![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please do not re-create this page by reverting the edit to redirect. It is nothing but a copy-paste from the burmese python and alligator articles. If you want to re-write it, with sources and such, great, but as-is, it's nothing but a crappy cut-and-paste job. Mokele ( talk) 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, time's up and them some. Time to remove anything that's irrelevant, off-topic, or just plain wrong. Mokele ( talk) 00:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This was just a first pass - doing nothing more than removing crap and shortening / cleaning up, I've reduced the entire page to barely longer than the section in the Burmese Python article. Honestly, there's no reason not to merge it there. Mokele ( talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So lets cut to the chase. What else should I do to fix this article. I don't want you helping or at least fixing it. -- Schmeater ( talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if we're going to keep it, first thing we need to do is ditch the trivia. Nobody gives a shit about who took what photo, random quotes, or even that "exploding python" thing. They're colorful but not really informative. I propose the following sections (titles temporary): Introduction (obviously), Origins & Spread, Current Status, Future Predictions, Control/Eradication Attempts, Legislative Response (plus references, links and suchlike). Big points to hit would be the thesis mentioned in one of the links I used (I'll see if I can get ahold of it), Both USGS papers on the topic, the PLoS paper contesting the results, as well as more generalized papers from invasion biology and Rodda's book on Problem Snake management (I have a copy of that). The general senstationalism/alarmism of the mainstream media should probably be avoided if at all possible. Mokele ( talk) 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to add a quick note, after reading through this. A Burmese/Rock python hybrid has been available in captivity for quite some time now. The hybrid snake was dubbed a 'cateater'. (The Burmese/Reticulated python cross is a 'Bateater'). This is something very easily found with a quick Google search, so the folks crying 'super snake' really need an education (but, we knew that). You see, Cateaters universally grow up to be smaller animals than either of their parent species. The biggest females rarely exceed 11 feet in length, about the size of a red-tail boa. Males stay 9 to 10 feet. So, far from being an aggressive, dangerous, 'super-snake', they don't pose a threat to humans at all. Additionally, creating a cateater hybrid is not particularly easy. These two species do not prefer to crossbreed, and must be tricked into it. WingedWolf ( talk) 5.07 PM, 19 July 2011 (CST)
Looking at this picture, which is entitled 'American Alligator predating a Burmese Python', it seems to me that nothing of the sort is happening; the two animals are just lying there, not apparently molesting each other at all; it happens that part of the snake's body is inside the gator's open mouth, but the gator seems oblivious to the opportunity! Unless anyone knows better, perhaps it should be re-captioned. Coleopterist ( talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Winged_Wolf ( talk) 11:14, 26 December 2011 (CST)
The source
USGS Maps Show Potential Non-Native Python Habitat Along Three U.S. Coasts
says:
-- Ocdnctx ( talk) 13:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please consult the following recent statement of Mazzotti, an author of this study, and improve the article with it! http:/ /www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-mazzotti/pythons-everglades-study_b_1257911.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false Many thanks, -- 77.57.177.59 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've read numerous places that the original population introduced to the everglades may have come from hurricane andrew (I think that's the one). This is not mentioned in the article. Why? ... aa: talk 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Dorcas et al's study, “Severe Mammal Declines Coincide with Proliferation of Invasive Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park” is cited throughout this article, but it shows several signs of bias and unscientific methodology. He went back to records of road-killed animals in Everglades National Park during the 1990’s before the population of Burmese pythons had become significant and compared them with the number of road side sightings of these same species 10 years later. He concluded that the populations of raccoons, possums, bobcats, and marsh rabbits had been decimated and in some cases had been reduced by 100%. This doesn’t make any sense ecologically. If the population of prey declines in abundance, than the population of predators declines as well because there is nothing for the predators to eat. Burmese pythons couldn’t decimate mammal populations without eventually succombing to starvation themselves. So the results of Dr. Dorcas’s study were unbelievably ridiculous. The following flaws can be found in Dr. Dorcas’s study:
1. The survey for road-killed animals (Dr. Dorcas’s data from the 1990’s) didn’t include critical information–how many observers, the number of miles driven, the number of days the survey was done, and the procedures used to avoid double counting. In other words this data is anecdotal and useless.
2. The year of the pre-python survey was a high water year when more animals were forced to take refuge on the high ground where the road exists. This explains why more animals were counted during the survey than during later drought years. Road-side surveys yield dubious data. Dr. Dorcas should have used live trapping to get an accurate count of mammal populations.
3. There is no actual data on python densities.
4. The timing of the python population increase and the supposed decline in mammal populations is not documented. Scientists can’t explain how python populations could increase following prey population declines (my point exactly).
5. There is no mention in Dr. Dorcas’s study of coyotes. Coyotes recently re-colonized south Florida and may play a role in the decline of mammal populations there.
6. The differences in prey density inside and outside Everglades National Park are likely due to differences in habitat, not the presence of pythons. Everglades National Park is actually very poor wildlife habitat. More wildlife lives outside the park than inside. With very few exceptions most of the best wildlife habitat left in the world is occupied by humans. We give animals the wastelands that are too expensive to commercially develop and call them national parks.
I suggest all references to this article be removed from the article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.193.97 ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a subject I have expertise in, but I think the last line is incorrect:
Severe declines in mammalian populations across the Everglades may be tied to the proliferation of pythons.[2][10] Comparisons of road surveys conducted in 1996-1997 (prior to proliferation) and 2003-2011 (after proliferation) indicated declines from 88% to 100% in the frequency of raccoon, opossum, bobcat, rabbit, fox, and other mammalian species sightings.[2] These declines were concordant with the spatial geography of python spread. It should be noted that most of these species are well-known to have increased in numbers following human disturbance, however.
It seems like either the word "increased" should be "decreased" or that the sentence needs rewording to be more clear. User:Jonwilliamsl( talk| contribs) 13:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please do not re-create this page by reverting the edit to redirect. It is nothing but a copy-paste from the burmese python and alligator articles. If you want to re-write it, with sources and such, great, but as-is, it's nothing but a crappy cut-and-paste job. Mokele ( talk) 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, time's up and them some. Time to remove anything that's irrelevant, off-topic, or just plain wrong. Mokele ( talk) 00:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This was just a first pass - doing nothing more than removing crap and shortening / cleaning up, I've reduced the entire page to barely longer than the section in the Burmese Python article. Honestly, there's no reason not to merge it there. Mokele ( talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So lets cut to the chase. What else should I do to fix this article. I don't want you helping or at least fixing it. -- Schmeater ( talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if we're going to keep it, first thing we need to do is ditch the trivia. Nobody gives a shit about who took what photo, random quotes, or even that "exploding python" thing. They're colorful but not really informative. I propose the following sections (titles temporary): Introduction (obviously), Origins & Spread, Current Status, Future Predictions, Control/Eradication Attempts, Legislative Response (plus references, links and suchlike). Big points to hit would be the thesis mentioned in one of the links I used (I'll see if I can get ahold of it), Both USGS papers on the topic, the PLoS paper contesting the results, as well as more generalized papers from invasion biology and Rodda's book on Problem Snake management (I have a copy of that). The general senstationalism/alarmism of the mainstream media should probably be avoided if at all possible. Mokele ( talk) 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to add a quick note, after reading through this. A Burmese/Rock python hybrid has been available in captivity for quite some time now. The hybrid snake was dubbed a 'cateater'. (The Burmese/Reticulated python cross is a 'Bateater'). This is something very easily found with a quick Google search, so the folks crying 'super snake' really need an education (but, we knew that). You see, Cateaters universally grow up to be smaller animals than either of their parent species. The biggest females rarely exceed 11 feet in length, about the size of a red-tail boa. Males stay 9 to 10 feet. So, far from being an aggressive, dangerous, 'super-snake', they don't pose a threat to humans at all. Additionally, creating a cateater hybrid is not particularly easy. These two species do not prefer to crossbreed, and must be tricked into it. WingedWolf ( talk) 5.07 PM, 19 July 2011 (CST)
Looking at this picture, which is entitled 'American Alligator predating a Burmese Python', it seems to me that nothing of the sort is happening; the two animals are just lying there, not apparently molesting each other at all; it happens that part of the snake's body is inside the gator's open mouth, but the gator seems oblivious to the opportunity! Unless anyone knows better, perhaps it should be re-captioned. Coleopterist ( talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Winged_Wolf ( talk) 11:14, 26 December 2011 (CST)
The source
USGS Maps Show Potential Non-Native Python Habitat Along Three U.S. Coasts
says:
-- Ocdnctx ( talk) 13:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please consult the following recent statement of Mazzotti, an author of this study, and improve the article with it! http:/ /www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-mazzotti/pythons-everglades-study_b_1257911.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false Many thanks, -- 77.57.177.59 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've read numerous places that the original population introduced to the everglades may have come from hurricane andrew (I think that's the one). This is not mentioned in the article. Why? ... aa: talk 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Dorcas et al's study, “Severe Mammal Declines Coincide with Proliferation of Invasive Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park” is cited throughout this article, but it shows several signs of bias and unscientific methodology. He went back to records of road-killed animals in Everglades National Park during the 1990’s before the population of Burmese pythons had become significant and compared them with the number of road side sightings of these same species 10 years later. He concluded that the populations of raccoons, possums, bobcats, and marsh rabbits had been decimated and in some cases had been reduced by 100%. This doesn’t make any sense ecologically. If the population of prey declines in abundance, than the population of predators declines as well because there is nothing for the predators to eat. Burmese pythons couldn’t decimate mammal populations without eventually succombing to starvation themselves. So the results of Dr. Dorcas’s study were unbelievably ridiculous. The following flaws can be found in Dr. Dorcas’s study:
1. The survey for road-killed animals (Dr. Dorcas’s data from the 1990’s) didn’t include critical information–how many observers, the number of miles driven, the number of days the survey was done, and the procedures used to avoid double counting. In other words this data is anecdotal and useless.
2. The year of the pre-python survey was a high water year when more animals were forced to take refuge on the high ground where the road exists. This explains why more animals were counted during the survey than during later drought years. Road-side surveys yield dubious data. Dr. Dorcas should have used live trapping to get an accurate count of mammal populations.
3. There is no actual data on python densities.
4. The timing of the python population increase and the supposed decline in mammal populations is not documented. Scientists can’t explain how python populations could increase following prey population declines (my point exactly).
5. There is no mention in Dr. Dorcas’s study of coyotes. Coyotes recently re-colonized south Florida and may play a role in the decline of mammal populations there.
6. The differences in prey density inside and outside Everglades National Park are likely due to differences in habitat, not the presence of pythons. Everglades National Park is actually very poor wildlife habitat. More wildlife lives outside the park than inside. With very few exceptions most of the best wildlife habitat left in the world is occupied by humans. We give animals the wastelands that are too expensive to commercially develop and call them national parks.
I suggest all references to this article be removed from the article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.193.97 ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a subject I have expertise in, but I think the last line is incorrect:
Severe declines in mammalian populations across the Everglades may be tied to the proliferation of pythons.[2][10] Comparisons of road surveys conducted in 1996-1997 (prior to proliferation) and 2003-2011 (after proliferation) indicated declines from 88% to 100% in the frequency of raccoon, opossum, bobcat, rabbit, fox, and other mammalian species sightings.[2] These declines were concordant with the spatial geography of python spread. It should be noted that most of these species are well-known to have increased in numbers following human disturbance, however.
It seems like either the word "increased" should be "decreased" or that the sentence needs rewording to be more clear. User:Jonwilliamsl( talk| contribs) 13:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)