Need an ID

[dframel]

This is the underbelly of a dark gray, 12 inch snake in my front bed. With children, I was a little concerned with the banding and color combination. Venomous? Neighborhood cat may have gotten to it since the head was missing. Houston.

[smy_749]

This is the underbelly of a dark gray, 12 inch snake in my front bed. With children, I was a little concerned with the banding and color combination. Venomous? Neighborhood cat may have gotten to it since the head was missing. Houston.

Have any other pics? I'm sure someone will be able to identify it (I cannot) , but it may help to reassure them if you have any others. What color was the body? (not the underbelly)

[smy_749]

Now its clear to me, after checking what you have in texas. Its a mud snake, dont worry about it.

[dframel]

Thank you. In following up on your ID, it does in fact match the description of a young mud snake.

[poison123]

The patterns don't seem right for a md snake.

[milk man]

It could be a broad-banded water snake (non-venomous). Its hard to tell from the pic.

[StudentoReptile]

Not a mudsnake. It "looks" like some type of banded water snake (Nerodia sp).

Here in lies the horrible disadvantages of trying to ID an animal (herps especially) by general appearance alone. Pattern and coloration is very subjective; What is a "triangular head" to some may not appear that way to others. What if you came across a very dark, almost patternless cottonmouth?

There are proper ways to ID herps, and unfortunately the ways demand close inspection (scale counts, presence of pits, iris shape, etc.).

[smy_749]

I still think it looks like a mud snake :-P You said it yourself, the pattern can vary and it seems alot more vibrantly colored of a belly than your average banded water snake...Plus he saw it in person and said it matched the description, maybe the picture is just bad.

also about the patterning, it looks to be the tail end as he said the head was missing, and the tail pattern is a bit diff (broken up) occassionally no?

[StudentoReptile]

I'm curious...how does it match the description of a mudsnake? For example, does it have keeled scales or smooth scales?

[smy_749]

I'm curious...how does it match the description of a mudsnake? For example, does it have keeled scales or smooth scales?

When I touched my computer monitor, it was smooth on the picture. So I'm assuming it has smooth scales.

Sarcasm aside, the belly resembles, IMO more of a mudsnake than it does of a banded water snake. The OP said he googled mud snake and confirmed thats what he saw...So I'm just going on that.

Look at the tail of this: http://www.ca.uky.edu/forestryextension/kysnakes/workspace/uploads/mudsnake-full.jpg

And tell me a banded water snake matches better than that...

[StudentoReptile]

Google is the devil when it comes to Identifying snakes. For example, I just googled "mud snake" and went through the image search; I saw pictures of hognose snakes, scarlet kingsnakes, and indigo snakes in addition to pictures of mud snakes. Whose to say the OP was looking at the correct image?

Some mud snakes are axanthic and have no red. There are 7-8 different types of water snakes in the southeast, and most are a lot more common than any member of Farancia.

Personally, I've seen enough mud snakes and enough water snakes to disagree with you, but since neither of us have the snake in front of us to examine firsthand, there's no sense in arguing about it further.

All we have is a photo of a dead, headless snake where only we can see the ventral side. Besides that, all we have is the general location: Houston, TX. Given the data thus far, I still say it is a member of Nerodia, and not Farancia, simply based on the former is much more commonly encountered by humans and have more diverse habitats, whereas mud snakes are more secretive, and more specialized habitats.

[StudentoReptile]

...but hey, believe what you want. ;)

I'm going by science, not Google.

[smy_749]

Google is ok, if you know what your looking for already. But I guess the OP doesn't so good point. The picture is pretty bad too ....but I'm sticking with my choice because we wont' ever know if I was wrong or not anyways :D

If the OP comes back, take a detailed picture for us. The winner gets to keep the dead headless snake as a trophy.

[StudentoReptile]

I prefer live ones.

And no, Google is NOT okay, even you "know" what you're looking before. I can even insert the full taxonomic name in the search field, and get varied results. By putting in a particular name (Ex: mud snake), you are skewing the results in your favor because every image that comes up will be tagged as mud snake. So any image you look at (if you are not intelligent), if you find an image that matches the appearance of your snake in question, you will automatically assume that identity is correct. Often it is not.

That is why it better to refer to an accurate field guide than to rely on what you "think" you know what the animal is, and let Google "rationalize" your judgment.

[StudentoReptile]

Going back to your earlier statement, you said the following:

the belly resembles, IMO more of a mudsnake than it does of a banded water snake.

Again I ask: how so? How many mud snakes have you actually observed firsthand? Water snakes? You are relying only on coloration and pattern alone. The key term in your statement is "IMO" (in MY OPINION). Good thing science does not rely on opinions.

[Danimal]

“Knowledge is knowing the tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in your fruit salad.”
― Miles Kington

I would not and I do not comment on something that I have Just looked up as if I knew what it was, that's not honest. Besides he/she could have done the same thing and drawn their own conclusion. The affirmation comes from practical knowledge of which in this case I have none so I've made no comment. But I pay attention and hopefully learn something new.

[smy_749]

I prefer live ones.

And no, Google is NOT okay, even you "know" what you're looking before. I can even insert the full taxonomic name in the search field, and get varied results. By putting in a particular name (Ex: mud snake), you are skewing the results in your favor because every image that comes up will be tagged as mud snake. So any image you look at (if you are not intelligent), if you find an image that matches the appearance of your snake in question, you will automatically assume that identity is correct. Often it is not.

That is why it better to refer to an accurate field guide than to rely on what you "think" you know what the animal is, and let Google "rationalize" your judgment.

You can insert the full taxonomic name, and get varied results. That is why I said if you know what you are looking for. If you know what you are looking for, you will be able to seperate the results into relevant and not relevant ones. I'm not intentionally skewing results :P

Also, science is also not based on grainy bad quality pictures of headless snakes. In my opinion and I think are my disclaimers for when I'm wrong.

If you have a better idea of what it could be and have an accurate picture not from google, then post it and see if he thinks its a better match.

Also, we don't have mudsnakes where I'm from :-P so no I'm not speaking from experience, I'm just doing guess work :D

[StudentoReptile]

You can insert the full taxonomic name, and get varied results. That is why I said if you know what you are looking for. If you know what you are looking for, you will be able to seperate the results into relevant and not relevant ones. I'm not intentionally skewing results :P

And how many members of the general public 'know what they're doing?" LOL...not many. The people who do, generally do not use Google as a tool anyway, as is my point. It is not accurate.


If you have a better idea of what it could be and have an accurate picture not from google, then post it and see if he thinks its a better match.


I'm not going to go through my books and scan a bunch of photos. If people want to learn more, they need to invest in a good field guide themselves and not rely on the interwebs in the first place.

Also, we don't have mudsnakes where I'm from :-P so no I'm not speaking from experience, I'm just doing guess work :D

I figured as much...hence the guesswork.
---

Usually in these situations, and whenever a relative, coworker or friend sends me a photo of a dead snake they just killed and asked what it is, I simply reply that it is a dead snake. They obviously did not care enough to learn/figure out what it was before they killed it, and it does not matter what it is now that it is dead. Usually the snake is a common harmless species, but they often respond saying "Google said it was a copperhead." I literally want to reach my hand through the phone/computer and hit them. You can see why I stand by my earlier statement "Google is the devil." It is a horrible tool for ID reptiles and the people on this planet who "know" how to use it, probably use a guide or a key anyway.

[smy_749]

Its not as bad as the middle east. Every time I tell someone from Jordan that I have a snake near my bed, they start teaching me about how it will kill me if bites me, and the skin is poisonous, and they are all cobras. If its not a cobra its a "hayya" which just means a female deadly snake to them. So cobras are males, if its not a cobra then its a female (something just as deadly).

Same thing in Egypt....and these are educated people living in nice areas.

[StudentoReptile]

I always tell people that it is highly advisable (IMHO mandatory) to get familiar with all the local wildlife in your own area. It just comes as life; teaching kids how to cross the street, never talk to neighbors, being familiar with state laws, preparing the house for hurricane weather, etc.

[milk man]

Just to let you guys know, my guess came from my field guide.:p

[Pareeeee]

I always tell people that it is highly advisable (IMHO mandatory) to get familiar with all the local wildlife in your own area. It just comes as life; teaching kids how to cross the street, never talk to neighbors, being familiar with state laws, preparing the house for hurricane weather, etc.

Couldn't agree more.

As for the argument on using google, there is a right way and a wrong way to use it. When I use it I try to find reputable websites. For example, when I'm looking up Ontario reptiles, instead of clicking on some random site like person's blog, I will use ontarionature.org which is a reliable organization and website. Their reptile and amphibian page is set up like an online field guide with range, habitat, similar species, identification marks, etc.

Google Images is only partially helpful, people need to check the website that the picture came from, sometimes it's just some mislabeled photo from a stock-image site :wacky:

[Donnie]

It think it would be very useful to merge the field guide and Google together and for somebody who really knows what they are doing to create an app. Not very many people will carry a field guide around with them but nearly everybody carries a phone.
Anybody with a vast amount of knowledge got any spare time...........

[drewkore]

I just confirmed with Google; it's a deadly invasive burmese python.

[poison123]

Google has yet to fail me :p

[smy_749]

Google has yet to fail me :p

Thanks for the support ! hahahah

[StudentoReptile]

Internet in general is unreliable. Websites can be created/edited/deleted with the click of a mouse. Anyone can do it.

While yes, anyone can also write and publish a book these days, it is definitely a more extensive process than just creating a website. If my internet goes out, I still have my field guides complete with dichotomous key. I also take this in the field every time I go herping. Hard to get good reception with the phone in some of the places I go, but I can still use the same book anytime anywhere. ;)