Sub sahara ball python

I'm just wondering because someone local to me claims he has a sub saharan male, yet I've never seen anyone with one or even talk about one.

They exist, but I am not sure if the size thing carries over with them.

I have two yellowbellies from a subsaharan female. One male, one female. The female is twice the size of the male, and honestly...the male eats more.

Originally Posted by ClarkT

We ultrasounded my WC subsaharan tonight. She's Gravid with 46mm follicles!!! So she's gravid from the wild. I palpated at least 12 follicles when she got here. Hoping for more... We didn't want to try and count them with the ultrasound. She wasn't holding still. Anyway...I'm just excited .

Any updates on this lady?

Originally Posted by RobNJ

"Sub-Saharan"()...and I've also seen these BIG gene girls labeled Voltas, from a specific locale. While size is hereditary, thinking of this as a new gene is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Logical thinking would lead me to believe...

1) These HUGE girls are older.

2) If they are in fact being collected from a specific locale, the possibility of it being an area that for whatever reason lacks in more formidable predators is a very real one. I would imagine that whatever is preying on ball pythons is very likely also preying on what ball pythons eat, which would, as expected, lead to higher populations of prey items for the ball pythons to eat. I'd compare it to a less stressful environment promoting maximum growth...along the lines of Kodiak bears and Komodo dragons. Sure we would still see giant examples of either, but not nearly as many and as consistently if they were to live in a more competitive environment.

But at the same time, if it is an isolated population that can get to maximum growth, and they are only breeding with each other, over time that "maximum size" would be programmed into their DNA.
Heck, apparently personality is genetic, why not size?
I read about how they tamed the first Green Anacondas. They bred the most tame they could find, and held back the most tame babies. They raised them up and bred them and got even tamer babies. If sometime as simple as personality of the animal could be genetic, why not size...ESPECIALLY in an isolated population?

Yeah, she laid 10. 7 were good eggs, and 3 were slugs. 1 egg, a boob egg, died about 2 weeks into it. The remaining 6 look great!
I haven't gotten her to eat, yet, though. Trying ASFs soon. Hopefully she'll go for them. If not, I'll try gerbils, etc... I've tried mice. She looked, but didn't go for it. I kind of expected it, but thought she'd eat after laying, cause she'd be really hungry.

Originally Posted by ClarkT

Yeah, she laid 10. 7 were good eggs, and 3 were slugs. 1 egg, a boob egg, died about 2 weeks into it. The remaining 6 look great!
I haven't gotten her to eat, yet, though. Trying ASFs soon. Hopefully she'll go for them. If not, I'll try gerbils, etc... I've tried mice. She looked, but didn't go for it. I kind of expected it, but thought she'd eat after laying, cause she'd be really hungry.

Is she a wild caught? I've heard from Outback that Cypress mulch is a key in getting them to eat. Probably more natural to them.

Originally Posted by Kingofspades

But at the same time, if it is an isolated population that can get to maximum growth, and they are only breeding with each other, over time that "maximum size" would be programmed into their DNA.
Heck, apparently personality is genetic, why not size?
I read about how they tamed the first Green Anacondas. They bred the most tame they could find, and held back the most tame babies. They raised them up and bred them and got even tamer babies. If sometime as simple as personality of the animal could be genetic, why not size...ESPECIALLY in an isolated population?

Instead of it being a single gene responsible, I think it is more than likely polygenic. Over generations of larger specimens breeding the offspring tend to be large as well but it most likely isn't something that can be predicted like Mendelian genetics. Sort of like Pastel in boas - line breeding makes them better. I bet Sub-Saharans are just line bred locale specific animals. But it's just a theory.

My giant girl I posted about earlier in the thread gave her first clutch (at 13 yrs old) yesterday, 11 big eggs. She was around 3850g before ovulation and was 2500g after laying - the clutch was a whopping 1131 grams laid on day 31 after POS.

pic of her laying


the eggs (think I'm gonna need to put them in a bigger box!)

Just out of curiosity ...

Has anyone considered that the larger heads on these WC "Sub Saharans" have more to do with frequency of feeding of BPs in captivity rather than their genetics?

I only ask because in boa constrictors, a boa fed too frequently will grow disproportionately in a manner that its head will be disproportionately small in comparison to the rest of his body. Because of the shape of BPs, this would be more difficult to notice, I believe. Still ... is it possible that the frequency people feed BPs to get them up to breeding size as quickly as possible contribute to their heads being smaller than these WC counterparts?

I'll admit, I have minimal knowledge on BPs in this regard, but reading the comments about these mature females pulled from the wild with larger than what is considered normal heads just had me wondering.

Try leaving a fresh killed in over night. That's the only way mine has been eating.

Interesting thoughts Diem.