A few people that have wild caught M. s. imbricata will tell that they do that sometimes with dead rodents. @
lithopian @
Niall
I've thought it strange myself and its the older ones that do it, never the juvies. I'm not sure if they were once near roads and occasionally ate road kill or if they are just hesitant to eat a non moving prey item. These particular specimens wont take food from tongs, they are too nervous, and only eat birds and rodents that are left in with them so that they can approach them cautiously.
Another difference I forgot about with Wild vs Captive is their internal clocks. Wild (and some captive) seem to switch off feeding regardless of temp. I'm used to ant's doing this, but it is unusual to see carpets in particular do this. None of my captive bred switch off feeding with the same temps.
Thats quite an interesting observation. I wonder if many other species behave in a similar manner? Presumably the prey is fresh killed and still warm, or is the snake simply going on scent?
I suppose being roadside any residual heat from the road may warm the prey. However then youd expect the normal strike behaviour. Maybe it is purely scent. The snake just knows theres a lump of food in front of it.
I always attempt to simulate live animal behaviour when feeding snakes, rather than simply holding the food item out to snake, and always have the body temp of the prey item higher than ambient to give the impression its alive. Even with these factors, that should produce a normal intense feeding response, I have seen the 'reach out and take' behaviour. Just an observation.
- - - Updated - - -
On the subject of needing only 150 humans to maintain stable genetics, I would argue that these 150 would be strictly controlled in the manner in which they 'bred'. There would be very specific rules in place to ensure that as much variation as possible in the individuals' genes was present.
In terms of snakes, keepers have far less than 150 snakes, of the same species, in their collection with which to breed and further more, use only a small percentage of their animals to intensify genetic mutations, etc. This smaller number of source animals and repeated recycling of genes through sibling/sibling and parent/off spring breeding intensifies the genetic degredation, or at the very least, the genetic divergence from the original animal.
Its still very earlier days for the RSP, in comparison to other species. Time will tell whether that example holds up (unless of course more blood is added to the line).
Look at it in terms of physical attributes then, as behaviour can vary so much between animals of even the same up-bringing. In my opinion, of course, ANY difference in normal physical traits, be it colour, pattern or physical structures such as crests or 'horns' is an example of genetic difference between captive and wild animals. We know that the shape and colour of an animal have been honed over thousands, if not millions of years to produce the 'best suited' version of that species. When this is changed, what results is a less than perfect mutation. How can you possibly say that the 'gene pool argument' has never been vaild. If the animal looks different, how can it possibly be the same in every other way, to a wild specimen?
When you interfere with natural selection and begin to pick and choose your own prime genetic traits you inevitably take a number along with you that are unwanted because the many, many selection criteria for survival havent been met or even experienced, theyve been circumvented by captive husbandry. What has been created is no longer a wild animal, how can it be compared to one?
I always come back to dogs because its such a perfect and well displayed example. Despite the fact that dogs all behave differently, all have their own quirks and behavioural traits, you can catergorise an individuals behaviour, etc based soley on its breed with a fair amount of certainty. This is because those 'other' gentic traits, like behaviour, have been passed along with the physical traits of size, colour and hair length. Of course, there are examples of where the behaviour is the selected trait, such as in guard and hunting dogs, but you'll notice that the physcal traits of these species come along with those behaviour traits too. Theyre part and parcel.
Argue that a captive snake that is completely different in terms of physical attributes can possibly be the same in terms of its behaviour.
If you still cant see it, give it time, theyve been breeding dogs alot longer and more intensly than snakes.
Just wait, and by the time there are no snakes in the wild, whats left in captivity will be far from what was lost.
- - - Updated - - -
And yes bluetongue, we are propagating animals with weak genes. Theres a reason the speceis that are present today have survived. Because the weak individuals didnt.
When half of your clutch dies in the egg (this happens alot with pythons breeders nowadays) the warning bells should be going off!
