Spotted, Childrens, or Cross?

I recieved this pair today... The male is on the bottom, and is all Spotted Python. The female is on the top... And is very questionable. The line drawing is supposed to be a representation of a Spotted.

I'm baffled...

Mark

Im fenced by this one.
It seems to be missing just a few of the smaller scales shown in the drawing.
That could just be because of individual variance, or a mix. It doesnt have the coloration of the male, but then again that can also just be an individual characteristic.
Id think the only way to be absolutely positive would be a scale count.

Id think the only way to be absolutely positive would be a scale count.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you.

http://www.herpbreeder.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=172

Here's an excerpt from Richard Wells:

However, for the present, if you are trying to separate childreni from “stimsoni” (=saxacola) or childreni from maculosa there shouldn’t be too much difficulty, because just on colour and pattern they fall out fairly well. In this regard childreni are uniform brownish and are usually fairly patternless. When childreni actually are patterned, then the pattern is quite regular in appearance, with the small blotches more or less aligned longitudinally along the body, and seldom is there any coalescence of the blotches either. In the case of “stimsoni” (=saxacola), well they are usually strongly patterned, with a series of bold, darker brown or reddish blotches more or less arranged in transverse rows over the body. The blotches are smooth-edged and often coalesce with others. Additionally, there is always a prominent white ventrolateral stripe along the first third of the body in “stimsoni” (=saxacola), but if this stripe is present in childreni or maculosa (and usually it is absent in both), then it is very weak. In Antaresia maculosa, well again, they possess a distinctive blotched pattern as in “stimsoni” (=saxacola), so there might be some initial confusion there, but in maculosa there is a much more complex pattern of blotching, with considerable coalescence. However, in maculosa, the blotches are ragged-edged, and in stimsoni (=saxacola) (and in those childreni so marked) the blotches are smooth-edged. This ragged-edged appearance to the blotches in maculosa, when combined with the coalescence of the blotching, tends to create a zig-zag effect to the body pattern. There is nothing at all like that in either childreni or “stimsoni” (=saxacola). Additionally, maculosa usually have a distinctive brown facial streak that extends from about the nasal, through the eye and along the temporal region.
In regards to the pattern of scalation, as I mentioned above, there is a broad overlap between the species and on first glance this can be confusing. Usually, however, and in the presence of one or more of the other defining characteristics, a mid body count under 40 will be a childreni, and over 40 will be a “stimsoni” (=saxacola). Another feature that is commonly different in “stimsoni” (=saxacola) is the number of loreals - in a “stimsoni” (=saxacola) there are often over 10 and in a childreni under 10 (but the western orientalis may be more like childreni in this regard, so be careful here). Although there are a similar number of supralabials in both species, counting from the rostral back, usually the 5th and 6th are suborbital in childreni, but in “stimsoni” (=saxacola) it is the 6th and 7th that are suborbital.
So, a plain or very weakly patterned specimen, that has over 40 mid-body scale rows, under 10 loreals, and with the 5th and 6th supralabials in contact with the orbit of the eye will likely be a childreni.
A specimen that has a distinct pattern of darker, smooth-edged blotches over the body, as well as a distinct creamish-white line running along the lower edge of the body from the lower part of the neck for about the first third of its body, that has under 40 mid-body scale rows, over 10 loreals, and with the 6th and 7th in contact with the orbit of the eye will likely be a “stimsoni” (=saxacola).
A specimen with a pattern of ragged-edged blotching forming a complex, but essentially transverse pattern, with a distinct brown facial streak, no pale ventrolateral stripe along the anterior third of the body particularly along the lower part of the neck (or if present very weak) will likely be a maculosa.

Looks like a cross to me. Pretty, though!

We use those same drawings by Ray Miller as reference, but actually found some inconsistencies. Since that time, we've contacted the West Australian Museum and have received quite a large amount of information, including Laurie Smith's published research "A Revision of the Liasis childreni Species Group" and articles by Raymond T. Hoser, a well respected authority (in my opinion).

It's a chunk of material, but if you have a fax machine, I'd be happy to forward it, or just make photocopies and send them snail mail.

Gorgeous girl, though!

Hey Terese, how much would it be to have you send me a copy of those?

LOL We'll run a Fauna Members Only Christmas Special! Just email me your mailing address or fax number, and I'll get it to you on Monday.

P.S., this is Terese's husband....don't wish to cause confusion....