Are Colombian Boas BCI or BCC?

[The_Boaphile]

Are Colombian Boas Boa Constrictor imperator or Boa Constrictor constrictor ?

I believe all Colombian Boas are constrictor constrictor. This is a controversial opinion I know but it is based on the legitimate original descriptions of the various subspecies and not on any opinions written or spoken. Of course the conclusions I come to are my opinion but this is the only conclusion I can come to based on the facts written in the original descriptions.

Colombian Boas, commonly referred to as Colombian Red Tails are not Boa constrictor constrictor or Boa constrictor imperator because anyone says they are or are not. They are not one or the other because I say so. They are not one or the other because any other breeder says so. They are not one or the other because any taxonomist says so. They are not one or the other because any herp writer says so. They are not Boa constrictor constrictor or Boa constrictor imperator because of where they originate either. An all too little known FACT is that neither of the original descriptions of constrictor or imperator ever refers to any Boa constrictor found in Colombia. They are completely silent on any of the specifics of Boa Constrictors found in Colombia. So anything that anyone says about the particular subspecies these animals belong to is strictly speculation based on absolutely nothing factual unless they specifically reference the original writing for the two descriptions mentioned earlier to scientifically categorize Colombian Boas into either constrictor constrictor or constrictor imperator.

So what are the facts? Categorizing Colombian Boas into the proper subspecies whether that be constrictor constrictor or constrictor imperator can only be done be studying these animals in light of the specific physical differences between constrictor and imperator. The fundamental difference between these two is scale rows. Imperator has only up to 79 scale rows. Constrictor has 80 and over. It is that simple. Read the original descriptions which were written without any prejudice or to prove or disprove anything. They were not written to strong arm some group of animals into one group or another but to set up the standard by which future scientists like wanna be scientist such as myself. These descriptions or "keys" were written to clarify what species or subspecies a given Boa Constrictor could be classified as and to set about laying out an accurate scientific record of these animals and their far more detailed descriptions that I can get into here.

Continued...

[The_Boaphile]

Now, I have done an extensive amount of scale row counting on my Boas over these many years. This was done more than ten years ago using the many many Colombian Boas I had in my collection that were the Colombians of old. I counted no fewer than 30 different specimens. That is Colombians that were imported into the United States in the 70's, 80's and their descendants. I do not have any specific information regarding the exact locality of any of the Colombian Boas I own. However I do know that every single Boa I counted had more than 80 scale rows. Most had around 85 scale rows with a high of 89 scale rows on one particular animal. Jim Pomaville a Boa Constrictor Whacko like me from way back (Actually from farther back) has counted the scale rows on numerous newly imported Colombian Boas as well. Guess what? Every single one of these animals is constrictor constrictor as well based upon the number of scale rows.

This is why my opinion is that all Colombian Boas are actually Boa constrictor constrictor and not imperator.

I hope this is not confusing for anyone. The Boas that most people breed and sell as imperator, assuming they are Colombian Boas, are the same subspecies as the Colombians I am breeding. We simply disagree on which subspecific name ought to be affixed to these equal animals.

I do not however believe as some would inaccurately presuppose that it is perfectly fine to breed any constrictor constrictor with any other constrictor constrictor. I am not a totally extreme locality whacko as some of my good friends are BUT I would never ever consider breeding a Colombian with a Surinam. I don't think it's a moral issue mind you but just one that is my preference to keep things clean and straight. Anything that anyone is attempting to accomplish breeding dramatically different locals of Boas together can be achieved the old fashioned hard work and selective breeding over multiple generations way. This is the way I prefer to do it. Ten years ago the pinkest Boas out there were probably some Surinam Red Tails. Today I produce Colombians that blow away these same high pink Surinams. I did it the old fashioned way through hard work and selective breeding. So please do not mischaracterize or misunderstand what I will do or think anyone else should do based on my iconoclastic opinion regarding the proper and scientifically agreeable subspecies that Colombian Boas belong in.

Thank you,

Jeff Ronne

[Sojourn]

Are they?... Are they not?... I will not begin to guess, suppose, or assume, but by scale count all of ours boas would be in the Bcc range, having between 84 and 89 scale rows, and not Bci as I believe most would tell me they are from looking at them......

To my eyes there is a very distinct phenotypic difference between boas considered to be "true red tails" or Bcc, and just "red tails"or "common" Bci. I have been force fed that "one lives East of the Andes, and one West"....with a fracturing point of natural integradation in the Leticia locality boas.

Would it be too bold a statement to say that the current taxonomy of Boas could use a bit of reconsideration? Or is the paradigm too far gone?

In my opinion I think there definitely should be some changes. And would really like to hear some other thoughts on this.

Excellent topic Jeff.

[The_Boaphile]

Sure, the entire thing could be made more accurate or completely rewritten. The fact that what we have the most of here in the United States has never been studied in the wild just leaves us forced with having to fit our wonderful Colombian Boas into one of the only two categories that are the options. Those who just believe what they hear from other well meaning herpers without regard to the original writings will mostly say imperator. Those who read the writings, if forced to decide one subspecies or another can only come to one conclusion in my, I guess not so humble onion. Constrictor constrictor is it. Of course Colombians and Surinams look drastically different. They come from different ends of a continent. So do Peruvians and Surinams but many would argue they are the same subspecies, actually everyone would but they mostly look dramatically different from each other. This is also one of the reasons for the scale counts. The original descriptions, if you have read them, do not at all consider or emphasize color for instance. Uniformity of pattern. Not of these really superficial things have been set up as the defining characteristics of defining a subspecies. Scale counts and scale rows in particular have though.

So absent someone doing the work to straighten this mess out, we can only follow the original descriptions and use them as our guide.

I'm going out for Mexican in a little bit! I can't wait!

[Panama_Red]

I agree that most columbians are BCC I have scale counts from many of my boas that are in the 80- 95 range. They are mature adults and much larger than any description for a BCI. All of the boas that I have that have lower scale counts are of a different looking build and probably originate from Panama or Costa rica, I think that these are the areas that we find the BCI/BCC intergrades. Boas seem to get smaller the further north you go, and I think there scale counts back that. I was trying to get some record of adult size vs. scale count, I think there is a direct connection there. The boas with higher mid dorsal scale counts seem to have the potential to become larger, at least this is the way it seems to play out in my collectoin. I would be truly interested to see some scale count numbers vs. adult size from Jeff or some of the others with substantialy sized collections. It would be nice to be able to predict the size of a boa from one of it's first sheds, and probably keep so many from getting dumped off because they got 10' long when the owner was hoping his boa reach 6'.

[Panama_Red]

Panama_Red
I can send you scale counts of my adult animals after they shed if you like. I have Col, Nics, Hogs and Brazilian Bcc

That sounds great I'd love to see them.

I also think that Colombians are different looking than your average BCC but they don't look like central americans either.  If you were going to compare their body/head shape to a BCC it would have to be a Peruvian.  Colombians are different from both I think they are more robustly bodied than either, but closer to BCC than BCI in my opinion. Throwing them into the same subspecies with Central American boas is totaly wrong in my opinion.

[The_Boaphile]

None of the original descriptions of any of the Boa Constrictors ever mention the time of year reproduction takes place in the wild or in here in captivity. The head size or shape is not a defining characteristic of Bcc vs. Bci in the original descriptions either. The body shape is highly variable and many examples can be shown in both forms vise versa that do not fit the mold of loaf of bred shape or not. In fact in captivity body shape can just as much be influenced by environmental factors as controlled by genetics. Again this is not something mentioned in the original descriptions and while all important points for Boa fanatics like myself to know and take note of, none of them have anything to do with defining which subspecies they should be set into given all the other characteristics that are relevant.

All that being said... Intergrades? Says who? Don't take me wrong. I am not trying to attack. I am trying to attack the notion that these wonderful and beautiful animals can in any way be considered intergrades. So, says who? Man? I don't think so. Who says we can be so presumptuous as to draw the line anywhere and say, "These over here are this subspecies and those over there are that"? Now I know man does that all the time but if man drew the line elsewhere the Colombians would be a true subspecies and their neighbors to the left or south would be the intergrades.

Intergrades typically are isolated relatively small populations of whatever type of animal, that share characteristics of two distinct normally geographically separated and uniquely, as described in taxonomic literature, different subspecies from each other so as to logically deserve subspecific status. Those relatively rare and normally isolated individuals that share characteristics of both subspecies are called intergrades. Such is in no way the case with Boa Constrictors in Colombia. Colombia is a vast South American country. Boas in the North eastern portion of Colombia have been imported in the United States by the thousands for many many years. The range is huge. Were all the Boas in Central America north of Panama completely distinct from the Boa Constrictors in South America, which they necessarily are not, some could logically argue that some populations in parts of Panama may be intergrades. However, the fact that Colombian Boas differ from the other Bcc in South America only proves that the Boas in the Bcc group are highly variable. It is logical to assume that Bcc that are nearly completely separated from each other may be dramatically different from each other. Such is the case with non-Amazon Basin Colombian Boas and Amazon Basin Colombian Boas. The same sorts of differences can be proven in other forms of Bcc.

Now if you want to suggest that the Boas in Colombia may deserve subspecific status, I'm with you. But I'm not on board with the presumptuous illogical notion that these wide ranging Boas in Colombia that have lived and thrived on their own without the intervention and direct influence for millennia of anything other than everything natural are intergrades. Not I said me.

All Boas wherever they originate are necessarily particularly unique to the specific location they come from. The Boas even within north eastern Colombia are probably widely variable and some subspecific mega splitter, rather than a lumper could very well define many unique populations even with this area of Colombia. However, I can't do that from here and nobody else can do that from here. We can't describe new subspecies from here and we can't fix what is definitely not a perfect science. The only authority we have until someone does go down, collect the local specific animals and does all the counts necessary as have been done in the original descriptions. We can point at what we don't like about those descriptions. We can detail everything that we think those descriptions have left out that we think as arm chair scientist, mind you I am in that same arm chair. We can try to guess and presume anything we want to but! Those original descriptions are the only authority recognized by the scientific world to have any validity. Since we are using scientific names we must defer to the scientific descriptions. That is my only point. According to the original descriptions all Colombian Boas are Bcc and not intergrades please.

[Panama_Red]

Yes according to all of the original identification guides Colombians are BCC, at least in my collection.   They do have a different look than suri's or brazillians...ect, but they all seem to be variable in apperance, but are still BCC. As far as saddle counts go I dont have any Colombians with more than 20, I do have other boas (smaller adult BCI) with more than 20, and lower mid dorsal scale counts. I definatly think there a point being made here, If were going to compare apples lets follow the same guidlines.    

[djg79]

I agree with some of the things that were said. The taxonomy of boa constrictors need to be re-evaluated. However, Colombian boas (BCI's), in my opinion, are not BCC's. Though the scale count of BCI's (according to the original descriptions) are less than 80, various publications (including "The Boa Constrictor Manual" co-wrote by you Jeff) say that the scale count of Colombian boas are, on average, bettween 80-85. Colombians also have 21 or more dorsal blotches as with all BCI's. BCC's have 20 or less dorsal blotches. Colombians do not (on average) grow as large as BCC's. They grow at a different rate than BCC's. They do not (on averageand without selective breeding) display the vivid red tails of BCC's. So, in conclusion, it is the taxonomy of boa constrictors that needs to be re-evaluated. Placing Colombian boas (BCI) with BCC's would not solve the problem because they are not the same. They are different from other BCI's but they are also different from BCC's.

[The_Boaphile]

I will try one more time OK?

Nobody says there are not differences between the Bcc outside of Colombia and the Boas from north eastern Colombia. That is not arguable.  To site these differences is to miss the point completely. The one point some seem to be missing is this; my opinion or any one else's opinion is irrelevant. Also regardless of how long you personally have believed something that may make something new difficult to accept but that does not make you or me right. Any differences anyone can detail between Colombian Boas and the other Bcc while important do not change the one very simple concept that I am going to try to make one more time. The only authority for the taxonomic classification of any individual animal is the accepted scientific descriptions of those animals. The Boa Constrictor Manual, which I co-authored yes, does not carry any authority whatsoever in the world of taxonomy. None. Zero. Nadda. I am not sure how to make this plainer. Nobody and nothing have any impact whatsoever on where any given animal should be placed as far as what subspecies any Boa Constrictor is except the original descriptions. It may be hard to believe but if a legitimate attempt is ever made to GO TO COLOMBIAN and determine if Colombian Boas are one subspecies or another or if they deserve their own subspecific status, the scientist will not be referring to common opinion. He will not consult the Boa Manual. He will not call me or anyone's favorite breeder. He will not look to see what the opinion of the herp community at large is. All these things are totally completely and utterly irrelevant period. So until a new legitimate scientific paper is written and is accepted by the scientific community overall, nothing written, said or claimed has any impact whatsoever.

To make a point detailing what subspecies you or anyone else believes a given group of Boa Constrictors belongs in can only legitimately be made while standing on the very foundation that enables us to make these determinations. That foundation(s) is(are) the original descriptions period. This is a fact and not opinion. The original descriptions are the one and only authority.

Colombian Boas are Bcc based upon my reading of the original descriptions. This is opinion. The original descriptions are the only authority to determine which subspecies Colombian Boas are is not an opinion but taxonomic scientific fact.

[ScooterJ46]

Jeff, With that all being said, do you think a new standard or prescribed set of traits should be looked at to re-classify or is it simply enough to point out that based on the historical method of classifying the subspecies of boas as BCC and BCI based on scale count and just leave it at that. Because it is obvious to me, a relatively new lover and collector of boas, that many differences exist between the so called columbians, and surinames and peruvians, and guyana's and amarali's and so on and so on. Hope you don't think I am beating this horse to death. Thanks..

[The_Boaphile]

There is a set of traits that are detailed and noted by taxonomists when describing snakes. I will try to get that list together at some point and post them here. These traits are the scientific characteristics which are necessarily physical and not behavioral such as any information regarding breeding season. The breeding season of any species is more likely environmental and not anything that could or would be noted in the description of a new or otherwise subspecies. They are also necessarily things that can be definitely measured and quantified such as the various scale counts. Head size and body shape while good things to observe are not the kinds of things you will find that can be easily precisely quantified in a subspecies classification or description in comparison to the other data revealed in the previous writings.

Overall it would really be nice if someone or some group of someones would and could collect types from all different areas of South and Central America and clarify what is what. However that is probably a pipe dream and so all that remains are opinions and the original descriptions. My only contention is those opinions, until described in the correct scientific manner, must be based on the Boas as compared to these original descriptions and not what arm chair scientist like me think about any of it. Bottom line, what we think is really irrelevant. The original descriptions and those things that can be clearly quantified or measured in comparison to those writings are all that matters.

[djg79]

As I stated before, I agree with some of the things you said. The main point of my post was to state a different approach to settle the problem. It is the taxonomy of theses animals that is the real problem. I do not Feel that placing Colombians with BCC's will solve the main problem with this species. I did not miss your point. I only stated my opinion about your topic. They are not, in my opinion, BCC's. The only way to determine what classification Colombians belong to is to re-work the taxonomy of the entire species of boa constrictor. The taxonomy of boa constrictors, as well as many other species, is irrational for the most part and is long overdue for an over haul. So, I do agree with you(partially), we just have a somewhat different view on how to solve the problem.

[Sojourn]

All are agreed, I think, on the necessity of change in Boa ssp. taxonomy. But realistically that's not going to happen any time soon. But in the meanwhile... by the parameters provided by science..... Colombian boas are Bcc.

Bcc?

:P.....Crazy...... :P

....Gonna take some getting used to. ;D

[djg79]

The current taxonomy of Colombian boas west of the Andies (the most common boa constrictor in the pet trade and the topic of discussion) is Bci. Thats the real classification (for now).

[Sojourn]

Colombian Boas West of the Andes, by scale count, fall within the scientific classifcation of Bcc. Somebody way back when didn't do all their homework, and didn't, apparently get their story straight.....

West of the Andes = Bci, but scale counts between 80-89 = Bcc. Which one is truly more applicable? Are either really?

Sounds like a great idea for a zoologist's PhD dissertation.... Man, I would LOVE to be the one doing the fieldwork....

Pipe Dreamin'. :'(

[djg79]

I'll keep calling them Bci until someone officially says otherwise. By the way can anyone tell me what this lightning bolt by my name means, I'm new to this site. Thanks!

[djg79]

Most of the Colombians in the pet trade are imperators. The Bci and Bcc population are separated by a natural boundary. These populations would not interact in the wild. Most Colombians imported to the U.S come from the "imperator side" of the Andies. To suggest scale counts are "the" determining factor to distinguish these two subspecies is questionable. It is more logical to rely on natural boundaries as "the" determining factor. There are Colombian Bcc's imported from Leticia, Col. (that look similar to peruvians). Finding out where your boa was imported is a good way to find out which Colombian you have. But until the taxonomy changes, most of the Colombians here are still officially bci's.

[The_Boaphile]

Natural boundaries or distance are irrelevant if a given locality of animal already fits into an existing subspecies. It does not automatically qualify for a new subspecific name because it comes from a place 50 miles away or 5000 miles away unless the differences can be established, again based on the descriptions available, and then and only then will it be possibly named or classified as something else. Nor do taxonomists classify animals based upon their proximity to some other previously described subspecies. They are defined based on the described characteristics included in the original descriptions. That's just the way it is.

The main problem here is absolutely NONE of the original descriptions ever refers at all to any Boa Constrictors anywhere in Colombia. So we must decide what subspecies they belong in based on the facts. The facts I will go with are found only in the original descriptions. Everything else is really meaningless.

It's all a matter of which shoe fits best. When measured against the original descriptions, Colombian Boas clearly fit better into Bcc than Bci where they don't fit at all. It all depends on what you want to point to as your authority. Your own opinion. Some else opinion. What you read that some "authority" wrote without any reference to the actual original descriptions. Until someone goes to Colombian and collects the animals correctly, gets published in a legit scientific journal. Then after that paper is peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. If that paper then places Colombian Boas into Bcc or Bci or their own new subspecies, I am going to stick with the original descriptions. I will stand by their authority and the time accepted taxonomic record for Boa constrictor constrictor.

Jeff Ronne
The Boaphile
One Whacky black and white there are no gray areas kind of guy.

[Cmpyrrhus]

I did a few scale counts on my female Colombian, and this is what came up:

Midbody/Dorsal Scale rows : 92
Inner Occular Scales : 19
Ventral Plates : 240
Cuadal Plates : 50

So, by definition my Colombian is B.c.c. as well by scale count. Also is a pic of the boa:

[Cmpyrrhus]

This is what I went by to determine my results:
http://home.att.net/~crinaustin/BoaGeneral.htm#Table2

[evilbitch]

what are scale rows exactly?

[glewis]

This discussion is sitting at the top of the list but it's dated. I scanned through it and had some trouble following it, but was able to note the divergent opinions and respect them all.

But I have a couple of questions:

By Original Descriptions do we mean Daudins 1803 description of Imperator based on a Mexican Holotype and Linnaeas 1758 description of the nominate form based on an Indian holotype (locality obviously in error)?

Since subspecies do not always differ morphologically from one another, but always differ genetically, should a description be used to define a subspecies, or is a description a means to describe a population possessing a significant degree of genetic isolation from other population groups?

Since there are limited barriers to genetic exchange from Mexico to Peru west of the Andes, is it possible that boas in this range may be considered as belonging to a single population group with clinal variation? Or can we only be proper and scientific if we define the Imperator subspecies wholly by Daudins 1803 description of a Mexican clinal variant?

My guess is there isn't enough information for a black and white declaration on the Columbian BCC/BCI question. As selective breeders we know that there is more than one way to create the same morph, and a similar morph does not necessarily mean relatedness. Genetic studies similar to that performed for example on subspecific populations of Lampropeltis Zonata, and at the genus level with Eurasian and American Elaphe shows the folly of defining a (sub) species solely by its morphology and offer the possibility of a more definitive answer.

The Grey Guy.

[Bass_Assassin]

Here is the definition of the word subspecies.

A taxonomic subdivision of a species consisting of an interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms.

So geograpgic isolation can bring about a subspecific change in a taxon, but irregardless of that I think a lot of work needs to be done hopefully more precice genetic work will be on all locals of the Boa genius and as for the descriptions on the books for the two subspecies you just have to use it as it is.

Also there is an area of the topic that no one has brought up is human greed, I have seen this time and time again where people will come up with a name for an animal to sell it for a higher price regadless of scientific data. Now I am NOT implying that Jeff is doing that but many importers do! It is rampent in the importation of most mygalomorphs so who is to say that when boas were first imported the less attractive Colombian "B.c.i" were called that to make more on on the "B.c.c

Just a few thoughts.

[wodjeka]

I'm from the netherlands and I don't understand all the english terms u guys use. When u say scale rows, do u then mean the scales on the underside/belly of the boa??
please help me so I can determinate all of my boa's.

[nickstone]

Lots of good points made. I will definitly be saving some skins to count some scales soon

[M.S.M]

I think columbians should just be known as bci now anyway, if this was to change, alot of people would be confused and the boa market would be turned upside down. There is already enbough pricks out there selling normal boas as redtails. If they had the right to call them bcc's it would get out of hand.

[The_Boaphile]

Taxonomy isn't marketing, it's science. Taxonomy, and a correct understanding of it, isn't done to market anything. It's done because it is a science. If it became a popular belief that oxygen wasn't an element, that wouldn't change anything. It is what it is and Colombians are what they are. The only authority, until a new paper is written, peer reviewed, and accepted, are the original descriptions. What you, I or Dr. PHD Joe Blow think, matter not a wit. That is not how taxonomy works.

You collect an animal from the wild, you consult the peer reviewed and accepted writings, and you come to a conclusion as to what something is. Colombians are what they are regardless of any classified ad or marketing of any kind.

[M.S.M]

Are you a herpetologist jeff, if not you should study to be one instead of a breeder.

[M.S.M]

Or both lol
Mike.