# Python regius is a semi arboreal species and why racks fail to meet basic welfare



## Liam Sinclair

https://youtu.be/fYpIk2pKOxE

This is a peer reviewed video on the science of exactly why Python regius is a semi arboreal species and why racks fail to meet basic welfare requirements, video and picture evidence as well as scientific studies throughout!


----------



## Zincubus

Liam Sinclair said:


> https://youtu.be/fYpIk2pKOxE
> 
> 
> 
> This is a peer reviewed video on the science of exactly why Python regius is a semi arboreal species and why racks fail to meet basic welfare requirements, video and picture evidence as well as scientific studies throughout!




Video not working for me ...

That said every Royal python I’ve ever owned loved climbing in the evenings..
All mine have branches in their vivs 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Malc

Nicely put together. However that reading from the sweeney book has a few inaccuracies as I don't think you can class the small stubby tail as prehensile.

I've been sighting those reports in previous posts when we've discussed Royals being climbers. I've always added branches where possible to my vivs, and whilst I find rack systems have their place for hatchlings , can not bring myself to house yearlings or above in them.

Now these same breeders that promote the use of rack systems as Royals spend all their time in tight spaces are pushing that "tight space" theory even more. "Yes, now there is no need to buy three more racks when you can simply cram three royals in one RUB... by using one of these "










"Because Royals love feeling secure in tight spaces".

What's needed is someone to fund a recognised herpetologist and scientist to head up a team and do a modern study. Repeating previous studies, with a larger selection sample and wider area. 

Do Royals love to climb.... they sure do.

Oh and just one point that really grates on me, especially when you are presenting a somewhat scientific video or paper... please use the correct designation of "Royal Python" and not the american "Ball python"... the latin is* Python Regius* which translates into python royal, not Python Ballus !!!!


----------



## Liam Sinclair

Malc said:


> Nicely put together. However that reading from the sweeney book has a few inaccuracies as I don't think you can class the small stubby tail as prehensile.
> 
> I've been sighting those reports in previous posts when we've discussed Royals being climbers. I've always added branches where possible to my vivs, and whilst I find rack systems have their place for hatchlings , can not bring myself to house yearlings or above in them.
> 
> Now these same breeders that promote the use of rack systems as Royals spend all their time in tight spaces are pushing that "tight space" theory even more. "Yes, now there is no need to buy three more racks when you can simply cram three royals in one RUB... by using one of these "
> 
> image
> 
> "Because Royals love feeling secure in tight spaces".
> 
> What's needed is someone to fund a recognised herpetologist and scientist to head up a team and do a modern study. Repeating previous studies, with a larger selection sample and wider area.
> 
> Do Royals love to climb.... they sure do.
> 
> Oh and just one point that really grates on me, especially when you are presenting a somewhat scientific video or paper... please use the correct designation of "Royal Python" and not the american "Ball python"... the latin is* Python Regius* which translates into python royal, not Python Ballus !!!!


I used Ball python because a shed load more people are searching for it than royal python, irritates me to do it but its a numbers game on youtube, it even has ai that listens to what you say in the video to decide what you come up in search for, so i couldnt even title it ball python and just say royal.


----------



## Liam Sinclair

Malc said:


> Nicely put together. However that reading from the sweeney book has a few inaccuracies as I don't think you can class the small stubby tail as prehensile.
> 
> I've been sighting those reports in previous posts when we've discussed Royals being climbers. I've always added branches where possible to my vivs, and whilst I find rack systems have their place for hatchlings , can not bring myself to house yearlings or above in them.
> 
> Now these same breeders that promote the use of rack systems as Royals spend all their time in tight spaces are pushing that "tight space" theory even more. "Yes, now there is no need to buy three more racks when you can simply cram three royals in one RUB... by using one of these "
> 
> image
> 
> "Because Royals love feeling secure in tight spaces".
> 
> What's needed is someone to fund a recognised herpetologist and scientist to head up a team and do a modern study. Repeating previous studies, with a larger selection sample and wider area.
> 
> Do Royals love to climb.... they sure do.
> 
> Oh and just one point that really grates on me, especially when you are presenting a somewhat scientific video or paper... please use the correct designation of "Royal Python" and not the american "Ball python"... the latin is* Python Regius* which translates into python royal, not Python Ballus !!!!


Also my long term plans with the channel if it gets anywhere is to fund a shed load of studies


----------



## Zincubus

Liam Sinclair said:


> I used Ball python because a shed load more people are searching for it than royal python, irritates me to do it but its a numbers game on youtube, it even has ai that listens to what you say in the video to decide what you come up in search for, so i couldnt even title it ball python and just say royal.




Royal ‘Ball’ Python 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles

I think many species are kept in less than ideal conditions, conditions which do not fully meet their requirements. 

Rabbits for example are kept in tiny hutches when we know they spend their time running around in fields. Fish too have large expanses of water in which to swim should they wish so as I said, reptiles are not unique in their captive restrictions. 

Each individual must decide what he or she is comfortable with.


----------



## mick g

Liam Sinclair said:


> https://youtu.be/fYpIk2pKOxE
> 
> This is a peer reviewed video on the science of exactly why Python regius is a semi arboreal species and why racks fail to meet basic welfare requirements, video and picture evidence as well as scientific studies throughout!


 Watched this video yesterday and yes it is interesting and for sure give as much enrichment as you can.
When i kept Royals in an ikea style rack tubs are approx 3ft x 2ft i filled them with hides/cork bark and chopped and changed it about periodically . I felt this was good enough. 

I think there is a compromise. 

Good work on you videos.:2thumb:


----------



## MKHerps

Very interesting video indeed and enjoyed the articles/journals that were referenced. 

I keep royals in tubs and vivs, pros and cons for both, however I tend to gauge any of my snakes “content’ness” on consistent feeding. I know for a fact some of my royals will just simply not feed when housed in a viv regardless of how easy for me it is to maintain temps and humidity in a viv and being rammed full of hides, branches etc yet stick them in a similar sized tub (such as the mentioned old IKEA tubs) and they will never miss a feed 🤷‍♂️
Is this because they have lived in tubs all their life? Possibly? 

My “tub royals” are provided with hides and branches etc they just lack the height of a similar sized viv. 

I just take the approach that I treat each of my animals as individuals. 

Slightly off topic but I house my Angolans in vivs - I know of many people who successfully keep and breed these in tub/rack systems, but mine are very active using all levels of their vivs and feed like demons therefore I feel no need to change anything about their husbandry in my case.


----------



## JustABeginner2

It could well be behavioural selection.

I used to work in pest control, and city centre House Mouse infestations were really difficult to manage. A city centre house mouse population will have been subjected to intense exposure to pest control equipment for decades. Baits and traps have to be housed in protective boxes to safeguard the general public. So for decades, the mice that will enter bait and trap boxes die and are weeded out of the gene pool until you end up with a hardcore bunch of house mice. You might get a little bait take from juveniles or catch the odd juvenile, but the adults that are breeding? Nope. Not a cat in hells chance! Those adults are box shy and so were all of their ancestors going back 20+ generations. They have been unintentionally selectively bred to exhibit different behaviour. 

Royal pythons that have been bred in racks for several generations might also have been subjected to behavioural selection. Those snakes that were better adjusted and more productive in a breeder's rack system will have contributed more babies to the gene pool. Those that were less productive in a rack system will have contributed less, and were probably replaced with more productive snakes.

Captive royal pythons from a long line of rack-bred animals, might be as behaviourally divergent from wild royals as a multi-gene combo looks.


----------



## StuG

Looking at some of the scientific evidence surely it is difficult to justify keeping such an animal in any form of box considering the variety of prey eaten and ranges they have?


----------



## Zincubus

JustABeginner2 said:


> It could well be behavioural selection.
> 
> I used to work in pest control, and city centre House Mouse infestations were really difficult to manage. A city centre house mouse population will have been subjected to intense exposure to pest control equipment for decades. Baits and traps have to be housed in protective boxes to safeguard the general public. So for decades, the mice that will enter bait and trap boxes die and are weeded out of the gene pool until you end up with a hardcore bunch of house mice. You might get a little bait take from juveniles or catch the odd juvenile, but the adults that are breeding? Nope. Not a cat in hells chance! Those adults are box shy and so were all of their ancestors going back 20+ generations. They have been unintentionally selectively bred to exhibit different behaviour.
> 
> Royal pythons that have been bred in racks for several generations might also have been subjected to behavioural selection. Those snakes that were better adjusted and more productive in a breeder's rack system will have contributed more babies to the gene pool. Those that were less productive in a rack system will have contributed less, and were probably replaced with more productive snakes.
> 
> Captive royal pythons from a long line of rack-bred animals, might be as behaviourally divergent from wild royals as a multi-gene combo looks.




Well I’m not really sure if that theory really stands up given every Royal I’ve ever had absolutely loved climbing around their branches in the evenings.

Hell , Corn snakes are often described as climbers but mine barely use this branches at all 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## JustABeginner2

It was more in response to the comment immediately before mine, mentioning "rub royals" which will not feed well or at all unless kept in a rub.

I'm on my phone and I can't get the quotation function to work on my phone.


----------



## MKHerps

I’d say there is definitely some logic to “justabeginner’s” theory, just because someone’s collection of royals likes to climb or happily feeds in a viv doesn’t mean everyone’s does? Like I said some of mine are happy in vivs and come feeding day are out and about searching the viv where as my “rub royals” would very very rarely be seen from out under their hides and on the very rare occasion they did feed in a viv it would be from ambushing from underneath a hide. 

I care for my animals, reptilian and mammal including some 2500 livestock by observing behaviour etc and reacting appropriately. Just because a book or a latest video condemns or recommends something doesn’t mean it will or will not work for you. 

A degree of common sense/stockmanship is required after the basic knowledge of how to care for any animal is obtained.


----------



## wilkinss77

JustABeginner2 said:


> It could well be behavioural selection.
> 
> I used to work in pest control, and city centre House Mouse infestations were really difficult to manage. A city centre house mouse population will have been subjected to intense exposure to pest control equipment for decades. Baits and traps have to be housed in protective boxes to safeguard the general public. So for decades, the mice that will enter bait and trap boxes die and are weeded out of the gene pool until you end up with a hardcore bunch of house mice. You might get a little bait take from juveniles or catch the odd juvenile, but the adults that are breeding? Nope. Not a cat in hells chance! Those adults are box shy and so were all of their ancestors going back 20+ generations. They have been unintentionally selectively bred to exhibit different behaviour.
> 
> Royal pythons that have been bred in racks for several generations might also have been subjected to behavioural selection. Those snakes that were better adjusted and more productive in a breeder's rack system will have contributed more babies to the gene pool. Those that were less productive in a rack system will have contributed less, and were probably replaced with more productive snakes.
> 
> Captive royal pythons from a long line of rack-bred animals, might be as behaviourally divergent from wild royals as a multi-gene combo looks.





MKHerps said:


> I’d say there is definitely some logic to “justabeginner’s” theory, just because someone’s collection of royals likes to climb or happily feeds in a viv doesn’t mean everyone’s does? Like I said some of mine are happy in vivs and come feeding day are out and about searching the viv where as my “rub royals” would very very rarely be seen from out under their hides and on the very rare occasion they did feed in a viv it would be from ambushing from underneath a hide.
> 
> I care for my animals, reptilian and mammal including some 2500 livestock by observing behaviour etc and reacting appropriately. Just because a book or a latest video condemns or recommends something doesn’t mean it will or will not work for you.
> 
> A degree of common sense/stockmanship is required after the basic knowledge of how to care for any animal is obtained.


Not so- there is pretty conclusive evidence that royals are semi-arboreal _in the wild. _Thrasops once posted a scientific paper describing this. Royals are semi-arboreal _by nature, _not merely from captive-learned behaviour.



Zincubus said:


> *Well I’m not really sure if that theory really stands up given every Royal I’ve ever had absolutely loved climbing around their branches in the evenings.*
> 
> Hell , Corn snakes are often described as climbers but mine barely use this branches at all
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This. They climb in your viv because they climb in the wild.


----------



## MKHerps

[/QUOTE]Not so- there is pretty conclusive evidence that royals are semi-arboreal _in the wild. _Thrasops once posted a scientific paper describing this. Royals are semi-arboreal _by nature, _not merely from captive-learned behaviour 

I’m not disputing in any way shape or form that royals are in fact semi arboreal in the WILD I thought “justabeginner2’s” theory was that animals that suited/adapted/preferred life in a rack/rub system were more readily and heavily bred from due to the logistics and ease of doing so? Therefore certain strains, bloodlines etc could be less “semi arboreal” than others? 

My “rack royals” are comparatively slug like in their activity (even when provided a life in a viv) compared to my “viv royals” 

For me the video was very interesting, insightful and backed up by scientific research, BUT it will not stop me using rack systems for certain individual royals in my collection as life in a viv I feel would be detrimental to their health 🏻


----------



## Uromastyxman

I've lost count of the number of species I have kept over the years and apart from snakes that are diggers like sand boas and fat snakes who are too cumbersome to climb a branch like Bloods, the one thing they have all had in common is that they will climb a branch or up to a higher level if given the chance. This includes all the large boids, colubrids etc etc.

If a snake can climb why wouldn't it? It's a natural instinct to seek food, to find the sun, to avoid predators and to just simply explore its environment if and when it chooses to. Sometimes they like to climb up things and sometimes they like to cram themselves into tight areas to feel safe. All my snakes like to cram themselves into high hide boxes so they feel secure in a tight space but with the added bonus of being less vulnerable off the ground.

Are people still touting this pack them in tight rubbish?

If people don't even want to give their snakes a bit of extra limited captive enrichment, perhaps they should consider keeping photographs of snakes in a scrapbook?
They could save money on food and electric bills and they could collect as many photos of the pretty snakes as they want. And they wouldn't be depriving the reptiles they feel so "passionately" about from realising their most basic instincts in an already confined environment.


----------



## wilkinss77

Uromastyxman said:


> I've lost count of the number of species I have kept over the years and apart from snakes that are diggers like sand boas and fat snakes who are too cumbersome to climb a branch like Bloods, the one thing they have all had in common is that they will climb a branch or up to a higher level if given the chance. This includes all the large boids, colubrids etc etc.
> 
> If a snake can climb why wouldn't it? It's a natural instinct to seek food, to find the sun, to avoid predators and to just simply explore its environment if and when it chooses to. Sometimes they like to climb up things and sometimes they like to cram themselves into tight areas to feel safe. All my snakes like to cram themselves into high hide boxes so they feel secure in a tight space but with the added bonus of being less vulnerable off the ground.
> 
> Are people still touting this pack them in tight rubbish?
> 
> If people don't even want to give their snakes a bit of extra limited captive enrichment, perhaps they should consider keeping photographs of snakes in a scrapbook?
> They could save money on food and electric bills and they could collect as many photos of the pretty snakes as they want. And they wouldn't be depriving the reptiles they feel so "passionately" about from realising their most basic instincts in an already confined environment.


Bravo.:2thumb:


----------



## Malc

I've only been keeping snakes 34 years.... when I got my first snake in 1986, and then joined a society in 1990, which by this time I had got as many books and magazines on keeping snakes as possible, the fad of keeping royals (well all snakes really) in tubs was non existent. Everything was housed in vivs. Even very respected breeders of the day kept their collection in vivs, even it it meant that nearly every room had one or two walls covered with stacks from floor to almost ceiling. Most royals were housed in 3' or 4' vivs as standard, and they did really well. I have no knowledge of where or when rack systems were first introduced, but I'm guessing it was around the mid to late 90's when morphs started making their appearance and commercial breeders needed to capitalise on them so the rack-em-stack-em approached became the norm.

I'm sure if the secret to keeping royals was to give them a space they can hardly turn round in and kept in perpetual darkness 24/7 on newspaper then people would have been using that method 30 / 40 years ago...

Roylas love to climb... *given the opportunity*....


----------



## MKHerps

Uromastyxman said:


> I've lost count of the number of species I have kept over the years and apart from snakes that are diggers like sand boas and fat snakes who are too cumbersome to climb a branch like Bloods, the one thing they have all had in common is that they will climb a branch or up to a higher level if given the chance. This includes all the large boids, colubrids etc etc.
> 
> If a snake can climb why wouldn't it? It's a natural instinct to seek food, to find the sun, to avoid predators and to just simply explore its environment if and when it chooses to. Sometimes they like to climb up things and sometimes they like to cram themselves into tight areas to feel safe. All my snakes like to cram themselves into high hide boxes so they feel secure in a tight space but with the added bonus of being less vulnerable off the ground.
> 
> Are people still touting this pack them in tight rubbish?
> 
> If people don't even want to give their snakes a bit of extra limited captive enrichment, perhaps they should consider keeping photographs of snakes in a scrapbook?
> They could save money on food and electric bills and they could collect as many photos of the pretty snakes as they want. And they wouldn't be depriving the reptiles they feel so "passionately" about from realising their most basic instincts in an already confined environment.


Hi Andy hope you’re well. Don’t know if you recall but I bought some of the big IKEA tubs from you earlier in the year and if I remember rightly you’d built a great rack using these tubs that you still had in your reptile room when I met you. What did you used to keep in these?


----------



## MKHerps

I don’t think royals climb because they “love” to Malc I’d say that’s definitely a case of anthropomorphism, I’d agree with Uromastyxman that it’s instinct which sees them climb. 

I admit when watching vlogs and a tub is pulled out to reveal nothing but a substrate, water bowl and a royal I do cringe a little BUT have royals ever been known to display stereotypical behaviour due to lack of enrichment? 

I provide what I deem enrichment in my royals tubs because I think that’s what they require and in all honesty it probably makes me feel better about how I keep them more than it does to any royal I own. Then again I have no way of proving whatsoever whether the snake feels any stimulation from what I provide on an enrichment scale. If their feeding, shedding, defecating and breeding when given the opportunity to, what more can you base a judgement on?


----------



## spigotbush

i think a lot of the point liam was trying to make with the video was that royals _should_ be given the opportunity to climb, in the same way as any other semi arboreal species should. the evidence both scientific and anecdotal is there to support that they climb as part of their natural behaviour. the prey selections for wild animals heavily implies that they climb in order to hunt. at that point, the argument could be made that rack and tub systems fail to meet the requirements of the species. 
i get that sometimes you need to avoid some aspects of a species environment in the name of better all round care. for example semi-aquatic species rarely get given a water system as omitting that aspect makes for a healthier and more easily maintained enclosure, whilst still accounting for enough of its needs. however i dont think a tub over a viv can claim that argument, given how easy it is to maintain a viv.

as i see it the only real argument for racks over vivs (at least as far as larger snakes go) is fitting more animals in a given space. 
i will add that i dont think racks have no place in the hobby, there are clear uses for them. for example hatchlings, quarantine and small species. its just circumstantial. i will also add that i am not a royal keeper or a rack user so i am on the outside looking in, as it were.


----------



## MKHerps

spigotbush said:


> i think a lot of the point liam was trying to make with the video was that royals _should_ be given the opportunity to climb, in the same way as any other semi arboreal species should. the evidence both scientific and anecdotal is there to support that they climb as part of their natural behaviour. the prey selections for wild animals heavily implies that they climb in order to hunt. at that point, the argument could be made that rack and tub systems fail to meet the requirements of the species.
> i get that sometimes you need to avoid some aspects of a species environment in the name of better all round care. for example semi-aquatic species rarely get given a water system as omitting that aspect makes for a healthier and more easily maintained enclosure, whilst still accounting for enough of its needs. however i dont think a tub over a viv can claim that argument, given how easy it is to maintain a viv.
> 
> as i see it the only real argument for racks over vivs (at least as far as larger snakes go) is fitting more animals in a given space.
> i will add that i dont think racks have no place in the hobby, there are clear uses for them. for example hatchlings, quarantine and small species. its just circumstantial. i will also add that i am not a royal keeper or a rack user so i am on the outside looking in, as it were.


I understand where you’re coming from Spigotbush but it appears from the papers that have been referenced wild royals are semi arboreal due to prey availability/choice and predator evasion? I could be wrong there, (it’s down to interpretation I guess) but if that is the case those two issues aren’t a factor in captivity - if they were I’d be feeding my royals from perches and the ones I house in vivs would be heading for the ceiling when I have to handle them, which leads me to believe (again personal opinion/interpretation 🤣) that royals can live out a “comfortable” life in a suitably sized tub with no health/stress factors. 

I can’t see there is any definitive answer over which is better for a royal to be housed in a viv or tub. I keep my collection in both as previously mentioned depending on the individual with no negative effects as far as I’m aware 🤷‍♂️🏻


----------



## ian14

MKHerps said:


> I understand where you’re coming from Spigotbush but it appears from the papers that have been referenced wild royals are semi arboreal due to prey availability/choice and predator evasion? I could be wrong there, (it’s down to interpretation I guess) but if that is the case those two issues aren’t a factor in captivity - if they were I’d be feeding my royals from perches and the ones I house in vivs would be heading for the ceiling when I have to handle them, which leads me to believe (again personal opinion/interpretation 🤣) that royals can live out a “comfortable” life in a suitably sized tub with no health/stress factors.
> 
> I can’t see there is any definitive answer over which is better for a royal to be housed in a viv or tub. I keep my collection in both as previously mentioned depending on the individual with no negative effects as far as I’m aware 🤷‍♂️🏻


It appears from the papers that stomach contents were mainly arboreal mammals and tree nesting birds. There would still be ample prey on the ground. So they are not climbing for food out of choice but as a result of evolution. It would seem that royals have evolved to live a semi arboreal life as juveniles. This would make sense as it reduces the risk of predation and food competition with other royals and other snakes in general.


----------



## Zincubus

ian14 said:


> It appears from the papers that stomach contents were mainly arboreal mammals and tree nesting birds. There would still be ample prey on the ground. So they are not climbing for food out of choice but as a result of evolution. It would seem that royals have evolved to live a semi arboreal life as juveniles. This would make sense as it reduces the risk of predation and food competition with other royals and other snakes in general.




Oddly enough over the years I’ve had some Royals would only eat chicks and refuse mice / rats/ hamsters etc .

Maybe the wild ones that were climbing just simply preferred the taste of birds over rodents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## loxocemus

a couple of points which you can take or leave.

a peer reviewed YouTube video is not a definitive be all and end all on the "captive" needs of regius, the science is definitive to the wild size group studied but does not address captivity obviously, the pictures of perched bp's that tenuously link the science to a small vivarium box are imo very misleading.

a) feeding is a small portion of a bp's life, in the wild some have been found in tree's fulfilling that behaviour, in captivity you negate this entire arboreal necessity when you pick up your tongs and the ft rat, u have condensed that wild search into that 5 captive seconds, nothing you can do will replicate the wild hunt.

b) like I said feeding is but a small portion of the bp's life, afterwards they will return to the subterranean security, by far the largest proportion of a captive bp's life.

c) when you trap a BP in a small wooden box with a stick and 24/7 monotony and it sits on the stick, that's it displaying arboreal behaviour?, no, that's it just moving up, what 18", there's few 18" bushes never mind trees, its the exploitation of the very few "toys" available.

d) put any species in a box with a stick and all of them will investigate and use the perch because they've batted around the same four walls for hours, days years and they find a perch conveniently in the warm air around the heater where they can thermoregulate with little effort, "especially if you don't have floor heating".

e) all those pics of perched pet balls, place the same setups minus the air heater in a static heat room I *guarantee* you a fair number will ground themselves, regardless of hunger pangs.

f) everything u see in ur little wooden boxes is not wild replication, as much as you want it to be.

g)iv tried multiple regius (these would have been wc and cf) in proper drawer caging and the results were as expected, the regius lived 95% in the drawer 5% above to poop climb and drink but no perching because I didn't use the heating type that all those pics will have in common, so perching to the BP was pointless, there was nothing to entice it to remain above.

h) iv manipulated snakes into changing their behaviour by manipulating the heating, iv made arboreal into terrestrial and vice versa, and heat is the core of captive bp's life.

i) a vivarium with a perch is not a reflection of a captive bp's needs, it simply isn't, especially once they reach captive weights and sizes. a BP thats perched for a majority time period is exhibiting aberrant behaviour, its responding to the temperature setup. 

j) to say regius is semi arboreal is a big stretch, peer reviewed or not, they exhibit some arboreal feeding, that does not make for a BP x gtp. if this wild arboreal behaviour is restricted in the main to the younger generation of the wild population how does this translate to captivity, juvenile/subadult'hood is but a fleeting moment in the decades long adult life, so then what....

k) the experiences of the big rack breeders cannot be discounted, their experience of thousands of babies, hundreds of adults and their quirks and behaviours provides them with data and knowledge a vivarium ball keeper will never have

l) if I was to design a BP cage for a pet, no expense spared it would be this





I don't have a high opinion of bioactive for snakes (except tiny species), branches in the upper compartment, uv, pothos yada ££££'s yada BUT how you choose ur heating will determine where the BP will locate, if both upper and lower are heated similarly the BP will choose the drawer the majority of the time, im sorry but its true, does this mean the upper setup is a waste, absolutely not, a snake in a box is solitary confinement, a monotonous existence of bouncing off the same walls for the decades of a python's life, so whatever variety u can give is surely the minimum a keeper can do BUT this has nothing to do with a peer reviewed YouTube conclusion of "Python regius is a semi arboreal species and why racks fail to meet basic welfare" but everything to do with life in a small glass fronted box for a decades long life.

like I said take or leave any or all of the above, its just my observation 

rgds
ed

PS I like many others have had bp's that preferred tub life over cage life


----------



## Uromastyxman

MKHerps said:


> Hi Andy hope you’re well. Don’t know if you recall but I bought some of the big IKEA tubs from you earlier in the year and if I remember rightly you’d built a great rack using these tubs that you still had in your reptile room when I met you. What did you used to keep in these?


Hi mate.

Sand boas, hog noses and juvenile short tailed pythons.


----------



## ian14

I'll throw a spanner in the works.
When keeping sand boas, all in vivs, I would often find the Kenyans, tartars and javelins stretched out along the ledge at the top of the viv 
Now I'm very confident that they are not also semi arboreal!


----------



## Thrasops

It is actually really nice to log in here and see civil discussion going on relating to this video (it has been receiving a LOT of pushback from the American 'Ball' python groups haha)

To elaborate on what we are trying to do here, Advancing Herpetological Husbandry has been peer reviewing Youtube videos submitted using a panel of internationally recognised scientists and experts in their field. Examples of these include Dr Frances Baines, Roman Muryn, Professor Zac Loughman, Chris Mitchell, Lori Torrini, Professor Anna Wilkinson, Dr Sarina Wunderlich, Dr Jan Stipala, Dr Tariq Abou-Zahr and others (Scott Eipper just signed on as a guest reviewer for Australian herps and Elapids).

(Note all the 'Drs' and 'Professors' in front of those names; these are not just hobbyists but professional scientists well versed in the subject matter and this should indicate a certain amount of quality to the information given and how it is presented).

In my opinion this is a very positive step and should be regarded as evidence that the keeper community, not just hobbyists but professionals also, are guiding the wider audience toward scientifically supported husbandry goals. This little review process was an experiment but it turns out that the output from it is valued and used.

For what its worth most video reviews have more than one draft version and certainly Liam's video was rejected a couple of times after comments from the reviewers. It is all the better for the changes. We have strict criteria and as far as I know we are now the _only_ group of animal keepers that have the benefit of knowing that the video we are watching has at least been checked over by independent folk not associated with the producer. I think that is a really great thing, and a sign the hobby is starting to police itself - especially given the current attack angle the animal rights fanatics are making targeting Royal python keeping.

To answer some of the points made above on whether the snakes are climbing to feed on birds opportunistically - The fact we have a breakdown (not just one but three different locations) of what kinds of birds and mammals they are taking is pretty informative. Africa has more ground nesting birds, across a broader spread of months, than anywhere else in the world (enough that an entire genus of snakes - _Dasypeltis_, or egg eaters - has evolved to take advantage of that). Royal python prey items are NOT being found to be ground nesting birds, but consummately arboreal birds like parrots, weaver birds, woodpeckers, bee eaters and so on, and this tells us something. If they were just 'opportunistic' they would also be showing a greater number of these ground nesting birds like Dikkops and Plovers. So they are specifically climbing trees to go for tree-nesters (and bats and bush babies and other things that are not found in burrows under the ground).


----------



## Uromastyxman

Thrasops said:


> It is actually really nice to log in here and see civil discussion going on relating to this video (it has been receiving a LOT of pushback from the American 'Ball' python groups haha)
> 
> To elaborate on what we are trying to do here, Advancing Herpetological Husbandry has been peer reviewing Youtube videos submitted using a panel of internationally recognised scientists and experts in their field. Examples of these include Dr Frances Baines, Roman Muryn, Professor Zac Loughman, Chris Mitchell, Lori Torrini, Professor Anna Wilkinson, Dr Sarina Wunderlich, Dr Jan Stipala, Dr Tariq Abou-Zahr and others (Scott Eipper just signed on as a guest reviewer for Australian herps and Elapids).
> 
> (Note all the 'Drs' and 'Professors' in front of those names; these are not just hobbyists but professional scientists well versed in the subject matter and this should indicate a certain amount of quality to the information given and how it is presented).
> 
> In my opinion this is a very positive step and should be regarded as evidence that the keeper community, not just hobbyists but professionals also, are guiding the wider audience toward scientifically supported husbandry goals. This little review process was an experiment but it turns out that the output from it is valued and used.
> 
> For what its worth most video reviews have more than one draft version and certainly Liam's video was rejected a couple of times after comments from the reviewers. It is all the better for the changes. We have strict criteria and as far as I know we are now the _only_ group of animal keepers that have the benefit of knowing that the video we are watching has at least been checked over by independent folk not associated with the producer. I think that is a really great thing, and a sign the hobby is starting to police itself - especially given the current attack angle the animal rights fanatics are making targeting Royal python keeping.
> 
> To answer some of the points made above on whether the snakes are climbing to feed on birds opportunistically - The fact we have a breakdown (not just one but three different locations) of what kinds of birds and mammals they are taking is pretty informative. Africa has more ground nesting birds, across a broader spread of months, than anywhere else in the world (enough that an entire genus of snakes - _Dasypeltis_, or egg eaters - has evolved to take advantage of that). Royal python prey items are NOT being found to be ground nesting birds, but consummately arboreal birds like parrots, weaver birds, woodpeckers, bee eaters and so on, and this tells us something. If they were just 'opportunistic' they would also be showing a greater number of these ground nesting birds like Dikkops and Plovers. So they are specifically climbing trees to go for tree-nesters (and bats and bush babies and other things that are not found in burrows under the ground).


It's lucky Thrasops and I are are here, otherwise some of you ignoramuses would be keeping snakes in tupperware boxes on top of the fridge:whistling2:


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles

Damn!! I knew I was doing something wrong - I have been keeping mine on top of the washing machine for years!




Uromastyxman said:


> It's lucky Thrasops and I are are here, otherwise some of you ignoramuses would be keeping snakes in tupperware boxes on top of the fridge:whistling2:


----------



## Malc

Central Scotland Reptiles said:


> Damn!! I knew I was doing something wrong - I have been keeping mine on top of the washing machine for years!


Is that in a bid to get the females turned on and in the mood for breeding :whistling2:


----------



## wilkinss77

Malc said:


> Is that in a bid to get the females turned on and in the mood for breeding :whistling2:


:gasp:


----------



## Tarron

Fully agree with most of the comments regarding the semi-arboreality of Royals, and love the videos that are coming out of AHH especially Liams.

But I think its also worth reiterating a point the Loxocemus touched on, that Most Royals are currently kept in 4x2x2ft enclosure, where they are kept in viviariums.

Providing Branches in these enclosures is merely giving them an obstacle to manoeuvre over, rather than providing an arboreal setup. I would say ((in my personal opinion) anything below 4ft would not be considered arboreal. At least for Royals, smaller species of gecko or pygmy chameleon for example, could be arboreal in a 2ft.

So the real question is how do we take this information and advise on the future care of this Species. Should we now be calling for taller than the current minimum standard? Obviously, bigger is always better anyway, but height is now a much more important consideration.


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles

My secret with the Angolan Pythons is out!!




Malc said:


> Is that in a bid to get the females turned on and in the mood for breeding :whistling2:


----------



## loxocemus

there is of course a not so slight peer reviewed hypocrisy here, the morals and the principles espoused here only kick in after the purchase of the rack bred baby, you can raise the pup with love but it was still born in a puppy mill.

rgds
ed



Liam Sinclair said:


> https://youtu.be/fYpIk2pKOxE
> 
> This is a peer reviewed video on the science of exactly why Python regius is a semi arboreal species and why racks fail to meet basic welfare requirements, video and picture evidence as well as scientific studies throughout!


----------



## spigotbush

i wholeheartedly agree that responsible sourcing of animals is essential. if you dont agree with rack keeping then you shouldnt buy from someone who keeps in racks. same with any animal, you should carry your morals through the whole process, not just ignore bits here and there to make life easier/cheaper.
i dont think its anything to do with the video being hypocritical or peer reviewed though. it was a video regarding one aspect of care.


----------



## loxocemus

*that was just my sarcasm itching to be, well sarcastic : victory:

rgds
ed



spigotbush said:


> i wholeheartedly agree that responsible sourcing of animals is essential. if you dont agree with rack keeping then you shouldnt buy from someone who keeps in racks. same with any animal, you should carry your morals through the whole process, not just ignore bits here and there to make life easier/cheaper.
> i dont think its anything to do with the video being hypocritical or peer reviewed though. it was a video regarding one aspect of care.


----------



## Malc

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but Robert Barraclough has just posted a video which rips apart the scientific study that was the basis of this(and other) discussions in his latest video.






Whilst some of his logic is sound, other parts are questionable, but it does indeed highlight the need for a true scientific survey and a report that doesn't leave the reader the option to come to their own conclusions...


----------



## StuG

Malc said:


> Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but Robert Barraclough has just posted a video which rips apart the scientific study that was the basis of this(and other) discussions in his latest video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst some of his logic is sound, other parts are questionable, but it does indeed highlight the need for a true scientific survey and a report that doesn't leave the reader the option to come to their own conclusions...


I don’t think we need any more studies. 
It’s beyond dispute that royals can thrive as well in vivariums as they can racks so why not give them the best available? 
The guy on the video in his room full of racks, I can guarantee that if you were to peep inside those tubs the ratio would at least 4:1 female to male. The reason for that is is because the only interest is mass producing animals not the welfare of the animals involved. 
I’m not a scientist and in all honesty have little interest in the science behind the animals I keep however I do know that large rack set ups are a terrible representation of the hobby I think it’s something as a community we need to accept and move past


----------



## Malc

Stu, I think Robert was a tad narked when he received several comments on his "basic set up" video some months ago as that report was sited stating that based on the reports findings we should be offering royals taller enclosures with branches for them to climb rather than using racks. This was why he set up his terrarium, and then later modified it with an underground section with pipe work to represent burrows. The fact that he found two of his hatchlings preferring the pipework to the tree suggested to him that the "royals love small tight spaces, so small tubs are fine" as a defence for keeping them in racks. The half and half enclosure with a false base is nothing new. Can't remember if it was you or Ed that detailed their construction several years back. But Robert went a step further creating "burrows" to "prove" the fact that these snakes like small tight spaces. 

Now I'm not looking at the "viv vs rub" argument, but you have to agree that the report or in the actual study that was being documented has lots of holes in it, and he puts forward a good case. The fact that what the scientist were documenting was nest raiding rather than being truly semi-arboreal, and thus they got it wrong.


----------



## StuG

Malc said:


> Stu, I think Robert was a tad narked when he received several comments on his "basic set up" video some months ago as that report was sited stating that based on the reports findings we should be offering royals taller enclosures with branches for them to climb rather than using racks. This was why he set up his terrarium, and then later modified it with an underground section with pipe work to represent burrows. The fact that he found two of his hatchlings preferring the pipework to the tree suggested to him that the "royals love small tight spaces, so small tubs are fine" as a defence for keeping them in racks. The half and half enclosure with a false base is nothing new. Can't remember if it was you or Ed that detailed their construction several years back. But Robert went a step further creating "burrows" to "prove" the fact that these snakes like small tight spaces.
> 
> Now I'm not looking at the "viv vs rub" argument, but you have to agree that the report or in the actual study that was being documented has lots of holes in it, and he puts forward a good case. The fact that what the scientist were documenting was nest raiding rather than being truly semi-arboreal, and thus they got it wrong.


I think reptile keeping is about evolving. We evolve as individual keepers and the hobby evolves as a whole. If you take Tom Crutchfield as an example, he has done some horrendous acts in terms of smuggling/breeding etc yet now is massive advocate for giving larger enclosures. 
I'm not against racks, the majority of royals that I have kept have been kept in racks and they have appeared healthy, fed well and bred. I don't for one second believe that it is detrimental to a royal to live without a branch to climb in its vivarium.
I do think that have space to stretch out and to be physically able to move must benefit them. 30 years ago getting a royal to feed was an achievement, in racks we can get them to feed and breed like clockwork- it has got to the stage that can also be achieved in vivarium's, so why not do it? We have the knowledge to be able to manipulate their environment-through heating, light cycles and feeding routines we can dictate their behaviours, within their natural range of behaviours. A common argument is "my royal wont feed in a bigger tub", I can 100% guarantee that if the "bigger tub" is set up correctly with correct heating, security and the animals feeding response is triggered it will feed. 1 week, 2 weeks, or 4 weeks often isn't enough time to let the snake settle. How many of animals that "won't feed in bigger tubs" are left for 3 or 4 months to adapt? I would be willing to bet that the answer is zero. These are snakes that have been overfed already for the majority of their lives and the keeper won't allow them adequate time to settle as the race is on to get them 1500g. 2 missed feeds in a bigger tub and then its back in the smaller rub for the rest of its life.


----------



## Swindinian

Malc, I enjoyed the video you shared, thank you 👍 Good to revisit the topic.

We always seek towards putting the case as right or wrong, nature or nature; it is often more complex and nuanced than how we tend towards presenting it.

People often don’t realise how much opinion and bias influences presentation of research papers, but the process does at least allow others to review the data and interpretation.

I thought the comments and critique in the video were reasoned and well thought out. 

I am not sure I would agree that royals would never bask naturally in the wild, but if one was of that opinion, I can see why that would legitimise the assumption that lighting (and/or basking spot) might not be essential.……
There is a similar opinion amongst some breeders of rainbow boas. Some keepers are beginning to demonstrate counter examples where basking is sought out when provided.

I am in favour of more complex environments in captive setups. 

I would be concerned about providing a lot of climbing height for a royal python (greater than 3 or 4 foot), as even with a well practised and toned animal, I would fear they would be liable to hurt themselves if they fell.

When I kept royals back in the nineties, I kept them fairly basically, newspaper, a couple of hides, and a water bowl, but did include a branch, and they would navigate around it, sometimes waking me with noisy antics. They are relatively clumsy climbers in my experience, and often lost their grip.


----------



## Thrasops

Malc said:


> Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but Robert Barraclough has just posted a video which rips apart the scientific study that was the basis of this(and other) discussions in his latest video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst some of his logic is sound, other parts are questionable, but it does indeed highlight the need for a true scientific survey and a report that doesn't leave the reader the option to come to their own conclusions...



I am hugely in favour of people looking up and reading research themselves but I have two replies to this video...

1. Somebody should probably tell this guy that there is more than one studies demonstrating arboreality in Royal pythons, including one where the authors radio-tracked the pythons between 2000 and 2005 and found males spend 25% of their active period climbing - I will get back to that. It ties into getting a broad picture from many studies rather than just looking at one.

2. 'Rips apart' that study? No, not at all. There is SO MUCH reaching and inaccuracy in this video. Normally I ignore Youtube reptile vids as they are not exactly the pinnacle of accuracy but it becomes outright dangerous when people like this start misrepresenting or misinterpreting facts and outright making things up. So much so I have to respond here to a number of the misrepresentations, fallacies and outright wrong statements in the video, as this guy is trying to paint a picture that just does not exist.

So from the beginning:

*'The dry season in Africa is not particularly dry'/ 'there are no seasons in Royal python range.'*

Er, what? I suspect this guy has never visited the parts of Africa where Royals live (or at least are most commonly imported from). There is HUGE seasonality there; sure, not so much in temperature but certainly in humidity and precipitation. A couple of examples:

Nigeria, average precipitation in wet season hits 65mm a day, goes down to 3.68mm a day in dry season. Quite a difference between 3mm and 65mm...

Ghana, average precipitation in dry season is 13.6" (*inches), average precipitation in the wet season is 1184."

Togo, precipitation is lower than 1mm per day in the dry season with relative humidity under 40%; in wet season this goes up to 7-8mm a day and relative humidity of 80%.

Why is it important to mention this? Because in the video the man flip-flops between seasonality being important to nest-raiding (we will get to that) and then makes out there are no seasons and the snakes do the same thing at all times of year. Only... we KNOW that is not true, we know that Royal pythons aestivate during the dry season and are typically found down burrows during these months. Basing what we know about their ecology on aestivation periods would be like basing husbandry of the Grass snake only on the fact they hibernate during the winter and are not more active at other parts of the year. Of course the dry season was not factored in, we know what the snakes are doing in dry season - aestivating in burrows.


*'The study area is limited geographically'/ 'not representative of Royal python habitat'*

...sure. This study was undertaken in south-eastern Nigeria. No argument there.

I wonder what he will say when he learns that there are records of arboreality in Sudan (Charles Sweeney), and Togo (Aubret et al)? Even Stefan Gorzula found a python up a tree in Ghana. For some reason people like to make out the study in question is less important because it is in one particular area. And yes, Royal pythons are certainly opportunistic snakes and colonise savannah and anthropogenically altered habitats like plantations and farmland very well (better than most other snakes in fact). But - and this is important - they reach highest population densities in forested areas - not just in Nigeria but in Ghana and Togo too.

This is not only pointed out by Luiselli and Aubret, but also by the local trackers themselves, for example:

D’Cruze, Neil, et al. "Searching for snakes: Ball python hunting in southern Togo, West Africa." Nature Conservation 38 (2020): 13.

"Ball pythons ... were most likely to be found in forest habitats (reported by n = 49 of 58 hunter/traders, 84.5%), farmland (70.1%; n = 41) or oil palm plantations (31.0%; n = 18). Other habitats where pythons could reportedly be found included fallow land (n = 11), rice fields owned by the interviewees (n = 5), teak plantations (n = 2), and Casava plantations (n = 1); note that hunters gave more than one answer." "With regards to release habitat, 18% (n = 9) stated that they released snakes into the forest. Others stated that they released snakes into farmland (6%; n = 3), fallow land (2%; n = 1), or, in most cases (68%; n = 34), a combination of forest, farmland, and / or fallow land; 6% (n = 3) said that they released ball pythons into either farmland or oil palm plantations." 

"Ball python “ranching” in Togo (as outlined in UNEP-WCMC 2014) depends on the collection of gravid females and egg clutches, that are found by following tracks in farmland or forest, breaking open hollow palm trunks, and / or digging up abandoned rodent burrows (Harris 2002)."

Several hunters also referred to forest destruction as a primary reason why the snakes are becoming rarer.

So... native python hunters, when questioned, told the researchers in 2021 that they were finding the snakes up trees and in hollow palm trunks... and that forests/ tree plantations are primary habitat for them... just the same as they told me in 2002 almost twenty years ago, and Luca Luiselli in 1998.

Of course you also find Royal pythons in habitat with comparatively few trees such as Savannah and farmland. No argument there. But the massive bias for hobby importers to use trackers that restrict their python hunting to landscapes that have been altered by human activity is what has skewed our perception of the habitat these snakes live in.


*'What does semi-arboreal mean?'*

Really the main argument people have is not 'do Royal pythons climb' - everybody accepts they do at least now and then. The real division comes in the application of the term 'semi-arboreal.' As far as I am concerned, that is deflection but since he highlighted a definition of semi-arboreality in his video, I shall here point out that the meaning of 'semi-arboreal' means from a Zoological perspective:

"semiarboreal (not comparable)
(of a creature) Which sometimes dwells in trees."

"Definition of semiarboreal: often inhabiting and frequenting trees but not completely arboreal"

"semiarboreal
semiarboreal (ˌsɛmɪɑːˈbɔːrɪəl)
adj
(Zoology) (of animals) spending half or some of their life in trees"

(I suspect this last, from the Collins English dictionary, may account for the idea that an animal has to spend 'half' it's life in trees; genteelly missing out the 'or some.')

Regardless, people are putting far too much stock in a definition and failing to understand the facts. The animals are regularly using trees for hunting, they are regularly being found on trees. It doesn't _matter_ whether this is only during some parts of the year. It does not _matter_ they are doing it to 'nest raid.' They regularly climb trees to the point that animals under a metre have a diet consisting of more arboreal animals and adult animals pick up differing parasite loads as a result of males being more arboreal than females. (We will come back to that point later).


*'The study had a small sample size'*

He points out the study included 29 males and 33 females (actually 38 males and 49 females due to recapturing). He makes out this is 'not large enough to be significant.' Presumably he does not have a lot of experience sampling snakes in the wild then, as in general studies on wild snakes tend to run on far lower sample sizes simply because snakes are extremely secretive and hard to find.

Snakes are perhaps one of the most difficult vertebrate groups to survey. Groombridge and Luxmoore (1991) state that: “Typically, it is difficult or impossible routinely to observe significant numbers of individuals of a given snake species, and more so to capture them for measurement, or assessment of reproductive condition, for example.”

These authors also point out that most snakes are “both secretive and elusive, and that their appearance is quite often seasonal.” In addition, snakes are usually solitary and rarely form aggregations, except in exceptional cases such as rattlesnake hibernacula. Snakes cannot vocalise and therefore are not heard from a distance. In effect, they are usually only seen when the researcher almost steps on the

Even snake species which are known to be fairly common, such as the adder, Vipera berus (Reading et al. 1996) will not necessarily be located by experienced researchers. During a recent survey of the adder, Vipera berus, in Scotland (Reading et al. 1995) the field biologists failed to detect any snakes after 3 visits each to a total of 12 sites. When the survey was repeated used local volunteers it took 97 site visits, spread between 16 localities, to observe only 69 adders.

Stefan Gorzula has more than 20 year of experience in herpetological expeditions and in his report for CITES on the status of the Royal python considered that 1 or 2 snakes (of all species) per field week would the average number that would be encountered in natural habitats by experienced museum collectors. Most expeditions return with only single specimens of each species captured.

So sure, bigger sample size would be nice but 87 hits is pretty decent for a study of this kind and FAR higher than a lot of other studies on other species ever managed to turn up.


*'There is a clear break point in lifestyle once the snake reaches a certain length'* and *'the claim of sexually dimorphic behavioural traits is false'*

I list these two together for the simple reason that this guy - as have all the others that have tried to downplay this study - has made a very simple mistake. He has gone all out trying to discredit the authors and their conclusions without understanding the breadth of work out there... what he SHOULD have done is check the list of citations at the end and, even better, actually get in contact with Luca Luiselli and the other authors themselves and they would have been MORE than happy to provide more recent studies which strengthen their arguments....

So firstly, the paper does *not* say with certainty that there is a break point in lifestyle down to size (in male snakes at least, in females it does). Rather, what it found found was that females STILL consume birds and there are several others that corroborate this; they simply eat a lower percentage of birds; and they also still at least occasionally eat arboreal mammals now and then too (including larger bats that a smaller animal would not be capable of taking), the study _nowhere_ states they 'only' eat terrestrial mammals (although certainly there is a pronounced ontogenetic shift in females towards ground-dwelling and predating terrestrial mammals, that much is not in doubt - just not exclusively).

What actually is stated is that 'There was an apparent ontogenetic change in the diet of both sexes: specimens shorter than 70 cm total length preyed almost exclusively upon small-sized birds (nestlings and immature), whereas the longer specimens (> 100 cm total length) preyed almost entirely upon small mammals."
Read this again. It nowhere states that the mammals were 'not arboreal,' merely that diet became more mammalian and indeed some of the mammals being taken would be FAR outsized for small snakes (e.g. _Megaloglossus_, _Epomopherus_ - which were recorded as eaten by FEMALES and certainly were not found down burrows...) as well as _Galagoides_.

That is a simple mistake to make. However the video then sets out to try and dispute the idea that there is disparity in the behaviour between mature males and females and this is where he once again slips up.

You see... there are more studies that show the same thing (and not just in Nigeria!).

For example it was found in Togo too, in the original paper referenced by the one the video sets out to 'rip apart':

(Aubret, Bonnet, Harris & Maumelat, 2005) "Sex Differences in Body Size and Ectoparasite Load in the Ball Python, Python regius"

"In juveniles, the number of ticks was not significantly different between males and females. In adults, however, the tick burden was significantly higher in males than in females (these analyses were also performed using a Kruskall Wallis ANOVA with sex as factor and the residual values of the regression between log SVL and log tick burden as dependent variable, without changing the results presented in Table 2)."

This implies it is ADULT animals picking up differing parasite burdens and states that juveniles were not distinguishable in parasite burden. This study was undertaken in Togo, NOT Nigeria. And found the same thing!

Luca Luiselli, the author of the study in question, realised this and decided to perform ANOTHER study:

Luiselli, Luca. "Why do males and females of Python regius differ in ectoparasite load?." _Amphibia-Reptilia_ 27.3 (2006): 469-471.

In this one, he radio-tracked pythons between 2000 and 2005. And guess what he found? Male pythons spent 25% of their active period climbing above ground (when asked he has replied that 'above ground' meant 'more than a metre off the ground.'

This is why it is so important to find out what other studies are out there that support arboreality in this species before going all out to try and discredit just one.

*'The prey data was skewed due to season/ locality and does not reflect "usual" habits"'*

Sure, this could seem like a valid point. Except, again, we have other data from different studies from different countries and different seasons. The following came from June to September, for example:












And what do we see? The highest individual species of prey item was _Cisticola_, a type of warbler (bird). Also _Dendropicos_ (woodpeckers). Once again, you will not these are tree nesters not ground nesters. Other mammals found were Macrochiroptera (fruit bats) and _Plecotus_ (another bat). So once again the insinuation that Luiselli's data was unique or 'special' is - wrong.

*'The snakes are seasonal nest robbers and this somehow downplays their arboreality'*

No it doesn't. Are the snakes climbing trees? Yes? Then it does not matter WHY, it matters that they ARE. Go back and look at the definitions of semi-arboreal above.

What is REALLY interesting though is that he brings up seasonality in bird nesting. And that is another red herring, as Africa is rather unique in that it has the highest diversity of ground nesting birds in the world and there are at least some bird species nesting year round - enough that the same habitat that Royal pythons live in has produced the ONLY genus of wholly egg eating snakes in the world (_Dasypeltis_, the egg eaters). And they exist by raiding nests more or less year round.

Why is this important? Because Africa has a wide spread of GROUND NESTING birds - pratincoles, plovers, dikkops, widows - and yet NONE of the bird species being found in the data sets taken by Royal pythons were ground nesting birds. If Royal pythons were truly 'opportunistic' then why are they not taking advantage of this seemingly easy terrestrial food source?


*'Arboreality and bird eating are not always correlated in snakes'*

Ahhhh... he said it.  I love it when people cherry pick that ONE sentence out of a paragraph that explicitly suggests this does not apply in this case.

Much has been made of a particular sentence from the Luca Luiselli and Francesco Angelici paper 'Sexual size dimorphism and natural history traits are correlated with intersexual dietary divergence in royal pythons (python regius) from the rainforests of southeastern Nigeria.'

The sentence in question is: 'In this context, it is however worth noting that arboreality and bird-eating are not always correlated events in snakes (Shine, 1983; Luiselli & Rugiero, 1993; Angelici & Luiselli, 1998).'

People LOVE to quote that sentence as if it 'disproves' semi-arboreality in Royal pythons; unfortunately it is an amusing and rather severe case of cherry picking given that i. the sentence appears in a paper that literally spends three pages explaining the snakes are semi-arboreal (at least within the study area); ii. it appears after a paragraph explaining that although this may be the case in some species, it is not in Royal pythons:

"We suggest that these differences in dietary composition depend on a major arboreality of males in comparison with females. Factors in favour of this hypothesis are: (i) males were found climbing on trees more frequently than females (14 specimens versus 2 specimens); and (ii) the presence in the males' diet of a higher number of arboreal prey, including birds, squirrels, and _Galagoides demidoff_."

Quoting just the one sentence is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. What makes it MORE funny though is when you read the citations alongside the statement that arboreality is not always linked to bird eating.

Shine R., 1983 - Arboreality in snakes: ecology of the Australian elapid genus Hoplocephalus. Copeia, 1983: 198-205.

"However, birds (and their eggs) are a more important dietary component in arboreal species (eaten by 43%) than in terrestrial species (23%)."

(arboreality and bird-eating ARE, it turns out, correlated in this example, something the nay-sayers seem to omit).

The other two citations are:

Angelici F. M., Luiselli L., 1998 - Ornithophagy in Italian snakes: a review. Bull. Soc. zool. France, in press.

and

Luiselli L., Rugiero L., 1993 - Food habits of the Aesculapian snake (Elaphe longissima) in central Italy: do arboreal snakes eat more birds than terrestrial ones. J. Herpetol., 27: 116-117.

THESE ones are the funny ones. It finds that, yes, arboreality and bird-eating are not correlated in the case of Aesculapian snakes living in woodland compared to the city... Aesculapian snakes in both habitats eat birds.

What is funny about it is - anybody that has ever seen or kept an Aesculapian snake knows these snakes are INCREDIBLY elegant and proficient climbers that tend to move 'up' when they can and where they are not 'arboreal' (used in the strict definition of the term - i.e. living in trees) they are - building dwellers. Specifically, living up drain pipes and gutters and on top of bus stops.

I can show an image of what Aesculapian snake habitat looks like in a non-arboreal setting - below. anybody using this paper as an argument against climbing in Royal pythons needs their head checking haha. The snakes STILL climbed.

Here you go. Here's non-arboreal Aesculapian snake habitat. What point do you think it proves with regard to climbing in the species, I wonder?










Can you see it yet?










This brings us back to our definitions. A definition he took pains to highlight earlier in the video! 'Arboreal' specifically refers to 'inhabiting trees' NOT 'climbing.' This is a mistake many people make.

An animal that climbs rocks is not called 'arboreal.' It is called 'saxicolous.'

An animal that climbs around in caves (like a cave salamander) would also not be called 'arboreal' it would be called 'troglobitic.'

A saxicolous or troglobitic animal might climb just as much as - or MORE than - an arboreal animal. And in the case of the studies mentioned above, 'arboreal' was used in its strictest sense - 'inhabiting trees' NOT 'climbing.' Once again simple failure to read up on the citations.

He says once again 'the animals are not living in trees they are simply climbing trees to rob nests.' If they were LIVING in trees they would be arboreal, not semi-arboreal. Climbing trees to rob nests is the definition of semi-arboreality! They go up for a reason then come down.

He goes on to state (at about the 22 minute mark) that 'the vast majority of the animals were found on the ground' before turning the page and reading that 14 of 29 males were in fact plucked like fruit off trees. That is around 40%. Vast majority?


*'Cobras do not climb trees'*

I am pointing out this error simply to make people realise that something said with confidence from a place of ignorance does not make it any more true.

He shares a pic of a Cape cobra (_Naja nivea_) - a species that OFTEN climbs trees (google 'Cape cobra tree' - you will see loads of pics of Cape and Forest cobras in trees, mostly from the African Snakebite Institute). He must have forgotten there is an entire genus of tree cobras too (_Pseudohaje_). A LOT of African cobras are semi arboreal (much more so than Royal pythons in fact) and even some Asian cobras climb rather a lot. His analogy falls flat on its face in light of this. Just a petty little gripe.


*'Royal pythons cannot locomote up trees'*

Another common misconception. He shows a few pictures of long, attenuate snakes climbing thin twigs and compares them (rather unfairly) to Royal pythons.

Only... Royal pythons don't move along thin twigs as they are not arboreal. However in African rainforests, the trees commonly look like this:










They get covered with African strangler figs. It is a completely different prospect to balancing out upon long thin twigs like a Twig snake or Vine snake.

He goes into a point about Royal pythons 'not being able to strike fast' but seems to forget this is unimportant as we already established Royal pythons are not 'strikers' they are foragers raiding nests and tree holes, they don't NEED to strike, any more than they would by sticking their head down a rodent burrow (rodents are pretty fast too!)

(We know this as it has been described by Charles Sweeney who observed and recorded Royal Python tree hunting behaviour in Sudan - again, not in Nigeria).


*'Tropical snakes don't bask'*

This is the most mystifying and erroneous point in the whole piece.

We are going to sit here and be told that - forget Royal pythons - all the other snakes in their habitat don't bask? Cobras, Mambas, _Philothamnus_, _Psammophis_, _Afronatrix_, _Natriciteres_, _Grayia_, _Thelotornis_, _Bitis_ - none of these bask, ever? And snakes in other parts of the tropics - Flying snakes, Bronzebacks, Rhabdophis, Tiger rat snakes, Boas, other pythons - none of these bask?

Really?

My first instinct would be to say 'bull - I have been in Royal python habitat and I have seen Royal pythons basking in sunlight, as well as all those other species I named.' But I won't because that is just anecdotal.

There is a video by Stefan Broghammer on Youtube catching a basking Royal python. G.S Cansdale writes about it all the way back in the 1960s 'the royal python is sometimes caught while sunning itself in the open during the daytime.'

Hell, Dav Kaufman is out in Africa now and the first Royal python he came upon was:










Let me state it here. Tropical snakes DO bask. They just tend to be hard to observe while doing it, and they don't need to do it for as long as temperate snakes. There ARE some snakes that are thermoconformers (_Stegonotus_ come to mind). Royal pythons are not. Hell, Myke Clarkson went out and documented Blood pythons basking, he even got UV Indices and temperature at the basking site.

The reason for this is fairly simple. As is common, this bloke has made a mistake of referring to climatic graphs that tell you great things about ambient temperatures six feet off the ground but tell you NOTHING about surface temperatures or microhabitats. When it is 15C in the UK the ground can hit 30C. When it is 27C in Gibraltar, surfaces can easily clear 50-60C. Ambient temperatures don't tell us much about habitat use.

Now, snakes and other reptiles are not 'cold blooded' - this is the mistake people make. They DON'T (with a few rare exceptions) exist 'at the same temperature as their surroundings' as this bloke makes out. This is why people no longer call them 'cold blooded' but rather 'poikilothermic' or 'ectothermic' - their PREFERRED TEMPERATURE (Tp) may be higher than that of a warm blooded animal (it usually ranges around 35-37C). A snake depends on its external environment to regulate its temperature but it is a huge mistake to assume its temperature is the same as its environment. A properly warmed up snake glows with heat (it might be warmer than you are). It achieves this by basking.

The problem with keeping snake at one ambient temperature is - snakes preferred temperature changes according to age, according to sex, according to time of year. it changes preprandial (before eating) vs postprandial (after eating). It changes depending on whether a female is gravid or not. This has been tested on pythons and boas and other tropical snakes. It is not a single number but a variable one. You cannot cater to this by keeping the snake in a narrow temperature band of 4 degrees. Even if it might choose to spend MOST of its time there. 

This is why keeping snakes at one temperature is not done and why we provide a thermal gradient. And they absolutely WILL use a heat source higher than surrounding temperatures if you provide it. Keeping a snake or any reptile at one temperature band is cruel, it does not fit their habits and is not good welfare. Simple as. This is not in dispute.

Thermal ecology is particularly close to my own heart as I studied thermal ecology myself in _Podarcis vaucheri_ as a student - it is so profound that it can be use to differentiate that species from related ones - and under Professor Roger Avery who was is one of the foremost experts on reptile thermoregulation. We have a study for this too specifically on Royals - although others exist for all sorts of other tropical snakes that I would be HAPPY to share showing them basking and thermoregulating.

Hollandt, Tina, Markus Baur, and Anna-Caroline Wöhr. "Animal-appropriate housing of ball pythons (Python regius)—Behavior-based evaluation of two types of housing systems." Plos one 16.5 (2021): e0247082.

In this study, the Royals were kept in tubs at the same temperatures recommended in this video (27C to 32C) or in vivs with higher basking temperatures up to 38C. And the snakes in the vivs spent on average 144 minutes a day basking at the high temperatures (under UV too!). And they showed improved behaviours in the latter including climbing.

I agree with StuG. We don't need any more studies. We don't need this one study to continously be rehashed either. Royals climb. It doesn't matter that they don't climb all the time, or even that they may not climb all year - nobody is disputing that they spend 90% of their time in burrows. And I think people get TOO wrapped up in the 'semi arboreality' - they don't need a cage for a tree boa, a branch or two is fine. I have seen people criticise perfectly great cages because they did not look like an enclosure for a Green tree python.

This is one species a cage with drawers 'Applegate style' would be best suited for. Or a cage with a false floor and subterranean hides. They spend a lot of their lives in burrows. Nobody denies that, this is why my preferred design for a Royal cage has always incorporated BOTH - facility to climb and bask, and facility to sit in a hole for days at a time. It should not be a choice between one or the other. Want to create the 'perfect' Royal python viv? Make something like the one pictured below:










Hell, PVC tubes or drawers or whatever would be perfect for the tunnels too. It all would work. But don't deny one aspect of their life to cater to another; whether that is climbing or burrowing.

And - shock - I think a 3x2x2 is going to be enough for most male Royals, with a 4x2x2 ample for all but the very largest females.

Wow that was a write up. Call it two weeks of not being on the forum.


----------



## Elly66

@Thrasops Fantastic piece you've written and very interesting. It's certainly made me more determined to have at least 4ft in height for my Royal's new viv and a deep bottom area. 

I'm fairly new to having a Royal, but I've noticed Fluffy spends most of their time in the low heat emitting uva/uvb basking area. When the bulb goes out, Fluffy often climbs onto the branch near it. It's surprised me as it's the cooler end of the viv, the ceramic heater is the other end. Currently Fluffy is in a 3 x 2 x 2 viv, but is still a youngster. 

On a side note, I don't suppose you know of any good books on Royal Pythons? I'd like something in- depth, not a basic "how to keep" one.


----------



## Thrasops

Elly66 said:


> @Thrasops Fantastic piece you've written and very interesting. It's certainly made me more determined to have at least 4ft in height for my Royal's new viv and a deep bottom area.
> 
> I'm fairly new to having a Royal, but I've noticed Fluffy spends most of their time in the low heat emitting uva/uvb basking area. When the bulb goes out, Fluffy often climbs onto the branch near it. It's surprised me as it's the cooler end of the viv, the ceramic heater is the other end. Currently Fluffy is in a 3 x 2 x 2 viv, but is still a youngster.
> 
> On a side note, I don't suppose you know of any good books on Royal Pythons? I'd like something in- depth, not a basic "how to keep" one.


Don't get me wrong - they don't NEED four feet in height and probably would not use it all the time. And with that kind of space you could easily give them a foot of substrate with tunnels to hide in and that would serve them well. If set up correctly though you would probably find they will move around up there occasionally so it is nice to have if you can provide it. But a rat snake would get much more from that kind of height for example. It is always good to go bigger but not super necessary for Royals - I would say about 24" is a fine height if you provide good thick branches (more is fine too though).

Here is a pic of one of Robbie Gicaro's pythons. Robbie also lives in South East Asia and keeps his pythons outside and reports they climb a lot. I do think more could be offered for burrowing and security though in this enclosure. But it does show they can certainly climb and locomote perfectly well up branches.










Regarding books, the best and most comprehensive is undoubtedly '_Pythons of the World vol. 2 - Ball Pythons_' by the Barkers. Good luck finding it now though, it is very expensive. Certainly the best book out there on them, and it does briefly mention Luca Luiselli's studies as well as others in the natural history section. Philippe deVosjoli's books are also worth a look. he used to import WC Royals early on and kept them differently than most 'breeders' - he had them in big enclosures in groups and found they bred best that way.

You could also look up Lindsey Herpetology on Facebook, she has an 8x4x4 enclosure with a pair of Royal pythons that is set up very well and reports hers climb a lot too. She moderates the 'Not Just a Pet Rock' group. There are plenty of people on here with far more experience than I have keeping Royals that can advise too.


----------



## Malc

Thrasops said:


> Philippe deVosjoli's books are also worth a look. he used to import WC Royals early on and kept them differently than most 'breeders' - he had them in big enclosures in groups and found they bred best that way.


My only comment regarding those books is that whilst his books contain a great deal of information, being written some 30+ years ago some of the information, whist good, is somewhat dated. For example, with so much captive breeding these days the section dealing with parasitic treatments is not so common these days as it was with captive farmed imports, which were the norm back then.


----------



## Thrasops

Malc said:


> My only comment regarding those books is that whilst his books contain a great deal of information, being written some 30+ years ago some of the information, whist good, is somewhat dated. For example, with so much captive breeding these days the section dealing with parasitic treatments is not so common these days as it was with captive farmed imports, which were the norm back then.


Oh absolutely. There is so much outdated info in some of those old books. But it is interesting reading how things were done. Just look at the Trutnau bibles (Snakes in the Terrarium vol. I and II). Some of the best books ever written in terms of species specific husbandry advice... but he also advocates 'bed rest and a hot flannel' for venomous snake bites... advice that does not stand up so much today!


----------

