![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
With all due respect to previous contributors; as an experienced keeper and breeder of (Australian) pythons for over forty years, I strongly disagree with the content of this article, but unfortunately have no citable material immediately at hand refuting the claims I take aversion to. Unless there is an unusually large discrepancy between the size of the snake and its prey, the mechanism causing death is solely asphyxiation caused by denying the prey any opportunity to breathe. While it is true that the prey will suffer some decrease in circulation, this effect is confined to the tissues nearest the skin (unless the snake, and only then in very rare instances, is wrapped around an animals neck!). The major blood vessels within the thorax are relatively far too large to suffer the decrease in blood flow necessary to cause cardiac arrest - to achieve this, the ribcage would need to be entirely crushed or flattened, and this does NOT happen. Please see also the python entry for a better description of constriction. Unless some credible references are provided in support of the cardiac arrest hypothesis, I shall consider replacing this with an entirely rewritten article when I next visit this page. Peter b 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
it's not only snake-related! see Asphyxia -- Melaen 13:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Article says the sanke bites and holds on before applying constriction. Is this correct? RJFJR 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says that snakes don't crush bones, but asphyxiate their prey, and then in the next sentence says they don't asphyxiate their prey, but make their hearts stop beating. Which is true? Also, the only informative section is on snake constriction, which is rather short - it could be moved into the boa page, and then this page could turn into strictly a disambiguation page like it looks like it wants to be? Kjl 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Discovery Communications made a documentary called Anatomy Of A Snakebite. They did an experiment about constriction and said that instead of sufficating the victim, the snake sueezes you until all your blood is in your head and your eyes may even want to pop out.
One bit of info that would be useful to include here: how long does it take for a constrictor (depending if it's a dedicated constrictor like a boa/python or uses a mix of techniques like certain colubrids) to kill prey of various sizes (relative to the snake)? And perhaps, a comparison for snakes that use venom only (like most viperids & elapids)? Just a thought. 174.111.242.35 ( talk) 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Diamond Python around ring tail possum.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Diamond Python around ring tail possum.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
The article currently states that "it has been found that the green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) exerts a constriction pressure of 6 kg/cm2, which effectively means a total strength of 4000 kg.[4]" The provided source, however, only provides one pressure value "4 PSI (pounds per square inch)". I am not familiar with "kg/cm2" as a unit of force, but perhaps "kilogram-force/square centimeter" is meant. In that case, onlineconversion.com calculates "6 kilogram-force/square centimeter = 85.340 pound/square inch", which is about 20 times the pressure given by the source. Also, how is the "total strength" calculated. Can anyone clear up this discrepancy? - AndrewDressel ( talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constriction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello All, I noticed that citation number 5 is a BBC article that cites as a primary source of information the journal article cited here as reference number 7 (from the Journal of Experimental Biology). It seems that as an encyclopedia we should be citing primary sources whenever possible. It would be an easy change to make both citations the same and not reference the non-primary source at all. I haven't had any skin in the game on this entry so far so I will leave it to those more invested in it to decide if they want to make the change. Kirkmona ( talk) 14:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)