Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
TWELVE
Loose Ends
EARLIER I MARSHALED EVIDENCE THAT
our dislike for snakes has roots in ancient predator-prey
relationships. The advent of science surely didn't eliminate such prejudice. In 1758, Carl
Linnaeus, the Swede who first assigned named species to larger categories called gen-
era, famously maligned amphibians and reptiles in
Systema Naturae
as “foul and loath-
some animals, distinguished by a heart with single ventricle and single auricle, doubt-
ful lungs, and double penis. Most are abhorrent because of cold body, pale color, car-
tilaginous skeleton, filthy skin, fierce aspect, calculating eye, offensive smell, harsh voice,
squalid habitation, and terrible venom; and so their Creator has not exerted his powers
that most of those claims are false, although male lizards and snakes do have two sex
organs.
Charles Darwin got off to a better start, reporting in 1839 from his voyage on the
H.M.S.
Beagle
that the Patagonian lancehead pitviper's tail “is terminated by a point,
which is very slightly enlarged; and as the animal glided along, it constantly vibrated the
last inch; and this part striking against the dry grass and brushwood, produced a rattling
noise which could be distinctly heard at the distance of six feet. As often as the animal
was irritated or surprised, its tail was shaken; and the vibration was extremely rapid. . .
. [It] has in some respects the structure of a
Vipera
[Eurasian viper] and the habits of a
had presciently implied that the rattle evolved from a sound-making structure present in
spread prejudice, declaring that the lancehead's “face was hideous and fierce; the pupil
consisting of a vertical slit in a mottled and coppery iris; the jaws were broad at the base,
and the nose terminated in a triangular projection. I do not think I ever saw any thing
more ugly.”
Two years later, James De Kay's
Zoology of New York
was more accurate than Lin-
naeus and more complimentary than Darwin: “So general is the repugnance to reptiles
that their study has been overlooked, and they have been usually considered as beings
which it is not only necessary but meritorious to destroy. A part of this vulgar prejudice
is derived from education, and perhaps some of it originates from the fact that sever-
al of them are furnished with venomous fangs, capable of causing intolerable sufferings
and death. To the naturalist and physiologist, however, those who study nature's modi-