A Fatal Attack on a Young Boy by an African Rock Python Python sebae

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles

A Fatal Attack on a Young Boy by an African Rock Python Python sebae Author(s): W. R. Branch and W. D. Hacke Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul. 31, 1980), pp. 305-307 Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1563557 Accessed: 08/12/2008 05:55 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ssar. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Herpetology.

http://www.jstor.org

NOTES

305

A FATAL ATTACKON A YOUNG BOY BY AN AFRICANROCK PYTHON PYTHONSEBAE Despite popularviews to the contrary,unprovokedattacks by large pythonsor boas on man are exceptionally rare. Very few reports have ever been published, and these have usually consisted of unsubstantiatednewspaper reports,writtenin emotive style and giving few details concerning the circumstancesof the tragedy. (Caras, 1975; Mintonand Minton,1973; and Pope, 1961) have all reviewed previous reports,and found that the world'sfive largest snakes, i.e. the anaconda (Eunectus murinus), reticulatedpython (Python reticulatus),Africanrock python (P. sebae), Indianpython (P. molurus)and Australianamethystinepython(P. amethystinus)have all been implicatedin attacks on humans. However,the only well substantiatedcase concerns the death of a 14 year old Malay boy who was swallowed by a 5.17m reticulatedpython on the Indonesian Islandof Salebabu (Kopstein,1927). The Africanrock python is found throughoutalmost the whole of sub-SaharanAfrica,and inhabits a diverse range of habitats. In many regions it is very common, and adapts readilyto disturbed environments, i.e. sugar cane fields, etc. It is thus frequentlyfound around human habitations. Despite this, reliablydocumented attacks on humans by these giant constrictorsare almost non-existant. Loveridge (1931) describes the death of a woman, possibly weakened by recent childbirth,on Ukerewe Islandin LakeVictoria.She was discoveredlyingdead in the coils of a large python,that measured about 4.5 m when subsequentlykilled.LocalAfricansstated that a youth had also been killedby a pythonon the island 30 years previously. Otherreportsof attacksby Africanpythonsoccur in unsubstantiatednewspaperstories.A 1951 Uganda newspaper reportedthat a 13 year old Langoyouthhad been attackedand swallowed,but that the snake (whose size was unspecified)was forced to disgorge the body (Pitman,1974). In 1973 a Mocambiquenewspaperreportedthe death of a Portuguesesoldier,who vanishedwhileon guard duty, and whose body was later recoveredfromthe stomach of a large python(whose size was again unspecified). The recent attack described below, was again first reportedin South Africannewspapers (November 1979). However, fullerdetails of the case have been substantiatedby conversations with a numberof the people involved,and fromthe officialcoroner'sreport. The incident occurred at about 5:30 p.m. on Thursday22 November 1979, on the farm Grootfontein (28?17'E, 24?05'S, No. 31 Waterbergdistrict),east of the Dorset police station, NorthernTransvaal, South Africa.Two young Tswana herd boys were chasing cattle along a pathway, when the leading boy (Johannes Makau,13 years old, 1.3 m high, 45 kg, and in general good health)was grabbedon the rightcalf by a large pythonthat lay in long grass by the side of the path. The other boy ran to a nearbykraal,situated0.5 km away to get help. When he returned20 minutes later withtwo elders, the victimwas completelyentwinedby the python.One of the elders (55 years old) tried to attack the snake with a pickaxe, but reportedthat the snake grabbed the handle of the tool in its mouth, and in tryingto wrench it free he dislocated his shoulder,causing him to drop the weapon. However,when hit by stones the pythonreleased its victimand retreated. The victimat this stage was alreadydead, and the body was taken back to the kraal.The police at Vaalwaterwere informedof the attack by telephone, and arrivedapproximately2 hours afterthe incident. The circumstances of the attack were recorded,and the body, which at this stage had been cleaned was taken away by ambulancefor autopsy at the Nylstroommortuary.The coroner's reportstates that "death resulted fromsuffocationand internalinjuries".The Africanelder whose shoulder had been dislocated was also taken for treatment.He reportedthat when recoveredthe victim's head was covered in saliva. Attempts were made to locate the python responsible for the attack, but it was not until Saturday, 24 November 1979 that the snake was found by Mr Louis van Wyk, principalof the Vaalwater school, and Police Sergeant Zagrys van Emmenis. Its tracks were followed approximately 0.5 km, and the snake was found coiled under an overhangingrock.

306

NOTES

Commedably,it was capturedalive, and handedover to the TransvaalDepartmentof Nature Conservation,who subsequently released it on the Farm Witbank(27?43'E,23?58'S), No. 31 Waterbergdistrict,whichis partof the MogolRiverNatureReserve in the northernTransvaal.The snake was approximately4.5 m long, of unknownsex and in good condition. The weatherat the time of the attack,was warmwithintermittent sun and approximately 50% cloud cover, but no rain.The area is covered in relativelythickrooibosscrub,withmanyemergent rock koppies. Pythons are very common in the region, but usually of smaller size (2,53 m). Predationby pythonson smallgame has been observedby the localfarmerson a numberof occasions, but no previousatacks on stock or humanshad occurred. Althoughlarge boids are quite capable of swallowingbig prey, it is probablymore usual for them to take smaller,morefrequentmeals. Pope (1961) has discussed the maximumreportedprey size for all the giantconstrictors,and notedthatP. sebae is quitecapableof eatingpreyas largeas any of the other species. Indeedthe largest prey item recordedfor any snake is that of a 59 kg impalaconsumed by a 4.72 m Africanpython(Rose, 1955). It is often stated that althoughthese snakes may killadulthumans,they could not swallowthem due to the greatwidthof the shoulder region. However,in the case of the Africanrockpythonthis may not be so. The shouldersof an adult man when collapsed forwardmay measure only 35-40 cm wide, and could probablybe engulfed by pythons in excess of 5 m. The largest pythonknownto the authorsfromthe NorthernTransvaal,and indeed fromthe whole of SouthernAfrica,measured5.8 m (H. Erasmus,pers. comm.).Loveridge(1929) measured a fresh skin of 9.1 m, which allowingfor naturalstretchingmust still have come froma snake at least 7 m in length.The largestAfricanpythons,however,appearto come fromWest Africa,and Mintonand Minton(1973) list 2 apparentlywell documentedrecordsof snakes of 9.8 m and 7.3 m fromthe IvoryCoast. Snakes of this size wouldhave no difficultyin eating adulthumans. On occasions pythonsmaysuccessfullytacklepreythey cannotsubsequentlyswallow.Pienaar (1978) records 2 occasions of large pythonsin the KrugerNationalPark,killingkuducalves, but disgorgingthem when they provedtoo big to swallow.The 4.5 m pythonresponsibleforthe attack described above was disturbedbeforeit couldswallowits victim.However,the coveringof salivaon the head of the recoveredbody is indicativethatthe pythonhad begunto swallowthe boy when his would-berescuers arrived.Itis very likelythatit couldhave easily succeeded in swallowingthe boy if it had not been interrupted. Attacksfromlargeconstrictorsmaybe stimulatedby eitherfeedingor self-defence.Such cases as the attackon a nurse by a largepythonnear Mwanzaon LakeVictoria(lonides,1965), and that by a 2.2 m pythonon an Africangardenerin Durban(Caras, 1975), are both most likelyto have been in self-defence, when the pytonsconcernedwere startledby the sudden close approachof the victims.The case reportedhere, however,is almostcertainlya truefeedingattack,and indeed there is every indicationthat the snake wouldhave continuedswallowingthe boy had it not been disturbed.Pythons are knownto catch antelope, etc., by lyingin ambush by the sides of game paths. The close proximityof the cattlebeing herdedby the victim,and his suddenarrivalas he ran along the path, probablyinitiatedan instinctivefeeding reflexin the python. It is surprising,but nonetheless gratifying,that the pythonwhen eventuallycapturedwas not killedin retribution.Unlikeother large carnivores,i.e. lions, leopards,crocodiles,etc., pythonsare unlikelyto become regularman-eaters,and there is littlelikelihoodthat the pythonwillrepeatthis act in its new surroundings. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.-We are indebtedto both Mr.Louisvan Wykand Police Sergeant Zagrys van Emmenis, both intimatelyconcernedwith this case, for bringingthis incidentto our attentionand for helpingus in compilingthis report. CITED LITERATURE Caras, R. A. 1975. Dangerousto man. Barrieand Jenkins,London.422 pp. lonides, C. J. P. 1965. A Hunter'sStory.W. H. Allen,London.222 pp. Kopstein,F. 1927. Overhet Verslindenvan MenschendoorPythonreticulatus.TropischeNatuur,4:65-67.

NOTES

307

Loveridge,A. 1929. Blindsnakes and pythonsof East Africa.Bull.AntiveninInst.Amer.3:14-19. .1931. On two amphibioussnakes of the CentralAfricanLakeregion.Bull.AntiveninInst.Amer.5:7-12. Minton,S. A. and M. R. Minton.1973. GiantReptiles.Schribner's,New York.345 pp. Pienaar, U. de V. 1978. The ReptileFaunaof the KrugerNationalPark.Nat. ParkBoardof SouthAfrica.222 pp. Pitman,C. R. S. 1974. A Guideto the Snakes of Uganda.Wheldonand Wesley Ltd.291 pp. Pope, C. H. 1961. The GiantSnakes. Routledgeand Kegan,London.290 pp. Rose, W. 1955. Snakes-Mainly South African.MaskewMiller,Cape Town.213 pp.

W. R. BRANCH,Port ElizabethMuseum,P.O. Box 12147, Humewood6013, South Africa,and W. D. HACKE,TransvaalMuseum,P.O. Box 413, Pretoria0001, South Africa. Accepted 31 Jan 1980 Copyright1980 Society for the Studyof Amphibiansand Reptiles 1980 JOURNAL OF HtHtitOLOGY

14(3):305-307

HEAD-BODYPIGMENTATION IN SNAKES OF DIFFERENTIAL Althoughsnakes often exhibita differentialpigmentationof head and body, no assessment of the correlates of this phenomenonhas been made, norhave ideas been presentedon its functional significance. Specificallywe will ask: 1)ls differentialhead-body pigmentationmore frequent in snakes versus other elongated reptilesand amphibians?2) Is differentialhead-bodypigmentation more often associated with certaincategories of ophidiandorsal body patterns?To address these questions, we have scored specific and infraspecifictaxa for the presence of three categories of differentialhead-body pigmentation:neck rings, nuchal spots and head-bodydichromatism.After assessing the correlates of the phenomenon,we will hypothesizepossible functions. Because categorizing pigmentationpatterns is subjective, scoring of taxa should be done simultaneously to maximize consistency. Hence scoring of live specimens is not feasible. We therefore chose to survey only those faunas-North Americannorthof Mexico,and Australian-for which compilationsof adequate illustrationsare available.For NorthAmericansalamandersand lizards,we scored all taxa illustratedby Conant(1975) and/or Stebbins(1966). Basing our scoring on Barbour,1971; Collins,1974; Conant,1975; Mount,1975; Shaw and Campbell,1974; Stebbins, 1966; Wrightand Wright,1957, we scored the taxa of NorthAmericansnakes listedby Collinset al, (1978). For comparisonwith NorthAmericansalamandersand lizards,we defined the subset of snake taxa illustratedby Conant (1975) and/or Stebbins (1966). We scored the Australiantaxa of lizards and snakes (excludinghydrophiids)illustratedby Cogger (1975). In addition,pygopodids were scored separately based on Cogger, 1975; and Kluge, 1974. For testing significance of differences we used chi-squareanalyses of contingencytables. Guidelinesutilizedfor separatingthe categories are given below. Nuchalspots were definedas one or more pairs of contrastingblotches on the anteriordorsolateralregion of the neck, of a differentcolor or conspicuouslylargerthan any blotcheson the rest of the body.Exceptingregularly banded snakes, a taxon was scored for the presence of a neck ringwhen the nape or posterior edge of the head was crossed by one or morecontrastingbands. No regularbands were scored as neck rings. Head-bodydichromatismwas defined as a markedand abruptcolor change fromthe dorsum of the body to the dorsum of the head. Anterior-posterior body dichromatism(e.g., Masticophisf. flagellum)was not considered.Snakes withregularlybandedheads and bodies were scored as dichromaticonly if the bands on the head were of distinctlydifferentwidthor color. For snakes, the dorsal body patternwas scored as unicolored-speckled(US), striped(ST), blotchedspotted (BS), irregularlybanded (IB), or regularlybanded (RB), followingJackson et al. (1976). Where two or more body patternmorphswere present, each was considered. Results.-Table 1 presents frequencies of differentialhead-body pigmentationfor taxa by region. Differentialhead-bodypigmentationwas rarein salamanders.Head-bodydichromatismand neck rings were significantlymore frequentin snakes than in salamanders(p < .05);the frequency