|
1-10 of 16 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was looking for snakes this morning and started thinking about the fact that canebrake rattlesnakes often will not rattle, even when disturbed. I begain wondering why and in a moment of creativity, I came up with a theory.(TO some it may be a stupid theory, but I still thought that I might further explain.)
My theory is that canebrakes use their bright colors to frighten a possible threat. Here are a few things that made me come up with this theory and before I go on I would like to note that I am refering to the timber and canebrake rattlesnakes as seperate species just because it is less confusing.
1.It seem that the further away the species Crotalus horridus gets from the rocky outcrops of the appalachians, the lighter in color it gets. It have also heard that the horridus from the more northern areas tend to rattle more. I think that as horridus gets closer to the coastal plains regions, it relies on its color more to deter predators.
2.I have noticed that the canebrake has a distinctive rust colored stripe running the length of its dorsal side and it is usually found coiled,remaining completely motionless. We all know how it feels to be walking and as soon as we see the canebrake we immediatly freeze and the first thing we notice is its coloration. I think that it uses the coloration to startle anything that happens to see it and hope that it will leave it alone, that is why I think that the canebrake rattler doesnt rattle as often.
I know that this is a stupid theory, and I dont have enough "proof" to justify my theory, but it is something to think about. Thanks for reading. Jeremy.
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeremy: You have made some interesting observations about the behavior and coloration / pattern of ``canebrake`` color phase rattlesnakes.
When these snakes first developed rattles, is is
thought by some that it was to help them avoid being trampled by large grazing animals like bison that once ranged over large areas of this country.
It could be that over time the need / usefulness for a rattle has become less, and that snakes that do not rattle have a survival advantage over ones that do, because the major predator of these snakes had changed to man.
If this is the case, we might see the rattle slowly become smaller and finally dissappear entirely, as has happened to one population of rattlesnake found on an island off of the California coast.
As far as the ``timber`` phase rattling more, perhaps it is because it lives mostly on rocks, and since rocks transfer vibrations better than soil, these snakes would sense the vibrations and perhaps get disturbed more readily when someone or something approached accross the rocks. In this case, a lot of predators and men would probably simply go around the area where the buzzing was coming from to avoid the snake. So perhaps the rattle still serves a purpose for rock outcrop dwelling snakes.
Your observations on the ``reddish stripe`` on the canebrake is interesting, as this could possibly be some kind of ``threat`` display that would possibly make the snake visible to a human to keep him from stepping on the snake, but still allow the snake to remain hidden by its cryptic coloration from food items. As the stripe can be best observed from above, it clearly would be seen by humans, bears, hawks, and coyoties, and other animals taller than the snake, but would probably not be seen by rodents at ground level with the snake. Sounds like something that needs more looking into.
It is also interesting that you see the overall brite coloration as be a possible threat display. For humans who see in color, we can readily see the colors of a canebrake and they do tend to stand out. Many animals have only black and white vision, and might not hardly see the snake at all once it was reduced to shades of black, white, and grey.
I believe that there are several good ideas in your theory that should be looked into more. Thanks for bringing it up. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this.
And not just concerning canebrakes, but many other snakes. The idea that the red dorsal stripe might be some kind of warning meant to be seen by animals taller than the snake makes a lot of sense. And a lot of the worlds snakes have some form of dorsal stripe. These stripes do not usually add to the camaflauge of the snake or its cryptic coloration, so could very well serve as some kind of flash warning.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by ALA_herp31 on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeremy, you know that theory dose make a lot of sense, I have also noticed the lake of Rattling that you reefer to. Canebrakes seem too really a lot on their size “in my opinion”. Have you also noticed that, larger Canebrakes seem to Rattle less than Young ones? This makes me think they have less fear, than Young Snakes. Keep looking at this theory you have come up with, study the Snakes a little more and keep notes of how each individual reacts to your approaching it. Good luck, you could be on to something here. ...................Be safe ya’ll, Happy Herping : Wally
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by Rabies on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Have humans been on this planet long enough so that animals have had the time to evolve their threat displays/colouration to include human interaction? Human involvement in nature is drastic and normally tends to cause disatrous changes in the environment over a short period of time not allowing wildlife to adapt so quickly. Just my thoughts, on an interesting observation.
John
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Humans have been around long enough to possibly kill the rattlesnakes that rattled, and not kill the silent ones that were not seen or heard. This could have caused the surviving snakes that had the ``quiet`` habit to become the ones that passed along their genes, and their ``quiet`` nature to their offspring. This is not exactly evolution, it is more of a survival of the fittest thing. Humans have been messing around in this snakes range for at least 20,000 years, which is a fairly long time.
We know that when humans have cut forests, the native moths that were black and matched the pine tree bark died out, but the lighter colored of the same moths survived, as they could hide against rocks and brush. So in this case, man directly changed the whole population of moth to a brown / grey color, by eliminating the hiding places for the black moths by cuttin the trees. Again, is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? Hard to say.
But I do think there are many examples of man causing an animal population to change / adapt because of man`s actions. JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Also, if I remember corredtly, the population of ``Mute`` rattlesnakes on Catilina Island have only been there for about 40,000 years, as that is how old the island is. They are supposed to have lost their rattle due to the fact that their major prey was birds, and the birds were very able to hear the rattle and excape. JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by foxhunter on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very Interesting topic..one that I have some experience with..And I completely fall into the camp that snakes that rattle less...have lived to breed ..at least in the areas of the S.E that are densely populated by people....not a long term evolutionary process but a great example of Darwins..theory..at least the Survival of the fittest. And A canebrake that lies un-detected..while field worker-surveyor..farm-hand deer-hunter..etc..passes..is a snake that lives another day..and whose genes carry on ...the process is simple ..and the results at least in my experiernce speak for themself..
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by Rabies on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd have to disagree on one point. I'd say humans have only interfered with snakes over the past couple of centuries, more so the last century. Before that contact was purley through religion, harvesting, hunting, normal daily activities etc. As with the rattleless rattler, the islands are 40,000 yrs old, but did the rattler lose its rattle before then?
Now we are talking about a snake that has had problems with humans for approx the past 100yrs? Through hunting, habitat destroyed for agriculture and later property development.
John
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on October 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John: I will stick to my original idea that peoples in North America have been messing with rattlesnakes for a long, long time, probably the whole 20,000 years they have lived here, and have had the chance to change and influence the species.
What is not well known is that before the settlers from Europe arrived to this country to spread their killing diseases such as smallpox, there thrived a huge population of Native Americans that had been living here for thousands of years. These peoples had built cities, and had thousands of acres of land in cultivation. Many of them had what could have been described as advanced cultures. They had built towns larger than Paris, they had running water into some of the towns, and cobble streets. There were vast trade connections among the various tribes. As these Native peoples cleared the lands for agriculture, they often used fires to burn off vast, vast areas. This surely would have had an influence on the wildlife, including the snakes. There is no doubt that a Native American who encountered a rattlesnake in his corn field at that time would have killed it, and probably taken it home and eaten it, and used its skin for leather, and its vertebra for a neckless. I am sure the Native American reconized the potential danger to his family and livestock from the rattlesnake, and did not want it around, just as todays farmers and homeowners do. So, I would suggest that venomous snakes were killed by Native Peoples just as readily as they now are by others.
There is a huge amount of evidence that the Native Peoples modified the US habitats. A large amount of the open land that the early White folks found Bison grazing on was only open land because the Native Peoples had burned that land for years to clear it out. The idea of a Pristine Wilderness is just false.
The disease of the Europeans wiped out over 90% of the Native Peoples, so folks like the Pilgrims arrived not at a wilderness, but at a cemetery.
There is an excellent book called: ``1491:New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus`` by Charles Mann, that explains how the North American continent was changed by Native Peoples far better than I ever could.
So, anyway, man has been messing with the stuff here for a long, long time. And after the new settlers killed off the Natives, they started their own agricultural conquest of vast areas. They had rice plantations, cotton plantations, Hemp, Millett, Sugar Cane, on, and on, and on. I can tell you this, when they ran into a rattlesnake, they killed it. And the rattlesnakes that they did not see or hear, lived to breed, and perhaps produce more quiet natured rattlesnakes. Sure, they ran into rattlesnakes through stuff like normal daily activities, but they also set fire to and burned tens of thousands of acres so that they could be used for agriculture. Just as the Native Americans had done before, and just as the peoples of the Rain Forest are doing to this day.
Now as far as the rattleless rattlesnake, the scientists say the snake made it to the islands with rattles intact, and over a few thousand years lost them, due to natural selection for the ones that were best at capturing food. Those happened to be the quitest ones, and the noisey ones died out. Eventually, having a rattle became negative thing for these snakes survival, and they eventually lost the rattle. And it all happened in a relativly short time from a geologic standpoint.
It does not take millions of years for evolution to change a wildlife population, there can be major changes in hundreds or thousands of years. It is more based on natural selection, and those animals having the charistics that makes them less likely to be killed being the ones to breed their charistics to the next generation. JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: my canebrake rattling theory
|
Reply
|
|
by bush_viper17 on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yeah, the "survival of the fittest" does seem to make more sense. Its weird though, that sometimes you can throuroghly disturb a horridus and it still not rattle. Matter of fact, the last horridus I found about a month ago, didnt rattle the whole time. We found it under a rock, hooked it out,stood around it while occasionally manuevering it with a hook and then let it go after about 10 minutes, the whole time we heard nothing from the snake, not even a quick rattle(It was my friend and I, a guy and his wife and their dog that was in the proximity of the snake.) I have noticed this a few other times with different horridus. Unfortunately, I dont really know too much about horridus behavior because I have only worked with the local ones around my area. Thanks for reading and replying.
|
| |
|
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.
|
