|
1-7 of 7 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by shawnfraser on November 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In his review of Harry W. Greene's "Snakes - The Evolution of mystery in Nature" Jakob referred to 'rearfanged' being outdated. I realize that most snakes produce toxins, but is it improper to use the term 'rearfanged' for opisthoglyphous snakes?
Looking forward to everyone's replies,
Shawn
|
| |
|
RE: Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by tj on November 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Rear fanged = ophistoglyph's = colubrid's. I wouldn't say that is improper at all. A rear fanged snakes is an ophistoglyph. I've never read that paper, but I'm assuming he's referring to the fact that some rear fanged snakes are evolving fangs that are becoming more and more front fanged....ie boomslang, and producing a toxin via Duvernoy's gland. The newest findings are showing that most colubrid's are producing some type of toxin, which was unheard of before recent studies. That doesn't mean that they aren't rear fanged anymore, or outdated, it just means that rear fanged snakes are evolving, whether it's venom, or fangs that are becoming more pronounced to proteroglyph's. Just just my .02. It's hard to give an answer without reading what he had to say.
|
| |
|
RE: Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on November 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its not an easy question to answer. The rear-fanged snakes are not a natural group, but rather there huge variation amongst the various non-front fanged snake families. Each family having at least one lineage with significantly enlarged fangs.
So as an informal term its fine but taxonomically its meaningless.
Cheers
Bryan
|
| |
|
RE: Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by MikeB on November 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have to admit that I find this topic fascinating, as one of my big interests is how various forms and functions have evolved among the snakes. If you subscribe to the fundamental principle of Darwinian evolution -- that adaptions which contribute to longevity and reproduction tend to be reinforced in future generations -- it seems pretty clear that the pinnacle of fang evolution is probably the front-fanged vipers, followed by the front-fanged elapids (the rattlesnake strike is just more efficient and safer for the snake than the "grab and chew" mode in, say, cobras), it would also seem that rear-fanged snakes in general are a few steps back up the evolutionary trail. Any adaption that allows a snake to effectively kill/overpower prey with minimal risk would naturally contribute to that species thriving and reproducing well. So one would naturally expect that the boomslang or mangrove or whatever would steadily evolve longer, more efficient fangs (meaning most likely more forward) and stronger, more toxic venom. The best test of an evolutionary adaption is if it arises independently in several forms and separate species, which seems to apply to eyes, antlers and of course venom. Seems that snake venom and fangs pass that test, which would point to, say, a coachwhip being more likely to eveolve fangs and venom in the future than a boa, since the former's mode of capturing and subduing prey already lends itself to venomous modes, while the latter's do not. Intriguing subject . . . I would bet that fossil precursers to the WDB or canebrake would show shorter, possibly more rear-set fangs and smaller venom glands.
|
| |
|
RE: Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on November 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keep in mind that each of these various snakes is perfect for the niche that they occupy. There is no 'superior'. Each form has its own benefits but also its own limitations. For example, the viper morphology is very efficient for an ambush feeding, fast striking form of prey capture. However, the trade off is loss of agility and the wide gape also makes burrowing predation inefficient. The strong, stubby fangs of the elapids are great for punching through scales. Howver, this is over kill for thin skinned prey such as geckos and frogs, so the enlarged rear teeth of the colubrine snakes is more than sufficient.
Its all variations on a theme. The right combinations for the right niche.
Cheers
B
|
| |
|
RE: Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by Jakob on February 8, 2015
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well only 8 years late - but just to clarify...
I think this is a misunderstanding, due to english not being my native language.
What I meant to say, was that some of the information about rearfanged (i.e. the use of the term Duvernoys gland) is no longer recognized as well as some species have been reclassified.
|
| |
|
RE: Rearfanged Snakes
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on February 11, 2015
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm torn on the subject of using the term "rear fanged". In my opinion, most of the confusion is caused be people who know very little about snakes (like reporters) picking up on the recent research on snakes assumed to be harmless actually producing something that could be classified as venom. They either miss or leave out to make the story more interesting, that they don't produce enough venom to be even noticeable to an animal as large as a small human. So a lot of non-herpers have "learned" from the news that corn snakes are venomous, rear fanged snakes. In my opinion, that is just wrong and should be corrected, but the chances of us getting that across to the average Joe are pretty slim. I don't mean that they won't understand, but they're not reading venooureptiles.org and Animal Planet seems not to have any interest in correcting the misconception.
So, maybe the pragmatic thing would be to come up with a new term for "dangerous-to-humans rear fanged" snakes. Maybe just the inevitable debate on the subject will help spread the word that snake venom is a more complex subject than you can understand from one sentence on the news...
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
