Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here for Dragon Serpents
https://www.crepnw.com/
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

Largest snake debate

worldsocold Jun 24, 2004 06:14 PM

I was informed that the anaconda was the largest snake in the world. However I believe that the burm/Retic is the largest. I consider length the largest facter not weight. I know this is a preference but what do you say? Length or width?

I understand this is in the anaconda forum so i expect there to be a lot of width rather than length just as if i put this in the retic forum id expect there to be more length than weight.

Replies (10)

CrazyCodyKadunk Jun 24, 2004 06:32 PM

retics are longer then anacondas. But if u put an anaconda and a retic of the same length next to each other u would see that the anaconda is bigger. Its like putting a 6 foot sumo wrestler next to a 6 foot sprinter even though there the same length the sumo is much bigger.

MR_ANACONDA28 Jun 24, 2004 08:07 PM

Realy the only true way to go would be what is the largest recorded snake. All three of the true giant snakes are capable of getting to record size. A giant wild anaconda would be alot harder to capture then a wild burm or retic. The dense flooded forests and deep water make it almost imposible.
-----
GOD,I LOVE ANACONDAS!!!!! Eric aka Mr.A

Eunectes4 Jun 25, 2004 05:31 AM

I would say mass is what determines largest...they are both pretty close in length so your 2 or 3 feet a retic might be bigger in no way makes up for the 150 lbs the anaconda out weighs it. If it were a 20 foot anaconda and a 35 foot retic weighing 200 for the conda and 185 for the retic...Id probably say the retic is bigger...but like cody said with people...the pizza guy next door is like 6'4" 300 lbs and my roomate is 6'6" and about 200 lbs...the pizza guy is a begger person..hands down. Anacondas are the largest snakes in the world (green females), no question. I would say my ball pythons are bigger snakes than my amazon tree boas...eventhough the ball pythons are a little shorter..the long tails and skinny necks of the tree boas are what makes them longer so they are in no way close to as big as the ball pythons. I am going to stop rambling...elephants are also bigger than girrafs : )

tcdrover Jun 25, 2004 07:13 AM

WIDTH!!

Picture this, imagine a 5 foot Kingsnake next to a 5 foot Blood python, or a 5 foot Honduran Milk Snake next to a 5 foot ball python. Which one is going to look larger?

arik Jun 25, 2004 08:35 AM

So to you a 30' length of string is bigger than a 25' telephone pole. Wow I guess to each his own but man that seems ridiculus to me.

Condas ARE the largest snake in the world no question. The retic owners know that too. I have kept retics many times and even I knew they were dwarfed by a conda.

Arik

eunectes4 Jun 25, 2004 09:25 AM

Sold a Retic less than a month ago..might buy a super tiger soon...since they dont get as big as anacondas I might get a few of them : )

arik Jun 25, 2004 09:32 AM

Yeah i wouldnt worry about getting a bunch of little retics. They're to skinny to take up much space. LOL JK
Arik

worldsocold Jun 26, 2004 08:21 AM

"So to you a 30' length of string is bigger than a 25' telephone pole. Wow I guess to each his own but man that seems ridiculus to me."

No. I wanted to see what people thought. I thought this would be more a level preference, however It seems to be every person agrees that it is width that makes it the largest. SOmething I didn't expect from everybody but thats why i made this post in the first place.

arik Jun 26, 2004 08:26 AM

No bodies telling you what to think. Just when every other thing in the world is measured it is usually bulk or weight that is considered. Even pro boxing doesn't have tall or short divisions. They have heavyweights, featherweights, etc.

Has your opinion changed ? I'm curious.

Arik

worldsocold Jun 26, 2004 04:22 PM

I know that. Yes, actually it has changed, a lot of points you make are valid and there is nothing to say they are wrong and there's a lot to say there better. I just always saw it as more of a length thing, which is why I would always say length is the retic and weight is the Anaconda. I think its just me being a python person lol. Either way you go they are very impressive animals that can't be taken lightly.

Pat

Site Tools