Snake cognitive ability and affection.

[DVirginiana]

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

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.

[HVani]

Fascinating!

I think I meant bonding more in the mammalian sense, but we are talking of reptiles so maybe that's asking too much. I think my snake knows that I will not cause them harm, but beyond that I don't see much bonding. I think putting it terms of 'safe' and 'not safe' is a good way to describe it. I don't believe they are capable of complex emotional bonding or love. But that's ok. I just enjoy them for what they are IMO.

[DVirginiana]

Fascinating!

I think I meant bonding more in the mammalian sense, but we are talking of reptiles so maybe that's asking too much. I think my snake knows that I will not cause them harm, but beyond that I don't see much bonding. I think putting it terms of 'safe' and 'not safe' is a good way to describe it. I don't believe they are capable of complex emotional bonding or love. But that's ok. I just enjoy them for what they are IMO.

I agree. I think you can kind of divide bonding into two parts; the chemicals that cause a 'feeling' and the ability to actively think about that feeling (not in the abstract human sense, but in the "I hope mommy comes home soon!" puppy dog sense). I believe snakes have the first, but not the second.

EDIT: OMG I just scrolled up and saw a typo in my previous post, and it will not let me edit. This bothers me far more than it should.

[nightrainfalls]

I whole heartedly apologize for my misuse of the word 'vestigial.' Not having participated in evolutionary biology courses for over a decade has obviously left me rusty. My time spent as a molecular biologist and biochemist at a medical school must have somehow dulled my understanding of this word. Hopefully you can find it in your vestigial heart to forgive me.

Dear Josh,

If you think I have a vestigial heart, then wait until you defend your thesis. I have seen people walk right out of the dissertation room and book their room at a mental hospital. Saying that this is not an entirely benign process is like saying that stage 4 malignant melanoma is not an entirely benign skin condition. If you use a word incorrectly in your thesis, you may find that the examiners jump so far down your throat, you need a proctologist to remove them.

I feel like a PhD is required just to participate in this discussion..

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Dear Tsanford,

No of course you don't.

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.

Dear DVirginiana,

Of course I don't think that we need to write responses on this post as if we are writing formal dissertations. I am insisting that those who cloak themselves in white lab coats and bonafides, who represent themselves as experts, provide accurate information to the public. The public deserves nothing less. We have all spent a lot of time and money getting our education, and we should not be sloppy in the information we give to the public. When a scientist gives the public bad information because he is too lazy to give good information, it is dangerous, dishonest, and disrespectful to the public. Furthermore, it is the duty of scientists to correct profoundly inaccurate information. If you read the post I criticized and got correct information out of it, it is only because you have an education that let you disregard the bad information provided and substitute good information. The public does not have the benefit of your education. When scientists accept the idea that they do not have to be accurate with the public, simply because the public will not understand the jargon we use, we create a divide between scientists and the public. When we misinform the public on the small matters, they doubt us on the large matters. The language we use with the public is profoundly important. It must be understandable and accurate.

Let us look at the statement in question. "...I look at the vestigial structure of the reptilian brain and say that snakes are capable of only basic 'emotions' like, "Im hungry, cold, too hot, thirsty, scared, angy etc," as those are the usual functionalities that we ascribe to the different parts of the brain that they do retain (medulla oblongata, amygdala). " This statement has numerous scientific fallacies. It misleads the public. Josh claims, he did not mean to do so and I take him at his word, but if we look at the statement the way a non scientist with a dictionary would, we will see how misleading the statement actually is. It is misleading particularly because the statement uses scientific jargon inaccurately.

Let us start with the beginning. Josh describes the snake brain using term vestigial which means "(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution." He then proceeds to state that the snake brain is capable of only basic emotions because it retains only two parts, the medulla oblongata and the amygdala.

You and I know that the snake brain has more parts: forebrain, midbrain, cerebellum and a medulla oblongata to name a few. The public may or may not know this. If the public does not know the topography of a snake's brain, then they may well believe that snake brains have degenerated to only two parts and that snakes are limited by this degeneration. We could not blame a member of the public for coming to this erroneous conclusion, because explicitly and implicitly, this is exactly what the sentence says. This is both profoundly inaccurate and grossly misleading. Josh says he did not mean to be misleading, and I take him at his word, but it would be irresponsible for any scientist to leave it unedited for public consumption.

David

[JoshSloane]

Ok Nightrainfalls you win. You're a big man and a major success. Congratulations. I will make sure to run all my posts by you beforehand, so you can fact check it. Hopefully that can satiate your massive insecurities.

Maybe after this, we could go out back and compare penis size? Or run a 100 yard dash? How about a spelling bee? Im SURE you would beat me in that. Or maybe we could go to an elementary school and you could tell all the kids how awful their artwork is?

[Billy29]

What is interesting is scientists are now finding out that snakes have problem solving abilities that they once were thought of not capable of doing.

Im curious to what kind of social bonding garter snakes have. We know they are the one if the more social species of snakes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[supergeeman]

Jeez... Enough with the [ego] measuring contest..... You can both use big long words and are equally intelligent and know all about snakes.... Can we please get back to the interesting discussion of the op? Thanks

[supergeeman]

Oops... Double post my bad

[JoshSloane]

I have been on topic the entire time until nightrain wanted to have an intensive discussion about proper usage of the word vestigial.

[Billy29]

Guys seriously let's just get back to the discussion. We all bring something to the table here with our different experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk