香京julia种子在线播放

In the Água Preta (AP) community, 36 interviews were conducted, involving 47 residents of both sexes (27 men and 20 women), encompassing four age groups: six participants aged 18–29 years, 16 aged 30–50 years, 23 aged 51–79 years, and two aged 80–100 years. Among these residents, at least 38 (80.85%) reported being born in the community even if they had spent a few years living elsewhere.

In Carapanatuba (Cp), 23 accounts were collected, including 31 residents (18 men and 13 women). Respondents were aged 30–50 (11 participants) and 51–79 (20 participants). In 19 accounts (61.3%), participants mentioned being born and raised in Carapanatuba, although two indicated having spent some time away and another two stated that they had moved to the mainland several years ago.

In the Centro do Aritapera (CeA), 37 interviews were conducted, involving 57 dwellers (27 women and 30 men). The interviewees included 19 dwellers aged 30–50 years, 33 aged 51–79 years, four aged 80–100 years, and one who chose not to disclose their age. At least 75.4% of respondents (43 out of 57) reported being born in the community, while another 8.7% (five out of 57) reported moving to the region over a decade ago.

Thirty interviews were conducted in the Costa do Aritapera (CoA) community, encompassing a total of 40 participants (23 men and 17 women). Among them, six were aged 18–19 years, 19 were aged 30–50 years, and 15 were aged 51–79 years. At least 62.5% of the respondents (25/40) were born in the community, nine had moved there more than 10 years ago, and three were recent residents.

In the Cabeça D’Onça (CdO) community, 27 interviews were conducted with 40 participants (20 men and 20 women). Among these, one was aged 18–29 years, 16 were aged 30–50 years, 17 were aged 51–79 years, two were aged 80–100 years, and four did not provide their age. At least 60% of the respondents (24 participants) reported being born in the region; two moved there as children, three in their 20s, and one as an elderly person aged 85.

Dwellers from the five communities reported frequent sightings of anaconda, ranging from 0 to 10 in a single year. In 2023, up until the date of the interview, they reported an average of 0.26 ± 0.5 sd sucuris in Água Preta; 0.5 ± 1.14 sd in Carapanatuba; 0.4 ± 0.5 sd in Centro do Aritapera; 0.7 ± 1.23 sd in Costa do Aritapera; and 0.42 ± 0.6 sd in Cabeça D’Onça. It is important to note, however, that the frequency of sightings was not uniform within each community, with some houses receiving up to five visits, while others received none during the same period.

The most likely scenarios for an encounter were when the dwellers were fishing or when they were inside the chicken coops, followed by when the anacondas were trapped in fishing nets ( Figure 2 ). In the latter, it is typically tangled at the bottom of the river, and dwellers have to cut it to remove the animal. Additionally, some interviewees mentioned that anaconda sightings are more common at night (in the yard near the houses), especially during strong storms.

Despite the occasional classification of sightings, typically occurring at a rate of three to four snakes per year, in the Centro do Aritapera community, 46.43% of the participants indicated that it had been a long time since they last encountered an anaconda, with some having gone up to 13 years without spotting one. In this regard, there was consensus among the communities regarding a possible decrease in the density of the species (94.4% AP, 78.6% Cap, 90.3% CeA, 83.3% CoA, and 90% CdO). In the Água Preta and Costa do Aritapera communities, over 90% of the reports indicated that this change occurred more than a decade ago. In Carapanatuba, only two participants mentioned the topic: one indicated around 10 years and the other when they moved houses (suggesting a more geographical than temporal issue). In the Centro do Aritapera and Cabeça D’Onça communities, about 58% of participants also indicated that this change occurred more than a decade ago, ranging from the 60s in CeA (42.7%) to the 70s in CdO (14.3%). The remaining participants indicated a more recent period (less than 10 years) or did not notice any significant differences between the past and present.

The main reasons cited for this population density change varied between natural causes and the phenomenon of land expansion (sedimentation of riverbanks), decrease in Montrichardia forests (known as aningal), and lower flood levels—and anthropogenic causes—moving houses (higher/lower areas or far/near from the aningals), animal hunting, increased protection of livestock (chickens kept in pens), change in habits (such as the activity of harvesting jute, which requires long periods of time in the water), community growth (increasing noise, both in the water and on land, and decreasing forested areas), and opening of pastures. Among these, animal hunting (whether for leather, fat, or to protect livestock) and the decrease in aningal were the most cited causes for the reduction/avoidance of sucuris, with 18 reports each ( Table 1 ).

For leather collection, the dwellers gathered in groups to do the hunting. One method to find the individuals was to set fire to the grass and return two days later to follow the tracks. Another technique was the “soca-soca,” where they would insert a stick into the holes created during the low water period to find the snake; they were then captured with a lasso as they were stuck in the mud. The leather would then be removed and left to dry in the sun.

Among the narratives, there was also mention of the variation in the average size of the individuals. The largest individuals observed were about 6 m+ 2.4 m (ranging from 2 m to 15 m) and dated back to past decades, while more recent sighting featured individuals averaging 2.3 m+ 0.8 m. Finally, the time of year also proved to be an important variable influencing anaconda sightings in the communities. In all five communities, most interviewees reported that they appear more during the flood season or during the flooding, suggesting that the deeper the water, the better (89%—32/36 interviews in AP; 73.9%—17/23 interviews in Cap; 61.2%—23/37 interviews in CeA; 70%—21/30 in CoA; and 90.5%—19/21 reports in CdO).

Among the total interviewees, we collected 67 accounts where participants indicated that the most common reaction to encountering an anaconda is usually to kill it (23 in AP; 12 in Cap; 15 in CeA; 9 in CoA; 8 in CdO). The Água Preta community showed the highest predisposition to killing, with 32 cases reported ( Figure 3A ). In all communities, this action was more common among men than among women. That is, although some women claimed to have killed an anaconda, others also stated they had never done so, even in an encounter; the reasons ranged from fear to lack of necessity ( Figure 3B ).

More than personal safety (15.9%), fear (6.8%), or the search for fat (13.3%), the main motivation for killing anacondas was economic—either to protect livestock (47.7%) or, in the past, to trade their skin (15.9%). The damage the anacondas currently cause to livestock can be summarized by a resident from Água Preta (Drn, male, 28 years old): “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” Dwellers expressed frustration at having to invest time and money in raising chickens, and then lose part of their flock overnight. One interviewee even mentioned retrieving a chicken from inside an anaconda’s belly, as it had just been swallowed and was still fresh.

Among the 35 accounts that mentioned simply walking away from an anaconda without attacking it, 60% (70%—7/10 AP; 60%—3/5 Cap; 50%—6/12 CeA; 75%—3/4 CoA; 50%—2/4 CdO) were related to fishing, particularly when the snake was in the water or perched on a branch. According to the reports, larger anacondas are more commonly encountered while fishing, with the largest one reported measuring 10 m–12 m: “Bigger than the motorboat and as wide as a large pot,” described a participant from Água Preta (Drn). The smallest anaconda mentioned was 83 cm, a juvenile. On average, those seen around houses and chicken coops were reported to measure approximately 2.3 m ± 0.8 m in length.

Some of the tools mentioned for dealing with anacondas included bladed weapons, such as machetes and knives; tools like axes and sickles; large, sturdy objects available at the moment, such as sticks and poles; fishing hooks; and firearms. However, a common method identified for handling anacondas involved dragging them by their tail across dirt or sand. According to dwellers, moving the snake backward on such surfaces causes its scales to lift, trapping grains between them, which inhibits its undulatory movement.

In any case, using the snake’s fat after killing it proved to be a common practice, particularly when the snake was thick-bodied (84.2% AP; 85% Cap; 71.4% CeA; 55.5% CoA; and 60% CdO). Interestingly, in CoA, most dwellers did not keep the fat for themselves but donated the carcass to a woman in the community (interview with dFsD, 68 years old) who processed it. She was considered the local reference for treatments using zootherapy.

Additionally, dwellers shared some cultural techniques for avoiding encounters or scaring anacondas away from their property. According to those interviewed in Carapanatuba (interview MnMc), “When you kill one anaconda, the others get scared and won’t come back.” Furthermore, as another dweller from the same community explained, if you “place the snake’s head on a stake and display it in front of the house,” it would deter others. In another interview, a plant called sucuriju (local name for E. murinus) was mentioned, with claims that its tea has the same anti-inflammatory properties as the snake’s fat. Having this plant at home, according to the interviewees, would prevent the animal from entering the property.

Fear of the anaconda (identified in 44.5% of the reports) is related to the belief that it is a treacherous and sly animal. The interviewees convey that the anaconda is a silent creature that arrives without making any noise, causing them to feel uneasy and always vigilant during fishing (precaution/respect—emotions mentioned in 22.7% of the reports), with the fear of having their canoe flooded in case of an attack. Some dwellers even reported being more afraid of an anaconda than of a crocodile because the latter warns when it is about to attack. Other emotions related to the anaconda include anger (8.2%)—particularly when it is near chickens; aversion (4.5%); and indifference or neutrality (disliking it or stating that they feel neither anger nor fear—20%) ( Figure 4A ).

Throughout the reports, we identified 70 characteristics related to anacondas, including physical traits, habits, and personality ( Figure 4B ). Besides treacherous (7.52%—23/385) other characteristics related to anacondas were luring (4.2%—13/385) and stealthy (3.6%—11/385), precisely because they make no noise: “it comes and you don’t even see it” (as summarized by resident Crbt, 32, from Água Preta); that is why it is considered luring, because it seems that the person, or the prey, becomes hypnotized. They also pointed out the hiss (4.9%—15/385), like a whistle, that it makes when ready to strike.

Some interviewees also described anacondas as brave (1.9%—6/385) because, even when they are young, they already have the boldness to go after prey. Boldness (0.7%—2/385) was also related to the offspring, which are already born ready to attack. Additionally, they highlighted its size, mentioning that it is a large (1.6%—5/385), strong (3.6%—11/385), and fat (0.3%—1/385) animal, and that, to attack, it twists its tail (2.9%—9/385), throws the lasso (3.3%—10/385), and wraps it around the prey (4.6%—14/385), with this coiling being the most dangerous part.

For some, a large anaconda could kill and swallow a person, while for others, it posed no risk at all. In general, only 2.1% of the characteristics were positive or neutral, divided between harmless (1.6%—5/385), not aggressive (0.3%—1/385) and did not attack people (0.6%—2/385). Furthermore, the accounts regarding perceptions of the anaconda also included ecological information, which is discussed in more detail in the following section.

In most cases (83%), the participants identified the anaconda as a non-venomous animal (compared to 16.6% who mentioned it might be somewhat venomous), emphasizing that its danger lies in its strength. The species mentioned as venomous were primarily the surucucu (i.e., jararaca—Bothrops sp.), the comboia (Bothrops atrox), and the coral snake (since it was not observed during the fieldwork, it is not possible to determine whether it belongs to the Micrurus sp. species or is a false coral). In nine interviews (with at least two dweller in each community), it was also mentioned that the boa (Boa constrictor) and/or the pepeua (Waglerophis merremi) could be venomous, but only in May (the period of its reproduction). The boa constrictor, in addition to being more venomous than the surucucu, was said to become faster than usual during this month, as it is its reproductive period.

The reports on the reproductive period of the anaconda varied among the interviewees, as did its reproductive method. While some dwellers claimed that the female lays eggs, others compared it to the alligator, explaining that, unlike alligators, which incubate their eggs externally, anacondas retain their eggs internally, giving birth to fully formed hatchlings. Among the 73 reports that mentioned the reproductive characteristics of the anaconda, 95.5% said they had seen a pregnant anaconda, either with eggs (62%) or hatchlings (38%). According to the reports, they had observed between 20 and 257 hatchlings emerging from the same mother after being killed, and up to 150 very small hatchlings still inside her belly. As for the eggs, they reported seeing a larger quantity, reaching up to 300 eggs inside the belly of a single individual. The eggs were described as similar to chicken or turtle eggs, usually white, with soft shells, and yellowish when still in formation, or even red.

The sightings of anacondas gravid with eggs were limited to the summer but varied between June–August (low water), February–May (beginning of the flood), and even October–November. On the other hand, encounters with hatchlings were reported both in summer and winter, during rising or receding water. Thus, among the reports of those who had seen or heard about the anaconda in its reproductive period, the interviewees concluded that it incubates in the summer and mates over several months, producing many offspring. As highlighted by one interviewee (interview AgVd, 61 years old, Cap), individuals during their reproductive period spend the whole summer in a panelaço (a type of hole in the ground), and thus become thin. Another dweller (interview Nei, 42 years old, CeA) added that during the reproductive period, the anaconda becomes more aggressive and questioned whether they exhibit parental care.

Some encounters with gravid anacondas occurred due to the hunting of the animal for its fat; since it was plump, the dwellers couldn’t discern whether it had a lot of fat or if it was pregnant. Some also mentioned having opened the egg inside the mother and were surprised to see that the hatchlings were already formed, with their tongues out, ready to attack, being brave from birth ( Figure 4B ). Although it is generally mentioned that the hatchlings survive even if the mother is killed, in one interview, the participant said that if the mother dies, the hatchlings also die.

However, what most surprised and alarmed the interviewees was the number of offspring the animal produces. In this sense, they explained that the number of anacondas increases very quickly because they give birth to many young. We highlight a specific occasion where a former resident found eight snakes together in heat, of which he killed seven. Those who knew the story defended that it was a good reaction, as otherwise, there would be many more, as they were copulating. Among other reports of anacondas in heat (seven in total), all described a group of animals (ranging from three to eight individuals), with the female being the largest individual and the males smaller. There were also reports of possible interspecific copulations. One resident (interview Frcc, 62 years, AP) said he saw an anaconda coiled with a boa on a tree—although he believed they were fighting, some told him they were probably copulating; and another participant (interview Stos, 48 years, Cap) said he saw an anaconda in heat with a surucucu (Bothrops sp.).

Although in five reports, dwellers said it was possible to visually identify the sex of the anacondas, the characteristics were not consensual. In some of the reports, they reported that the female was shorter and thicker, and the male was larger. Meanwhile, other dwellers reported the opposite, saying that the female was longer and the male smaller. However, despite this, in general, dwellers said they could not differentiate between males and females beforehand, only in cases where they opened the animal and found eggs or young inside.

The interviewees also described anacondas as a “water animal,” which does not live on dry land. Thus, during the drought season (winter), they would remain in holes in the ground or move from one well to another. They also commented on the hunting/fishing habits of this species. When it is digesting or lying-in while waiting for prey, it coils itself on a tree branch ( Figure 4B ). Regardless of the situation, once on the branches, it takes time for it to move. In fact, to catch prey, one can wait for days in an ambush. They also said that its fang was turned backward to bite and grab, with its jaw moving to swallow the animal whole, rather than tearing pieces like a caiman. Additionally, they reported that it is attracted by the smell of chicken feces (following the scent) and, after capturing one, it continues to return for more ( Figure 4B ). Among its observed prey were the toró (Dactylomys dactylinus), capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), tinga caiman (Caiman crocodilus), tracajá (Podocnemis expansa), tapir (Tapirus terrestris), pigs, surucucu (local name for Bothrops sp.), and, of course, backyard birds, such as chicken, duck, and chick.

Furthermore, they commented on how the animals captured their prey. According to reports, the anaconda is a stealthy animal that arrives unnoticed. It first monitors the prey, and at the time of the attack, it coils its tail around something to support and throws the lasso, capturing it with its mouth. For this reason, in all the communities, the anaconda was considered more treacherous and sutil than aggressive ( Figure 4B ). According to the interviewees, it coils itself to wait for the prey and can stay still, observing it for a while. Many, in fact, have felt watched by them during fishing and were afraid that it might throw the lasso.

According to previous reports, hunting anaconda for its skin was very common and economically profitable. According to participant Svtr (75 years old, CeA), it was considered almost a status symbol among young men, which would be regarded as successful. According to this interviewee, the leather of an anaconda of 5 m was sold for an equivalent of R$1,500 (U$255.00). At least two participants in each community claimed to have hunted anaconda to sell its skin (in groups with 13 participants in total). This practice involved removing the animal’s skin, stretching it by the ends on a stick to dry; afterward, it was rolled up and sold. Anaconda’s skin was more valuable than that of a caiman, as long as there were no holes or wounds on the hide. One resident mentioned having already sold chameleon leather in addition to these.

After the ban on the use of snakeskin, this practice fell into disuse. Currently, when the skin is used, it is grated, burned, and macerated to produce a powder. This powder is then used to heal wounds, mainly in animals (a practice reported by Cap, CeA, and CdO dwellers). However, the main use of anaconda derivatives in these communities was its fat, which was mentioned by 74.5% of the interviewees. The largest amount of fat obtained from the same animals was 9 L. Currently, fat is used more by dwellers than sold, although four reports mentioned having sold it. One participant (interview StRs, 63 years, Carap) mentioned having sold fat many years ago at R$ 40.00 per liter (U$6.80). Other fats used as zootherapeutic by dwellers were from stingrays, caimans, boas, and Amazon River dolphins.

As for meat, although an interviewee of Cabeça D’Onça and a relative of a dweller from Costa do Aritapera claimed to have eaten snake meat (probably Bothrops atrox), no one reported having eaten anaconda meat, or had the desire or the need to do so.

Based on the stories told, it was found that the most common place to encounter anacondas was during fishing. Out of 153 interviews discussing the subject, in 80 of them the dwellers mentioned that they had come across this animal while fishing (28.7% AP; 7.5% Cap; 26.2% CeA; 21.2% CoA; 16.2% CdO— Figure 2 ). Notably, some of the most famous conflict cases have also occurred during fishing. Among these, we highlight the stories of Seu Braz and Dodó, which were repeatedly narrated across all communities, even though both incidents took place in Água Preta. These accounts generally describe an initial attempt by the animal to strike, followed by the near flooding of the canoe, culminating in the anaconda’s death.

In Seu Braz’s case, the anaconda leapt at him while fishing but failed to drag him into the water because he clung to the vegetation, ripping his shirt. The animal had escaped and was not found again. Although Braz still owns a house in Água Preta, he spends most of his time in Santarém, PA, so we are unable to meet him in person. In Dodó’s story, he was fishing with a group of three and had fallen asleep in the bajaras. When they realized it, an approximately 5.2-meter-long anaconda was already boarding, its head in his cousin’s canoe. Fortunately, they noticed in time, shouted to warn him, and killed the anaconda. Although Dodó was not in the community during the interview period, I managed to speak with his wife, who was also from Água Preta.

Another frequently mentioned fishing incident involved a man who earned a nickname: “resto de sucuriju” (the anaconda remnant—in a literal translation). His story became so famous among the communities that a local artist made a drawing inspired by it, reflecting the common vision of the story ( Figure 5 ). It is said that he was on a tree trunk harpooning pirarucu (Arapaima gigas). As he lowered the spear, the anaconda struck, coiled around his waist and one arm. To avoid being dragged, he clung to the aningas. He called for his son, who helped him break free while he struck the snake with his free hand.

Two other cases, also from Água Preta, frequently mentioned across all communities are those of Sara and Neide. Sara’s case appears to be the most recent, possibly occurring in 2019 during the flood season. It is said that Sara was washing clothes on her home’s pier when an anaconda leapt at her but missed its strike. Startled, she screamed and her husband came to her rescue, killing the anaconda with a harpoon. According to these accounts, it was very large, measuring over 4 m in length. In the same house, there was a year when an anaconda took six ducks. Currently, due to the fear of anacondas, no one lives there anymore.

Neide’s case occurred at the end of the 1980s or the early 1990s also during the flood season. She was washing dishes on the open pier of her kitchen when she felt an animal striking her leg with force. She managed to jump back into the house. Although the animal let go, its tooth caught her leg, leaving it bruised and bleeding. Her husband set up a baited hook to discover what it was. Within a few days, they captured the anaconda. It was very thick and measured more than 5 m in length.

We collected other more isolated accounts of near-accidents or attempted strikes by anacondas as well as some stories where the subject of the tale held their breath, so the anaconda would not sense their presence, and escape. However, we chose to detail these specific accounts because they are widely known throughout the region. Finally, regardless of the victim’s activity or what they were doing at the time, the incidents were always water related.

Although existing, reports about the Great Snake are scarce. Among all the communities surveyed, seven people claimed to have seen or knew someone who had seen some indication of its presence. The main characteristic described was the “fire in the eyes” in the middle of the river at night, a phenomenon explained by the reflection of the lantern light in the snake’s eyes. According to the testimonies, the Great Snake is an anaconda (or boa constrictor) that grew very large and now inhabits the Amazon River. In an interview in the Centro do Aritapera community, participants specified: “The anaconda would be up to 10–11 meters; beyond that, it’s the Great Snake.” Although both species share morphological characteristics, they pointed out that, once it becomes a Great Snake, it differs in color.

According to previous reports, the Great Snake tends to appear mainly during storms. Its movement, attributed to its large size, is responsible for the banzeiros (a regional term used to describe water swells in rivers), which can even rock the canoes. According to the interviewees, it slides along the riverbed but avoids grassy areas to prevent hurting its scales. Thus, to avoid encounters with the Great Snake, people would often jump into murizal (an aquatic vegetation similar to grass). However, reports have indicated that sightings were more frequent in the past. Nowadays, owing to the noise of boats, it is said to have moved away and is rarely seen.

Interviewees also presented inferences about the origin of the Great Snake. According to them, it would live coiled beneath the center of the town, with its head under the church of Óbidos, PA, located on the banks of the Amazon River. Its movement would be so powerful that it would cause earthquakes, having been responsible for the collapse of a part of the church. Another legend states that the Great Snake is so large that a knight can pass under its ribs while being mounted. Finally, there was also a racist anecdote in which a man, when approached by the Great Snake, remained motionless. Checking about his breathing from time to time, it decided not to swallow him, thinking he was a burned log and not a person.