Dangerous food: lacking venom and constriction, how do snake-like lizards (Lialis burtonis, Pygopodidae) subdue their lizard prey?

Wall, Michael; Shine, Richard

doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00835.x

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our finding that ambush‐foraging snakes had a larger maximum relative prey size was expected because many species possess morphological adaptations to swallow large prey such as large body circumference and long and wide heads (Cundall & Greene, ; Pough & Groves, ). In addition, many ambush foragers also have effective mechanisms, such as envenomation and constriction, to safely incapacitate relatively large prey (Gans, ; Wall & Shine, ), which active foragers do not necessarily possess (Cundall & Greene, ). Our record of an Australian scrub python ( Simalia kinghorni ) eating a pademelon ( Thylogale sp.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging mode, relative prey size and diet breadth: A phylogenetically explicit analysis of snake feeding ecology

Glaudas

Glennon

Martins

et al. 2019

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foraging modes (ambush vs. active foraging) are often correlated with a suite of morphological, physiological, behavioural and ecological traits known as the "adaptive syndrome" or "syndrome hypothesis." In snakes, an ecological correlate often reported in the literature is that ambush‐hunting snakes have a higher relative meal size compared to actively foraging snakes which feed on smaller prey items. This “large meal versus small meal” feeding hypothesis between ambush and active foragers has become a widely accepted paradigm of snake feeding ecology, despite the fact that no rigorous meta‐analysis has been conducted to support this generalization. We conducted a phylogenetically explicit meta‐analysis, which included ca. 100 species, to test this paradigm of snake feeding ecology. We gathered data on prey size by inducing regurgitation by palpation in free‐ranging snakes and by examining the stomach contents of preserved museum specimens. When we found prey, we recorded both snake and prey mass to estimate relative prey mass (prey mass/snake mass). We also reviewed published studies of snake feeding ecology to gather similar information for other species. Ambush and active foragers did not differ in minimum or average meal size but the maximum meal sizes consumed by ambush‐foraging snakes were larger than the maximum meal sizes eaten by active foragers. This results in ambush‐foraging snakes consuming a significantly wider range of meal sizes, rather than being large meal specialists compared to active foragers. We argue that ambush foragers evolved to be more opportunistic predators because they encounter prey less frequently compared to active foragers. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that ambush foragers also exhibited marginally wider diet breadths, consuming a broader range of prey types in comparison with active foragers. Our study challenges aspects of the foraging syndrome as it is currently conceived, and our results have important implications for our understanding of how foraging mode has shaped the behaviour and physiology of ambush‐foraging snakes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging mode, relative prey size and diet breadth: A phylogenetically explicit analysis of snake feeding ecology

Glaudas

Glennon

Martins

et al. 2019

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…handle snakes in a similar way [13]. Burton's legless lizards (Lialis burtonis) strike prey skinks (Eulamprus heatwolei) preferentially in the head region [31]. Even venomous snake species that release prey after the first bite, typically target the head or thorax region [32][33][34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Predators may target the rostral end of prey because the head and neck regions contain vital and vulnerable parts that are relatively accessible [14,17,27,28]. In other cases, seizing the head or neck of the prey may protect the predator against dangerous defensive behaviour such as retaliatory biting [30,31] or spitting [4]. An additional advantage for predators preying on lizards and other animals with autotomous tails might be that the head is firmly secured to the trunk and situated far away from the detachable end, so that the risk of ending up with but a minor bit of the prey is limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing through the lizard’s trick: do avian predators avoid autotomous tails?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counter-adaptations of predators towards their prey are a far less investigated phenomenon in predator-prey interactions. Caudal autotomy is generally considered an effective last-resort mechanism for evading predators. However, in victim-exploiter relationships, the efficacy of a strategy will obviously depend on the antagonist’s ability to counter it. In the logic of the predator-prey arms race, one would expect predators to develop attack strategies that minimize the chance of autotomy of the prey and damage on the predator. We tested whether avian predators preferred grasping lizards by their head. We constructed plasticine models of the Italian wall lizard (Podarcis sicula) and placed them in natural habitat of the species. Judging from counts of beak marks on the models, birds preferentially attack the head and might also avoid the tail and limb regions. While a preference for the head might not necessarily demonstrate tail and limb avoidance, this topic needs further exploration because it suggests that even unspecialised avian predators may see through the lizard’s trick-of-the-tail. This result may have implications for our understanding of the evolution of this peculiar defensive system and the loss or decreased tendency to shed the tail on island systems with the absence of terrestrial predators.

show abstract

“…L. burtoni s is widely distributed throughout Australia, the Aru Islands, and New Guinea, while L. jicari is restricted to New Guinea [Kinghorn, 1924]. Being specialized predators of lizards, both species demonstrate unique morphological and ethological characteristics compared to other geckos of the family Pygopodidae [Patchell and Shine, 1986;Wall and Shine, 2007. We applied Cbanding to detect heterochromatin and used comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to identify chromosomal regions with sex-specific genetic content in both species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed-Up Sex Chromosomes: Identification of Sex Chromosomes in the X1X1X2X2/X1X2Y System of the Legless Lizards of the Genus Lialis (Squamata: Gekkota: Pygopodidae)

Rovatsos

Pokorná²,

Altmanová³

et al. 2016

Cytogenet Genome Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geckos in general show extensive variability in sex determining systems, but only male heterogamety has been demonstrated in the members of their legless family Pygopodidae. In the pioneering study published more than 45 years ago, multiple sex chromosomes of the type X₁X₁X₂X₂/X₁X₂Y were described in Burton's legless lizard (Lialisburtonis) based on conventional cytogenetic techniques. We conducted cytogenetic analyses including comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with selected cytogenetic markers in this species and the previously cytogenetically unstudied Papua snake lizard (Lialis jicari) to better understand the nature of these sex chromosomes and their differentiation. Both species possess male heterogamety with an X₁X₁X₂X₂/X₁X₂Y sex chromosome system; however, the Y and one of the X chromosomes are not small chromosomes as previously reported in L. burtonis, but the largest macrochromosomal pair in the karyotype. The Y chromosomes in both species have large heterochromatic blocks with extensive accumulations of GATA and AC microsatellite motifs. FISH with telomeric probe revealed an exclusively terminal position of telomeric sequences in L. jicari (2n = 42 chromosomes in females), but extensive interstitial signals, potentially remnants of chromosomal fusions, in L.burtonis (2n = 34 in females). Our study shows that even largely differentiated and heteromorphic sex chromosomes might be misidentified by conventional cytogenetic analyses and that the application of more sensitive cytogenetic techniques for the identification of sex chromosomes is beneficial even in the classical examples of multiple sex chromosomes.

show abstract

Dangerous food: lacking venom and constriction, how do snake-like lizards (Lialis burtonis, Pygopodidae) subdue their lizard prey?

Cited by 22 publications

References 47 publications

Foraging mode, relative prey size and diet breadth: A phylogenetically explicit analysis of snake feeding ecology

Foraging mode, relative prey size and diet breadth: A phylogenetically explicit analysis of snake feeding ecology

Seeing through the lizard’s trick: do avian predators avoid autotomous tails?

Mixed-Up Sex Chromosomes: Identification of Sex Chromosomes in the X1X1X2X2/X1X2Y System of the Legless Lizards of the Genus Lialis (Squamata: Gekkota: Pygopodidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About