 | Myanmar B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Indonesia B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Southeast Asia: Laos B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Poor Science
I find this whole paragraph very offensive and riddled with flaws:
The captive breeding of Burmese Pythons in the Americas has led to some rather serious problems. People who grow tired of their pythons, or whose pythons have grown too large to be kept in their houses, have been known to release their pets into the wild rather than have them re-homed. This has been particularly problematic in Florida, where a large number of pythons have made their way to the Everglades.[2] They have thrived there, begun to reproduce prolifically, and become an invasive species. Over 230 (National Geographic - October 28, 2005) have been captured in the Everglades where they are competing with alligators as the dominant predator. In recent years this competition has resulted in what officials describe as a draw.[3][4][5] Since they have been known to eat endangered birds and alligators, these snakes present a new danger to an already fragile ecosystem. In February 2008, one scientist predicted that, after several generations, these snakes could eventually migrate to and flourish in as much as a third of the continental United States.[5]
Let's break this down.
"The captive breeding of Burmese Pythons in the Americas has led to some rather serious problems." Really? Exactly what serious problems? And make sure you're serious!
"People who grow tired of their pythons, or whose pythons have grown too large to be kept in their houses, have been known to release their pets into the wild rather than have them re-homed." One person, two people, exactly how many. You don't know do you? I do know one thing, Animal Rights activists have intentionally released exotic animals into the wild to further their own agenda.
"This has been particularly problematic in Florida, where a large number of pythons have made their way to the Everglades.[2]" Really? From where? Pensacola perhaps?
"They have thrived there, begun to reproduce prolifically, and become an invasive species. Over 230 (National Geographic - October 28, 2005) have been captured in the Everglades where they are competing with alligators as the dominant predator. In recent years this competition has resulted in what officials describe as a draw.[3][4][5] Since they have been known to eat endangered birds and alligators, these snakes present a new danger to an already fragile ecosystem." There are hundreds of invasive species in the Everglades, but none so sensational as the Burmese Python, I guess. However, I can assure you that the Burmese Python is not the most destructive to the ecosystem. Can you say feral cats?
"In February 2008, one scientist predicted that, after several generations, these snakes could eventually migrate to and flourish in as much as a third of the continental United States.[5]" Pure hogwash! This USGS map has been completely discredited. Even an elementary school student could reason that "If its true that irresponsible pet owners are releasing their Burmese Pythons into the wild, then why are they only found to be thriving in the Everglades?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwheeler (talk • contribs) 08:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- First, your rebuttals are 'original research', thus not permitted in WP articles. Get it published elsewhere and we can include it.
- Second, your first four points are all semantic quibbling of little to no value, and your last point neglects numerous subtle complexities, including the fact that invasives may "fly under the radar" for decades at a time, or that the Everglades provides a large, contiguous minimally disrupted environment (in contrast to highly fragmented habitats elsewhere in the US).
- Lastly, I know the person who did this study, and he is more than well aware that "all models are wrong, but some are more useful than others". The context of this work was predicting at-risk areas for invasion by particular species based on climate, in order to avoid wasting money screening cargo going to areas that are uninhabitable.
- I suggest you familiarize yourself with how science actually works. You aren't nearly as well-informed as you think you are. Mokele (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fine! If you still want to publish this rubbish, then go right ahead.
Diurnal or Nocturnal?
Is this snake diurnal or nocturnal? I find both in the article, as well as in a web search. I think the "diurnal" sentence is probably wrong, though, since it reads "Burmese python is diurnal, equally at home on the ground and in trees." I have deleted it. --Hcethatsme 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a species
While it's acknowleged early in the article that this is not a species, but a subspecies of the Indian Python, later on I can see "As an introduced species" and "In Hong Kong, it is a protected species under Wild Animals Protection Ordinance Cap 170" – I don't think there's a concept of introduced subspecies, and subspecies protection too is unusual; but if these are references to the species Python molurus they should be on the Indian Python article. This said, do subspecies really deserve their own articles? Since they only represent the geographical variation of species, most of the information (likely 90+ %) will be overlapping with that of the nominate form, and therefore the bulk of subspecies articles' content are bound to be repetitions of species articles. --Anshelm '77 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- If there is enough information about a subspecies, it can warrant its own article. Considering that the Indian Python was/is a CITES 1 animal for many years...the most commonly available subspecies were those from Burma and Sri Lanka (although Ceylonese are far rarer). Some information may be repeated, but in the case of Indian vs Burmese pythons, the two are different enough in many ways that each rates its own article. As you pointed out, the Burmese grows much larger than its parent species. Its large size and availability have also made it somewhat of a nuisance in certain areas where they've been released (notably in South Florida). You will find more printed material on Burmese than Indians and on Indians than Ceylonese.--Mike Searson (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Picture
The fourth picture down on the right titled "Burmese Python in India." appears to be an Indian Python rather than a Burmese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Ray (talk • contribs) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Questionable content
I find the line, "People who grow tired of their pythons have been known to release their pets into the wild rather than have them euthanised" terribly offensive. While this IS an option, it's not the best option. I can't say I know anyone that would do this to their dog or cat. They'd "re-home" them, right? Why is it different for a reptile?
As of August 1st, I'm changing this line. Removing the incorrect spelling of "euthanize" & adding "re-homed" or something of the sort.
It just really rubbed me the wrong way. Quietpopcorn (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A. Euthanizing IS an option. And regardless "re-home" is bad word choice. B. Don't edit out talk page comments. This is where we debate thea rticles wording. AHev a revert war in the article, not here. GRRRRRRRRRRR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I didn't edit any comments. And, with the growing popularity of Craigslist, I feel that "re-home" is very acceptable. Yes, euthanizing is an option, but as you can see by my first comment, it's a terrible option. But if you think it's a good option, we should add it to the wiki pages for dogs, cats, birds, fish, pot bellied pigs, horses & all the other domestic animals. Quietpopcorn (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)