Great stuff, thanks for posting. To whom did this response go, however? Will it do any good?



Thanks,

Ed





>>The following is a response by Michael Cota to the USGS paper. Michael is a herpetologist presently working in SE Asia, who has extensive field experience with Burmese pythons. I think he makes several important points, so I obtained his permission to repost his observations (originally posted on another forum) here:

>>

>> Having read the on-line available paper thoroughly, having checked many of the references cited that are available to me, as someone that lives in sympatry with the target taxon, Python molurus bivittatus, has traveled extensively through its geographical distribution, and has acquired a great deal of information on this species through personal observations, I find what would amount to pages worth of concerns I have about what was written in the paper. For the sake of brevity, I will keep it to the points that Mr. Reed addressed.

>>

>>In the paper, it purports that they are found up to ca. 2,400m in elevation. This whole paragraph is not referenced. References listed at the end of their own paper contradict this. My own personal observations, over the past years, which have included significant time at higher elevations in tropical Southeast Asia, also contradict this. At much over 1,000m in tropical Southeast Asia, the ecology turns into one of montane forests, which P. molurus is absent. My apologies to Mr. Reed, but montane forests begin at ca. 1,000m elevation range in tropical Southeast Asia and semi-montane forests below this.

>>

>>Much is done to increase variability in factors by including the extremes in this species, particularly of P. m. molurus, while admitting at the same time the limited genetical diversity in Python molurus present in North America. However, a gross omission is that the problem population of Python molurus in North America is all Python molurus bivittatus from tropical Asia, with the normal phase specimens being of Indonesian blood lines and any with an albino blood line being those that were smuggled out of Thailand. P. m. molurus is far too expensive and rare in collections for people to be throwing away and when was the last time that P. m. bivittatus was imported from China? (never?) Certain bloodlines are going to have less tolerance for climatic variation than others, as the paper suggests. So why was a tropical only bloodline not listed as a limiting factor and shown on the map?

>>

>>A point made here that screams a lack of understanding of this taxon’s biology here is the authors’ lack of understanding why these pythons do not occur in vast areas of the deserts that should otherwise make up their geographical distribution. That is this species’ need of a permanent water source. Mr. Reed mentions people not understanding the tolerances of this python, but I am sorry, this is rather fundamental in the understanding of this species. If you check out their exact locality data in arid climates, you will find some kind of permanent water source available to them nearby (please now erase 95% of the desert southwest in the US from the map).

>>

>>Another error that shows lack of understanding this taxon’s biology is that theory #2 of why this species no longer exists in peninsular Southeast Asia, Sumatra and other areas listed. In this theory, it is claimed that the aggressive nature of P. reticulatus is a probable cause; however, again, this is not referenced with any evidence. Interestingly, in my very own neighborhood, I have both living in sympatry with each other and they can be found in the same microhabitats. This occurs in many areas where the geographical distributions of P. molurus bivittatus and P. reticulatus overlap.

>>

>>While I agree that something needs to be done to control the pythons and they are capable of causing great damage, I think this paper was written in a misleading manner, which is widely open to false interpretations. I sincerely hope that this was not done intentionally, since it appears far more than a mere coincidence that USFWS is presently pushing for a ban on pythons, this paper was just released and it so happens that the media coverage is far greater and faster than what is seen from anything that is not coordinated with the media for a 'media blitz'. The Invasive Species Branch are subject matter experts, their past work has been great and I have had the greatest respect for it; however, I feel this paper will not only ultimately hurt their public image, which it already has, but their professional image, as well. Although there has not been a multitude of people who have had the privilege of learning about this species within their geographical distribution, would it have hurt the authors to ask?

>>

>>Cheers,

>>Michael

>>-----

>>Brad Chambers

>>WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

>>

>>The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

[ Show Entire Thread ]