heres my other wish list snake lol

[FrogO_Oeyes]

There are five species of rainbow boas, no subspecies. E.cenchria, E.maurus, E.assisi, E.alvarezi, and E.crassus. Respectively Brazilian, Colombian, Amazon/Campina Grande, chaco/Argentine, and eastern/Paraguayan rainbows.

The content of the genus Epicrates is problematic at the moment, because the West Indian species don't belong. The reason the rainbows bear a strong resemblance to anacondas is because they are close relatives of anacondas. The trouble is that Eunectes and Epicrates [based on cenchria] were named in the same publication, so if they are combined, it would have to be worked out which name is prefered. Then it would have to be decided whether the West Indian species should be included or given another name. Arguably; we could end up with Eunectes striatus and Eunectes cenchria, Epicrates notaeus, Eunectes cenchria and ??? striatus, or Epicrates notaeus and ??? striatus. The change WILL come, but because the two available names seem to have the same status, I can't predict what it will be. It shouldn't affect Alberta law, because the law specifies "Eunectes" and "anaconda", so only those animals which are anacondas by both common and scientific name are prohibited. A tree boa or rainbow boa named "Eunectes" wouldn't be an anaconda, but "Epicrates deschauenseei" still would be [it still 'owns' the name Eunectes deschauenseei, even if the name in use changes].

Oh so you're thinking it might have actually been a crb mislabeled as something else?

Not exactly. Just a Colombian FROM somewhere else. E.maurus is not unique to Colombia, and two or three species occur in the Guyanas, so there's nothing uniquely Guyanan either.

This is a communication problem which comes from confusing a common name based on a non-unique place of origin, with a locality name. Snakes from Surinam could be "Surinam Colombian rainbow boa", "Guyana Colombian rainbow boa" [because Surinam is one of the Guyanas and is part of the Guyana region], "Surinam Amazon rainbow boa", "Guyana Amazon rainbow boa", "Surinam Brazilian rainbow boa", or "Guyana Brazilian rainbow boa". You could even replace the words "Guyana" or "Surinam" with something more specific, like "Paramaribo", or "Sipaliwini", just to confuse things more.

To UNconfuse things...
"Colombian rainbow boa" is a species, not a place of origin.
"Guyana rainbow boa" is useless, because it is a place of origin, but one in which there are two or three separate species which are not identified by the name provided.

Similar problems are widespread with other herps.

Here is the most recent study on the subject. Doubtless it will be very confusing for most hobbyists, but it provides important information on habitat/climate differences between the species:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0022199

Here is the previous study, which justifies division into five species, eliminating subspecies, and updating identification and known distribution:
http://www.herpetologia-mn.com/pdfs/...andes_2009.pdf

This paper reports on the natural diets of Brazilian boas, including one species of anaconda and three species of rainbow:
http://www.ecoevo.com.br/pesquisador...ew%20data,.pdf

Epicrates maurus has been treated as a full species by some authors since more than 20 years ago. Recent more extensive data confirmed that but also indicated that other full species were also involved.

FYI, there are more than two species of emerald tree boas - C.caninus from the Guyana region, and others currently treated as a single species in the Amazonian region, C.batesii. Likewise, the green tree pythons are at least two species, but the boundaries are still unknown because of lack of thorough study throughout New Guinea. Arus and places nearby are green or southern green tree pythons, Morelia viridis. Sorong and Biak are home to blue or northern green tree pythons, M.azurea.

[Spankenstyne]

Interesting, thanks for clearing that up Andrew.

After doing some more digging this backs up what Andrew is talking about, they have been elevated to full species status & also notes the relationship to Anacondas being closer than the Caribbean Epicrates I posted. If I'm reading this right then it (the Rainbow boas being bumped to full species) was something done after 2008:

"Synonymy mostly after PASSOS & FERNANDES 2008.

Taxonomy: Epicrates cenchria maurus (GRAY 1849) and E. c. crassus, E. c. assisi have been elevated to full species status.

Epicrates cenchria turned out to be more closely related to anacondas (Eunectes) than Caribbean Epicrates (striatus) according to molecular data from Noonan & Chippindale (2006)."

From here:
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz...oinae%27%29%29


Although it does mention a couple of Epicrates cenchria ssp for what it's worth.

[FrogO_Oeyes]

Originally Posted by Spankenstyne

Although it does mention a couple of Epicrates cenchria ssp for what it's worth.

They are listed as synonyms, not valid subspecies. More than a dozen subspecies have been recognized recently, but those are now reduced to only five full species. That means all other names must be included in something else. Just like words in a dictionary, synonyms in this context are identical to the form they are included in and are not regarded as distinctive in any way. "gaigeae" and "hydrophilus" are synonyms of Epicrates cenchria. "Colombianus" and "guyanaensis" are synonyms of E.maurus. There are other synonyms. The site you quote from has basically just copied data from Passos and Fernandes, which I provided a direct link to.

The first reference I provided is a much newer one, and discusses the various subspecies names. I haven't had a chance to read through it, and it's not a paper I can digest properly without reading it thoroughly, probably several times. At first glance, it looks as if many of the named subspecies are based on regions where the climate is perfect for one species, but another is found, or where two species overlap. Whether there's any suggestion of more species being involved, or hybrids, or valid subspecies, I can't say without reading it properly. Apart from those possibilities though, Passos and Fernandes established fairly reliably that at present, subspecies are not useful. Their paper certainly contains stuff the typical hobbyist won't really understand, but it's still worthwhile because much of THAT is pretty basic, and there's also a fair amount which hobbyists should be able to easily understand and use.

[Spankenstyne]

It is a little confusing as it lists these two subspecies

Subspecies
Epicrates cenchria cenchria (LINNAEUS 1758)
Epicrates cenchria polylepis AMARAL 1935

Then 2 sections down has a section for synonyms.


It didn't make much sense to me though as I did notice that the data my link cites (which is your second link) does actually have E. c. polylepis grouped in under E. crassus so it doesn't make sense for them to have listed it as a ssp when the data they use as reference isn't doing the same.

Fascinating but a bit mind boggling haha.. I certainly defer to you when it comes to taxonomy.

Anyways enough of my derailing with scientific name stuff... I'll leave that for the kids with the big brains




My wish list is to get some of the different stuff I keep to breed successfully for me. So far so good & hoping for some fun stuff to breed this coming spring.