Talk:Central African rock python/Archive 1

"Endangered" in Africa, "nuisance" in North America
While the rock python has an "endangered" status in Africa, it is considered a major nuisance in Florida (along with the Burmese python, the ball python, the Nile monitor, and the green iguana) as a result of having established colonies. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arkive content validation
The armive article which text was taken from was authenticated (28/04/09) by Dr. Luca Luiselli, Senior Researcher in Ecology, Institute Demetra, Rome, Italy. http://www.intecol.net/pages/002_personal.php?id=lucamlu

TCO (reviews needed) 00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Natal subspecies?
There is a huge overlap and commonality of the two info on the two subspecies. I found Painted turtle covering all four subspecies, in the same situation, to work much better together as one and it is now Featured. Would like to merge the two articles. Also, there was an initial structure of covering both the species as a whole and one of the two subspecies in this article (but even that is violated). Would just clean things up to put all together. We can do redirects from the subspecies names to the species article. They really are very similar and have been studied often as one entity.TCO (reviews needed) 18:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1643835265678127?view=permalink&id=1788498164545169

The previous classification was changed in 1999. So this wikipedia page needs an update.

(Previously) Northern African Rock Python P.sebae sebae Southern African Rock Python P.sebae natalensis

(After 1999) as classified by cites African Rock Python Python sebae

Southern African Python aka Natal Python Python natalensis

Natalensis is lifted to its own species.

You can contact also rangers@africanwildlifedefenceforce.com for extra verification AWDF 09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

commonest common name?
Is Natal rock python more common or Southern African rock python?

Google shows "Southern African rock python" three times more than "Natal rock python". We'll mention both, but I want to use SARP as most common. Also SARP was how was used in our ARkive donation, which is majority of text now.TCO (reviews needed) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources I've seen use Southern African rock python. Aurous One (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1643835265678127?view=permalink&id=1788498164545169

The previous classification was changed in 1999. So this wikipedia page needs an update.

(Previously) Northern African Rock Python P.sebae sebae Southern African Rock Python P.sebae natalensis

(After 1999) as classified by cites African Rock Python Python sebae

Southern African Python aka Natal Python Python natalensis

Natalensis is lifted to its own species.

You can contact also rangers@africanwildlifedefenceforce.com for extra verification AWDF 09:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

26JUL status
Done integrating ARKive content. Up to a B now. Added more text. Cut some old unreffed text. Added a bunch of pics (from us). Merge/deleted the other subspecies (only 1.5 sentences came over). To take it any further would require researching actual references. Think it's better article now than before though.TCO (reviews needed) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvement needed!
Python natalensis is a separate species since 1999, which is supported by almost every herpetologist in recent literature and publications! Python natalensis shows prominent differences in squamation, pattern, habitat, general behavior, reproduction,... Please give Python natalensis its own article back! For more information take a look at the reference list of the German wiki for Python sebae and Python natalensis. Thank you and good luck! --77.57.177.59 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The taxonomy is (still) disputed. Article explains this (and gives both sides).  I think we are better showing the traditional taxonomy as the new one has not yet been universally agreed on.  And note, the more recent and authorotative sources favor the subspecies, not species labels (check the refs).  FYI, the English and French wiki article have always had a subspecies labeling, not full species.  Also, Arkive source did as well.  The subspecies do intergrade (interbreed) so traditional species concept would consider them same species.  In any case, this is discussed in text and only real issue is article naming, etc.  Of course, if scientific community every completely agrees on a different taxo, we can change.  I doubt it will happen for reasons above.TCO (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I’m glad to here that you try to get more literature about these two pythons! After reading more about them, I’m sure you will change your mind about the subspecies status. I’m not aware of any reputable herpetologist (scientific and NOT popular scientific or herpetocultural stuff), who doubts the species rank for Python natalensis since 1999. Next to the reptile database [] here a small selection of publications that I’m speaking about: Good luck and thanks for your efforts! --77.57.177.59 (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G. J. Alexander: Thermal Biology of the Southern African Python (Python natalensis): Does temperature limit its distribution? In: R. W. Henderson, R. Powell (Hrsg.): Biology of the Boas and Pythons. Eagle Mountain Publishing Company, Eagle Mountain 2007, ISBN 978-0-9720154-3-1, p. 51–75.
 * G. J. Alexander, J. Marais: A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town 2007, ISBN 978-1-77007-386-9, p. 61–65.
 * S. Spawls, K. Howell, R. Drewes, J. Ashe: A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press 2002, ISBN 0-12-656470-1, p. 305–310.
 * B. Lanza, A. Nistri: Somali Boidae (genus Eryx Daudin 1803) and Pythonidae (genus Python Daudin 1803) (Reptilia Serpentes). Tropical Zoology 18, 2005, p. 67-136, here a useful link: []
 * And even Walls elected them to full species rank a year before Broadley1999 officially did: J. G. Walls: The Living Pythons. T. F. H. Publications 1998, ISBN 0-7938-0467-1, p. 142–146, 166–171


 * OK. Let me research it...TCO (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary notes (research in progress)
ITIS has the traditional taxonomy and cites McDiarmid 1999, which seems very well regarded.

CITES (trade treaties) seems to still use the traditional taxonomy (although there is discussion of changing it).

IUCN does not list python sebae in any fashion (at all).

Broadley 1999 is the source of most of the competing species claims (would like to look at that paper).

Not really finding a killer discussion of taxonomy on the web. Like one that discusses both sides of the question (even if taking a position on which is right). In particular would like to read discussion of the "mixed region" and if the two snakes intergrade (mate).

Looking at Google scholar, it seems that papers are published in the 2000s using both species and subspecies descriptions. Actually not really that much activity going on of any sort with python sebae. Definitely a lot less than Chrysemys picta, which had thousands of papers and a similar taxonomy debate.

A subjective Google web (in US) searching around for top pages (I looked at first screens, did not quantify) seemed to show more use of subspecies than species. Although certainly some on each side. And Wiki serves as a source for a lot of hobbyist sites, so this is ambiguous.

Number of web pages recalled gave 22,000 for "python sebae natelensis" and 21,000 for "python natalensis". So that's a wash...

There is a large pythonidae taxo review from 2010 (by a Zherman ) that has the species usage. (but it does not really discuss pro and con...I trust papers more even if they take a position if they show both sides and give a reason for why they take a position...)

Not crazy about the reptile database as a source.

I have not gotten the books mentioned yet or the one paper on distribution of southern one.

I also looked at all our en-Wiki lists and the like (list of pythons) and they all have the traditional taxonomy. And the en-Wiki article has always had natalensis as subspecies (we did have a separate article...but it was always as the subspecies...never species).

At the end of the day, it is not up to us to decide if Broadley is right/wrong, but to reflect consensus of what is used in science (and even in trade and legislation). I would not want us to be jumping on a new fashion...or stuck behind if really the whole World has moved on. I'm leaning to staying with the article as is, mostly based on ITIS and the usage in English language web. In any case, we do give both sides (in the article) and can probably expand the discussion. The only issue is sort of a Wiki one of what our default is for the article naming.

TCO (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Somali paper is quite nice in giving an overview of Sebae in general (and regardless of taxo issue). Good reference for a lot of behavior and the Roman tilings and all that.  It was reviewed by Broadley and does use his 1999 elevation of the subspecies.  Does not add any more on the argument and in Somalia there are no natalensis, so does not discuss co-occurence.  Definitely an example of continuing the Broadley usage.  It does discuss the issue of a lot of the 20th century literature using the single species system, so it becomes difficult looking at old literature on the African rock python to know which is reffered to.TCO (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is from the 2010 German python taxo paper in zookeys (in context of a different discussion): "The resurrection of the genus Heleionomus for Python sebae and Python natalensis is unwarranted because the actual status of natalensis and sebae has not been fully resolved and, furthermore, separation from Python would compromise monophyly of the genus Python." (note, though, they do seem to advocate natalensis elevation.  just saying they also say not really resolved.)TCO (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a research request in to get the Broadley 1999 paper.TCO (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * emailed McDiarmid and Broadley (a 2006 email, I could find).TCO (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up some old issues
Interesting to see degredations creep in, if I'm away for a while. Several good faith, but negative adds were made. There were some fine ones as well. Just...easy to see cruft or mistakes come in as well.

1. The "largest ever" keeps getting added as a found in Florida claim. But I researched this and what actually happened is the largest specimen IN FLORIDA, was found in the Everglades. See:. So cutting this false factoid that keeps coming in. (update, added it to the invasive species section).

2. Some comments on snake unlikelihood of attacking humans modified (we had already covered this aspect, new text was not new sourced). Discuss if needed.

TCO (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

3. (to do) make tables for the gallery view workarounds.

Removed inclusion of well documented urban myths of African rocks eating people. There has never been a confirmed report of a human being consumed by an African rock, ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed the mention of the idiotic theory being floated that an African rock killed two boys in Canada recently. It's not only not verified, it's a ridiculous theory that denies facts. The autopsy report will conclude this definitely. Such speculation has no place in a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.131.236 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Germans have an FA
Way more sources than we have, many of them in English. Lot of stuff on culture as well. I need to read through it all. Can get by in German, but not fluent. TCO (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

python blues
Just looked at the history of this article. We had an IP delete a sentence about evolution and also lost content description. And then a followup gnome merged the rump para into the next para. So you can't even tell what left.

Also we got overlinking with, for example, subspecies linked twice in a few first sentences. And a "blue next to blue" confusing link (genus and python). (Note the python genus article would be the place where the word genus is linked if there is a tension.)

TCO (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on humans
The page says that :
 * There has never been a verified report of a human being consumed.

but 2013 New Brunswick python attack says otherwise.

Which is the correct version? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

On page 27 of "Boas and Pythons of the World" by herpetologist Mark O'Shea, the author mentions an incident in Uganda in 1951 where an African Rock Python swallowed a 13 year old, subsequently regurgitating the victim. Neither of the children in the alleged New Brunswick attack were consumed. 99.242.144.216 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify on the original question, two kids were killed in New Brunswick, but they were not consumed (eaten) by the pythons. In a 2002 case, a 10-year-old was allegedly swallowed by an African Rock Python, but the snake was not captured, and with nothing but witness accounts the incident was not "verified". A 1973 report of a soldier who was recovered from the stomach of a large python was similarly unverifiable. Agyle (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 30 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) 08:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Python sebae → African rock python – This very well known snake (one of the largest few snakes in the world by both weight and length) has a well-established and unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. The suggested destination name already redirects here, and always has since it was created in 2007. As best I can tell, the article has never yet been moved and no prior formal move discussion has occurred. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per common name (not to mention common sense, if someone yells at you "Watch out, there's a sebae behind you" you might not move as fast. Randy Kryn 14:20, 30 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 1 one external link on African rock python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131224100904/http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-/1056/560504/-/4wvt75z/-/index.html to http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-/1056/560504/-/4wvt75z/-/index.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New Photo for Taxonbox?
Is there a different photo we can use for the taxonbox? That snake is just grotesquely obese, far beyond the result of even ingesting big meal; many of the body scales don't even meet anymore. The Brevard Zoo photos are just as bad. Any wild photos which would be good? Or just captives that aren't going to die of liver failure in the next few years? HCA (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Ben Nyaumbe" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Ben Nyaumbe should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)