Talk:Anaconda/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Anaconda. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Size

Can someone at weight and cross section diameter information? A 10 meter snake thin like a string is not too scary.

Can someone add speed information. How fast can they move and attack?

Allen111 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In the South American country of Guyana, there have been several claims of anaconda sightings that were gigantic! The native in Guyana often called these reptiles " Bush Master " because of there agile and sneaky personality. Allen111 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the exact speed, but from videos I have seen on the Net constrictors in general seem to try to give the prey animal the impression that they are very sluggish and incapable of bursts of speed. The prey animal then seemingly concludes it has nothing to worry about since it can easily outrun the snake. The snake inches within striking distance then suddenly moves like lightening, far faster than one might expect, and it is all over for the prey. Check out films of constrictors feeding on the video sites and you'll see what I mean. My conclusion is that one wants to be careful getting even remotely close to a large one.

Larger anacondas apparently often hunt capybaras in the water so swimming speed is also a factor. FurnaldHall 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there's another fairly large snake, this one poisonous, in Latin America called a Bushmaster. I don't know about what Guyanese mean when they use the word, however. Might include Anacondas for all I know.FurnaldHall (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added information on the derivation of the name. This can be checked by cross referencing with the OED, with Yule and with Tennant. 220.247.240.241 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone confirm the maximum reported sizes mentioned? I am a bit sceptical of the claim of specimens over 10 meters long, or 35 feet long as it says elsewhere. Have these claims been verified? Those lengths seem to be more than the largest verified lengths for reticulated pythons, which doesn't seem right.

Are there any confirmed cases of them eating humans?

Metamagician3000 11:49, 23 December 2005

Someone should doublecheck the size comparisons to the Python. I think the Reticulated Python's supposed to be smaller while the Anaconda's supposed to be slightly shorter but much more massive. <http://www.vpi.com/5vpibreeders/ReticulatedPython/ReticulatedPython.htm> [wink] 19 apr 2k6

Se the Guinness entry for the python; the "heaviest snake" category wasn't featured on their website (but the "heaviest living snake" was), so you'll have to check the books for the green anaconda's entry. I did put some details of the largest green anacondas on its discussion page. But the weight estimates of the claimed 11.43 m (37 ft 7 in) Colombian specimen (rejected by Guinness, BTW) have completely ballooned up here. The estimate of 500 kg (1,102 lb) – or 1,000 lb (454 kg) – was given for this particular individual, not a smaller one. This article also uses an awful lot of space for size claims. It should be noted that the official maximum of 8.45 m (27 ft 9 in) is remarkable as it is – at least I haven't seen reliable reports of more than 7 m (23 ft) besides this. --Anshelm '77 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"In October 8, 2006 a Green Anaconda measuring 105 feet long and 15 feet wide killed 8 dogs and a missionary named Sulpicio Adan in Sta.Teresita,Pili,Camarines Sur,Philippines before it was killed by a local resident named Owee de Macapulpog a month later."

Any references to a green anaconda this large? I doubt it so I removed it from the main article until a reference is produced. SpikeZOM 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Is it just me? I find the following paragraph a bit confusing:

The term 'Anaconda' is derived from the name of a Sri Lankan snake (Sinhala hena-kanda or Tamil anaik-konda), the Reticulated Python (python reticulatus). The South American snake was mistakenly given the name. cf Oxford English Dictionary.

Was it the name of a specific, individual snake from Sri Lanka (e.g.: someone named their pet snake "Anaconda"?), or a species/breed of snake? Also, what "South American" snake? Is there a breed of snake called a "South American Snake"? Or does the article refer to a type of snake that happens to live only in regions of South America?

I think the paragraph needs to be rewritten by someone who knows their stuff, because I'm totally confused. Cparker 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a little clearer? -Dawson 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many redundant sentances and poorly worded phrases througought this entry, I think it needs a complete rewrite. Some sentences contradict themselves, which is plain bizarre. 70.107.223.34 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely

The largest known anaconda measured 10 meters (32.8 feet) long, but unverified reports of much larger snakes have occasionally been made. This is the famous Lamon-Dunn record, named for a geological survey expedition from 1944. The geologists who led the expedition found the gigantic snake by the water of the Orinoco river in East Venezuela. Together with a platoon of soldiers of the Farc they shot the dangerous snake

I find this unlikely because the FARC (The Colombian guerrilla) is in Colombia, and even if the cross the border to Venezuela, they wouldn't be on the EASTERN Side of the country almost near Suriname, but in the West Mountainous Venezuela.

We need some citation or sources of this, because I find it highly unlikely.DamianFinol 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Also, the FARC were founded in the 60's, not in the 40's.DamianFinol 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources (via google) disagree whether it was on Colombian or Venezuelan territory, the Orinoco flows through both countries. The "Farc soldiers" are obviously vandalism, I deleted them. This German webpage (by L. Dirksen) states that 14 years later, when queried for details by herpetologist R. Gilmore, Lamon couldn't recall with certitude whether the snake was 8 or 11 1/2 meters long.--87.162.25.174 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Giant Anacondas

There's a large article on cryptozoology.com about giant anacondas, and I think more could probably be added to the section that exists in this article (unless anyone was for making a seperate page for the giant anaconda?). There is also the photograph mentioned in that cryptozoology.com article, which I found again on a cryptozoology board and have uploaded to my photobucket so as not to steal their bandwidth. The supposed giant anaconda, and the message board it was posted on. Mainly, I'm thinking there's quite a bit more that could be added into the Giant Anaconda's section. - Indy Gold 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The cryptozoology.com page is fairly disappointing. More "gee-whiz...what if" than biology. I used to live in Nepal for many years and occasionally ran into talk of tigers in the hills around Kathmandu and such like that seemed unlikely to be true for the period cited (then there's the Yetis....), so one should not automatically credit local populations' tales about larger-than-life snakes as being true, just becuse they are "Natives." This is stereotyping, not sound biology. That said, locals (including long-resident outside "explorers") are often quite knowledgeable about the local ecosystem so that some stories are true. One has to know the person and the context.

If there are extremely large snakes of the sizes mentioned, this suggests several remote possibilities:

-- The larger snakes are not common anacondas at all, but a separate, though possibly related, species. Likely they are rare. Conceivably they could be a relict population previously more common and adapted to feeding on now extinct larger fauna. Though they still survive they would be a fragile population. Unlikely, but possible.

--Another remote possibility is that they are reticulated pythons, accidentally introduced long ago, which have established themselves as an exotic population. In such a case they may have found an open niche, the nature of which favored evolution towards giantism, and the genes limiting growth, may somehow have been inactivated, particularly as in the Lion-Tiger offspring "Ligers." (This mechanism requires hybridization, an unlikely mechanism in this case.) This is, though conceivable and entertaining, again a very unlikely scenario.

-- Animals establishing themselves on islands, initially as exotics, tend to evolve rapidly into separate varieties or species if the population remains isolated. Often there is a rapid drift towards dwarfisn or giantism. Just as true islands are found in oceans, "virtual islands" can be found on land in the sense that there are isolated areas of habitat potentially suitable for a species but not populated with it because there are intervening barriers between this territory and the main territory of the species, preventing inmigration. Examples of a barrier may be a large river, a mountain range, or in the case of mountaintop adapted animals, intervening valleys. Climate change which fragments an earlier, more extensive continuous habitat into "islands" in which a species becomes isolated are common enough. In some of the "islands," the species goes extinct, leaving a potentially open niche if it ever migrates in again from other habitat areas. Though highly unlikely, it is again conceivable that the "giant" snakes are one of the anaconda species or conceivably a fertile hybrid group, that has colonized one or more of these isolated habitats, becoming a separate breeding population, and evolving towards giantism. This can occur in a relatively small area, with a very small population. It may be associated with a dwarfing in the same territory of another, usually larger, species, making the newly giant predator and newly dwarf prey a viable predator-prey combination in this one ecosystem, but not elsewhere. See Komodo dragons and their dwarfed deer prey as an example.

-- animal size within a species probably tends to follow a normal curve. Conceivably there are a few markedly larger than normal animals, possibly with physiological disturbance. If this is the explanation, there may be a further systemic reason reports are not commoner beyond the increasing rarity of individuals of great length from mere standard deviation effects. A study of commercial python hunters on Sumatra ( see abstract at [[1]] )showed that they tend to kill mostly medium sized pythons, but rarely kill large breeding females though they would if they had the opportunity. It is hypothesized that the reason may be that the juvenile, smaller snakes tend to live close to humans, feeding heavily on commensal rats, while mature females are unable to subsist on prey this small and seek larger animals in areas more remote from humans and the hunters. This pattern, if it applies to anacondas as well, might account for the infrequent reports of the larger snakes. However, the extreme rarity of such reports makes this hypothesis an unlikely explanation, and biologists seeking to find breeding female anacondas in the wild for research studies seem to have had relatively little trouble locating them.

-- Though not exciting, the most likely explanation appears to be either outright fabrication which is then passed on to third parties and spreads; distortion or embellishment as information travels from person to person; or unintentional miscalculation of the snakes' length. A travel book describing an encounter with an eighty-foot monster snake "as-thick-as-a-barrel" and throwing up a wake like motorboat as it churns through the water will sell more copies than one that recounts the mundane shooting of a twelve foot specimen. I would never have believed that writers, who I personally perceive as morally far purer than other forms of humankind would distort facts like this, but as it happens I know a travel writer and ....um...he has admitted to me that he makes up all his stuff most of the time! Gasp! WHAT'S print coming too! He particularly likes situations where all the other people are dead as not only can there be no contradiction, but also no libel case. My own father was a journalist, and while not this bad, I wouldn't trust a newspaper account without independent investigation, especially in small local newspapers in Latin America of the type where if an American wishes to disappear, for a consideration the paper will print a report of tourist XXX's sad death. You could even be eaten by a monster anaconda if you desire, though this is a fairly high profile choice. You not only get the press story but a death certificate, police report,a grave, and all the trimmings for a price. A really conniving writer could even plant a couple of false stories in these papers, complete with photoshopped photos then reproduce them as arm's length evidence in a book, but no writer would EVER do this....

All this said, I hope they exist and someone will make my day by obtaining documentary video proof of a population of 100 footers!

...And apologies for what is essentially stereotyping the rural Latin American press -- a series of comments not based on any real experience. FurnaldHall 09:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do anacondas eat black caimans? == According to the black caiman article, black caimans have no predators. But according to the anaconda article, anacondas eat caimans. Anyone like to clear this up? Raffles mk 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Though subadult individuals of the black caiman may have been eaten from time to time, the anaconda usually preys upon its smaller cousin, the spectacled caiman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVjh02RmMnc

Merge Suggestion

I've suggest that Giant anaconda be merged into this article. I'm not sure why it was created as a separate article instead of being added here instead. It would fit well into this article as it speaks directly to an aspect of anacondas. It could be either a main section or a sub-section under size. I think both articles could benefit from this as this article could certainly use the content and the giant anaconda content will be more readily available to readers and being within this article will establish the context of a normal anaconda before dealing with the giant ones. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge - Giant anacondas are considered seperate from normal anacondas by cryptozoologists. Also, the giant anaconda article is far too specific for the normal anaconda article; I think all that needs to happen is a "see also" link to giant anaconda, like there is now. Completely unneeded merge, and I'm not just being biased. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also oppose the giant anaconda should be counted as a separate phenomena. also giant anacondas fall into the realm of cryptozoology, rather than zoology as this page deals in. Ryan shell (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Giant anacondas seem to be strictly fictional creatures. --Jwinius (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment A little strange that there was no link to Giant anaconda--Rumping (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to it in Anaconda (disambiguation). --Jwinius (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article talks about the maximum length of anacondas, then it needs a direct link to giant anaconda. The fact that you remove even the most minor link [2] is unhelpful. The fact is that claims have been made for extremely long anacondas; failing to even provide a link prevents many readers from easily finding what they may be looking for. A link to the disambiguation page is simily not enough. --Rumping (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I've inserted a link to the article. --Jwinius (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology. RE: Section 3 (Cleanup)

A species of python in Sri Lanka is called Hena Kandaya in Sinhalese. Webster's English Dictionary cites etymology correctly but the translation is incorrect. Hena could mean both "lightning" and "giant"; Kanda/Kandaya could mean stem or trunk, or it could mean "body". Webster's translation "lightning stem" is incorrect. The correct translation is "giant body", a reference to the snake's size. --HonoluluMan (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to moving this article to "Eunectes", in line with the rest of the articles in this series? --Jwinius (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. For reasons previously stated elsewhere. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. If a series of articles are well laid out and consistently developed it is better for users than just sticking to simple or common names. The redirect does not create such large clutter as to put off a reader. AshLin (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose While the article should feel free to point out the scientific name or the inaccuracy of applying the name to the entire family, Anaconda is a pretty famous snake, and I can't see any reason why we should overrule the naming conventions just so we can have uniformity. Narson (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There you go: anaconda is a pretty famous name, but it does not represent one single snake species. Therefore, the title is misleading. --Jwinius (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This article, however, is about a genus, commonly called anacondas; what have species to do with it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The title is the singular, which can suggest any member of the genus. The way the article was written before I revised it gives me the impression that some people thought this was a good place to put information about "the anaconda", particularly in relation to its size. The article may now do a slightly better job of explaining that it is not about any one snake species in particular, but what's the point in creating an uphill battle for ourselves? Besides, there are lots of other things called "Anaconda", and if this were the disambiguation page I'm pretty sure the top option (Any member of the genus Eunectes ...) would not be the most popular selection. --Jwinius (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Going further, recent attempts to suppress the word anaconda at the top are really unhelpful [3]. --Rumping (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry. if you find my edits so offensive, why don't you just revert the article to Mosmof's last version? --Jwinius (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed they were made in good faith --Rumping (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anaconda gives birth at the Dehiwala Zoo

I'm a sri lankan and here some anaconda gave birth around 23 anacondas in the Dehiwala Zoo. Don't know much about to written it down. but plez can anybody get information and write it down for pubic information. thank you. --124.43.67.141 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Citiations

1. anaconda. American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. eLibrary Science. Proquest. UMI - INTERNAL ELIBRARY SCIENCE TRIAL ACCOUNT. 16 Sep 2008. <http://science.bigchalk.com>.

2. "ANACONDA(1 Of 3)." 01 Jan 2002. LifeStory Publications. eLibrary Science. Proquest. UMI - INTERNAL ELIBRARY SCIENCE TRIAL ACCOUNT. 16 Sep 2008. <http://science.bigchalk.com>.

3. "ANACONDA(2 Of 3)." 01 Jan 2002. LifeStory Publications. eLibrary Science. Proquest. UMI - INTERNAL ELIBRARY SCIENCE TRIAL ACCOUNT. 16 Sep 2008. <http://science.bigchalk.com>.

4. "ANACONDA(3 Of 3)." 01 Jan 2002. LifeStory Publications. eLibrary Science. Proquest. UMI - INTERNAL ELIBRARY SCIENCE TRIAL ACCOUNT. 16 Sep 2008. <http://science.bigchalk.com>.

5. "Which is the Biggest Snake?." Extreme Science. Extreme Science. 16 Sep 2008 <http://www.extremescience.com/BiggestSnake.htm>.

6. "Information on Anaconda Snakes." Wildlife Adventures. Planet-Pets. 16 Sep 2008 <http://www.planet-pets.com/plntanac.htm>.

7. "Green Anaconda." Animals. National Geographic. 16 Sep 2008 <http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/green-anaconda.html>.

8. Soomro, A. 2001. "Eunectes murinus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed September 16, 2008 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eunectes_murinus.html. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

* <http://science.bigchalk.com>

* <http://www.extremescience.com/BiggestSnake.htm>

* <http://www.planet-pets.com/plntanac.htm>

* <http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/green-anaconda.html>

* <http://www.manbir-online.com/snakes/anaconda.htm>

* <http://res.hcpss.org/StudentDeveloped/snakes/anaconda.html>

* <http://www.casatrudel.com/anaconda.htm>

* <http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/Green-Anaconda.html>

* <http://www.wf.net/~snake/anaconda.htm>

* <http://www.rfadventures.com/Anaconda.htm>

* <http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/snakesanaconda.html>

* <http://www.freesnake.com/ana1.html>

* <http://thesnakebite.tv/reticulated-python-vs-anaconda/>

* <http://www.snopes.com/horrors/animals/anaconda.asp>

* <http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anaconda>

* <http://www.centralpets.com/php/search/storiesdisplay.php?Story=336>

* <http://www.greenpacks.org/2008/09/09/is-snake-anaconda-hunting-dangerous/>

* <http://www.anacondas.org/strike.htm>

* <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01EFD61139F931A35757C0A960958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all>

* <http://www.zimbio.com/Snake+Pit/articles/3/Which+is+the+Biggest+Snake>

* <http://www.richmondpetlovers.com/petarticles/Article/Anaconda-Snakes-Richly-Appointed-Review/1017>

* <http://www.4to40.com/geography/print.asp?id=3>

* <http://snakes.swicki.com/Anaconda+Pictures/>

* <http://www.livevideo.com/media/tag/snakes-biggest-huge-gian.aspx>

* <http://blog.4rev.net/2008-06/anaconda-and-python-giant-killer-snakes/>

* <http://www.chucksconnection.com/anaconda.html>

* <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3343/is_200103/ai_n8058960>

* <http://www.buzzle.com/comments/59640-1.html>

* <http://au.truveo.com/tag/anaconda>

* <http://www.leechvideo.com/tag/anaconda/>

* <http://www.meaningfulworks.org/blog/pets/3052-demystifying-myths-about-anacondas>

* <http://www.anacondasnake.org/anacondavideos/>

* <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/232948/giant-anaconda>

* <http://www2.philadelphiazoo.org/zoo/Meet-Our-Animals/Reptiles/Lizards-and-Snakes/Green-anaconda.htm>

* <http://home.neo.rr.com/edzoo/Scales/green_anaconda.htm>

* <http://www.no-pest.com/Anaconda.htm>

* <http://www.spike.com/blog/how-to-catch/68210>

* <http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/anaconda.php>

* <http://www.cheappetstore.com/library/reptile-amphibian-species/snake-species/worlds-largest-snake>

* <http://www.zoo.org/factsheets/anaconda/anaconda.html>

* <http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/anaconda.htm>

* <http://www.pbs.org/edens/manu/reptiles.htm>

* <http://anacondas.tv/>

* <http://www.spiritedmedicine.com/pixperu/p-anaconda.htm>

Google Scholar Citations ONLY!!

* <http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2005-15842-010>

* <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1276511>

* <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JOKITNcYZUIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA279&dq=anaconda+the+snake&ots=IYnQ8f22R6&sig=lUdBStmHaWlIwBOdAHE1DFuoVYY>

* <http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1638%2F03-096>

* <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HdAWPR7CqnMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=anaconda+the+snake&ots=Fy9Ca8TTzy&sig=J1xXpCocs5s4AmtH_5wmbm_ACsE>

* <http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/Anaconda.pdf>

* <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KtL1dYrSJ30C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=anaconda+the+snake&ots=s0elramfh8&sig=FE7uGmLgJnZpmSFuJPg_UvmmRpk>

* <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sxXJbvKI7MgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=anaconda+the+snake&ots=37_h9ePYqL&sig=S0lt0HMlQjJEarq2O2sfwnMCy5A>

* <http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1042-7260&volume=035&issue=04&page=0557>

* <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0074-02762002000100024&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en>

* <http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1638%2F1042-7260(2001)032%5B0320%3AIDSSIF%5D2.0.CO%3B2>

* <http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4295289&q=anaconda+the+snake&uid=793163738&setcookie=yes>

* <http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-95022007000100014&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en>

* <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4CeRaeXoYy0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=anaconda+the+snake&ots=duK13Q134B&sig=3kJWxsdGyCWBTg5HKcXpKenj_5s>

* <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1249853>

* <http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1643%2F0045-8511(2001)001%5B1151%3APOSAAM%5D2.0.CO%3B2>

* <http://www.springerlink.com/default.mpx>

* <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0104-79302001000200004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en>

* <http://www.panamjas.org/Arquivos/PANAMJAS_1(2)_II.pdf>

* <http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=18399>

* <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KtL1dYrSJ30C&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=eunectes&ots=s0elraneh5&sig=-BsuRFd7JKVA0Moj4fQsCFo2874>

* <http://esapubs.org/archive/ecol/E088/021/appendix-A.htm>

* <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4DTKC5P-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9b7335995c3c56cf3c3353c41b21a522>

* <http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eunectes_murinus.html>

Dorkstar17 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Graded --JimmyButler (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyButler (talk • contribs)

You may want to consider a Goggle Scholar search. Many - if not most of your resources are as far from scholarly as you can get. You-tube's , snake owner blog pages, other encyclopedias, pet stores. Locate the respected experts in the field. Try this again. I'll check back Sunday evening.--JimmyButler (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Butler, I have added a line break and below it are listed various "Google Scholar" citations. Now, after I post a number of citations under that line, I am planning on going through my previous citations and deleting the ones that truely need to go. I apologize for the mishap and would like to let you know I am working on it immediately. I would also like to ask you if books on Google listed under Google Scholar could count as a citation. Do they? Thank you. Dominic

Dorkstar17 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bisplinghof, Hans; Bellosa, Henry. Anacondas - (Professional Breeders Series). Edition Chimaira. ISBN 3-89973-460-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Murphy, John F.; Henderson, Robert W. (1997). Tales of giant snakes: a historical natural history of anacondas and pythons. Malabar, Fla.: Krieger Pub. Co. ISBN 0-89464-995-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation inserted

I'm not certain of the template / format that you've chosen. This is essentially the information one would use for a journal such as what you cited.

| last =
| first =
| author-link = (If they are in Wikipedia
| title =
| journal =
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| date =
| url =
| doi = (available for some journals in data bases)
| id = available for some journals in data bases)

Strussmann, C. (1997), "Feeding habits of the yellow anaconda, Eunectes notaeus Cope,1862, in the Brazilian Pantanal.", Biociencias, 5 (1): 35–52

--JimmyButler (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite as you go

A great deal of information added without citations. If the entire section on reproduction was acquired from a single source; then I would still cite each paragraph within that section - even it is the same source repeatedly. Also, when so much information is derived from one source; then please use great care and make an extra effort in your paraphrasing to avoid "direct lifting" or plagiarism. It was describe at one of your colleagues pages as "literary laziness". Not saying that is the case here --- I've not compared your source to information you've entered. Nice to see someone actively working on their entry. Interesting material so far. Cheers! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

{{oldpeerreview}} Dorkstar17 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Albino anaconda

I just redirected this page here. You may want to make short mention of this variation: "This is the albino version of the more commonly known anaconda of the Amazon region. It has a pure white skin, which is unusual in reptiles, as well as its pink eyes. The albino anaconda is extremely rare in the wild." I have not been able to find reliable text sources, but I did find pictures including: http://web.mac.com/anaconda_guy/iWeb/News/Ab.Green.Pics.html - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

New move proposal

This article has so far been a failure. This is because it is titled "Anaconda," but wants to be about the genus Eunectes. In theory there should be no problem with that, since all three members of the genus are referred to an anacondas, but the problem is that in reality the general public associates this name only with one particular member: E. murinus. As a result, every time you take your eye off of this article, it starts to fill up with information about this one species, almost to the exclusion of everything else. One solution might be to rename this article to "Eunectes" and to rename the Eunectes murinus article to "Anaconda" (or only to redirect "Anaconda" there), but that would not be accurate either.

Therefore, I think we need a different approach. How about if we turn this page, "Anaconda," into a Set Index Article (SIA) for the genus? As long as it's on a single subject, such as snakes, or in this case anacondas, a SIA is a kind of disambiguation page that may contain more information than usual. What I'm suggesting here is that this new version would include only a short description of E. murinus along with an image, state that most people associate the name "Anaconda" with this particular taxon, but then go on to explain that it also applies to the other two members and indeed to the genus as a whole. Naturally, it would also include a link to Anaconda (disambiguation). This way "Eunectes" could become a truly separate article that would ultimately be much less likely to contain only information specific to E. murinus. Any opinions? --Jwinius (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea for a split, especially because Yellows have been cropping up more and more in the pet trade, so it'd be nice if someone could come here and say "oh, there's several species, and the one in the store doesn't get quite as big (or mean) as the one I read about before." Mokele (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this was not the best of choices for a student project; if in fact, there is a lack of consensus regarding the term Anaconda and its application to specific species/ group of snakes. From the general public standpoint - no doubt any one interested in the "large" "constrictor" often depicted in movies, will type in Anaconda and end up here. What information do you wish such lay people to know? Are the members of the group so diverse that generalities can not be made? Perhaps if my student could be directed as to what information he has added that does not apply to the group as a whole - then edits could be adjusted to address the specific differences or he could opt to delete that information completely. Another option might be: If the term Anaconda does not constitute a "group" of snakes in of themselves; perhaps the article should be deleted - with a redirect to three separate articles on the three separate snakes. The information here could be incorporated into E. murinus if such is the case proposed by Jwinius, that the information added by Dorkstar17 only applies to one of the three different snakes. Please advise; it would be a heart-breaker for Dorkstar17to continue his edits only to have them deemed "a failure". --JimmyButler (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your student's efforts have have not been a failure: (s)he has simply fallen into the same trap that almost everyone else has when it comes to this particular article. Although the introduction clearly states that the article is meant to be a description of the genus Eunectes, which comprises three distinct species that are all referred to as anacondas, the problem is that the article's title is so misleading for many people that they completely miss the introduction. So, like almost everyone else, your student should have been editing the E. murinus article. Luckily, it will be no problem to move the information there.

Furthermore, I have not proposed that the article itself be deleted: only that it be transformed into a specialized disambiguation page to explain up front that the name "anaconda" is used to refer to 1) the genus as a whole, 2) any of the three species, and 3) E. murinus in particular in the popular press. That should clear things up once and for all. --Jwinius (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a disambiguation page, that should help avoid the drift towards one species. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Content related issues

Is the following example adequate sourcing of lifted sections from other web cites or should such text require quotes? The behavior section could constitute plagiarism albeit not the intent of the author in that they clearly cite the source. Is a revert to an early version appropriate here; or does the "modification" of the text contain sufficient documentation to not raise concerns over originality. (JimmyButler) not logged in.--66.56.205.235 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This species is primarily nocturnal, and spends most of its time in water. It is sometimes referred to as the "Water Boa" and is the most aquatic of the boas. Due to its large size it may seem sluggish on land, but in the water it is capable of surprising speeds both on the surface and underwater. It usually waits in the water with only its snout extending above the surface. When an animal passes by or stops to drink, the snake grabs it with its jaws and coils around it, constricting it until it suffocates or drowns. On land it may hang in trees and grabs its prey from above, coiling around it, rendering it helpless. The victim of an anaconda is seldom crushed, the snake only squeezes hard enough to prevent its victim from breathing.

The primarily nocturnal anaconda species tend to spend most of its life in or around water. Anacondas are also sometimes known as the "Water Boa" and spends more time in water than any of the boas. Because of its size being typically large it appears to be rather slow and sluggish when traveling on land. Completely the opposite in water however, anacondas are known to have the potential to reach incredibly high speeds in all depths of water levels. One tends to float atop the surface of the water with its snout barely poking out above the surface. When prey simply passes by or stops to drink, the hungry anaconda will snatch it using its jaws (without eating or swallowing it) and coils around it with its body. The snake will then constrict, tighten, and squeeze its coils until the anaconda has successfully suffocated and/or drowned its victim. Anacondas usually lay around in trees and attack its prey from above, and coiling around it, leaving it completely helpless and unaware of what had just happened. Prey is suffocated , but never "crushed." The anaconda merely tightens only enough to stop its victim's breathing.[3]--66.56.205.235 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, plucking stuff off the web (in this case from the Animal Diversity Web) and rephrasing without making it sound awkward is not easy. The best thing to do is not just to copy what others say about this species, but to first think about what you want to say. Assuming you've now figured out that you really need to be editing the E. murinus article, here are some things that need to be improved there and gaps that need to be filled, starting from the top of the article:

Introduction: don't forget to expand this after you're finished!
Description: scalation information is missing.
Description: the color pattern info could be expanded and needs a reference. Rewrite if you want, since even though it looks okay, without a reference it could be completely wrong for all we know.
Habitat: you can write a whole section on this topic.
Behavior: this section is missing too.
Predators: missing. Except for parasites, I don't think that the adults have any natural enemies, but certainly the juveniles will. It would be nice if you could find this information.
Reproduction: looks okay, but it has no references. If you can find a good reference, check it out, make any necessary corrections and add the reference.
Captivity: it might be interesting to expand this section with information about the challenges that zoos face when keeping these animals. Try to avoid information written by amateurs.
Subspecies: look up the common name for E. m. gigas (if one exists) and fill in the geographic ranges for both.

If you know what you want to say in the first place, you'll find that it's much easier to select facts and sentences from other sources and add them to the article in your own words. If you want an example what a snake article looks like when it's pretty much complete, have a look at Agkistrodon piscivorus; you probably won't be able to find as much information on E. murinus, but it would be great if you could find even half as much.

Regarding the references, those are really important. In case you're not familiar with how in-line references work, read this: Wikipedia:Footnotes. It boils down to adding them like in these examples:

E. murinus is the most aquatic of the boas.<ref name="ADW"> [http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eunectes_murinus.html ''Eunectes murinus''] at [http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/ Animal Diversity Web]. Accessed [[9 December]] [[2008]].</ref>
In 1758, Linnaeus first named this species Boa murina.<ref name="McD99">McDiarmid RW, Campbell JA, Touré T. 1999. Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1. Herpetologists' League. 511 pp. ISBN 1-893777-00-6 (series). ISBN 1-893777-01-4 (volume).</ref>

Later, it would be easy to reuse these reference elsewhere in the article:

Due to its large size it may seem sluggish on land.<ref name="ADW"/>
In 1803, Daudin referred to it as Boa anacondo.<ref name="McD99"/>

When you're finished (or if you preview the entire article), your sources will be listed automatically in the "References" section near the bottom of the article. In the text, they show up only as little linked numbers in superscript, e.g. "[3]." It may sound like a pain, but if nobody can verify your information, {{fact}} and {{cite}} tags will eventually show up in the article and ultimately your contributions will be replaced, perhaps even with information that is less accurate. If repeatedly typing out all these reference sounds like a lot of work, it really isn't. For myself, I maintain a long list of references like the one above that I keep in a text file; every time I need to add them to a new article, I just copy and paste! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)