Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Well I have spent the better part of the last week trying to find some supporting information to see who does indeed have true, verifiable Sabogae boa's in the USA. Seems everywhere I look I find conflicting information such as Vin Russo's stock not being legit to Pro Exotics having sabogae from a breeder in Germany, but has no documentation to verify. All I seem to know is that Salmon Boa and West Coast Constrictors have all the remaining boa's from the 2005 inport from Costa Rica. So can anyone help explain what really is going on with this, the last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of money on salmon hypos or hypo inland panamanian's that are being passed off as true and verifiable Sabogae.

Awhile back sabogae, true sabogae, were imported via a dealer in miami along with strawberry darts and auratus frogs....a bunch of ppl bought them,but then the dealer flooded the market with them by getting greedy and importing a bunch more. then he dumped the price too......

Then I assume that is why those that claim to have paperwork still chage a premium?? I mean I have seen Sabogae anywhere from $3000 to $500 a pair with CITIES documentation. Either not all of these are legit or some people are just trying to take advantage of the ignorant and those willing to pay a premium to buy from a well known and respected breeder.

I think that boa to be amazing. very distinct in its features, size and colors. I would not pay more for the "CITES" documents, call me naive, but if the boa looks like a Saboagae, walks like a Saboagae and talks like a Sabogae, i would not over pay for the documents. I can see the point of using the CITES as a "certificate of authenticity" however its a very distinct animal and if you're going to get duped, the duping party will fabricate the CITES to dupe with. I guess i have a question, what other boa resembles strongly a Sabogae boa which concerns you to be sold in the place of a Sabogae? a couple of questions to the breeder that you can verify and pictures of the animals and they must look TEXTBOOK saboage of course, would apease me. just my dumb opinion.

I have seen hypo mainland panamanian and salmon hypo's that look just like sabogae, that's my concern. There is an article someplace that has pictures of all 3 side by side.

Here is the link

http://www.boa-constrictors.com/com/com.html

i see what you mean. i recommend buying from or via people you trust then.

some came in as "sabogae" and others as hypo panamanian boas. I saw first hand seeing both sold as both just to appease an order. the "hypo panamanians" were sold as sabogae, and the sabogae with CITES docs were sold as hypo panamanians......ive also seen CITES for both, and all came in as sabogae......

"I saw first hand seeing both sold as both just to appease an order."

People like this deserve everything bad that ever happens to them in their life. And more.

jb
-----
What's written above is purely my opinion. In fact, MOST of what you read on the internet is someone's opinion. Don't take it too seriously

Jonathan Brady
DeviantConstrictors.com
Deviant Constrictors picturetrail

When did you see this happening?

"I would not pay more for the "CITES" documents, call me naive, but if the boa looks like a Saboagae, walks like a Saboagae and talks like a Sabogae, i would not over pay for the documents."

I have to disagree. If someone is willing to put in the extra effort and time it takes to stay organized with records and paperwork for an animal, why should that time and energy be rewarded in the price dept. I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for." If someone is willing to pay that attention to detail on paperwork, it is likely that the same attention is paid to the animals and potential customers.

And like others have posted, there are a few examples of some animals being similar and being passed off as Sabogae boas...

-----
Jeff Carr
West Coast Constrictors
www.westcoastconstrictors.com

Your rationale is logical, however my statement was geared more towards not punishing a trustworthy source of boas because they never got hold of CITES. If the breeder can document the purchase of the animal or the purchase of the parents, and the animals is everything a pearl island boa should be, I would do business. Having imported for 20 years, I've seen what looks like animals from a region come out of another (especially in bcc) so I stopped getting caught up with the paperwork and going with what the animal looks like and if it's what I'm looking for of not. Maybe I'm just damaged when it comes to that, it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Let me start with this. I'm fed up with people saying, "I'm the only one who has true sabogae, all the rest are fake, all the other breeders are swinders.". As you may know, these boas were very higly priced few years ago, and some "breeders" or "salers" certainly wanted to make sure the success of their business, discouraging people to buy from some else.

Maybe Chris Gilbert is the guy you are looking for. He is very well informed about Shipments of sabogae to US.

To the best of my knowledge, Rich Ihle was the first ever in the US to have sabogae in captivity. He represents his line as "Saboga Island" line. This is a documented bloodline with CITES.

Then some people in Germany also obtained some from the Costa Rican zoo stock, which represents "Taboga Island" line. This is also documented by CITES. Ancestors of these boas were hand caught on Taboga.

Finally, few years ago, soon after Panama had stopped its live animal export ban, some sabogae and lots of Panamanian mainland boas (Bci) hit to US. Altough these sabogae came in with legal CITES paperwork, their origin has never been proved, as CITES does not recognise subspecies (at least not from B category). On the CITES papers they all are "Boa constrictor" from "origin: Panama". No more info. These sabogae have very distinct look from mainland imperator and are absolutely identical with animals mentioned in original description of sabogae subspecies by Barbour and then Cochran. I think several well known US breeder got sabogae from those shipments, including Gus and Vin. I also imported a couple to Europe and last year I bred them succesfully.

Gus and Vin both have bred them several times and theirs offsprings have also confirmed: these are pure Boa c. sabogae. As by now we have seen several offsprings that are also identical with features of sabogae(as parents are), we have no reason to doubt they are pure.

As regards your question, buying from a reputable breeder is the best choice in my opinion.

All the best,
Adam

Adam is correct
Rich Ihle was the first in the US the have Pearl Island Boas ( sabogae ). And in 2005 a few shipments of Boas entered the US from Panama & those shipments had both mainland ( Hypo & Normal ) boas & Island type Boas ( sabogae ). These Boas also entered the US under CITES simply as Boa constrictor ( which has added to the confusion ). Now I have a few of those Island type boas from that 2005 shipment - however another shipment entered the US thru Bushmaster Reptiles in 2006. The Bushmaster shipment entered the US under CITES as Boa c. sabogae. That is because the Zoo in Costa Rica ( not the Zoo affiliated with the European Taboga Boas ) got permission under CITES from the Panamanian government to collect Saboga Island or Pearl Island Boa constrictor sabogae. I have Boas fron both the Bushmaster sabogae shipment & the original 2005 Panama shipment & they are identical ( in Scale count & looks ). Therefore the boas from either the 2005 shipment ( island types only ) - the Rich Ihle sabogae & the Bushmaster sabogae are all Boa c. sabogae. I hope this clears things up for you all. Enjoy the pics - they are super looking Dwarf Boas & I love them.
Vin Russo

Link

Thanks for the clarification, but I still have another question. I think what you are saying is that the animals from Rich and the 2005 and 2006 CITIES are from the island of Sabogae and the German imports were from Taboga, but aren't they all still sabogae? Also curious if you know anything about the reptile park in Costa Rica that is still selling sabogae to importers like Bushmaster, is there any documentation as to where these came from?

Yes - all of the Saboga boas that Rich Ihle myself and Gus ( and a bunch more breeders here in the U.S. ) have are from Saboga Island in the Pearl Island Archipelago ( hence the name boa c. sabogae ). The Boas in Europe that are sold as Taboga boas are in my opinion Boa c. imperator. I say this because of two main reasons. First - Taboga is only a mile or so from Panama & therefore there is no genetic isolation from the mainland ( Boa c. imperator can swim to & from that island ). Secondly - the Taboga boas resemble & make both Hypo & Normal phase mainland looking boas( more evidence of imperator blood ). As for Saboga Island - that Island - is over 50 miles out in the Ocean & hence Genetic Isolation is the reason they are a recognised & valid sunspecies ( and yes - even CITES recignizes them as a valid Subspecies & the scientific community too ).
As far the Reptile park in Costa Rica ever shipping Saboga Boas again - that will most likely not happen simply because they acquired permits that one time ( back in 06 ) and Zoos acquire permits to get Zoo animals for themselves & rarely sell any surplus ( which they did in this one case )- so they have what they need now.
And lastly - thru Cites documentation (of these "Bushmaster" sabogae & Rich Ihles sabogae ) & verbally speaking to the Zoo - these boas came exactly from Saboga Island & entered the US under CITES as Boa c. sabogae.
Lastly - its my opinion that these saboga boas are truly unique from any other Central American Boa. A novice could tell the difference simply by looking at them. I myself have noticed multiple differences from the Saboga boas & mainland Hypo Panamanians in that the Saboga Boas have longer heads & the Panama boas have short heads ( the Saboga Boas were originally described as Epicrates because they had a longer head ). Secondly - Saboga boas breed like tree Boas ( complete wrap each other up ) & their Babies are born huge compared to the tiny Mainland panama Boas. These big saboga babies are probaly an evolutionary response to island life where large prey items are more common than smaller ones & therefore the larger young stand a better chance at survival. Third - saboga boas have small litters of Large Babies While Mainland Panama boas have Big litters of small babies.
And finally - I hope this info helps to settle any questions ( but I really cannot understand why there are any ).

Vin Russo

Saboga Boas

I have been speaking with someone that claims to have a pair that is from the reptile park and says another shipment has just come in again with sabogae. He claims that they routinely come in every year. This is where my confusion comes in, I have respected breeders saying that nothing has come in since 2006 and then someone else says that they continue to come in via the reptile park exports. I wouldn't give this guy much credibility, but the source in the US he has been mentioned is one of the documented sources mentioned numerous times in this thread.

Thanks to all who helped clarify this for me, but most especially Vin. I think I finally have figured this all out and it's great to have such knowledgable and honest people leading the way for such an incredible animal.

Gorgeous boas!!

Who is Gus? Sorry for my ignorance.

Gus is Gus Rentfro, www.riobravoreptiles.com he is one of the boa GODS.

Chris
-----

This is were molecular genetics will help. If there was enough samples availabble from breeders with true saboagae, panamanians, etc, I might be interested to screen these to determine similarites and/or differences between the boas imported.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

I'm afraid they won't do as long as there is nobody who would invest thousands of dollars in a Boa constrictor DNA sequence.
Correct me if I'm mistaken. Nonetheless, I'm sure DNA testes in the future will transform our view on current subspecies. But until then, there remains the good (sometimes bad) old taxonomy.

Adam

Well, actually, you are wrong on the cost. The entire genome is not required. I can amplify select regions of the mitochondrial genome to determine the true phylogeny of samples provided. If a breeder was unsure of the true origin of his/her animals in relatino to someones with "paperwork", assuming they have samples also from that other breeder, I can determine relationship.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

I see that relationship can be determined and also that not the entire genome is needed. I know that mitochondrial DNA is used in searching familytree, as it is way too conservative. But how can you recognise a subspecies in molecular genetics? I mean what will determine that a subspecies is "sabogae" or "imperator" on molecular level? Also what will determine whether a speciment is pure or not? And what are the expenses to find this out?
Please clear this up.

At the molecular level species and subspecies can be differentiated by the degree of sequence divergence at key genes (e.g. Cytochrome Oxidase I - often referred to as the species barcoding gene). Assuming we have a specimen that represents the true locality, then comparisons can be made to that specimen and thus the degree of divergence estimated.

Cost is dependent on the person performing the screening, the number of specimens, and the time frame, but for this aspect, under $1000 is not unlikely if new primers are not required.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

Ok I'm sucked in. This has become a fun thread.

"True phylogeny" from mtDNA? Not possible. That would just be a gene tree. "True phylogeny" is currently not possible. Best we can do is make phylogenetic hypotheses based on multiple loci and various algorithms.

What we're getting at here is phylogeography and mitochondrial DNA is quite good for that for several boring reasons (effective population size 1/4 that of nuclear DNA, no recombination blah blah etc..). But it does have shortcomings as well. For example, mtDNA only gives you the maternal relationships. If there's "hybridization" from mainland males dispersing to islands, mtDNA will not tell that story. Also, if the populations have diverged recently enough, the genes will not have had time to coalesce and form reciprocally monophyletic clades.

"But how can you recognise a subspecies in molecular genetics?"

Woah. This is such a dodgy area I'm very surprised to see it come up in a captive forum. As much as I do love stirring sh*t for the sake of stirring sh*t, I’m not looking to get into an argument on molecular phylogenetics and taxonomy here. There are about a billion different opinions out there about subspecies, what they are, and what defines them (genetically distinct, geographically/reproductively isolated, and morphologically distinct, some combination thereof...). Best thing to do is dig around in the literature and form your own opinion.

There is, however, a boa phylogeography study out there. Check out Hynková et al 2009. I’m attaching a couple figures from it for your interest. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.

Fig. 1. Map showing the major clades detected in the MP analysis from across
Central and South America.

Fig. 3. Consensus Bayesian tree of cytochrome b with outgroups.

True phylogeny based on a single marker is indeed to ideal. So much so that the likelihood of a manuscript being accepted for publication in anything with an impact factor that could be considered good, is slim. However, based on previous studies, mtDNA has proven useful for identifying species, and subspecies (of course this is dependent on what we consider a species, subspecies, etc, and this is something that is ever likely to be agreed upon).

Ideally, we need multiple mitochondrial and several nuclear. Whether this is a combination of mtDNA and microsatellites (which I have developed for Boa constrictor), or some additional nuclear genes, that is yet to be agreed upon, however the markers are there and the cost is no longer prohibitive.

What is interesting about the Hynková et al 2009, is that Panamanian and sabogae are position on different clades with good support. This, therefore provides valuable information as to the separation of these two locaclities, and/or subspecies, and it is therefore worthwhile to consider the regions utilized in this study for future studies of differentiation between sabogae and Panamanians. From this, the addition of further nuclear and mtDNA markers will help ellucidate the phylgeny, and potentially phylogeography of this group in greater detail. Of course, everything is going to be a phylogenetic inference, but that addition of markers will help strengthen this inference.

How significant do you believe hybridization is between these two localities. Nuclear markers will benefit this question here, however mtDNA will provide valuable information. Look at the current work on the hybridization between africanized bees and honey bees, for example.

Its an interesting study that utilization of the markers employed by Hynková et al 2009 would from. The big issue with that paper was that Hynková et al 2009 also used captive animals to base their definition of locality on. What is need here is true local animals.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

Exactly my point, and why I mentioned the paper wasn't perfect. I agree, a study would need more sampling with respect to nuclear markers, individuals, and wild populations to do justice to the questions brought up in this thread...or construct a more robust phylogeny and examine species (or subspecific) boundaries. Gene flow and "hybridization" is a whole different can of worms, and none of that stuff was the aim of their paper.

I posted those figures just to show some work out there. It's great to see a map and tree and someone looking at the historical biogeography/phylogeography of Boa constrictors. Will be even better to see it built upon

Guys, I think the study by Hynková would deserve a brand new topic...

>>This is were molecular genetics will help. If there was enough samples availabble from breeders with true saboagae, panamanians, etc, I might be interested to screen these to determine similarites and/or differences between the boas imported.
>>
>>Warren
>>-----
>>Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
>>North Carolina State University
>>Department of Entomology
>>
>>

Let us know if you want samples from the 05' CITES Panamanians we have and what kind of samples.Just thought we would mention it.
-----