# What's black and blue and red all over?



## OuZo (Jul 6, 2005)

A freaky GTP!

Taken from http://p219.ezboard.com/fmoreliaviridisfrm1.showMessage?topicID=2763.topic


----------



## ben1200 (Jul 6, 2005)

*whats black and blue and red all over*

Thats a freaky looking snake


----------



## Kenshin (Jul 6, 2005)

*RE: whats black and blue and red all over*

i think ull find thats an emerald tree boa


----------



## Kenshin (Jul 6, 2005)

*RE: whats black and blue and red all over*

my bad... it looks alot like some of the emerald tree boa pics iv seen


----------



## OuZo (Jul 6, 2005)

*RE: whats black and blue and red all over*



> i think ull find thats an emerald tree boa



It's from a Morelia Viridis forum


----------



## Gilleni (Jul 6, 2005)

this is an emerald tree boa..


----------



## NCHERPS (Jul 6, 2005)

I Prefer the original look personally.


----------



## ether (Jul 6, 2005)

> I Prefer the original look personally.



Have to agree


----------



## Gilleni (Jul 6, 2005)

so do i, i was just trying to find an emerald tree boa that looked similarly freaky...

how are they different to GTP's?


----------



## basketcase (Jul 6, 2005)

Gilleni said:


> how are they different to GTP's?



this was covered in a thread not long ago.

basically... greens pythons, as aposed to boas, are egg layers and greens have a smaller head

im still trying to figure out how two species that diverged, but still live in similar habitat opted for two different methods of reproduction


----------



## NCHERPS (Jul 6, 2005)

Emerald tree boa's are live bearers as I am sure you are aware, they have heat pits in both upper and lower lips, they are more arboreal then GTP's and are found in South America, the photo of the one above is from Guyana, SA.
The white marks are usually alot more prenounced in Emeralds than in GTP's, as can be seen in the photo above.
The young are usually Orangey red or Greeny blue.

Neil


----------



## Jason (Jul 6, 2005)

dont mean to be rude to the owner of that gtp but it's pretty ugly, the normal ones are 100x more attractive


----------



## Retic (Jul 6, 2005)

That's a great looking snake. I love GTP's, any colour I don't care.


----------



## Jason (Jul 6, 2005)

i love GTP's and i would love to eventually get one but that one just doesn't seem very appealing to me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2005)

Im with you Jas, i reckon its truly ugly.


----------



## NCHERPS (Jul 6, 2005)

Teamsherman said:


> Im with you Jas, i reckon its truly ugly.



It will look nice once it has had it colour change I am sure.
Reading the thread it came from, it might also carry the albino gene, at least that's what the owner believes to be the case from it's history.

Neil


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2005)

yeah im not a huge fan of the colours they go through to get to their adult colours. And yeah, having the albino gene would be like a lottery ticket waiting to go off!!!!


----------



## Hickson (Jul 6, 2005)

basketcase said:


> im still trying to figure out how two species that diverged, but still live in similar habitat opted for two different methods of reproduction



It's because Green Trees and Emerald Trees are not the two species that diverged. That suggestion implies that the two species are very closely related, which they aren't.

The divergence happened millions of years ago, with boas being live-bearing and pythons laying eggs. Over time many different species of python evolved, and many different species of boa evolved, each species adapting to the environment it lives in. Because Green Tree Pythons and Emerald Tree Boas come from very similar habitats in different parts of the world, they have evolved very similar characteristics including their colouring. Very loosely speaking, you could say that the same snake evolved twice - once in PNG/Australia and the other in the Americas.

The technical term for this is 'convergent evolution'.



Hix


----------



## basketcase (Jul 6, 2005)

cheers for that hix. i always get di and con mixed up... mainly because i consider one to be the other and visa versa.

from my understanding they were both once the same species on gondwana/pangea what u want to call it... when land masses separated they evolved separately to each other to fill "similar" niches, hence similar phenotype but different method of reproduction.

i may be way off but i think some part of that^ is right. fill me in if it isnt


----------



## Retic (Jul 6, 2005)

It's the same as our Green treesnake and say one of the numerous Asian or African vine snakes and treesnakes. They look similar and have very simialr habits but those similarites are for a good reason, being green is a very good idea if you live in a tree and hunt birds, you blend in and it makes sense. The GTP and the Emerald Boa look superficially similar because they both evolved to do the same job and fill the same niche but are only loosely related.


----------



## BROWNS (Jul 6, 2005)

Looks ugly now but could well be going through a colour change and i doubt it will look like it does here as an adult.

Gtp's ad Emerald tree boas are a perfect example of parrallel evoulution...


----------



## Morelia_Hunter (Jul 6, 2005)

Its probably starting its its colour cahange. Was probably a very dark coloured hatchling. They look like that when they start changing. Fantastic looking snake though!!!!


----------



## Jason (Jul 6, 2005)

im sure it will look great when its done changing colour, but i would still prfer to get a yellow or red one as a hatchy cause they don't look that bad before changing


----------



## Hickson (Jul 6, 2005)

basketcase said:


> cheers for that hix. i always get di and con mixed up... mainly because i consider one to be the other and visa versa.
> 
> from my understanding they were both once the same species on gondwana/pangea what u want to call it... when land masses separated they evolved separately to each other to fill "similar" niches, hence similar phenotype but different method of reproduction.
> 
> i may be way off but i think some part of that^ is right. fill me in if it isnt



There's not a lot of info on snake evolution, because snakes don't fossilize well so paleontological texts tend to deal more with mammals and fish. And most texts I've got deal with stuff in Australia (predominantly Riversleigh). But from what little I can find I can say the following:

The first reptiles were egglayers (evolving from amphibians) and the development of a hard eggshell meant they were no longer dependent upon water for breeding - therefore they could disperse onto the land and the myriad of habitats. This occured during the Carboniferous period, about 330 million years ago (mya).

The reptiles evolved rapidly and dispersed widely. Dinosaurs first appeared approx 230 mya (Triassic) and survived until 65 million years ago. 

One of the earliest snake fossils found has been named _Lapparentophis defrenni_ and was found in the Sahara. It existed during the Early Cretaceous around 130mya. It's thought to be a boid, as they are considered to be the most ancient of the snakes (venom evolving only 15 to 20 million years ago). But it wasn't until the paleocene (when the dinosaurs had become extinct) that the snakes and lizards began to rapidly radiate into many species.

Sometime after Sth America separated from the other Gondwanan continents, some of the Sth American snakes turned to viviparity (giving birth to live young). We come to that conclusion because all boas (which are live bearers) are only found in the Americas. It's been sugested that viviparity may evolve as an adaptive response to cooler climates with correspondingly cooler - and more fluctuating - temperatures.

The boids in Australia and the rest of the world remained egglayers and are what are refered to today as pythons.

I hope that's as clear as mud. 



Hix


----------



## NCHERPS (Jul 7, 2005)

Hix said:


> Sometime after Sth America separated from the other Gondwanan continents, some of the Sth American snakes turned to viviparity (giving birth to live young). We come to that conclusion because all boas (which are live bearers) are only found in the Americas. It's been sugested that viviparity may evolve as an adaptive response to cooler climates with correspondingly cooler - and more fluctuating - temperatures.
> 
> The boids in Australia and the *rest of the world *remained egglayers and are what are refered to today as pythons.
> 
> ...



Hey Hix, Can I just pick up on something there.
Boa's are not just found in the America's, they are found in various African countries and also in NG and pacific islands.

Neil


----------



## Hickson (Jul 7, 2005)

Neil,

You're quite right. It was late last night when I typed that and I was half asleep. In fact, after typing "clear as mud" I was going to mention the exceptions but I dozed off before submitting and then found I'd been logged out! 

Because they're found on islands, it's long been thought that _Candoia_ dispersed from Sth America across the Pacific on islands, and the other species in a similar fashion towards Africa (not gonna theorize on why they're on Madagascar and not the mainland). However, recent genetic evidence suggests that may not be the case for _Candoia_ (see Austin, C.C., 2000, Molecular Phylogeny and Historical Biogeography of Pacific Island Boas (_Candoia_), Copeia 2000 No.2, pp 341-352).

I was wrong in saying "_all boas are only found in the Americas_". I should have said "_all boas are thought to have originated in the Americas_". Thanks for keeping me honest Neil!

Interestingly, Peter Harlow (now at Taronga Zoo) co-authored a paper on _Candoia_ reproduction with Rick Shine some years ago - Peter's the guest speaker at the next Macarthur Herp Society meeting so anyone interested can come along and ask him questions.



Hix


----------

