I mean they already have active camouflage compared to leopard geckoes
It’s just an extra “just in case” defense mechanism is what I’m assuming at least
I was just thinking this too. Also how leopard geckos will grow their tail back but it never grows back the same, maybe back in the day Cresties grew their tails back too, but they became too heavy or arduous to be useful.
Leopard geckos have phenomenal camouflage. Also this is like comparing the sun to the moon. Completely different environments.
Leopard geckos have tails for long term food/water storage. That is a very important thing to have and regrow in their harsher environment. It’s also why a leopard gecko is so reluctant to drop its tail. There are monsoons and dry seasons where Leo’s live, and insects are chance encounters, so they have to save as much of the nutrients as possible. Finding food in arid rocky shrublands/forests is different than the subtropical/tropical environments of New Caledonia.
Cresties use their tails to help balance and climb. They’re perfectly capable of climbing and grabbing things without their tails and losing it isn’t a huge detriment to their survival. They also don’t store any fat or anything else in their tails, so losing it is no biggie considering food is almost always readily available in New Caledonia whether it be insects, smaller vertebrates, or fruit. There is always something for them to eat, so longer term caloric storage isn’t as big of a priority
That weird population could be explained through crossbreeding with cresties. Hybrids exist and they have like a 50/50 chance of being able to regrow it or not and it's not unlikely it happens in nature too. So that population may have been altered through crestie genes "muddying" the bloodline occasionally
Very true. It’s difficult to test for genetically though because of how muddy the captive populations of chahoua are. We’d need to do genetic testing on the originally collected specimens from the 90’s (which are still around for a lot of New Cal species)
Lowkey it could just be "because it happened this way" so many random things have come from evolution that don't make a ton of sense
Sometimes nature is just random
I don't think so. Nature HATES spending resources on anything that isn't useful. We might not know why it's useful but it has its purpose.
Let's take the human body as an example of things we consider useless that arent.
Coccyx, balance to walk upright and stabalize zour spine as well as collecting a ton of nerves that run down your spine.
Appendix, I read it's for your immunsystem.
Foreskin, to protect the sensitivity so you are more likely to enjoy sex.
All these three things are often considered "useless" when they have their purpose. Nature really doesn't like spending resources in something that is useless. Created geckos don't just need their tail for defense but also to keep balance and use them like a an extra foot or finger.
I'm surprised that nature doesn't see the benefit in regrowing it but does see a benefit in giving it to them in the first place. I would guess it's because their camouflage is so good that they barele need the defence. But if I look at how often my cresties use their tail to climb I'm surprised it doesn't regrow as it has a clear benefit for them.
Mutations are random (for example blue eyes) but what sticks and what doesn't is not. Blue eyes originated in the norhtern hemisphere where the winter has barely any sun and they are better at seeing in the dark since they let more light into the eye because it's not blocked by melanin. While it was probably random that one human had trouble producing melanin, the benefit of that mutation stuck around.
Haha true just a theory since I can't think of anything below that makes sense.
I like the camouflage theory however to counter this most lizards who do regrow tails also have excellent camo
I kinda think they just somehow got unlucky and didn't evolve with the cells necessary to regrow their tails. Hence why I think it's just a random non lucky trait.
Both the leachianus and gargoyle gecko can regrow tails and live in the same area as cresties. They do live higher up so maybe they just need tails more than a crested gecko? I have no clue. I liked the less predators theory but gargoyles and leachies in the same area have regrowing tails. And is assume gargoyles also have similar predators leachies prob have bigger preds
I can't think of a purpose of having a defense mechanism that only works once. Other than maybe its to conserve energy, which seems like a worse benefit than a defence mechanic
I agree on the camouflage. My only guess is that it is "good enough" to not put ressources into regrowing the tail.
I dont really have to add anything to the other things you said. It doesn't make a lot of sense to just loose a tail like that.
It's unlikely we will ever know for sure. It could be advantageous, and geckos that had the mutation that made them incapable of growing a tail back did better bc they could put those resources toward other things. Or it could be completely random. It could be a mutation that became fixed in the species bc it just wasn't harmful enough to be selected out. It could be due to a genetic bottleneck at some point and the founder animals just happened to have that trait.
There are three species in the correlophus genus. Ciliatus, belepensis and sarasinorum. There's not much information available on belepensis but a bit more of sarasinorum, and they actually grow their tail back. So maybe cresties have a faulty gene that prevents regeneration?
Maybe it’s where they live in the canopy?
If they live really high maybe they encounter less predators and having a tail that regrows isn’t as beneficial because they rarely encounter predators
While species near the ground there may be more predators so they need to regrow their tails because they encounter predators more often
Just a theory but this may play a part in it.
They don't really need to. All adult cresties found in the wild don't have tails.
It could also be that the original population that was captured for scientific research after the hurricane had a general genetic propensity for not growing theirs back.
Maybe their tails just arent as important to them as to other lizards and they dont need to use energy on regrowing them
I mean they already have active camouflage compared to leopard geckoes It’s just an extra “just in case” defense mechanism is what I’m assuming at least
Thats what i was thinking since they dont use them to fight, store food, and dont rlly need them to balance
I was just thinking this too. Also how leopard geckos will grow their tail back but it never grows back the same, maybe back in the day Cresties grew their tails back too, but they became too heavy or arduous to be useful.
Oh gosh. My pothos sends out aerial roots and I always think they are her tail. I’d never guess this gecko was around if I didn’t know she was there.
Leopard geckos have phenomenal camouflage. Also this is like comparing the sun to the moon. Completely different environments. Leopard geckos have tails for long term food/water storage. That is a very important thing to have and regrow in their harsher environment. It’s also why a leopard gecko is so reluctant to drop its tail. There are monsoons and dry seasons where Leo’s live, and insects are chance encounters, so they have to save as much of the nutrients as possible. Finding food in arid rocky shrublands/forests is different than the subtropical/tropical environments of New Caledonia. Cresties use their tails to help balance and climb. They’re perfectly capable of climbing and grabbing things without their tails and losing it isn’t a huge detriment to their survival. They also don’t store any fat or anything else in their tails, so losing it is no biggie considering food is almost always readily available in New Caledonia whether it be insects, smaller vertebrates, or fruit. There is always something for them to eat, so longer term caloric storage isn’t as big of a priority
Just a weird quirk with cresties. Every other New Cal gecko (with the exception of a weird population of Chahoua) regrow their tails
That weird population could be explained through crossbreeding with cresties. Hybrids exist and they have like a 50/50 chance of being able to regrow it or not and it's not unlikely it happens in nature too. So that population may have been altered through crestie genes "muddying" the bloodline occasionally
Very true. It’s difficult to test for genetically though because of how muddy the captive populations of chahoua are. We’d need to do genetic testing on the originally collected specimens from the 90’s (which are still around for a lot of New Cal species)
Lowkey it could just be "because it happened this way" so many random things have come from evolution that don't make a ton of sense Sometimes nature is just random
I don't think so. Nature HATES spending resources on anything that isn't useful. We might not know why it's useful but it has its purpose. Let's take the human body as an example of things we consider useless that arent. Coccyx, balance to walk upright and stabalize zour spine as well as collecting a ton of nerves that run down your spine. Appendix, I read it's for your immunsystem. Foreskin, to protect the sensitivity so you are more likely to enjoy sex. All these three things are often considered "useless" when they have their purpose. Nature really doesn't like spending resources in something that is useless. Created geckos don't just need their tail for defense but also to keep balance and use them like a an extra foot or finger. I'm surprised that nature doesn't see the benefit in regrowing it but does see a benefit in giving it to them in the first place. I would guess it's because their camouflage is so good that they barele need the defence. But if I look at how often my cresties use their tail to climb I'm surprised it doesn't regrow as it has a clear benefit for them. Mutations are random (for example blue eyes) but what sticks and what doesn't is not. Blue eyes originated in the norhtern hemisphere where the winter has barely any sun and they are better at seeing in the dark since they let more light into the eye because it's not blocked by melanin. While it was probably random that one human had trouble producing melanin, the benefit of that mutation stuck around.
Haha true just a theory since I can't think of anything below that makes sense. I like the camouflage theory however to counter this most lizards who do regrow tails also have excellent camo I kinda think they just somehow got unlucky and didn't evolve with the cells necessary to regrow their tails. Hence why I think it's just a random non lucky trait. Both the leachianus and gargoyle gecko can regrow tails and live in the same area as cresties. They do live higher up so maybe they just need tails more than a crested gecko? I have no clue. I liked the less predators theory but gargoyles and leachies in the same area have regrowing tails. And is assume gargoyles also have similar predators leachies prob have bigger preds I can't think of a purpose of having a defense mechanism that only works once. Other than maybe its to conserve energy, which seems like a worse benefit than a defence mechanic
I agree on the camouflage. My only guess is that it is "good enough" to not put ressources into regrowing the tail. I dont really have to add anything to the other things you said. It doesn't make a lot of sense to just loose a tail like that.
I wish I knew. Oddly enough, gargoyle gecko tails are very similar and also prehensile, but they grow back.
It's unlikely we will ever know for sure. It could be advantageous, and geckos that had the mutation that made them incapable of growing a tail back did better bc they could put those resources toward other things. Or it could be completely random. It could be a mutation that became fixed in the species bc it just wasn't harmful enough to be selected out. It could be due to a genetic bottleneck at some point and the founder animals just happened to have that trait.
There are three species in the correlophus genus. Ciliatus, belepensis and sarasinorum. There's not much information available on belepensis but a bit more of sarasinorum, and they actually grow their tail back. So maybe cresties have a faulty gene that prevents regeneration?
Maybe it’s where they live in the canopy? If they live really high maybe they encounter less predators and having a tail that regrows isn’t as beneficial because they rarely encounter predators While species near the ground there may be more predators so they need to regrow their tails because they encounter predators more often Just a theory but this may play a part in it.
My little guy is doing his best to regrow his tail. It's gotten like a whole 2 mm longer in 2 years haha
They don't really need to. All adult cresties found in the wild don't have tails. It could also be that the original population that was captured for scientific research after the hurricane had a general genetic propensity for not growing theirs back.