 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Jeff Schofield on March 23, 2003 at 19:01:25:
In Reply to: Re: Maybe a little misunderstanding - yes indeed. posted by Agalinis on March 23, 2003 at 17:02:51:
You confirmed my statements about genetics but didnt bother to dwell on it. You cited 2 animals that still havent made it to the 6' mark never mind beyond..as was my claim. And anyone who knows me from this or other forums knows I dont have to prove my facts any more than anyone else has to...and its not my animal to thaw out! Let me align your site a little more...
The evolution of snake-eating snakes has proven to be the most effiecient in nature. There is enough evidence to conclude from Cobras(king),kings,nd other taxa that the largest examples all show a particular propensity toward snake-eating. While most kings do "graduate" to eating more of a rodent diet its these exceptions,the snake eaters, that get particularly big. Six feet isnt "particularly big" for a king. It is an impressive animal only compared to most 4-5'ers that are kept in captivity. Truely, a parasite load SHOULD slow these animals down but maybe its a particular immunity or digestive process that lets these BIG animals keep their robust appetites. Maybe they are sterile(they are seemingly all males)and that the energy normally devoted to reproduction is also channeled into growth. I had what I thought was one of these special snakes. Of the hundreds of chain king babies I resold for Chuck I held back one that before BREAKING a 10 gallon to get out was 4.5' at only 9 months of age. He ate everything. Rats,mice,but showed a particular propensity for snakes. Bottom line, studies can only be done AFTER a snake has made it to the 7' mark....I suggest taking a good look at the biggest colubrids(ex.Indigos) around the world. They are all snake-eaters. Coincidence? A good arguement,thanks,Jeff
