 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by David L. Martin on July 18, 2002 at 19:23:28:
In Reply to: I think he just did! posted by steve jones on July 18, 2002 at 18:13:08:
Well, Steve, not being a native Texan, I am
perhaps overstepping myself, but I don't think
it's too unfair to suggest that Texans tend to
glorify the size of almost everything in their
state. The western diamondback remains an
enduring symbol of the West generally, and
Texas in particular. One would be amazed if
there weren't exaggerations of its size. I
have already indicated that many ranchers in
S Texas seem to think that a 7+ foot atrox is
nothing particularly noteworthy. I assure you
it is noteworthy to me, having lived in S Texas
for 7 years and not seen a wild one anywhere near that
size. There is also a great deal of loose talk
about 8-, 9-, and even 10-footers. On more than
one occasion I have had people bring me
rattlesnakes that they were certain were 8 feet
long, and didn't think that was anything
record-breaking, but wanted to show me the snake
nevertheless. When measured, none of them
turned out to be more than 5½ feet (although, as
I have indicated, I have seen one wild atrox at
6+ feet). I think most people have little idea
how truly massive an 8-foot rattlesnake would
be. Klauber cited Motl as saying that he had
caught atrox up to 8½ feet, yet his largest
weight was a mere 8½ pounds.
But when it comes to atrox, particularly big
ones, perhaps no one comes to mind as strongly
as W.A. "Snake" King. It is remarkable to me
how poorly he is known now in Brownsville,
considering what a fixture he was for 50 years.
In 1937 he wrote to Klauber and told him that he
had been in the snake business for over 34 years,
and the largest atrox he had measured was
7 feet 5 inches (rattle excluded). Thirteen
years later, in 1950, he wrote Klauber again and
told him that in 1948 he measured an atrox at
7 feet 8 inches. It is interesting that he
wrote that "we do record the larger specimens
and had over 50 collected last year in excess
of 6 feet, and 12 that were 7 feet long." This
seems rather remarkable. He collected 12
7+ footers in a single year, yet in over 45 years
his largest snake was only 7 feet 8 inches and
his second largest only 7 feet 5 inches? It
makes me wonder.
In any case, I have to say it is a bit frustrating
dealing with a local populace that often seems
to assume that any rattlesnake under 10 feet is
rather unexceptional. The result is that they
tend not to submit specimens, dead or alive, to
document the high extremes.
