 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by daveboyle on March 24, 2003 at 12:46:13:
In Reply to: Something we may be overlooking here..... posted by chrish on March 24, 2003 at 11:35:22:
my two cents of this good discussion...
-I agree size is determined by all the things that everyone has been mentioning: genes, frequency and quality of feeding, health,etc.
-in regard to the largest snakes being snake eaters, consider this: king cobras and indigos are snake eating specialists living in low population densities that do not have competition for prey items.When there is no competition for resources a species will be able to develop a larger body size based on its genetics. Note that you cannot have a dense population of large king cobras or large indigos-OR introduce a direct competitor that also feeds only on snakes-there are not enough resources to maintain large bodied individuals.Check out the studies that show these animals need a huge home range-its because of resources. Find a good population ecology text, and go out and test it! And what about the snake species they feed upon, what are they eating? Mice and rats are in the equation somewhere and they are directly linked to the issue of a quality diet (you are what your prey eats). How about pines and bulls? They occupy the same/similar habitat as indigos(upland sandy scrub/pine) though typically north and they get to be 8' on a rodent diet. How? genes and specialization in a fossorial niche. It could be that there ARE king populations that follow the same model that specialize in eating snakes but they get so big in the wild because of genes and competitive circumstances, not just because of what the prey item is .
-I didn't quite follow the "physics" of digestion that snakes are better than rodents. Can someone elaborate?
-Also, decomposition doesn't occur in the digestive tract, or at least isn't supposed to. That will kill your snake. Digestion breaks down foodstuff using enzymes and pH.
good topic.
-dave
