Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 141–151 | Cite as

The ophiophage defensive response in crotaline snakes: Extension to new taxa

  • Paul J. Weldon
  • Gordon M. Burghardt
Article

Abstract

A total of 21 new taxa of New World pit vipers (Serpentes: Crotalinae) responded by elevating the middle portion of the body in a defensive posture (body bridge) when exposed to the skin substances of certain colubrid snakes (Colubridae). Newborn snakes from two of the three species tested gave the response. Several new species of colubrid snakes also are documented as capable of eliciting a response, and it is suggested that the termophiophage defensive response be used to denote body bridging and associated defensive behaviors instead of the restrictive “kingsnake defense posture.” Most of the snakes which elicit the response in crotaline snakes are known to feed on lizards and/or snakes. There is no apparent correlation between the stimulus snakes' ability to elicit a response in the crotaline snakes and sympatry with the crotaline snakes.

Key words

Snake behavior chemoreception predator-prey kairomone Colubridae Crotalinae ophiophage defensive response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, T.B. 1896. A chemical study of the secretion of the anal glands ofMephitis mephitica (common skunk), with remarks on the physiological properties of the secretion.J. Exp. Med. 1:323–340.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, K.K., andBernstein, D.T. 1975. Some chemical constituents of the scent of the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).J. Chem. Ecol. 1:493–499.Google Scholar
  3. Ansell, A.D. 1969. Escape responses of three Indian molluscs.Veliger 12:157–159.Google Scholar
  4. Bogert, C.M. 1941. Sensory cues used by rattlesnakes in their recognition of ophidian enemies.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 41:329–343.Google Scholar
  5. Burghardt, G.M. 1970. Chemical perception in reptiles, pp. 241–308,in J.W. Johnston, Jr., D.G. Moulton, and A. Turk (eds.):Communication by Chemical Signals. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bustard, H. R. 1969. Defensive display behavior in the bandy-bandy,Vermicella annulata (Serpentes: Elapidae).Herpetologica 25:319–320.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, C.C., andGillingham, J.C. 1975. Postural responses to kingsnakes by crotaline snakes.Herpetologica 31:293–302.Google Scholar
  8. Chiszar, D., Scudder, K., Knight, L.,andSmith, H.M. 1978. Exploratory behavior in prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) and water moccasins (Agkistrodon piscivorus).Psychol. Rec. 28:363–368.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, W.C. 1958. Escape responses of herbivorous gastropods when stimulated by carnivorous gastropods.Nature 181:137–138.Google Scholar
  10. Conant, R. 1975.A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.Google Scholar
  11. Cowles, R.B. 1938. Unusual defense posture assumed by rattlesnakes.Copeia 1938:13–16.Google Scholar
  12. Cowles, R.B., andPhelan, R.L. 1958. Olfaction in rattlesnakes.Copeia 1958:77–83.Google Scholar
  13. Fitch, H.S. 1960. Autecology of the copperhead.Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 13:85–288.Google Scholar
  14. Gehlbach, F.R., andBaker, J.K. 1962. Kingsnakes allied withLampropeltismexicana:Taxonomy and natural history.Copeia 1962:291–300.Google Scholar
  15. Greene, H.W. 1977. Phytogeny, convergence, and snake behavior. Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
  16. Inger, R.F. Some reactions of rattlesnakes (generaCrotalus and Sistrurus)to kingsnakes (genusLampropeltis). Unpubl. manuscript.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, C.R. 1970. Defensive displays in some AustralianDenisonia (Serpentes: Elapidae).Herpetologica 26:516–520.Google Scholar
  18. Klauber, L.M. 1927. Some observations on rattlesnakes of the extreme Southwest.Bull. Antivenin Inst. Am. 1:7–21.Google Scholar
  19. Klauber, L.M. 1956.Rattlesnakes, Their Habits, Life Histories and Influence on Mankind, Vol. 2. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. Mauzey, K.P., Birkland, C., andDayton, P.K. 1968. Feeding behavior of asteroids and escape responses of their prey in the Puget Sound region.Ecology 49:603–619.Google Scholar
  21. Meade, G.P. 1940. Observations on Louisiana captive snakes.Copeia 1940:165–167.Google Scholar
  22. Mole, R.R. 1924. The Trinidad snakes.Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1924:235–278.Google Scholar
  23. Muller-Schwarze, D. 1972. Responses of young black-tailed deer to predator odors.J. Mammal. 53:393–394.Google Scholar
  24. Neill, W.T. 1947. Size and habits of the cottonmouth moccasin.Herpetologica 3:203–205.Google Scholar
  25. Reed, J.R. 1969. Alarm substances and fright reaction in some fishes from the southeastern United States.Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98:664–668.Google Scholar
  26. Snyder, N.F.R. andSnyder, H.A. 1971. Defenses of the Florida apple snailPomaceapaludosa.Behavior 40:175–215.Google Scholar
  27. Ward, J. A. 1965. An investigation of the swimming reaction of the anemoneStomphiacoccinea. I. Partial isolation of a reacting substance from the asteroidDermasterias imbricata.J. Exp. Zool. 159:357–364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright, A. H., andWright, A.A. 1957.Handbook of Snakes of the United States and Canada, Vol. 1. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Yarnall, J.L. 1964. The responses ofTegula funebralis to starfishes and predatory snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda).Veliger (Suppl.) 6:56–58.Google Scholar
  30. Zweifel, R.G., andMorris, K.S. 1955. Contributions to the herpetology of Sonora, Mexico: Descriptions of a new subspecies of snakes (Micruroides euxanthus andLampropeltis gelulus) and miscellaneous collecting notes.Am. Midl. Nat. 54:230–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. Weldon
    • 1
  • Gordon M. Burghardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Zoology and PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville

Personalised recommendations