 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by regalringneck on October 01, 2002 at 22:26:52:
In Reply to: OK RINGNECK do good on your word, lets hear it posted by ZPD on September 30, 2002 at 23:01:10:
I'd like to think this is more than my tuppence...but suffice 2 say; several of the other lads are on target w/ concepts such as sensory overload/limited air movement/typically dead prey/ etc.
Not discussed thus far is the concept of habituation; whereby a critter relates a fixed response to a predictable stimulous (Pavlovs dog). This is the bane of boid keepers where the nastys connect movement of their cage &/or fresh air to pending feeding & lash out at the first offering. This habituation response is why we must be careful w/ captive feeding trials & extending these observations to wild specimens. I suspect this response explains my queen getulus wrapped up her hapless mate this past spring. Always handle your favorite snakes often between feedings!
Next might be considered; the idea that most serpents kill much of their prey in burrows where snakes are the consumate predator; charging forward into the blackness w/ mouth wide open, a scent cloud in front,IR-heat sensors locked on...pretty tough to miss in a cramped tunnel I'd guess???
Despite their obvious visual acuity, the guardians do have a large tongue & use it constantly, so they've got both strategies working for them.
I did watch a coachwhip nail a running whiptail lizard I flushed in the wild clearly by visual inputs alone, so this is clearly a stand alone foraging strategy for some spps..
The speed my ms. cribo will nail a live mouse is incredible.
So in trying to keep this brief, I'd say the history of a captive specimen will have a substantial effect its behavior towards its prey.
C&B;jg
:Give us your 2cents, your well supported hypothesis.
