Talk:Snake/Archive 1

New legged snake fossil found
"A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.

...The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

AThousandYoung (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Boomslang
I doubt like hell if there's any such reptile as a boomslang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.82.195 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Google it. Scientific name is Dispholidus typhus; I've got a friend who has one (well, at the zoo she curates). Mokele (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Map
Snakes live at the top of the Himylayas, Rockies, and Alps, but not the Andes? -Jackmont, April 27, 2007.

Senses
"A snake smells through its nose" - This is not true, is it? Smells using the Jacobson's organ (sp?) in the roof of its mouth. Wait a sec...I understand that snakes have a Jacobson's organ which works in conjunction with the tongue to pick up and "sense" molecules from the surroundings. But, don't they also use their nostrils for smelling? I suspect there is an olfactory portion of the snake brain; does it receive information from the nostrils only, from the Jacobson's organ only, or from both??Psslither 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)psslither

That's the least of the problems with this article. Snakes are also deaf, but it recommends that you make plenty of noise tos care them off.


 * Snakes are deaf, but the noise causes vibrations which they are extremely sensitive to. --Neonstarlight 09:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Snakes have no external ears, so cannot hear air vibrations, but have a unctional inner ear and can hear conducted (ground) vibrations.


 * Sound is vibration. These statements make no sense. —Keenan Pepper 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh it makes every sense. They can hear people stomping their feet, but not the bee flying around.

Bones in their heads sense vibrations FROM THE GROUND. So they can't hear a hawk's screeches, but they can sense the footsteps of a badger. Make "sense"? (Get it?) Also, they don't smell with their noses, I think that's true. They smell with their tongues. (To say it for a general audience...) Dora Nichov 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Snakes smell with their nose. However, like most land animals, they also have a Jacobson's organ, which helps the snake track their prey. They do not small with their tongues, they only use their tongues to pick up sent molicules and rub it on their Jacobson's organ. BTW, why is the article blank? 24.31.191.109 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix
Someone want to change "I want these motherfucking snakes of this motherfucking plane" back into just "snake"?


 * Got it. Thanks.  Wikibofh(talk) 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Uropeltidae
How do the Uropeltidae fit in ?? Thanks, GerardM 17:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Uropeltidae is a family of snakes that inhabit southern India and Sri Lanka. They're named that because of a large shield at the end of their tails.  (Uropeltidae = Shield Tail)  Neonstarlight 11:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Surviving snake bite
The information is accurate only for North American pit vipers. A North Americal coral snake (micrurus fulvius (fulvius|tenere)) will produce negligible local reaction, and symptoms are often delayed many hours, with 12 hours until respiratory paralysis becomes noticeable not unusual.

Venom does NOT spread "instantaneously" or even nearly so, via the circulatory system. It is effectively a subcutaneous injection, and spreads slowly via the lymphatic system. In Australia, the standard and highly effective first aid is "pressure immobilization" - apply an elastic bandage as for a sprained ankle from the bite site as far up the affected limb as possible, to obstruct lymphaic return (but not blood flow) and keep the limb immobile. This is technically a lymphatic tourniquet, but when teaching laymen, the term "tourniquet" is generally avoided, as people confuse it with an arterial tourniquet.

Some have recommended this technique for use with digestive-style venoms such as rattlesnakes as well, but a consensus is not established. It does not appear to do grave harm, and can always be taken off if you change your mind. For toxins that must reach the body core to cause serious harm, such as paralytic neurotxins, it is highly effective.

--Why not add this information to the article? And maybe also add some of the info from that section of this page to the Snakebite article, such as the number of venomous snakes and the frequency of lethal bites?


 * I don't know if it would be such a great idea to add too much info from the snakebite article to this one, but number of dangerous snakes and the like would be fine. My main concern is the 32kb warning and since Wikipedia articles should preferably be smaller or equal to 32kb, it would be better to leave the articles broken up the way they are.


 * Also, the snakebite article isn't nearly complete as I am still working on it whenever I have the time. But regardless, I would not mind help finding snakebite pictures with Wikipedia compatible licensing to help illustrate the article. --Every1blowz 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If your bit by a snake, you should not wrap anything around your extremedies, that is a bad idea, cause that will cause more damage to the leg (lack of Oxygen) and it will not significantly slow down the vemon to make a difference. If you get bit, stay calm, call 911, and do not move. Do not do anything that will increase your heart rate, as that would help the venom spread through your body quicker.

Honey
is harmful to snakes?--Jondel 4 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Never heard that before. Dora Nichov 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Snake is not a game on mobile phones
This is not what snake means:


 * Snake is also a game, now very popular and implemented on mobile phones.

it became popular first when it was created in q basic a basic structural software used to create short programs like snake or pac man


 * Is that sentence wrong then? I don't think I follow you. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Snakes
Snakes do not have ears so it is always a mysterie how do they here when a enemie is coming. I think they here the vibration of the prey coming. Some snakes are venamous and some are not.

-Timmy Medland, age 6


 * Again, sound is vibration. Snakes don't have external ears, they have internal ears which give them a decent sense of hearing, especially for low frequencies. —Keenan Pepper 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they sense with bones in their heads. Plus hearing is not the only sense they have. They can also smell and see, and some can sense the body heat of warm-blooded prey. Really cool. Dora Nichov 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Boas are not Venomous
Boas kill thier prey by constriction, not by venom. I went ahead and removed Boa from the list of venomous snakes.

True. Dora Nichov 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Irulas
Irlas are not from Andhra Pradesh. They live in Tamil Nadu.

disarticulated jaw
The article falsely stated, "Contrary to the popular myth, at no point do they "unhinge" their jaws (disarticulate their mandibular joints)." This is not a myth. Many snakes, such as the Egg-Eating Snake, do indeed disarticulate their jaws during feeding. I removed the sentence. wikipediatrix 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Though the jaw expands greatly, all joints remain in contact with one another, with the mandibular symphysis joined by a highly elastic ligament.  The joints move, and the jaw opens to great lengths, but there is never anything which is technically accurate to call 'disarticulation'.  - mokele 4:00, 8th of March 2006

Incorrect!? I don't think so. I thought they do unhinge their jaws as well as expand the elastic whatever in their lower jaws. Moreover, I've seen a snake unhinge it's jaws then hinge them back again when it was finished with it's prey on Discovery...  Plus every source I have state that they unhinge their jaws. Dora Nichov 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your information is wrong. No joints become disarticulated during feeding.  Snakes have a series of jaw joints that gives exceptional flexibility, which in turn gives the ILLUSION that their jaws unhinge, but that is definitively not the case.  I have personally seen cineradiographs ("X-ray movies") of snake feeding, and can attest to this.  If you disagree, find me a reference from the peer-reviewed scientific literature (all other references are worthless).  Names to start with are Moon, Caldwell, Mehta, and Shine. - mokele 25 july 20007

I am really not sure about this as i am no expert at snakes. I thought they did dislocate their jaw but i'm not too sure. It would be possible to have you jaw not dislocated and have the elastic but i don't see how it is possible to have you you jaw expanding with the bones still in contact. Unless of course the bones are normally overlapping. The only thing that i can think of right now is the bones never connected in the first place but that would be pretty weird. Stinkypie (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no actual dislocation. What stretches is a ligament between the tips of the lower jaw.  Hold your arms out in front of you, hands firmly clasped and elbows locked so that you can only move the resultant triangle up and down - that's a mammal jaw.  Now, to make a snake jaw, allow your elbows to bend and hold a long rubber band between your hands, allowing your hands to separate.  Nothing "disarticulates" (no connection is broken or separated), but that ligament stretches, sometimes enormously.  All the connections remain, but one is stretchy.  See? Mokele (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

.hey
hey guys i am back you shuld include a page about the cure for rattlesnake bites in the 1800s' thanx guyz it will help on my school project

You can ask on this talk page, but you can't request an article on the web for all to see just for yourself. By the way, I don't know anything related to what you need on your report. Dora Nichov 09:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lethal List
The list of lethal venemous snakes is innacurate since not all the venemous snakes listed are lethal. Cotton mouths and copper heads for instance have killed less people in the U.S. then bees. Even untreated a copperhead bite can not kill an adult without additional factor or complications. The list should be renamed to simply "Venemous snakes" or two seperate lists should be created for lethal and venemous. --Surreal 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Just make venemous, as lethality has too many variables.  Wikibofh(talk) 13:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, definitely don't name it "venomous snakes". A lot of snakes are venomous and if we were to add them all that would be one really long list. Not to mention no snake is 100% lethal all the time since so many factors come into play. So I agree, the name of the list is misleading and does need to be changed.


 * I’m thinking we should rename the list something to the effect of "potentially lethal snakes". That way, copperheads and water moccasins can stay on the list as removing them from the list sort of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. --Every1blowz 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The list itslef isn't structured very well since it includes species as well as families of snakes and genus (pit vipers, rattlesnakes and then lists species of pit vipers, rattlesnakes, etc). It would be a lot of work indeed to list every species. Perhaps species should be removed unless they don't fall into a family or genus that is completely venomous. I don't see a problem with naming it "potentionally letahl" since there are no real "mild" venoms that I'm aware of.


 * On the types of venom snakes inject- there are two common types refered to as hemotoxin and neurotoxin. Though the info in the changes (history) is accurate (there are several toxins found snake venom) their are only two types of venom distinguished. Not necessary to include so I didnt change it. Just thought I'd throw the info out. --Surreal 13:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If no one else has any problems with "potentially lethal snakes" then I'd like to change the name to that.


 * As for the snake venom thing, I simply thought it'd be better to direct readers to the more appropriate and in-depth article since it's really beyond this article's scope to discuss snake venom. --Every1blowz 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I came across this: venomous snakes. I suggest the list of snakes under the section be removed and replaced with the link. --Surreal 08:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Regions of the World?
Can someone make a section about where most snakes live in the world? I will if necessary but so far I do not have any information. --Godtvisken 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nearly everywhere except the poles. Dora Nichov 09:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, they don't live in Ireland! =P Robin Chen 02:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this suggestion: just a sentence in the introduction maybe? I just came to the page to see where they live. 87.198.156.76 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Being from Ireland, I was interested to know they are not present in Iceland or New Zealand either. 78.137.128.232 (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox color
Is there any reason this taxobox is blue, instead of the standard pink (indicating an animal group)?Dinoguy2 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism
Pardon me, but this article seems to be subject to extremely frequent vandalism, and all instances of the word "snake" have been replaced with "I want these motherf**king snakes off these motherf**king planes" as of the time I'm writing this. As a nonmember, it seems I cannot revert the article to an earlier version; could someone please make the necessary change? Thanks. Anonymous - 3/30/06


 * Actually, you can. You just need to click on an older version, edit and save.  Wikibofh(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

what is taxobox!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.31.212 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Tree of life and Taxobox usage. --Jwinius (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was in Arizona....
While I was in this US state, I was told about a green colored snake called a "Two Step". This thing bites you, you take two steps before you die. Maybe some escaped from a zoo, got out of someone else's collection they got from Viet Nam, where the snake is native there, used by the Viet Cong AS a sort of a "Booby trap" against the "Tunnel Rats" during the Viet Nam War. Martial Law 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)


 * I live in Arizona, and it sounds apocryphal to me. It would have to be a specific species, and the same species in two diverse climates such as Arizona and Viet Nam sounds unlikely.  Given their geographic distances, it is beyond unlikely.  Unless there is a species given, I'm going to revert the changes out.  Wikibofh(talk) 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was told it was a small green colored snake by another prospector. Martial Law 04:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)
 * I was near Quartzite, Arizona itself, and near a small hill called Dome Rock. Martial Law 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)
 * Maybe someone had brought a few back from "Nam" as a "exotic pet". Martial Law 04:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)


 * But without a citation it's just heresay. I'm going to remove them out and if you can find a species or citation we can put it back in.  Regardless, it would have to be an exageration, simply because even if it stopped your heart instantaeously (which it couldn't) you can stumble more than that.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian Education link?
Hello. I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Reviled and Revered: Toads, Turtles, Snakes, and Salamanders" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/herps/start.html

If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Etymology?
I'd question the relevance of having a fairly long etymology of the word "snake" in the opening paragraph, and then doing the same thing with "serpent" a bit down. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, even if they are to be kept, I would ask that they be corrected: if it came into the English language before c. 1100 it does not "come from Old English", as Old English is the direct ancestor of Modern English, rather than a separate language from which English can borrow words; also, it is standard practice to put asterisks before reconstructed, potentially flawed words that were never written down, which goes for all Proto-Indo-European roots. elvenscout742 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Old English Is Anglo-Saxon And Heavily Germanic And Scandinavian and Was Used Before 1100, Followed By Middle English (after the addition influences of the normans), Then Modern 81.146.61.102 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article snake food should be merged into the feeding section. --Gray Porpoise 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. use the  and  templates and we'll discuss. Wikibofh(talk) 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The templates are in place. --Gray Porpoise 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4 families of venomous snakes

You omitted Atractaspididea. They are a family of snakes some of which are venomous, formerly classified as elapids, vipers, and colubrids. Members contain the four major types of dentition:opisthoglyphs, proteroglyphs, solnoglyphs, and aglyphous. Some of which (Atractaspis bibroni most notably) are considered dangerous to humans.--Todg 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

poisonous snakes
In my opinion, everyone on the internet should do some reasearch and figure out all the poisunous snakes. Children may come here(like me) and need reasearch.

no offense is intended however the correct term is venomous snakes poison is released into the air venom is injected.64.141.125.5 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Snakes of The Bible and The Koran
What's wrong about linking to: Snakes of The Bible and The Koran? Doesn't it fit to the passage about snakes in mythology? 84.132.131.102

the link appears to be a 1 page commercial for a book Sir-wiki 22:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"1 page"? Have you read it? I count three pages, with some further information beyond the wiki-article. In my opinion, that site gives a good overview of snakes in old testament, new testament, Greek mythological and astrological background, and koranic and arabic mythology - all from a herpetological point of view. 84.132.131.102

from nomž 88.109.177.152 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Control poison?
Crotalus horridus claims that "Like all other venomous snakes, it can control the amount of venom that is delivered." If true, I would like to see that mentioned and expanded on here. -- Calion | Talk 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology: snake-(s)erpent- erpeto-(from  the greek verbe  erpo ,erpomai )

G'day. I'm really new to Wikipedia, re. editing anything, so please let me know if I'm going wrong somewhere. I just wanted to mention that I have read that snakes do have venom yields.

I'm not sure how much you know about snakes, but *from what I've read* snakes tend to try to preserve their venom for prey. When feeling threatened, they can strike without injecting venom. I wish I still had the link so I could show you.

Well, I hope this helped and I hope I did this correctly.


 * Your etymology seems incorrect. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "serpent" dates back to PIE *serp- and have cognates as far as the Sanskrit's word for snake, "sarpah". The Greek cognate is said to be "herpein", "to creep" and not "erpomai". 66.130.177.54 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Life Cycle of Snakes
I think it would be useful to include a section on the lifecycle of snakes. Beyond just how they are fertilized/born, but also what they are up to the rest of the time. For example, do they hibernate in the winter, etc.

/Debb 12/7/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beefalo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Hibernation
In some places snakes go in Hibernation. Could something be added about this? Wiki-uk 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Needed Citations
-Absolutely needed in the "snake charming" section. This sounds as if someone saw Indiana Jones, read about snake charming on the internet, and wrote the section. its unecessary and erroneous.

- The evolution section needs Citations as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XenosM (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Snakes are poikilometic animals. We may call them cold blooded animals. They can not regulate their temperature as mammals do. So, to a great extent, their life is regulated by the environmental temperature. They are at their best in temperature range of 20 degree Celcius to 35 degree Celcius (The temperature range may be different due to local adaptation or their may be interspecies differences). Their internal system gests slow and they become unfit for survival beyond the temperature range. If temperature goes above 35 degrees, they would go to some safe place, to avoid excessive heat. This is called estivation.

If the temperature goes below 20 degree Celcius, they would go under the earth at some depth, for security and also to conserve their energy. This is called Hybernation. During Estivation and Hybernation, their metabolic rate is reduced, heart rate is slow and so is their breathing. They use their stored fat to survive in this period. With a rise in temperature above 20 degree, they would come out of the safe place and start hunting again, partly to replenish the depletion of stored fat.

Evolution
there are two sections entitled "Evolution" and "Evolution of Snakes". The second really doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Perhaps it should be called something along the lines of "Families of Snakes"? - Im.a.lumberjack 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Ribs are found exclusively on the thoracic vertebrae" is false and should be deleted (I could give a number of citations to the contrary, e.g. Romer's 'Osteology of the Reptiles' 1956). While mammals and birds lack cervical ribs, most reptiles (including all squamates) retain them. 165.228.228.142 (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentions of fossil snakes at 150 Ma are inaccurate, oldest are approximately 100 Ma (late Early Cretaceous; 150 Ma would be late Jurassic) 165.228.228.142 (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

what does snake eat
what do snake eats i dont no much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.107.159.46 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

check diet of the main snake page.64.141.125.5 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Venomous snakes
In the main article it gives a list of various toxins including neurotoxins and hemotoxins which are accurate however it also says bungarotoxins which according to the www.mereksource.com website are (bun·ga·ro·tox·in) (bung²g[schwa]-ro-tok¢sin) a strong neurotoxin from the venom of kraits (Bungarus); three electrophoretic fractions, a-, b-, and g-bungarotoxin, have been identified. a-Bungarotoxin, the chief fraction, binds irreversibly with acetylcholine receptors, producing neuromuscular block.

This indicates to me that it is only from kraits and therefore should not be included in the main snake page if included in wikipedia at all. it also says that a bungarotoxin is an neurotoxin. 64.141.125.5 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The section ends with "snakes bites with venom can lead to hair loss,aids,t-cell supression,and scarring". Citation? AIDS? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.152.20 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by a phallic obsessed weirdo who was off his ritalin.--Mike Searson (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
We should watch this article more carefully. A certain edit inserted extraneous text that disrupted the article very badly; it wasn't until approximately four hours later that it was corrected. Just a word of warning. +A.0u 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion/Symbolism
Why is Islam separated in the religious section, when there are other religions discussed under the symbolism section (Ancient Pagan, Judeo-Christian, Hindu etc.)? I think these two sections should be merged into one section. Once this is figured out, I will also add a bit about Norse mythology/faith. JanderVK

symbolism
can't we just keep all religous related information under symbolism? it keeps sneaking its way into other parts of the page. The main theme deals with the BIOLOGY of snakes. thank you.

On the snake as symbol of Jesus Christ, see John 3:14 and http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030818.htm 82.74.189.42 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the snake is not "an agent of the devil" as stated in the Old Testament. There is no mention of a devil in the OT. The snake, according to the strictist reading of the text, is simply acting of his own accord. Please edit this article accordingly. The devil did not come about until the New Testament.

70.19.115.56 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Removed. William Avery (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dissuaded": terribly unclear
"Snake charming as a profession is now dissuaded in India as a contribution to forest and snake conservation."

Several problems:
 * Dissuade, used in this way, is archaic and hence not good use for a reference work like wikipedia that must be understood at the very least by all native speakers of English (who are not pathologically impaired in cognitive ability, obviously)
 * Passive voice is bad - who is dissuading whom?
 * Is this enforceable? If indeed there are no legal implications, what is the vehicle of the dissuasion? Is it a campaign with leaflets, for example?

Basically, you need to also make a stronger point for notability.

Once you have clarified the points above, please make sure your changes are carried through to the more detailed article, snake charming, which currently has no mention of any such "dissuasion" &mdash; consistency between articles is a must.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect range map
The range map is incorrect regarding the distribution of seas snakes in the world. According to everything I've read, sea snakes do not occur in the Atlantic or in the Red Sea. There may be eels in the Caribbean and around the Canary Islands that look like snake, but those are fish. By far the most widely distributed sea snake species, Pelamis platurus, probably would be found in the Atlantic were it not for the cold currents off the coasts of Chile and Namibia that keep them from entering it. Regarding the Red Sea, one theory has it that the elevated salinity level there keeps them out, but I suspect the fact that the Red Sea gets pretty cold in the winter may also be a factor. Whatever the precise reason, Pelamis has not made it to the Atlantic via the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. It hasn't made it into the Caribbean via the Panama Canal either, although that and the Sargasso Sea would be prime habitat. Finally, the range for sea snakes on the left and right sides of the map do not match up. I'm currently working on a replacement for the sea snake article that's fairly complete, so perhaps I'll make a proper map for it as well that can serve as a new start for this one. --Jwinius 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted reference
I have deleted the following reference as it leads to a subscriber page:  --Technopat 09:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about intellect?
I've heard that snake's are mostly instincts. Can they learn anything? Reason? Recollect? The article doesn't touch upon those topics. --Anss123 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's almost no research on reptilian intelligence. There's a single study documenting learning, but that's all. --Mokele 12:08pm, 3 Nov. 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone knows anything more about this, I'd be very interested. I'm not a herpetologist or anything, but about 90% of my TV time is Animal Planet.  From this experience I have only noted that crocodiles (or maybe crocodilians are the only reptiles that display signs of noteworthy intelligence.  (Fast learning, long memory, etc.)
 * However, in Episode 5: In Search of Rattlers of the West of the TV show Austin Stevens: Snakemaster, the following is stated:

"In the little bit of research they've done on these [winter hibernation] dens, very often—not all, maybe, but most—of the same snakes come back every year to the same place. Now that's incredible, because snakes are lower vertebrates; they're not considered to be too intelligent. They can remember and they can learn.  Now that's quite something, because people don't credit snakes with much learning ability."


 * If anybody else can expand on this, that's be all kinds of awesome. Zearin (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The tendency to return to hibernacula is both well-known and not even slightly related to intelligence, merely a simple instinct and good sense of smell. Salmon return to their original stream, yet their brain barely even warrants being called such. Mokele (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The taxobox needs revision; Serpentes are ranked as an infraorder in modern works, because some "lizards" are closer related to them than to other "lizards". So snakes are united with those "lizards" closer to them in the Scleroglossa at superorder rank versus the most distant "lizards" (the Iguania).

This creates a problem: Though higher ranks can be dealt with freely, this does not hold true for superfamilies and below. And superfamilies are what the present infraorders would become, if one would not use "parvorders" which is not usually done (it was done for the songbirds, but turned out to be unneccessary and was dropped). But superfamilies have standardized endings; they would be "Alethinophidoidea" and "Scolecophidoidea". The problem is that present-day revisors would use phylogenetic taxonomy which would treat them as unranked clades and hence not need to change the names.

In fact, it seems that the superfamily-rank taxa are not even formally established. Thus, being under ICZN regulation, they cannot be used on Wikipedia; that would create nomina nuda and our standard has simply become too high to make such mistakes ;-)

We have a similar problem with bird superorders/infraorders where a rank change was necessary that was used only in a handful of papers in the late 1990s, before phylogenetic taxonomy was adopted by most all systematicists working these groups. But there, since none of the ranks are formally regulated and since the now-necessary use has been used in a scientific publication, it can be done freely; in a nutshell, anyone can "invent" or re-rank taxa above superfamily; the challenge is to have them accepted. But is is a Very Bad Thing to re-rank at superfamily-level and below with no prior formal publication, and "inventing" such taxa is entirely verboten; to do it habitually is a good way to get derided and scorned by taxonomists and systematicists.

A solution might be to threat the snake taxa as unranked (unranked_familia in this case would produce the correct placement).

Also, I usually avoid citing authors if the taxon has already a separate article (where the author is in the taxobox). Because it is common for non-experts to threat the describer as part of the scientific name, which is not really correct (it is the second most common taxonomic mistake, after capitalizing species names). If the author must be given, I use small font for it; scientific publications often employ small caps which can be done with 🇦🇹 and actually this might be preferable, but since it is a bit more complicated markup (I was looking for it on-again off-again for like a year or so til I found out how it's done) small font is Wikipedia standard and there's no reason to change it, really. All that is necessary is some way to denote that the author/date is an addition to but not a part of the taxon (actually small font is better because it makes it really clear what the constituent parts are - the normal-font and possibly italics scientific name, and the small-font author/date). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good observations. I corrected the "Author" names with the small font, as a matter of fact, I'm about to go and do that to a bunch of other pieces I've worked on where I did not do that.  Thanks for pointing that out.  As for the suborder vs infraorder...I'm going with what ITIS has listed.  I've been admonished before that this is the standard for the Reptiles and Amphibians Project, so it should be what the Taxo box reflects.  I am in no way discounting what you say, in fact if you have credible sources could you point them out to me and I'll see if we can work it into the Taxonomy section of the article?  If you want to jump in and have at it, by all means, please help out.  My only agenda is to keep the reptile articles on here from sounding like a bunch of half-assed caresheets or myspace pages devoted to keeping pets.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Fail . The very first problem I noticed is that there is no section up front to explain what a snake is and what its characteristics are.  Instead, the first text section is a table listing subgroups.  Several sections and paragraphs consist of a string of facts that are not put into context of how they are related (e.g. the first paragraph of "Digestion and diet" and the paragraph under "Symbolism" dealing with Christian symbolism).  A list written in paragraph form does not become a well-written paragraph.  Additionally, there are numerous typos and run-on sentences throughout (see e.g. the last sentence of the fourth full paragraph under "Locomotion": "In spite of appearances..."). There are also many topics introduced suddenly without context, and the overall sequence of topics could (and should) be improved.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail . The article fails to discuss the diversity of snakes, such as the number of genera and largest groups.  There is nothing on brood/clutch size, nor the number of offspring produced in a snake's lifetime.  There is no information on the expected lifespan of snakes.  There is no information about the fact that snakes are cold-blooded and their means of temperature regulation.  There is nothing on the hibernation of snakes.  In short, there is much anatomical information, but little ecological information.  The topics that are covered could benefit from a discussion of specific examples.  The section on Taxonomy has no citations at all.  The section on Evolution makes almost no mention of molecular phylogenetic studies, and certainly cites none.  Knowledge about phylogeny is no longer confined to an understanding of morphology and fossils as it was forty years ago.


 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (sort of). "Consumption of snakes" is the only section that doesn't quite seem NPOV.  The opening sentence should point out that many cultures do not eat snakes and consider them unacceptable for consumption, not lead with the sudden "surprise" that some cultures do.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass, although an image of a snake with eggs or young would help the "Reproduction" section.

The most serious issue is the poor quality of writing, from the level of word choice and individual sentences tothe overall article organization. The specific items noted above under criterion (1) do not constitute an exhaustive list. There were so many writing problems that I gave up keeping track of them halfway through my examination of the article. The second serious problem is the failure to cover major topics that will be of interest for readers looking for general information about a common group of animals. There certainly has been a lot of research done, and a lot of work put in to the article already, but there still is considerable need for rewriting and proofreading the article before it will achieve GA status.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. — EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lifespan and clutch size are the only things you have mentioned that I have a problem with implementing.  I think it would make the article overly long and exhaustive, as with hibernation(or for more species of snakes brumation) I think these are better handled in articles written on individual species.  Thanks for the review (sort of)I thought I made a good dent in it from what it looked like 2 weeks ago.--Mike Searson (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all the details of course! But it would be nice to know that when a snake has young, the range of variation possible among species, or the fact that such things can be affected by the age or size of the female.  For lifespan, even a note about the known longest-lived snakes and the typical lifespan would be helpful.  Certainly such figures will be highly variable between species, but the issues really should be mentioned and some indication given.  When I suggested them, I did not mean a full treatment of all species, just some basic facts and possibly a link to follow (in such an article exists). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'll make what changes I can in the next few days. You know i almost scrapped it and completely rewrote it a dozen times over the past two weeks.  I was also surprised to see the reptile article lacking in information that I assumed would be there.  I'll plug away at it some more, get all the facts straightened out and sourced and then work on the prose.  Thanks again for taking the time to review it.  It's been hard to get a second pair of eyes to read it because of the length, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First Sentences
I think I stand unopposed in stating the first sentence was just ****ing awful, so I rewrote it. Previously, it was a long string of adjectives which made it nigh-unreadable and often merely repeated things evident from their classification as reptiles. In my re-write I de-emphasized the commonalities, and put more emphasis on, to put it simply, what makes a snake a snake. I'm going to continue to try to make edits to the intro as a whole to improve the wording, and hopefully we can reach GA status. Mokele (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deal!  Thanks for the help.  I keep wanting to scrap it and start over, myself!--Mike Searson (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

New section for locomotion
Here was an idea I had for improving the locomotion section...

I didn't copy all the links, nor all the text, but this is just a rought draft version (I suppose...)

See: User:Ajl772/Snake locomotion

Ajl772 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please post disscussion either here, OR on the revision's talk page... Ajl772 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is Version 2 of the information. If no one objects to its implementation, I will post it on Friday, February 8th, 2008. Ajl772 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good, nice job! Go for it!  This article needs alot of work and its good to see a step in the right direction.-Mike Searson (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you delay this for another week? I wrote the original (or at least what's being revised now), and am one of the tiny handful of people studying snake locomotion, and would definitely like to contribute to this re-work (which is indeed badly needed).  However, I'm visiting another university tomorrow, and won't have time to revise this until I get back (Saturday at the earliest).  I think the revisions are good (I just sort of did an info-dump and left it), but with a little work, we could make it truly outstanding (complete with peer-review literature references, mechanics, neural control, evolution of locomotion, and more).  Mokele (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can delay it for a while more. Ajl772 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm back. I edited the first bit, but haven't gotten beyond lateral undulation yet.  I don't know how to do wikipedia references, so I just dumped the full refs in for someone more knowledgeable on that than I.  I'll probably expand on the text some more before moving on to the other modes.  What do you think so far? Mokele (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not too bad, I formatted the first one, but I'll need some more info on those other refs before proceeding. Gray's first name would help on the first.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all I have on the papers is his initial. I think everything there should be enough for a proper citation - I just used JEB format, since I'm familiar with it. Mokele (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Something was weird with the references; all it said was 'gray', with no other info. I 'fixed' it, but I'm not sure how wikipedia properly cites peer review articles. Mokele (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was fine. You undid what I did.  You see, the point of reference templates is to write it out once.  Then subsequent notes to the same reference just go by the name (in this case "Gray"). You don't see it in the sandbox, because there's not a "reflist" at the bottom of the page.  You would just see a blue number.  When incorporated into the main article it would have looked fine.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IS there a way to add that reflist in the current version? It just makes me nervous to see the information 'disappear' from the edited page, especially since I have to type most of these references in my hand.  Plus it helps me keep track of which refs I have already added and which I haven't yet.  Mokele (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added it. Also, don't remove previous refs, multipe refs are allowed and encouraged, especially on an article like this.  Also if you actually have those cited journals, I prefer to write out the full name and as much info on the authors (if it's the Gray I'm thinking of, he has an article on wiki, the same as Cogger, Cochran, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I must say I'm a bit baffled why to keep non-peer-review sources in, since all they do is either re-state the peer-reveiw research, or mis-state it (aka referencing Gans, whose work has an high level of, shall we say "data-free assertions"). I actually do have all the articles I've cited (snake locomotion is my thesis work, and I'll be citing my own papers on arboral locomotion), but they don't give the full name of Gray - all the articles just say "J. Gray". Mokele (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cogger is a Herpetologist and has named several species of Gecko, etc (even has his own wiki article). The book is a source for much of the article, same with Ditmars, etc.  It's not exactly a crap book.  I don't believe that work in particular has misstated anything.  The peer reviewed journals are excellent and I'm not saying to exclude them, nor do you need to replace what's there.  However, I've seen a few (not the ones you provided) that are spurious at best and junk science at worst.  You'll find as the article moves through various reviews that some reviewers prefer books, etc.  It seems that the preference for FA is that every sentence contain a source.  I prefer multiple sources to a sentence, myself.  If you are a herpetologist, you may want to join the Reptiles and Amphibians project, we could use you!--Mike Searson (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's a good book, I just sort of figured it was a bit superfluous, since the original articles are now all publicly available (JEB is good about giving full public access after 6 months). And yeah, there's some crap articles out there, in every field.  I'll look into the Reptiles and Amphibians project, but my work makes my contributions very spotty.  After this, I'll probably do something on snake dentition, since I actually have example skulls (and thus can take creative commons pictures) of each of the 4 types (though no Attractaspis, sadly).  How does on join such a group, just add one's name to the list?  And is there a list of "things which need to be done or currently need help?" Mokele (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've basically finished. If anyone can clear up the references, I think it'll be good to go.  I tried to avoid getting too technical, but let me know how it reads - I'm so used to biomechanics that I can't tell what's lay-person level anymore. Mokele (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the refs and pasted it in! Good job, everyone! --Mike Searson (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks very much to everyone who put up with me during the process. Mokele (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Thanks.", "Your welcome.", and "It's awesome!". Ajl772 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry I wasn't able to help any more than I did; I was sick last week... (Oh, sadness...)

Table help?
OK, I'd like to arrange the table of families so that there are sub-headings within alethinophidia for henophidia and caenophidia (and possibly a sub-headding within that for colubroidia). However, I don't have the slightest clue how to do so, or even if it's possible, and I KNOW I'll wind up screwing it up if I try. Anyone else know how? Mokele (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Venomous snakes in Russia
Hey, could sb in here help me with a specific question: What venomous snakes (which could kill you by their bite) are there in the (larger) region of Kirov, Komi and Perm? mfg Old Death (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can a snake eat you and what does it mean ' A snake is sizing you up" ?
I heard that a women had a pet snake for 30 years. She loved this snake and it stopped eating. She slept the snake and woke up one morning and the snake was lying straight beside her. She thought it was dying, she took it to the vet and the vet said it was "sizing her up and going to eat her". Did you ever hear of this or is someone making this story up? Yes, the vet put the snake to sleep. Thank you Oct, 2008 Please email me cmc7444@aol.com    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.243.68 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A snake large enough to eat a human is very large indeed. No pet snake gets that large, but it could have strangled her.--Anss123 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The story is an urban legend. A few pet snakes *can* reach sizes where consuming a small adult is possible (retics and anacondas), but none ever have.  Snakes definitely do not lie sideways next to a person to 'measure' them, especially as such a measurement is meaningless - the true limit of what a snake can consume is based on width, not length, and many species of snake routinely eat very long prey, including other snakes. Mokele (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Urban legend? Not even that. To me, the whole story sounds like a joke; like it was part of a stand-up comedy act involving the subject of strange pets. In this case, however, I can also imagine that the joke may on occasion have been met with silence, after which the comedian realized that many members of the audience knew so little about snake behavior that they could not recognize it as being absurd. --Jwinius (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The extinct Titanoboa was big enough to swallow a human. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do snakes live?
I think a section on where snakes live would be appropriate. Some live in holes in the ground, others live in nests, others may live in other places. What do you think?  Linguist At Large  00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Not only does this article need a "Habitat" section, it's also missing a Geographic range" section and a "Description" section. Parts of the last section are found throughout the text, but I wouldn't mind if it was grouped together. --Jwinius (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would try to add something on this, but to be honest I don't know anything about snakes. If it was all grouped under "Habitat" that would probably work for now.  Linguist At Large  07:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Snakes blink
Do snakes blink? ♣ Princess  Clown  ♥ 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With no eyelids, how would that be possible? --Jwinius (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it could be considered one big blink each time a snake sheds, as the entire outer eye covering gets "wiped off" along with any particles of whatever might have become encrusted to the outside of the eye since its last renewal. This is assuming the eye shed doesn't get stuck, which can be one of the more common shedding problems. Neptunerover (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting way of putting it. :)  But although the eyecaps (“brille”) are shed along with the rest of the snake's skin, it doesn't actually 'close' over the eye.  I'd say it's more like changing contact lenses.  :) Zearin (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Desquamation
Is desquamation another word for moulting? I want to add an example of snake shedding to the article but I'm not sure. Sounds like it!--Buster7 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The process is also called shedding, or ecdysis, but I've never seen it referred to as "desquamation." I consider the idea that it would be a bit farfetched. --Jwinius (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Snake hunt
How we hunt snakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeevs000 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean, how to hunt for snakes? That's a question of knowing where to look for these secretive animals and when. It may be an interesting topic, but on the other hand we have to remember that Wikipedia is not a HOWTO. --Jwinius (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvements
I have rearranged much of the intro, been a bit more specific, moved the etymology to its own section, and added a few things.

Looking at the rest of the article, the symbolism and religion sections are rather large. I started to rewrite the religion section, then realized that much was already in symbolism. There is also an article Snakes in mythology. This would be a large project if anyone is interested or has comments. If not, I will probably merge those two sections, separate them to their own heading and remove a bit while providing better see also links to relevant articles. Kja er (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good efforts so far. Keep it up. I also like your point about Snakes in mythology: this is content duplication, so I'd be in favor of merging the information on this subject from here to that article. Here, we can then instead do with a very short summary and a reference to that article (or just a mention in "See also"). The section "Interactions with humans" could also be moved to a separate article ("Snakes and man"?). Perhaps parts of the "Skin" section can be moved to Squamata (another article that needs attention). I have long believed that another important improvement of this article will be to eventually move it to Serpentes, which will further help to narrow its scope, but if that happens any time soon it will probably be due to the the outcome of the debate currently taking place at WT:NC that is taking up most of my time at Wikipedia. PS -- Please join WP:AAR! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moulting
Hi there. Could somebody explain this: It is written: "Renewal of the skin by moulting is supposed to allow growth in some animals such as insects, however this view has been disputed in the case of snakes." and then: "A new, larger, and brighter layer of skin has formed underneath." ?? D_kuba 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.241.9 (talk)

"In Religion" section error
The biblical reference to Moses making the pole that cured snakebites is incorrect. It is Numbers Chapter 21:8-9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.27.80 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ophidiophobia should be mentioned
As mild Ophidiophobia is extremely common and clinical ophidiophobia is not rare, I think that the subject should be briefly mentioned in the article. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clock-wise Ouroboros?
Under 14.6, the article suggests that the Ouroboros is: "...in a clock-wise direction (from the head to the tail) in the shape of a circle...". Is it true that the Ouroboros always is clock-wise? If not, then I don't believe it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.181.140.2 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

functional lung
In the introduction it is assumed that all snakes have only one functional lung. This is not always the case, as some more ancient species such as many boidae (boa constrictor for one) have two functional lungs. --XPS420 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion after death
One thing I would really like to see in this article is the explanation biologically for the reason that after a snake is decapitated it continues to move and live. I am searching for that information and I think anyone who encounters a rattlesnake or other snake, and kills it, realizes this occurs, and then would become very curious as to why and (naturally) their first inclination would be to check wikipedia. Just thought it would be helpful. Jeremy B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.82.10 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm conflicted - on one hand, it seems rather "trivia-ish", on the other, it's rather notable. Even other ectotherms don't seem to persist the way snakes do.  I think it could be done, if handled right, but that could be tough.  It'd have to written from a technical/scientific rather than 'sideshow' perspective.  If you can find any articles on google scholar, I can probably access them. Mokele (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Part of the "as pets" section is misleading and some suggestions for additions
The article currently says "Snakes can be very low maintenance pets, especially in comparison to more traditional species." - This is not at all true. Snakes require very exacting humidity and heating requirements to survive in captivity. Many are also very hard to get eating and they are known for going on hunger strikes that can last a few weeks or several months at a time.

The article also say "They require minimal space, as most common species do not exceed five feet in length." - They certainly don't require the space of a dog but a large snake (anything over 6 feet by most hobby standards) does require a significant amount of space.

I also think that it would be a good idea to mention the safety aspects of large snakes since those a pretty common at the local pet shops. For example $75 will get you a 26 inch boa constrictor (BCI) that's going to easily be 8 feet in 1.5 to 3 years depending on how well it eats. Notablyaccidental (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Locomotion - how much stays?
I'm considering making a general page on terrestrial limbless locomotion (since it can cover snakes as well as other limbless vertebrates, including terrestrial movements of near-limbless fish like bichirs). In doing so, it seems like there'd be a lot of redundancy between that page and the current section in this article (which was kind of an info-dump by me and another editor). Would anyone here object to me moving a good chunk of that information to another page and replacing it with something a little more general and more readable (with ample links, of course)? Mokele (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, no input from anyone? Mokele (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest a list of each major form of locomotion with a one or two sentence description. This section really does take up too much space in this article and should be done in summary style. --Danger (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's about what I was thinking. I'll make the move fairly soon / when I remember. Mokele (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have fun, Peace, rkmlai (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica?
Living snakes are found on every continent except Antarctica... Did Antarctica have snakes in prehistoric times? 71.127.243.212 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

incorrect name posted
Under Further Reading you have listed as the author's names for the The Audubon Society Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of North America as Bebler, John L.; King, F. Wayne, which is incorrect. The correct names are John L. Behler and F. Wayne King.

Please make the change. --Julie--

Minor sentence correction needed
The Paragraph just above the contents box starts with the sentence:

"Most species are non-venomous and those that have venom use it primarily to kill and subdue prey rather than self-defense."

It should end with "..rather than for self-defense."

Just the word "for", that's all, but I can't do it. Neptunerover (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, just wait long enough and make the change yourself!--Neptunerover (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blanking
I have no idea why my recent edit blanked the page. I've never seen that before. Some kind of weird browser–server interaction? 11:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vivipary in snakes?
Uhm, why does the article say that some snakes, f.x. the boa constrictor and green anaconda, are fully viviparous, that is they develop placenta and yolk sak? Is this correct? Do you have any documentation what so ever for these statements? Because in the Wikipedia articles concerning the two species I just mentioned, it says they're ovoviviparous... True vivipary in snakes would also have phylogenetically, taxonomically and evolutionary implication, so these claims are rather serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinukli (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hissing
I couldn't find any link to the snake's hissing, big oof and sibilant is strictly about the linguistic phoneticization by humans. .--Kiyoweap (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rattling and puffing should be mentioned too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:78E5:2D85:372:5B0A (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L6y3s8kk (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018
citation for ouroboros: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ouroboros Bookbandit (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)