I am not here to bag on Ms. or Mr. Wyman, but I will point out, unless they are a biologist who works doing research on ball pythons, it’s irrelevant. One can be a highly intelligent person, but knowledge is gained, not magically implanted in your head. LOL. You can be a brilliant physicist and not know anything about ball pythons because it’s not your field of study. I myself am in the arts and if you asked me to identify a particular painting from a particular period, I can, but if you want to play me different kinds of Elizabethan chamber music, I won’t have a clue. LOL. Being an intelligent person does not mean you are magically gifted with the knowledge of the universe. LOL. We still have to refer to knowledge gained by other humans, say, knowledge about python regius from the scientists who’s particular field of study is python regius.
I know! What I found so cool about the studies is how they can use a parasitic load to identify what the snakes are eating, not only the stomach contents? I hope some scientists do more scientific studies because they are always so fascinating and really push aside all the mythology so we can provide better care for the animals we love, which is always the priority. I do feed chicks and quail, along with rats (and gerbils, hamsters and mice occasionally) and most love them. Because I pet sit two older balls that are notoriously picky and rare eaters, I started offering them birds and the one that’s actually slim lost his mind and actually started eating like crazy, so I had to be careful not to overfeed him. He LURVS that chicken!
I disagree you need a large sample size over a year not over a few months, it makes sense more were in the trees because it was in a permanently wet area as quoted below
another thing is that this was done during the wet season so it would obviously have more water.
For the love of god, PLEASE read the two scientific studies. You aren’t stating anything factual, you are only giving me the rote responses based on ONE of the studies. One study was done in Ghana, one was done in Nigeria. The one done in Ghana
“captured 202 snakes over 3m wide transects totaling 288 km in 4 regions in Southern Ghana (Eastern, Central, Volta and Greater Accra)”
Literally in this study right here! Please read it.
The other study was conducted in NIGERIA…a whole other country in their range. Cuz see, they are highly adaptable GENERALISTS. 
Granted they are both in the same area of the equator, but you can easily find out the terrain varies. In addition, you can do a 2 second google search to find out the “wet season” is May-September in Ghana and April to September in Nigeria…so basically half the year.
That study specifically says they searched for them in burrows, on farmland that was mostly burned, in an area that they are invasive to. Only 3 pythons were found outside of burrows, only one of which was found in a tree. No mention was made of birds as stomach contents.
You’re drawing the conclusion that they’re frequently found in trees from the statistic of 1/202 being found in a tree, while ignoring the fact that 199/202 were found in burrows and 201/202 were not found in trees.
You’ve also systematically ignored my experience working with essentially the same number of animals as this study (probably quite a few more actually), in a space designed to encourage climbing, that they exhibit no widespread proclivity to climb.
If you want to see how easy it is to publish and distribute a paper, do some googling on Raymond Hoser the taxonomic terrorist who has produced a prolific amount of “scientific papers” that are actually complete rubbish.
They were found in burrows because the land had been deforested and they are generalists, which are able to adapt to a variety of landscapes. Once again there were two studies there, one mentioned stomach contents, that doesn’t mean one is flawed because you like the information provided from study A over study B. They both reflect these amazing animals’ ability to adapt to whatever is available, like most generalists.
I am not “ignoring” your experience, but you seem to present this as uf only your experience counts and everyone who doesn’t agree with your very limited perspective and experience must be wrong. Please tell me, how you can expect someone to take you seriously when you disregard all the scientists and their work, because you don’t like what it says, so must be wrong, everyone who provides anecdotal evidence that contradicts your own must be wrong? These days, there are many people who provide large, enriching enclosures are able to view their own animal’s natural behavior, are they all hallucinating? There is documentation of one of the oldest ball pythons in captivity and her mate in a large zoo enclosure using all the branches and frequently, if not always using the hides up off the ground. Was there a conspiracy at the zoo?
Okay, so YOUR animals do not climb, I’m very sorry to hear that, but that is no reason to have this condescending attitude towards people who contradict your personal perspective.
I do not know who Raymond Hoser is, nor do I care. One bad hack of a scientist, if that is what you seem to be implying, is still not “evidence,” that other research studies you don’t like the results of, are immediately like your friend Raymond. LOL. Yes there is tons of science done all the time, publish or perish. So what? I guess now all previous research done on any and all science is rubbish because Raymond? If someone tells you something discovered in research and you don’t like the answer just yell RAYMOND HOSER! LOL. Sorry, life doesn’t work that way for logical people, you still have to provide a legit, scientific explanation to why.
So far you’ve presented a couple of studies, one of which looks at a tiny sample size in a limited area, and one that actually proves the point you’re arguing against.
You absolutely have. You’ve yet attempt to explain why 200+ ball pythons showed no regular propensity to climb, when given every opportunity to do so.
Provide it
Why do you think my animals generally choose not to climb? What makes your’s different?
We’ve pointed out the issues with the studies you shared. The existence of a paper doesn’t mean it is both correct and can be used as a behavioral indicator for an entire species. The research is a snapshot in time. There are so many factors that cannot be captured by viewing a tiny subsection of a species during a small window in time.
To this point everyone has spoken to you in a professional manner, despite disagreeing with your viewpoint. Please cease with the personal digs, they are not advancing your position. You’ve spoken to multiple people in this fashion and it’s rude to say the least.
Yes! Please remember that it can be hard for us un-involved bystanders to read and gain information from what should be an educational post swapping data if there is so much vitrol involved. It doesn’t benefit anyone to scare away people viewing this topic bc things are getting spicy.
Lord love a duck… There is a lot to unpack here…
Let us start here:
You have proven, time and time again with this attitude, that you are incapable of offering up any sort of coherent, scientific, or logical argument to everything that has been presented to you here that opposes your claim. Instead, you are condescendingly dismissive. And when you are not all you are doing is parroting what someone else posted
.
.
.
Again with the condescension…
You know absolutely nothing about what I have and have not done. You are making baseless accusations in an attempt to tear me down without actually providing any legitimate arguments to counter my arguments
The fact of the matter is that I have indeed read that link, which, by the way, is NOT a scientific paper and so does not meet the criteria that you have been bashing over everyone’s head this whole time that science should rule this discussion. That link is nothing more than an opinion piece of cherry-picked data put together by a YouTuber that is known for pushing his personal agenda about how terrible anyone is if they do not keep the way he has decided things have to be kept. It was not published in a valid scientific publication after undergoing a legitimate peer-review process
Further, I would posit that you yourself have likely not read the actual scientific papers because if you had then you would have recognized the MATERIALS & METHODS section that I directly quoted above came from that paper. The most likely reason you would not have recognized that, and so accused me of not reading the paper, was because that information was not included among the cherry-picked material included in the link
.
.
.
Again I will say - Just because YOU and not taken the time to read anything other than the information in that link does not mean that information is not out there. It is not my, or anyone else’s, job to hunt down all that information for you. Your willful choice to remain uninformed does not mean that there is no “science” to refute it, it just means that, unlike the rest of us, you refuse to look outside of a very narrow sphere of information
.
.
.
Do tell? So exactly what was noted in the direct quote I made…
At any point did you stop and consider that only studying during that half year window might skew the data???
What would the dietary profile be of animals if they were studied during the dry season? You do not know. And absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Everyone that is disagreeing with you is saying that those additional six months of data are important and likely change the conclusion you have taken a stand on. You, on the other hand, have decided that only the wet season data is relevant and should dictate every aspect of the conversation.
Again… That is not even remotely close to how science works
.
.
.
This is just parroting what was said in the link you keep claiming is the be-all and end-all of this conversation. Any real scientist would never make an assertion like this
.
.
.
So you are saying if I read the cherry-pick information in that link I would find a cherry-picked excerpt to support the cherry-picked conclusion??
When you are a more well read scientist you learn to recognize logical fallacies. What we see here is one such fallacy, known as ‘reductio ad absurdum’, literally translated to “reduced to the absurd”
The use of extreme hyperbole on the part of the author to try and prove a false point is as unscientific as the applying the results of limited studies to the entire ball python population. Even a layman that is well-read can easily pick this statement apart:
Termite mounds and rodent burrows are pre-dug structures that already exist and are being taken advantage of as refugia and feeding grounds. No one, other than the author of that blurb, is claiming that regius are fossorial and the only reason he makes the assertion that people are saying that is so that he can make his argument against it. Because regius are not doing any actual digging it is fully understandable that their head/face/jaw/eye structure are not going to be like those of actual burrowing snakes. Further, the specific fossorial species he mentions are known for being some of the most extreme examples of the lifestyle (which is the equivalent of saying that only the body plan of a mole is the definition of a fossorial mammal and ignoring the body plan of animals like prairie dogs and badgers). However, behaviorally and physiologically (i.e., snake biomechanics), regius closely resemble other snake species that are documented to hunt/prey and reside within pre-burrowed structures, species like Drymarchon and Pituophis.
Again, all of this becomes flagrantly apparent to individuals that take a scientifically literate approach of reading more broadly on the matter rather than just swallowing whole someone else’s biased opinion piece and deciding that single thing is the absolute sum total of merit on the matter
.
.
.
And right here you have just squarely proven your own hypocrisy
Neither “Ms.” nor “Mr.” is how you should address me. My appropriate form of address would be Dr. T. H. Wyman or T. H. Wyman, Ph.D.
Now, I do not particularly advertise that of myself because I generally find that those who do so are arrogant twits. However, there are times and places where I do finally hit the point where I have to flash my credentials, and when someone begins blatantly disrespecting myself and others, that checks both the ‘time’ and ‘place’ boxes for me
Your next challenge will be to question what I hold my degree in because:
For the record, my doctorate is in microbiology and molecular biology which, while it is squarely in the field of biology you are going to dismiss because:
Couple of really important matters here.
-
You openly admit that you are in the arts, and yet you somehow feel you are MORE qualified to understand science than the actual scientists (and there are more than just myself) that have been posting in this thread
-
Your argument that only a scientist that has studied ball pythons is capable of understanding a study of ball pythons is not how science works. Just because someone has a very specific field in which they acquired their degree does not mean they are absolutely and utterly incompetent and incapable of interpreting, understanding, and critiquing science from outside their tiny personal niche.
-
Have you even bothered to look up the authors of the studies your link talks about? No, you have not because if you had you would know that you have literally killed your own argument because they are conservationists and mammalogists and ichthyologists and wildlife biologists. Not a single one of them received a degree in Python regiusology. And so, by your own words, that disqualifies them from being able to comment on the species
.
.
.
At this point, I am done with this thread. No matter what anyone else says, you blatantly refuse to hear or consider anything other than the information presented in the opinion piece you keep promoting.
Thanks for pointing this out! I was a bit confused by the digging point brought up, but I just needed the reminder than BPs wouldn’t be digging tunnels, they’d just be squatters. Simple concept but its easy to overlook the small things sometimes
As far as I can tell, you are becoming angry and emotional that I am not agreeing with you and take THAT as condescension while not really answering anything logically. I’m understand in your perspective, if someone disagrees with you and they happen to be female, you think that person has no right to speak the truth or contradict you? I’m sorry you feel that way, my intention was never to make you feel bad or sad, I am only speaking in facts.
And it’s interesting you are demanding “proof” of the well documented ball python that lived to be 48 years old (they believe it might have been older since it was acquired as an adult-but now I believe there is an even older one at 60 that laid eggs) after ranting at me that it’s not YOUR job to provide any information, people can look stuff up themselves and also, you have years and years of experience yet this information has somehow eluded you, so I must “prove” things to you. Again, not a respectful or “professional” way to respond to anyone.
I’m sure the idea that ball python husbandry is changing and now it is known that they do well in large, enriching enclosures and climb, part of their natural behaviors, is aggravating if you have a large number of animals, because providing that, is a big headache, can be expensive, makes certain forms of keeping outdated and obsolete, but that isn’t a personal attack, it’s just that things change, husbandry changes. Things evolve. Digging your heels in with your group of buddies isn’t going to change that. I mean, I’m sure there were people who didn’t trust cars after relying on horses for centuries, but aren’t we better off now that we have cars?
Okay hold up. Where In his post did he indicate anywhere anything that even remotely means this? Your post have been nothing but disrespect to ANYONE that questions or doubts what you say. Your tone is toxic, and you aren’t even willing to budge, at all.
Please, for everyone’s sake, tone down the attacks and anger. You aren’t going to get anyone to agree with you by doing this method. It’s not how life works.
Personally from a scientific point of view, articles and papers that are not peer reviewed are red flags. I learned that in my first year of high school science class, it is a bad and unstable place to argue from due to the lack of data that is replicateable for multiple researchers/scientists.
If you can’t have others recreate your findings then your findings should be dismissed as one-offs or oddities, until there is an apparent trend that speaks otherwise. I think we all have the basic understanding that nature does what nature does, so if one ball python is found in a tree doesn’t mean that they are generalist when 199 other ones (not to mention that many others are found in burrows) were found on the ground.
Um, first of all, I presented TWO scientific articles, not just the link, you didn’t address any specifics in the article, you just keep harping on the sample size, you, yourself are cherry picking information and just giving me the rhetoric that all minimalist, bare bones keepers give. You are mistakenly making some assumption I’m just regurgitating something a smarter person has fed to me, but I’m not, so you can let that go now.
Attacking someone that they don’t “remotely know how science works” because they are presenting a side opposite yours is hardly respectful. I am not in the minority in giving thought to these studies, it is only minimalist keepers that disparage these studies, which hardly qualifies as evidence the studies are wrong. Peer review (@lumpy ) would be better, I agree! That said, generally papers are peer reviewed by PEERS. Currently in the scientific community: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC
That said, I’m not in complete agreement, I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bath water regarding peer review. What I DO understand however, is currently there is a very tiny amount of scientists doing peer reviews and python regius isn’t really a profitable nor high interest field of study. So it’s not like it was reviewed and discredited and not being reviewed does not automatically negate the information.
And Dear Dr, I understand you have a Ph.D. That’s a wonderful accomplishment, I do mean that sincerely, but I know and YOU know MICROBIOLOGY and MOLECULAR biology do not automatically make an expert on royal pythons or their behavior. Certainly not over other scientists that have the same level of education and are actually doing scientific research on python regius. You are full of contradictions, I am not allowed to even say scientists doing research are correct because I work in the arts, but by your criteria, the scientists that are Conservationists and wildlife biologists are somehow FLAWED. Your position is, you are a scientist! And therefore, even if you aren’t in this field of study, your opinion must be right and respected! But other scientists are bad and anyone who actually believes another scientist’s work is stupid because they are not scientists? Am I reading this correctly?
Constantly dismissing someone you do not agree with and attacking their intelligence or ability to decipher information is incredibly condescending. Attacking them because they believe a study conducted by scientists and contradict your own opinion is rather the epitome of being condescending.
Unfortunately, this topic has become rather contentious, and instead of a productive discussion about the behavior of ball pythons in the wild and what we know about them scientifically, it has turned into personal attacks. For this reason, I am locking the thread.
no
Anacodotally, as someone who has been a part of this site for a while and certainly had my fair share of disagreements and controversial discussions, I’ve never felt that my opinion was discounted due to my sex/gender, so I’m sorry that you feel that way.
I am not saying that you don’t remotely know how science works. I am making the assumption that you know how to read and interpret scientific articles. But reading and using flawed articles as scientific law is not a way earn respect in any field especially science.