If nightrainfalls would like, I could start posting like I'm writing a formal dissertation . Of course, that wouldn't make a lot of sense to anyone reading this but me, Josh, and maybe a couple others that have studied neuroscience in-depth at a university level. There's formal, accurate, scientific speech, then there's speech you use in general conversation. I personally had no problem figuring out exactly what Josh was talking about, and I don't think anyone else did either. It wouldn't make since for the people on here who work in the legal system to flawlessly use courtroom jargon when discussing legislation, and it doesn't make sense for scientists to use flawless vernacular in a public forum either.

Josh, despite your apology, I'm not sure I can forgive you for misusing the word 'vestigial' in casual conversation like that. I know I, personally, would never make such an error, as my hippocampus functions excellently

Quote Originally Posted by HVani View Post
I don't have a PhD in anything but here are my thoughts. They don't bond with each other then why would snakes bond with us? I don't see an evolutionary advantage to keeping a emotional bonding in an animal that does not bond with others of it's kind. They are a lot smarter than we give them credit but so are many fish.

Comparing reptiles to birds also seems very apples to oranges. Birds are warm blooded which to me, makes a big difference. With snakes being cold blooded I would think they would use their brain differently.
I would argue that there are some exceptions to the rule of 'no bonding' with each other. I think the capability of any animal to bond is directly related to how long they spend around others of their kind, even in mammals. For example, possums (using this as an example because I've worked with them) are completely solitary with the exception of mating and the very brief period of time they provide maternal care. Not a lot of bonding capability there; they can recognize and enjoy their keepers, but it's a fragile bond. Make one wrong noise and you're immediately seen as a predator again, and you need to leave and try again the next day. Something like a herd animal, or mammal that spends years nurturing their young has a much greater capability for bonding.

Back to snakes though, some snakes only need to 'bond' when mating or immediately after birthing. Yes, this is driven to a large extent by hormones, but 'feel good' neurochemicals associated with bonding are released during the process to keep a mating pair from injuring one another, or to keep a mother from instantly gobbling up her young. In some species, such as garters, which brumate communally, there is more advanced social behavior. Head-bobbing, for instance (to my knowledge that hasn't been scientifically studied, but anyone with garters has seen it) is a way to diffuse tension between new acquaintances, and is most typically seen when meeting new snakes but not as much between long-term cagemates who know each other, suggesting the ability to recognize the difference between 'new' snakes and 'safe' snakes they already know.

I think there is also a connection between social capability and snakes that are born live (and therefore much more likely to potentially injure littermates if there is no 'bonding' taking place than species that hatch out and crawl away, unlikely to even meet their siblings). The study is still in the works, but at my last convention I was talking to a herpetologist studying copperheads (live-birth species). Apparently, even being separated shortly after birth, littermates showed much more social behavior (tongue-flicking and investigating rather than immediate aggression or flight response) than unrelated snakes of comparable size, sex, and age.

So basically, I think it's down to how you define 'bonding'. It's certainly more simplistic than the bond you have with your dog or cat, but I would argue that it's there.