New species of giant Green anaconda (Eunectes akayima)? No, it is not a valid snake species!
🐍BUY YOUR LIVING ZOOLOGY MERCHANDISE HERE: living-zoology-film-studio.cr...
🐍BECOME A MEMBER!!! / livingzoology
People around the world were recently informed about the description of a new anaconda species. It was everywhere in mainstream media and presented as a big deal. When I first read the paper about "Eunectes akayima", I was very disappointed. In this video I shortly summarize why I think that the new anaconda species is not valid. I present my opinion as someone who has a Ph.D. in zoology and focused heavily on phylogeny and speciation. Just one month after the description of "Eunectes akayima" two newly published papers presented clear evidence that the description is not valid. Apart from reasons described in this video (phylogenetical point of view) there were major nomenclatural errors in the description. As of mid-March 2024, there is only one species of Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus).
These silent videos with text are some of my favorite, very calming
Great that you like them! 🙂
The problem with all the species splitting is that biologists, being human, want to get a species with their name on it, and be known for a 'new' discovery. As opposed to simply observing the wonderful catalogs that we already have.
It is ok to describe a new species if there is a proper evidence from data analyses. In this case the evidence for splitting the Green anaconda into two species was not there in our opinion.
In my opinion it is very stupid and misleading to split the Green Anaconda species into two to me i strongly believe that the northern Green Anaconda is nothing more than a hoax and its not a New species its just a regular Eunectes Murinus Green Anaconda that so happens to be big a majority of Green Anacondas in the Amazon especially females grow larger than males around 20 feet so i believe that the northern Green Anaconda doesn’t exist i mean its real but its not a New species ok get it to me its just a regular Green Anaconda that so happens to be bigger infact most Green Anacondas have been know to be up to 25 feet the maximum length 26 feet is just no exception its just the maximum length if you compare Green Anacondas to Titanoboas then that’s a big difference i tell you so in other words there’s no northern Green Anaconda
Thank you so much for that detailled explanation and your rational scientific approach. As a biologist, who had to deal with press and media in the past year, it was baffling to me how ignorant and naive some of their represenratives were. I'm not surprised that the story about the new Anaconda species went viral. Sensational journalism generates clicks and views and, thus, money. No time to consult other scientists to double check...
Very welcome! 🙂 The most shocking thing is that such a paper went through peer review and was published. Well, it was published in a rather weird online journal, a relevant journal from the field of phylogenetics/taxonomy with proper reputation would not publish this. The fact that mass media trusted the paper and used this as an opportunity to spread shocking news is not so surprising.
Matej, thank you for this video. Although the information is much out of my wheelhouse, it is very interesting and your immense knowledge and passion about your work comes through. I must admit that what you and Zuzana captured with the Green Anaconda is mesmerizing! I like watching the slow, non-striking snakes sometimes! Thank you again for the time and information you shared.
I am very happy that you like this video and the information provided! It is great to hear that you love to watch the footage! We really hoped to film more footage of the Green anaconda in Suriname, but this species eluded us. Thus, I had to use what I had from Peru.
Genetically yes it is. But why listen to the experts? They don’t know what they are talking about apparently. KZheadrs have all the answers I guess.
@@kevinwebster7868 Interesting comment 😀 First check to who you write. The video will be a shorter version of the explanation I wrote on our social media. Here it is. People around the world were recently informed about the description of a new anaconda species. It was everywhere in mainstream media and presented as a big deal. When I first read the paper about "Eunectes akayima", I was very disappointed. It was very surprising to me that a paper of this quality was even published. For about 10 years I studied zoology and from the bachelor's thesis until my Ph.D. I heavily focused on phylogeny, speciation, phylogeography. This field is often connected with taxonomy as you might find a lineage which could be considered as a new species. One of the main goals of my Ph.D. work was to demonstrate that nowadays it is important to use an integrative taxonomy, which means that you should use multiple sources of evidence to delimit and describe a species. Ideally, you should use several analytical approaches on molecular data and combine the findings with the results of morphological analyses and the knowledge about the biogeographical history of the region where your studied taxa live. Only if there is evidence coming from different analyses suggesting existence of a new species, you should describe one. Yet, the new description of a new species of anaconda relied only on data from 3 mitochondrial markers. It was not supported by the analysis of 5 (which is very few) nuclear genes or morphology. Why evidence from 3 mitochondrial genes is not enough to delimit a species? First of all, mtDNA evolves faster than the nuclear DNA, it is maternally inherited and haploid (haploid cells contain only one set of chromosomes). Nuclear DNA is diploid (diploid cells contain two sets of chromosomes, one set from each parent). The analysis of mtDNA should be basically used as a "screening" for divergent lineages in your dataset and then you should analyse the nuclear DNA too. It is well known that mtDNA can be used to track divergence in very closely related taxa and that phylogenetic analyses very often show support for more lineages (potentially species) than analyses of nuclear DNA. It makes sense because mtDNA evolves differently than nuclear DNA. The nuclear DNA evolves slower as there is much higher pressure from natural selection to keep the genetic code as it is (especially in protein coding genes). Thus, it is very important to also study the nuclear DNA and ideally do a genomic approach (using hundreds or even thousands of genes). Here it is important to explain the difference between a gene tree and a species tree. A gene tree is an evolutionary tree resulting from the analysis of a single gene data. If you use only 3 mitochondrial genes, you studied the evolution of these 3 genes. If you want to have a species tree, you should have as many genes as possible from your studied species in your analysis. Hundreds or thousands of genes across the genome will already give you a good species tree. So hopefully now it makes sense. Evidence of divergence of the Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) into two species based on 3 mtDNA genes and not even backed by 5 nuclear genes is not enough! To give you an example from my Ph.D. thesis, I studied a species complex of the Golden puddle frog (Phrynobatrachus auritus) and mtDNA analysis using 3 genes showed 17 lineages (potential species) while the genomic dataset using 1236 genes showed 5 lineages! It is not surprising that after we used the integrative taxonomic approach those 5 lineages (not those 17) turned out to be different species. Back to the anaconda paper. The sampling is not covering much from the vast area where the Green anaconda lives, there are no samples from a contact zone of the two "species" and no data on a potential gene flow. You cannot see the difference between these "species" from their morphology. There is really not enough evidence for a description of a new species. Luckily, this story has a happy ending. Just one month later after the description of "Eunectes akayima" two newly published papers presented clear evidence that the description is not valid. Apart from the reasons I described above, there were major nomenclatural errors in the description. New species should not be described because someone wants to describe a new species. There should be scientific evidence. It is already interesting enough that there might be two potential lineages within the Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) population across its range and the paper should simply present that. The paper was only published because the authors chose a weird journal with clearly an unprofessional peer review process. Will the world learn from mass media about the fact that the "new anaconda species" is not valid anymore? I doubt it. At least the response from the scientific community was fast and we had to use a non-valid scientific name for such an iconic snake species only for a month. If there will ever be a proper study done on the Green anaconda with the integrative taxonomic approach and relevant data, I will be interested to read it. Also, I will happily accept a new anaconda species if there will be proper scientific evidence for its existence.
This channel is more than everything I ever wanted to know about snakes! Really, really please take my respect! No words to write down, how I love You All! Neverending thanks!
So nice of you, thank you very much! ❤️❤️❤️🐍
Despite the very detailed and technical explanation (which qualifies your high professionalism!), I think I’ve understood a lil bit the argument! Thank you for your work !!!! 👏👏
Thank you very much for watching and hopefully we managed to explain the topic well! 🙂
Great footage, as usual. Keep up the excellent work.
Thanks, will do!
I was sceptical when I heard about the supposed new species.
Good, thanks for watching!
Excellent video! I'm surprised that a paper with such a paucity of evidence managed to pass peer review. Have the authors issued a retraction? I did my dPhil in X-Ray crystallography back in the day, but molecular evolution always fascinated me; I used to play around writing sequence alignment code and testing it with Elongation Factor sequences. That was when your only options were ClustalW, Paup* and Phylip and GCG. Takes me back!
Thank you for watching! The paper was published in an online journal which is definitely not among top journals focused on phylogeny/taxonomy. The peer review process in this journal is clearly not the most professional one. Great that this video brought back memories! 🙂
Thanks for setting the record straight and explaining the real issue with the paper. I am surprised that it was published at all given what you have said...who reviewed it prior to publication... sloppy. I was interested to hear about the band width for the green anaconda and thought it was a really beautiful snake and beautiful images in It's natural habitat.
Thanks for watching! Yes, it was very surprising that such paper was published.
Fantastic footage. "Gotta LOVE Nature"💝💝
Glad you enjoyed it!
I can definitely see this. What do y’all think about the recent additions to the schlegelii complex? Can’t wait until the vids out
Yes, and what about T. Popeiorum!?
The paper about the B. schlegelii complex does not use huge amount of molecular data, but it nicely uses the integrative aproach and makes conclusions based on multiple sources of evidence. However, it will be interesting to (hopefully) see a genomic approach being used in the future for this species complex.
Great work keeping these beautiful species' pure!
Thanks for watching!
Can you please share the two papers you are referencing in the video? I would like to read them. I can only find the original paper on google.
Send us your e-mail please 🙂
Does KZhead have DM?
@@rmax8364 It does not. You can find us on Fb or Insta and send it to us there.
1. Once again... The photography in your videos is absolutely phenomenal. 2. The green anaconda shure has evolved some spectacular natural camouflage. What a beauty! 3. Yes, this is another example of how dangerous mainstream media can be. When they find something dramatic out, they immediately saturate our minds with what THEY deem as the truth. They especially flood our minds with their paid advertisements of who we should vote for, how we are told to view the global climate, and why we need to give certain people more money. I'm used to hearing BS like that all day long. But when they begin to create conspiracy theories about the animal world, I get really mad at them. The green anaconda is my favorite snake. THANK YOU!!!
Thank you very much for watching! So great that you love our content!
Great topic and presentation Matej and Zuzana! Highly informative. I appreciate your POV that species determinations should generally respect accessory factors rather than DNA alone. That said, if DNA science was 100% reliable, couldn't that alone be used to determine phylogeny and so sp/ssp status? Many splits based on DNA do seem like nitpicking, when all morphological, behavioral, and habitat preferences are common to both candidates. Isn't this the kind of thing that makes cladistics sensible, aside from shear practical limitations, i.e. a hierarchy with an indefinite number of levels and nodes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but classical Linnean taxonomy has always been at best a gross representation of true phylogeny in that is pigeon holes groups for which there are no definitive boundaries. A related question I ask is, why did the old species definition that all forms within a species can breed and produce fertile offspring, get canceled? Seems like a straight way to draw that line. I understand if you don't have the time to answer those questions. Must be a 24/7/365 job to produce so much high quality content. :)
Thanks for watching! DNA is a very reliable source of evidence, it just needs to be used properly. In this case, trusting only mtDNA when nuclear DNA or morphology does not show evidence for a split, is not a correct approach. The integrative approach is important. Ideally, a bigger dataset (genomic) would show the whole truth. To give you an example from my Ph.D. thesis, I studied a species complex of the Golden puddle frog (Phrynobatrachus auritus) and mtDNA analysis using 3 genes showed 17 lineages (potential species) while the genomic dataset using 1236 genes showed 5 lineages! It is not surprising that after we used the integrative taxonomic approach those 5 lineages (not those 17) turned out to be different species. There are various species concepts using different criteria to distinguish a separate species. Because of that there is not a global consensus. I prefer the unified species concept (De Queiroz 2007). It says that the only necessary criterion for the existence of a species is a separately evolving metapopulation lineage, then there are operational species criteria as different lines of evidence. That solves the problem created by the fact that various species concepts don’t agree on other criteria for recognition of a separate species. Thus, different evidence added to the only necessary criterion (and more the better) can be used for the delimitation of a species. It is important to realize that life on Earth basically evolves constantly and humans are trying to put everything into “boxes” so they know what they are talking about. In some cases we can see a stage where two species are in the process of diverging. But, humans need to create a name for each of the two lineages or have one name for both lineages together. And the decision should be made wisely after examining as much evidence from as many different analyses as possible.
@@LivingZoology Wow, more that I ever hoped for! :) Thanks so much. I read it all very carefully and feel I have an ok grasp of your brief. I hope your other followers find it as valuable as I do. Not often do I get to converse with a real scientist. It reflects so well on your channel that you try to respond as much as possible to questions, but I never expect it of you. Love you two! :D)
hello hello there😁its really the different..special shape of the head
Well, the thing is that the authors of the study did not find any morphological difference 😀
Beautiful snake ❤
Thank you!
I had a feeling the "new species" claim was overblown. Thanks to Dr. Louis for clearing up the matter.
Thanks for watching 🙂
When I first heard about the separation of these species all the articles talking about it were very sensationalistic i.e. “New Giant Species of Anaconda Discovered” and then wherever I read about it the reasons for splitting green anaconda into two species seemed very vague and unfounded.
Yes, it was weird from the beginning…
Is this the Freek Vonk discovery?
Yes, he is one of the coauthors of the paper.
🕵🏿♂️im smarter by watching this episode. You make powerful points....but if i display a reptile so striking strictly by its morphology that its quickly obvious no man has seen or documented it before would or could such a spectacle over turn all species identification formulas?
Thanks for watching! If a species is morphologically very different it still needs to be formally described and molecular data should be analysed.
I have not read any of the papers on the new anaconda species proposal. But questioning the validity of the mitochondrial gene evidence without citing the number of specimens involved falls short. If, hypothetically, 1000 specimens each of the proposed anaconda species were sampled and 3 mitochondrial genes were of the same sequence within each group and but radically different across groups, the conclusion of two species would be hard to contest. Of course, the hypothetical case here would involve the specimens of each group being taken from separate geographical ranges, that is, the two groups were allopatric. If they were sympatric, of course, the data would be problematic.
The evidence from the mtDNA alone is not enough, it does not matter how many individuals are tested. There was no difference in morphology and no divergence in 5 nuclear genes. Nowadays it is not acceptable to only have one source of evidence to describe a new species. And especially mtDNA should be used cautiously as it evolves faster than nuclear DNA and the number of supported lineages in phylogenetic trees resulting from mtDNA is often higher than from analysing nuclear DNA. Why is explained in the video.
When I first heard about this, I was skeptical & figured that someone was looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
Thank you for watching!
Retics are alright but condas are soooooo much better. Thanks again for another great video
Thank you, great that you enjoyed watching! ❤️
With such a large range you would expect there to be some element of genetic variation. Perhaps they should have suggested they'd found a sub-species?
From the data they provided it seems rather like a lineage withing the population of the Green anaconda or maximally a subspecies.
I have no idea what you are saying i don't believe new species were found. I believe half of what i read and see on the net. I do believe what ever your explaining is correct and i hope you all get sponsored soon to continue to study and keep educated us on these animals.
Thank you very much for watching! It is good not to believe everything what’s in mass media 👍
Ďalšie zaujímavé video...👌👌👌👍👍👍 A hneď idem na "komodo"...
Super, že zaujalo!!! 🙏 Díky za sledovanie ďalších!
@@LivingZoology 👍
This is nothing new. Zoologists want their 15 minutes of fame as well. The shiny point of this story is that your peers policed themselves in an honorable way. THAT is good science. Sometimes it's challenging (or perilous) to have integrity. Well done. Great post.
Thank you very much for watching!
hmmm what about king cobra ? seem like someone intend to split it into 4 species , lol , damn got fool by this akayima , btw i read report by cnn the team is lead by Professor Bryan Fry , isnt that the bald dude who always appear in documentary ?
Yes, there is an intention to split the King cobra. We hope that the authors will present proper evidence. Yes, Bryan Fry is one of the authors of the E. akayima paper.
Can or will these Giants attack humans and are they venomous?
No, anacondas are not venomous and they don’t attack people.
Non venomous. Don’t let your child go wading in anaconda water. Attack, no, opportunity maybe.
Well made. Personally I'd prefer if you spoke rather than having to read so much. 😊💙
Thanks! Most of our viewers enjoy that we only have sounds of nature in our videos.
@@LivingZoology yes I do too. Alot of the info you give is very scientific but hard for me to understand. It's above my school level lol 😆
@@GodsFirmament This video is very scientific and we usually try to keep it more simple! 😀
is this ana julia ?
Who is Ana Julia?
@@LivingZoology world largest anaconda that killed few weeks ago
😂😂
Thanks for watching!
I also shared your research about this on Facebook
Since its creation, the most critical problem with our biological world is that we need clear and concise criteria for defining a species. There are many definitions for species, but there are no clear and universally acceptable criteria about what a species is? Most biologists try to win in the race to find new species, but biology as a science is always at the receiving end. The modern race to publish as many research articles in journals without much scrutiny is making the scientific process more confusing for the emerging generation of scientists. I have a background in diverse fields of study, including biology. Still, I need help understanding why there is so much haste in the academic world to publish more and more papers without evidence-based science. There is a rat race even in our educational world. The biggest loser is the true spirit of being a scientist. I hope I have put my point clearly.
There are various species concepts using different criteria to distinguish a separate species. Because of that there is not a global consensus. I prefer the unified species concept (De Queiroz 2007). It says that the only necessary criterion for the existence of a species is a separately evolving metapopulation lineage, then there are operational species criteria as different lines of evidence. That solves the problem created by the fact that various species concepts don’t agree on other criteria for recognition of a separate species. Thus, different evidence added to the only necessary criterion (and more the better) can be used for the delimitation of a species. It is important to realize that life on Earth basically evolves constantly and humans are trying to put everything into “boxes” so they know what they are talking about. In some cases we can see a stage where two species are in the process of diverging. But, humans need to create a name for each of the two lineages or have one name for both lineages together. And the decision should be made wisely after examining as much evidence from as many different analyses as possible.