Talk:Green anaconda

At the Emilio Goeldi museum

Last time I went there there was a specimen much larger than the sizes in the article. I don't know how to go through the bureaucracy of registering that data officially (do you have to publish it in some scientific publication?) and I don't have the resources to do that (influence/money/time). I just wanted to let you know about it, perhaps someone else may be able to do that, especially since there's a reward but I don't know if applicable in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.79.20.253 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Which is longer?

Although this article states that the Green Anaconda occassionally reaches lengths up to 10 meters, it says that the Reticulated Python actually grows to be longer. The Reticulated Python article agrees that it, and not the Green Anaconda, is the longest snake in the world. However, the article on the python claims that the largest recorded specimen was only 9 meters, which makes it shorter than the Green Anaconda. Unless the anaconda data is wrong, or the python data is outdated (and a specimen longer than 10 meters has been found), then the Green Anaconda should win the prize for length.

According to the Guiness Book of Records, the record is held by a 10m (32ft 9.5in) reticulated python, shot in Sulawesi, Indonesia in 1912. Keep in mind the anaconda does get heavier, which when people use the term "larger" leads to some disagreement. -Dawson 19:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The main anaconda article says the longest anaconda ever found measured 11,50 m. Still, most sources put its maximum length at about 9 m. I do think the anaconda is the biggest snake because, as Dawson said, it gets heavier (because it's thicker). It's like the Komodo dragon and the Papua monitor- the Komodo dragon is the largest lizard with a length of 3 m and a weight of up to 150 kg, but the lighter, thinner Papua monitor can be up to 4,75 m long and is the longest. Jerkov 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the longest measured Papua monitor was 2.44 m (8 ft), with some scientist giving an estimate of 2.7 m (9ft), others even 3.7 m (12 ft); so there's no definite proof of it being longer than the Komodo dragon – for which there are also higher estimates than the measured 3.10 m (10 ft 2 in) captive specimen.

As for the green anaconda, some sources have taken seriously the claim of a 11.43 m (37 ft 7 in) specimen reportedly measured in Colombia by a group of engineers in 1944. Guinness has disregarded this though, giving the credit to a 8.45 m (27 ft 9 in) specimen caught in Brazil in 1960. This individual had a girth of 111 cm (43¾ in) and an estimated weight of 230 kg (c. 500 lb); though comparing with the measurements a large captive reticulated python specimen named Colossus (length 8.69 m/28 ft 6 in, weight 145 kg/320 lb, girth 95 cm/37½ in), I got a weight of 194 kg (428 lb) with the given dimensions – perhaps an estimated 200 kg (441 lb) was roughly converted to 500 lb? Note that an 8+ metre green anaconda is already spectacularly large: very large measured and photographed anacondas I've seen have usually been within the range of 5–6.5 m (c. 17–21 ft) in length and 80–110 kg (c. 180–250 lb) in weight. Besides the 1960 Brazil specimen, I've never heard of a reliably measured green anaconda over 7 m (23 ft) long. The heaviest snake actually weighed was a 183 kg (403 lb), 8.23 m (27 ft) long captive Burmese python named Baby – so apparently the green anaconda has it beat. --Anshelm '77 18:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know. A snake skin naturally sretches after it has died. The python was bigger than it should have been.

Are metres in the article derived from feet or vice versa? 11 metres is approximately 36 feet, not 29, and 9 metres 29,5 feet, not 26. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.76.226 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) How long was the longest anaconda on record in terms of feet because on the Largest Organism page the largest on record reached 31 feet long. Anyway the way I hear it from many other sites it says that the longest RELIABLY and ACCURATLEY measured Green Anaconda was only 27.9 feet long but the longest recorded size was just about 29 feet long. So maybe about 27-29 feet sounds like a good max.I find it unlikely that there is a confirmed record of a anaconda 37.7 feet long because that would make the reticulated python the second longest snake. I read on one site that the longest green anaconda was 29 feet 2inches which is roughly 30 feet so maybe this is how people came to the conclusion that these animals reach 30feet long. Although they were about 8 inches off.

I'm not aware of any claim above even twenty feet that's supported by an actual corpse. Mokele (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the source of the 29 foot rumor? The problem is, things get exaggerated, sometimes even unintentionally. I recall one example of a great white shark record, where the shark was captured and accurately measured...and then the newspaper reporter accidentally hit the 3 instead of the 1 on the keyboard and turned a 16 foot shark into a 36 foot shark. That's just one of many ways things can go wrong. Zoos exaggerate, people measure from skins (which stretch) or photographs. Remember, a 30 foot snake is 50% larger than any yet confirmed, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And that means a body.

The vast majority of sites, experts, TV shows, and books will tell you how fast the Black mamba is - but if you actually look in the scientific literature, nobody has actually ever reliably measured its speed. Common knowledge is often wrong, *especially* when 'charismatic' animals are involved. Mokele (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First, PLEASE make sure you are responding *AFTER* my comments, like this. I've reverted several of your edits which were in the middle of mine, making it look like I said them. Second, yes, there are lots of people who *think* there is a record of a 20+ foot anaconda. They parrot information from books, which got it from other books, which got it from other books, and so on until you find the original record, which is just a rumor or an unverified report. I strongly recommend you buy and read the book cited on the article page titled "In search of giants" - it's an excellent book that tries to parse out the rumors from the reality, tracing records back hundreds of years to original texts from explorers and such. It dispels a lot of these rumors, including the persistent 33 foot anaconda rumor (far more widely cited than your 28 foot rumor). Just because a lot of people believe something is true, even people who should know better, doesn't mean it's actually true. Hard evidence is required. Mokele (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know. I know what the longest measurement I know of is, and I'm willing to revise that upwards if given evidence of a larger snake that was reliably measured. That's the key - I don't insist I'm right, but I do insist on physical evidence before changing my mind. That's what all science is based on. If we start allowing rumor and guesses to take the place of actual measurement and evidence, we're writing fiction, not science. And note that books are not peer-reviewed by scientists - anyone can write anything in a book and get it published, accurate or not. Mokele (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, a 25 foot anaconda wouldn't surprise me in the least, and 28 feet may be possible. But until there's a body to back it up, it's just a guess, and guesses cannot be substituted for facts. Mokele (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm sick of debating this with you. No corpse, no record, period. We've been over this a dozen times. Everything you need to know is either here or in the book I recommended to you. I've got much more important things to do than re-hash the same old tired claims again and again. Bring something new, a new corpse, and we'll talk. Until then, it stays as is. Mokele (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to debate then fine. And when I do find that "CORPSE" of yours then I will be the one getting sick of debating it with you. I'm sick of you insisting that the maximum is 23 feet long without even presenting a corpse of your own I mean all you say is 28 feet might be possible you never have anything to back up your claims. Think Mokele no corpse no source no record all of which you lack as well. If you think that your right then why don't you prove it and stop doing the same thing I do. Face it you have never once presented a corpse yourself so stop trying to act like I'am the chimpanzee and your the scientist. There I'am done and this debate is officially over. Until you actually have a corpse or record yourself that is it. No seriously I'am done debating with you as well it is getting to annoying that the person who insists on a length of 23 feet doesn't even have a source to prove it. WELL I"AM FINALLY DONE WITH THAT Oh and truthfully everything I need to know is not here because like I said you have not proven your supposed 23 foot limit yet and your little sight and yourself don't know everything like you keep insisting.

Oh and I'm sorry if I got over irritating with my nonstop comments though that will end. I mean it I know that it has gotten annoying but I just haven't seen any evidence of a corpse come from you either or a reliable source.

Although does a skin in a museum collection count as evidence first of all Mokele? Because if they do I have a place where you can go and see what they say is the skin that belongs to a 8m(26 ft) anaconda. And don't get angry at me just because I'm asking you a simple question because I may have some form of corpse or body. I searched very, very hard for this place so don't start getting all aggressive and irritated with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A skin isn't a good record - snake skins are VERY stretchy, and during drying/tanning can easily increase the animal's length by 50% or more - I could turn a 20 foot snake into a 30 foot skin, easily. I've already given you the source I'm working from, the "In search of Giant snakes" book - read it for yourself. Honestly, I'm being *generous* with 23 feet and violating my own rule - if I stuck to my rule, the record would be *less than 20 feet*. However, the record of ~ 24 feet was measured from a freshly-dead specimen by a reliable herpetologist. I suspect we'll get a better understanding soon - there's loads in captivity, and captive animals tend to grow longer (due to lack of disease, etc.). Mokele (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Any way when you said that reticulated Pythons could grow to a length of over 28.5 feet what did you mean by over because I read in one of my books that there was actually another specimen 28 feet 8 inches long are you referring to that?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A complete skeleton would be great, and a partial or skull would be OK, but it's problematic extrapolating size from a partial or skull. As for the Retic, it's Colossus, a massive female that lived in the Pittsburg Zoo. The last known measurement of her was 28 feet, 6 inches. I suspect it's the same snake with a typo in the measurement. Mokele (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

However what makes you so sure Mokele that your book ,In Search of Giant Snakes ,is so reliable huh? Like you said with me books aren't always the most reliable source so whats your excuse?

It's written by actual herpetologists who do an *excellent* job of digging up original sources for claims of all sorts. It's exceeding well-referenced and, when possible, quotes original sources at length and gives accession codes for museum specimens. Mokele (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proof

You guys should check out this video on youtube: Anaconda ( 8 mts) - Luis Andaur. This is the definite proof that Anacondas can grow over 20 feet in lenght. This snake is just HUGE and although they seem to measure it properly as 8 meters, I'm guessing this snake will be around 7 meters, and definitely more than 6. That's a fact which I think scientists will agree with. Let me know what you guys think! --24.132.210.122 (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a big snake, yes, but not *proof*. It's just a youtube video, and you never get a full shot of the animal, so for all we know, they could just have 5 short guys haul up a 4 m individual and say "8 meters" with a string alongside it. Mokele (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In my oppinion a video is always more proof than just a picture, since pictures in many cases intend to make animals look smaller or larger than they really are. I think you are a little bit exaggerating you're conservative thoughts and I guess you are making a joke about this snake being 4 meters. There is a very clear shot of the snake from the side with the people standing around it, the snake not even being stretched and already over 5 meters in lenght. I'm not somebody who says these snakes can grow to more than 30 feet, which they almost certainly can not and 8 meters being already extremely large and rare. But this snake is definitely one of the largest ever documented, just look at the girth, which is the same as a full-grown man. A snake (living in wildlife) of 4 meters has by far not a girth like that.

But if you're so sceptic and want to contradict every sign of proof just trying to be a smart-ass, maybe you should also consider to contradict you're own research and findings. It's the same as me saying that you're own "proof" of snakes no longer than 20 feet are manipulated by making the snakes look smaller than they really are. That will be a little bit annoying, isn't it? (Btw, I'm not that guy who was discussing with you previously) --24.132.210.122 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither videos nor pictures are proof, because both can be manipulated. Proof is museum specimens. As I've explained before, I *do* think they can top 20 feet, but at the same time, we need to have some sort of standard for what's considered a viable report. IMHO, the only logical standard is museum specimens, because they cannot be faked, unlike any other standard (including photos, video, and verbal/written reports). On one hand, this means we may underestimate the size of this snake. On the other, it means we don't have to spend vast amounts of time and effort trying to sort out fake from genuine records. Mokele (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you say you think they can top at 20 feet, but before you said a 28 feet Anaconda wouldnt't suprise you at all. That's a little bit contradicting. First of all, it's not scientific at all to state they can top at 20 feet, because scientists have only documented very few specimens compared with the numbers living in the wild. Most specimens were caught and documented in the Venezuelan savanna, by the same scientist who concluded that because of reproduction specimens in the savanna have limited growth, while specimens in the Amazone jungle could probably grow to mucht greater lengths because of the difference in the habitat environment. From the 700 speciments they caught in the savanna only one was 5 meters in length, while the 'first one' they caught in the Amazone river was of the same size. That's says a lot.

And according to my own research there are museums and zoo's in the United States that had Anaconda's over 25 feet, and therefore documented. But maybe you only mean Anaconda´s living in the wild? If so, it's true, wildlife specimens don't usually grow to such lenghts as those held in captivity. But if they can grow to 27 feet in captivity, they can grow to such lengths. So saying that they top at 20 feet is just the same speculation as saying they can top at 28 feet, which is what I think. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this hard to understand? I except that the hypothesis that larger anacondas exist in the Amazon will be confirmed, possibly well beyond 25 feet. However, it has not been confirmed yet, and thus, it would be premature to claim it as fact. That's how science works - there must be evidence to support a claim. There's plenty of other hypotheses (my own and of others) that I expect are correct, too, but I don't claim them as anything more than hypotheses until the experiments are done. Furthermore, that the first specimen caught was 5 meters is a statistically irrelevant - you have just as much chance of drawing a king as a 3 as the first card from a shuffled deck. Finally, can you cite sources for these museum specimens and zoo individuals? Have they been confirmed by an actual scientist? Lengths are often exaggerated by zoos for publicity reasons, and truly large museum specimens are rare simply due to storage and preservation issues.

Seriously, all I ask is that we rely on evidence, rather than hearsay, speculation, and dubious anecdotes. Present me with a good source that meets scientific standards, and I'll happily revise the length upwards. All I ask for is evidence. Is that really so much? Mokele (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just presented you with a convincing video about a 20+ foot snake, but since you won't accept video's and pictures as evidence, I'm wondering what will be acceptable for you otherwise. You expect people to personally show you a preserved specimen in a random museum or zoo, together with a genuine signature by a world-known expert? That way, you make it very hard for people to contribute on this website. Because what is "evidence" any way, the books you read? If you want to put it that way, the only real evidence is to see it with you're own eyes, what makes a public encyclopedia like this useless since taking a picture of what you saw would not be accepted, cause of the risk of being manipulated. Sadly I can't show you any evidence of specimens (dead or alive) in museums and zoo's, because it's hard to find on the internet. And if I did, you probably would find another excuse to contradict and disclaim it, like that comparison you made that doesn't make sense at all. Although I do agree with you on the fact that zoo's are known to exaggerate about their specimens to attract the public, like for example all those crocodile farms claiming they have 20 feet crocs, which is already disproven, but that's another subject. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated what will be acceptable - museum specimens (or living specimens measured accurately by a trained scientist and reported in a scientific journal). My primary source for this article is a book written by trained, experienced scientists which has full references and museum accession numbers. Yes, this makes things difficult. But I'd rather make things difficult than perpetuate false information. This is what all science is based on. Are you seriously suggesting we should just wave aside any sort of standards, and accept any claim supported by a dubious video or a potentially faked photograph? And frankly, if you think I'm being overly skeptical, you have no idea what science is actually like - everything must be meticulously documented, every source of error either eliminated or accounted for, every claim made carefully and with due skepticism, every bit of evidence quantified and statistically tested. I've rejected papers from journals for a single statistical error - all I'm asking from you is for a physical specimen or a peer-reviewed journal article, the absolute bare minimum. Mokele (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That video is actually fairly unconvincing. At around 4:20, you get a few seconds of the anaconda stretched out with people standing around it. If you check it out with the people as scale bars, the snake is about 2.5 times as long as the second guy from the left (with the hat) standing astride the animal is tall. If that guy is 2 metres tall (which I doubt), that makes it a 5 metre anaconda. If he is shorter, then so is the snake. OK, the snake probably is not lying entirely straight, etc., etc., etc., but although the video certainly shows a big anaconda, there is no clear evidence whatsoever that it is more than 5 metres (16 ft.) long. Caissaca (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

At 4:20 the Anaconda is far from stretching out, maybe you should look at it again with glasses on. After looking at the video a couple of times I also don't believe this specimen is 8 meters, considering how extremely large that is actually is, although they seem to measure it scientifically. But it's completely out of the question this Anaconda is below 5 meters, especially if you look at the enormous girth. And why should they set up a fraud with hiring "very short people" and pretending to meassure it properly as 8 meters? I don't go along with that sort conspiracy theories. There's a good change that they are exaggerating the lenght of this specimen, and it's true that it's hard to verify the truth, but I still believe this is a 20 footer. I've seen 'a lot' of pictures and videos of Anacondas, and I've never seen a 5 meter specimen with a girth like that. Maybe you should show some pictures yourself to convince me I'm the one who's wrong... Good luck. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to exactly the problem I've been trying to prevent - using inferior and unreliable sources like this video means that maximal length will be constantly bickered about due to differences in interpretation and potential fraud. That's why I've been so instistent on using reliable scientific sources. Mokele (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should there be a problem? This page is created to have this sort of discussions in the first place. And btw, if you haven't seen any convincing proof Anaconda's can grow to more than 20 feet, why is this sentence on the article page: "The Green Anaconda is one of the world's longest snakes, reaching 5–7 m (18-23ft) long". I suggest changing it to 20 feet, or otherwise 28 feet if it's just hypothetical. But if you do so, you have to change every article about snakes in conjunction with scientifically confirmed lengths, which then applies also for the reticulated Python. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

News Flash - I didn't write the article, and do not have time to constantly patrol for changes and wade through a thousand other articles. Especially not with people wasting my time explaining why shitty YouTube videos aren't a reliable source. Mokele (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is wasting you're time but yourself since I never particularly asked for you're reaction, although I do appreciate you're insights. I never showed this video to discuss if it's a 'reliable source' nor for you to convince me it isn't. I just wanted to share it with all who's interested, because I thought I would have "added value". --24.132.210.122 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mokele you admitted to violating your own rule by placing 23 feet aand then you said 24 feet so which length is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.130.18 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say 23 feet in the article? Hrm? I've checked it over and NOWHERE does it say 23 feet. Mokele (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Look on the largest organisms page and the titanoboa page and you will see what I'm takeing about. They both put the snakes length at 23 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.130.18 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? So I'm claiming stuff on pages I've never edited beyond vandal patrolling? That's pretty amazing of me, what other pages do I alter with subconscious telepathy?

Strange as it may sound, I am not the sole author of every single page that has anything to do with anacondas. Hell, I'm not even a primary or major contributor. Alerting me to these inconsistencies is one thing, but claiming them as my words is irritating and intellectually dishonest. Mokele (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said you where the cause for these problems MOkele sir. I never blamed you for any of this PERIOD.

I never vandilized on this site just by saying that there are some errrors on its pages mokele.

I never said you did. Mokele (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It says on the anaconda page that the anaconda gets 18ft long Mokele are you saying it should stay at 18ft or should it be moved to 20ft? Oh wait though if I mention that 23ft was once there in the article you will say that I'am insulting you Mokele?

Oh also anacondas do reach over 7 meters just check this site ,http://www.giantconstrictingsnakes.com/?page_id=36&cpage=1, it mentions records of other giant snakes as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Breeding Season

It is mentioned in the article that the breeding takes place in rainy season but the web site the article references for "cannibalism" in green anacondas (http://pages.prodigy.net/anaconda/canib.htm) states that breeding occurs in dry season when anacondas concentrate in the more permanent water sources. These two statements totally condratict and someone who has really studied the species should edit the article if current statement is wrong.

Should this be here?

Upon reading the article I found the following line in the geographical range paragraph:".. and Anacondas are also found in new England aquariums". I don't really think that New England aquariums are the range on Anacondas. Shouldn't this be edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.0.148.56 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

Would anyone be opposed to moving this article to "Eunectes murinus", in line with the rest of the articles in this series? --Jwinius (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well to me it looks like that is the article's current location. If the above comment is archaic, shouldn't it be deleted?

Zearin 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This species (the green anaconda) is usually what people think of when they hear “anaconda”. For this reason, I think this article should be merged with Anaconda.

At a bare minimum, I think this article should at least link back to Anaconda. Probably should provide links to the other species of Anaconda as well. Zearin 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - I've clarified, and we should generally try to avoid redirection an entire genus to one species, especially when other members of the genus exist and are well known. Mokele (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Largest snake

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 (). 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 (). National Geographic is no joke. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

References

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).

Conservation

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)

Anaconda's preferred prey

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)

Candidate for longest specimen

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)

Video of a very large specimen

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: [1]

--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)

The largest Anaconda in captivity

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.

Florida sub population

"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)

Giant Anaconda

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)

Relationship with other predators

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)

Requested move 28 August 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Eunectes murinus → Green anaconda – This very well known snake (the largest in the world by weight) has a well-established unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. Although it does also have other common names, "green anaconda" seems to be the most common, and certainly more common than "Eunectes murinus". The suggested destination name is already a redirect to this article, and always has been since its creation in 2006. This article was originally at Green Anaconda and was moved here after a brief comment in mid-2008 about article naming consistency, as recorded in Talk:Eunectes murinus#Move proposal. (There was also a quickly reverted move back to that name in February 2009.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, common name. An anaconda by any other name is still an anaconda. Randy Kryn 1:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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

External links modified

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)

Captivity

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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified

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)

Seems this species has two subspecies

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 akayima, it is now at Northern 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)

How should the article be changed in light of a new species?

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)

New record size

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)

Should be "one of the largest"

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)