Content uploaded by Jonas Ehrsam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonas Ehrsam on Apr 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Figure 1. The specimen used in the experiment, freshly thawed.
Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 57(3):41-49, 2022
Stretching the Truth: The Elastic Properties of the Body and Skin of a Giant Snake
Jonas P. Ehrsam, MD
j.ehrsam@me.com
David G. Barker
vpi@beecreek.net
Introduction
The elongated body of the snake is in many respects an
outstanding and unique creation of evolution. Much research
has been done studying the anatomy of the snake, but there
remain some basic anatomical and physiological features yet to
be investigated.
The spines of snakes may consist of as many as 400 tightly
assembled vertebrae, with a ball-and-socket type of articular
joint, the intervertebral joint, between each pair of adjoining
vertebrae. The intervertebral joint is made up of a condyle (the
“ball”) on the posterior surface of a vertebra that is nested into a
cotyle (the “socket”) on the anterior surface of the next vertebra
in the sequence. Each condyle and cotyle is covered with a thin
layer of cartilage. The thickness of these layers keeps the verte-
brae from being compressed together, and the elastic properties
of the cartilage cushion axial movements (Gasc, 1974). The
intervertebral joints are surrounded with strong ligaments and
thick spinal muscle packages that prevent the vertebrae from
being pulled apart. Some literature reports indicate that the
length of the body of a snake might be elastic along the inter-
vertebral joints (Blouin-Demers, 2003; Cundall et al., 2016;
Lock, 2021), and thus can stretch and contract, yielding variable
measurements. However, we are not aware of any research
investigating and quantifying the potential for the elongation or
contraction of the snake vertebral column.
The ultimate goal of our investigation has been to determine
a correct maximum length record for the reticulated python
(Malayopython reticulatus). At this time the reticulated python
is considered by most authorities to be the longest extant snake
species.
Over the history of the species, first described in 1801 by
Johann Schneider, there have been several methods used to
measure the lengths of large specimens. We will publish our
efforts and findings in upcoming issues of this journal. How-
ever, we reasoned that before accepting any determination of the
length of the reticulated python, or indeed any snake, it is essen-
tial to acquire detailed knowledge about the elasticity of snakes’
bodies, both living and dead.
The lengths of some potential record specimens of reticulated
pythons have been based on skeletons. A dried and cleaned
skeleton is significantly shorter than the original body length of
the live snake. To make an accurate estimation about the length
of these animals in life, it is necessary to know this shrinking
factor.
Likewise, many record lengths have been based on skins. So
far as we could determine, the individual scales of a snake are
relatively inelastic; an individual scale does not significantly
shrink or stretch when the skin of a snake changes in length or
width. But the skin of a snake is extremely elastic in all direc-
tions due to the folding of the interstitial skin that surrounds
each scale. The interstitial skin allows considerable stretching,
and by elastic recoil a return to the resting state (Close and
Cundall, 2014).
Even though it is well accepted that the hide of a skinned
snake may stretch to a length that is considerably longer than the
actual snake, most reports are anecdotal. Murphy and Crutch-
field (2019) write that it is difficult to remove a skin without
stretching it about 20%. Jacobson (1936) states that snakeskin
can be stretched in length and width by at least 25%. Jones
(1997) states that rattlesnake skins may stretch 30–50%, and
Auliya (2006) states that python skins stretch approximately 30%.
Moreover, there is no information on how to determine how
much a skin has been stretched after removal from the snake
body. When the reported lengths of giant snakes are based upon
skin lengths, it is essential to have information on this factor
based on careful quantitative investigation.
To obtain data that will contribute to answer these questions,
we performed several experiments with the dead body of a large
reticulated python, Malayopython reticulatus. We compared
those results to results achieved by treating the body of a rat-
snake (Pantherophis obsoletus complex) in a similar manner.
Additionally, we include comparisons of data from the existing
literature and from two well-documented specimens of reticu-
lated pythons in museums.
Examination of a large Malayopython reticulatus
A female reticulated python that died in 2008 in a zoo in
Switzerland was used for the experiments (Figures 1 and 2). At
death it was bagged in plastic and frozen for five years before
the actual experiments were conducted, between July and August
2013. All measurements were taken with measuring sticks and
non-stretchable strings by one of the authors (JPE) to provide
consistency. Each measurement was taken at least three times to
confirm high accuracy, and the mean values are provided to the
41
Figure 2. Dr. Ehrsam (left) and his assistants hold the freshly-thawed reticulated python to give some proportion to the size of the snake. They stand in front
of a grid of .5-m squares.
Figure 3. This is the apparatus used to stretch the body of the snake. A
similar setup is connected to the tail of the snake.
nearest centimeter. No deviation greater than 1 cm ever occurred
in any of the sets of measurements. Each step of the experiment
was photographed on a metric grid --- a pattern of squares with
sides measuring 0.25 m; images made to illustrate comparisons
between steps were taken from 5 m above the grid (see Table 1).
Step 1. The body of the reticulated python weighed 32 kg. To
thaw, the frozen carcass was exposed to a temperature of 25EC
for 1.5 days. Rigor mortis was present but moderate, and it was
possible to relax and mostly straighten the body, which did
however retain kinks in a few places along its length. The body
was placed on a long pattern of .25-m squares, but straight-line
measurement was not possible. The snake was measured by
placing a string along the dorsum above the vertebral column
from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail. The freshly thawed
snake was determined to have a total length of 5.87 m; we
consider this original body length as the “zero-state” length.
Step 2. To prepare for our attempt to stretch the body of the
python, a grid of .25-m squares was placed on top of a 7.2-m
board. The board was solidly anchored to the ground at each end
with strong carpentry clamps driven into the ground. The body
of the python was positioned lengthwise on the grid. A looped
fastening strap was tightly affixed with cable ties to the neck 17 cm
from the tip of the snout (Figure 3), and a second strap was
similarly affixed 10 cm from the end of the tail. The loops
extended about 2 m beyond the head and tail and were pulled
over the columns of the anchoring carpentry clamps. Each loop
was grasped by hand, and stretching force was manually pro-
vided from both sides. Our attempts to stretch the snake contin-
ued until more than just moderate force was required to lengthen
the snake. At this point the total length of the snake was in-
creased by 3.6% to 6.08 m. This degree of stretching might have
been possible simply by hands holding the snake on the neck
and tail. At this point the force necessary to increase the length
increased exponentially. Our attempts to maximally stretch
the body of the snake resulted in a total length of 6.39 m, an
increase in length of 8.9%.
Step 3. Twelve hours after the stretching of Step 2, we repeated
the stretching experiment. This time the body was stretched to a
maximum total length of 6.48 m. This is a 10.4% increase from
the original total length of the freshly thawed snake.
Note: We observed that after each of the two stretching sessions
the body shrank to nearly its zero-state length of 5.87 m. After
1.5 hours of continuous stretching for Step 2, the length of the
body shrank to 6.09 m only 15 minutes after stretch efforts
ceased; 12 hours later it measured 5.92 m. Twenty hours after
the second stretching session of Step 3, the body measured
5.93 m, a 1.0% increase in length.
Step 4. The snake was skinned four days after thawing. The
careful skinning was performed by a scalpel, and took 14 hours
42
to complete. Every effort was made to avoid any stretching of
the length of the skin. After this procedure, the skin still had
some fascia along the back. The skin was gently laid out on the
grid without stretching, inner side down. It measured 6.75 m, a
15.0% increase from the original length of the body. No intersti-
tial skin between scales was observed anywhere on the skin (see
row 2 of Table 2).
The skinned body was measured. It now had a length of
6.04 m. Why the body length increased by 2.9% from its zero-
state length might be due to a general relaxing of the body, but
contributing factors could include the strong “massage” of the
intervertebral joints during the skinning process, the lack of the
slight tension of the skin, and the progressing decomposition.
Step 5. The freshly removed skin was frozen for a week, then
Table 1. Photographic documentation of the experimental stretching of a large Malayopython reticulatus (see text for details).
Step 1. The freshly thawed body of the python positioned on the grid of .25-m squares, relaxed and relatively straight.
Step 2. The nearly straight body of the python, having returned close to its zero-state length 15 minutes after having been stretched in
length 3.6% by moderate force applied to the loop fastening straps.
Step 3. The body of the python at maximal stretching. The body length has increased 10.4% from the zero-state length due to the
increased force used for this stretching. It then took 20 hours to regain the zero-state.
Step 4. a) The freshly skinned body of the python; b) The freshly removed skin from the python.
Step 6. The maximally stretched skin, now nailed to a board. At this step the length of the skin is 8.00 m, a 36.3% increase
from the zero-state length of the body of the snake.
43
thawed, and the remaining fascia along the back of the skin was
removed. We then measured the skin at 7.09 m. After manually
stretching and nailing it on a board, the skin measured 7.38 m
(see row 3 of Table 2), an increase in length from the zero-state
length of the body of 25.7%. We observed that at this stage the
skin appeared essentially unstretched with few visible interstitial
gaps between the scales.
Then we stretched the skin further by the following tech-
nique: Seven 1-m square boards were placed in a row. The skin
was placed on the boards and the skin areas in the midsections
of the boards were temporary fixed to the boards. Then the gaps
between the 1-m boards were expanded by additionally intro-
ducing small boards in between. The resulting stretched skin
was transferred and nailed down on the large mainboard with
the grid. The stretched skin was 7.67 m, an increase in length of
30.7% from the zero-state length. At this size, the anterior part
of the skin appeared to be quite stretched and subject to rupture.
However, the posterior part still had a thick layer of dermis and
was very hard to stretch.
Step 6. Continuation of the stretching at that time was not
possible and the skin was again frozen. After the skin was
thawed, work commenced using serrated steak knives to remove
the remaining dermis, a procedure that took 24 hours. The
stretching procedure was repeated to the now uniformly thin
skin, and we were then able to stretch the skin to 8.00 m (see
row 4 of Table 2). This is a 36.3% increase from the original
body length. At this state, the stretching procedure began to
demolish the skin along the ventral and paraventral areas, with
tears appearing where earlier we had created small holes with
nails. This prevented us from further stretching the skin. At this
state of maximum stretch, the scales were separated, and intersti-
tial skin was visible throughout most of the skin.
Note: The scales themselves do not appear to stretch, at least not
to any degree we could measure. This is further evidenced by our
observation that the stratum corneum, the external keratinous layer
of the epidermis that covers the surface of each scale, remained
firmly attached to most scales during and after stretching.
Step 7. To prepare the skeleton, the flesh was rudimentarily
removed from the carcass. Lengths of the spine and ribs were
cut into sections. The sections were then cleaned to bones in a
bath of 55–60EC warm Enzyrim (Bauer Handels GmbH, Swit-
zerland). This mixture of enzymes does not damage bones in any
way, and even the smallest structures stay intact. After 19 days of
drying, the skeleton was mounted by putting a wire through the
Table 2. Photographic documentation of the process of stretching the skin of a large Malayopython reticulatus (see text for details).
In this row are pictured lengths
of the unstretched skin, from the
anterior, midbody, and posterior
portions of the total length of the
skin, photographed about 30
minutes after removal from the
snake. The indicated areas are
detailed in the rows below. the anterior portion of skin the midbody portion of skin the posterior length of skin
In this row are images of portions
of the unstretched skin taken of
the areas detailed in the image
above. At this time the total
length of the skin was 6.75 m.
anterior --- unstretched midbody --- unstretched posterior --- unstretched
In this row are images of portions
of the skin taken after the first
stretching of the skin. At this
time the total length of the skin
was 7.38 m.
anterior --- first stretch midbody --- first stretch posterior --- first stretch
In this row are images of portions
of the skin taken after the second,
maximum, stretching of the skin.
At this time the total length of
the skin was 8.00 m.
anterior --- maximum stretch midbody --- maximum stretch posterior --- maximum stretch
44
Figure 4. This is the assembled skeleton of the python, positioned on
the grid of .25-m squares.
Figure 5. This is the freshly skinned body of the Pantherophis specimen positioned above the freshly removed skin before any stretching of the skin was
attempted. (Background grid is made up of .10-m squares.)
spinal canals of the vertebrae in each section. The sections were
then wired together. The final, very tight, reassembled vertebral
column and skull measured 5.61 m (Figure 4). The length of the
skeleton was 4.4% less than the zero-state length of the snake.
Examination of a Pantherophis
A dead specimen of a ratsnake (Pantherophis obsoletus
complex) was examined in July 2013. This specimen had been
frozen for one year. It was thawed at 25EC for 24 hours. The
experiment is illustrated in Figure 5.
The zero-state length of the snake was 1.48 m. The snake
was stretched with loops affixed to the anterior neck and tail of
the snake. The stretched length of the body of the snake was
1.59 m. This is a 7% increase from the original length. After
stretching, and even after skinning, the total body length re-
turned to the zero-state length. The carefully removed skin
measured 1.70 m, 15% more than the original body length.
During further stretching, the skin tore in its more fragile ante-
rior section. At this point it measured 2.00 m, a 35% increase
over the total body length; there were noticeable interstitial
spaces present between the scales.
Data from museum specimens of two large Malayopython
reticulatus
We were fortunate to obtain the measured lengths of the
original body and the skeleton of two giant reticulated pythons
well documented and preserved in museums. As we learned
during our investigations, such data are rare.
One massive skeletonized specimen (ZMUC R5418) is in the
Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, and is cur-
rently on display (Figure 6). The skeleton was kindly examined
in 2012 by Mogens Andersen, the collection manager of herpe-
tology and mammology. The detailed measurements can be
found in Table 3. According to the museum catalogue, the
measurements of the original body were taken in 1917 as the
newly dead animal was received at the museum. This specimen
was dried in a straight position, and the vertebrae were never
taken apart; the length of the skeleton is 3.4% shorter than the
total body length. However, it is possible that the tip of the tail is
missing, and that would affect the small percentage of shortening.
The skeleton of the second large specimen is on display at
the Museum of Natural History Basel [Switzerland], and it is
displayed over a cast made from the body of that impressive
giant snake (Figure 7). It was examined in 2012 by one of the
authors (JPE) with the permission and assistance of curator Dr.
Raffael Winkler. According to the catalogue entry, the original
body length was taken from the freshly dead specimen at its
arrival. In fact, a measurement of the cast of the snake is in
agreement with the recorded original body length. It is not stated
if the tightly assembled vertebrae were taken apart when they
were cleaned. The length of the skeleton was found to be 3.9%
shorter than the total length of the body.
The detailed measurements of both specimens can be found
in Table 3.
Discussion
So far as we are able to learn, this study is the first to investi-
gate the elasticity of the spinal column and the skin of a snake.
In our experiments we found that the body of a snake is
elastic to a varying degree. We were able to demonstrate that
significant stretching of the body is possible when stretching
force is applied. This raises a question about a physiological
zero-state of the length of any snake. In reptiles, and snakes in
particular, it is not known if rigor mortis induces any shrinkage
(Cooper, 2012). In mammals, the muscles are stiffened but can
only cause slight shrinkage if the muscles are not fixed to inflex-
ible structures (Martin et al., 2001). For our study we draw the
assumption that the length of a dead snake post–rigor mortis
closely equals the length of a freshly euthanized, an anesthe-
tized, or a relaxed living snake. We have referred to this length
as the original or “zero-state” body length.
Body elasticity
Based on this assumption, we found a considerable capacity
of the body of our reticulated python to stretch in length up to
10.4% over the original length when considerable force was
applied. Of course, what was demonstrated is not possible for a
healthy living snake, as it would likely result in overstretching
and damaging ligaments and muscles along the spine. However,
we realize the potential to use this stretching method to exagger-
ate the size of a snake. Even the force of two men was enough to
enlarge the length by about 3.6%. When a dead, heavy, giant
45
Figure 6. In the display is the complete skeleton of the gigantic specimen
of reticulated python at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in
Copenhagen. Collection manager Mogens Andersen is holding a meter-
stick in front of the skeleton to show the proportions of the skeleton.
Figure 7. This display positions the actual complete skeleton of a giant
reticulated python specimen over a cast made from the body of the
python. Both cast and skeleton are fixed in similar poses. This
impressive display is at the Museum of Natural History Basel, in
Switzerland.
Table 3. Detailed measurements of three large specimens of Malayopython reticulatus.
Location of specimen
Natural History
Museum of Denmark
[Copenhagen, Denmark]
Museum of Natural
History Basel
[Basel, Switzerland] Our own specimen
Specimen description
Catalogue number ZMUC R5418 - -
Collection date 1917 1966 2013
Gender male female female
Original body
Head length – 17.2 cm†14.1 cm
Total length 710 cm [23.3 feet] 638 cm [21.0 feet] 587 cm [19.3 feet]
Tail length – 59.0 cm†† 71.0 cm
Skeleton
Skull length 16.5 cm 16.5 cm 13.3 cm
Total length 686 cm* 613.3 cm††† 560.9 cm
Tail length 64.0 cm 61.3 cm 70.0 cm
Precaudal vertebrae 324 325 320
Caudal vertebrae 67** 68 93 (89+4§)
Scale counts
Ventrals – 317 320
Subcaudals – 63 90
Degree of shortening
from original total length
to skeleton length 3.4%*** 3.9% 4.4%
* Dried, vertebrae never taken apart.
** It’s possible that the last one or two caudal vertebrae are missing.
*** This might be an overestimation depending on potentially missing caudal vertebrae.
† Measured from cast.
†† Blunt, snake lost tip during lifetime.
††† Tightly reassembled, not clear if ever taken apart.
§ Tip of tail; the tail ends with eight very narrow fragments, which we believe represent four original bones.
snake is hung by the neck from a roof or tree for hours under
warm conditions in the tropics, the same stretching of the body
as we observed in our experiment, or even more, might occur.
To our knowledge, this phenomenon of the elongation of the
snake body has not been described in any quantitative manner
in the literature so far.
Benedict (1932) observed while carefully removing the skin
of a freshly euthanized Python molurus: “There was no question
with regard to the length of the snake, although a certain degree
of stretching could have been introduced if one had tried to
stretch the animal.” Rivas et al. (2008) state: “due to the thin
constitution of the snake, the large number of intervertebral
joints, and slim muscular mass of most snakes, it is easier to
46
stretch a snake than it is to stretch any other vertebrate.” How-
ever, no example or comparison is given to support this state-
ment.
Blouin-Demers (2003) found 20 anesthetized Pantherophis
obsoletus to be 3.7% longer when measured while they are held
behind the head and behind the cloaca and stretched out in the
air horizontally, than when they are measured by laying them on
a table along a metal ruler. This closely agrees with our observa-
tion of a 3.6% increase in the length of the python body with
moderate stretching force.
From our observations of living snakes, we believe that the
maximum physiological elongation of a conscious living snake
is far less than what is artificially possible by stretching under
anesthesia or after death. We note that it is not known if the
spinal muscle apparatus of a snake is able to actually and mea-
surably elongate the spine. Moreover, it is not known if a pas-
sive elongation by muscle relaxation, by gravitation or an elon-
gation between two fixing grips is supported by a conscious
snake. Our impressions based on experiences with a variety of
snake species suggests the opposite --- snakes do not willingly
allow themselves to be stretched.
Reed (2001) states, based on observations of herpetologist
Richard Shine: “Even when stretched for measuring, live snakes
retain some muscle tonus, and thus will be ‘shorter’ than the
same snakes after euthanasia or anesthesia.” Based on our obser-
vations, Reed here is describing a living snake’s unwillingness
to allow itself to be stretched beyond its zero-state length. We
were able to do this with our dead specimen. Increased length
relative to increased stretching force --- as Reed mentions --- is
possible with a euthanized or anesthetized specimen. This re-
quires the expansion of the intervertebral spaces and a stretching
of the ligaments and muscle bundles that maintain the inter-
vertebral spaces; this may be painful for a living snake, and it
certainly is not an action that an animal with a spine comprising
hundreds of vertebrae will voluntarily allow. It’s possible that
any forced elongation of a living snake may cause irreversible
tissue damage (Fitch, 1987; Setser, 2007).
In our experiments we noticed that after artificially stretching
the dead body to different degrees, it repeatedly shrunk back to a
length increase of about 1.0%. After skinning, the length was
increased to 2.9% more than the original length. If it is possible
for a living snake to increase the length of its spine, the potential
boundary of the maximal physiological flexibility of the spinal
column may allow only a 1% increase in length or less, and
certainly no more than a 2.9% increase.
We were not able to directly study if compression of the
vertebral column occurs, and we are not aware of any mention
of this in the literature. We note that based on the 3.4–4.4%
detected difference between the original body lengths and the
skeletons of our three large reticulated pythons, there might be
sufficient play in the intervertebral spaces to allow some com-
pression of the spinal column. However, the intervertebral
spaces are not empty spaces; they are created by the interverte-
bral cartilage that cushions and lubricates motion between
vertebrae. It is not known if this cartilage can be compressed,
nor if so, to what degree it might be compressed. Neither is it
known if the vertebrae are equally spaced along the entire length
of the spinal column, or if the vertebrae in different sections of
the spine are spaced differently than vertebrae in other sections.
We suggest that any ability of a living snake to contract and
somewhat shorten its body length is not due to a compression of
the spinal column but may be accomplished by creating small
zigzag lateral flexures along lengths of the spine, as suggested
by Fitch (1987) and described for uropeltid snakes (Gans et al.,
1978). This may give the impression of compression of the
intervertebral spaces, and certainly does account for reports that
snakes can measurably shorten their lengths (Blouin-Demers et
al., 2003; Cundall et al., 2016; Lock, 2021).
Based on our experiments we cannot answer if a significant
axial elongation and contraction in a conscious living snake exists.
Length difference between body and skeleton
Due to subtle bone shrinkage and the loss of the articular
cartilages, a snake skeleton is shorter than the original body
(Hoffstetter and Gasc, 1969). The skeleton of the giant specimen
of reticulated python at the Natural History Museum of Den-
mark measures 3.4% shorter than its original length, despite that
this skeleton was dried, never dissembled, and retains the inter-
vertebral cartilages. A large, cleaned, dried, and very tightly re-
articulated skeleton with the intervertebral cartilage removed is
4.4% smaller than the original body. Hoffstetter and Gasc
(1969) use as an example of the intervertebral gaps of reptiles
the vertebral column of a crocodile, where this gap represents
11.5% of the actual central length. Klauber (1943) showed that,
for a series of snakes of three species, length decreased 2.1–
3.2% after preservation in alcohol. This approximates the differ-
ences in lengths measured between the original lengths of our
reticulated python specimens and the lengths of the three assem-
bled skeletons. After preservation in alcohol, Reed (2001) found
variable length decreases ranging up to 7% in 106 examined
snakes with lengths of 241–1877 mm. This range of variation
may be due to anatomical differences between snake species or
to different measuring techniques.
Stretching of the skin
Even the careful and deliberate removal of the skins from the
bodies of both our python and ratsnake caused the skins to
increase a minimum of 15% in length from the zero-state body
lengths. A similar amount of stretching was reported for the skin
of the reticulated python named Colossus, as detailed in Barker
et al. (2012). Colossus was a famously large python residing at
the zoo in Pittsburgh, 1949–1963. At death the zero-state length
of Colossus was measured to be 6.35 m; Colossus was carefully
skinned at the Carnegie Museum by Neil Richmond, then cura-
tor of herpetology, and the skin measured 7.29 m in length, an
increase in length of 14.8%.
Reports of skin stretching in the literature include: R. R.
Mole measured a 3.11-m Boa constrictor just after it had been
killed, and reported that after skinning the hide measured 3.71
m, an increase of 19.3% (Mole, 1895); an African python,
Python sebae, in the flesh measured 2180 mm and its dried skin
measured 2650 mm in length, an increase of 21% (Loveridge,
1931); a dead Python natalensis measured 3.0 m and the skin
47
measured 3.65 m, an increase of 22% (O’Shea, 2007). Murphy
and Crutchfield (2019) wrote, “It is virtually impossible to remove
a snakeskin without stretching it about 20% of its length.” They
go on to write, “In fact, the skins may stretch much more than
the 20% quite by accident, but on occasion, it is on purpose.”
We demonstrated that a reticulated python skin can be
stretched at least 25.7% in length with most of the scales on the
skin still in contact and without any obvious clues to the extent
that the skin had stretched. A snakeskin measuring 10 m in
length could originate from an 8-m-long specimen without
obvious evidence of stretching. A 10-m-long skin, maximally
stretched as in our experiment (36.3%), could have been re-
moved from a specimen of 7.34 m.
It is possible that the skin of a freshly killed specimen is even
more elastic than our examined specimen that was previously
frozen for five years and suffering from freezer burn on a few
areas of skin. On our specimen we observed that the paraventral
area of the skin along the neck was most sensitive to stretching
and seemed more fragile than other areas of the skin. We may
have contributed to this with the repeated refreezing that was
necessary to complete our investigation.
Moreover, we imagine that an experienced leatherworker
with the right tools and assistance is able to prepare and stretch
such a skin to an even longer size. Murphy and Henderson
(1997) recount a story from Dr. Herbert Spencer Dickey (1932).
Dickey wrote that he had a friend in Brazil who prepared and
sold snakeskins. Dickey said this person never sold a snakeskin
less than 20 feet (6.10 m) in length, but it was doubtful that any
of the snakes that provided those skins exceeded 12 feet (3.66 m).
Dickey went on to detail that in order to maximally stretch a
skin, it was anointed with manatee fat, left in the sun for a day,
and then on the following morning one end of the skin was
anchored and two men pulled on the other end to stretch it. With
this method the length of any snakeskin could be increased by at
least 50%.
We saw almost no gaps between the scales until the snake-
skin was stretched by at least 36.3%. In contrast, Bellosa et al.
(2007) state that if no gaps between the scales are visible, no
skin stretching exists. Our data and observations suggest that
even if the gaps between the scales are known, accurately calcu-
lating the original length of the snake is not possible.
However, we considered that it might be possible to accu-
rately predict the total length of a snake based on the dimensions
of some particular scales on the body. As snakes age and grow,
the number of scales on their bodies does not normally change
significantly. Injuries to the skin may heal with different num-
bers of scales, but generally a snake has the same number of
scales on its body throughout its life. Of course, the scales do
grow, increasing in length and width. Snakes grow at different
rates, according to a variety of environmental and genetic fac-
tors. It seems then that scales likely grow at a rate similar to rate
of growth of the size of the snake. We were unable to further
investigate this possibility.
The elasticity of snakeskin can work in two ways. While a
fresh skin is always longer than the snake, a skin that is not
cleaned properly and pinned down during the drying process can
shrink to a shorter length than the actual snake body. One exam-
ple of this is the skin from the famous giant reticulated python,
Samantha, who resided at the Bronx Zoo, 1993–2002. Samantha’s
necropsy report stated that she measured 22'5" (6.83 m) at death.
She was missing 12 inches (0.31 m) of tail that was amputated
earlier in her life. Including the missing length of tail, her zero-
state length at death would have been 7.14 m. In January 2012,
Dr. David Kizirian, curator of herpetology at the American
Museum of Natural History, provided us with the following
information: “The skin (AMNH-R 154610) is contorted making
an accurate measurement impossible, but in its current state it
measured 17' [5.18 m]. The head and tail are intact.”
Conclusions
With this study we show the size difference between the
length of a skeleton and the zero-state length of the snake. We
also illustrate the stretching capacity of the skin from a large
python. Additionally, we report on the artificial stretching
capacity of a dead snake body. However, the potential physio-
logical elasticity of a living snake remains a question open to
further research.
This is the first paper in our investigation of the record
length and maximum size of the reticulated python. Lengths
reported and purported for potential record-size reticulated
pythons have been based on skins, skeletons, and measurements
of unrestrained, restrained, anesthetized or dead specimens. The
findings here will aid in evaluating such potential records.
Acknowledgments
JPE thanks Dr. Mike Rinderknecht, Alexander Steiner and
Dr. Martin Willi for experiment assistance; Walter Benz, Arthur
Bianculli, Christoph and Claire Ehrsam, Prof. Dr. Hansruedi
Ehrsam, Regula Huwiler, Heidi Künzli, and Werner Noth for
taxidermy advice and supply. For their time and information we
thank: Mogens Andersen at the Natural History Museum of
Denmark, Copenhagen; Dr. Raffael Winkler at the Museum of
Natural History Basel, Switzerland; Dr. David Kizirian, American
Museum of Natural History; and Don Boyer, curator of herpe-
tology at the Bronx Zoo. The authors thank Tracy Barker for her
support of our work and for her assistance in preparing this paper.
Literature Cited
Auliya, M. 2006. Taxonomy, life history, and conservation of giant reptiles in West Kalimantan. Münster, Germany: Natur und Tier -
Verlag.
Barker, D. G., S. L. Barten, J. P. Ehrsam and L. Daddono. 2012. The corrected lengths of two well-known giant pythons and the
establishment of a new maximum length record for Burmese pythons, Python bivittatus. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society
47(1):1-6.
48
Bellosa, H., L. Dirksen and M. Auliya. 2007. Faszination Riesenschlangen --- Mythos, Fakten und Geschichten. Munich, Bavaria,
Germany: BLV-Buchverlag.
Benedict, F. G. 1932. The physiology of large reptiles: With special reference to the heat production of snakes, tortoises, lizards and
alligators. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 425.
Blouin-Demers, G. 2003. Precision and accuracy of body-size measurements in a constricting, large-bodied snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Herpetological Review 34(4):320-323.
Close, M., and D. Cundall. 2014. Snake lower jaw skin: Extension and recovery of a hyperextensible keratinized integument. Journal of
Experimental Zoology Part A 321(2):78-97.
Cooper, J. E. 2012. The estimation of post-mortem interval (PMI) in reptiles and amphibians: Current knowledge and needs.
Herpetological Journal 22(2):91-96.
Cundall, D., A. Deufel, G. MacGregor, A. Pattishall and M. Richter. 2016. Effects of size, condition, measurer, and time on measurements
of snakes. Herpetologica 72(3):227-234.
Dickey, H. S. 1932. My jungle book. Boston: Little Brown.
Fitch, H. S. 1987. Chapter 5. Collecting and life history techniques. Pp. 143-164. In: R. A. Seigel, J. T. Collins and S. S. Novak, editors,
Snakes: Ecology and evolutionary biology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gans, C., H. C. Dessauer and D. Baic. 1978. Axial differences in the musculature of uropeltid snakes: The freight-train approach to
burrowing. Science 199(4325):189-192.
Gasc, J-P. 1974. L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’appareil musculo-squelettique de l’axe vertébral chez les serpents (Reptilia). Mémoires
du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Série A, 83:1-182.
Hoffstetter, R., and J-P. Gasc. 1969. Chapter 5. Vertebrae and ribs of modern reptiles. Pp. 201-310. In: C. Gans, A. d’A. Bellairs and T.
S. Parsons, editors, Biology of the Reptilia. Volume 1: Morphology A.
Jacobson, E. 1936. Reuzenslangen en hun prooi. Jubileum-Uitgave. De Tropische Natuur 49-51.
Jones, A. 1997. Big reptiles, big lies. Reptile & Amphibian Magazine 51:22-27.
Klauber, L. M. 1943. Tail-length differences in snakes with notes on sexual dimorphism and the coefficient of divergence. Bulletins of the
Zoological Society of San Diego 18:1-76.
Lock, M. M. G. 2021. Shrinking body length in snakes in the United Kingdom: Ecological phenomenon or sampling error? Master of
Science by Research (MScRes) thesis, University of Kent, U.K. (doi:10.22024/UniKent/01.02.90455) (KAR id:90455).
Loveridge, A. 1931. On two amphibious snakes of the Central African lake region. Bulletin of the Antivenin Institute of America 5(1):
7-12.
Martin, D. C., M. K. Medri, R. S. Chow, V. Oxorn, R. N. Leekam, A. M. Agur and N. H. McKee. 2001. Comparing human skeletal muscle
architectural parameters of cadavers with in vivo ultrasonographic measurements. Journal of Anatomy 199(4):429-434.
Mole, R. R. 1895. The dimensions of animals. Journal of the Trinidad Field Naturalists’ Club 2(8):191-194.
Murphy, J. C., and R. W. Henderson. 1997. Tales of giant snakes: A historical natural history of anacondas and pythons. Malabar, Florida:
Krieger Publishing Company.
Murphy, J. C., and T. Crutchfield. 2019. Giant snakes: A natural history. Book Services <www.bookservices.us>.
O’Shea, M. 2007. Boas and pythons of the world. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Reed, R. N. 2001. Effects of museum preservation techniques on length and mass of snakes. Amphibia–Reptilia 22(4):488-491.
Rivas, J. A., R. E. Ascanio and M. D. C. Muñoz. 2008. What is the length of a snake? Contemporary Herpetology 2008(2):1-3.
Schneider, J. G. 1801. Historiae Amphibiorum naturalis et literariae. Fasciculus secundus continens Crocodilos, Scincos, Chamaesauras,
Boas, Pseudoboas, Elapes, Angues, Amphisbaenas et Caecilias. Jena, Germany: Friedrich Frommann. vi + 374 pp., 2 pls.
Setser, K. 2007. Use of anesthesia increases precision of snake length measurements. Herpetological Review 38(4):409-411.
49
