giants pythons and their dwarf counterparts

[a153fish]

This was very interesting and well written. I am not a Python guy, and very skeptical by nature. I wonder if anyone has kept any dwarfs, and fed them hardily, and do they retain there smaller size? I remember my father-in-law got some pot belly pigs which are suppossed to stay small. Well, he wasn't told they have a strict diet you have to keep them on, lol. Those things became pretty big. Maybe not as big as a normal pig, but they sure were larger than any of us thought they could get. Just curious about the whole ideah of dwarf pythons.

[millertime89]

Originally Posted by a153fish

This was very interesting and well written. I am not a Python guy, and very skeptical by nature. I wonder if anyone has kept any dwarfs, and fed them hardily, and do they retain there smaller size? I remember my father-in-law got some pot belly pigs which are suppossed to stay small. Well, he wasn't told they have a strict diet you have to keep them on, lol. Those things became pretty big. Maybe not as big as a normal pig, but they sure were larger than any of us thought they could get. Just curious about the whole ideah of dwarf pythons.

Thank you. I'm not sure about dwarf burms, however there are several instances of dwarf and superdwarf retics being powerfed to test their size potential. A female dwarf jamp that was powerfed beyond what is typically seen managed to hit 18 feet. Which may seem big until you stop and consider a normal female when powerfed will easily break 20. There is one account of a male sd retic that reached 11 feet, however I have a suspicion he was actually a jamp passed off as an sd. Otherwise I've read accounts of female 100% sd's hitting 10 when powerfed.

These accounts are based off of memory, however I'm sure if you wanted sources I could find them. The 18ft jamp and 11ftI SD will be easiest as I know exactly where I saw them.

[snakemanaust]

Dear all, I saw a link here for an earlier paper of mine on the pythons and their taxonomy.
There continue to be a lot of studies on the pythons and while each big paper of mine seeks to be the "final word" more information (and taxa) emerge needing formal naming and the like.
The most current accurate treatment is in issue 10 or 11 of Australasian Journal of Herpetology, and of interest to many is the formal description of the Bar-necked Scrub Python (A. funki).
I posted elsewhere on this forum a marked up phylogeny of Rawlings et. al. 2008 which effectively validates all genera formally named by Wells and Wellington and myself over the past 30 years.
All the best

[millertime89]

Originally Posted by snakemanaust

Dear all, I saw a link here for an earlier paper of mine on the pythons and their taxonomy.

Who are you?

Originally Posted by snakemanaust

There continue to be a lot of studies on the pythons and while each big paper of mine seeks to be the "final word" more information (and taxa) emerge needing formal naming and the like.

Care to elaborate which ones? I would be very grateful.

Originally Posted by snakemanaust

The most current accurate treatment is in issue 10 or 11 of Australasian Journal of Herpetology, and of interest to many is the formal description of the Bar-necked Scrub Python (A. funki).

Got a link? I would love to read it.

Originally Posted by snakemanaust

I posted elsewhere on this forum a marked up phylogeny of Rawlings et. al. 2008 which effectively validates all genera formally named by Wells and Wellington and myself over the past 30 years.

You did? I don't see it, you've got 2 posts, and the other is about cake.

[MDT]

Originally Posted by millertime89

Who are you?

Gotta be Hoser