Stimi questions

[GBWhite]

Each to their own Mike. I think we've been down this path before and as I've said in the past we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not sure who you directed your comment about reading Wikipedia to understand the meaning anthropomorphism, but as I'm sure you're aware it's been around a lot longer than Wikipedia has existed. It comes down to a person's interpretation of the term and as far as I'm concerned the post I referred to smacks of it. I read the Holtzman paper ages ago and I believe it was poorly undertaken and didn't prove a thing. Like the guy in the video alludes it didn't confirm snakes had any level of intelligence and as far as learning went it doesn't quantify if the snakes learn't to follow the coloured arrows or if they were simply instinctively following scent trails. I don't have a lot of confidence in what the girl states in the video either, I noticed that as said she could touch the snakes head and went to do so it instinctively pulled out of her hand. He refers to the way Titan reacted differently to him than Chelsie then asks, "Is that intelligence or just a chemical que?" He also makes note that snakes have poor eye sight and rely primarily on their sense of smell and asks "Is a person putting off a particular chemical que and the response they are getting from that and dealing with that person's particular chemical que is what they are going after?" All in all he doesn't seem to be convinced that snakes have any level of intelligence either. As I've also asked before, "Are snakes smart and do snakes have a certain level of intelligence or do they react instinctively based on chemical ques? No one will ever know until comprehensive studies are undertaken to prove it one way or the other.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Yes George we did agree to disagree. I know better than to try and convince you! Lol. The information that was presented was for others, such as @Bumkin and @gemsmidz, to read/view and make up their own minds.

There were some statements in your reply that need to be addressed as they are not reflective of what was actually done. The article on Holtzmans research actually staes: "Actually, one of the interesting findings from our studies is that snakes use vision at all in locating places," says Holtzman. "They don't just rely on the chemical cues picked up by flicking their tongues out, as many snake biologists assume." And: “…snakes are readily taught to find the exits […] and then recall how to use cues to find them in successive trials.” Following scent trails was removed as a factor by using different boxes for successive trials, identical other than a different positioning of the escape hole and its cues (visual + tactile only). This negates your statement that the Holztman research “…doesn't quantify if the snakes learn't to follow the coloured arrows or if they were simply instinctively following scent trails”. One is therefore given to also question the veracity of your assertion that the Holtzman et al research “was poorly undertaken and didn't prove a thing.”

 

[gemsmidz]

Thank you for acknowledging my post in the nature it was intended and for interpreting in kind.
Bit of lateral thinking goes a long way. Lol
I look forward to your future posts. Cheers.

While the meaning of the term anthropomorphism may be known (via Wikipedia), it is still being used far too often incorrectly. There is nothing anthropomorphic about the statements made here, bar one. That statement is: “… they are happy to come out and say hullo”. No. Use of the word “happy” here is NOT an example. When used with the infinitive “to” after it, the term simple means “willing”. (Oxford dictionary - meaning 1.3 as an adjective).

The phrase to “say hullo” is clearly a figure of speech, as snakes cannot talk. So that allows a little leeway in interpretation. How you as a reader interprets this is no doubt dependent on your perspective in this discussion. Greeting behaviour between animals and their owners is very common and is seen in social animals, including invertebrates. Clearly this is not exclusively a human trait and so does not qualify as anthropomorphism.

“My female is about 20 months old now and she actively seeks my attention at the glass.” This IS exactly what happens. Why does a snake in the wild freeze when it thinks there is a predator/threat nearby? It instinctively knows that movement will attract attention to itself and therefore it remains motionless, in hope of avoiding detection. So what’s so hard to understand about a snake deliberately moving around at the front of its cage to attract its keeper’s attention? I have observed this behaviour and it clearly differs from a snake’s normal cruising of its enclosure when it unaware there is someone present.

As for proving a snake just wants to escape by leaving the door open - trying leaving the gate open for the dog or the cage door open for the parrot. This proves nothing. I might add, if the snake really just wanted to ‘escape’ in the genuine meaning of the word, then it would head straight for the floor and not its keeper’s arm.

Intelligence is the other term that is problematic in these discussions. It used as if there is only one level thereof. Either an organism is intelligent or it’s not. Yet we all know that intelligence varies hugely among humans. Why then do we not acknowledge a much greater range of levels of intelligence when talking about other species?

Can snakes learn? Have a read of this: http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/bcs/snake.htm. The following Brian Barczyk video is well worth watching: .

 

[GBWhite]

"Actually, one of the interesting findings from our studies is that snakes use vision at all in locating places," says Holtzman. "They don't just rely on the chemical cues picked up by flicking their tongues out, as many snake biologists assume."[/I] And: “…snakes are readily taught to find the exits […] and then recall how to use cues to find them in successive trials.” Following scent trails was removed as a factor by using different boxes for successive trials, identical other than a different positioning of the escape hole and its cues (visual + tactile only). This negates your statement that the Holztman research “…doesn't quantify if the snakes learn't to follow the coloured arrows or if they were simply instinctively following scent trails”. One is therefore given to also question the veracity of your assertion that the Holtzman et al research “was poorly undertaken and didn't prove a thing.”

He didn't use separate boxes for each test Mike. I've just gone back over his paper. He used the same black coloured arena 183cm in diameter and 61cm high over a wooden floor which was painted black for all tests (3 per day x 4 days) with 80 minute intervals between each test each day. After each test he only used soap and water as a means to attempt to clean away any chemical clues and anyone experienced with keeping snakes knows that the use of just soap and water is a poor choice of cleaning medium to remove snake scent. This negates your statement that "Following scent trails was removed as a factor by using boxes for successive trials". The results were based on the time it took each snake reach the escape point plus the distance traveled to reach the escape point which considering the method and apparatus used mean SFA in the long run. As you're aware snakes have an incredible sense of smell that they have relied upon to serve them successfully for thousands and thousands of years and have, just like dogs (and just maybe even better than dogs) the undeniable ability to detect scent trails from a microscopic chemical clue. All this study did was to show that snakes don't just wander about aimlessly.

I see that you are quoting from an article which quotes Holzeman relating to his findings in his original paper. I doubt if you'd find the bloke saying anything less than positive about the outcome. How many academic papers does one come across that prove a study based on a hypothesis negative? What you've quoted would have far more credibility if it came from someone other than the lead author. The result of this study is questionable and unclear. As far as I'm concerned the manner in which the study was undertaken didn't actually confirm that snakes were "smart" or were capable of being "taught" anything.

 

[Sdaji]

Snake newbie: Is it okay if I handle my snake?

APS: RAAWWGHGHGH!!! F U!!! ARHGHGHGH!!!! DIE!!! #*21948732#(#&*#%(@@@@#%(!*!@%^! PICKLE #&*2#%@(#%@ I HATE YOU ALL!!! DON"T REEMBER WHAT WE TALK ABOUT BUT I ANGRY!!!!! OFF TOPIC ANGER!!! $%&*(@#&%*(@# dog hAir! $*(&(#@%#

 

[Bl69aze]

Snake newbie: Is it okay if I handle my snake?

APS: RAAWWGHGHGH!!! F U!!! ARHGHGHGH!!!! DIE!!! #*21948732#(#&*#%(@@@@#%(!*!@%^! PICKLE #&*2#%@(#%@ I HATE YOU ALL!!! DON"T REEMBER WHAT WE TALK ABOUT BUT I ANGRY!!!!! OFF TOPIC ANGER!!! $%&*(@#&%*(@# dog hAir! $*(&(#@%#

It’s no joke! Your lil friend could get stressed and it’s heart will blow up!!