Content deleted Content added
BarrelProof (talk | contribs) →Python reticulatus length: Moving my last comment, since what looks like a reply to me is not. |
m Reverted 1 edit by 81.134.33.212 (talk) to last revision by Chipmunkdavis |
||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Indonesia
{{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|Laos=yes |importance=
{{WikiProject Vietnam
}}
{{onlinesource
Line 13:
|date=July 16, 2009
|url=http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_12855131}}
== 'pet' retics ==
Line 61 ⟶ 21:
However, there are also plenty of non-python, non-boids that would also make suitable pets. Western Hog-nosed snakes in particular often have mild dispositions when socialised, and as to the 'brag' factor, a hog-nosed owner can honestly state that they own a venomous snake (though the venom only has a mild anaesthetic effect and is injected by back-facing fangs inside the throat, which means one would have to shove a finger down its throat in order to get a numb finger). King snakes and black racers (both colubrids) have also been often found as good starter ophidians.
If more detailed advice as to the keeping of a retic as a pet or not is to be given, it might be pointed out both that retics who have grown over a certain size should certainly never be kept without special facilities (however a four-foot adolescent is no different than any other mean-tempered, moody snake -- many ball pythons come to mind), and that there is a smaller option, the Dwarf Retic, which has not been seen to ever get large enough to swallow its owner, unlike a egular retic. : [[User:66.199.69.117|66.199.69.117]] 09:07, 4 December 2003 (UTC)
== Herpetoculture vs. Herpetology ==
Line 67 ⟶ 27:
It is unfortunate, however, that this article has more information about keeping reticulated pythons in captivity rather than it does about the animal in the wild. --[[User:Bezbaq|Bezbaq]] 01:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Stopping an attack ==
If a person is ever attacked there are a few easy things that you can do to ward off the snake. The first one is to get alcohol and pour it over the wound and into the snakes mouth, causing it to release almost immediately. The next thing you can do is get warm to hot water and pour it over the snake and this should also make it let go almost immediately. The final thing to do only works on the family [[Boidae]], take the tail about 4-5 inches up and bend it backwards, causing it to let go.
I removed the above text from the article. It is very interesting and probably true but it is hard to verify. Furthermore, is there a liability issue involved? Please advise.
[[User:Comatose51|Comatose51]] 01:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:No liability issue - every single page of Wikipedia has a link to [[Wikipedia:General_disclaimer]] at the bottom. True and/or verifiable? I don't know. I think you did the right thing to move it here. [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
== "Fatalities" ==
Line 74 ⟶ 41:
THe above is an absurd statement. Of course there are more deaths attributed to dogs than snakes: one could say there are more deaths per year because of dogs than of unicorns. I removed it.
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.176.56.32|142.176.56.32]] ([[User talk:142.176.56.32#top|talk]]) 13:08, 6 July 2005 (UTC)</small>
Re: the above...
Line 81 ⟶ 48:
With regard to snakes, there are actually a fairly large number of human deaths each year from snake bite in the areas of the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia with which I am familiar but these are almost invariably from venom, not constriction, coupled with local unavailability of antidotes. Going barefoot at night on rural paths and roads without a light is an important, but not the only, risk factor. These incidents are not rare, though many or most people survive a poisonous shake's bite. Just for a rough sense of frequency, my closest friend's grandfather died this way in one south Asian country, and my wife's close relative almost died from snakebite in South Korea a year or two ago (he was hiking).
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.103.29.11|74.103.29.11]] ([[User talk:74.103.29.11#top|talk]]) 09:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)</small>
== Eating People ==
Line 104 ⟶ 73:
* Ok, I added that sentence in, with a minor adjustment on the wording. Thanks for coming by. I'm always up for reasonable compromise. :) [[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]] 04:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Removed attack in Indonesia. Cited reference was in no way relevant to claim. Cited reference was a study on retics feeding on sun bears. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.0.131.236|24.0.131.236]] ([[User talk:24.0.131.236|talk]]) 09:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
;I disagree with the above:
I do not agree with removing this section and merely discarding it. I think it should be investigated and if found correct, returned. My reason is that if someone is bitten by a pet snake (or in some circumstances a wild one -- especially when snake-catching) and does not know these methods beforehand, they are liable to panic and, despite preferring not to, use brute force against the animal injuring it, and probably themselves, unnecessarily. If the methods do work, they are easy to learn, prepare for, and use.
As an example of what I mean see the video at :
'''''video deleted'''''
This is a group of policemen who are trying to manhandle a large anaconda (not reticulated python) into a cage. One is badly bitten and another is bitten mildly. Had they come pre-prepared with a bottle of alcohol (ethyl, hopefully rather than methyl, but possibly also isopropyl if it works) to deal with eventualities like this, the release of the man's arm would have been easier and the snake less beaten up. Throwing mud over it's eyes before picking it up, and keeping on applying additional mud to blind during the carrying, might have averted the bite in the first place and not harmed the animal.
Years ago when I lived in Singapore I saw preople next door to where I lived catch a twelve foot python in the park across the road -- I think they may thrive on the rats in the open storm drainage ditches there. To avoid being bitten, they held it with a noose on a stick, very heedless of its suffering, jerking it up in the air by its neck to show people who were curious, and eventually selling it in some sort of snake market where its bile or something was to be used as tonic. I would have felt better if they'd handled it by hand. If knowing the above information would have made them more willing to do this, then it should be in Wikipedia if valid. It was twenty years ago and I still feel awful for the snake.
Are there really fifteen times more reticulated pythons than people in Indonesia? This strains belief when the population is about 250 million... that's 3.7 billion pythons, or about 1,950 per square kilometer. Even with python farming and the relatively large amount of non-farmed land in the country outside Java, I doubt this. Assuming three years (?) to slaughter, we're talking about a billion python skins per year -- a couple of wallets for virtually every single man, woman, and child on earth! Can anyone cite a reasonable source? [[User:FurnaldHall|FurnaldHall]] 07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't particularly vouch for the stuff about escaping (the alcohol sounds like an old wives tale) but at least small pythons do let go when their tails are tickled/pressed. I have seen this done with [[Ball Python]]s. [[User:Vultur|Vultur]] 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
: While I think if I were bitten by a thirty-foot python I might be able to go get some alcohol, I could probably first reach some other foul-tasting brew. After getting rid of the snake, I'd go drink some alcohol, then pour some warm water over myself. But to report such techniques [[WP:V]] requires sourced material. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
FurnaldHall replies:
Look, I have no idea if this works. I'd like to know. We need a professionally experienced opinion..... anyone know?
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FurnaldHall|FurnaldHall]] ([[User talk:FurnaldHall#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FurnaldHall|contribs]]) 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)</small>
== Python Eats Man!! ==
Line 130 ⟶ 116:
== Which is longer? ==
The Green Anaconda article says that it grows up to 10 meters, but is the second longest species to the Reticulated Python, which - according to this article - only grows up to 9 meters. Now granted, my metric is a bit rusty, but if the Retic only grows to 9 meters, and the Green Anaconda grows to 10, wouldn't the anaconda be the largest? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.42.85.200|65.42.85.200]] ([[User talk:65.42.85.200#top|talk]]) 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)</small>
* Metric is longer in the western hemisphere. ;) I provided the source for the max length on the python, and it is out of the book I provided in sources. I suspect that is no corresponding reliable source for the anaconda and that should be changed. That article needs to be cleaned up by a snake person anyway, since it has a lot of unsourced speculation on max sizes. [[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]]<sub>([[User_talk:Wikibofh|talk]])</sub> 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A reticulated python was found in Thailand (cited article) that was forty nine feet long. This is the longest confirmed snake in the world at present. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.55.15.97|70.55.15.97]] ([[User talk:70.55.15.97#top|talk]]) 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)</small>
:No it was not, Your so called "Forty-nine foot snake" was actually just 24 feet long upon quick further investigation. you really should try to look for a reliable up to date source ''outside'' the article before you repeat what everyone else has been falling for. Were all so gullible to believe that a living species of snake could be 49.7 feet long (14.85 meters long). whoever wrote that is clearly a cryptozoologist. No snake today could get that big though two [[Paleocene]] species, [[Giganthopis garstini]] and [[Madtsoia]] could grow to be 60 feet long (18 meters long). But they died out a long time ago. Any claims of living snakes that gargantuan are quickly discredited and mocked through critical evaluation and scrutiny. --[[User:Jj. hoaakkey|Jj. hoaakkey]] 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
: True the fact that it was only 22 feet shows just how blown out of proportions things can get although honestly a 30 foot anaconda wouldn't surprise me that much and 34 feet may be possible but I do agree though a 50 foot snake is generally regarded as unlikely and probably erroneous although let me remind you that no species of extinct snake from what we know ever reached 60 feet long although due to the high temperatures and available food sources it certainly could have happened at those times however there have been a few articles that have said that anacondas 40-50 feet may be found in the "future" and although I still have doubts on it there is one thing about that statement future that caught my attention because our earth's temperature is rising and this is the same reason the polar ice caps are melting away it could come to a point were some really enormous snakes could once again make an appearance on this earth the only reason that I would have a bit of doubt on it is because even if the tempratures get right the only place that seems to have enough large prey to support superlarge snakes is Africa and maybe South America even though it is rich in mostly small too medium sized animals the only large animals really being crocodiles, caimans, tapirs and jagaurs. Another claim of two alleged 55 foot snakes have come from China in which the workers accidnetly kille done of the snakes while the other one crawled away. There are two reasons I doubt this claim One a photograph has emerged all over the internet reportedly showing the huge snake on a crane and photos can be doctored and Two if the snake was dead there is no excuse for the men to have not brought the body back using the crane as far as I can see this is the worst giant snake report I have come across here is the link to the article if anyone is intrested in reading it:http://zuzutop.com/2009/11/photo-of-huge-55ft-snake-shocks-world/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.83.100.52|67.83.100.52]] ([[User talk:67.83.100.52|talk]]) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
There's several good reasons for doubt: lack of managable prey to justify such an increased size, current low atmopsheric O2 (all "supergiant" snakes are from the Eocene, during higher oxygen levels), current low temperatures even in the tropics, the ease of spotting such a giant while basking, the resulting ease of shooting it and bringing back at least the skeleton, etc. But most of all - '''doubt is the foundation of all science''. No claim is accepted without evidence, whether it's claims of 50 foot snakes or just claims that a particular gene does what you think it does. Everything must be supported by evidence. Anything else isn't science, it's science fiction. [[User:Mokele|Mokele]] ([[User talk:Mokele|talk]]) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
: Although I do agree with you on the high temperatures but Asia has a population of elephants, rhino's,tigers and huge crocodiles so I don't see how a large serpent couldn't feed on those animals which are just as big as some of the large fauna that the prehistoric supergiant snakes fed on and another thing pythons found in Asia as well as pythons found everywhere that inhabit very wooded areas are that they tend to hide in burrows a lot of the time or even in caves which would mean a large snake probably wouldn't be seen so easily it is true pythons tend too enjoy hiding under ground a lot of the time during the day time hours the only other really good point you made that they would probably seen when basking in order to warm their bodies.
Line 159 ⟶ 138:
Back to the question in the heading – i.e., "which is longer?": My understanding is that the general consensus is that the longest retics seem to be a bit longer than the longest anacondas, although it is basically universally agreed that the biggest by weight is the anaconda (and that 49 feet is nonsense). —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 18:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
With that being said it is safe to say modern day as of 2019 the reticulated python rivals the green anaconda in weight, but mass majority of the time some folk aim to power feed their retics but even with the right genetics and healthy amount of food for said python, it has full potential to reach 300+ pound and long!!!
== Range ==
Line 184 ⟶ 166:
Hope you don't meen me! Am I outside Wikipedia guidelines, particularly with the humour? If so, I don't mean to be. Clarify if necessary....--[[User:FurnaldHall|FurnaldHall]] ([[User talk:FurnaldHall|talk]]) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
==Pictures (dubious or not)==
I found some pretty convincing pictures of a human found inside a reticulated python, although I'm not sure whether this is a child or a really small adult. This could be the 1998 Mangyan case. [http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=86727&hl=anaconda&st=75 See the link] --[[Special:Contributions/24.132.210.122|24.132.210.122]] ([[User talk:24.132.210.122|talk]]) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's the same case. [[User:Mokele|Mokele]] ([[User talk:Mokele|talk]]) 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
== Subspecies ==
Line 190 ⟶ 178:
::Hoser's a joke. I wouldn't wipe my ass with his papers. That aside, we only recognize taxonomy from the ITIS database - it prevents us from having to change pages with every new paper. [[User:Mokele|Mokele]] ([[User talk:Mokele|talk]]) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
:::What's your basis for only recognising ITIS database? Is there a Wikipedia policy I can refer to that specifies ITIS? --[[User:Pakbelang|Pakbelang]] ([[User talk:Pakbelang|talk]]) 10:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The introduction says that no subspecies are currently recognised yet in the taxonomy section it implies that three subspecies are recognised. Either the claim in the introduction needs to be removed or it needs to be made explicit that P. r. jampeanus and P. r. saputrai are not official subspecies. In any case some wise herpetologist needs to make the article more consistent in this respect [[User:129.67.158.52|129.67.158.52]] 23:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 410 ⟶ 399:
:::There were, for example, six fatal attacks between 1934 and 1973. In one such attack, a father entered his dwelling to find a python had killed two of his children and was swallowing one of them headfirst. The father killed the snake with his bolo knife and found his third child, a six-month-old daughter, who was unharmed. " [[User:Heavenlyblue|Heavenlyblue]] ([[User talk:Heavenlyblue|talk]]) 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
==Report of 49-foot retic==
Just a story you might want to keep an eye on a possible 49ft Retic http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/ns/world_news/t/-foot-python-captured-indonesia/#.T6rGOOuZ3k8
[[User:QueenAlexandria|QueenAlexandria]] [[User talk:QueenAlexandria|(talk)]] 20:39, 09 May 2012 (UTC)
:Sorry, but that one's come and gone - when someone went out there with a tape measure, it wasn't even 20 feet, IIRC, and certainly nowhere near 50 feet. Exactly why media reports are not reliable sources for this topic. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
== Longest specimen in captivity ==
Line 450 ⟶ 445:
*'''Support'''. Plus, there is evidence for moving it to genus Malayopython, so having the article under the common name would simplify revisions in the event that taxonomy is incorporated into WP. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 19:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:FAUNA]] and the [[WP:Article titles#Deciding on an article title|guidelines of "recognizability" and "naturalness"]]. — <
*'''Support''' per nom. Common enough name. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
== Python reticulatus length ==
Line 500 ⟶ 495:
::::Since Guinness is not a scientific journal and don't publish there methods, I have no idea. That's what makes them unreliable and unsuitable for a topic like this. They have unknown, unverified, undocumented methodology which is as much tabloid as source. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
:::'Dwarf' and 'SuperDwarf' island localities are real and are likely genetically distinct. There are many well-fed, 15+ year-old adults under 7ft. Everyone needs to reserve their 'doubts' and only speak about what they KNOW. [[Special:Contributions/68.112.217.71|68.112.217.71]] ([[User talk:68.112.217.71|talk]]) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It may also be worth keeping in mind that the maximum length is really not such useful information. If someone looks for the maximum height and maximum weight for ''[[homo sapiens]]'', they would find a few extremely large outliers, but those outliers are unhealthy people who aren't really proper representatives of their species. [[List of the heaviest people|Very heavy]] and [[List of tallest people|very tall]] people have serious health problems and generally achieve that status ''because'' some part of their metabolic system is not functioning properly. A more reasonable and interesting question, from the perspective of encyclopedic knowledge, is what is an estimated length for the 90th or 95th or 99th percentile (if it is possible to obtain an answer to that question) – not just what is the most freakishly huge single individual that has ever been encountered. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Line 515 ⟶ 511:
::::::"Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students. ADW doesn't cover all species in the world, nor does it include all the latest scientific information about organisms we describe. Though we edit our accounts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee all information in those accounts. While ADW staff and contributors provide references to books and websites that we believe are reputable, we cannot necessarily endorse the contents of references beyond our control."
:::::Look, I'll make this simple: You claim to have read Murphy's book, including the section discussing this specific record. In light of that, what justification do you have for the 32 foot record? What makes you think Murphy & Henderson's conclusion is wrong? Do you have a specimen you can point to? Some significant documentation? Something other than "A lot of people say it, so it must be true"? I've explained that, due to the prevalence of "big fish" stories about these snakes, we can't just accept every claimed report (otherwise the maximum size would be 150 feet long), so what actual evidence makes you think the 32 foot report is real? [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 16:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::: "Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students." liar trying to get your way. It;s still reliable or it wouldn't be used here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_snakes) You are once again stating the 'if my source isn't right no source is". I am not addressing anymore questions from you until you start answering mine. Why won't you add more sources? Why won't you remove the 25 foot long snake record? Why ain't you talking about how to improve this article instead of turning it into [[WP:WINNER]]? Get over it your source is still there while mine is not. You need to act your age. I'm starting to wonder if you actually do have a PH.D cause you are acting very unprofessional. How about you we both just let it go and move on. quit with the mudslinging there are other articles to edit.--[[User:Fruitloop11|Fruitloop11]] ([[User talk:Fruitloop11|talk]]) 05:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I haven't removed the 25-foot link because I perceive it to be part of this discussion (in regards to the reliability of Guinness measurements), and thus doing so prior to reaching a conclusion here on the talk page would be "edit warring". I have made it clear in previous statements that I think it should either be removed or couched in very equivocating language reflecting my concerns, and anticipate such edits being made once this discussion is concluded.
::::::::Regarding sources, let me try to describe what I see as the "chain of reasoning" here. 1) Reports of reticulated pythons (and anacondas) over 30 feet but less than 40 feet are repeated in a variety of secondary sources, some of which you located. Although there are many modern sources, all ultimately trace back to two particular reports (one for the anaconda and one for the retic). 2) I have pointed out another source, written by two established authorities in the field, which examine these original reports in detail and categorize them as likely false. 3) You have refused to acknowledge or address the criticisms raised by that book, and insist on the inclusion of your source regardless of its veracity, seemingly based on some sort of notion of "fairness" and "equal time". Not all sources are equal. Do you have something to add beyond this? [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 15:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
::::What is the big deal here? Your source is still there whil mine isn't. I have played be your rules "going to the talk page" and "listening to everything" you have to say. You started this cause you didn't want me posting the 32 foot 9 1/2 record as claimed by Guinness? Well guess what it's still not there. like really every source you have posted is still there. Also this discussion can go on for months long after we have gone on our way. --[[User:Fruitloop11|Fruitloop11]] ([[User talk:Fruitloop11|talk]]) 23:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
::My previous comments notwithstanding, I agree that a discussion of typical and maximum length/size is of keen interest to readers and should be included in the article. I just think we need to strive to provide the most realistic and useful information that we can, add all appropriate caveats, and be careful to avoid tabloid-level reliance on dubious unverifiable reports that stretch the bounds of credulity. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 06:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
;Yet again.
:''<nowiki> In April 2016, a python captured on the island of Penang in Malaysia was measured at 26.2 feet long (8 metres).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/11/python-captured-in-malaysia-believed-to-be-worlds-longest-snake/|title=Python Captured in Malaysia Believed to be World's Longest Snake|website=The Telegraph|date=April 11, 2016|accessdate=April 11, 2016}}</ref> However, it died three days after capture while laying an egg.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/easy/931001/huge-malaysian-python-dies-after-laying-egg|title=Huge Malaysian Python Dies After Laying an Egg|website=Bangkok Post|date=April 12, 2016|accessdate=April 12, 2016}}</ref></nowiki>''
Surely it would be appropriate to discuss this here rather than dismiss it. It contains two substantiated fact- one something was found, and it is now dead and we have photographs. There was a fair discussion in the guardian as to its length- and a couple od subeditors miss labelled the story. We have a problem that our length fact is possibly now outdated. Could we have an expert read the linked articles and just modify the posting. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 18:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
:Sensational newspaper reports are not worth paying much attention to. The [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/11/python-captured-in-malaysia-believed-to-be-worlds-longest-snake/ ''Telegraph'' article] refers to "initial estimates" of length and "estimated" weight. The [http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/easy/931001/huge-malaysian-python-dies-after-laying-egg ''Bangkok Post'' article] is similarly vague and includes an estimated length in units of [[Yao Ming]]s, which doesn't inspire great confidence – and says they expect to hear more from the Civil Defence department later. Neither of them quotes any herpetologists. Civil Defence officials are not who I would seek for reliable information about reptiles. It is not clear whether any scientist will ever see that snake. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
::I trust your herpetological judgement. So how do you suggest that the facts of the media interest are integrated into the article. Should it be a separate section or a paragraph we can't just ignore it -that makes Wikipedia look silly. I don't like media sections- thats just a personal POV. How about starting a paragraph with the phrase:
:::''There are regular claims in the media that the RP is the worlds longest snake, for instance in April 2016, a python captured on the island of Penang in Malaysia was measured at 26.2 feet long (8 metres).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/11/python-captured-in-malaysia-believed-to-be-worlds-longest-snake/|title=Python Captured in Malaysia Believed to be World's Longest Snake|website=The Telegraph|date=April 11, 2016|accessdate=April 11, 2016}}</ref> However, it died three days after capture while laying an egg.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/easy/931001/huge-malaysian-python-dies-after-laying-egg|title=Huge Malaysian Python Dies After Laying an Egg|website=Bangkok Post|date=April 12, 2016|accessdate=April 12, 2016}}</ref>. These reports are sensational rather than reliable, the ''Telegraph'' article refers to "initial estimates" of length and "estimated" weight, while the Bangkok Post article relies on the reports from civil defence officials rather than a herpetologist'' and then go on to reinforce the point about reliability. [[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::::I think that since Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS]], we don't need to put something in the article just because some new vague, brief, and unreliable report showed up in recent news. The article already says that numerous unproven and unreliable reports of especially large specimens have been made. Also, a [http://www.canada.com/news/world/98snakes+drop+dead+malaysia+says+captured+eight+foot+python/11846684/story.html more recent report] has appeared in which it was reported that when the unfortunate snake's dead body was measured, it was only 7.5 metres long, whereas "Medusa" was reported as being 7.67 m long in 2011 (specifically, {{convert|17|cm|in|abbr=off}} longer), and thus there is no longer a claim that the Malaysian snake was the world's longest. Further straining the credibility of the government spokesperson, we also now have this tidbit: {{"'}}Maybe she committed suicide', Mustapha said. 'Maybe she felt threatened so she killed herself.{{'"}} Snakes, of course, do not commit suicide (as is pointed out in that report). So although it now seems clear that the idea of this snake being a record-holder in length has been withdrawn, I still have my doubts that even the more recently reported shorter length is accurate. [http://www.worldtechtoday.com/2016/04/14/29516/selfie-craze-may-have-claimed-another-life-giant-python-dies-shortly-after-capture.html Another new report] says "It will be impossible to investigate the death of the giant python since the body was incinerated." This gives me further reason to doubt everything reported about that snake. No real expert apparently had access to it, and the people in possession of it apparently decided to destroy the evidence. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 16:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I disagree about not mentioning the claim, because in the target 'general readers' mind- there is in now a long snake, and there is an enquiry . Readers may wish at a future date to discover/refer to a this dubious claim- so the wording has to be better than I could achieve. Maybe we should be more specific in explaining why we are dismissing it. You alerted me to your scepticism- and my instincts had already been triggered by the a snake being exactly 8.00 metres long, and the incineration of the remains really does clinch it. As the world tech reference says ''"the Penang government has requested that the Wildlife and National Parks Department produce a report on the matter"'', it seems this story will be around for some time. My thoughts are with the poor python. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 19:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
== The Thai toilet attack ==
I wasn't so surprised that my mentioning the recent well-publicized biting of a chap's privates by a retic from his toilet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reticulated_python&type=revision&diff=722409505&oldid=722097431 oldid=722409505] was reverted; the comment being that the incident was "not really sufficiently important". Clearly [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]] and probably [[WP:DUE]] are relevant here. But as well as giving the snake a little infamy, does it not reveal something of the snakes behaviour? And perhaps the anecdote adds a little [[frisson]] to the article? [[User:Batternut|Batternut]] ([[User talk:Batternut|talk]]) 22:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
== "normal" adult varies by region. ==
so I removed that language in the bit where it says a 130 pound reticulated python couldn't swallow a normal human. In a lot of its territory, it sure could. citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.22.38.204|24.22.38.204]] ([[User talk:24.22.38.204#top|talk]]) 14:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Contradictions ==
The introduction states "It is among the three heaviest snakes. Like all pythons, it is a non-venomous constrictor. Adult humans have been claimed to have been killed (and in at least two reported cases, eaten) by reticulated pythons.[6][7][8] '''However, this is false as their mouths cannot stretch to a human's width'''."
Then, there is a whole "Danger to humans" section that is not aligned.
This should be corrected, but I am not in the position to do so. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.61.160.117|213.61.160.117]] ([[User talk:213.61.160.117#top|talk]]) 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Bangkok? ==
The article mentions that the snake is often found "Even in busy parts of Bangkok" why is this the only city in SE Asia mentioned, the snake is often found in other busy cities in the region like Ho Chi Minh, Jakarta even Singapore. Is there any significance to just mentioning BKK? [[Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0|2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0]] ([[User talk:2001:FB1:11A:2200:84F9:EB5D:3525:53C0|talk]]) 11:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
== First described ... ==
This issue may have been settled for Wikipedia articles in general, but it is virtually certain that the rp was NOT first described in 1801. I'm not a historian, and have no knowledge of whether any historical descriptions exist (and been found) from hundreds or thousands of years before 1800 or not. But. Certainly it was described by the indigenous population(s) thousands of years previous, even if no record was made and preserved. I suggest the editors actually write what they mean, and NOT rely on unstated context. The problem with the way it is now is two-fold (IMHO) first it is Euro-centric, second it isn't true. What IS likely to be true is that it was first »formally« described in the [insert discipline here...taxonomic? natural science?...biological?] literature in 1801. So, why not say that? In this case, being accurate (and a bit wordy (pedantic?)) seems to me to alleviate the Euro-centrism of the bald statement, so it'd be worthwhile to do. (Although, truth be told, I'm not sure how noteworthy the publication of its description is. ? Does, say, the European Bison also have a "first described" line? I didn't see it. (It does have a long recorded history.) The problem with this is I don't see how you can justify the noteworthiness of RP's formal description and not also mention when the EB's »description« first entered the scientific (naturalistic?) literature. That seems to imply that species not native to Europe deserve|warrant treatment different than that of common Euro-species.) [[Special:Contributions/98.17.42.35|98.17.42.35]] ([[User talk:98.17.42.35|talk]]) 15:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:"described" means to scientifically describe, see [[Species description]]. A comparable European bison line is in its lead, "European bison were first scientifically described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758". [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
| |||