How smart are pythons

[Yellowtail]

How intelligent are carpet pythons?
Pea brained with hard wired instincts to feed and breed? I think they are very much smarter than that.
I have just removed a pesky carpet from one of my sheds where I breed rodents.
To gain entry it has to climb a tree to the shed roof, cross the roof to the front and climb down over the top of the roller door, it then slithers along the top of an internal partition wall about 15m to get to the one tiny gap between the ceiling and the partition that I have not patched up because it is impossible to get to without dismantling big shelf units.
Nothing remarkable about that, just instinctive behaviour except this is the 4th time over 3 months I have removed this one snake that is easily identified by a distinctive scar on it's body.
Each time I have relocated it approx 1 km down the road past 2 other houses, a lot of bush and a couple of small valleys with creeks to the vicinity of a friends house where there are lots of buildings with wild rats and mice for it to feed on.
Over the last 2 weeks we have had 300mm of rain which has changed the environment a lot and you would think washed away any scent trail.
It is only a bit over a metre long and seems very well fed for a wild python (not on my rodents) Each time it seems resigned to being removed and does not put up much of a fight.

 

[nuttylizardguy]

I think predatory reptiles have more smarts than most give them credit for , this comes from their needing to work out how to catch the prey , or even find it comes with a need for more brain power than is required to munch on green stuff.

 

[Sdaji]

It's popular to say they're smart and unpopular to say they're stupid, but they're really not that smart. Extremely simple animals can carry out tasks complex enough to surprise most people. Instinct is often mislabelled as intelligence. Snakes are unusual in the animal world in that they're predators which are often less intelligent than their prey.

Of course, on a site dedicated to people who love snakes, the crowd will always be biased towards saying they're highly intelligent, with cliches like 'they're smarter than most people think' being guaranteed to come up in any such discussion, common enough to be paradoxical. It's remarkable what animals with low intelligence can achieve, and sure, they're more intelligent than a frog, rock or Australian Prime Minister, but something like a Carpet Python is easily outbrained by something like a mouse.

Abilities like navigation are highly instinctive in snakes, without the necessity for intelligence. It's easy for animals like humans to mistake this ability for intelligence because we don't have that innate ability in the same way. To put it in a way humans would understand, consider that our facial recognition ability is astounding. We can see faces for a very short period of time and almost instantly record them, able to recognise them years later, even distinguishing them from extremely similar faces. The innate processing ability required to achieve this task is phenomenal, but it does not require intelligence, which can be demonstrated by even extremely stupid people being just as capable of carrying out this task as intelligent people. Computers with no intelligence can do this, it is a task which can be carried out on instinct.

Intelligence is the ability to cognitively process information, make sense of it, come up with ideas, solve problems. Snakes are almost entirely lacking in this capacity. You will never see a Carpet Python faced with a task stop, think and then come up with a plan of action based on the idea it just came up with. Yes, they have excellent navigational capability for such a simple creature, but this is not a form of intelligence - even life forms literally lacking brains or even nervous systems and thus entirely without any form of actual intelligence can have the ability to navigate. Carpet Pythons have the ability to see in infrared, but again, while this is a remarkable ability, it isn't intelligence.

But, of course, the popular opinion among an enthusiast community is not going to be the correct one based on evidence, it will be the one which people want to be the case.

 

[nick_75]

I agree with Sdaji, with no disrespect to animals that I find fascinating. They don't need intelligence to survive when their basic instincts cover all facets.

A good indication of intelligence is looking at whether an animal lives in complex society groups. Animals that live in a society are generally of a higher intelligence than animals that do not.

 

[nuttylizardguy]

Just a few interesting reads on reptile intelligence :

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...e-just-giving-them-the-wrong-tests-180947769/

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/coldblooded-does-not-mean-stupid.html

http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Six-Studies-On-Reptile-Intelligence/

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/lizards-arent-supposed-to-be-this-smart

Brain Theories

Very recently, it was found that both birds and reptiles have unique centers in the brain housing neurons that appear to be similar to those in the mammals neocortex.

The neocortex has been assumed to be unique in the higher order mammals with six distinct cortical layers of advanced neurons.

Jennifer Dugas-Ford, Joanna J. Rowell, and Clifton W. Ragsdale. Cell-type homologies and the origins of the neocortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1204773109

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930090443.htm
Anna Kis, Ludwig Huber, Anna Wilkinson. Social learning by imitation in a reptile (Pogona vitticeps). Animal Cognition, 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10071-014-0803-7

A bit more going inside their brains than just reaction to stimulous or hardwired instinctive stuff.

 

[Sdaji]

Just a few interesting reads on reptile intelligence :

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...e-just-giving-them-the-wrong-tests-180947769/

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/coldblooded-does-not-mean-stupid.html

http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Six-Studies-On-Reptile-Intelligence/

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/lizards-arent-supposed-to-be-this-smart

Jennifer Dugas-Ford, Joanna J. Rowell, and Clifton W. Ragsdale. Cell-type homologies and the origins of the neocortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1204773109

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930090443.htm
Anna Kis, Ludwig Huber, Anna Wilkinson. Social learning by imitation in a reptile (Pogona vitticeps). Animal Cognition, 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10071-014-0803-7

A bit more going inside their brains than just reaction to stimulous or hardwired instinctive stuff.

You know you're clutching at straws when you reference a reptile magazine and the New York Times for something like this!

The one source with some credibility you've referenced, the Smithsonian, merely said that a tortoise was able to navigate (again, this is a task single-celled life forms like slime moulds can achieve!) and that a type of lizard was able to adopt a different feeding style to suit a changed situation (again, single-celled life forms can do this, it does not require intelligence).

You will be able to detect rudimentary forms of intelligence in reptiles, and in a few cases a little more than rudimentary, especially noting that things like goannas and tortoises are far more intelligent than something like a Carpet Python, but even if you desperately clutch at any excuse to call them intelligent, something like a Carpet Python is still far less intelligent than virtually if not literally all mammals and birds.

Where do you draw the line? Invertebrate people have the same syndrome as herpers, talking about the amazing level of intelligence insects and other arthropods have. At some point you need to acknowledge that in reality, a clear hierarchy of intelligence does exist in the animal world, and among terrestrial vertebrates, a Carpet Python isn't anywhere near the top.

 

[nuttylizardguy]

You know you're clutching at straws when you reference a reptile magazine and the New York Times for something like this!

The one source with some credibility you've referenced, the Smithsonian, merely said that a tortoise was able to navigate (again, this is a task single-celled life forms like slime moulds can achieve!) and that a type of lizard was able to adopt a different feeding style to suit a changed situation (again, single-celled life forms can do this, it does not require intelligence).

You will be able to detect rudimentary forms of intelligence in reptiles, and in a few cases a little more than rudimentary, especially noting that things like goannas and tortoises are far more intelligent than something like a Carpet Python, but even if you desperately clutch at any excuse to call them intelligent, something like a Carpet Python is still far less intelligent than virtually if not literally all mammals and birds.

Where do you draw the line? Invertebrate people have the same syndrome as herpers, talking about the amazing level of intelligence insects and other arthropods have. At some point you need to acknowledge that in reality, a clear hierarchy of intelligence does exist in the animal world, and among terrestrial vertebrates, a Carpet Python isn't anywhere near the top.

I simply presented the links.
NYTimes was only of the references . Would you prefer if the source was Fox News ?

Others are all peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Yellowtail]

In my original post I was merely pointing out how we underestimate their abilities.
To navigate back almost a kilometre 4 times, the last after storms and flooding is an amazing but instinctive feat.
To remember the complex way to enter the shed is not just instinct it shows memory and ability to learn and repeat a difficult task.
It would be difficult to train a more intelligent species like a dog, monkey, parrot, dolphin etc to perform such a complex task and this snake was not trained but acted purely on it's own initiative to seek out food.

 

[Sdaji]

In my original post I was merely pointing out how we underestimate their abilities.
To navigate back almost a kilometre 4 times, the last after storms and flooding is an amazing but instinctive feat.
To remember the complex way to enter the shed is not just instinct it shows memory and ability to learn and repeat a difficult task.
It would be difficult to train a more intelligent species like a dog, monkey, parrot, dolphin etc to perform such a complex task and this snake was not trained but acted purely on it's own initiative to seek out food.

As I said above, extremely simple creatures and even lifeforms which aren't creatures can 'learn' to repeat difficult tasks like navigation. Even single-celled life forms can do it. Indeed, it's a remarkable feat and it's worthy of discussion, but it's not intelligence, and if we're going to have the discussion it makes sense to address your initial question, which was, quote: "How intelligent are carpet pythons?"

Navigation ability, amazing as it is, isn't strongly correlated with intelligence. Highly intelligent animals (you've given some examples) are often not as good at navigating as some clearly less intelligent animals. Mice are not especially intelligent animals by mammal standards, but they're extremely good at navigation and remarkably easily trained to remember extremely complex navigational tasks. Your Carpet Python is a good demonstration of an animal of low intelligence displaying a strong ability to remember and navigate to a known location. It's a very common ability among animals, intelligent and not so intelligent. An ability is different from intelligence. Another ability, say, hearing, can be as good or better in a stupid person than in an intelligent person.
[doublepost=1582021608,1582020722][/doublepost]

I simply presented the links.
NYTimes was only of the references . Would you prefer if the source was Fox News ?

Believe it or not, I don't think politically-biased propaganda sites are good for science reference, regardless of which direction their irrational bias lies.

Others are all peer reviewed scientific papers.

I specifically referred to your first three references. You say all the rest are peer reviewed scientific papers. Check the very next one in your list (hint: it's just some grey literature blog).

Looking at the last two which actually are, a critical reader may find them interesting, but will understand that they actually indicate how low in intelligence these animals are. While many other animals continually demonstrate signs of noteworthy intelligence, only one of the two articles actually shows a display of intelligence in a reptile, and they're getting excited because they actually managed to identify one. The fact that they're excited about actually managing to do so is due to signs of intelligence being so limited. It is very easy to find far more examples of far greater intelligence in other animals. This type of article about a bird or mammal would be completely redundant.

 

[Yellowtail]

I relocated it 800m in the opposite direction on the other side of a deep valley so we will see if it's back in a week or so.

 

[Sdaji]

I relocated it 800m in the opposite direction on the other side of a deep valley so we will see if it's back in a week or so.

Sounds likely. Relocated snakes usually die but this one seems pretty good at finding its way back.

 

[Licespray]

Relocated snakes usually die

Proof of this statement?

 

[Yellowtail]

Sounds likely. Relocated snakes usually die but this one seems pretty good at finding its way back.

I'm interested in your reasoning for this statement.
My property and most of the surrounding area is rugged, undeveloped, mostly rainforest and crossed by numerous creeks. The human residents I have met are comfortable with having pythons relocated to their properties so I am not putting them in harms way. I do not relocate elapids, just move them away from aviaries etc and I prefer not to relocate the carpets but the area is crawling with them and I only move problem ones that seriously come after my rodents and birds.

 

[Sdaji]

Before I was a qualified ecologist I said I was sure it would be the case, after studying biology at university I was equally sure (and herpers hated me for saying it) and I wasn't surprised more recently when formal real world studies demonstrated it. The raw data speaks for itself as a demonstration of reality, and the explanation I would give is the same one I'd have given as an uneducated teenager.

Habitats can only support a certain number of animals. Any viable population produces more offspring than can survive (if this is not the case over the long term it goes extinct). If you add a new animal to that existing system, you have overloaded it, typically meaning either an existing animal will die, or the new animal will die. Since the new animal doesn't have an established territory etc etc, it is more likely to be the one which dies. Sometimes, the new animal is either particularly strong or lucky and it displaces an existing animal (which is generally worse than the new animal being the one which dies, although if the relocation wasn't over a large distance and didn't contaminate with any new parasites etc it is of little difference). The alternative is that adult animals are more likely to survive and so you have overloaded the population with adults causing an unhealthy imbalance (this is rare and of little consequence if it's just one individual, but in that rare cases you are still causing harm rather than good).

Generally the animal you cause to die if the introduced animal lives will be a juvenile which is excluded from critical resources thus dies.

Simply put, understand that a habitat is only going to support a certain population of a species (adding new individuals isn't going to increase the stable population, right?). This clearly means the addition of an animal means the be back in balance, an animal must die, right? Most likely it will be thr newcomer rather than a resident.

Obviously you can come up with hypotheticals deliberately manufactured to be exceptions, and no, I'm not suggesting that you are causing an entire environmental catastrophe by relocating one snake, but you're typically doing one snake's worth of harm rather than any good.

 

[Shikito123]

Sdaji, I find your knowledge very interesting and makes sense if you think about it too. Snakes and most reptiles have evolved for their particular niche. all a python needs to do is find food and reproduce. If your house, Yellowtail, is abundant of food, then what's the reason for that snake not to keep coming back? If its easy food then they're going to keep going there.

Sdaji, are taipans different? I have heard many things about them showing signs of remembering routines and the such. If they are more "intelligent" would that be due to an evolutionary trait such as prey is harder to find ect?

 

[Fall guys]

Sdaji, I find your knowledge very interesting and makes sense if you think about it too. Snakes and most reptiles have evolved for their particular niche. all a python needs to do is find food and reproduce. If your house, Yellowtail, is abundant of food, then what's the reason for that snake not to keep coming back? If its easy food then they're going to keep going there.

Sdaji, are taipans different? I have heard many things about them showing signs of remembering routines and the such. If they are more "intelligent" would that be due to an evolutionary trait such as prey is harder to find ect?

Cobras aswell are extremely intelligent, especially king cobras

 

[nuttylizardguy]

Proof of this statement?

Yeh … where's the proof for that ?

I mean supported with hard facts .
Show the data .

 

[Sdaji]

Sdaji, I find your knowledge very interesting and makes sense if you think about it too. Snakes and most reptiles have evolved for their particular niche. all a python needs to do is find food and reproduce. If your house, Yellowtail, is abundant of food, then what's the reason for that snake not to keep coming back? If its easy food then they're going to keep going there.

Sdaji, are taipans different? I have heard many things about them showing signs of remembering routines and the such. If they are more "intelligent" would that be due to an evolutionary trait such as prey is harder to find ect?

Taipans aren't going to win any chess tournaments or start building cars and shopping centres but they're certainly a lot smarter than a Carpet Python. Taipans and Mambas are among the smartest of snakes. Not all that smart, but they're geniuses among snakes. Totally, evolution is going to favour higher intelligence when it is a benefit, and.not when it's not. Whether you're a bacterium or a human or anything else, you've had the exact same amount of time to evolve. Having a large, complex brain is a handicap (it's large, heavy, fragile/vulnerable and requires a lot resources to produce and maintain). Additionally, intelligence is slower to implement than instinct, and if your strategies are consistent, you're actually going to act and react faster and more efficiently if you're less.intelligent. If you're a Taipan actively venturing into bandicoot burrows your job is difficult and dangerous and requires more intelligence. If you're primarily a sit and wait ambush guy like a Carpet Python, you'll do better with basic instincts and less intelligence than a Taipan.
[doublepost=1582116197,1582115932][/doublepost]

Yeh … where's the proof for that ?

I mean supported with hard facts .
Show the data .

Studies have been done on translocated snakes. I don't have the references handy but you're more than welcome to either play online and find them, or hey, if you want to disbelieve me despite how obvious it is when you think about it or because you're stubborn and lazy that's totally cool!

Next time I come across them I'll try to remember this thread and put in links, but formal studies have been done, and seriously, it does make obvious, intuitive sense. It's exactly what you'd expect.

 

[Yellowtail]

I used to think of carpet pythons as almost exclusively an ambush predator that also occasionally had an opportunistic feed but since I started living amongst them with more opportunity to observe their natural behaviour I have noticed they definitely do deliberately seek out and hunt prey like an elapid.
I watched one from my rear deck navigate almost a straight line from rainforest 50m across a cleared area then up a steep hill directly to a shed where I keep rodents, it then prowled around the shed trying to gain access.
They regularly climb trees to get on top of the snake proof mesh of my cocky aviaries and similarly cruise around looking for an entry point. One even worked out how to crawl down a down pipe from the house guttering and exit above a leaf strainer to get into a netted patio area where I have a bird cage.
Another exhibited more traditional behaviour taking up an ambush position in the roof gutter adjacent a branch of a grevillia tree and was successful in constricting a king parrot too large for it to swallow. OK this was an ambush situation but it required intelligence to identify the only spot on a big roof that it could reach a feeding bird. I posted photos of this previously.

 

[GBWhite]

Proof of this statement?

Yeh … where's the proof for that ?

I mean supported with hard facts .
Show the data .

Been following this thread and thought I'd provide a couple of links to studies done on translocated snakes that I plucked out of my reference folder just in case you couldn't locate any online.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...kes_Notechis_scutatus_in_a_suburban_landscape

In this one 3 of 8 = 37.5% translocated snakes died


https://www.jstor.org/stable/1565542?seq=1

In this one 6 of 11 = 54.5% translocated snakes died


https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/wr17166

In this one all 4 translocated snakes died = 100%


This one is interesting as all 9 introduced Womas died within a 4 month period as what is believed to have been a result of predation by Mulga Snakes.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...f_the_woma_python_in_northern_South_Australia

As far as "snake intelligence goes" I have to agree with Sdaji's posts in that the ability for snakes to navigate does not imply intelligence. In fact a study with translocated Burmese Pythons in Florida undertaken by researchers from the Biological Department of Davidson College in 2014 indicated they had the ability to navigate from their release site to within 5 klms of their original capture site (distances traveled between 21 & 36 klms). So obviously memory played no part in navigation.

Abstract taken from the research paper..."Navigational capacity allows an animal to determine when and where to move. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine whether Burmese pythons have the navigational capacity to find their way home after being translocated miles away to an unfamiliar location. The ability to home after translocation involves both a map sense and a compass sense. A map sense allows for determination of position in relation to a goal, whereas a compass sense requires access to a reliable area to maintain orientation towards the goal. While many previously studied snakes have shown a lack of ability to home, the Burmese python is the first snake to demonstrate this skill".

What was revealed was that, as these Burmese Pythons determined and maintained the bearings toward their capture site they have navigational compass senses. The researchers go on to say, " Potential environmental cues underlying the map sense in pythons include olfactory and magnetic cues, while the compass sense may involve magnetic, celestial, olfactory, or polarized light cues. However, further research must be done to determine the underlying sensory systems involved".