Snakes ARE affectionate

[RAD House]

Child care, some snakes have been shown to exhibit this as earlier stated. Attraction to a mate no matter how fleeting. It I a misconception science is a field of certainties. I am only talking about possibilities.

[eminart]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

Child care, some snakes have been shown to exhibit this as earlier stated. Attraction to a mate no matter how fleeting. It I a misconception science is a field of certainties. I am only talking about possibilities.

Nobody thinks science is a field of certainties. That is the beauty of science. It is always learning. That said, I don't expect them to discover that the earth is flat any time soon, just like I don't think they're going to find that snakes experience love despite the fact that such an emotion in a reptile would serve no evolutionary advantage.

What does it mean to only be talking about possibilities? Is that the same thing as saying you're fantasizing?

[RAD House]

Eminart without actual studies no one is proving anything. This is just a discussion about opinions. You are talking about public perception not what science points to. Science points to that we do not understand snake brains very well.

[RAD House]

Ok Derek I charge you to find just one that mentions snake love or even emotions. That should keep you from making ridiculous over generalized posts for a bit. I have to pick up dog poop.

[Derek Roddy]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

Ok Derek I charge you to find just one that mentions snake love or even emotions. That should keep you from making ridiculous over generalized posts for a bit. I have to pick up dog poop.

There are not any papers mentioning or proving that there is "love" in snakes but, there are hundreds of papers that show why snakes don't "love".

In fact, any paper ever written on the subject tells us their capability and what and how we understand them....If YOU understand what you're reading.

You can start with book called "reptile biology".

It will explain everything you need to know about their makeup, brains and evolutionary existence.

Cheers,
D

[prairiepanda]

Originally Posted by Derek Roddy

In fact, any paper ever written on the subject tells us their capability and what and how we understand them....If YOU understand what you're reading.

All the papers I found on the subject have been very careful to state the limitations of research in this area and concede the fact that we cannot know these things for sure. I've noticed the same among the textbooks I have around from both me and my roommate(my major is biochemistry and hers is psychology). I have, however, seen other books before(in elementary school) which make "definitive" claims about reptile intelligence and emotional capacity, but back then I wasn't interested in checking author reputability so I can't say much about those. And I guess I haven't read "every paper ever written", but the papers I found do fall under that category. If you've misunderstood something, I can pull up excerpts from the papers to clear things up.

If this 'Reptile Biology' book you've recommended has solid evidence of your claims, I'd be very interested in checking it out. I'll need to know the author(s) and edition number in order to find the one you're talking about. Please share.

I'm not trying to debunk your opinion; there's plenty of evidence to back it up. However, these blanket statements about science in general and your overall attitude towards the concepts of proof and evidence are not helping your case. Make what conclusions you like based on the evidence we have, but please accept the limitations of current research. Just telling people "you're wrong because SCIENCE" is not a constructive argument. You want to aim for something more like "I'm more likely right because evidence A,B,C" and/or "You're probably wrong because evidence D,E,F"

[Derek Roddy]

Originally Posted by prairiepanda

If this 'Reptile Biology' book you've recommended has solid evidence of your claims, I'd be very interested in checking it out. I'll need to know the author(s) and edition number in order to find the one you're talking about. Please share.

Any reptile biology book tells us what snakes brains are capable of. It's no secret how the reptile brain works and what those parts that make up the brain are capable of based on the evolution of all other animals on this planet.

ALL higher level thinking/reasoning, etc animals on this planet all have the same brain parts. Snakes DO NOT have these parts that have allowed evolution of higher thinking in other species. If reptiles would have evolved with those evolutionary traits...then this conversation may have merit. BUT, It doesn't or hasn't nor will it.

It's not rocket science people.

D

[prairiepanda]

Originally Posted by Derek Roddy

Any reptile biology book tells us what snakes brains are capable of. It's no secret how the reptile brain works and what those parts that make up the brain are capable of based on the evolution of all other animals on this planet.

ALL higher level thinking/reasoning, etc animals on this planet all have the same brain parts. Snakes DO NOT have these parts that have allowed evolution of higher thinking in other species. If reptiles would have evolved with those evolutionary traits...then this conversation may have merit. BUT, It doesn't or hasn't nor will it.

It's not rocket science people.

D

Yes, reptile brains are missing regions that birds and mammals have, which is pretty strong evidence considering that some of those regions are associated with emotion. But we cannot say that it is impossible to have emotion without these regions. There are also regions of the reptile brain that do not have homologs in humans and are not thoroughly understood, so it's possible(though unlikely) that reptiles have their own means of feeling emotion, including affection. No biology book I have read has made the claim to know every capability of the reptile brain, though we can make assumptions based on homologous structures in mammals. Also, we do not know how the function of the limbic territories varies between species(there is at least one paper on the topic which I do not have access to, so the answer might be out there). If other animals, especially birds, have other regions contributing to their affectionate and emotional responses then we would have reason to dismiss the absence of limbic territories in reptiles as evidence of lack of affection.

I'd like to point out that people without university library access can still carry out effective research. News articles, and even blog posts, can be referenced if they cite their sources. They tend to take the hard part out of understanding a paper as well. And you can check their sources by reading the abstracts to determine whether the research and conclusions drawn match what the blog describes, and also look up contributing authors to see what qualifies them to conduct such research and what other kinds of research they have published.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I do agree that you're probably right about reptiles not being capable of affection and I share that view. Any evidence to the contrary has thus far proven to be quite weak. I only wish to correct flaws in the structure of your argument.

[RAD House]

With out any support you may be right. I like to think of it as personal hypothesis.

[Minkness]

One breeder who specializes in BPs remarked a noticeable difference in the 'defensive' nature of BP morphs. Most white morphs of any breeding are more docile and have to even try to strike him (BELs) where as darker morph types (like super cinnamons) are generally more defensive and almost always try to bite him. He does not put an absolute guarantee on this behavior however. Same species, different morphs, all genders.

Also, previously stated somewhere in all this mess is that 'all inelegant beings have the capacity for emotion'....what about people with aspgergers? Or other emotional detachment issues? Sure it's case by case scenarios, but really? Every intelligent being? Birds are highly inelegant for their brain size. Some are loyal, affectionate, mean, depressed, or purely instinct driven. Words we choose to use are strictly meant for human understanding. How can we possibly describe the truth behind animal thoughts, opinions, or emotions when we are still learning the human side of things?

I have a snake that hisses like the dickens whenever I open his enclosure. My first thought is not "omg he hates me!" So why would I 'feel' like he loves me when he curls up on my shoulder for 2 hours while I watch a movie? (Note, I have a naturally high temp normally and he's usually under my shirt. So, plenty warm).

I have one snake that lets me pet his head...the other two freak out if they even suspect me to be moving towards their head. 2 of my snakes will eat while in my hand...one will only eat if I put the meal on a flat surface and tease him with it. Different personalities? Absolutely. Different levels of 'emotion'? Perhaps...fear, Wanting to be alone, the urge to eat? Those could be classified as a type of emotion. Sadness, anger, love, ect....not to much.

Even looking at the neanderthal brain, humans even lacked those emotions on a higher level. The need for security and general bonding over trust, taking care of each other's physical needs, and so on, trumped the feelings of depression, contentment, and amorous ideas of affection. Those levels didn't exist in us until much, much later in our cultural and biological development. Even now we are constantly growing and changing our own emotions to the point some people feel too much and are diagnosed with disorders and syndromes ect.

I personally believe in compatability over love. Just because I love someone does not mean that I can live with them. And just because I know someone can take care of me doesn't mean I'll love them. That's a complexity that I struggle with on a daily basis.

In many ways, I envy my reptiles ability to be more detached. What I wouldn't give to be a Vulcan!!!

[RAD House]

Eminart would you rather be the scientist who was proven wrong after saying it was possible or saying adamantly it was impossible? Darwin himself had second thoughts about his theory.

[eminart]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

Eminart would you rather be the scientist who was proven after saying it was possible or saying adamantly it was impossible? From what. Darwin himself had second thoughts about his theory.

I've already shook hands and called it a day with the original poster. I really don't want you to drag me back into this, but it looks like you will.

Yes, science always learns more and adapts. As I stated earlier, that's the beauty of it. But it rarely scraps everything and starts over. It adds and morphs slightly. Darwin might have had some second thoughts, but not radical ones. And, he was right to do so, because his theory wasn't 100% correct. Not much is on the first try.

Now, since you still want to argue, explain to me why a snake would experience love. What in nature has driven them to evolve that emotion?

[RAD House]

No eminart you are right we are done. I don't like repeating myself and you have hit my limit.

[eminart]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

No eminart you are right we are done. I don't like repeating myself and you have hit my limit.

Repeating what you've already said wouldn't answer my question, which is why I've asked it three times in this thread. So, yes, I think we're done, since nobody has an answer for what would drive a snake to evolve the emotions of love and affection.

[prairiepanda]

I’m disappointed in the lack of research applied to this conversation. Many people are referring to “modern science”, “decades of research”, and “scientific studies” but nobody has cited anything specifically other than a New York Times article which doesn’t even cite the research that it is reporting on, so we can’t investigate for ourselves to judge the reliability of these sources. It is true that I did not cite any research myself when I first posted my opinion on this matter, but I also did not claim that my opinion stemmed from some mysterious research paper. It was my opinion based on my very limited prior knowledge of neurology and personal experiences. But with the conversation going on this long and becoming so heated, we should be stepping beyond opinion and personal experience to support our arguments at this point. So I have decided to look into the topic on my own and share with you the most relevant and recent sources that I could find. To be clear; I did not conduct my research in such a way as to support my opinion, but rather to shed light on all sides of this discussion. I have excluded findings that seemed somewhat irrelevant, outdated, or vague, but nothing has been excluded due to disagreement with my own opinion.

Firstly, regarding the evolution of the brain and similarities between the brains of humans and other animals, the most straightforward(though least thorough) source I have is my vertebrate biology textbook. For all those with a library card:
Kardong, Kenneth V. "The Nervous System."*Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 652-66. Print.
While there are homologs of key brain structures across all vertebrates, the capacity and function of these homologs varies between different kinds of animals according to their needs and modes of living. These differences correspond to significant differences in behavior and bodily functions. The brains of reptiles are drastically different from animals such as birds and mammals that are widely accepted as being capable of affection. Furthermore, there are several structures present in birds and mammals which do not have any homologs in reptiles, not all of which have known functions. This does not shed any light on our debate, but I felt the need to counter the idea that “It is now known that brain structure and chemistry is identical in all vertebrates from the lamprey to humans.” as it was used as a supporting argument within this discussion. Brain structure, and even cell class diversity, varies substantially between species even within the same order. More in-depth information on brain variation can be found here:
Northcutt, R. G. "Understanding Vertebrate Brain Evolution."*Integrative and Comparative Biology*42.4 (2002): 743-56. Web.
The study is a bit old, but goes into specific differences in cell classes and general structure. There is no information here tying these differences to the presence or absence of affection, but with the incredible differences between reptile and mammalian brains, I see no reason why one should assume the same responses are happening in reptiles as in mammals.


Here’s an interesting discussion of the evolution of brains in general:
Barbieri, Marcello. "Origin and Evolution of the Brain."*Biosemiotics*4.3 (2011): 369-99. Web.
Barbieri draws on numerous sources dated as early as 1943 and as late as 2010. I did not assess these sources, as there were quite a lot, but I did not see any red flags indicating anything may have been taken out of context or from a non-reputable source. The article goes into great detail about how different aspects of the central nervous system came to be. All aspects of the brain and its functions can be related to evolutionary theory, and strong development of specific neurological traits has been linked to various evolutionary advantages. This is quite relevant to the question that has come up repeatedly here: How would love and affection benefit snakes as a species? From an evolutionary perspective, it is unlikely that this trait would be retained since the majority of snakes are reproductively successful without any apparent form of affection. However, it is also made clear that the concepts of thought and mind are so poorly understood that we cannot clearly define what comprises the mind of other species.


This is my favorite find out of them all:
Ledoux, Joseph. "Rethinking the Emotional Brain."*Neuron*73.4 (2012): 653-76. Web.
It’s quite a lengthy paper, but it’s a great read and explores all aspects of the concept of emotion, how it works, and various theories regarding its purpose and evolution. They did up all their references in blue so it is quite clear where their ideas are coming from if you wish to explore any of them yourself. One section that really popped out to me was this:

And given that some of the neural
mechanisms involved in conscious representations may be
different in humans and other animals, we should be cautious
in assuming that the subjectively experienced phenomena that
humans label as feelings are experienced by other animals
when they engage in behaviors that have some similarity to
human emotional behavior. In short, if the circuits that give rise
to conscious representations are different in two species, we
cannot use behavioral similarity to argue for similarity of
conscious feelings functionally. These observations add neuro-
biological substance to the point famously argued by the
philosopher Thomas Nagel. He proposed that only a bat can
experience the world like a bat, and only a human can experi-
ence the world like a human (Nagel, 1974). We should resist
the inclination to apply our introspections to other species.

Which is later expanded upon with this:

We will
never know what an animal feels. But if we can find neural corre-
lates of conscious feelings in humans (and distinguish them from
correlates of unconscious emotional computations in survival
circuits), and show that similar correlates exists in homologous
brain regions in animals, then some basis for
speculating
about
animal feelings and their nature would exist. While such specula-
tions would be empirically based, they would nevertheless
remain speculations.

With 9 pages of citations backing up this paper, many of which are quite recent, its standpoint is certainly compelling. Ledoux has granted that we simply do not know enough about non-human brains in general to determine with certainty whether any animal besides humans feels human-like emotions. However, he indicates that because the structure and makeup of the brains of non-mammals is so drastically different from that of humans, we cannot assume that they feel or interpret anything in any similar fashion to the way we do. He has suggested that it is possible that other animals, even ones with extremely primitive central nervous systems such as invertebrates, may be capable of extremely diverse ranges of mental activity including human-like emotion or even experiences beyond human capabilities, but through means that are completely different from human means of emotion.



This is not a scientific study, but it’s a very nice observation of a mother Arizona black rattlesnake caring for her young. SocialSnakes: A day in the life of a rattlesnake family
Whether you consider this behavior in itself to be a show of affection is up to you(I personally have no clue where to draw the line between maternal instinct and familial affection, if there is a line at all, since affection is such a vague concept), but it does at least show that some degree of social affinity exists among snakes. Most snakes do not care for their young and would even eat their own, though, so it’s impossible to say how prevalent the genetic and physiological basis for this behavior might be throughout suborder Serpentes.

Expanding on the question of the extent of social behavior in reptiles, we have this brief paper:
Doody, Sean, J, Gordon M. Burghardt, and Vladimir Dinets. "Breaking the Social–Non-social Dichotomy: A Role for Reptiles in Vertebrate Social Behavior Research?"*International Journal of Behavioural Biology: Ethology*119 (2013): 95-103. Web.
Summarizing various observances of social behavior in reptiles, including group coordinated hunting in sea snakes. Most of the examples described are not relateable to mammals, for example the ability of sea turtles to detect and respond to the activity of their clutchmates before hatching, so it is difficult to assess them as “social” behavior, but indeed we can expect reptilian social dynamics to be quite different from that of mammals.

What I’d really like to see is a study monitoring the brain activity of rattlesnakes carrying out maternal care tasks and comparing it to brain activity during activities such as “kissing” when interacting with handlers. Would the same regions of the brain light up? How would the results then compare to acts of affection in birds or mammals? But the biggest question is; who would pay for such research?

I personally do not see things any differently after having done my research. I have certainly gained new insight into the potential for social motives and a wide range of feelings and emotions in reptiles, but I still do not see a reason to believe that snakes are affectionate. I would not say it’s entirely impossible, but it is something that does not seem to make sense in light of the evidence currently available. The desire to care for and protect a member of another species does not seem like a trait that would benefit snakes in the progress of their evolution. Keep in mind that although mammals and birds arose after reptiles, from common ancestry, they did not arise from extant lineages of reptiles. The reptiles we see around us today are entirely distinct from the common ancestors shared by birds and mammals.

On a side note, if anyone has access to this paper:
A.B. Butler, R.M.J. Cotterill, Mammalian and avian neuroanatomy and
the question of consciousness in birds, Biol. Bull. 211 (2006) 106–
127.
I’d be very interested to hear about it. Apparently it describes the role of the limbic territory of the striatum, which is not present in reptiles, and compares its role in birds and mammals.(it was cited in another paper I read, which I did not include here due to its vagueness) I feel a better understanding of the function of the limbic territory would contribute to this discussion.