PI or Mainland, Does It Really Matter Anymore?

[Dragonborn Exotics (Ryan)]

I know this is a highly debatable topic and I am opening pandoras box by bringing it up, but here it is. At this point in time, with no paperwork proving that a chahoua is either 100% mainland or 100% PI, does it make sense to keep selling them as such? I know there are some members here that have a lot of information that they could share. I'm not suggesting that having different locale identifications is worthless, but with the lack of genetic proof, at what point do we just start selling them all as "chahoua" with no locale ID?

Unrelated, but gargoyle geckos come in all sizes and colors like chahoua. Some reach over 100 grams, some stay in the 50 and 60 gram range. Some have short snouts and buggy eyes and some have longer snouts and their eyes don't look as buggy. Does that mean they are from different locales? Or possibly it's just due to a limited gene pool. I dont think there are any locale specific characteristics for gargoyles, but if I am wrong I appologize. I know that they have been collected from different areas on the Mainland. Sorry for derailing from the original topic, but I was using it as an example to provide a different perspective on the Mainland VS PI debate.

I personally like the look of what is classified as PI chahoua, and that's my personal preference.

 

[Michael]

This is a great and timely topic, following up on some of the Facebook controversy about tail regeneration between PI and GT.

From what I’ve been told, for a very long time in the early 90s, these geckos were just sold as “chahoua” with no regard for mainland, PI or sub-localities within those regions. It wasn’t until years later when a very small quantity of animals came directly from the isle of Pines to the US that people started trying to figure out what they had or where it came from originally. By then, the animals that had been passed around in the hobby were largely a lost cause and anyone’s best guess. Any attempts at lineage for those animals were largely guesses and assumptions.

With this in mind, unless you have an animal with documented papers and photographic evidence, it’s really impossible to ever be sure that what you have is what you think you have. Many of the original photos of the species show colorful GTs with white collars, heavy contrast, and pattern that we often associate with PIs today. "Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide" shows a number of allegedly PI animals with large eyes, shorter snouts and pattern we typically associate with GTs. Can we post photos so long as we give permission?

Here is one that was recently circulating - this is a GT chahoua:

I hate that most people just think “PIs are the nice ones and GTs are the ugly ones.” Not fair, and not true. I think it shook out that way because everyone just had “chahoua” and wanted to show they had (more desirable) PI when that dedicated 25-30 animals came over... so of course it became an arms race to show who had the best or nicest or animals that looked like the (confirmed) isle de pines imports. But who is to say there weren’t bug eyed, brown chahoua on the isle de pines also?! Going back again to Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide shows:

• White collar GT animals with side white and non regenerated tails, heavy dark contrast and patterns more commonly associated with present day PI animals
• PI animals that are brown or dark green in color with large eyes, small snouts, and splotchy patterns we more commonly associate with present day GT animals.

I will say that most of the GT animals I owned came from Michael Troeger's lines and they all had a unique look with regard to head structure (face/eyes/snout), pattern and all were around 45g or less. I never cross bred them into my PI lines because I wanted to maintain the alleged integrity of those specific GT lines.

Bringing this back around full circle, I think it would require some genetic testing and evidence of animals confirmed to be directly from the mainland and directly from the Isle de Pines. Even then, not sure it's really possible to obtain such animals.

 

[Dragonborn Exotics (Ryan)]

Thanks for jumping into the conversation Michael. The reason I started this thread was because of the tail regeneration talk on Facebook. I know this has been a topic that has been beat to death over the years and lots of people are probably sick of talking about it.

That first picture you shared is great. I would have bet 100% that it is a PI chahoua. It has all of the so called "PI characteristics". I will admit I am not a fan of the classic Mainland look. Not sure if classic is a good way to describe it. The short snout, smaller size, and buggy eyes. I do love their color though. Even some of them have cool looking pattern with white necks. There are some stunning examples out there no doubt.

It does make sense that the PI label would have been a marketing strategy. I feel like even if they would have just labeled them as "Fresh Stock", people would have bought them regardless and paid more so they could add more genetic diversity into their collections.

I do agree that there would have to be some good, scientific data to clear up the fog. I feel like a good plan would be to collect wild specimens from different areas in New Caledonia where chahoua have been collected in the past and take pictures, measurements, and DNA samples. Then compare those wild caught specimens to captive bred chahoua from multiple breeders. Mainland, PI, and crosses. Compare similarities in physical appearance, weight, genetic makeup. I think this would give us all a clearer picture and help us decide what the next step would be regarding labeling and breeding. Do we try to cross the healthiest looking examples from the "sub-species" and make a genetically diverse cross and make that our goal for the good of the species as a whole? Or have we reached the point of no return?

 

[Dos G'Equis]

This is a great and timely topic, following up on some of the Facebook controversy about tail regeneration between PI and GT.

From what I’ve been told, for a very long time in the early 90s, these geckos were just sold as “chahoua” with no regard for mainland, PI or sub-localities within those regions. It wasn’t until years later when a very small quantity of animals came directly from the isle of Pines to the US that people started trying to figure out what they had or where it came from originally. By then, the animals that had been passed around in the hobby were largely a lost cause and anyone’s best guess. Any attempts at lineage for those animals were largely guesses and assumptions.

With this in mind, unless you have an animal with documented papers and photographic evidence, it’s really impossible to ever be sure that what you have is what you think you have. Many of the original photos of the species show colorful GTs with white collars, heavy contrast, and pattern that we often associate with PIs today. "Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide" shows a number of allegedly PI animals with large eyes, shorter snouts and pattern we typically associate with GTs. Can we post photos so long as we give permission?

Here is one that was recently circulating - this is a GT chahoua:

I hate that most people just think “PIs are the nice ones and GTs are the ugly ones.” Not fair, and not true. I think it shook out that way because everyone just had “chahoua” and wanted to show they had (more desirable) PI when that dedicated 25-30 animals came over... so of course it became an arms race to show who had the best or nicest or animals that looked like the (confirmed) isle de pines imports. But who is to say there weren’t bug eyed, brown chahoua on the isle de pines also?! Going back again to Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide shows:

• White collar GT animals with side white and non regenerated tails, heavy dark contrast and patterns more commonly associated with present day PI animals
• PI animals that are brown or dark green in color with large eyes, small snouts, and splotchy patterns we more commonly associate with present day GT animals.

I will say that most of the GT animals I owned came from Michael Troeger's lines and they all had a unique look with regard to head structure (face/eyes/snout), pattern and all were around 45g or less. I never cross bred them into my PI lines because I wanted to maintain the alleged integrity of those specific GT lines.

Bringing this back around full circle, I think it would require some genetic testing and evidence of animals confirmed to be directly from the mainland and directly from the Isle de Pines. Even then, not sure it's really possible to obtain such animals.

Great post, Michael. I agree that Mainland get a bum rap...I started out with ML and still love that locale. I can't find my copy of Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide at the moment, but wasn't there something about the number of pores or pore lines being more in number in Mainland specimens? I think until someone does DNA testing we will never know for sure whether they are indeed 2 different
sub species. I know that before Philippe scrapped his plans for a chahoua book, he was collecting clinical observed data on mainland.

 

[Dragonborn Exotics (Ryan)]

Great post, Michael. I agree that Mainland get a bum rap...I started out with ML and still love that locale. I can't find my copy of Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide at the moment, but wasn't there something about the number of pores or pore lines being more in number in Mainland specimens? I think until someone does DNA testing we will never know for sure whether they are indeed 2 different
sub species. I know that before Philippe scrapped his plans for a chahoua book, he was collecting clinical observed data on mainland.

Great post, Michael. I agree that Mainland get a bum rap...I started out with ML and still love that locale. I can't find my copy of Rhacodactylus: The Complete Guide at the moment, but wasn't there something about the number of pores or pore lines being more in number in Mainland specimens? I think until someone does DNA testing we will never know for sure whether they are indeed 2 different
sub species. I know that before Philippe scrapped his plans for a chahoua book, he was collecting clinical observed data on mainland.

I wish we had a good chahoua book to utilize. There was something about the number of pores, Bonnie. I think that was in relation to Jalu. I think it was Mainland or PI had 5 rows and Jalu had 3 rows? That was how you could supposedly tell the difference. I may be wrong. It could be the other way around, but I remember reading up on it.

 

[Andrea IGA]

The oldest of the dscussions and the most dangerous when it comes to explain and speak about scientific terms and proves.

- Today NO M.chahoua samples from Pine Island is represented in any study, museum-holotype, so scientifically speaking, M.chahoua do not exist on PI. We know that they live there and also herpetologists know. Unfortunately, it's been very hard to do complete researchesin NewCaledonia, even for big names as Aaron Bauer, wich I have some talks recently.

- For scientific methods, no analysis can be made on captive bred animals, because a lot of factors can't be officially described as : GPS coordinates,photos in situ,fecal analysis ecc.. Also the humans hand play a role in the growth,shape,weight of captive animals.

- M.chahoua from Gran Terre have a really big and not-defined distribution map, a very large variation but - "No genetic % differences make them different subspieces or something else" (A.Bauer words).

Only more DNA with specific genes analysis can tell IF Gran Terre animals are the same or different spieces or subspieces of Mniarogekko chahoua.

Here posted my favourite pic of a REALLY WHITE M.chahoua from Gran Terre (Riviere Bleue) , shot taken by Mathias Deuss in 2017

 

[Dragonborn Exotics (Ryan)]

The oldest of the dscussions and the most dangerous when it comes to explain and speak about scientific terms and proves.

- Today NO M.chahoua samples from Pine Island is represented in any study, museum-holotype, so scientifically speaking, M.chahoua do not exist on PI. We know that they live there and also herpetologists know. Unfortunately, it's been very hard to do complete researchesin NewCaledonia, even for big names as Aaron Bauer, wich I have some talks recently.

- For scientific methods, no analysis can be made on captive bred animals, because a lot of factors can't be officially described as : GPS coordinates,photos in situ,fecal analysis ecc.. Also the humans hand play a role in the growth,shape,weight of captive animals.

- M.chahoua from Gran Terre have a really big and not-defined distribution map, a very large variation but - "No genetic % differences make them different subspieces or something else" (A.Bauer words).

Only more DNA with specific genes analysis can tell IF Gran Terre animals are the same or different spieces or subspieces of Mniarogekko chahoua.

Here posted my favourite pic of a REALLY WHITE M.chahoua from Gran Terre (Riviere Bleue) , shot taken by Mathias Deuss in 2017

That chahoua in the picture you shared is gorgeous! It looks very similar to some of the High White "PI" chahoua that are in the hobby.

 

[Andrea IGA]

Exactly. And shares all the typical traits that we normally see in "PI" animals.. Obviously, RB is on the bottom south of GT, that would makes sense if we think that the PI population maybe linked to the south forms of M.chahoua. This animals seems to have also original tail, something really HARD to observe in nature.

Regeneration-tail-topic , is something really curious, cause the genetic sequences of over 360genes that occours in regeneration of the tail is something just studied (2016/2017) and maybe in the next few years we will be able to have more information, also in the mechanisms that stop that in some populations of Mniarogekko sp. & Correlophus ciliatus/belepensis. But for know, we know that the M.chahoua collected from PI lack this capacity, since never regown in captivity.

 

[MelissaSR]

I am replying to this I swear I just have a lot to write lol

 

[MelissaSR]

OK I will likely keep adding more and more as I continue my journey in finding more information

So as I was digging around for info online on Saturday (the benefit from having down time at work lol), I spent some time specifically searching this out. Although myself I pair my animals based on their locales (or what is thought to be their locales by their breeders), I often wonder why do we allow the acception of breeding different locales of leachies here in the states yet many people get bent out of shape over breeding different locales of chahouas. Was just always something that made me scratch my head, and here are a few things I had found.


One, there was no original ML/GT and PI locales, instead there were several micro locales described. In a paper written by Bauer, "The following localities have been given for specimens of Rhacodactylus chahoua: "Kanala, Lifou", "La Foa", "Mt. Mou", "Coula, zwischen Houailou und Bourail", and "Vallée d'Amoa"." (Notes on the taxonomy, morphology and behavior of Rhacodactylus chahoua (Bavay) (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) ). What this is telling us is that when first described, these are the actual locations at which the animals were found, aka the locales. Over time to make things easier these micro locales were lumped into the terms we use today (ML, and PI). However it is also written in that same paper "Roux also noted that Bavay's locality for R. chahoua ("Kanala, Lifou") was in error. Kanala (Canala) is a village that lies on the east central coast of the main island of New Caledonia, while Lifou is the name of the largest of the Loyalty Islands, dependencies of New Caledonia lying approximately 100 km to the east. Since neither Roux nor any other previous workers had ever encoutered Rhacodactylus anywhere except on the "Grande Terre" or the much nearer lie des Pins (see Boulenger, 1878 for this doubtful record), Roux dismissed Bavay's designation of Lifou, retaining Canala as the probable type locality. Bavay, an aged man in 1913, wrote to Roux that the specimen had been presented to him but that he could not be sure whether or not Lifou was its actual origin. "

OK so what does that mean? On these expedition made by the first researchers going to the island they did not observe chahoua on PI, however there is mention of PI in papers (not animals being there, but just the islands in general). However in recent explorations Exo-Terra went to Isle de Pins and found chahoua there which exhibit the pattern we associate with PI chahouas. When I asked around other people if anyone knew of anyone who has been there, I was trying to track down geological locations as to where they have bin, all people can tell me is PI and indicate to the central island location on PI.

To further interesting information, in another paper written by Bauer he indicated "Comparisons of allozymes from individual separates by more than 100km suggests relative genetic uniformity". So even on a more cellular level they are not seeing a difference in the locales. Now before you say well 100km isnt very far! 100km is almost 60 miles and would put us on GT is we measured from PI.
Now the problem with this is that New Caledonia won't let people take animals even in the name of research, and there are no museum collection of PI animals, so all we can fall back on for tissue samples is what we have currently in captivity. And since we can't say with complete certainty what locale they truly are, since our captive animals didn't come with their true locale locations, what this all sums up is that there is not a big enough difference on a cellular level to consider a difference between GT and PI animals.

So now the question is, where for jalu sit in all of this? Yanna Fulliquet says she has DNA proven chahoua to be jalu however knowing we can no longer take tissue samples from living samples on the island, I am not certain we have museum jalu samples, and I can not find information of her indicating actual DNA samples taken and compared by what we know is chahoua. However when described and by pictures they seem to resemble GT chahoua more than PI. However PDV indicated on a trek there, going by pore count and appearances what we consider to be PI are actually jalu, so there is some conflicting information there on them. But again the lack of being able to take wild animal tissue samples all we can compare is going by looks. This is a picture is from Bauer in 2012.

And bare with me, I will have more info but I have to actually do some work at work lol

 

[Andrea IGA]

You are right Melissa..BUT

- M.jalu is represented by holotypes in museums (Revision of giant geckos of NC of the genus Rhacodactylus (Bauer et.al2012)) .

- We only lack the samples from Pine Island, because no animals where found during Bauer et.al 2 or 3 expeditions. Even in 2015 during a research, no permits where taken for Bauer , Sadlier & DeBoer on Pine Island. Today, even for me and ItalianGekkoAssociation is beeing really hard to go there in December for a research on Mt.Paniè, because of the discontinuity of contacts between us and the coordinator of all the scientific research (Mr. Hervè Jourdan). Another burocratic issue is : when you go to NC to make a research, permits must be released in "double" from the south-province and north-province. Everything one or the other doesn't want you to do make deleted the permits (I wish I explained well.....) .

So, VERY sad to do not have even the freedom to go there and make legal research.

By now, I think we have to carry on with the separation of most recognizabled lines of "localities" or bloodlines. I mean if a group of animals belongs to Tremper line PI, ok, take them separate to a Troeger line GT . Because we actually do not know waht is really what.

 

[MelissaSR]

I havent had much time to dive into jalu information, everything I have been working on so far is just focusing on chahoua information (hence why I said I wasnt certain about museum samples, havent gotten up to that info yet lol). However I am still not sure the person who is claiming their gecko is jalu has gotten an actual DNA sample which was why I brought that up. I have been talking to a few people who have gone there and the maps we see floating around of proposed locations are not the locations some of the more recent treks have found the animals yet. Those maps will be released with the new book coming out.

I have been saying it for the last few years I don't think we should be separating these guys just by PI or by ML because we simply don't know. We try to sit on our mighty throne in the USA that oh yeah we separated ours when we got them, but the fact is we really didn't. We thought we did. What bit that has been uncovered we can't say with certainty that what we are seeing is just the differences in the actual locales found on GT since we don't know the actual truth that there is a true PI chahoua, or if it is jalu.

 

[Andrea IGA]

I agree with your last part and I have to say sorry because maybe I explained myself wrong.. I try in another way : we have to use As much as we can the original line-name-tracking.


Then , Yann/Budy/few others that have M.jalu , are the ones that years ago had the opportunity to put their hands on wild animals that the two/three well known smugglers collected and STILL collect..............

Another way is that we have to believe in the 2 guys that never lied on wrong situ-collection informations : FF&PDV.

I wished in a Mniarogekko sp. Book from Philippe... Maybe with some naturalistic photos and original captive animals.. But....

 

[Dragonborn Exotics (Ryan)]

I havent had much time to dive into jalu information, everything I have been working on so far is just focusing on chahoua information (hence why I said I wasnt certain about museum samples, havent gotten up to that info yet lol). However I am still not sure the person who is claiming their gecko is jalu has gotten an actual DNA sample which was why I brought that up. I have been talking to a few people who have gone there and the maps we see floating around of proposed locations are not the locations some of the more recent treks have found the animals yet. Those maps will be released with the new book coming out.

I have been saying it for the last few years I don't think we should be separating these guys just by PI or by ML because we simply don't know. We try to sit on our mighty throne in the USA that oh yeah we separated ours when we got them, but the fact is we really didn't. We thought we did. What bit that has been uncovered we can't say with certainty that what we are seeing is just the differences in the actual locales found on GT since we don't know the actual truth that there is a true PI chahoua, or if it is jalu.

I have not done as much research as you or some of the others have so correct me if I am wrong. I do recall when I was doing research on M. Jalu there were things like the pores and I think the locations where they were found that strongly suggested that they could actually be what has been labeled as PI chahoua. So there is a possibilty that we really have M. Jalu (PI) and M. Chahoua (GT) in the wild and in captivity. No way to be 100% without further research and testing. Does this sound likely to any of you?

 

[Andrea IGA]

Well.. I think NO :

- would be a too big mistake Belep is far North and Pine Island Far south.

- Vegetation is really diverse. No common distribution of Araucaria pine trees on ile Art/Belep as Pine Island.. So why make that mistake?

- As far As I know, PDV and Frank didn't search animals on Belep Arcipelago.

 

[MelissaSR]

What a couple of us were wondering why would chahoua which are known to be in more humid areas, near rivers hanging out on PI which is drier, lack of rivers, and different trees. The problem with the idea of jalu are really our PIs is their distribution.

“The specific epithet is derived from the word jâlu, which means spirit (a being from the spirit world) in the Nyêlâyu language which is used in the northern Province Nord from Balade, through Ouégoa, Baie de Harcourt to Arama, and on Balabio and the Îles Belep.” (BAUER, WHITAKER, SADLIER & JACKMAN)

What this tells us is that jalu seem to be located in the northern areas of GT and a few of the smaller island surrounding the northern end of GT according to Bauer, Whitaker, Sadler, and Jackman. But they go on to say
“Color comparisons between the two species of Mniarogekko are difficult to make. There are relatively few wild caught M. chahoua in museum collections and captive animals have been bred for particular color patterns (de Vosjoli et al. 2003) so ‘wild type’ coloration, which is itself already quite variable (Bauer 1985; Seipp & Henkel 2000, 2011; Stark 2006; Langner 2009), is difficult to characterize. Ventral body coloration in the new species seems to be uniformly a pale yellowish green (Figs. 19–20), whereas M. chahoua is often white or cream, with a greenish tinge localized to some parts of the venter.” (BAUER, WHITAKER, SADLIER & JACKMAN)

One thing you will notice when they compare jalu to chahoua, or even M. chahoua to one another they never specify PI or GT, they simply indicate chahoua. And that we have distorted what the wild caught variation looks like, it is hard for us to accurately compare chahoua (as a whole) to jalu. And since we have bred so much for color, even if we did find, distinguish, and describe a difference in ML and PI chahoua, the captive collection is so far off from wild caught that it would be hard to determine what is what in captive collections. Only those working with wild caught or first generation progeny could be so far off to accurately determine the locale based on pattern and color features. But so few people do, and even less of those people have written documentation that they are indeed wild caught, or first generation animals.

But again I have just scratched the surface of reading into things so I am learning new things on a daily basis

 

[Dragonborn Exotics (Ryan)]

So it is more likely that PI and Mainland locales would embody M. chahoua as a whole and then M. Jalu would be a sub-species because there is recognizable genetic differences?

 

[Andrea IGA]

Mniarogekko jalu is full spieces, that means a higher percentage of 2or3% of genetic material is different from M.chahoua.

M.chahoua from GT samples have big variations in colours and morphologic shape, but nothing different in a genotypic way.

No PI are mentioned because of the lack of samples/holotypes/studies, so in the paper they can not mention that ecotype/ssp. Or whatelse!

 

[Frogmom]

From PDV 8-6-2017on the FB chahoua page ( responding to a question I had about Jalu ):


Preliminary Grouping and Reasons:

M. Isle of Pines and M. Jalu share many characteristics, including larger size, yellowish venter, smaller relative size of eye (compared to M. Chahoua) and above all similar preanal pore counts, in the 90s (versus around 120 for M. chahoua) and pore rows. One difference appears to be tail regeneration. Most Jalu preserved specimens appear to have regenerated tails while Isle of Pines do not regenerate tails. So, isle of pines either a form of M. Jalu or a distinct species.

M. Troger line are a smaller, slender, very large eyed form of Mniarogekko from the mainland or a captive line of unknown origins. Not typical M. Chahoua, with yellowish venter and pastel green with or without pastel red pattern.

In captivity M I, of Pines and M. Jalu can be confused but in fact very few M. Jalu collected and in collections.

I will elaborate more in a future publication but Mniarogekko in captivity vary greatly because originally all were considered the same species and many mislabeled. Jalu or jalu crosses however are unlikely.

I am still working on evaluating captive Mniarogekko and coming with a key that would allow some grouping but most likely it we be case that a gecko has features that closely match, say and Isle of Pines then it is mostly Isle of Pines.

Also, realize that current taxonomy emphasizes that phylogenetic species concept so that under current taxonomy what are labeled as different species, but at another time would have been labeled as subspecies, could possibly produce fertile offspring.

Please do not ask me for more answers on this until I gather enough reference photos to come up with a clearer picture.

 

[Michael]

The oldest of the dscussions and the most dangerous when it comes to explain and speak about scientific terms and proves.

- Today NO M.chahoua samples from Pine Island is represented in any study, museum-holotype, so scientifically speaking, M.chahoua do not exist on PI. We know that they live there and also herpetologists know. Unfortunately, it's been very hard to do complete researchesin NewCaledonia, even for big names as Aaron Bauer, wich I have some talks recently.

- For scientific methods, no analysis can be made on captive bred animals, because a lot of factors can't be officially described as : GPS coordinates,photos in situ,fecal analysis ecc.. Also the humans hand play a role in the growth,shape,weight of captive animals.

- M.chahoua from Gran Terre have a really big and not-defined distribution map, a very large variation but - "No genetic % differences make them different subspieces or something else" (A.Bauer words).

Only more DNA with specific genes analysis can tell IF Gran Terre animals are the same or different spieces or subspieces of Mniarogekko chahoua.

Here posted my favourite pic of a REALLY WHITE M.chahoua from Gran Terre (Riviere Bleue) , shot taken by Mathias Deuss in 2017

Thank you so much for this post. I have spent time over the last two weeks rereading much of what has been published and just as you note, there is very little content on animals found on Isle de Pines vs. those collected on the mainland (Grand Terre). I still have a lot more to consider, but much like the gecko you posted, I have seen pictures of plenty field collected white collar animals from GT.

I am not aware of any other photos by Mathias Deuss. Are there other galleries or images from his 2017 trip?