I think you want to make the questions even more specific, as in:

For each species, you ask, for each year available,

1) how many females were "bred"? (paired with a male with the objective of producing eggs/babies)

2) how many of those females eventually laid?

3) how many of those that laid laid eggs none of which were fertile? average number of eggs in these clutches? range? (smallest, largest clutches) number of THESE females that retained any eggs (more than xx days, to distinguish merely "normal" delay in completing ovipositing VS true retention or eggbinding?)

4) how many laid eggs at least some of which were fertile? average number of eggs in these clutches? range? (smallest, largest clutches) number of THESE females that retained any eggs

5) how many laid eggs all of which were fertile? average number of eggs in these clutches? range? (smallest, largest clutches) number of THESE females that retained any eggs

You might also want to ask an additional question in each category to determine how many eggs were retained: there IS a difference between one egg left behind and a whole clutch being retained. And it might be--no, would be--meaningful info to determine the outcome of all those cases of retained eggs: eventually laid? after how long? eggs required manual expression by owner, vet or other caregiver? one or more eggs aspirated prior to being passed? eggs surgically removed?



Then you'd also want similar specificity regarding the housing & feeding. For each species and year, the respondent should tell the cage size (I'd base it on square footage of the base of the container, but someone else may have a better suggestion) and feeding, perhaps requiring some kind of weight of food per week as a ratio of each snake's weight. I know this seems hugely complicated, but otherwise the data's almost useless--"I feed several pups (pinks? crawlers? fuzzies?) each week (but how big is the female? (I have breeder hondo females ranging from 425 grams to 1000 grams, for example). Other than weighing some representative food items i don't know how there could be any even general significance to the data--i mean, herpers ESPECIALLY understand the pitfalls of language: "it was six feet long," being a good example of a statement that often proves quite inaccurate when compared to physical data. I can hardly advise callers about feeding, housing, the likelihood of breeding, etc., of snakes, if they can't give me a gram weight, because I've seen people's estimates so hugely off base. As I'm sure mine would be, if i didn't rely on measurement.



Anyway, I think this is all exciting stuff, but i also think that as we ponder how a questionaire should be designed to really produce any meaningful results, it's a lot bigger job than it might have seemed at first. But to do otherwise is merely to gather anecdotal information, and that's what is accomplished with the posts on the forum about single snakes, someone's experience with two snakes over many years, etc., etc. The conclusions expressed should really be expressed as hypotheses and nothing more. In that context, some interesting ideas have been expressed here, and once they can be tested, then we'll have really learned something useful. Until then, "fat" is not a meaningful descriptive term, nor is "big," or feeding "a lot" or "small" cages, etc!



Obviously everyone's contributions have stimulated a lot of thought on my part: Now you're all wishing you hadn't, huh?!



terry



These suggestions may all be reasons such a study is NOT practical at this time. But for a graduate student needing a topic that would genuinely produce results of potential consequence, it could be a great exercise.

[ Show Entire Thread ]