What's a "Honey Jungle" (no - not the biscuit)

[clouded_mind]

Not the best argument, since were not talking about life a death, or poisonous chemicals here.

I'm not arguing, it is called a discussion.
You share your opinion & I share mine, we all compare notes and broaden our knowledge in the hobby. This was the whole purpose of this forum.
EG: You posted how you think it is perfectly fine to spray that chemical in a snakes face because Doc Rock said so, and I posted with a good reason why I believe its not. We can drop it now though and get back on topic. I don't want anyone to think I am fighting with him just because I don't share his ideas. Here is a MSDS on Methylated spirits. Maybe that can help us to determin whether it is a good or bad idea for ourselves http://www.illawarrasurf.com/msds/methylated.pdf

 

[Tsubakai]

I believe this one has been mythbusted lol
There is enough homeless drunks testing the methylated spirits theory.
My hubby is a home brewer & distiller and he said Methyl alcohol is poisonous.
This is the biproduct which creates hangovers, insanity, blindness & death.

Oh and common sense should prevail here also, if something is poisonous to consume it's not a great idea to spray it in a living beings mouth. JMO of course.

It is methanol (which is commonly added to ethanol to create methylated spirits) which causes toxicity including blindness. Australia has not used methanol to create 'metho' in a great many years. Another additive was substituted to produce emesis without significant toxicity. So, in reality metho is just ethanol which, while being toxic, is still consumed by the vast majority of humans. This being the case, a little bit diluted by water in a spray bottle is unlikely to cause any long term harm.

However, returning to the original point of the thread, honey jungles is a name given to a particular line of jungle. Many people, myself included, believe this is just a clever marketing ploy to create more interest in a lesser quality line.

 

[clouded_mind]

It is methanol (which is commonly added to ethanol to create methylated spirits) which causes toxicity including blindness. Australia has not used methanol to create 'metho' in a great many years. Another additive was substituted to produce emesis without significant toxicity. So, in reality metho is just ethanol which, while being toxic, is still consumed by the vast majority of humans. This being the case, a little bit diluted by water in a spray bottle is unlikely to cause any long term harm.

However, returning to the original point of the thread, honey jungles is a name given to a particular line of jungle. Many people, myself included, believe this is just a clever marketing ploy to create more interest in a lesser quality line.

It is commonly a mixture of Ethyl alcohol & methyl alcohol (you can call it methanol if you like either way it is still a poisonous substance used for embalming or as a denature for industrial use lol). It may also contain isopropyl alcohol, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone or other toxic products as a denature. Look it up and then look up specifically the Methyl alcohol product. Infact look up any of the listed products and check out their msds. Drinking spirits have the Methyl alcohol distilled out and removed from the alcohol as it is poisonous. Small quantities produce headaches, hangovers, sickness etc and larger quantities produces insanity, blindness and death. IMO consuming a foreign product such as ethyl alcohol (drinking spirit) is bad enough in itself, but a compound such as methyl alcohol and any other products listed like acetone (used in nail polish remover) iso propyl alcohol (used in deep heat rub) or methyl ethyl ketone (comes from acetone anyway) is a big no no, even if you do water it down. I have found plain water works just as effectively anyway. Hope we can leave it there & all agree to disagree

 

[kupper]

Good to see people passed chemistry . Pat yourselfs on the back


Honey jungles was a term coined by someone who wanted to cash in on a crap line of jungles end of story

 

[Alldone]

Isn't it funny how threads seem to take on a life of their own sometimes :lol:

Honey jungles was a term coined by someone who wanted to cash in on a crap line of jungles end of story

Smart people I guess - taking something ordinary & making it highly desirable! Charge what you want & people will pay it to have one of the "rare" animals in their collection.

 

[shax]

This just your opinion or do you have evidence of this?

A few questions regarding these "tempremental subjects" I would like to ask are:
How many generations of selective breeding?
What criteria of selection?
How many animals involved in the study?
And what percentage of decline in biting has been witnessed over this period?

Ahh but D3pro was also sharing an opinion yet you wanted to see his thesis..Where is yours

 

[syeph8]

I believe this one has been mythbusted lol
There is enough homeless drunks testing the methylated spirits theory.
My hubby is a home brewer & distiller and he said Methyl alcohol is poisonous.
This is the biproduct which creates hangovers, insanity, blindness & death.

Oh and common sense should prevail here also, if something is poisonous to consume it's not a great idea to spray it in a living beings mouth. JMO of course.

i was more referring to life in general.. and after that the tail wagging thing.
but i see the methodology here, if its cheap like metho and homeless people can afford it, its bad. but if its expensive like cocaine and MDMA and only successful people can afford it, its good for you!
i completely concur with the alcohol thing, not only might it possibly harm the animal, where half-drowning it will suffice for it to let go. but jeesus it would sting pouring it over a snake bite!
i bet the snake would let go though, so is it really myth busted?

 

[D3pro]

I'm not saying I have years of study behind me, I merely put what I read on the table.
I said I disagree because just like people have their doubts, I have mine.

Where is the study too say that reptiles cannot be bread for temperament? If their is no definite "no" then logic is that there could be a "yes".

This is my theory is:

If the visual abnormalities, such as reduced pattern, or a difference in colour, that appear in reptiles such as snakes, can be transferred to the reptile in question's offspring, then the same too can be done with temperamental abnormalities, such as a placidness in a Jungle.

Unless some one comes and puts irrefutable evidence against or for this theory, then this argument will stay open.

 

[D3pro]

I'm not saying I have years of study behind me, I merely put what I read on the table.
I said I disagree because just like people have their doubts, I have mine.

Where is the study too say that reptiles cannot be bread for temperament? If their is no definite "no" then logic is that there could be a "yes".

This is my theory is:

If the visual abnormalities, such as reduced pattern, or a difference in colour, that appear in reptiles such as snakes, can be transferred to the reptile in question's offspring, then the same too can be done with temperamental abnormalities, such as a placidness in a Jungle.

Unless some one comes and puts irrefutable evidence against or for this theory, then this argument will stay open.

 

[xxMelissaxx]

Where is the study too say that reptiles cannot be bread for temperament? If their is no definite "no" then logic is that there could be a "yes".

Unless some one comes and puts irrefutable evidence against or for this theory, then this argument will stay open.

I agree - it is open for debate and will be for quite some time, and until further credible studies are conducted. It is an interesting topic though, and your opinion is as valid as any. With any current studies (haven't had a good look, so correct me if I'm wrong), I am assuming that there are way too many variables that could possibly influence the temperament of the animals eg. different treatment, more attention focused (unintentionally) towards the "placid" line being bred etc. It needs to be more controlled before anyone can state definitively that aggressiveness is a trait that can be selectively bred out.

I have done a bit on Behavioural Genetics in humans, and whilst this is different, a lot of the basic theories may still apply. There have been countless studies, and very varied results. This would likely be the case in animal studies as well. No one is sure how heavily the environmental factors shape and influence the personality/temperament of an individual, or what parameters are set in place by genetics in regards to this shaping and development.

If the visual abnormalities, such as reduced pattern, or a difference in colour, that appear in reptiles such as snakes, can be transferred to the reptile in question's offspring, then the same too can be done with temperamental abnormalities, such as a placidness in a Jungle.

One thing that I do know though - physical traits can indeed be inherited, personality traits (temperament) may very well also be, but to what extent? However, the evidence that one is able to be passed on, definitely does not prove that the other can. They are very different. I can explain in more detail if you like, but this could get quite boring for some if I do, and it probably isn't necessary - I think I've rambled on for long enough

In time, we will know I guess.