My comments were in response to the segment of Rob's post I included in my reply, not to the microwave question so you shouldn't view the findings of the linked study in the context of microwaving rodents. In a natural setting, or even one involving feeding captive animals live prey, the proposed broad-spectrum sensing capability of loreal pits is interesting. Of course, prey animals do not endogenously produce visible light, but external light is reflected from their surface in a way that distinguishes their body profile from the surrounding environment. The data in the linked study suggest snakes with loreal pits may be able to detect this difference. Also, it is known that rodent urine reflects light in the ultraviolet range so the fact that UV frequencies seem to be detectable by loreal pits is also quite interesting because this may provide a way for these snakes to identify trails frequently used by traveling rodents.

But going back to the microwaved mouse, I don't think that the internal core is the only portion that warms when the animal is nuked. As I said in my reply to Matt below, microwaves preferentially heat water-containing areas. Therefore, I think a microwaved rodent would present a heterogeneous heat signature to loreal pits. This type of signature may in fact be closer to the natural heat signature of a rodent as compared to the uniform surface heating you would obtain with immersion in hot water or sunlight. Have a look at the microwaved burritos photo below to see what I mean by heterogeneous heat signature.

Of course, this is only of academic interest to someone responsible for the well being of a captive snake. If the snake prefers microwaved mice and is able to eat them safely, I say feed it microwaved mice.

WK

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]