>>>>You are correct. It is a hypothesis. It is also testable. One of the predictions is that in places where the habitat is inaccessible (and therefore not subject to human collecting), the snakes there should not be as "wily." Of course, you claim is that you have falsified my hypothesis because you see the same behavior in "remote locations." You are therefore equating a "remote" location with an inaccessible location. The fact that you were able to get there is also evidence that that location is not "inaccessible." Hence I am not convinced that you have falsified my hypothesis. Further, just because a location is remote does not necessarily mean that it has not been visited by collectors.

Ahh yes. Now you have reduced it to remote versus inaccessible as if a single collection attempt by a human at a remote locale would be sufficient to modify behavior forever. Yeah right! Care to split that hair further?


>>>>The fact that many wild zonata have injuries and scars is also evidence against aposematism and mimicry.

>>>>I believe your hypothesis is that the injuries and scars were incurred while the snakes were hiding within the rock crevices, and that the survivors of such attacks have learned through experience to retreat into deeper and more inaccessible crevices to escape predation. That may or may not be true. Perhaps you can provide more evidence to support that hypothesis. If the injuries were sustained while the snakes were out in the open, then your hypothesis would be disproven.

Not disproven since I am sure that that crevice any snake retreats to feels very secure after any attack whether or not it occurred at the edge of the crevice or away from the rock. After a lifetime of attacks, any adult has probably learned that exposing itself as little as possible is safer.
-----
Rick Staub

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]