The snake is named "Baby" it is in Serpent Safari park in Gurnee, Illinois.
Now, tell me where is your 32 feet 9 inches relic?
Those CRACK really works!

Yes, the longest reticulated that I know of is 26 feet long, died in 2002 at the Bronx Zoo.

baby is the heaviest ever in captivity not thel ongest and sheso nly 27 feetl ong. a specimen from celebes Indonesia in 1912 is thwl ongest itsn ow dead but was 32 feet 9 inches. now 32feet minus 27= 5 feet plus nine inches and u get a snake that is 5 feet 9 inches longer thne baby congrats u lose.

If it is not the longest in CAPTIVITY then you know of one that is longer, where is it??? 27, 28 or 29 feet, the fact is the snake is right there and you can go see it yourself, even measure it if you dare. Now I assume you do have proof this 1912 retic from Indonesia? Like a picture or a skeleton?

haha u seriosuly never haard of this snake? hmm i tohught anyone who knew anything aobut snakes woudl ahve come across this monster in there searches for info yea heres a link with info on em for u if u dont trust guinness then idk what to tell u lol http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=51013

Oh, I surely do have read about it, the thing is it is based on a trusted report by a civil engineer. Do you know that Guiness has retracted that record since it has no proof to back it up. Guiness now recognize Baby as the longest VERIFIABLE snake on record, and he is now 28 feet long.
Now, seriously you never knew that??? I suggest you buy the book for Guiness website don't get updated as much, it cost money to do so.

baby is not 28 feet long second this was the largest snake in captivity until 2002 when she died at a little over 26 feet this is a link this is a good site with good records on reticulated pythons and tlaks aobut the almost 33 foot long one its a ture snake and baby is only the the record holder for weight not legenth http://www.reptilediscovery.com/retic.html

san diego zoo

http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-python.html

AGAIN, Websites don't get updated as often they won't change their info for every inch a snake grows. Baby had grown to 28 feet. But we can talk on past tense and let it be 27. "Samantha" is the 26 feet python from the Bronx Zoo that died on 2002.
Your 33 footer python is not recognized by Guinness ANYMORE, you are getting old informations. For you it is a true snake, where is your proof?
I really agree more with Guiness than your theory.

its not a theory my dear its fact. it was a 32 foot 9 inch recognised snake. its even in a text book of mine. there is proof u just dont want to except it

Then I suggest you get on Guinness case for not recognizing it anymore.

Oh, by the way, it is just a text book that is why Guniess retracted it.
They decided to record the VERIFIABLE one. Show us your proof, Me and Guiness will accept it then wih GLEE!

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/conten...did=51013&Reg=1

according to them it isnt up to date. but i loked at the site and it has updates done this year. and i gave them one from the san diego zoo. i think he just wants to be right for once frogfsih itsk inda sad really. u knmwo when people cant not belive they have been beaten almost pathetic.

Buy the book, 2006 version.

By any standards, the Reticulated shot in Celebes is the longest snake on record.

this is true

I believed it myself when I first read about it, had a change of mind since it was based on a REPORTED measurement by a civil engineer. No specimen, skeleton or fossil I have a question mark for as you know by nature humans do exaggerate often.
Remember the suppose to be 42 feet python in Indonesia? Turned out it was only 21 feet.

The snake in Celebes was actually measure...not 'estimated'.

Dear RobbieB: I really wish you would start using spell check or something, there's one on here. If you are really a scientist, surely you've written a research paper or two. It would be absolutely grand if you posted like that. It's hard to take you seriously when I tend to think you're borderline illiterate. Just offering some friendly advice, man. Don't take it personal.

Anyhow, what robbieb and frogfish say is right, animals are designed to get to a certain size. There is a cut-off, before they are no longer able to function. I think most animals are genetically wired to stop growing before they hit that cut-off point. Anyhow, it makes sense when it's in my head.

Exactly...the only animals that don't are sponges and corals, which are actually colonies of small animals.

You telling everyone now sponges and corals have no growth limit???

Technically, yes...They are colonies of animals....the 'coral' never stops growing (in a perfect environment), but the animals do.

ok ready here we go. coral are actualy bvery small organisims that work together in a colony there colonies have no cut off they can grow as latge as ther envoirmenyt can support with no human interferecne. but each member of the coral society is rather small and a sponger is a little more complex but similar

ok ready here we go. coral are actualy bvery small organisims that work together in a colony there colonies have no cut off they can grow as latge as ther envoirmenyt can support with no human interferecne. but each member of the coral society is rather small and a sponger is a little more complex but similar

Which is what I said...

One genetic wire limit and the other environmental limit, there is a limit still, right?
Technically then it does have growth limit.

In a perfect ecosystem, no.

In a perfect ecosystem it can't grow bigger than the earth, right?
There you go, technically there is a limit.

In a perfect ecosystem, it is of infinite space...there would be no limit...

Genetics on the other hand, would stop growth.

What is your point AROCES? I worded my post wrong, please read the edited one.

But won't go beyond it's perfect ecosystem, right? So there is a limit.

Infinite space??? Corals in space, reaching beyond the stars???

if a perfect ecosytem is infinte, it will grow wihout a limit. Genetics stop growth with moderate to little influence from the ecosystem.

aroces just sits there and nit picks she dopesnt produce facts.

U NEED TO LEARN WHAT AN ECO SYSTEM IS EARTH IS NOT ONE ECOSYSTEM. DUH JESUS CHRIST. LEARN WHAT AN ECOSYSTEM IS AND THEN THINK ABOUT WHAT U SAID AROCES.

u need to remember that a member of the coral is small the colony is big and the colony grows over the dead remains of htere for fathers colonies. if u go into the ocean and grab a piece of coral and pull it off ur not grabing part of an animal if its even an active coral piece ur grabing a lot of coral colony members.

i dont recomend going into the ocean and taking coral there endangerd and its kinda ilegal

Its only allowed for the fish trade. I owl several corals myself for my marine aquarium.

IF! But there is no infinite ecosystem that we know of in this entire universe. So, there is a limit.
IF, genetic is infinite too, then same case it will grow forever as you said.
You see how you contradict yourself????

You fail to see my point. In a perfect ecosystem, only corals and sponges have no growth limit. They are they only animals that COMPLETELY rely on a environment for growth limit. All other multicellular animals have genetic limits.


If Genetics are infinite, which makes no sense, it would have no impact whatsoever on this topic Do some research on genetics.



I see no contradiction.

a perfect eco system is not infinite. because a perfect eco system needs other eco systems to mantain it self. example is a grassland by the shore wont work unless there is a buffer ecosystem between it and the ocean the ocean the buffer and the grass land are all ecosystems and one needs the other to survive. and u know he ment it as a a hyphotetical thing dont bust balls


yea i have some too in a 110 gallon fish tank but u urself cant go to the ocean and take it. thats what i ment

Actually, it could be infinite...Don't make me dive into the realm of mathematics and physics right now...

theoriticly im sure its possible in reality i dont think so

And if Ecosystem is infinite, which makes no sense too?
You are the one who brought up genetic wiring???
You contradicted yourself again, gee!

How can you not understand if an ecosystem is infinite? You know nothing of this topic!


so?


I still see no contradiction

So? Make up your mind and stop confusing people here and yourself.
Is there or is there no limit in growth of living things?

Only corals and sponges have no internal growth limits...get that?

by that im assuming he means the colonies not the indivual memebers of the colonies because they themselves are small. but the colony can keep growing as long as it has the romm to do it. there is no limit to the number of members the coolony can have

AS LONG AS THERE IS ROOM. So space is the limiting factor. There is a limit then.

its a physical limiter not a theoritical limiter in theory given infitine space it could grow infinity

OK, physical limiter not theoritical. So, there is a limit, right?

there is a physical limit yes