Can snakes hide in plain view? Chromatic and achromatic crypsis of two colour forms of the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (<i>Thamnophis elegans</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colours influence numerous aspects of an animal's ecology. One possibility is that colour helps make an animal cryptic against the background on which it is resting. We test this hypothesis for two different, geographically separated colour forms (dark forms and light forms) of the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake, Thamnophis elegans. We quantified crypsis of snakes, in terms of colour (chromatic crypsis) and brightness (achromatic crypsis), by using objective measures of spectral reflectance of snakes and the surrounding habitat. These data were visually modelled from the perspective of potential snake predators and human researchers. Overall, snakes of both colour forms selected basking sites that increased chromatic crypsis over that which would have been achievable on random backgrounds. Both colour forms of T. elegans appear to exhibit similar achromatic and chromatic crypsis when viewed by potential predators, such as mammals and birds. From the perspective of the human visual model, dark T. elegans were generally more chromatically cryptic than light T. elegans, contrary to our a priori subjective impression. The main contribution of the present study is that we provide one of the first objective comparisons of snakes and their backgrounds as a measure of crypsis. Although we found some evidence for crypsis as a factor in choice of basking sites for snakes, other factors (e.g. thermoregulatory opportunities) undoubtedly play important roles as well. We also have not addressed whether snakes involved in other activities are cryptic or whether there are differences between the sexes or between reproductive and nonreproductive females. The adaptive significance of colour variation has been studied in diverse taxonomic groups. Although the mechanisms are not straightforward, the opportunities to carry out further work in this area are enhanced by the availability of objective approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".