I also mentioned that is was great to cite other sources, and to give annodotal information, if labeled. I did not say, you did not do that. What I said was, you did not give data as to what you have seen, which I believe was the focus of the question. You did not mention if you had seen neonates then seen them again and at what distances. Which I believe was the question. Then we could gage if those distances were large or limited.



For instance, I/you all have different interpitations of what we say. Again for instance, My response was with neonates under 6 months of age and HMK's used two weeks as neonates. The word neonate includes both, so does hatchlings, young ones, etc. But HMK's difinition was more defining and with our experience, more limited. As he said, we shy away from messing with immediate newborns and the very young. Althought I remember a recent conversation on a rock where HMK mentioned it has not harmed the ones we recaptured!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahaha (but what about the ones we didn't recapture?) The point is, some information is better then no information. And it does include some risk, in reality, a high degree of added risk.



I don't know if you think about our conversations, but if you did, you would see that I am not throwing the whole ball of wax at you at once. But instead, weaning you along as you absorb and think about various things we show(both of us) and say. For instance, at first it was, they do or do not hibernate. Now we have moved to a point of some do and some may not. Even in your area. Along the way, we then understand, this fits snakes from where you live to the equal area in south america.



The first problem with you was your use of the word "snakes" as when you say that, that means all snakes. Then "snakes" in your area, which means all species and age groups. Then "snakes" referring to one species. Then lastly, what "snakes" are doing what, in your or any area.



In the recent past, your use of literature and sightings was fit into a paradigm of thinking. A confined handy way of thinking. How about when I ask you to question of what you saw or read, go out of your paradigm and ask the same questions. Like, how do your experiences add up, if you came from a paradigm that parts of the population do not hibernate. Could you change the way you think about your supporting evidence and have it support this new idea? Of course you can. You can in the same way you use it to support your original thoughts. The problem is, for you it doubles the amount of unanswered questions. So yes, I understand its difficult for you.



Now consider, I looked at snakes the same way you and Phil now look at them. The difference is, that was forty years ago. In the last few decades, I/we, have come to view and support snakes in a much different way. There is a simple reason for this, your method of simple hibernation leaves far to many exceptions. Even in any one population.



Your first and continued arguement was, our snakes are different, is very weak. The reason is, if they were that different, they would not be "snakes" How snakes differ in the world seems to be about type of habitat used coupled with, type of prey consumed, not using requiring a total different temp range. As mentioned, ours and yours, maintain cognitive mental abilities and functioning physical abilities at just above freezing. They also fail at the same maximum temps. Or at least they are so close as to make be different. What may be slightly different is behavior and how deep, how available, and how common are the places that support that. Just some turkey induced thoughts, FR

[ Show Entire Thread ]