Talk:Burmese python

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkarasik. Peer reviewers: John.waswill, Samsmith428.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KHoang02, Juliajerolamon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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.Webwheeler (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Though you may be a PhD student, I would suggest you, too, familiarize yourself with how science actually works. Neither the original USGS Python Study (2008), which you are citing, nor the new USGS Python Study (2009) are peer reviewed, unlike this article which was peer reviewed:

Claims of Potential Expansion throughout the U.S. by Invasive Python Species Are Contradicted by Ecological Niche Models, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002931Webwheeler (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the paper that's already cited in this WP page? The one *I* added? I never said that the USGS papers were flawless - far from it, I think the PLoS paper uses a much better modeling approach which the USGS was wrong to discount in their second paper. But that doesn't make your original criticisms correct, or any less 'original research'. Mokele (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, let's just take the first two statements which I commented on:

"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."

Where are your peer reviewed papers that substantiate these claims? DNA population genetics studies of the Burmese Pythons found in the Florida Everglades National Park seem to say otherwise. To my knowledge, no one has ever been observed, charged or convicted with letting a pet Burmese Python loose anywhere near the Florida Everglades National Park or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter. Where is your proof?Webwheeler (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, your contention that it is released large, captive raised, Burmese Pythons that are responsible for feral populations of Burmese Pythons in the Florida Everglades is a very unlikely hypothesis because a large, captive raised, Burmese Python would be rather unlikely to survive in the Florida Everglades National Park, as pointed out by David and Tracy Barker, graduate biologists with more than 70 years of combined experience with reptiles and amphibians, in this discussion paper:

http://www.vpi.com/sites/vpi.com/files/OnBurmese_Florida_compressed.pdf

I would like to see some proof of YOUR RESEARCH that supports your contentions.Webwheeler (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, I never said the current text is perfect, only that not all of your criticisms are valid. Indeed, your initial set of criticisms was mostly semantic, and only now have you brought a more substantial issue to the table, namely the origins of the current population. The pdf you link to has some good information, but is at other times very speculative and dubious. As to the origins of the snakes, the genetic information is good to know, but doesn't preclude the possibility of released pets - introduced species often need a certain "critical mass" in order to establish a breeding population. That most have originated from one pair only means that there was a small population at one point. This cannot distinguish between a slowly building population due to pet owners releasing their animals and a single, catastrophic escape. Furthermore, their claim that nobody has ever been caught releasing their snakes is shoddy in the extreme - this is not an activity people are going to brag about, advertise in the papers, etc, and the cops have *MUCH* better things to do. The claim that adults could not survive is unsupported and dubious at best - these are snakes, creatures of pure instinct, not dogs. The claim that the lack of "pattern morphs" is similarly shoddy - firstly, many such morphs are expensive and unlikely to be bought by those who would dispose of them into the wild, and secondly, any albino snakes would live about 10 minutes before a hawk picked them off. Lastly, the 'claim' that hurricane Andrew caused the release does nothing to shift any blame, since it portrays the breeders as so colossally stupid and ill-prepared that they left the snakes in easily escapbale / destructible enclosures in the face of a storm they say coming 600 miles away and had over a week's warning about (and, by the way, I was in Hurricane Andrew, as well as a dozen or more other hurricanes). Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether the snakes escaped from breeders or were released by owners - they are still there *as a result of the pet trade*. Mokele (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the USGS study is "unscientific" and "not peer-reviewed" was made by the US Association of Reptile Keepers, of all organizations. Blatant politicization of science. I doubt the USGS would publish a major report without substantive peer-review involving people who are not shilling for the exotic pet industry (it's, you know, in their operating procedures) and that particular criticism of the report can be dismissed out of hand. In fact, as this deals with a policy issue I'd suspect this report was much more substantially reviewed than the non-USGS report critical of it.69.207.66.238 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it wasn't peer-reviewed - it was published by the government as a 'grey paper', not in any of the major journals. And there are legitimate flaws in the science/model of the original USGS paper; just read the response paper, which *was* published in a legitimate peer-review journal (and a very good one, at that: PLoS). Mokele (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "technically"? According to their operating guidelines all USGS publications should be peer-reviewed, especially those dealing with policy. Also, saying that this paper was not peer-reviewed is a strawman for attacking it on a legitimate scientific basis, the thinking being that if you assert that it was not peer-reveiwed then you imply that its conclusions would not have passed peer-review, which is something else altogether. There is a devastating response to the methodology of the response paper in the 2009 USGS paper which seems (caveat - I'm an engineer, not a herpetologist) pretty comprehensive. In any event I think the motives and science of people making money on the issue should be scrutinized rather than the USGS, which doesn't have a dog (alligator?) in the fight so to speak. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

USGS reviews are "in-house", if I recall correctly, which is quite different from the process in a scientific journal. In a sense, they're reviewed, but not in the same way. Furthermore, the 2009 USGS report still fails to separate out the P molurus subspecies (a critical failure), and the map of the Boa Constrictor range *proves* the effect of this failure - when they just lump all boas together, it's empirically wrong (since they're native to the US anyway), but they get an accurate result when they split them up by subspecies and exclude a notably cold-tolerant subspecies (the Argentine boa). Yet they persist in including the Indian python, which simply does not exist in the US outside of zoos due to its highly endangered status. Mokele (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Improved Neutrality

Since there is no evidence that the keeping of Burmese pythons outside of Florida has ever represented a problem, I have changed 'captive breeding in the Americas' to 'importation and keeping in Florida'. Obviously, captive breeding is not primarily responsible for the problem, since the majority of the Burmese in the Everglades are believed to come from a warehouse holding imported individuals. (Applying logic makes this obvious--hundreds of snakes released all at once in a single area is much more likely to produce a breeding population than the occasional escaped or released pet). Laying the blame at the door of breeders does not match the known facts (Everglades Burmese show no signs of the mutant genes that breeders select for), and is not a neutral statement, given the current politics-driven attacks against the reptile industry. Winged_Wolf (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Difference Between Burmese and Indian Python

I have also changed the information the Burmese pythons brumate, to specify that Indian pythons brumate, and that it is unclear whether Burmese pythons are capable of doing so. I provided a reference to a scientific study of how Burmese pythons act in cold weather. (In my opinion, if something is wrong with a Wikipedia article, don't just complain about it and leave it that way--correct it, and support your corrections). Winged_Wolf (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Webwheeler (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvement needed - urgently!

Hello! This article has several fatal errors! Please improve the following points:

• 1. This Python not only occurs in rainforest areas. There are many more (mentions in the article a bit below)!

• 2. 2. In nature the average length of Python molurus bivittatus is 3,7 meters. Specimen of more than 4 meters are uncommon, such of 5 Meters are rare and such toward 6 Meters – like a specimen form Cooch Behar with 5,8 meters – are very rare! There are several measurements from the past of more than 7 meters. But those were with the utmost probability exaggerations, stretched skins or confusion between Python molurus bivittatus and Python reticulatus. At the other hand there exist dwarf forms on Java, Bali and Sulawesi. At Bali they reach an average length of 2 meters and on Sulawesi they get not longer than 2,5 Meters!

• 3. The values of the Guinness Book about „Baby“ are doubted by several herpetologists! Especially the length of this specimen was just about 6,5 Meters!

• 4. Please use the following Publication (or this File:Natural Range of Python molurus6.jpg [1]) for mentioning all countries where this snake lives!

• 5. „The pattern is similar in colour, but different in actual pattern to the African Rock Python (Python sebae), sometimes resulting in confusion of the two species outside of their natural habitats. Some of them are found on the border with India and Burma.“ Which species are found on this border? There are no cases where Python sebae and Python molurus overlap! But in northern India, Nepal, Bangladesh and probably also in northern Burma there are some interference areas between Python molurus molurus and Python molurus bivittatus.

• 6. „Larger snakes often save energy by swallowing small, easily-managed prey animals live, without constricting them first.“ This is absolutely nonsense and should be deleted immediately!

• 7. There is a photograph called „Burmese Python in India“. This is not a Python molurus bivittatus shown in this picture as already mentioned by an other visitor– it’s a Python molurus molurus! Python molurus bivittatus occurs in India – that's correct, but Burmese Pythons of India look like other Python molurus bivittatus, too. Not like an Indian Python. Please delete this picture immediately!

Please visit the German article of this Python: [2] There are many useful pictures and links to original sources. Good luck with this article and thanks for the improvements!

80.218.203.225 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi Mokele! Thank you very much for your help! 80.218.203.225 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)--

Minor Change to Picture Caption

The photo of an alligator eating a Burmese python has been captioned to more clearly reflect this, rather than the strangely sensationalistic wording 'locked in struggle'. Of course, the python is struggling to escape, but it is merely lunch for the alligator, lol. The previous implication was that the snake could somehow harm the huge alligator in the photo, which gives a false impression. Winged_Wolf (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (CST)

Original caption:

An American alligator and a Burmese python locked in a struggle to prevail in Everglades National Park.

The original title might well reflect the competition of the Burmese python with other top predators for food, coupled with the virtual disappearance of many traditional prey species for the alligator throughout the Everglades and northern Florida coastal areas.

The full original source caption reads as follows:

An American alligator and a Burmese python locked in a struggle to prevail in Everglades National Park. This python appears to be losing, but snakes in similar situations have apparently escaped unharmed, and in other situations pythons have eaten alligators.

Photo by Lori Oberhofer, National Park Service.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1875

The dangerousness of these wild animals is understated in the article, which is ad copy for python sellers

These are dangerous wild animals quite capable of eating humans after killing them with constriction that stops the heart in seconds.

Their bites routinely infect with salmonella. The moving or handling of a full-grown adult requires several highly-skilled handlers working in concert and adequate and costly equipment and cages. And even then, is not without serious risk.

Information on the dangers should be added and illustrated by a herpetologist expert in pythons.

The omission of that information, and the ad copy about "reputation for docility" is ad copy for the sellers of these deadly animals, which as the cute soon wears thin, tend to quickly end up in the Everglades where they are currently decimating the native animals. See, e.g.,

Invasion of the Giant Pythons PBS Video

--Ocdnctx (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your description of them is wrong, fueled by the sensationalist media. No Burmese python has ever consumed an adult human, and the rate of deaths/animal is much lower than for horses. Any giant snake requires caution when handling, but the dangers you cite are, quite simply, wildly exaggerated. Also, salmonella is pretty much a non-issue - I've been bitten by hundreds of snakes of dozens of species (all non-venomous, thankfully), and have never had any problems, nor has anyone else. As for the supposed "epidemic" of releases, current genetic data suggests that *all* of the current pythons in Florida escaped when a breeding facility was destroyed in Hurricane Andrew. HCA (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's info from a pro-python site: http://www.anapsid.org/burm.html

Bad Press - And Often Deservedly So

Giant pythons have been in the press quite a bit lately, all due to the fact that their owners died as a result of improper handling of their snakes. While admittedly the press sensationalizes in order to better sell papers, the fact of the matter is that not only is there still a great deal of morbid fear on the part of the general public as regards snakes in general, and giant pythons in particular, but there is also a great deal of stupidity being displayed by many giant python owners (such as by those owners who are surprised to find that their ten foot snake left their backyard to go exploring the neighborhood when left outside for a bit of sun). And for every story that the press "neglects" to correct, such as the man who actually suffered a fatal heart attack while watching TV with his python, rather than being killed by it, the press also fails to point out what was being done improperly by the snake owner at the time of the "attack." If you smell like food to a snake, especially some of the giant pythons who seemingly contain a bottomless pit instead of a finite stomach, you will be grabbed. And since most people's reaction when being grabbed by a mouth full of fangs in a head the size of a cantaloupe is to flinch and draw away, the snake, sensing live "prey," does what a snake ought to do--bite harder to retain a good grip on the "prey" (hopefully your arm and NOT your face) and coil and constrict around it to begin the process of suffocation. In the case of the unfortunate Canadian snake owner who was killed, his python was not very big, but a) the owner was highly intoxicated at the time, b) the snake was in shed and its eyes were fully opaque and c) the snake was known to be temperamental in general. So not only was the snake feeling particularly cranky and intolerable of human interaction, its human was too intoxicated to act, and react, appropriately.

According to one hospital emergency room physician who has made a study of snake bites, he found that the majority of bites happen to young adult males (late teens through mid-twenties) who are intoxicated at the time of the "attack." On the flip side, though, is the unfortunate Colorado family whose young teenage son was napping when he was attacked and killed by the family's eight foot pet Burmese, a snake who had been free-roaming in the house ever since it was brought home as a hatchling.

While it is true that you are more likely to die in an automobile accident, it is also true that in the past year alone, the number of deaths attributed to and actually caused by pet pythons has more than tripled. As a direct result of the irresponsible actions of these python owners, cities and states are enacting ordinances and legislation banning or severely restricting the private ownership of large pythons - in many cases any snake of any species which reaches 6 or more feet in length.

2008: Apprentice Zookeeper Killed By Python http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2622427/Python-kills-careless-student-zookeeper-in-Caracas.html

--Ocdnctx (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And? None of that contradicts what I said above, nor does it support your alarmist POV concerning these animals. HCA (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ad copy language in article

"popularity"

"popular"

"attractive colour"

"apparently easy-going nature"

"reputation for docility"

"captive-bred for colour, pattern, and more recently size"

"albino form is especially popular"

" "labyrinth" specimens"

and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

None of these are factually incorrect. "Popularity" is an empirically observable phenomenon about the prevalence of the species in the pet trade relative to similar snakes. "Attractive", while a value judgement, can also be assessed empirically in that people purchase "morphs" more than "regulars" even though there is no difference beyond color. The phrases relating to their nature are similarly accurate, as I can personally attest to, especially when compared to other python species that have a more "high-strung" disposition. "Labyrinth" is simply the name of a morph, and the statement about their captive breeding is simply a statement of fact. HCA (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Salmonella risk, from pro-python site

"Do you really want a snake that may grow more than 20 feet long or weigh 200 pounds, urinate and defecate like a horse, will live more than 25 years and for whom you will have to kill mice, rats and, eventually, rabbits (no chickens any more due to the ever increasing rate of Salmonella in the food industry)?"

from http://www.anapsid.org/burm.html

If you see a python, who's to say the prior owners haven't fed it chicken, or that it hasn't come across Salmonella in the wild? --Ocdnctx (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's Salmonella, not Ebola or the T-virus. I handle raw chicken directly when making dinner, I feed it to my dog (look up raw feeding, far superior to most kibbles), and as long as I wash my hands, I'm fine. Snakes are not some sort of ultra-germ-repository any more than we are - wash your hands and you'll be fine. All in all, you're far more likely to get salmonella from food than snake handling, so they aren't particularly notable in this regard. And unless you can provide a link to a medical journal describing transmission of salmonella from a snakebite, that's a non-issue. HCA (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Links to medical journals describing transmission of salmonella from a snakebite, or just keeping snakes as pets.

---

Bello CS, Singh S, Al-Waley A, Hyde M, Khan MR.

Salmonella arizonae infection from snake bite.

Ann Saudi Med. 2001 Sep-Nov;21(5-6):352-3.

PMID 17261948

---

Sanyal D, Douglas T, Roberts R.

Salmonella infection acquired from reptilian pets.

Arch Dis Child. 1997 Oct;77(4):345-6.

Abstract

Two children presented with signs and symptoms of gastroenteritis. Salmonella chameleon was isolated from the stool of one child and also from an iguana kept in the home as a pet. Salmonella arizonae was isolated from the stool of the other child and also from four snakes sharing the same household. Exotic reptiles are unsuitable pets to share the home environment with infants.

PMID 9389242

PMC 1717353

Free PMC Article

---

Gruschwitz MS, Mahler V, Rupprecht M, Hornstein OP.

[Snake bite by a poisonous snake. Report of an unusual case].

Hautarzt. 1994 May;45(5):330-4.

Abstract

We report on a 31-year-old white woman, who was bitten in her right calf by a "spitting cobra" (Neia nigricollis) during a safari in Tansania. Minor initial systemic symptoms such as nausea and vomiting were followed by severe oedematous swelling of the extremity after 2-3 h and demarcation of a 2.75 x 2.75 in. area of necrotic skin. The patient returned to her home country, where 8 days after the snake-bite necrosectomy was performed. Antibiotics, anti-inflammatory agents and local therapy with hydrocolloidal wound dressings were administered. With this therapy the lesion healed completely with minor scarring within 5 months. A new Salmonella strain was isolated from the ground of the ulcer.

---

Rakesh Kumar Mahajan,1 Shoeb Akhtar Khan,2 Dinesh Singh Chandel,2 Navin Kumar,1 Charoo Hans,1 and Rama Chaudhry2,*

Fatal Case of Salmonella enterica subsp. arizonae Gastroenteritis in an Infant with Microcephaly

J Clin Microbiol. 2003 December; 41(12): 5830–5832.

Abstract

Salmonella enterica subsp. arizonae is a common gut inhabitant of reptiles, with snakes as the most common reservoir. Though human cases due to this organism are exceedingly rare, it may infect young infants and immunocompromised individuals with a history of intimate associations with reptiles. Gastroenteritis is the most common presentation; others include peritonitis, pleuritis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, and bacteremia. We report a fatal case of S. enterica subsp. arizonae gastroenteritis in a 3-month-old child with microcephaly, with a review of earlier cases and problems encountered in identification of this rare human pathogen.

...

the child's father was a snake charmer, having a professional interaction with reptiles at home

...

It was initially considered to be a reptile pathogen; the first report of human infection came in 1944 (J. M. Croop, B. Shapiro, G. Alpert, J. M. Campos, and W. Zavod, Letter, Pediatr. Infect. Dis. 3:188, 1984). Turtle-associated salmonellosis was also reported in 1963 (7). Now it is established as a well-known pathogen in young children and in patients with impaired immunity.

...

A literature survey (Table ​(Table1)1) [3] yielded 17 case reports of S. enterica subsp. arizonae infection, of which 11 were children, including 4 infants. Eleven of those 17 had an underlying disease such as AIDS, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), cancer, or leukemia. Clinical presentations varied: four cases each with gastroenteritis, bacteremia, and osteomyelitis; two with pleural effusion; and one each with otitis media, peritonitis, meningitis, and wound infection. Most of these strains of S. enterica subsp. arizonae were sensitive to all common antibiotics.

...

S. enterica subsp. arizonae, though an uncommon human pathogen, is a common organism in reptiles, particularly snakes. The prevalence of human infections is probably underestimated since the gastrointestinal problems they generate were considered usually benign. However, this pathogen should be considered in the differential diagnoses of patients with sepsis and severe gastroenteritis who have a history of contact with reptiles or ingestion of snake meat preparations, e.g., as powdered capsules. Young children are at a particular risk of acquiring such infections. Therefore, proper history should be obtained in such cases. Ownership of reptiles should be discouraged, especially in households with children less then 5 years of age.

PMID 8050904

doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.12.5830-5832.2003

PMC 309002

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC309002

---

Schröter M, Roggentin P, Hofmann J, Speicher A, Laufs R, Mack D.

Pet snakes as a reservoir for Salmonella enterica subsp. diarizonae (Serogroup IIIb): a prospective study.

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jan;70(1):613-5.

Abstract

Reptile-associated Salmonella infections are an increasing problem for humans. We have prospectively screened two breeding groups of 16 pet snakes for colonization with Salmonella species. Various serovars of S. enterica subsp. diarizonae were found in 81% of the snakes. To avoid transmission, strict hygienic precautions should be applied when reptiles are handled.

Exotic reptiles have enjoyed increasing popularity as pets during the last few years. This increase in popularity has led to an increase in the number of reptile-associated salmonella infections which occur every year in the United States (presently estimated at 93,000) (4; J. Mermin, L. Hutwagner, D. Vugia, P. Kirley, J. Bender, J. Koehler, T. McGivern, R. Marcus, F. Angulo, and the FoodNet Working Group, 36th Annu. Meet. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am., 1998 [4]). Children under the age of 10 years and immunocompromised people seem to be especially prone to infections with reptile-associated Salmonella spp. and often experience severe clinical courses, including fatalities due to septicemia and meningitis (2, 4).

...

... corn snakes, pythons, and boas have also been identified as sources of Salmonella infections ...

PMID 14711697

Free PMC Article PMC 321278

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC321278/#r1

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 January; 70(1): 613–615.

doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.1.613-615.2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it can happen. However, personal experience (several hundred bites from several dozen species, wild and captive) and experiences of those I know in the reptile community (many of whom have 3-4 decades of experience and the many bites that go with that) suggest that it is very rare, especially compared to conventional means of Salmonella transmission (failing to wash hands after contact with reptiles and/or their waste, ditto for non-reptile sources like raw chicken). Plus, if we're being fair, we should probably add several hundred zoonotic diseases to the pages cat and dog. I mean, what's more deserving of a warning, an upset stomach from your snake, or your cat giving you a brain parasite that alters your personality?

Technically it can happen. Technically, you can be killed if you hit a deer while riding a motorcycle. But the odds of either happening, at all or as compered to other mortality/morbidity events, is so vanishingly small as to be irrelevant. HCA (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The link to the CDC article above citing an incidence of 93,000 cases of salmonella from contact with reptiles and amphibians is no longer valid (page not found error). However, I was able to find a summary of that article in another article, available here, mentioning this rate— and explaining that it represents approx. 7% of annual cases of salmonella contamination in the US. If we are to accept that 7% figure, it begins to seem like sufficient reason to include mention of the bacterium somewhere, but the summary I found did not mention the specific species most prevalent as vectors, and I don't see any use in mentioning salmonella in every article about a reptile or an amphibian. Such a fact could, however, be situated in the article on reptiles and/ or the one on amphibians generally, I should think. Whatever one or another person's actual experience may be, a national rate of 7% of all salmonella cases in the US is large enough to warrant mention. KDS4444^Talk 10:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The 7% figure, which I'm extremely skeptical of, is only from an abstract, not a peer reviewed article, and as such, is not a valid source. (Seriously, citing an abstract in a JAMA article? Any good reviewer should have put a stop to that.) Given that only 3% of the US has pet reptiles, and that typically only kids are affected by it, I'm very skeptical that these cases represent even 7% of a national annual total of almost 100k cases, especially considering the dangerously unregulated state of much of our food supply due to anti-regulatory zealotry. I'm not ruling it out, but I want to see the methods myself before that number is treated as valid. HCA (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

The article should be retitled “Burmese python” (lowercase p), to agree with standard rules of capitalization, namely that common names of individual species (or subspecies) are not capitalized.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and will attempt a page move to reflect this. KDS4444^Talk 07:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

are they edible? recipes?

in any given animal section, i would like to know if we can eat them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

All snakes are edible by humans provided they're properly prepard (there is a risk of parasites in some snakes if not adequately cooked, and obviously venemous snakes require proper handling).

I'm a vegan so I'll leave any snake "recipes" to someone with more flexible ethics. 69.65.91.78 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.(non-admin closure) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Burmese Python → Burmese python – Article was moved away from "Burmese python" to "Burmese Python" by an editor who stated he/ she wanted to make it more consistent with other reptile articles. The other python articles appear to exist under various species names rather than common names, but in any case I could find no justification or pattern for naming this particular animal "Burmese Python" rather than "Burmese python" ("python" not being a proper noun in this instance). Another editor (see above) has also noticed this irregularity, and Wikipedia naming conventions for fauna suggest that no capital letter should be present on any word other than the first in a case like this. cf. Gila monster, Australian water dragon, King cobra, etc. KDS4444^Talk 09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Dwarf Burmese Python

Please note that a new page on the Dwarf Burmese Python had recently been created. Editors may wish to assess whether that page is best left standing alone, or whether its contents woukld be more effective if merged into this page. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burmese python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731060837/http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Large-Python-Captured-Killed-After-Devouring-Adult-Deer-132922183.html to http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Large-Python-Captured-Killed-After-Devouring-Adult-Deer-132922183.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501023817/http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/new-law-makes-burmese-python-illegal-in-florida to http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/new-law-makes-burmese-python-illegal-in-florida

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

bibliography for invasiveness extension

2009. "Florida: Reptile Species Ban Considered." New York Times, August 06. 17. Academic Search Alumni Edition, EBSCOhost (accessed May 2, 2018).

Walters, T. M., Mazzotti, F. J., & Fitz, H. C. (2016). Habitat selection by the invasive species burmese python in Southern Florida. Journal of Herpetology, 50(1), 50-56.

Mazzotti, F. J., Rochford, M., Vinci, J., Jeffery, B. M., Eckles, J. K., Dove, C., & Sommers, K. P. (2016). Implications of the 2013 Python Challenge® for Ecology and Management of Python molorus bivittatus (Burmese Python) in Florida. Southeastern Naturalist, 15(sp8), 63-74.

python, in zoology. (2017). In P. Lagasse, & Columbia University, The Columbia encyclopedia (7th ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from https://jwupvdz.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/columency/python_in_zoology/0?institutionId=8945

(Juliajerolamon (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

Hawaii record

Hello @Romannpomsonth: This record is not verifiable by others. You can read about this WP:V requirement. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

A 19 foot specimen was discovered in the wild in the US State of Florida. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187497592/record-breaking-burmese-python-longest-florida 2600:100E:B090:ACBA:A4FE:B8D9:EDB3:2D3B (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)