals. And in the end, greed plays a role too, because who knows how beautiful 3rd or 4rd generation hybrids will be, and how much they could earn you if you sell them as "high end crested gecko morph XYZ"?
I also have to add that i didn't like the article so much, this time. Some information in there is very misleading. It is not known and highly unlikely that these two species interbreed in the wild. Also, the example of L. lugubris and that lugubris owners "have hybrids already" (working as some kind of legitimation for having ciliatus x chahoua hybrids) is not a very good one. It is a) not even proven that this form has its origin in a L. moestus hybrid and b), this would prove nothing because L. lugubris occurs in the wild, the hybrids we talk about here don't.
Another thing i don't like too much is this one:
"For example, if I bred black rat snakes from the eastern and western portions of my home state of West Virginia to one another several years ago, it was considered a normal breeding event. Now, due to reclassification of North American rat snakes, such a pairing would produce hybrid offspring by one definition since a species line has been drawn between these areas."
This problem has occured in several species and the only solution for it is breeding only animals from the same localities with each other. Since the localities for M. chahoua are only vague and those for C. ciliatus got lost years ago, we should stick to what we have and try to at least breed animals from the same island (and of course, of the same species..). Mixing them makes it only worse.
I liked the ending of the text a lot, because it seemed a lot more serious and reminded us of some basic things. If you have hybrids, mark their offspring as such. And i would not even try to breed them. Maybe the offspring makes good feeder animals for larger reptiles
I know some of you differ here, but i think the conservation of species is more important than the joy of individuals and the money they make. We have a responsibility and if we begin to consider hybridization of species "normal", the worst case scenario is only very few centuries away. That these animals are extinct in the wild and no one ever knows if there has been a chahoua in his C. ciliatus lineage or the other way around. Same thing with forms of R. leachianus..
Please excuse my language, English is not my mother tongue.
Best Regards, the "chilled Dude"
Last edited:
Embrace Calamity
New member
Except, again, I never said anything about breeding them myself or even owning any chahouas or cresties, which I don't. I don't know how you go from "Hey, I'd like to own one of these cute little hybrids" to "IMMA BREED THESE GUYS TONS AND TONS AND DO ALL KINDS OF DAMAGE TO THE GENES OF THE MILLIONS OF CRESTIES OUT THERE OMG I CAN'T WAIT." I didn't write this article, nor did I express a desire to breed them myself, so I have no idea why you're bitching at me. I don't take a very hard stance on the hybrid issue either way, so trying to debate it with me is pointless.
By the way, I'm pretty sure neither of these species are listed as "endangered." I don't doubt that their numbers are less than they should/used to be, but I don't think they've made that list. I could be wrong, but I don't believe they are.
~Maggot
It was not only meant in your direction, but for all people who read the article and this thread. Because not everyone wants to just own them. Sorry if i sounded rude.
And if you believe that the fact these animals did not make it on the endangered list means that they are not endangered.. I don't want to argue with you about this topic anymore. You might have heard about the Exoterra expedition that focussed on C. ciliatus and they had a hard time to even find a few. I am certain the population density of these animals in the wild will decrease further. If you don't believe that and rely only on e.g. the IUCN red list, please do so.. Fact is that forests are getting less and less and this can not be stopped. The day these make it on the list, it is too late for them. The millions of cresteds you are talking about are only existing in captivity, and thats why we better don't mess around with them.
Edit: Thanks to Hilde. They are still in the old genus
Last edited:
They're still listed under Rhacodactylus at the moment.
Rhacodactylus chahoua (Bavay's Giant Gecko, Mossy Prehensile-tailed Gecko, Short-snouted Giant Gecko)
Rhacodactylus chahoua
Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable 2011
Rhacodactylus ciliatus (Crested Gecko, Eyelash Gecko)
Rhacodactylus ciliatus
Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable 2011
Rhacodactylus sarasinorum (Sarasin's Giant Gecko)
Rhacodactylus sarasinorum
Red List Category & Criteria: Vulnerable 2011
Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus (Rough-snouted Giant Gecko, Tough-snouted Giant Gecko)
Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus
Red List Category & Criteria: Endangered 2009, 2010, 2011
Rhacodactylus auriculatus (Knob-headed Giant Gecko, New Caledonian Bumpy Gecko)
Rhacodactylus auriculatus
Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern 2010
Rhacodactylus leachianus (New Caledonia Giant Gecko)
Rhacodactylus leachianus
Red List Category & Criteria: Least Concern 2011
Embrace Calamity
New member
I already said that I don't doubt their numbers are less than they should/used to be, but you said they were endangered, and I'm simply pointing out that, to my knowledge, they have not been classified as such. I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring what I say and arguing against something I never even said, but I'm not up for playing your game anymore. All I said was that these geckos are cool and I wouldn't mind owning one. That's it. I don't see why it had to become a huge thing.
~Maggot
~Maggot
Rhacodactyl
New member
Ignoring the fact that it would be a horrible idea to use some random pet trade geckos to repopulate New Caledonia in the hypothetical situation that natural populations would dwindle, where would they even be released. If they go extinct in the wild due to nickel mining wiping out their habitat...what habitat would the captives be released into? I also don't understand the idea that the pet trade (the industry responsible for removing these species from the wild in the first place) is supposed to be the group to preserve them in some kind of stasis for hypothetical re-release years down the road rather than focusing on selective breeding for better pets (more attractive, more accepting of commercial diets, etc). If we're supposed to be sitting on these until they can be released back into the wild, I think we screwed up pretty bad by making so many super dals, pinstripes, extreme harleys, etc. Personally, I'm happy keeping pet geckos and breeding for ideal pet geckos, knowing full well that none of my offspring or their descendents are destined to be taken back to New Caledonia.
Rhacodactyl
New member
Since I wrote the article, I might as well address some of these other points (respectfully of course).
I did not say these species interbreed in the wild. In fact, I said "in the example of crested x chahoua hybrids, they probably don’t ever occur in nature." How is that misleading?
This example was meant to serve as an explanation that hybrids occur in nature, not "some kind of legitimation for having ciliatus x chahoua hybrids" as you said. While I'm using quotations, I'd like to point out that although you put "have hybrids already" in quotation marks, that is not a direct quote from the article. I suppose you could say it's not proven that L. lugubris originated as L. moestus hybrids in the sense that no one witnessed the initial crossing and can swear to it, but parthenogenesis does result from hybridization events (hence the point of mentioning this-to point out that hybridization occurs among geckos in nature). Since you don't seem convinced of this, how do you propose that parthenogenic geckos arose? I think Radtkey, et al make a compelling case with their research.
Am I to understand that you only advocate breeding individuals from the same populations in any given species to prevent "hybrids" from being produced in the event that taxonomy changes? The point of this example was to show that hybrids themselves are subjective and what one person considers a hybrid may be a pure species to someone else. If we only bred animals from the same localities to one another, there would be a lot less genetic diversity in our collections and I imagine we'd see negative effects from inbreeding over time. I don't think this is justified for the sake of preventing what might be considered hybridization in the future, especially since we're just talking about pet geckos. If two species are morphologically the same and were previously considered to be synonymous, why should it matter if a geneticist decides to consider their offspring hybrids later on in the pet trade?
With all due respect, we as individuals who keep these geckos as pets do not have a responsibility to restrict our husbandry parameters or breeding choices in order to suit a hypothetical conservation initiative. Introducing geckos that have been in captivity for dozens of generations into the wild is a terrible idea under any circumstances-they could bring foreign pathogens with them for one obvious example. You never see any conservation organization (which are groups that DO have a responsibility to preserve biodiversity) asking pet owners to donate their pets for repopulation efforts because in the rare cases that this is a valid option for conservation of a species, rigorous selection criteria are applied to the selection of stock to be released. Remember, my background is in conservation ecology and I'm all for it, but it's not even related to the pet trade and our captive breeding programs except for the fact that we diminished natural populations of these species in order to begin working with them.
Finally, if the worst case scenario is as you put it that "no one ever knows if there has been a chahoua in his C. ciliatus lineage or the other way around," what is the problem? If there was a chahoua in the ancestry of someone's cresteds, but that influence is so thoroughly diluted that they're indistinguishable from pure cresteds, what damage is done? If they look, act, and behave so much like cresteds that "no one ever knows if there has been a chahoua" in the lineage, then I don't see how it matters if there was? Just to be clear, I'm not advocating this (nor do I think it's even a potential reality considering the vast number of "pure" individuals out there already), but as far as worst case scenarios go, I'm having a hard time understanding what would be so disastrous about this one.
I understand English isn't your native tongue (though you could've fooled me with your well-worded posts), so I hope you haven't misunderstood me here. While I disagree with some of your statements, I've tried to point out why I do and I want to emphasize that I do so with the utmost respect since you obviously care about this subject and are not arguing from ignorance. I'm certainly willing to alter my position if presented with convincing evidence to abandon my current philosophy on the subject and I would encourage everyone reading to maintain the same attitude. At the end of the day we may have to agree to disagree, but I'd be happy to continue the discussion as long as we can maintain a respectful tone. Thanks.
I did not say these species interbreed in the wild. In fact, I said "in the example of crested x chahoua hybrids, they probably don’t ever occur in nature." How is that misleading?
This example was meant to serve as an explanation that hybrids occur in nature, not "some kind of legitimation for having ciliatus x chahoua hybrids" as you said. While I'm using quotations, I'd like to point out that although you put "have hybrids already" in quotation marks, that is not a direct quote from the article. I suppose you could say it's not proven that L. lugubris originated as L. moestus hybrids in the sense that no one witnessed the initial crossing and can swear to it, but parthenogenesis does result from hybridization events (hence the point of mentioning this-to point out that hybridization occurs among geckos in nature). Since you don't seem convinced of this, how do you propose that parthenogenic geckos arose? I think Radtkey, et al make a compelling case with their research.
Am I to understand that you only advocate breeding individuals from the same populations in any given species to prevent "hybrids" from being produced in the event that taxonomy changes? The point of this example was to show that hybrids themselves are subjective and what one person considers a hybrid may be a pure species to someone else. If we only bred animals from the same localities to one another, there would be a lot less genetic diversity in our collections and I imagine we'd see negative effects from inbreeding over time. I don't think this is justified for the sake of preventing what might be considered hybridization in the future, especially since we're just talking about pet geckos. If two species are morphologically the same and were previously considered to be synonymous, why should it matter if a geneticist decides to consider their offspring hybrids later on in the pet trade?
With all due respect, we as individuals who keep these geckos as pets do not have a responsibility to restrict our husbandry parameters or breeding choices in order to suit a hypothetical conservation initiative. Introducing geckos that have been in captivity for dozens of generations into the wild is a terrible idea under any circumstances-they could bring foreign pathogens with them for one obvious example. You never see any conservation organization (which are groups that DO have a responsibility to preserve biodiversity) asking pet owners to donate their pets for repopulation efforts because in the rare cases that this is a valid option for conservation of a species, rigorous selection criteria are applied to the selection of stock to be released. Remember, my background is in conservation ecology and I'm all for it, but it's not even related to the pet trade and our captive breeding programs except for the fact that we diminished natural populations of these species in order to begin working with them.
Finally, if the worst case scenario is as you put it that "no one ever knows if there has been a chahoua in his C. ciliatus lineage or the other way around," what is the problem? If there was a chahoua in the ancestry of someone's cresteds, but that influence is so thoroughly diluted that they're indistinguishable from pure cresteds, what damage is done? If they look, act, and behave so much like cresteds that "no one ever knows if there has been a chahoua" in the lineage, then I don't see how it matters if there was? Just to be clear, I'm not advocating this (nor do I think it's even a potential reality considering the vast number of "pure" individuals out there already), but as far as worst case scenarios go, I'm having a hard time understanding what would be so disastrous about this one.
I understand English isn't your native tongue (though you could've fooled me with your well-worded posts), so I hope you haven't misunderstood me here. While I disagree with some of your statements, I've tried to point out why I do and I want to emphasize that I do so with the utmost respect since you obviously care about this subject and are not arguing from ignorance. I'm certainly willing to alter my position if presented with convincing evidence to abandon my current philosophy on the subject and I would encourage everyone reading to maintain the same attitude. At the end of the day we may have to agree to disagree, but I'd be happy to continue the discussion as long as we can maintain a respectful tone. Thanks.
Sorry guys, haven't been on here for a few days.
You are right with this. The possible repopulation of habitats is unlikely. Nevertheless, i don't like the thought of mixing up everything. I have tried to find several ways to explain it, but it simply seems inappropriate for me to let everyone make these hybrids. All the coverage this topic gets is.. frightening to me, a few years back, there were very few people who did this, but now, you see threads over threads full of hybrids. Just think another 10 or 20 years down the road, who will you trust?
Anyway, i think it is okay to have different opinions on this topic, and by no means did i try to attack you. Excuse me if it sounded rude. Nonetheless, i will try to add some of my thoughts to what you've written, but i don't see a big necessity to discuss it further. There are simply different standpoints in this hobby and that's okay for me. I just would not want to buy anything, even labeled as pure, from people who experiment with species hybridization. For me (and i know i am not the only one), it is just a no-go. In my opinion, there is no positive effect of doing such stuff, other than that a) people can show off in the internet and b) that they make money out of odd animals. I don't like the thought of having all mutts one day. If these animals die out in the wild, we should at least try to keep it alive in captivity. Having only a founding stock of around 150 animals (that's what i heard), it would be sad if a few years down the road, you can not even be shure if you buy a pure C. ciliatus there.
Best Regards,
You are right with this. The possible repopulation of habitats is unlikely. Nevertheless, i don't like the thought of mixing up everything. I have tried to find several ways to explain it, but it simply seems inappropriate for me to let everyone make these hybrids. All the coverage this topic gets is.. frightening to me, a few years back, there were very few people who did this, but now, you see threads over threads full of hybrids. Just think another 10 or 20 years down the road, who will you trust?
Anyway, i think it is okay to have different opinions on this topic, and by no means did i try to attack you. Excuse me if it sounded rude. Nonetheless, i will try to add some of my thoughts to what you've written, but i don't see a big necessity to discuss it further. There are simply different standpoints in this hobby and that's okay for me. I just would not want to buy anything, even labeled as pure, from people who experiment with species hybridization. For me (and i know i am not the only one), it is just a no-go. In my opinion, there is no positive effect of doing such stuff, other than that a) people can show off in the internet and b) that they make money out of odd animals. I don't like the thought of having all mutts one day. If these animals die out in the wild, we should at least try to keep it alive in captivity. Having only a founding stock of around 150 animals (that's what i heard), it would be sad if a few years down the road, you can not even be shure if you buy a pure C. ciliatus there.
Best Regards,
aquamentus_11
New member
Crestoua (Crested X Chahoua) Hybrids - YouTube pretty cool. now let's try sara x garg.