Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi all.

I've been out of the loop for a few years now as i had to pass my collection on due to personal circumstances. I'm just getting back into keeping rainbows (Argentines for starters) and things seem to have changed a great deal regarding the splitting/lumping of the epicrates.

Has anyone read the Chimaira book 'Rainbow boas - natural history and captive husbandry'? If so, any comments on changing ideas regarding the (re)classification of the subs?

I felt some confusion after reading the Matz paper on which the book seems to be based and how particularly the E.c.barbouri was lumped in with E.c.maurus as my understanding was that e.c.barbouri was a red subspecies along the lines of e.c.gaigei.

I realise that subs are much more defined in the USA and that European stock may be heavily hybridised but paraguayan as we know them over here appear to also have been described very differently!

Any opinions would be gratefully received.

Chris (cannot rembemer my original username)

Many thanks Cliff. And yes, I am already beginning to chill out a bit after seeing how the hobby has changed since my temporary departure.

I am amazed at all the morphs you guys are proving out. Awesome!!! It has inspired me to try and get back some of my argentine offspring as I'm sure there's a recessive gene in there that hasn't expressed itself yet.

Chris do you still have Argentine rainbow boas? ( Epicrates alvarezi) I am working with a pair currently and have been trying to get more animals to no success. It seems not many people are working with them.

Hi, Sorry about the MASSIVE delay in replying, Yes I do have Argentines, one female of my 2.4 group is hopefullly gravid (the rest of the 0.4 are a way off breeding size!).

The only problem is that I'm in the UK. More than happy to work out international trade for some E.assisi or E.alvarezi if it isn't prohibitively expensive!

Welcome back, and nice choice getting back in with Argentines.

You’re not alone in being confused - the Epicrates situation has been a bit of a moving target over the years. The Chimaira book is decent overall, but like you noticed, a lot of it leans heavily on the Matz paper, which itself stirred up quite a bit of debate.

The lumping of barbouri with maurus is one of those points that doesn’t sit well with everyone. A lot of keepers (especially in the US) still treat barbouri more in line with the “red” forms like gaigei based on phenotype and locality history, even if the genetic data suggests otherwise. It’s one of those classic cases of genetics vs. what people have been observing in captivity for years.

And you’re absolutely right about European stock there’s been so much mixing over time that applying strict subspecies labels can get pretty murky. “Paraguayan” in particular seems to have been used pretty loosely depending on the line.

At this point, I tend to take the newer classifications as a useful framework, but not the final word, especially from a keeper’s perspective. There’s still a gap between field data and what we actually see in captive populations.

Would be interesting to hear what lines your Argentines come from.