Content deleted Content added
BarrelProof (talk | contribs) Chronological order |
m Reverted 1 edit by 81.134.33.212 (talk) to last revision by Chipmunkdavis |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 12 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 76:
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 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.
Line 99:
<!-- 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>
==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)▼
== Python Eats Man!! ==
Line 122 ⟶ 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-->
<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]]) 21:33, 28 October 2009 (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)
Line 175 ⟶ 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 181 ⟶ 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 447 ⟶ 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 497 ⟶ 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 542 ⟶ 541:
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.
▲
== 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)
| |||