By Kasey Schultz
Whenever I am asked about my favorite species of snake, my answer is consistently the Woma Python. Not only are they physically impressive, but they are also unique from other pythons in a variety of ways and, in my opinion, have a bit of anonymity surrounding some of their history, natural environment and captive care. Rather than give an overview of their general husbandry, I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss some of their unique characteristics, recent research and questions regarding their taxonomy, environment and behavior. Although I wouldn’t consider them to be rare in collections, they certainly aren’t at the forefront of herpetoculture, as it seems we are still learning about them in both the United States and in Australia. I wanted to share some of the more uncommon information on woma pythons in an effort to help us improve the way we discuss and keep these animals in captivity. I am by no means an expert on this subject matter, but I have had the opportunity to keep woma pythons for many years and hope that the following information encourages others to study and discuss woma pythons more in the future.
History & Taxonomy
To start at the beginning, the genus Aspidites was founded by Gerard Krefft, one of Australia’s first zoologists, with the species Aspidites melanocephalus, or the Black-Headed Python. Aspidites translates to “shield bearer” in reference to the symmetrical scales on their head. William Macleay first described woma pythons in 1882 when he cited Edward Pierson Ramsay, an Australian zoologist, sending his brother, James Ramsay, two new specimens of snakes that were found in Fort Bourke; Diemenia ferox, known today as Oxyuranus microlepidotus, or inland taipan, and Aspidites ramsayi, still recognized today as the woma python (Macleay 881). The species was briefly mentioned again in 1913 by Herber A. Longman as Aspidites collaris, found near Cunnamulla, Queensland (Longman 40).
Raymond T. Hoser, in a series of studies written about Australian pythons, first noted the genus Aspidites in 1981 with subsequent papers in 2000 and 2009. He used their distribution throughout Australia to determine the different “races” or subspecies of Aspidites. Within his studies he describes the subspecies as Aspidites ramsayi ramsayi, the eastern woma originally discussed by both Macleay and Longman, Aspidites ramsayi panoptes, the southwestern woma and Aspidites ramsayi richardjonesii, found on the western edge of the Great Sandy Desert and named after New South Wales member of parliament, Richard Jones (Hoser 10). In 2009 he mentions an additional subspecies, Aspidites ramsayi neildavieii, found in central Australia and differing from the other races in characteristics such as behavior, size and color (Hoser 29).
To this day, all of the above mentioned subspecies are not accepted or scientifically recognized since Hoser based them solely off of distribution and distinguishing characteristics. The criticism of his work has been documented multiple times, most notably in the Herpetological Review in 2013 where the authors state that between 2000 and 2012, Hoser’s new names “constitute 76% of genera and subgenera and 16% of species and subspecies newly proposed for snakes over that time period” (Kaiser et al. 16). Many disapprove of his work since his journal was self-published with no peer review and his classifications were based on non-scientific evidence. They stress the importance of appropriate naming so herpetologists can accurately track and maintain the various populations of these reptiles.
Populations & Natural Environment
Woma pythons, Aspidites ramsayi, also known as Ramsay’s python or sand pythons, are a species of python endemic to Australia with the majority of their populations found in Western and Central Australia. They are frequently found in arid, sandy regions, but also reside in some subtropical and semi arid environments. During the hot parts of the day, they take shelter in burrows, hollow logs and spinifex. If they need to travel during the day, they will actually lift parts of their body off the ground as they move to avoid being burned by the hot sand. They are somewhat uncommon to spot in their natural habitat since they are able to camouflage well with their surroundings, are nocturnal and generally only come into sight when moving between shelter sites, and often inhabit locations with small human populations (Bruton 313). The current number of woma pythons in Australia has been in rapid decline with the population in southwestern Australia nearly depleted. Woma pythons in New South Wales are considered a vulnerable population, and are even considered endangered in some parts of Queensland. Land clearing, predation by cats and foxes, introduction of other predators into their habitats and extinction of other native prey all contribute to their fading numbers in these areas.
Hunting & Shelter
Woma pythons have distinct characteristics that make them unique from other pythons. Both species of snake in the genus Aspidites, the woma and black-headed python, lack thermoreceptive pits, or heat-sensing pits, on their labial scales. This is most likely an evolutionary trait due to the fact that they spend the majority of their time hunting prey in underground burrows. Although they lack heat pits, they have a vomeronasal organ, also known as the Jacobson’s organ, in their nasal chamber that allows them to smell their prey while hunting in dark burrows at night. They mainly occupy existing burrows made by rabbits, mice, and other desert dwelling animals (Bruton 314). They display ambush hunting methods as well as a unique strategy where they crush their prey against the walls of confined burrow spaces. They have also been observed using their head to shovel sand to excavate burrows for both hunting and shelter and will wiggle the ends of their tails to attract prey.
Woma pythons are typically regarded as terrestrial and burrowing pythons, but a recent study from 2013 described the first accounts of arboreal behavior. The study tracked twelve adult woma pythons in southern Queensland for a year, over which period they observed the pythons up to 10 meters high in trees stalking and eating prey such as bearded dragons. All observed encounters took place at night during warm weather. It seems that all woma pythons have the ability to climb, but it has only been observed in the eastern pythons since the environment has trees unlike some of the other regions they are found (Bruton 321).
Research regarding the stomach contents of woma pythons in Australia have shown evidence of them consuming prey such as ring tailed dragons, bearded dragons, sand goannas, blue tongue skinks, rabbits, mice, hares and a variety of other geckos, snakes, lizards and small mammals, with a larger percentage of reptiles to mammals being found (Bruton 314). Woma pythons are also highly prone to cannibalism both in captivity and in the wild and it is believed that they have an immunity to snake venom and can consume venomous species of snakes. On the contrary, there are studies that claim they may be affected by the mulga, or king brown snake.
Conclusion Although this article was based heavily on studies in the field of herpetology, I hope some of the information, such as the evidence of arboreal behavior and burrow excavation, are included in future discussions related to the woma python. These are one of the most interesting species to work with and I believe there is still a lot to be uncovered about them. I am by no means a professional on the subject matter, but I am extremely passionate about this species and hope we can learn more about their somewhat elusive behavior in the future. I am interested to see what else will be discovered and look forward to the opportunity to meet and talk with more individuals who are working with them.
References
Bruton, Melissa. “Arboreality, Excavation, and Active Foraging: Novel Observations of Radiotracked Woma Pythons Aspidites Ramsayi.” Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, vol. 56, no. 2, 2013, https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:323311
Hoser, Raymond. “A Revision of the Australasian Pythons.” Ophidia Review, vol. 1, 2000, pp. 7–11., www.researchgate.net/publication/325544311_A_revision_of_the_Australasian_Pythons_Including_formal_description_of_Leiopython_hoserae_Hoser_2000.
Hoser, Raymond. “Creationism and Contrived Science: A Review of Recent Python Systematics Papers and the Resolution of Issues of Taxonomy and Nomenclature.” Australasian Journal of Herpetology, vol. 2, 2009, pp. 1–34., www.researchgate.net/publication/325543510_Creationism_and_contrived_science_A_review_of_recent_python_systematics_papers_and_the_resolution_of_issues_of_taxonomy_and_nomenclature.
Kaiser, Hinrich, et al. “In the 21st Century, Taxonomic Decisions in Herpetology Are Acceptable Only When Supported by a Body of Evidence and Published via Peer-Review.” Herpetological Review, vol. 44, no. 1, 2013, www.researchgate.net/publication/235944780_Best_practices_In_the_21st_century_taxonomic_decisions_in_herpetology_are_acceptable_only_when_supported_by_a_body_of_evidence_and_published_via_peer_review.
Longman, Herber. “Herpetological Notes. Part I. Systematic.” Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, vol. 2, 1913, pp. 40–40, www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/52001198#page/7/mode/1up.
Macleay, William. “Description of Two New Species of Snakes.” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, vol. 6, 1882, pp. 811–812, www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3343925#page/5/mode/1up.
Womas are great!