You are absolutely correct. In the text of the report the authors try to explain how they came up with the area you are seeing that is said to be too wet for yellow anacondas. The problem is that these guys use formulas and data manipulation instead of actual field data and biological reality to attempt to extrapolate their data into what they mistakenly believe will happen in real world U. S. habitats. What they found was climate data at the coolest southern edge of the E. notaeus natural range in South America that showed average annual rainfall below 40 inches per year. That is a fact and I don't dispute it. However, they then assumed that higher rainfall in combination with borderline temperature requirements would limit the range of notaeus in the U. S. more so than temperatures alone. Somehow they failed to realize that excess rainfall would more than likely not effect the survival of the most aquatic of all boid species, even more aquatic than E. murinus. They therefore show the ridiculous "too wet" zone on their range maps. The range issue with notaeus is obviously not going to be excess rainfall, but adequate environmental temperatures. The USGS report is full of errors in judgment and understanding of natural ecological systems.

Based on temperature data alone, as compared to the coolest part of their range in South America, I don't believe E. notaeus could never maintain a self sustaining population in Florida north of Lake Okeechobee. This assumes that all other environmental factors are at absolute optimal levels and does not take into account any other environmental factors that could also limit their survival in this area.

Kelly

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]