Talk:Burmese python
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
- 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)
"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
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)
