Stimulus control of prey attack in naive rat snakes: A species duplication

Morris, Dale D.; Loop, Michael S.

doi:10.3758/bf03336244

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, species of Elaphe tend to flick their tongue less frequently in the swab test (Burghardt 1970b, Burghardt andAbeshaheen 1971; but see Morris and Loop 1969) than other groups of snakes (e.g., Thamnophis; Burghardt 1969). In the present study, Elaphe quadrivirgata showed a similar tendency, suggesting the importance of visual cues (especially movements) in feeding behavior as has been reported for several colubrid snakes including this species (Herzog and Burghardt 1974;Ota 1986;Cooper et al 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apparent decoupling of prey recognition ability with prey availability in an insular snake population

Tanaka

Mori

Hasegawa

2001

Journal of Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies on the feeding behavior of snakes have reported the consistency of tongue-flick responses with their natural diets. For representatives of widely distributed, dietary generalist species from particular localities, we can expect that their tongue-flick responses to potential prey unavailable in their original habitats have been reduced whereas those to prey common in the habitats have been enhanced. To test this hypothesis, intraspecific variation in tongue-flick responses to prey chemicals was examined using ingestively naive snakes (Elaphe quadrivirgata) from dietarily different populations: populations from the main Japanese island, where the snakes' diet predominantly consists of sympatric frogs, and from Mikura-jima Island, where no frogs occur and the snakes thus chiefly prey on lizards. We presented chemical stimuli from six items including those from their natural and potential prey (fish, frog, lizard, mouse, water, and cologne) to newborn snakes. Significant effects of stimuli on the tongueflick responses were detected. On the other hand, effects of population and interaction between stimuli and population were not significant, and individual comparisons revealed no significant interlocality differences in responses to either frog or lizard chemicals. Thus, our hypothesis was not supported. However, in the Mikura-jima sample, significantly fewer snakes responded to frog chemicals than in the main island sample. The significance of the inconsistency between prey recognition ability and prey availability in the Mikura-jima population are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apparent decoupling of prey recognition ability with prey availability in an insular snake population

Tanaka

Mori

Hasegawa

2001

Journal of Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies are aII based on relatively prey-specific species or, at least, species which eat the same prey throughout their Jives. Arecent study (Morris & Loop, 1969), utilizing Elaphe obsoleta, a species which varies its prey as growth proceeds, suggests that naive young of such species are less specific in their response to animal extracts. The data Morris and Loop presented indicate fee ding habits for the species at variance with the experience of herpetologists farniliar with Elaphe obsoleta and suggest a more complex pieture of the stimulus controls of prey attack in naive snakes than that indicated in the studies by Burghardt.…”

Section: Prey Selection In Naive Elaphe Obsoleta (Squamata: Serpentes) -mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prey selection in naive Elaphe obsoleta (Squamata: serpentes) — A reappraisal

Campbell

1970

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There actually are a considerable number of published experimental studies, going back 50 years or more, too numerous to be listed here. At least three have been published in Psychonomic Science itself (Burghardt 1966(Burghardt , 1967Morris & Loop, 1969). Although the literat ure on reptiles is less voluminous when compared to that of other vertebrate groups, such as birds and mammals, the blanket opening statement by Askew et al is clearly not warranted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%