Leopard Tortoise

[meacy]

Very interesting but I think I need to go lie down in a dark room

[Baoh]

Originally Posted by EJ

Fault one... we are discussing terrestrial tortoises. I'm sure the micro structure of the scutes is very different at that level.

I'll see if I can accomodate you on the reference showing the changes...

Again... I don't have a clue what XRF is.

Animal sacrifice would not be necessary if you have been studying these animals for any length of time. You should either have shells at your disposal or access to preserved shells.

Either way it repeaked my interest and I do have some friends at UG Athens who might be able to help me.

I'll keep you posted on my research.

btw... check out the relationship between calcium and keratin... pay particular attention to the molecular structure and what bonds each chain together...

If you are sure about that, then please post a reference highlighting that very different microstructure.

XRF is short for X-Ray Fluorescence.

I do not keep dead animals around. I do not know why you would think that I would.

Any relevant references you can provide to give credence to the several points that have been posited would be most welcome.

[EJ]

I've collected tortoise shells and skulls for as long as I've been keeping reptiles for this very reason. They are a good source for future reference. Every chelonian researcher/scientist I know keeps animal parts for furture reference.

I run into this situation frequently were a person throws out big words to give the impression that they know what they are talking about. Then they ask the person who offers up a rebuttle to provide references... which there are many via the internet alone. You must have access to some very good resources being a scientist yourself.

As you have provided many open ends to research... I think I've provided a few for you to research... if you are interested. As you expect me to do a little leg work... I would expect the same from you... if you're really interested.

For my own benefit... thanks for providing some questionable information.

To your last line... I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Originally Posted by Baoh

If you are sure about that, then please post a reference highlighting that very different microstructure.

XRF is short for X-Ray Fluorescence.

I do not keep dead animals around. I do not know why you would think that I would.

Any relevant references you can provide to give credence to the several points that have been posited would be most welcome.

[yuna1971]

[EJ]

Originally Posted by yuna1971

[EJ]

I'm working on it... and the yard... getting the tortoises out... feeding... cleaning... training the dog(not going well)... chatting...

Originally Posted by stells

Ed as you put this thread up... where are the pictures of the hatchling cherryhead??

[EJ]

If it lives that long.

Originally Posted by stells

So I will see it when it's around 2 years old??

[Baoh]

Originally Posted by EJ

I've collected tortoise shells and skulls for as long as I've been keeping reptiles for this very reason. They are a good source for future reference. Every chelonian researcher/scientist I know keeps animal parts for furture reference.

I run into this situation frequently were a person throws out big words to give the impression that they know what they are talking about. Then they ask the person who offers up a rebuttle to provide references... which there are many via the internet alone. You must have access to some very good resources being a scientist yourself.

As you have provided many open ends to research... I think I've provided a few for you to research... if you are interested. As you expect me to do a little leg work... I would expect the same from you... if you're really interested.

For my own benefit... thanks for providing some questionable information.

To your last line... I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

I am not a chelonian researcher. Nowhere have I claimed such. I am a Biologist and research and development scientist (I sent you a LinkedIn invitation to connect on 10Jul2012 that would have allowed you to see my professional profile had you accepted it), but any work I personally have done with reptiles has been independent to satisfy my own intellectual curiosities or further some aspect of one of my former squamate breeding projects or current chelonian breeding projects. As such, stated again, I do not keep dead animals or parts of dead animals around without reason.

The terminology is just that and appropriate for the topic. Dictionaries are available if any words escape any party, as it is critical language for giving the discussion any real depth. If you feel they are "big", upgrade your own acumen beyond what you may have retained or lost during and/or after the process of earning your AS. I run into the situation occasionally where a person would rather not learn the terminology than invest their time in the autodidactic process.

I see you have made assertions. Statements as though fact, but unsupported. You are also stating beliefs or hypotheses. I am doing the same regarding the latter. I listed my observations, beliefs, experiences, and hypotheses explicitly as such. Any statements of fact beyond these are based on items which can be or have been supported. It is fine if you do not back up your beliefs. Those have wiggle room. If you state something to be a biological fact, however, the onus would be on you to provide a bit of biological evidence in support for any given factual claim.

I would like to see you back up your claims, but I can see now that you do not have any references in support that you either can supply or are willing to supply.

Some underlined examples follow. I kept the whole statements in for context and underlined only the assertions because I have no reason to take a support stance on anything driven purely by belief.

New growth in Sulcata is usually darker until the keritin acquires calcium and gets sun bleached... if kept outdoors.

Darkness in relation to calcium acquisition is unsupported. Acquisition of calcium by keratin in a scute at some later point is unsupported.

have to disagree with you on the calcium content in the keritin layer of the shell. I believe that is how the shell gets it's white color... why a Sulcata lightens up... the source of the [U}those squiggly lines that so many keepers or concerned when the keritin layer takes up calcium[/U].

That those squiggly lines are involved in the uptake of calcium by a scute keratin layer is unsupported.

Sorry I don't know the mechanism... but... there is a change to the structure of the scutes on the shell that I believe is the uptake of calcium.

That there is a change to the structure of the scutes is unsupported.

In other words there is more calcium in the older growth of the scutes than in the new growth.

That there is more calcium in the older growth of the scutes is unsupported.



Much as I said before, I welcome any references that would add substance to what is claimed in the quotes above.

If there is a difference in microstructures between chelonia that invalidates RES scute calcium content as an example of incorporation, a mechanism for later calcium deposition in scutes, the driving process that is shown to be the "squiggly lines", or whatever else, I would certainly like to see it. It would actually be nicer to me to have such answers than to not have them if it meant I could carry them forward as factual. Facts to such effect could then serve as the bases for new hypotheses for testing a more complete explanation for the whole. I would prefer that to not knowing and just claiming to know and repeating claims in lieu of adequate evidential support.

[EJ]

Wow... most if not all of those comments you quoted by me were followed with 'I believe'... none of them were stated as fact.

All of the researchers I know address their audiences accordingly. If they have to 'dumb it down' to convey the contents of the information they are presenting to allow their audience to understand it they know their material well enough to do so.

I can understand much of what you say but it annoys me in that it can obviously be said in simpler terms and you seem to use the language you do to impress... the name of this forum is Shelled Warriors... a group based on people keeping pet tortoises.

All of my assertations... comments... are not based on fact... they are based on objective observations that may have some merit and they are stated as such.

I have to ask... do you actually speak in the manner you write?

Anyway... did you even bother to research the calcium/keratin relationship.

Who knows... maybe I've given you some research ideas that you could capitalize on.

I end with wow... We've had these 'discussions' before. I'd swear you were AH in cognito... but I really don't think so because I know he is smarter than that. You may be educated but you don't seem to use that education very well.

If it strikes my fancy I might follow up with the research on my beliefs. I do have to thank you for pushing me into following up on some of my thoughts...

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Baoh

I am not a chelonian researcher. Nowhere have I claimed such. I am a Biologist and research and development scientist (I sent you a LinkedIn invitation to connect on 10Jul2012 that would have allowed you to see my professional profile had you accepted it), but any work I personally have done with reptiles has been independent to satisfy my own intellectual curiosities or further some aspect of one of my former squamate breeding projects or current chelonian breeding projects. As such, stated again, I do not keep dead animals or parts of dead animals around without reason.

The terminology is just that and appropriate for the topic. Dictionaries are available if any words escape any party, as it is critical language for giving the discussion any real depth. If you feel they are "big", upgrade your own acumen beyond what you may have retained or lost during and/or after the process of earning your AS. I run into the situation occasionally where a person would rather not learn the terminology than invest their time in the autodidactic process.

I see you have made assertions. Statements as though fact, but unsupported. You are also stating beliefs or hypotheses. I am doing the same regarding the latter. I listed my observations, beliefs, experiences, and hypotheses explicitly as such. Any statements of fact beyond these are based on items which can be or have been supported. It is fine if you do not back up your beliefs. Those have wiggle room. If you state something to be a biological fact, however, the onus would be on you to provide a bit of biological evidence in support for any given factual claim.

I would like to see you back up your claims, but I can see now that you do not have any references in support that you either can supply or are willing to supply.

Some underlined examples follow. I kept the whole statements in for context and underlined only the assertions because I have no reason to take a support stance on anything driven purely by belief.



Darkness in relation to calcium acquisition is unsupported. Acquisition of calcium by keratin in a scute at some later point is unsupported.



That those squiggly lines are involved in the uptake of calcium by a scute keratin layer is unsupported.



That there is a change to the structure of the scutes is unsupported.



That there is more calcium in the older growth of the scutes is unsupported.



Much as I said before, I welcome any references that would add substance to what is claimed in the quotes above.

If there is a difference in microstructures between chelonia that invalidates RES scute calcium content as an example of incorporation, a mechanism for later calcium deposition in scutes, the driving process that is shown to be the "squiggly lines", or whatever else, I would certainly like to see it. It would actually be nicer to me to have such answers than to not have them if it meant I could carry them forward as factual. Facts to such effect could then serve as the bases for new hypotheses for testing a more complete explanation for the whole. I would prefer that to not knowing and just claiming to know and repeating claims in lieu of adequate evidential support.

[Lisamn]

Originally Posted by Baoh

Depends on the tyrosinase enzyme variant (isozyme). 37C is the typical human body temperature. There are plenty of animals that have tyrosinase and produce melanin at temperatures higher than this. Their enzymes would be better tuned to a higher operating temperature relative to some species that do not operate at such temperatures. Even within a species. Dogs, for example, express melanin well enough, so their enzymes are capable of operating above 37C. Were you looking at human data or human-derived tyrosinase? If so, the 37C is in reference to that specificity.

I looked at 3 sets of data and if memory serves me correctly, two were human and the third was Himalayan mouse skin, bizzarely!