Looking for input....

[MDT]

I happened to stumble on an ad from a breeder in my area for an adult (6 ft) female dwarf retic. She is gorgeous! Having said that, I wasn't really looking for one, but I am intrigued. I've never kept a retic (have had burms, boas)...

My question is, does anyone have or have had experience with a dwarf retic? Any input would be welcome. Is 6ft pretty typical? It is billed as "very tame"....(hopefully that means 'very tame')....

Anyway, thanks in advance for input!

[Lankyrob]

I have a six foot (ish) super dwarf retic, he is very tame as long as he doesnt smell food!! Then its like trying to hold petrol in your hands whilst lighting a cigarette!!! He is ALL primal instinct then!!! :) :) :)

[Pirarucu]

There are a number of "dwarf" retics. Usually if they just say dwarf they are referring to the Jampea locality. Though they can be sexually mature at small sizes, and can be called "adult", 6ft is not the max for those, that's for sure. I've heard of jamps getting to 16 feet, though the average seems to be around twelve.

[MDT]

Thanks folks... The snake is absolutely beautiful. I want to make sure I go into this with all of the facts. I could easily accommodate a 6-9 ft snake, but a 16 footer may be an issue.

[millertime89]

There are a number of "dwarf" retics. Usually if they just say dwarf they are referring to the Jampea locality.

Wrong, there are 4 scientifically described retic dwarf localities that are recognized subspecies (strangely enough superdwarfs, the smallest, are lumped in with Jampeas, the largest). The smallest superdwarf females, Honey Island, Madu, and Kalatoa will reach 6 feet, rarely 7. Kayuadis can reach 10 or 11, but that's rare. Selayers (sometimes referred to as Slayers) will typically hit 10-12. Jampeas have been reported to hit 18 ft when powerfed, but typically max out at 14 ft.

[Pirarucu]

Really? I was under the impression that they were all still scientifically classed as B. reticulatus, with different localities but no subspecies. I did not know that they had changed the taxonomy. What are they now classified as? What are the subspecies names?

[millertime89]

B. r. jampeanus is jamps/SDs
B. r. saputrai is the Selayer dwarf locality, but also found on Sulawesi which makes me question it because the Sulawesi locality is definitely NOT a dwarf.

these ones are still up for debate and I haven't really seen too much about them and they're only described in one study, and the author isn't what I would call highly regarded.
Broghammerus reticulatus dalegibbonsi Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus euanedwardsi Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus haydnmacphiei Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus neilsonnemani Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus patrickcouperi Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus stuartbigmorei Hoser 2004

[snakemanaust]

Thank you for the glowing referral Millertime89.
As I have no clue as to who you are I shall not reciprocate in kind!

Rest assured that the following taxa are valid in every sense of the word.

Broghammerus reticulatus dalegibbonsi Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus euanedwardsi Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus haydnmacphiei Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus neilsonnemani Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus patrickcouperi Hoser 2004
Broghammerus reticulatus stuartbigmorei Hoser 2004
As is the genus name Broghammerus and the other python genera I erected at the same time or in 2009!
In fact there are over 20 million reasons for each!
See the attached phylogeny from Rawlings et. al. marked up with the genera and take a good look at Lenhoserus while you are there, as there's about 35 million good reasons why that genus is valid in every sense of the word as well.
Also take a peek at Jackypython as well, and the 25 million good reasons why it too should be put in a genus all on it's own, as should Chonropython.
All the best

[millertime89]

Thank you for the glowing referral Millertime89.
As I have no clue as to who you are I shall not reciprocate in kind!

Rest assured that the following taxa are valid in every sense of the word.


I'm really a nobody (as of this writing) who is trying to use taxonomy for legal justification to keep certain subspecies of B. reticulatus and P. bivittatus because they don't get that big and as such I feel should be exempt from laws written to keep people from owning "giant snakes." Like I alluded to above, I feel there needs to be more research into the subspecies (primarily the dwarfs and SDs) but I'm not a scientist and have no means of supporting or funding such studies.

[snakemanaust]

Thanks Miller for your reply.
Firstly don't believe all you read on the web.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology IS peer reviewed.
Getting past this relatively minor detail I note that:
Taxonomic proposals and changes are often not accepted for many years (sometimes hundreds) and sometimes never, and so, acceptance or otherwise of my recent taxonomic actions by other/s shouldn't be taken as the final word on anything.
Generally there is resistance to all taxomic changes as most people are used to calling species a given name and frankly hate to change this.
I often call species by outdated names (which have been widely shown as such) simply because I cannot keep up with everything in terms of changes.
For what it's worth, common species subject of name changes tend to have name changes widely accepted faster than obscure species, so you will see my python changes getting accepted quickly and others more slowly.
Quickly usually means within 20 years as opposed to say 50!
Now for the benefit of others here, a name is usually "available" and either used or not. They are generally not "accepted" as such by ruling body (in this case ICZN).
The ICZN usually only get involved in formally rejecting names on the basis of priority and the like, but that's beyond the scope of this post.
Now in terms of the comment:
" who is trying to use taxonomy for legal justification to keep certain subspecies of B. reticulatus and P. bivittatus because they don't get that big and as such I feel should be exempt from laws written to keep people from owning "giant snakes.""
I issue a warning on several basis. 1 - Taxonomy of species by law enforcement agencies is usually very behind the times in that it uses a "standard reference" and usually a conservative one at that. Furthermore it is rare to invoke subspecies for several reasons, so trying to exempt one retic on the basis of size from the rules would be doomed to fail unless and until they were reclassified as separate SPECIES.
I don't see that as happening anytime soon (if ever).
2 - The rules against giant constrictors seems to be more in terms of their invasive/pest potential to wild ecosystems (animals), as opposed to any danger of the snakes. Even the much criticized Rodda reports (on the web) downplay any risks of the big snakes.
3 - Some places regulate snakes as dangerous if they grow in excess of 6 feet or two metres. All the Retic/Burms get bigger than that, so the "danger" argument is not a place I'd recommend going to, but if you do, I'd just compare these animals with the deadly ones like dogs and horses which kill way more people.
Hope this helps.
All the best

[millertime89]

Thanks Miller for your reply.
Firstly don't believe all you read on the web.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology IS peer reviewed.
Getting past this relatively minor detail I note that:
Taxonomic proposals and changes are often not accepted for many years (sometimes hundreds) and sometimes never, and so, acceptance or otherwise of my recent taxonomic actions by other/s shouldn't be taken as the final word on anything.
Generally there is resistance to all taxomic changes as most people are used to calling species a given name and frankly hate to change this.
I often call species by outdated names (which have been widely shown as such) simply because I cannot keep up with everything in terms of changes.
For what it's worth, common species subject of name changes tend to have name changes widely accepted faster than obscure species, so you will see my python changes getting accepted quickly and others more slowly.
Quickly usually means within 20 years as opposed to say 50!
Now for the benefit of others here, a name is usually "available" and either used or not. They are generally not "accepted" as such by ruling body (in this case ICZN).
The ICZN usually only get involved in formally rejecting names on the basis of priority and the like, but that's beyond the scope of this post.
Now in terms of the comment:
" who is trying to use taxonomy for legal justification to keep certain subspecies of B. reticulatus and P. bivittatus because they don't get that big and as such I feel should be exempt from laws written to keep people from owning "giant snakes.""
I issue a warning on several basis. 1 - Taxonomy of species by law enforcement agencies is usually very behind the times in that it uses a "standard reference" and usually a conservative one at that. Furthermore it is rare to invoke subspecies for several reasons, so trying to exempt one retic on the basis of size from the rules would be doomed to fail unless and until they were reclassified as separate SPECIES.
I don't see that as happening anytime soon (if ever).
2 - The rules against giant constrictors seems to be more in terms of their invasive/pest potential to wild ecosystems (animals), as opposed to any danger of the snakes. Even the much criticized Rodda reports (on the web) downplay any risks of the big snakes.
3 - Some places regulate snakes as dangerous if they grow in excess of 6 feet or two metres. All the Retic/Burms get bigger than that, so the "danger" argument is not a place I'd recommend going to, but if you do, I'd just compare these animals with the deadly ones like dogs and horses which kill way more people.
Hope this helps.
All the best

I'm aware of the frequently changing nature of taxonomic classifications. One of my professors at the university last year was Dr. Jason Head and I spoke with him extensively about this subject. I'm aware that the enforcement by law enforcement is also very behind the times but as a responsible owner of of several of the "little bigs" I view it as beneficial to both myself and my peers to work to change these outdated and ill-informed laws and to educate law enforcement officers (LEOs) as to their responsibilities as the face of government in the people (a challenge to be sure in these days).

2. You are correct for the national laws, however when you have place such as Des Moines, IA with a climate that would quickly kill both Reticulated and Burmese pythons, but outlawing only retics and requiring a permit for any species over, I believe 8 ft, it is evident that these are bad laws based on bad "science" and observations of the ill-informed. Re: their impact on ecosystems, it is widely known (even though its ignored) that other animals that are just as widely kept, if not more-so, do more damage to ecosystems than invasive pythons. Cats are the bets known, but goats are another perpetrator, and as I'm sure you're aware, Cane Toads and rabbits wreak havoc in places that they shouldn't be.

3. 8 feet seems to be the norm here. While it is true that, from what I can see, your described subspecies of retics all exceed 8 ft, the "superdwarf" localities (Honey Island, Madu, Kalatoa, and Kayuadi, the original Bob Clark/Mike Willbanks imports being the smallest of all but with the locality unknown) almost never exceed even 7 ft and dwarf burms (P. b. progschai), even big females, don't seem to top that as well. The danger argument is a valid one and its recognized, and it is in fact a topic that I mention when I'm trying to educate people about these animals. Dogs

[Aaron_S]

Wrong, there are 4 scientifically described retic dwarf localities that are recognized subspecies (strangely enough superdwarfs, the smallest, are lumped in with Jampeas, the largest). The smallest superdwarf females, Honey Island, Madu, and Kalatoa will reach 6 feet, rarely 7. Kayuadis can reach 10 or 11, but that's rare. Selayers (sometimes referred to as Slayers) will typically hit 10-12. Jampeas have been reported to hit 18 ft when powerfed, but typically max out at 14 ft.

Where are these reports of jamps getting to 18 feet by "powerfeeding"? To my knowledge, and it's probably dated, but the Baldagos has/had a jampea female who was within the 14 - 16 foot range and not powerfed.

I want these reports because no matter how much I feed a ball python it will never obtain obscene lengths. I'm going to say that these reports are false. If they ARE true, well then maybe there's more to the "dwarfs" then we know.

Also, I'd like to point out that you should refrain from using the term "max out". I learned a lesson a long time ago that snakes never "max out". They obtain a size and will continue to grow albeit a really slow growth rate. No body really keeps good records of size to show that at 2 years it was X size and at 15 years it's now X size. Maybe because nobody keeps them that long....

[millertime89]

Where are these reports of jamps getting to 18 feet by "powerfeeding"? To my knowledge, and it's probably dated, but the Baldagos has/had a jampea female who was within the 14 - 16 foot range and not powerfed.

I want these reports because no matter how much I feed a ball python it will never obtain obscene lengths. I'm going to say that these reports are false. If they ARE true, well then maybe there's more to the "dwarfs" then we know.

Also, I'd like to point out that you should refrain from using the term "max out". I learned a lesson a long time ago that snakes never "max out". They obtain a size and will continue to grow albeit a really slow growth rate. No body really keeps good records of size to show that at 2 years it was X size and at 15 years it's now X size. Maybe because nobody keeps them that long....

The original Jim Gaspar jamps got there, His son Jason has them now. I've got pics coming for ya.

Re: max out. Good point, I'll refrain from using that term in the future. I did have the opportunity to meet a male Kayuadi "SuperDwarf" that was 11ft long, so that just speaks to the possibility that even the little guys can get big.

[millertime89]

Can you see this? I can rehost them if need be. She's in the middle.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/173_20458165701_3223_n.jpg

[Aaron_S]

Can you see this? I can rehost them if need be. She's in the middle.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/173_20458165701_3223_n.jpg

She's big. Where are the size reports though? I don't like estimates.

When you say original do you mean import original or first gen CBB?

[millertime89]

The first ones he got, Bob had a few before him and I believe Mike Willbanks had a few as well. Since you can see that one I'll post a few others. Those are 6x3 cages.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/173_20458135701_1358_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/173_20458140701_1666_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/173_20458145701_1982_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/173_20458150701_2293_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/173_20458155701_2610_n.jpg

[millertime89]

Jake (guy in the grey shirt and black hat) says he thinks they were w/c, and we can't exactly ask Jim anymore. I'm waiting to see if anybody else might know.

[MDT]

That is one big @$$ snake.....

[Aaron_S]

That is why I want people to really know what they are getting into with these animals.

Speaking from a legal point of view, how can you allow "dwarfs" when they have specimens CAUGHT FROM THE WILD that grow to be over the limit. CBB "dwarfs" generally grow to a decent still since they get a better diet than their island that they usually hail from.

[exwizard]

...You are correct for the national laws, however when you have place such as Des Moines, IA with a climate that would quickly kill both Reticulated and Burmese pythons, but outlawing only retics and requiring a permit for any species over, I believe 8 ft, it is evident that these are bad laws based on bad "science" and observations of the ill-informed. Re: their impact on ecosystems, it is widely known (even though its ignored) that other animals that are just as widely kept, if not more-so, do more damage to ecosystems than invasive pythons. Cats are the bets known, but goats are another perpetrator, and as I'm sure you're aware, Cane Toads and rabbits wreak havoc in places that they shouldn't be...
Since you used Des Moines to make your point I will expand on that. I live in Des Moines. Yes our restrictions are not only flawed but are actually worse than you described. Yes, Retics are banned outright, no matter the size. Condas and African Rocks are also banned btw. That is a statewide law. Burms, Amethistines and Indian Rocks are ok though. Cut to Des Moines. This city does not allow any snake over 6' no matter the species without a permit. Thing is Im afraid to try and change our city ordinance for fear it could backfire and turn into other cities like Baxter which bans any "venemous or constrictors" of any kind. That would be bad because among other reasons, Ball Pythons and Corns would be included in that ban..

[millertime89]

That is why I want people to really know what they are getting into with these animals.

Speaking from a legal point of view, how can you allow "dwarfs" when they have specimens CAUGHT FROM THE WILD that grow to be over the limit. CBB "dwarfs" generally grow to a decent still since they get a better diet than their island that they usually hail from.

There's been recent discussion about this recently. General consensus is dwarfs are no longer considered "dwarfs", but they're kind of in a group of their own. There's normals, then jamps, then dwarfs, then "superdwarfs". This is all still up for some debate obviously and the SDs are another topic as well.

[millertime89]

Since you used Des Moines to make your point I will expand on that. I live in Des Moines. Yes our restrictions are not only flawed but are actually worse than you described. Yes, Retics are banned outright, no matter the size. Condas and African Rocks are also banned btw. That is a statewide law. Burms, Amethistines and Indian Rocks are ok though. Cut to Des Moines. This city does not allow any snake over 6' no matter the species without a permit. Thing is Im afraid to try and change our city ordinance for fear it could backfire and turn into other cities like Baxter which bans any "venemous or constrictors" of any kind. That would be bad because among other reasons, Ball Pythons and Corns would be included in that ban..

I agree, we kind of saw that in Ohio (depending on which story you believe), it sounds like it was only when USARK got involved to protect reptile keepers there that they decided to include them in the ban.

[exwizard]

I agree, we kind of saw that in Ohio (depending on which story you believe), it sounds like it was only when USARK got involved to protect reptile keepers there that they decided to include them in the ban.So yeah, I have my permit and as long as things remain as they are, Im ok.

[exwizard]

That is one big @$$ snake.....
IMO, If you want a Retic that is a definite smaller size, I would stick with the SDs

[millertime89]

So yeah, I have my permit and as long as things remain as they are, Im ok.

hopefully they improve, if they get worse in Des Moines but not IA you could always move out of the city limits.

IMO, If you want a Retic that is a definite smaller size, I would stick with the SDs

This can be a tricky situation. I'm usually the first one to say SDs are what you want, but with the market the way it is and the appeal of SDs you have to be VERY careful to make sure you know EXACTLY what you buy. Unfortunately there are some unscrupulous breeders out there selling xx% SDs as full SDs and you, unfortunately, start to get crosses sold as 100%ers and it gets hairy. 50% or more usually stay pretty small. USUALLY.