>>Hiya Rick and fellow hair-splitter,
>>
>>Simply stated, I agree that behavioral modification is at work when there is constant threat. A one time incident, likely not. However, let's take Mt. Laguna as an example. Pillaged and raped for decades. >>

The Laguna Mountains is accessible habitat, but where is the evidence that it has been "pillaged and raped" for decades? Mitch Mulks found dozens of them in an afternoon recently, as he discussed in his now defunct web site.

>>Given the limited expanse of some areas of outcrops that pulchra seem to almost solely occupy (as opposed to multicincta and multifasciata for example), the more human interruption occurs the more affected those populations seemingly will be. >>

Have you ever been to the Laguna Mountains? There are lots of rockcrops there.

>>The poor buggers have not much further expanse, and inevitably (and maybe only Rick can more confidently say this) they may HAVE to utilize alternative means for shelter/brumation/oviposition/etc.etc. Granted, I have not spent much z time in the field, and in comparison to Rick, hardly any at all.>>

There are localities where rock outcrops are far less numerous than in the Laguna Mountains. Take, for example, Mt. Hamilton near San Jose.

>>BUT, behaviorally it makes sense. And not only behavior modification, which technically is subsequent to the following factor: imprinting. Largely at work with any species given the amount of stress.>>

Imprinting is a technical term in behavioral biology. Be careful when you use it when describing animal behavior. Young birds are programmed by their genes to be imprinted on the first living creatures they see, which in the wild is almost invariably their parents, instead of being programmed genetically to recognize only their own species by morphology or sounds or behavior as their parent. If young birds see humans soon after hatching, they would then be imprinted upon humans and treat humans as their parents. This aspect of bird behavior makes it possible, for example, for human researchers to raise and then teach endangered whooping cranes to migrate.

Parental care is non-existent in most snakes, so imprinting is not applicable. I think you mean learning when you used your term "imprinting." Yes, snakes can learn but there is no evidence they have the ability to be "imprinted."

>>SO, shall we consider generationally how long it would take for the result of such stress to become innate? 7 generations? 10? No one really knows, and I don't think any university funding would last long to determine that answer.>>

Sorry sir, learned behavior cannot be passed on to future generations. Any student of evolutionary biology can tell you that. whatever a snake may learn during its life time, that wisdom becomes lost when the snake dies.

Natural selection only acts on existing, heritable traits. If a trait is acquired through learning, it can indeed be passed along to future generations as cultural behavior, not as innate behavior. Since snakes do not teach their young, cultural transmission of learned behavior can also be ruled out.

>>However it makes sense. Try smacking a dog a few times when he goes near you...and report back what happens.>>

That depends on the type of dog it is. Smack the wrong one, and you can end up in the hospital. LOL

>>The same would be for a snake, maybe a little longer given the circumstances, but imprinting works almost the same whether it be Home sapien, Canus familiaris, or Lampropeltis zonata.>>

Again, imprinting is a technical term with specific meaning in behavioral biology. Don't abuse it or substitute it for learning.

>>Time to go find a crack to crawl into and take siesta . . .

Hope you are successful.

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