Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What weight in grams do experienced zonata breeders consider to be the minimum for breeding? I was watching Rick Staub's video on the field herp forum and was suprised to hear refer as adults animals only weighing betwwen 80-90 grams.
I have a pair of 06 greenhorns that are over 180 grams which seem pleny big, but my pair of zonata zonata are only about 70 grams and look small for breeding. I understand the subspecies may also cause the answer to vary somewhat. Thanks

Greenhorn animals can get very large; larger than many other zonata pops. Generally 50 grams is about where we have seen females reach maturity. Lzz can go smaller down to 40 g at least.

When I said 70-80 g that was for wild zonata. Captive snakes get much larger much faster. Wild snakes breed about every other season and they lose mass during egg laying years. It takes an extra season to regain sufficient mass to breed again. No one is offering fat mouse fuzzies ad lib. A wild female that is regularly laying every other year is probably growing at a very slow rate overall so it takes her many years to reach 100 g. Older females are also wily so you just do not find them as often and when you do they are way back in a totally inaccessible crevice. Laughing no doubt!

-----
Rick Staub

Thanks for the reply, Rick, it makes sense. On another note, I put my Greenhorns together last night and they locked up despite the fact neither animal has shed yet since coming out of brumation. My pyros and graybands never were willing breeders in the past until the female had shed at least one time.
So will she shed just once before laying or probably twice?

She will shed 2-14 days before laying eggs. All other molting events are optional.
-----
Rick Staub

If you're trying to breed zonata, you need to put the male in with the female as soon as they are warmed up from hibernation. It does not matter if they have shed. Some will start hooking up immediately. It just depends on the animal, but you do not want to miss the females cycle. Sometimes the female will freak out when introduced with the male. In that case, I take the male out and try again in a few days. Sometimes though, they will hook up so you wanna make sure the male is with her throughout the first month after being warmed up.
Juarez Wonders

Thanks for the replys. Do you leave them together for several weeks or do you separate them and reintroduce them every couple days? I know people do it both ways with other kings, with some being worried one will eat the other.

I am pretty new to this breeding game myself but I left my knoblochi together for breeding. They are pretty close in size and I watched them pretty close for a while. One piece of advice I can offer you is that if you keep them together make sure you seperate them for feeding. I was feeding my female a mouse when she missed the mouse and grabbed the closest moving object instead---the male's head. She started swallowing as well. I grabbed her by the neck and she opened up and he pulled his head out of her mouth. She then found the mouse and ate it while he waited for her to finish and then bred her again.

>>Greenhorn animals can get very large; larger than many other zonata pops. Generally 50 grams is about where we have seen females reach maturity. Lzz can go smaller down to 40 g at least.
>>
>>When I said 70-80 g that was for wild zonata. Captive snakes get much larger much faster. Wild snakes breed about every other season and they lose mass during egg laying years. It takes an extra season to regain sufficient mass to breed again. No one is offering fat mouse fuzzies ad lib. A wild female that is regularly laying every other year is probably growing at a very slow rate overall so it takes her many years to reach 100 g. Older females are also wily so you just do not find them as often and when you do they are way back in a totally inaccessible crevice. Laughing no doubt!
>>
>>-----
>>Rick Staub

It is natural selection at work here. L. zonata has been collected so relentlessly that only those that stay way back in the most inaccessible crevices can continue to stay in the wild. The less "wily" ones are spending their lives inside cages. LOL.

No doubt natural selection is at work, but certainly millions of years of skunks, racoons, fox, and other critters attempting to extract and eat them far exceeds the selection from the past 30 years by humans across a fraction of their total range. "Relentlessly" is an exaggeration when you examine the total acreage that they inhabit and it accessibility.

>>
>>It is natural selection at work here. L. zonata has been collected so relentlessly that only those that stay way back in the most inaccessible crevices can continue to stay in the wild. The less "wily" ones are spending their lives inside cages. LOL.
-----
Rick Staub

>>No doubt natural selection is at work, but certainly millions of years of skunks, racoons, fox, and other critters attempting to extract and eat them far exceeds the selection from the past 30 years by humans across a fraction of their total range. "Relentlessly" is an exaggeration when you examine the total acreage that they inhabit and it accessibility. >>

Certainly predators do take their share of L. zonata, I would be the first to agree with that, since I have never bought into the myth that the tricolor pattern is aposematic or the result of coral snake mimicry.

However, most predators are opportunistic, and they would not zero in on L. zonata as prey, unlike human collectors. In fact, I would argue that most predators would even fail to see L. zonata when it is out in the open, owing to the cryptic, disruptive coloration of L. zonata while it is on the woodland floor. Predators eat what they can find, and they would definitely not wait outside of the L. zonata rock crevices for hours or even tens of minutes in order to eat one. OTOH, human collectors who have figured out where to find L. zonata are much more determined and persistent, not to mention more effective. It is true that much of L. zonata's range is inaccessible, but where it is accessible, human collectors can be an important factor in shaping L. zonata behavior, and L. zonata is not the only species that has altered its behavior because of humans. Therefore the habit of the older, more "wily" snakes to retreat into the deepest, most inaccessible crevices can only be the result of natural selection brought on by human collectors, but not the result of predation.

>>>>It is true that much of L. zonata's range is inaccessible, but where it is accessible, human collectors can be an important factor in shaping L. zonata behavior, and L. zonata is not the only species that has altered its behavior because of humans.

Totally agree.

>>>>Therefore the habit of the older, more "wily" snakes to retreat into the deepest, most inaccessible crevices can only be the result of natural selection brought on by human collectors, but not the result of predation.

ONLY?? That is pretty absolute for a hypothesis you just thought up in your head. Does not fit though with observations that large adults and especially the females are "wily" even in remote locations with no evidence of collection pressure. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of zonata with injuries and scarring no doubt from attacks they escaped.

-----
Rick Staub

>>>>>>Therefore the habit of the older, more "wily" snakes to retreat into the deepest, most inaccessible crevices can only be the result of natural selection brought on by human collectors, but not the result of predation.>>

>>ONLY?? That is pretty absolute for a hypothesis you just thought up in your head. Does not fit though with observations that large adults and especially the females are "wily" even in remote locations with no evidence of collection pressure. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of zonata with injuries and scarring no doubt from attacks they escaped.
>>
>>
>>-----
>>Rick Staub

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.

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. Perhaps it was musk that enabled L. zonata to escape predation. Or perhaps it was its bite? L. zonata is known to bite when picked up in the wild. While the bite may not deter a human collector, it may be effective against some predators. A skunk that is bitten on the nose, for example, may let the snake go unharmed.

>>>>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

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

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

" alt="Image">
-----
Jerry Kruse

"Rrrighttttt . . ." -- Dr. Evil

>>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.

I liked your comment on the dog -- LOL.

Agreed that behavior cannot be passed on generationally as there are no parental behaviors in such creatures. But over verrrry long periods of time, how do you/we know that as an empirical fact through imprinting? We don't. But we can hypothesize, etc etc. Just maybe and, naturally, varied schools of thought arise.

I really didnt mean imprinting factually passing on generationally, but I really did mean it for the snake-in-question. So yes, throughout its lifetime, SURE, I think it is most reasonable to consider that it can happen over a long period of time, but as Rick stated, not in just one swoop down on an outcrop.

And no, never been to Laguna.....yet. BUT, I have found zonata in Topanaga Canyon looong ago as an early adolescent when I live in Los Angeles. But I do read alot, however, and do find varied opinions. I have, however, been to many southeast Asian countries and have consumed lots of weird sh** -- hope that counts for something. Hah!

I'm not looking to argue, loike I've mostly done with a certain Daniel Boone in another forum, BUT, I think it's okay to agree to disagree on some things as we are never truly sure just what is really going on out there. But I do give certain credibilities to those that DO this kind of thing for a living and, in some way, am envious quite honestly. My passion for zonata is rooted in my childhood and not having them would be really awkward, but at the same time I listen to any and all opinions/details about them and will continue to do so even after having worked with them for many many years.

So I have now volleyed the ball onto your side of the court....I think we're tied.....

" alt="Image">
-----
Jerry Kruse

"Rrrighttttt . . ." -- Dr. Evil

How the heck do you know snakes don't teach their young, care for their young, or imprint anything to their young. I would say some rattlesnakes and some pythons may well have these abilities. I would also venture their may be plenty of socialization at brumation dens. I bet they have big meetings and vote, take census, and watch mel Brooks movie marathons in winter, maybe even swap tall tales!
-----
Todd Hughes

>>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?>>

Remote and inaccessible are very different. I am not splitting hair. You are conflating two entirely different types of localities.

Besides, who says a single instance of natural selection cannot be effective? Remember, natural selection acts upon existing variation. If there are x number of snakes at a locality and n of them have, by chance, the inherited behavior of favoring deep inaccessible crevices, then a single collector acting once (and acting illegally because of his disregard for bag limits) can possibly remove all of the individuals that do not have such behavior.

>>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

You are assuming facts. We do not know whether the injuries were sustained while the snakes were out in the open or whether they were inside crevices but still exposed to predators. Perhaps you can offer some evidence that the injuries were most likely to have occurred while the snakes were inside crevices.

"Besides, who says a single instance of natural selection cannot be effective? Remember, natural selection acts upon existing variation. If there are x number of snakes at a locality and n of them have, by chance, the inherited behavior of favoring deep inaccessible crevices, then a single collector acting once (and acting illegally because of his disregard for bag limits) can possibly remove all of the individuals that do not have such behavior."

I can't help but feel we're talking about singular/repeat negative experience that may become a subsequent "inherited behavior" -- maybe I'm reading this incorrectly? Therefore, if imprinting did not happen, how can an "inherited behavior" develop? The wheels are a' spinnin'.....

" alt="Image">
-----
Jerry Kruse

"Rrrighttttt . . ." -- Dr. Evil

>>I can't help but feel we're talking about singular/repeat negative experience that may become a subsequent "inherited behavior" -- maybe I'm reading this incorrectly? Therefore, if imprinting did not happen, how can an "inherited behavior" develop? The wheels are a' spinnin'.....>>

As I pointed out, learned behavior cannot be passed on to the next generation. Otherwise, the offsprings of Fred Astaire would have inherited the knowledge of how to do the fox trot and waltz from their famous father without ever taking a single dancing lesson. Learned behavior can be passed on culturally. Archie Manning, for example, can pass on his acquired knowledge of how to throw a football correctly to his sons by teaching them. Of course, there is no evidence that snakes teach their offsprings to do anything so there is no chance any snake can pass on learned behavior to the next generations.

Inherited behavior happen through mutation and natural selection. If a trait does not already exist because of chance mutation, then no amount of negative reinforcement (or natural or artificial selection) would cause it to evolve. Therefore, if you are going to try to create dogs that can fly by eliminating those that won't fly, you would simply end up with a lot of dead dogs but none that can fly.

L. zonata does not live in rock crevices year round. They only spend the winter in such places. When the weather has warmed up, they disperse into the woodland areas surrounding the rock outcrops and they are exceedingly difficult to find once they have dispersed from their winter retreats. This is a well known fact. Therefore Rick Staub's hypothesis that the injuries seen in wild zonata are the result of attacks by predators while they are inside shallow crevices would need to be supported by evidence. His theory is that such attacks can drive the more experienced snakes into deeper crevices through learning. That is certainly possible but there is little evidence that any predator (other than human snake collectors) routinely hunt the rock crevices for L. zonata.

My hypothesis is that collecting by snake hunters may have removed all of the snakes in a single locality that are found in shallow, easily accessible rock crevices, leaving only those with an innate tendency to inhabit deeper crevices. No learning is necessary. In fact, some of snakes that were caught by Rick Staub and then released were found in the same easily accessible crevices in subsequent years. Rick even cut off parts of the tails of these individuals to collect DNA samples, and yet such injuries did not cause these snakes to look for deeper and more inacessible crevices. Therefore, the available evidence argues against Rick Staub's own hypothesis. Rick Staub's own snakes did not learn. May be he did not apply enough negative reinforcement! LOL

The alternative explanation is that some snakes are simply born with the tendency to prefer deeper, more inaccessible crevices through chance mutation, not through learning or experience.

"The alternative explanation is that some snakes are simply born with the tendency to prefer deeper, more inaccessible crevices through chance mutation, not through learning or experience."

I dunno about this entirely. Maybe not from one generation to the next singly, but over a VERY long time can there be a shaping of innate preferences. So Fred Astaire's son may not carry it over, but it may arise again down the line for such innate talent. Are you saying this cannot happen? If so, how do you know? And by any chance is there any credentialing you have under your belt that can help support your statements, as they ARE huge statements. I can only speak for human behavior as this is my area of expertise career-wise, and I completely understand what you're saying in connection with human example, but can we really be sure when it comes to sub-human biological implications? Because, in that case, we're simply not talking about one generation to the next, but a series of trial and error over tens of thousands of years with a dash of Darwin for good measure. Catch my drift?

" alt="Image">
-----
Jerry Kruse

"Rrrighttttt . . ." -- Dr. Evil

>>>>>>L. zonata does not live in rock crevices year round. They only spend the winter in such places. When the weather has warmed up, they disperse into the woodland areas surrounding the rock outcrops and they are exceedingly difficult to find once they have dispersed from their winter retreats. This is a well known fact.

Really. You have data to support this or have you just been listening to Hubbs again.

>>>>>Therefore Rick Staub's hypothesis that the injuries seen in wild zonata are the result of attacks by predators while they are inside shallow crevices would need to be supported by evidence. His theory is that such attacks can drive the more experienced snakes into deeper crevices through learning. That is certainly possible but there is little evidence that any predator (other than human snake collectors) routinely hunt the rock crevices for L. zonata.

Really. You have data to support negligible hunting of rocks by predators of L zonata?

>>>>>>>In fact, some of snakes that were caught by Rick Staub and then released were found in the same easily accessible crevices in subsequent years. Rick even cut off parts of the tails of these individuals to collect DNA samples, and yet such injuries did not cause these snakes to look for deeper and more inacessible crevices. Therefore, the available evidence argues against Rick Staub's own hypothesis. Rick Staub's own snakes did not learn. May be he did not apply enough negative reinforcement! LOL

Only a single capture for tail clipping. Maybe the remainder of times they did not associate with a predation event. Of course I only said that the adult females were wily. Unless you have hacked my data you would not know what animals I was recapturing. FYI mainly sub-adults and males.

-----
Rick Staub

>>>>>>>>L. zonata does not live in rock crevices year round. They only spend the winter in such places. When the weather has warmed up, they disperse into the woodland areas surrounding the rock outcrops and they are exceedingly difficult to find once they have dispersed from their winter retreats. This is a well known fact.
>>
>>Really. You have data to support this or have you just been listening to Hubbs again. >>

I don't have personal data to support it, but this is common knowledge, and it was presented as fact in Mitch Mulks' now defunct web site. Of course you don't have data to contradict what Mitch Mulks wrote either.

>>>>>>>Therefore Rick Staub's hypothesis that the injuries seen in wild zonata are the result of attacks by predators while they are inside shallow crevices would need to be supported by evidence. His theory is that such attacks can drive the more experienced snakes into deeper crevices through learning. That is certainly possible but there is little evidence that any predator (other than human snake collectors) routinely hunt the rock crevices for L. zonata.
>>
>>Really. You have data to support negligible hunting of rocks by predators of L zonata?>>

Last time I checked, I haven't seen any skunks or redtailed hawks with crow bars looking for L. zonata. I reckon a grizzly bear would have the strength to pry open a rock crevice, but what century was it that the last grizzly was shot in California?

>>>>>>>>>In fact, some of snakes that were caught by Rick Staub and then released were found in the same easily accessible crevices in subsequent years. Rick even cut off parts of the tails of these individuals to collect DNA samples, and yet such injuries did not cause these snakes to look for deeper and more inacessible crevices. Therefore, the available evidence argues against Rick Staub's own hypothesis. Rick Staub's own snakes did not learn. May be he did not apply enough negative reinforcement! LOL
>>
>>Only a single capture for tail clipping. Maybe the remainder of times they did not associate with a predation event. Of course I only said that the adult females were wily. Unless you have hacked my data you would not know what animals I was recapturing. FYI mainly sub-adults and males.
>>
>>
>>-----
>>Rick Staub

That is interesting data. I do not have access to your data of course, but I have watched your video in which you showed one of those tail clippings. Ouch.

The video also showed you removing a rock with an L. zonata inside, and IIRC, the snake was also there the last time you visited that locality. Apparently the snake that you recaptured was not given enough negative reinforcement. LOL

I wonder if you are going to claim that L. zonata live in rock crevices year round just so you can win an argument.

>>>>>>>>>>I don't have personal data to support it, but this is common knowledge, and it was presented as fact in Mitch Mulks' now defunct web site. Of course you don't have data to contradict what Mitch Mulks wrote either.

I'll let Mitch know that he is common knowledge. I'll also inform him that his defunct web page is being cited like the Bible. No data either way on what they do past spring but if they were to wander far from the rock piles, a hell of a lot more of them would be seen out.

>>>>>>Last time I checked, I haven't seen any skunks or redtailed hawks with crow bars looking for L. zonata. I reckon a grizzly bear would have the strength to pry open a rock crevice, but what century was it that the last grizzly was shot in California?

Obviously you have not looked for zonata much. They will sit at the edge of a crack if the conditions are right. I have seen this quite a bit. Close enough to the edge that if you are quick with a coat hanger you can loop them out. Easier for a small predator that does not need to worry about injuring the snake. Rip!
-----
Rick Staub

Wait a minute here. I watched my father drink beer when I was young and now I DRINK BEER!! HMMMMMMMMMMMM. LOL.

>>>>>>>>Besides, who says a single instance of natural selection cannot be effective? Remember, natural selection acts upon existing variation. If there are x number of snakes at a locality and n of them have, by chance, the inherited behavior of favoring deep inaccessible crevices, then a single collector acting once (and acting illegally because of his disregard for bag limits) can possibly remove all of the individuals that do not have such behavior.

Sorry but that is absurd. Maybe in a population of three, but I have never seen a population of three. Hence the need for repeated acts over generations to shift the behavior. KW would rip you up on this line of BS.

BTW collecting zonata is not illegal through much of their range. Further, the top of Mount Laguna has been repeatedly hit over decades and I do have that data.
-----
Rick Staub

>>>>>>>>>>Besides, who says a single instance of natural selection cannot be effective? Remember, natural selection acts upon existing variation. If there are x number of snakes at a locality and n of them have, by chance, the inherited behavior of favoring deep inaccessible crevices, then a single collector acting once (and acting illegally because of his disregard for bag limits) can possibly remove all of the individuals that do not have such behavior.
>>
>>
>>Sorry but that is absurd. Maybe in a population of three, but I have never seen a population of three. Hence the need for repeated acts over generations to shift the behavior. KW would rip you up on this line of BS.
>>

I don't know who KW is, but if he can refute my argument, then let it "rip." Apparently you invoked his acronym because you cannot refute my argument. I assume that you know how the dinosaurs (along with the enantiornithine birds) became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. It did not take repeated strikes by a large number of meteors, just a single impact. That single event shifted evolutionary history irreversibly and drastically. It is simply old fashioned, outdated thinking to believe that evolutionary changes must be gradual. In many cases, gradualism works, but gradualism is not necessary nor is it the most likely explanation for all evolutionary changes. A single collector can indeed shift evolution in a single location, as surely as a single meteor impact can change the course of evolutionary history.

>>BTW collecting zonata is not illegal through much of their range. Further, the top of Mount Laguna has been repeatedly hit over decades and I do have that data.
>>-----
>>Rick Staub

I am sure that Mount Laguna has been visited by many collectors over the years, because it is accessible habitat. Perhaps this is one place in which human collectors have affected the behavior of L. zonata through natural selection. It was McGurty who sounded the alarm about L. zonata populations in that area dwindling because they were not being found in their usual hiding places at the time he wrote his paper. Perhaps extensive collecting has resulted in the removal of snakes that inhabited the more easily accessible crevices from the gene pool, and those snakes that remained simply had the natural, innate tendency to favor the deeper, less accessible crevices, and that such behavior is innate rather than learned. IOW, the Mt. Laguna population of L. zonata seemed to have been decimated, but in reality it is still pretty healthy because the habitat has largely remained intact and there were enough snakes that escaped collection (because they had the innate tendency to stay in deep, inaccessible crevices) to repopulate the area.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't know who KW is, but if he can refute my argument, then let it "rip." Apparently you invoked his acronym because you cannot refute my argument. I assume that you know how the dinosaurs (along with the enantiornithine birds) became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. It did not take repeated strikes by a large number of meteors, just a single impact. That single event shifted evolutionary history irreversibly and drastically. It is simply old fashioned, outdated thinking to believe that evolutionary changes must be gradual. In many cases, gradualism works, but gradualism is not necessary nor is it the most likely explanation for all evolutionary changes. A single collector can indeed shift evolution in a single location, as surely as a single meteor impact can change the course of evolutionary history.

Are you trying to show how much you know? That is La La land stuff. KW was a sparring partner of yours from times past. He would have dismissed you far more elequently and with half as many words.
-----
Rick Staub