Jump to content

Talk:List of largest snakes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo for Eunectes deschauenseei

[edit]

The information that accompanies the photo that appears here for Eunectes deschauenseei (including its filename), namely "File:Eunectes notaeus (Puntaverde Zoo, Italy).jpg", indicates that it is Eunectes notaeus, not Eunectes deschauenseei (although it seems to look rather like Eunectes deschauenseei). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morelia oenpelliensis and Liasis olivaceus barroni

[edit]

Based on Murphy & Henderson, 1997 (ISBN 0-89464-995-7), page 37, Morelia oenpelliensis and Liasis olivaceus barroni should perhaps be included here. For Morelia oenpelliensis, they report a maximum length of at least 4.5 metres (15 ft) and say it may possibly reach 7–8 metres (23–26 ft). They report that a 1991 paper by Shine said Liasis olivaceus barroni can reach 6.5 metres (21 ft). Weights are not reported there, but lengths that large would imply a large weight as well. Those are big snakes. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on Morelia oenpelliensis:
—BarrelProof (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, per the article, the king cobra gets up to 18.5–18.8 ft (5.6–5.7 m) in length, which is more than 5 m, so if we include Morelia oenpelliensis based on length alone, in the absence of data about weight, we might also need to include the king cobra in the list. Based on weight, the king cobra, Gaboon viper, and Eastern diamondback rattlesnake are only around 1/3 the size of the smallest one in the current list. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolivian anaconda, Eunectes beniensis, probably also belongs in the list if its taxonomic status is accepted. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with mass (as well as length)

[edit]

Reports of mass and length have the same basic problem – i.e., that the sources of information vary in reliability, and all or nearly all of the measurements cannot be independently verified later by other people. The values/estimates published in sources all stem from the same few reports, and many sources do not even describe how their estimates were derived. In my view, it is clearly necessary to acknowledge the problem in the article, to allow the article to include multiple estimates, and to cite sources explicitly to that readers can see where the numbers are coming from and where they can look to dig further into the details. Whole books have been published on this question without providing clear answers (e.g., the books by Pope and by Murphy & Henderson). As one case in point, an issue that's bothering me is that it seems that the green anaconda is generally considered the most massive snake. However, we seem to have no really reliable evidence that this is true. The most reliable data that we seem to have for the mass of the green anaconda is a field study of 780 specimens captured over a 7-year period, in which the most massive individual snake was reported as 97.5 kg (215 lb). This has a glaring problem when compared with several reasonably reliable measurements for other species. Weight is not so difficult to measure (i.e., easier to reliably measure than length if the specimen is alive), and its measurement is a basic part of veterinary care, and weight does not seem quite as exciting and prone to exaggeration as length, so we should expect that a report of a weight should be reasonably reliable if it is published in a seemingly reliable source that is discussing a clearly identified specimen that is in captivity at a major institution in a well-developed country. But we have multiple reliable reports of individual snakes that are not anacondas that are much larger than the largest reliable report of weight for an anaconda. In particular, the specimens known as "Baby", "Colossus", "Samantha", "Fluffy", and "Medusa" are in the range of 124.7–182.8 kg (275–403 lb). That is much bigger than any reliably-measured anaconda that was encountered in the anaconda field study. As Rivas says, "... the largest snake that I have caught, out of 780 animals, is only a little more than 5 m. What is the reason for such a difference? Why have I not found any animal anywhere near 9-11 m?" —BarrelProof (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is "Twinkie", an albino reticulated python weighing "almost 350 lbs" (160 kg). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer you like this:
There were no evidences that a large and big pythons with a mass more 100 kg (220 lb) exist in the wild. Since animals in captivity in the majority do not reflect the size of wild individuals of the same species. The former, as a rule, due to a lack of activity and independent hunting, become obese and thus far outweigh the latter in weight. Here are some simple examples:
  • The largest Komodo dragon in captivity weighed about 166 kg (366 lb), and the largest in the wild - about 81.5 kg (180 lb). Even considering that wild males can weigh 90 kg (200 lb), males in captivity are much larger;
Further information: List of largest extant lizards
  • "Balaji" is a large leopard that lived in Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park, and which weighed 139–143 kg (306–315 lb), while the largest wild animals of this species can weigh as little as 90 (200 lb), perhaps 100 kg (220 lb);
Further information: Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park
  • And "Baby" is also a large snake kept in captivity. Perhaps you know about her weight and length, and that she was unrealistically huge. So, wild individuals of this species are also much smaller - the largest can reach a length of 6 meters (20 ft) and weigh about 90 kg (200 lb). Yes, and all the animals that you have already mentioned are captive specimens.
Conclusion:
Do not underestimate the green anaconda, it is not its fault that it was not measured in captivity. Considering that in the wild it is quite capable of weighing almost 100 kg (220 lb), in captivity I expect a much larger weight.—Amangeldy Beksultan 2.0 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2022
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of largest snakes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amethystine Python in Australia

[edit]

The length and weight of this snake depends on latitude. Near Cape York (11S) specimens exceeding 5.5m and 40kg are not rare. The stomach contents can often be a 150kg crocodile. Near Brisbane (30s) the longest specimens are 3.4m and 9kg.14.203.207.166 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, specimens in Australia proper (including Cape York and Brisbane) would presumably be kinghorni rather than amethistina. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of largest snakes

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of largest snakes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IUCN":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Diversity Web content for P. reticulatus

[edit]

The content found at the link http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Python_reticulatus/ on Animal Diversity Web for Python reticulatus appears to have changed. This article is citing that source, saying its author is Todd Mexico and that it was written in 2000 and accessed on 2016-02-03, and saying that source supports that the maximum weight is 158 kg and the maximum length is 10 m. But the article currently found at that link was written by Cameron Brown, provides a mass range of 100 to 270 kg (a higher maximum weight), and provides a length range of 1.6 to 9.0 m (a lower maximum length). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few suggestions

[edit]
  1. Rephrase the introduction to precisely & concisely summarize the entire article with essential figures & highlighted species instead of mixing with tons of methodologic principles here & there, serving as sources of distraction (save it for a separate section);
  2. Add footnotes for those pieces of background info coming with the statistics in the table, which has been made hard to read with those explanations (which are appreciated for their scientific accuracy but again causes distraction to common readers)

RoyalRover (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most facts on this page are completely false.

[edit]

False "facts" 2600:6C48:52F0:7B70:9103:963A:B8B8:F147 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be more specific and cite reliable sources if your comment isn't just trolling. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_snakes&oldid=1224401215"