Talk:Pythonidae

Antaresia or Bothrochilus?

Several of the species listed as Antaresia are referred to in many websites as Bothrochilus. I've left them listed here as both... hopeflly someone who knows more about snakes will be able to sort this out... Grutness|^hello? 01:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Let's make this a redirect to python. That article is about the family as well, and there is no need for two articles on the same topic. "Python" is the common name and the article is slightly better, as well (more info on the bottom). Dawson has merged any extra info into python, so there should be no problems redirecting. Any objections? – ugen64 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection, I think even if people are looking for the "family" of Pythonidae, most likely they will be looking at python in the first place anyway, and the term "python" doesn't necessarily cover just that singular genus, and for most concerns, refers to the family as a whole anyway. -Dawson 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes.  :) The problem is that this provides the basis for the genera and thus, the individual species. There is always the problem of having the common name as well as the classification, and although I don't think there is a clean answer, I think having them both is better. Redirects muddle the entire thing. IMO. I've had the same discussion for Praying mantis and Mantodea. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A redirect and merge solves the problem of having two articles that are essentially the same. Pythonidae should re-direct to Python for ease of use and to eliminate the redundancy. Hamster Sandwich 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Family or subfamily

The Pythons are indeed sometimes classified as subfamily (Pythonidae), eg by Itis. But not the EMBL Reptile Database, wich is used as main source for the classification for reptiles, and classifies pythons as a subfamily (Pythoninae). Also wikispecies, the Dutch and (mainly) the German wikipedia use the term Pythoninae. For example; the article Python refers to EMBL. I am planning to fix this on the English and German wikipedias in a couple of days, maybe anyone has some thoughts about this? B kimmel 15:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes because some sources list pythons in the family Boidae while other sources give pythons their own family name of Pythonidae. I'm more inclined to go with ITIS and classify them as their own family of Pythonidae, simply because that database usually seems more up to date than EMBL or print sources. Though, using the subfamily name of Pythoninae is not incorrect, but should probably be specified as the subfamily in the text to avoid confusion. Higher up in the taxa sources also disagree on the Infaorders, EMBL says they're Henophidia and ITIS says they're Alethinophidia. I'm of the belief that taxonomy is more art than it is science, and everyone has their own opinion. :) -Dawson 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some taxa have changed multiple times in a single year. Itis and EMBL are just slightly different here and there. If Itis is a better scource I will use Itis for the reptiles, and remove links to the EMBL that do not apply. I posted this at wikispecies and wait for some more reply. B kimmel 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think EMBL, though not as current as other sources in places, is still a valuable resource, and shouldn't really have links to it removed. Taxoboxes have allowances for mentioning synonyms, and should be used where applicable. I try to mention taxonomic confusion in an article somewhere if there is something specific to comment on. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to get all sources to agree, and even if you changed every article to refer to ITIS instead of EMBL, next week someone could come along and think EMBL is the better resource and change it all back, and maybe even back up their argument with a third, print source. It is a rock and hard place with no real solution. -Dawson 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know there's a lot of confusion, and I've corrected many of my own articles because of taxonomic problems. I think EMBL is the only workable source. ITIS is very incomplete, it is mainly focussed on the North-American species, many European families, genuses etc. are simply 'missing'. Most very common European species like Lacerta viridis don't even seem to exist.

Another example, similar tot this one, is Anomalepidae (EMBL) / Anomalepididae (ITIS). As a solution, maybe the Pythonidae shóuld be renamed to Pythoninae, so at least we are working with a single, maybe not the most accurate, but at least complete classification (EMBL). I will do anything to prevent the impression arises any classification is static. Especially in cases where EMBL and any other major classification do not correspond, like in this case the Pythonidae, but others too. To prevent contradictions in articles but also between different wikipedias, wich is not good for our credability. I believe that no matter how confusing and contradicting classification is, the articles on wikipedia should use the same classification at least as a guideline. B kimmel 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion, per the previous discussion on this page, of merging it into Python (since it is largely duplicate info) and making a new section in that article to discuss the taxonomic confusion. -Dawson 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reaction. I agree with merging, it solves most problems and Pythonidae and Python are pretty much the same. Thanks for your feedback! B kimmel 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for doing the work. ;) -Dawson 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

General

Without wishing to offend the well meaning efforts of others, I felt obliged to make a considerable number of expansions and corrections to the sections on Geographic range and habitat and Behaviour. Hopefully these changes will be seen as my contribution to convey more comprehensive and factual information. I would enjoy hearing any feedback via this page as there are a few other changes I would like to make here sometime. Peter b 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Longest snake?

Both references cited actually state that the claim is false, but still worth a mention because of the frequency such claims occur. Peter b 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe there has been no mention of this 49ft python in the article. Click here for the article at MSN --Hecktor 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it was a hoax. Or perhaps just one of those magical shrinking pythons. You know the ones that shrink to half size when a tape measure comes out? :) -Dawson 05:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick, but shouldn't there be some comment under that GTP about designer color? --magialuna 02:10, 01 September 2006 (UTC)

-Though obvioulsy not as common as mostly green animals, there are plenty of viridis with that much yellow in the wild.

What about Python molurus pimbura? Is it not recognized as a sepperate sub species of molurus molurus?Todg 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They forgot about the extinct genus Messelopython from Germany. 100.37.233.93 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

POV?

"The larger species such as the Burmese python and Reticulated Python should only be owned by those with experience of snakes. Cases of large pet pythons killing their owners have been documented, but generally due to poor husbandry on the part of the owner, rather than the snake attacking at random."

^ Says who? The first sentence is pure POV. If the advisement is expert oppinion, there needs to be a citation of just WHO is giving this advice, and what their qualifications are, as well as to disown the advise and attribute it to either a pervailing concesus of experts, or a specific expert. Also, the line which states that most python killings are "generally due to . . . the owner" is vague speculation, if not pure POV. I'm removing the second part. Unless there is a source which specifically shows that "poor husbandry" is the primary cause of pythons attacking their owners, then this is baseless.

I don't know about the husbandry part, but I reworded what was left to make it more neutral. I also added a reference. EEPiccolo 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

This doens't make sense: "Although, as per the latest reports. There have been some sightings in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Popular snake charmer Isha Pant says that this trend is here to stay" It needs to be cleaned up.

Hoax: Eating Humans

The edit about a python swallowing a drunk person (sometimes in South Africa, sometimes in India) appears to be a hoax. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-snake-swallows-woman.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRomaine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Spurious links?

The word 'venomous' in the opening paragraph links to a 'rap' artist of the same name; not what most people clicking that link would be looking for.

"Venomous" has been a redirect to Venom since June 11, 2004. Unfortunately, it was hijacked last week in favor of a Bahamian recording artist by that name. Since more than a few articles, mostly snakes articles, link to the Venom article through the Venomous redirect, I went ahead and renamed the new article in order to restore the original situation. Of course, it's possible that someone will protest. --Jwinius (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Facial photos?

Any head-head comparison photos between boidae and pythonidae showing distinguishing characteristics? Would be greatly helpful, and cool. Shrumster (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be that interesting. The only obvious external difference that I can think of is that, when you compare two species from both families that have labial pits, the boa has ones that are located between the scales as opposed to on them (as with pythons). The more important distinguishing characteristics are internal (teeth and jaw bones). It's hardly a coincidence that these two groups are often lumped together in a single family (Boidae). Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some old edits

For some old edits that used to be at the title "Pythonidae", see Talk:Pythonidae/Old edits. Graham87 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify "cardiac arrest"

Without particulars, that reads like the old tautological statement of cause of death in humans. In some U.S. states long ago the definition of "death" was the stopping of the heart. I've known families who still rely on that when a relative has died of something embarrassing. The obit will say "heart attack". Which is the tautological usage under which the ONLY possible "cause" of death is a cardiac arrest.

I suspect that what is meant is to refute the notion that the prey dies from asphyxiation. (I never heard the "popular misinformation" that the prey is "crushed to death". What one would tend to believe is asphyxiation. The coils are so tight one cannot breathe, and, for lack of oxygen, one dies.) But if that is WRONG, and death is by cardiac arrest and it's NOT the tautological usage described above, then I GUESS what is happening is that the coils are so tight that blood cannot flow, and the heart, for finding too much resistance to its attempts to move the blood, breaks like as other pump would do upon an absolute impediment to moving the flue. But that is my GUESS. If you could make it plain that that is what's happening (or that something else is happening), then I wouldn't need to rely on my GUESS.74.64.104.99 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"The poaching of the pythons is illegal in Cameroon"

Well, obviously it is, because if it wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be poaching. I was going to change this to say "hunting", but the cited source is actually ambiguous. It says "National Cameroonian wildlife law also protects pythons from being hunted, killed and sold, but enforcement of the law is severely lacking", which could mean it is regulated rather than prohibited. I've found another [source] that indicates it is regulated (requiring a license) rather than prohibited, but I don't know how reliable this is. Iapetus (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing stuff

@Frvdvtbtbr: please explain why you are removing so much from this article. Because what you are doing is a little WP:DE.CycoMa (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

70,000

The 70,000 years appear in the section called "Folklore". I am not sure how the figure was arrived at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y74db231 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)