These recent conversations have been wonderful. The problem is understanding where information comes from.

Most of us are prejudiced and use information that is not appropriate for what we are using it for. Yes, so do I. In my case, I am very sensitive to creating information based of LACK of data. That is, we did not see it, so it does not happen. In fact, we did not see it, means, we did not see it. But that does not stop many, no not many, most biologists from writing about stuff they did not see.

Its common for biologists to use the Chi square(Kai) as a mathimatical predicter of trends or movements. So they take one event and turn that event into thousands, not by observation, but by math. Its a shortcut so to speak, you do not have to actually find what they do, you can predict what they do.

The problem with Chi square is, you must plot in the unknowns. Unfortunately, one restriction is, the objects cannot attract or repell eachother. They must be random. So they call the movements of reptiles random. They do so not by what they see the animals doing, but because their math requires it.

Instead of changing the Chi formula to fit animals, they change the animals to fit the Chi square.

I am sure we can all agree that reptiles are not random in their movements, in fact, very much the opposite. Everything they do is prejudiced by instinct, hormones and learned behavior. Random does not enter the picture.

Then the problem becomes confusing, you could plot the variables into the Chi square, but you must understand what those are. You see the problem, we don't understand the variables. But we still plot away.

So what we have is, biologists are not people who are truely interested in the behavoir of the animals, but people that have tools and they are going to use them.

How that works here is obvious. In order to understand what reproductive snakes do in nature, you really must see them repeatedly in reproductive mode. Yet, nice folks like Tony are basing their thoughts(theory) on a kingsnake under a board, then applying all manner of possible behaviors to that snake. Yes, you can do that and most do, but what good does that do them. Then what good is that information when they tell others their belief is valid over someone with actual observations.

Tony is actually thinking in a positive way, but he must go back to school(nature) and find the snakes doing what is in question. Again, you see the problem, most do not understand how to find snakes doing anything, muchless breeding and nesting and such. Its a great day when you find one feeding.

Next subject, Take your cages, they are beautiful, but have little to do with how a pyro works. Therefore, how you use temps becomes useless. You must offer what the snake understands, then you can judge what they do.

An example, my friend works at a local shop, he wants to make retes boards that they can sell. We had some talks, he build a set for his albino diamondback. Guess what, that snake uses the set and uses it well. But, the boards are tight and the snake recognizes how to use it.

In the case of animals, you have to fit the animal, not just make a tool. An example, if you set your artificial half rocks with a door out in nature, you would never find a pyro using them. But you could find a rattlesnake. The reason is pyros have thin skin, and do not expose themselves to air movement. Rattlesnakes have thick skin and are not afraid to spend some time in open air.

Did I ask you to put a piece of meat on top your hot spot. leave it there and see what happens to it. Then think about why your snake will not use it, or use it as little as possible.

Good luck, Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]