Talk:Green anaconda

I have not been trying to say that the green anaconda is the longest snake (the reticulated python is probably longer), but it is considered the largest since it is the heaviest. Here is how we know this. The article associated with this talkpage say that a green anaconda weighs 550 lbs and no one seems to be in disagreement with it. The only other serious contender for the heaviest snake is the reticulated python. The article for that snake says 300 lbs. There is no report of a reticulated python weighing 550 lbs. Here is a good source (^[1]). That book is from the Smithsonian National Instituion. It is reliable since it get's information from scientists. Here's an internet source from National Geographic (^[2]). National Geographic is no joke. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to find pages on the web regarding this species that seem to have no idea that they are perpetuating the myths that surround it. Naturally, they have no references either. That website you mention, nationalgeographic.com, is affiliated with the TV channel, which is entertainment; not the magazine, which is properly researched. Furthermore, the book you mention, Animal, by Burnie and Wilson and published in 2001 by the Dorling Kindersley company, has nothing to do with the Smithsonian Institution.

I don't claim to be an expert on giant snakes, but my research has lead me to doubt the claim that this species is indeed the heaviest of all snake species. 550 lbs? That's probably from a news report. I have yet to see a weight anything near this number reported by a professional herpetologist. Just think: if the largest specimen in 1,000 was 17 feet long and weighed 100 lbs, how can one that's only 7 feet longer suddenly be more than five times as heavy!? That defies logic. Finally, large Burmese pythons, Python molurus bivittatus, can also become very heavy, with measurements such as 20 feet and up to 200 pounds being mentioned. Myth or fact? I don't know yet, but it looks like E. muriunus may have a rival as far as weight is concerned. Until all of these articles have been properly researched, it is irresponsible for us to make any claims here that this species or the other is the biggest, or the largest, or the longest, or the heaviest of all snakes. (PS: That's you again, isn't it, Footballfan190?) --Jwinius (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, the Green anaconda is the largest snake. Not the heaviest, but the longest. This comes from numerous sources and is obvious. One thing that could be debated is what snake is the longest. I have not heard of a 500 lb reticulated python or 500 lb Burmese python. I will say that if a green anaconda really can't grow to 550 lbs, but can grow to 450 lbs, then that is enough to crown it as the largest snake. There is no 450 lb reticulated python. The reticulated is the only snake that could get in competition for the title of the largest snake. Even the article Python reticulatus says that the anaconda is larger. American Black bear (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious here. What sources? So far, all of these have turned out to be exaggerated news articles and other unreferenced claims found on the Internet. Unless somebody can come up with one or more authoritative references that explain why there is no good reason to doubt that this species is indeed the longest and/or the heaviest of all snakes, this article should remain neutral and not make any absolute claims. Also, the Python reticulatus states that E. murinus may be larger -- not is. --Jwinius (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Jwinius, do you not consider National Geographic an authoritative reference? You can see they report the 550-pound figure here, http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/green-anaconda.html. Also, you deleted a previously posted section referencing Gerald L. Wood's The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. It's all in that book and he includes references to his claims. Perhaps you could rewrite the book if you find it exaggerated.

If they end up printing that in National Geographic Magazine, then we will have to take it more seriously. In the mean time, I think that there is good reason to doubt the report of the 550-pound specimen. If we never learn to think critically and always go ahead and print everything that we hear or read about, then we're no better than the popular press. --Jwinius (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a more important issue here concerning the overall information in this article. It's misleading to quote the findings of the survey that found the largest specimen in a 1,000 to weigh only 45 kilograms and use that as the basis of the description. A 45 kg snake is nowhere near the largest snake in the world, and people looking for accurate information on this subject will either be misled, or have to turn to other sources. The true description of the snake (and a more accurate one) can be found in countless literal sources, both printed and online. I don't have the time to revise the article at the moment, but I hope someone with serious knowledge on fauna will take this matter into their hands. I remember this article being a lot more detailed and accurate previously - someone must have edited and deleted vital segments, rendering the article close to an uninformative stub. Nikolasbelmont (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing we need to cite as the "largest snake" is a *specific* snake that was measured at a *specific* time and place. The National Geographic cite does not satisfy that criterion. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done no research nor am I a snake expert, but just a curious user who came across this: Although the python may be longer, the anaconda is considered the heaviest snake; the heaviest specimen found weighed around 250kg. The longest and heaviest specimen, recorded by scientist, was a female with a total length of 521 cm and a weight of 97.5 kg. [7] Is the heaviest specimen recorded 250 kg or 97.5 kg? I don't believe it can be both. Urashimakt (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's some inconsistencies, mostly due to the whole "how big do they really get" issue. I think I can check a reference for the largest known weight, and go from there, but I'm moving and the book is in a box somewhere. It's the "In search of giants" book if anyone wants to try to find it before I can (may be a few weeks).

How come the conservation status is not on the taxobox? WikiProject Tree of Life states that the conservation status should be on a taxobox. I don't see any conservation status here. Am I streching the truth, or am I right? --With Respect to the order, Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} at 15:54, on 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not every species is considered to be in trouble and/or has a conservation status. The IUCN Redlist is a standard source for this kind of information and they do not list any members of the genus Eunectes. In fact, relatively few species are listed relative to the total number that exist, which is a good thing when you think about it. So, in this case no action is necessary. --Jwinius (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Over on the capybara page it claims that the capybara is the preferred prey of the anaconda, but here it merely states that larger snakes may eat them (amongst other things) and that such large prey is not regularly consumed. Assuming this means that anacondas will usually consume smaller prey, the two pages are contradicting each other, but neither cites a source. Anyone have any insight? Redset (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very curious what is exactly the longest (accepted) scientifically measured specimen? I read in "Tales of giant snakes" that there was a specimen of 24 feet, measured by a scientist. I can't recall the name atm, but I can look it up later. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got the book right here. There's a few specimens actually measured that aren't heresay, but no museum specimens. The Lamon snake is just insane at 37.5 feet, and Lamon himself states that it's probably wrong, but also states he's lost his notes and at best has a vague recollection of it being around 26 feet, but his phrasing leave it open to being substantially less, especially without records. Blomberg apparently gives a record of 23 feet, but the exact circumstances aren't listed in the text above, and I can't get my hands on a copy of the original work, making it really hard to evaluate. Ditto for Fountain's 24 feet. On the other hand, the supposedly 18.5 foot boa constrictor turned out to be an anaconda, upping the length to 18.5 feet.

The fundamental problem is this: based on what I've seen of these snakes and numerous reports (dubious and otherwise), I would not be surprised if specimens in the 25 ft range are possible. Such animals may indeed have been capture before, and since captive-bred babies are becoming more common in the pet trade, I suspect there will eventually be captive specimens at or near the maximal size. But until this actually happens, its all just speculation. The wild tales have only made things worse - with so many tall tales floating around out there about 30, 40 and 50 foot snakes, it compels a heavy degree of skepticism even towards more moderate claims.

It actually occurs to me that this might be productive to put in a well-developed section - don't mental size up front in the intro, and have a large section saying "So-and-so directly measured this, but there are reports of uncertain veracity of measurements like this, and here's why skins don't work and here's why overestimation is common and blah blah blah". When we haven't been antagonizing each other, we've been covering some important concepts that should probably be moved to the main page - how much proof is enough? how reliable are books and secondary sources? How well or poorly can you estimate things in the wild? I say rather just presenting readers with a single, ever-changing number, we lay out what we've been talking about back here. Mokele (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to make a section about various (scientifically based) claims. Most people can exaggarate much about sizes, it's probably psychological; seeing a huge snake makes it look twice the size in human eyes. Therefore I don't believe in 35-40 feet snakes, because only prehistoric ones reached those lengths. But I do think 25 feet Anacondas are very likely, especially if you take in mind that the Anaconda can live in up to very remote areas of the Amazone, where there are hardly any people living or even been (besides some indians). That's also the reason that there are far more documented 20+ feet reticulated pythons, because they live in more densed areas and (like you said) are more common as pets.

There was one scientist in Tales of Giant Snakes spoken about who thought (because an Anaconda of 17 feet weighs about the same as a retic of 23 feet) that Anaconda's could grow to a (normal) maximum size of 25 feet and retics to around 33 feet. I think that is the most realistic hypothesis so I settle with a maximum size of about 25-27 feet. There is no need of claiming Anaconda's can reach over 30 feet, because 25 feet is already a monstrous size (especially for an Anaconda!). In fact, I would pay a 100 dollars to see a 25 feet specimen.

To come back to our previous discussion I must admit I was a little bit fanatical, but I was really enthusiastic of seeing such a huge specimen. It's still the biggest one I've seen so far. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How does this sound: Title the whole section "Maximum size", with 3 sub-headings: "Difficulties in determining maximal size" (where we discuss issues like the rampant exaggeration requiring increased skepticism for all claim, how uselessness of skins, how badly people overestimate without a corpse, how the media will exaggerate even with known animal sizes, etc.), "Historical records" (where we discuss various claimed maximums and their merits/flaws), and "Current estimates of maximal size" (where we discuss Pritchard's 2.5x size estimate, the known lengths given currently, and those semi-relibale 24 foot lengths). How does that sound? Mokele (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay with me, although I'm not a scientist and my knowledge about those specific details is limited. I think it's best to not make it too complicated, but just some sort of summarise of various scientific claims, a little bit in a way they do in Tales of Giant Snakes. And ofcourse the discussion about how to determine lengths. I think it would also have added value if there is a summary from The life history of the green Anaconda document (starts on p. 74) about the difference in length of specimens in the savanna and Amazone jungle/rivers.

And what about chancing the first sentence of this subject too "reaching 5 m (16 ft) long, althought there are reports of much larger specimens.." I don't think it's a crime of leaving it a little bit open, because this is a public encyclopedia after all. :) --24.132.210.122 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying 40ft snakes aren't possible its just this: In fact, the evidence is far better than Bigfoot footprints. It is known that normal anacondas leave a special kind of track when traveling across mudflats from one swampy area to another. You can tell what size the snake is by looking at the width of the track. Many tracks of the giant anaconda have been found in remote areas. Hoaxing these tracks would take far more expertise than hoaxing the footprints of a Bigfoot. You can't get near without creating your own tracks too, unless you had a helicopter, and even then the difficulties involved in making six-foot-wide tracks that had all the characteristics of a heavy giant snake would be staggering.: skins aren't the only evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.130.18 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who made this topic. Thanks for adding my suggestion about the savana/jungle hypothesis. It's a good text so for, altough it could use some expansion. Maybe I will add some usefull information to it in the near future. However, it's better to leave this to the real experts. :) --24.132.210.98 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

~the green anaconda could reach extreme lengths upwards 40 to 50 feet because anaconda slide marks have been found in remote parts of the Amazon which measure 6 feet wide which has been shown are nearly impossible too hoax since anacondas leave a very specific slide mark another factor is that in order for a snake to maintain its weight it would have to spend a large portion of it's time in the water which is something anacondas are famous for as well as being called "water boas". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No such "slide marks" have ever been found. Mokele (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

~Thats not for you to determine just check out my source:http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eunectes_murinus.html: I bet slide marks of this size have been found except people have never brought in video of such "slide marks" to back up their claims. If thats not enough then don't forget what i said earlier about how a huge anaconda would need to spend most of its time in the water to support its bulk and that it is intresting to note that anacondas are also sometimes called "water boas" and that the fact they inhabit a continent rich in water further increases the possibility of such snakes existing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, it is, and your source has no evidence of any such slide marks. Never mind that even if large slide marks *were* found, they give no information on size, since they could well have been made by a modest-size snake that ate a very large prey item.Mokele (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

~ photographs,sightings and unconfirmed measurements are not enough to strengthen up the possibility of there being extraordinary large anacondas then some factors of which im about to mention AGAIN will theres the fact that a large snake would need to spend a lot of its time in the water which is something anacondas are known for and are sometimes given the name "water boa", another fact is that these animals never stop growing until they die, another fact is that a large portion of the amazon rain forest is unexplored and new species are always being found, and finally the fact that Amazon is rich in animal that could sustain a relatively large snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

None of these claims are worth talking about without a confirmed specimen. Show me a dead body, or the discussion is over. Mokele (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

~hold on i said these were factors not "claims" im not talking about claims im talking about how the enviroment could support such a huge snake if i were talking about claims i would be going on about how a 75 foot anaconda was measured yesterday thats a claim which is not what im talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your looking for a dead body now do you want it to be from a museum, on video, or a clear photograph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What could be is irrelevant - only what *is* matters. As far as evidence, nothing short of dead body in a museum. Photos and film can be doctored, and even if not intentionally altered, can be misleading and difficult/impossible to determine size from. Mokele (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

~ Very well then I will ask you then do you believe that there are truly enormous anacondas to be found larger than your 18 or 20 footer and if so why also i watched a documentry on anacondas hosted by herpotologist Jesus Rivas and he said in the documentry that they can approach close to 30 feet and from what i have read this guy is a proven expert on anacondas do you have any idea on what he mean't when he said close to 30 feet long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Even respected scientists can be mis-informed and wrong. Plus, it's a documentary, therefore unreliable - I know scientists who've had their words mangled so badly in editing that they were shown on TV saying the *exact opposite* of what they meant to. Mokele (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

~Three questions mokele One, do you believe giant anacondas 35 maybe 40 feet are possible and if yes why? Second, what is the record weight for the reticulated python and the african rock python? Finally its says on the african rock python page that the species can grow "over 20 feet" and i was just wondering what it mean't by over because over can mean a lot of things and from what I have seen it can mean 23,25,32 or 28 feet since those are the lengths I have seen people claim that they can reach so could you give me some insight on this species real length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One - no, I don't believe any such animals exist or have existed since the death of most of the large South American fauna ~1 million years ago. Without a lot of large prey, there's no reason to invest in the energetic expense of being big.

Two - I don't know off the top of my head. The "Tales of Giant Snakes" book in the pages citations should have something. Retics are usually quite slender, still over 100 lbs once they get large enough, but far thinner than anacondas or even rocks & burms.

Three - African rocks are generally ascribed lengths of up to 24 feet, but the book I mentioned has more detail. I'd be surprised if they were more than a foot longer or shorter than burms, because the two are pretty much the same size in captivity. Mokele (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

~Well if you had to make a guess then on what the absolute maximum size for a green anaconda would be what would it be since South America has a large population of relatively small animals and not big according to you execpt for the black caiman, tapirs, and jaguars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably about 26 feet - see the section in the main page on estimated max size based on minimum size of sexual maturity. Mokele (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah but there is just one problem with that being true in that very article it says specifically that size may be for anacondas caught in the llanos Venuzuala and that the rainforest which is less explored and has larger prey items may be home to larger snakes so I think the length should be pushed up even further even if 40 feet is unlikely lengths as high as 34 feet have been considered considering one of this size was allegedly measured but the body was never brought back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Until they catch one, it's purely hypothetical. Mokele (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

~You right it is only hypothetical but one thing I noticed is that most scientists place the anacondas largest "theoretical" maximum size at 40 feet and I have read that a group of respected biologist even place the longest "theoretical" maximum length at 45 feet all I'm saying is that 26 feet isn't the largest or the most widely accepted maximum length. One thing I wanted to say in reference to available large prey is that a lot of the Amazon jungle is unexplored so I was thinking as well as new species couldn't there be some type of large but rare fauna that could some how sustain a large sized anaconda since after all a good portion of giant snake reports come from remote areas? Its just a theory of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard any reputable herpetologist claim a length over 30 feet for anacondas; most are skeptical of anything beyond the mid-20's. Talking heads on TV, sure, but they're rarely particularly well-versed in herpetology. And even if there was some undiscovered large animal in the amazon, if it was so rare that it hasn't been found yet, it's too rare to constitute an effective food source for anacondas (at least not enough to warrant the cost of extra growth). Mokele (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

~Thats were your wrong I can even give the link to some sites of were biologists have claimed that anacondas may reach 40 feet trust me I have done a lot of research and believe me some are not as skeptical as you think and like I said "theoretically" which means they believe it "may" be possible. Here are some sites:http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/anaconda.htm and if you want something even more reliable than that this video shows a monster hunter interviewing a snake biologist and the scientist's opinion:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8IJhPGAoMM&feature=related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) ~Here is another thing it says that tapirs, jaguars, and the huge orinoco crocodile are threatened with habitat loss and I have heard some biolgists say that the decline in these animals is one of the reason why anacondas of huge size are so rare what if as well as some large unknown animal existing in the amazon there could also be a higher abundance of these known animals? oh and also please check out my links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

~ You also said earlier in your debate with that person who brought up that video of that alleged 8 meter specimen that you accept the hypothesis that anacondas "well beyond 25 feet" may be found in the wild and trust me you did say that and 26 feet is only a shade over 25 feet its not well beyond so my question to you now is what is exactly "well" beyond 25 feet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Both sources are crap. The website has no real scientists except in a 3rd-hand quote from an unreliable source at the end of the page. The video is of a crappy TV show, and neither scientist gives lengths beyond the upper 20's (even when the evasive douche of a host deliberately remains non-specific by only asking about "giant" anacondas). As for my estimate, "well beyond" is over a meter. A *very* well-fed well-kept captive could hit 28, but I doubt it'll happen within my lifetime (they're very difficult to keep well and prone to skin infections).

And why are we even talking about this? No body, no record, period. Estimates and guess and hypotheses are worthless unless tested. The only reason I included Pritchard's rule is that it's legitimate allometry / life-history work, not random ballpark guessing.

Possibilities don't interest me. Dead specimens do. Mokele (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just answer this last question if a length of 26 feet is would be for anacondas in the "wild" and it says that the amazon jungle may be home to larger snakes then what would your length for a "wild" not captive but wild specimen and in the heart of the most untrod amazonian jungle in which no soul has ever set foot? And you didn't respond t my other statement of since so little is known about the heart of the amazonian jungle then could there be much more abundant populations of tapirs,jaguars, and crocodiles to support a large snake? And I mean in the dead heart of the amazon were no man has ever,ever set foot completely undisturbed? And by unexplored I mean an area like the heart of Guyana aka the lost world or somewhere were no human being has ever ever gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It says on the anaconda page that claims of anacondas 35-40 feet exist but such claims needed to be regarded wth caution why do you still have that up if you don't agree with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So a 40 foot anaconda to you is an outright impossbility never ever going to happen or is just very unlikely because in science they say there is no such thing as impossible but there is such as a thing as highly unlikely or improbable but also answer my other FINAL questions there will be no more after these that I just posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The unexplored regions of the amazon are unlikely to yield much larger snakes because the *current* anacondas can deal with those species (except the large crocs, which are just too mean to handle regardless of the snake's size), so being larger offers no real advantage. Plus, we don't know about their gene flow - that they haven't split into a myriad of sub-species like the boa constrictor suggests there's enough gene flow that deep amazon genes make it to the civilized areas and vice versa, probably through dispersal of the smaller individuals.

As for what is says about claims of 35-40 feet, "regard with caution" is the closest WP will let me say to "are total bullshit".

As for impossibility, there's no physical reasons a 40+ foot snake cannot exist, and indeed there are records of species that size and beyond in the fossil record. But snake size is driven primarily by prey size and temperature. The prehistoric giants coexisted with similarly huge mammal prey such as giant ground sloths, toxodon, etc. in very warm climates (as in the Amazon when Earth was 5C warmer than today). You seem to need both - just warm temperatures or just large prey won't be enough. Given that there's no evidence of ultra-giant snakes within the past few million years even in localities with plenty of big game (Africa, for example), and that most of the fossil giants occurred when it was *much* hotter globally, I suspect that Earth does not currently have the temperatures needed anywhere. Mokele (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a new video on youtube. The quality is poor but you can still see this is a really large snake. They says it's seven meters, but looking at how they meassure it I think it's a little less. But to me, this one really looks like it could be 20 feet in length, and I've seen a lot of pictures and other vids of large specimens. This one also has a pretty large head. Especially notice how calm it stays. It's a beautiful animal and it looks harmless. You would expect a large one like this to be more agressive. Maybe it's tired of the struggle with these punks. I hope they didn't injure the animal.

Check it out:

--24.132.210.98 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats great and all but its not like finding a 26 to 30 foot specimen i mean we have 20-23 foot pythons in captivity which appear pretty huge in terms of bulk so 20 feet or even 23 feet isn't 'that big' of a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh i have two things to say One, the snake in the video is far short of being 6 meters or 7 meters it is more like 4 or 5 and second I made a mistake a 20 foot anaconda is a big deal compared to a python of the same length since the anaconda would be 'much' bulkier so my mistake but that snake in the vid is way to thin and short to be 20 feet. Any snake however 8 to 9 meters though is extraordinary whether it be python or anaconda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've watched the video more closely I think you're right. A 20 foot Anaconda would indeed be much bulkier. I think this one is closer to 5 metres, but it's definitely more than 4 metres. --24.132.210.98 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know the size of the largest Anaconda held in captivity? I've seen a video of a specimen in a Chicago zoo which is claimed to be 27 feet. This is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j48VMbWLYIM

You can see the snake at the end of the vid. Does someone has some more information about this specimen and how long it actually is (not an estimation, just factual information). --24.132.210.98 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the vid and some googling, it appears to be Serpent Safari. However, while their site lists a weight, it does not specify length. It's certainly an immense snake, but nowhere near 27 feet, and most likely obese (obesity is extremely common in captive giant snakes of all species). Mokele (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more vids of this particular snake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO0co7O6JdQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSfhBAQZOU

Apparanty, it's said to be 23 feet and used in the film Anaconda.

And here's another specimen apparantly held at National Zoo in Washington:

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

Any more info? They surely look immense, but 27 feet seems out of the question as that would be the world record. 20 feet seems possible to me. But it's very difficult to estimate these snakes in just a video, so I'm only interested in factual information. --24.132.210.98 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more I can find, but it's not surprising. Weighing a snake is easy, just put it in a box, weight it, and subtract the weight of the box. Getting an accurate length, however, can be a lot more difficult if the snake doesn't want to cooperate. Mokele (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because they say its 27,23 or 20 feet doesn't mean its that large if you remember the reticulated python, Fregrent Flower, then you have a perfect idea of just how badly zoos can screw things up especially when it comes to determining the size of reptiles, snakes and crocodiles to be more specific. Remember some zoos will try to get you to think that a 20 foot snake or less is 40 or 50 feet long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well like in the section above this which also has a video of a specimen claimed to be 20 feet or over I checked out the video for myself and I'm going to tell you that just judging from the girth that snake is 4.5-5 meters long no greater. Just another overestimation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't suprised if the snake would be only that long. But it's actually their massive girths that make them seem large because they are obesed. A normal 15 feet snake as you estimate it doesn't have such a girth. I would estimate these snakes to be in the 16-20 feet range, especially the one in the Washington Zoo. --24.132.210.98 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A good warning sign of an obese snake is if there's skin visible between the scales. Mokele (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok first I never said the Washington Specimen is 15 feet long its probably longer than that maybe 17-18 feet and finally the snake in the video given is large so maybe 16-17 feet is a more realistic estimate but it is still not 20 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebirdop (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'm looking at the anaconda page and it says now that they hit 22 feet long unless one this size has been found ,even though i believe the record is 24 feet 7 inches, then it should be erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the reference - it's an exceedingly old inventory of preserved specimens in the British Museum, including a 22 foot anaconda. It's exactly what I've been hoping for - a cited specimen that's actually in a museum collection, complete with specimen ID number. Unfortunately, I don't have an "in" with the BMNH, but perhaps someday I'll be able to go check out the specimen myself. Mokele (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright if the green anaconda may hit lengths of 28 feet based on the 2x5 rule and a reticulated python exceeded that rule then what would the maximum length for a reticulated python today be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean if anacondas in the llanos avergae 10.5 feet thus making the maximum over 26 feet and reticulated pythons average 15-20 feet on average what is the longest size we can expect for the biggest wild reticulated python? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You've missed the key of the rule - it's not based on average size, but size at sexual maturity. Female retics can breed at around 11 feet, giving a figure very close to the record for the species. Mokele (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok if I go by the rule the length comes out at 27.5 feet but theres a problem they said in the anaconda article that a female retic AKA Colossus exceeded the rule at around 28.5 feet so what would the real max be? Also the largest current captive retic which is like 24 feet well I think she is longer is believed to hit a length of 30-40 feet based on how she is growing so could someone give me a more real full size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and what is the longest reported length that reputable zoologists have given for a wild reticulated python?

It's a rule of thumb, not a law of physics. That it was off by less than 4% in such an extreme animal is pretty remarkable given the sort of scatter one usually finds in biology. If you're asking for the maximum they could ever be, there is no way to know - any number would be a mere guess, educated or otherwise. As for the largest wild one, I don't recall precisely, but IIRC it was in the low to mid 20's. Mokele (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

An anaconda doesn't need to grow any larger than 25 feet to catch the largest preys that live in its environment, like jaguars or caimans. So 35-40 feet would be extremely unusual and also completely useless. --213.93.187.127 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

--67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I'm not talking about anacondas I'm talking about reticulated pythons and I never said they hit 35-40 feet that is just nonsense and your forgetting that there are also tapirs which are much heavier than anacondas and the largest caimans are also too heavy for a fully grown anaconda too swallow so that would be enough reason for the snake to go a bit over 25 feet maybe 30 feet but never mind that I'm just asking what length *might* a retic reach that doesn't sound too ridiculous thats all.

--67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Oh one final question what size are burmese pythons at sexual maturity? And what is the record weight for burmese pythons?

Since the largest confirmed retic was 28.5 feet I think that 30 feet would be a plausible maximum length, although I'm not sure if they could reach such a size in the wild. --213.93.187.127 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2011 (UT

--67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Ok I'm not talking about retics but as far as anacondas go out of all the thousands and maybe tens of thousands of anacondas on the entire South America continent based on a partial vertebrae found somewhere in Venuzuala which was unusually large and thick and the thoughts of a reputable herpatologist I've spoken too there are at least two or three anacondas that are 30 feet long and *maybe* one out of the entire thousands that exist that is a bit over 30 feet or about 32 feet that sounds pretty plausible too me.

"A small sub-population has been recorded in the Florida Everglades and this population is considered invasive.[17][not in citation given] "

This should not be here, there is no proof nor record of a population of any Anaconda species breeding or established in any manner in the state of Florida. The only large constrictor currently listed as established in the state is the Burmese/Indian rock Pythons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.61.26 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Would this be sufficient as a source or no? http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_things/2013/11/15/green_anacondas_in_the_everglades_the_largest_snake_in_the_world_has_invaded.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.94.194 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a picture of a genuine 22+ feet Anaconda.

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l626/staffordshirebullterrier1/hugesucuri.jpg

--95.96.192.45 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There are times when Anaconda's cross paths with Jaguars, shouldn't there be something explaining this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green anaconda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725194834/http://contemporaryherpetology.org/ch/2008/2/CH_2008_2.pdf to http://contemporaryherpetology.org/ch/2008/2/CH_2008_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This section of the article seems particularly disjointed, and makes odd statements about reptiles 'adapting' to changes in climate in environment. First, this is untrue - tropical rainforest species like green anacondas are very poor at adapting to significant environmental changes, particularly changes in temperature and humidity. Second, it's difficult to figure out what any of that has to do with captivity. I'd like to get input from others on fixing this section - perhaps putting in some information on how these snakes require close duplication of their environment to survive in captivity, laws on trading them, temperament, and captive breeding.WingedWolfPsion (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the worst paragraph of that. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Green anaconda. 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/20100301090452/http://pages.prodigy.net/anaconda/canib.htm to http://pages.prodigy.net/anaconda/canib.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313040524/http://pages.prodigy.net/ to http://pages.prodigy.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726091143/http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.php/extreme-scientists/70-jrivas-herpetologist to http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.php/extreme-scientists/70-jrivas-herpetologist

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) 13:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green anaconda. 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/20140831013908/http://www.wmsp.co.uk/home-news.php?article_id=124 to http://www.wmsp.co.uk/home-news.php?article_id=124

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) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

See this scientific publication: the Anacondas: Revealing a New Green Species and Rethinking Yellows

No idea how to edit this into the current article though. Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 12:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The layout is a bit munted. Should go in a taxonomy section...hold my beer....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay wow. Late here in Oz - good to open up to discussion.... - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an exciting development. The new subspecies apparantly is to be called Eunectes akayima. The word "akayima" comes from several indigenous languages of the region and stands for "big snake". Another name that would be used in English is "northern green anaconda". Although they look almost identical at first glance, the genetic difference between the two subspecies is apparently 5.5 percent, which is immense from a genetic point of view; especially when you compare it to humans and chimpanzees, which differ genetically by only about 2 percent. Someone with more zoological knowledge should indeed update this article. I personally think that "green anaconda" should form a basis with a short description and that from there it should be linked to two articles: one to "eunectes murina", which should then contain the info about the current article, and one to "eunectes akiyama" which then describes the new subspecies. Thoughts? And does anyone feel called to do so? -- fdewaele, 19 February 2024, 18:52 CET.

Yeah. I'll do some digging today and work on it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

A new article was created a couple of days ago by User:Aivin G.. Originally entitled Eunectes akayimaEunectes akayima, it is now at Northern green anacondaNorthern green anaconda. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this merit a new article or should the original article just be changed to refer to both species? Not sure if there's enough information on specifically the northern green anaconda to have it as its own separate article, when all previous information on green anacondas would have made no distinction between them. Jsamson2001 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A paper that came out recently found that the northern and southern populations are actually separate species. Should the article be divided into articles for northern and southern green anacondas or left as one article for both species? I suppose probably the latter because until now, all information gathered about the "green anaconda" would have made no distinction between what are now different species. Jsamson2001 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realize this was already being discussed. I didn't see it on mobile. Jsamson2001 (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There's now a new record size for Eunectes murinus, it's a specimen known as "grandma" or "Ana Júlia" from the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil, it measured 6.36 meters. There's also another southern green anaconda that measured 6.4 meters (Butantan).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMK9ir20MG8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU0JYRe1aiU 177.73.44.195 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to also ask for the inclusion of Ana Júlia in the article.

Her size was confirmed by a necropsy, as 6.36m.

She is cited in the 2024 Article by Jesus Rivas as the maximum measured size of E. murinus(which is longer than the maximum E. akiyama).

News sites and police reports all over the internet also note green anacondas longer than the 5,25m individual of Rivas' 2000 article.

There's an alive individual in Ribeirão Preto Zoo that's reported to be longer than 6m and weighing more than 100kg, if anybody could verify that.

But Ana Júlia should absolutely be included as the maximum size since she was reported by authorities, measured for necropsy and the longest measured size of E. murinus on the E. akiyama 2024 article is also longer than the super outdated 5,2m that's on the Wikipedia page. 2804:2DDC:114A:2000:D77:3197:4328:4DEE (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

As there's no actual confirmation for the record sizes, it's clear the current heaviest is captive Burmese Python, and the longest retic, but anacondas are close to both. Also weighing snakes is not that good estimation of size, as it depends greatly if/when and how they were fed before the measurement. 178.212.122.31 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)