Is headfirst ingestion essential in gape-limited predators? Prey-handling behavior of the anurophagous snake <i>Rhabdophis tigrinus</i> (Colubridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Headfirst ingestion of prey is a common adaptive behavioral trait in gape-limited predators that swallow large prey whole. To ascertain this tendency during anurophagy, prey handling and direction of prey ingestion were investigated in Rhabdophis tigrinus (Boie, 1826), a snake that feeds mainly on anurans. Examinations of stomach contents of wild R. tigrinus revealed that this snake does not show a tendency for headfirst ingestion of large prey, unlike most other snake species. In the laboratory, direction of ingestion depended largely on initial bite position, and when R. tigrinus swallowed a frog rump-first, the snake grasped both hind limbs of the frog and aligned them side by side so that both were swallowed together simultaneously from their tips. A simple model test suggested that physical resistance in the buccal cavity incurred during transportation of frogs may not differ between headfirst and hind-first ingestion if the hind limbs of frogs are aligned and swallowed simultaneously. Laboratory experiments also demonstrated that ingestively naive hatchlings of R. tigrinus are able to perform the unique manipulation required to swallow frogs hind-first. It is suggested that this unique ingestion mode is an adaptation for anurophagy, and several possible functional advantages are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".