Please help identifying this snake skin

[dizyben]

This skin was found intact on my laundry doormat. I live close to Camden NSW and have seen both brown and red-bellied black snakes on our property and want to know which one it could be. It measures 1.5m.

[JUNGLE-JAK]

snake

thats all i know

[Tassie97]

hmm id say RBB

[r3ptilian]

Head scalation points to RBB.

[Python-Lover4lyf]

I'd agree with the others. Looks like a RBB (IMO)

[saratoga]

Head looks like a RBB although the anal scale appears to be single and subcaudals are almost entirely divided except perhaps one or two. I thought red bellies normally had about one third of the subcaudals single.

[waruikazi]

Head looks like a RBB although the anal scale appears to be single and subcaudals are almost entirely divided except perhaps one or two. I thought red bellies normally had about one third of the subcaudals single.

This is what stopped me from commenting on the ID. And i thought they had a divided anal scale... The pic isn't fantastic because the shed is all twisted up but it looks like the anal scale is single.

[r3ptilian]

I thought the same thing, thats why I studied the head. Frontal shield and supraocular look to be Psuedechis more than Psuedonaja. A better pic of rostral and anal scales would help a lot.

This is what stopped me from commenting on the ID. And i thought they had a divided anal scale... The pic isn't fantastic because the shed is all twisted up but it looks like the anal scale is single.

[Bushman]

Head scalation points to RBB.

What exactly about the head scalation points towards Pseudechis porphyriacus?

I thought the same thing, thats why I studied the head. Frontal shield and supraocular look to be Psuedechis more than Psuedonaja. A better pic of rostral and anal scales would help a lot.

What is it about the frontal shield and supraocular that look more like Pseudechis than Pseudonaja?

I think that it is more likely to be Pseudonaja textilis. I disagree with R3ptilian in that the frontal in itself and relative to the supraoculars indicates Pseudonaja textilis. i.e in P. textilis "the frontal is twice as long as it is broad, being equal in width to the supraoculars."*
Whereas the frontal in Pseudechis porphyriacus "is nearly as broad as it is long, but it is smaller than the supraoculars."*

I agree that close examination of the rostral scale would help.

*'A Field Guide To Reptiles of the Australian High Country', R. Jenkins and R. Bartell

[waruikazi]

Textilis have divided anal and sub-caudal scales...

What exactly about the head scalation points towards Pseudechis porphyriacus?


What is it about the frontal shield and supraocular that look more like Psuedechis than Psuedonaja?

I'm going to go directly against the general opinion so far, and for the very reason that R3ptilian uses.
I reckon that the frontal in itself and relative to the supraoculars indicates Pseudonaja textilis. i.e in P. textilis "the frontal is twice as long as it is broad, being equal in width to the supraoculars."*
Whereas the frontal in Pseudechis porphyriacus "is nearly as broad as it is long, but it is smaller than the supraoculars."*

I agree with R3ptilian only in as much as close examination of the rostral scale would help.

'A Field Guide To Reptiles of the Australian High Country', R. Jenkins and R. Bartell

[Red_LaCN]

Anaconda! I have no idea.

[Bushman]

Anaconda! I have no idea.

Why post then?

Textilis have divided anal and sub-caudal scales...

Are you arguing against the skin being a Pseudonaja textilis based on anal and sub-caudal scales?
Whilst your statement is essentially correct there are exceptions to this rule i.e in P. textilis subcaudals "all paired (rarely several anterior subcaudals single)."*
Thus I don't think that subcaudals can be used to reliably confirm or exclude either species in this case. Even though Cogger makes a distinction between the two genera in his key based on this feature i.e "usually all subcaudals divided or at most a few anterior ones undivided"* for Pseudonaja. And "usually at least anterior 20% of subcaudals undivided, remainder divided"* for Pseudechis.

[waruikazi]

No, i'm saying why i don't think an accurate ID can be made from this shed. Also the temporolabial and supralabial appear to be divided, which suggest not pseudonaja.

Why post then?



Are you arguing against the skin being a Pseudonaja textilis based on anal and sub-caudal scales?
Whilst your statement is essentially correct there are exceptions to this rule i.e in P. textilis subcaudals "all paired (rarely several anterior subcaudals single)."*
Thus I don't think that subcaudals can be used to reliably confirm or exclude either species in this case. Even though Cogger makes a distinction between the two genera in his key based on this feature i.e "usually all subcaudals divided or at most a few anterior ones undivided"* for Pseudonaja. And "usually at least anterior 20% of subcaudals undivided, remainder divided"* for Pseudechis.

[Bushman]

I can confirm that the snake was a Pseudonaja textilis.
Examination of the slough determined this beyond doubt.
For those interested, all of the sub-caudals are paired apart from the first few.
The nasal scale is in broad contact with the preocular, and the frontal shield is twice as long as it is broad.
All these features indicate Pseudonaja textilis.

The mid-body scales were in 17 rows and the anal was divided, which is the same for both species.

No, i'm saying why i don't think an accurate ID can be made from this shed. Also the temporolabial and supralabial appear to be divided, which suggest not pseudonaja.

Gordo, what is "temporolabial"? I've never heard of this (scale?).

[TheCheshireCat]

I'm sure he meant Temporal Scales.