![]() | Agkistrodon piscivorus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've found a source for wikipedia usable maps ( http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states.html) and I'll start stitching together the census line maps to produce a US map to use for species ranges.
These maps have been used on some pages already (which is how I found them). See Arlington County, Virginia for an example.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.86.218.135 ( talk) 14 December 2003 (UTC)
I don't know how far you've gotten on this, but I found some good PDF maps at the US Census Bureau, which are public domain. I cleaned up one of them to show state and county borders; no rivers and lakes, unfortunately, but it's a nice high resolution. Check it out. -- Wapcaplet 22:10, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm no herpetologist or anything, but isn't that snake to the left of the description a copperhead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.126.75 ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Young cottonmouths are occasionally seen in low bushes and I can't rule out one climbing a tree now and then, but certainly 99.9% of the "cottonmouths" seen basking in tree branches over water are harmless banded watersnakes (nerodia fasciata) or related species, the snakes most commonly mistaken for cottonmouths... I'm not sure what would constitute verification of this, since there are no doubt hundreds of people who swear they've seen it and the fact that no herpetologist or serious snake keeper has ever witnessed it and no one has ever taken a picture doesn't "prove" that it didn't happen. 65.218.191.140 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
no they have not proved!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.221.195 ( talk) 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Agkistrodon piscivorus does bask in tree branches. In the 1970s I was participating in field work in Alabama and Mississippi, studying turtles of the genus Graptemys in the river systems there. I and two other herpetologists were in a johnboat, checking turtle traps, when we brushed against some tree branches which were hanging low over the water. A large snake was dislodged from the branches and fell right into the boat. All three of us positively identified it as an adult A. piscivorus. Lyttle-Wight ( talk) 02:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is a photo from wiki-commons showing two cottonmouths in a tree with a third watersnake. It is not unusual . I have seen them on a few occasions two or three feet up in bushes and trees, over water and dry ground. WiLaFa ( talk) 05:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
One other thing, these snakes are located in Mississippi, as well. I do not know why that state did not get mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.103.159 ( talk) 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This page could benefit from a picture of a non-venomous watersnake swimming. Then readers could see the diference in how they swim, as this is a key way of distinguishing between cottonmouths and other watersnakes. JeffStickney 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure that Copperhead is a common name for a Cottonmouth? I'm pretty sure it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjuan ( talk • contribs) 17:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I live in the SouthEast (of North America) - in the area it's pretty common knowledge that we have three types of poisonous snakes: Rattlesnake, copperhead, and the water moccasin (aka cottonmouth). I would agree that there might be people that confuse two snakes (everyone gets the rattlesnake right), but I find it highly confusing to think that the three poisonous types of snakes are Rattlesnake, copperhead, and copperhead. Msull ( talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Overall:
So far, I've addressed almost all of your points, even to the extent of creating a new article: Intergradation. I guess the introduction can still be expanded, but I'm not in favor of summarizing the list of reported prey species: I believe it is informative, even to the extent of being entertaining! But, I'll admit that you probably have to be more into the subject to appreciate that level of detail. -- Jwinius ( talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
what can i do to get rid of water moccasins? how can i tell if it is indeed a baby water moccasins or not? please let me know it's very important, due to the fact that i've done killed two in my house and i have a 3 yr old son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.163.109 ( talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone ever heard of these snakes being referred to as rattlers? Maybe by someone who calls all venomous snakes rattlers, but as these snakes have no rattle and have no audible warning, outside of hissing, I don't believe this is a common name for these snakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The geographic range map show these snakes existing right up to the very edge of the border of the state of Kansas, but I am quite sure they do exist in that state, as my best friend grew up with a boy who was killed by multiple bites from these snakes (upon diving into a water-filled rock quarry), in approximately 1980. There is no other species of aquatic or semi-aquatic, venomous snake in the continental United States, so it had to be this snake. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The geographic range map shows that these snakes stop in southern Missouri, however they are found in just about every pond, lake, river, and creek up here in northeastern Missouri as well. They are all over up and down the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, so its likely they are found in any state these 2 rivers run through. So I think its safe to say the current map is quit a bit off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryu80x ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree the map is too limited. I grew up in an area of metropolitan Atlanta that would be excluded from this map (at the time in a relatively undeveloped marshy suburb, now a concrete jungle), but had multiple run-ins with cottonmouths. I can also factually (though anecdotally) state that cottonmouths are, at least at times, quite deserving of their aggressive reputation. I was 'chased' (forced to back away very quickly and followed by a threatening snake) on two occasions. Taterbill ( talk) 15:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
First sentence makes an assertion that the venom can be sometimes fatal. According to http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/771329-overview, at least one fatality has been reported, so this might make a good citation for that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.23.158 ( talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It is common or tribal or pseudo knowledge that Cotton Mouths are aggressive. "Urban" (the term doesn't seem to quite fit here) legends have it that these snakes will approach and attempt to enter boats and have "chased" people and dogs.
The article does not really weigh in heavily on this issue, but does refer to the animals "approaching" intruders. The nearest citation to this statement, however, does not mention such behavior.
Given the variety of beliefs and statements on this aspect of Water Moccasin behavior, it would be helpful to strengthen this part of the article.
Pondhockey ( talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (Pardon my clumsiness and possible ignorance of etiquette; I'm new to this kind of discussion and editing.)
Here we go again! How about some unbiased writing not giving undue weight to a single study!
One study in 2002 found few snakes in the experiment to exhibit aggressive behaviors as defined by the researchers. That is NOT a finding that the water moccassin is not aggressive!
Did they test the aggressivenss near the nest or with young? Did they test while feeding or preparing to feed? Did they test in all seasons? Did they test both in the water and out of the water? Were they confirming prior studies or was this the first -still not duplicated- study? Furthermore, one sub-species could be more aggressive than others, but again, we just don't know, do we?
Not only that, the behavior reported by the study was different in repeated tests, with most snakes trying to escape in one study; and with most snakes adopting a defensive threat posture in another test!. What can really be concluded from this?
We also suffer from the inability to review the full text -freely- in order to evaluate -and criticize- the methodology. The bottom line is, Wikiteurs should not cite studies unless they cite reviews and not original research, which by definition is not yet the established body of knowledge -remember cold fusion?-
Clearly the wikiteurs have no clue about the scientific process to find the truth, as always evolving process. The paragraph should state instead that it is not settled whether the snake is aggressive and then cite representative studies or reports from both sides. This is what you do until a study is duplicated by others under the same conditions. Then you can conclude that, given the same conditions, i.e. temperature, humidity, lighting, season, maturity, etc., etc., what was reported can be generally accepted. Wikipedia is NOT a *Real* encyclopedia!
Disclaimer: This is a critique of a specific paragraph, not the whole article! 146.23.68.40 ( talk) 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree. See my anecdotal post under Geographic Range above. *Something* can make them display aggressive behavior. Taterbill ( talk) 15:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
"Harmless watersnakes of the genus Nerodia are often mistaken for it. These are also semiaquatic, thick-bodied snakes with large heads that can be aggressive when provoked,[5] but they behave differently. For example, watersnakes usually flee quickly into the water, while A. piscivorus often stands its ground with its threat display. In addition, watersnakes do not vibrate their tails when excited.[18] A. piscivorus usually holds its head at an angle of about 45° when swimming or crawling.[5]"
But it says earlier in the aggressiveness section that water moccasins usually swim away. What is the deal? Do they stand their ground or do they swim away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Doesn't voro mean "I eat"? Paramecium13 ( talk) 22:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I am disturbed by this notation:
"Although their aggression has been exaggerated, on rare occasions territorial males will approach intruders in an aggressive manner" [3] epa.gov Wharton, C.H. 1969. The cottonmouth mocassin on Sea Horse Key, Florida. Bull. Florida St. Mus., Biol. Sci. 14:227-272.
I would question this completely. Perhaps there needs to be clarification... My belief is that there needs to be a distinction between aggressive behavior on land or in the water.
I understand that anecdotes are forbidden in wikipedia archives... therefore I would leave it up to someone to research this and actually determine the aggressive nature of these snakes... but I would caution the EPA's statement that aggression "has been exaggerated". What exactly does it mean when something has been exaggerated? Is the EPA taking anecdotes and dismissing the aggression completely? That is certainly what the tone of the sentence is.
If anything, I would recommend that the statement from the EPA be scrapped completely unless an aggression study is actually done. From my own anecdote which occurred not even 20 minutes ago August 14, 2011 @ approximately 10:45 AM CST, I can tell you that cottonmouths are extremely aggressive on land. I wish I had made a video to record the "attack first" disposition of this particular cottonmouth... For the record, I live in Denton County Texas, next to lake Lewisville... to give some kind of geographical perspective... who knows... there are so many sleight variations of species based on location, it could be that the species in Florida is more "docile".
I am inclined to think, however, that there is a distinction between aggression on land versus water... the droughts here in TX means that cottonmouths probably have less water to reside; therefore they are forced onto land more frequently. There might be a connection between mobility and aggressive behavior. They are adept at moving in the water, but what about land? There may be a natural tendency for "fight" due to the fact that the land, for this species, is "unsafe" territory.
UPDATE:
I found this article regarding the aggressive behavior of the cottonmouth... Here is the citation:
<ref>Means, Bruce. "Blocked-Flight Aggressive Behavior in Snakes" (PDF). IRCF ReptIles & AmphIbIAns • Vol 17, no 2 • JUn 2010. Retrieved 14 August 2011.</ref>
This is a great article and explains exactly what happened with me and the cottonmouth I encountered. Dr. Means is calling this "blocked flight aggressive" behavior. An excellent article on the aggressive nature of this snake and other snakes. It's a great find.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blaine72 (
talk •
contribs) 16:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is this snake poisonous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.120.97.183 ( talk) 03:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, The taxonomy of this complex was recently revised.
Two species and no subspecies are now recognized. Agkistrodon conanti on the SE coastal plain in Florida and Agkistrodon piscivorus everywhere else with gene flow between species. While exciting, this isn't an unexpected development and these biogeographic patterns have been well described in the literature and served as key examples in Avise's work that founded the field of phylogeography.
Link to full text: http://cnah.org/pdf/88290.pdf - this includes maps, niches and putative hybrid zones for both this species and its congeners, Agkistrodon contortrix and Agkistrodon laticinctus. The Society for the Study of Reptiles and Amphibians, as well as the new Peterson Field Guide to ENA snakes accept these changes and they should be incorporated into wikipedia at (y)our earliest convenience. Phylogenizer ( talk) 20:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Phylogenizer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phylogenizer ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agkistrodon piscivorus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel this long list would be better presented in some kind of table format. Right now, it's far too cluttered to be readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ0053 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I’m curious as to how this page meets good article criteria when I have observed at least 3 citation needed tags throughout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8880:5E80:CDF9:B68A:D461:E08F ( talk) 05:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It is outdated as well. The taxonomy has been changed so the former species was split into two. The rangemaps are now wrong and the picture in the header appears to be A. contanti, not A. piscivorus. More info can be found at https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12211 and Peterson's 4th Edition Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America (2016). I am not very familiar with Wikipedia yet, so I don't really feel comfortable updating it myself, but I hope someone addresses it. SilverSheWolf ( talk) 03:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article say that there are only four venomous snakes in North America. I can name off the top of my head more than four species of venomous snakes that I have seen just in the states of Arkansas and Missouri where I have lived. Copperheads, Pygmy Rattlesnake, Canebreak Rattlesnake, Diamond Back Rattlesnake, and Cottonmouths. All of those species I have seen in the wild in North America. That is more than four. 2604:CB00:20B:CC00:61C6:8199:83EA:35B ( talk) 05:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t like the fact that the article is named Agkistrodon piscivorus, Because most Wikipedia articles used the species common name. Quincy43425 ( talk) 23:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. New evidence has been presented that the proposed name is not precise enough, the original Cottonmouth species having been split in two. Opponents also point out that there is no pressing reason to move away from the scientific name, which is consistent with those of related species. No such user ( talk) 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Agkistrodon piscivorus → Cottonmouth – WP:COMMONNAME (already redirects here). If not "Cottonmouth", then " Water moccasin" (which also redirects here). Both redirects have been stable for 5 years or longer. — BarrelProof ( talk) 10:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two species of cottonmouths. Herpetologist (and ornithologist) and herpetological societies like the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, and others, have been trying to establish standardized common names for reptile and amphibians for decades. The current and up to date list should be consulted before making changes.
Checklist of the Standard English Names of Amphibians & Reptiles
Herpetologist and herpetological societies have discouraged the use of the name "water moccasin" since the 1960s.
Common names for many North American and European species are probably ok if established standardized common names are followed, but for tropical species common names are not established or meaningful, and are often confusing with the same names often applied to many species. Keep in mind, with a shift in the last 20 to 30 years from morphologically based taxonomy to molecular (DNA) based taxonomy, and from traditional based taxonomic theories to phylogenetic theories, many names that had been stable for decades and even centuries, are unstable, in a state of flux, and change often.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are currently out of date. The change was made in 2014.
Burbrink, Frank T. and Timothy J. Guiher. 2014. Considering gene flow when using coalescent methods to delimit lineages of North American pitvipers of the genus Agkistrodon. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 173: 505–526. ( http://cnah.org/pdf/88290.pdf)
the new and current arrangement is -
Most of the scientific literature, as well as the new mainstream books and websites are using the new taxonomy, such as the most recent edition of the Peterson Field Guides and the Reptile Database
Powell, Conant & Collins. 2016. Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. New York. 494 pp.
As I stated, the name "water moccasin" has been discouraged. Water moccasin and American moccasins are not the same thing. WiLaFa ( talk) 02:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current Agkistrodon piscivorus article is out of date, and it could use some improvement in a few areas. If the name of the article is to be changed from the Latin name to the common name (which on this particular page I have no objections to), I would suggest the following -
While I certainly DO NOT think this work requires a PhD. herpetologist, I would hope anyone making these kinds of changes would have solid knowledge of the subject and an understanding of the impactions of the changes they make. The point is to improve Wikipedia and keep it up to date, not sidestep outdated information and compound problems in doing so. WiLaFa ( talk) 04:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
You do have a couple of valid points, it is a snake with a distributional range in the south, and the name northern cottonmouth is not in common use either. However, the northern cottonmouth's distribution is "north" in relation to the other species of cottonmouth, the Florida cottonmouth. The name northern cottonmouth is not in common usage because it is new, as of 2014 when the taxonomy was changed.
Nevertheless, it is the new standardized common name, and it is being recommended and used by the scientist and specialist in the field, including all of the major herpetology societies: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the Herpetologist's League. It is also slowly finding its way into popular usage and is being used by most of the new books, new editions of popular field guides, and websites. The Reptile Database is using it, iNaturalist is using it, and some pages on Wikipedia are using it, List of reptiles of North America. The IUCN Red List is not using it, but their Agkistrodon piscivorus page says it was last assessed on 1 March 2007 and needs updating.
I agree, "northern cottonmouth" was not a great choice for the standardized common name. But that is what has been proposed and generally accepted by the field of herpetology and it is slowly finding its way into popular science and mainstream publications on the subject. Wikipedia is not really the forum for challenging or arguing alternative views on taxonomy and nomenclature. A review, or some comments under the "Common names" heading of the article could certainly include some views or information on the subject, even about popular usage and perception. I wrote one for the Bothrops asper article a while back. But I think the name of this article should be Agkistrodon piscivorus or northern cottonmouth (either one).
If there are already articles for each of the old subspecies, I would suggest changing the name of the Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti, to Florida cottonmouth and updating the taxonomy to Agkistrodon conanti. Then merging the Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus and the Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma articles with the current article under the name northern cottonmouth. WiLaFa ( talk) 20:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) Currency: "If the scientific name of animal has recently been changed (e.g. a species has been transferred into a different genus), and there is no reason to believe that the name change is contentious, use the new name regardless of usage in older reliable sources. It is not appropriate for us to retain archaic terminology while we wait for usage in older reliable sources to be swamped by usage in newer sources." WiLaFa ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
What I mean by that is, Wikipedia should be educating people, not reinforcing outdated and obsolete information because it is familiar, and ignoring new information because it is not familiar to people. There used to one species of cottonmouth, now there are two.
Also, see heading Currency under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)
Cottonmouth does not meet "the five criteria" listed in your link.
"Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "
cottonmouth is ambiguous, there are two different species.
"Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. "
cottonmouth is not concise for the same reason above.
"Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. "
Of the 16 pages in the Category: Agkistrodon, 14 use are using the Latin names and have been for years, and the two that are not where just changed in the last 20 days (one at your request). WiLaFa ( talk) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Common name pretty clearly the standard for animal names. the last move attempt seemed 50/50. The opposed votes seem to be opposed because they feel Wikipedia as a whole should use scientific names instead. but the fact is that Wikipedia prefers common names and the fact that this article isn’t at the common name makes the website more inconsistent and makes this article look like it’s a stub. 97.126.89.248 ( talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Otr500 ( talk) 09:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Burmese pythons are an invasive species in Florida with the capacity to inflict great damage to the local ecosystem, so it is hoped that A. piscivorus may be in the process of modifying its diet to enable it to hunt the pythons, is unsourced begging a maintenance tag.
The Further reading section of an article contains a bulleted list of a reasonable number of works that a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject.Somehow I do not consider 48 entries to be "a reasonable number of works". The "Limited" section has more on that. For any that might cry "it is only an essay", I would submit that some essays are used by a broad majority so are more relevant than others. Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) is an "explanatory essay" but if someone runs afoul of this they can be banned or blocked. Maybe a reason to wonder why it hasn't been promoted. Also, MOS:FURTHER, refers to this essay and states "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications".
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Minimize the number of links. --
Do not use {{ cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
![]() | Agkistrodon piscivorus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've found a source for wikipedia usable maps ( http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states.html) and I'll start stitching together the census line maps to produce a US map to use for species ranges.
These maps have been used on some pages already (which is how I found them). See Arlington County, Virginia for an example.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.86.218.135 ( talk) 14 December 2003 (UTC)
I don't know how far you've gotten on this, but I found some good PDF maps at the US Census Bureau, which are public domain. I cleaned up one of them to show state and county borders; no rivers and lakes, unfortunately, but it's a nice high resolution. Check it out. -- Wapcaplet 22:10, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm no herpetologist or anything, but isn't that snake to the left of the description a copperhead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.126.75 ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Young cottonmouths are occasionally seen in low bushes and I can't rule out one climbing a tree now and then, but certainly 99.9% of the "cottonmouths" seen basking in tree branches over water are harmless banded watersnakes (nerodia fasciata) or related species, the snakes most commonly mistaken for cottonmouths... I'm not sure what would constitute verification of this, since there are no doubt hundreds of people who swear they've seen it and the fact that no herpetologist or serious snake keeper has ever witnessed it and no one has ever taken a picture doesn't "prove" that it didn't happen. 65.218.191.140 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
no they have not proved!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.221.195 ( talk) 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Agkistrodon piscivorus does bask in tree branches. In the 1970s I was participating in field work in Alabama and Mississippi, studying turtles of the genus Graptemys in the river systems there. I and two other herpetologists were in a johnboat, checking turtle traps, when we brushed against some tree branches which were hanging low over the water. A large snake was dislodged from the branches and fell right into the boat. All three of us positively identified it as an adult A. piscivorus. Lyttle-Wight ( talk) 02:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is a photo from wiki-commons showing two cottonmouths in a tree with a third watersnake. It is not unusual . I have seen them on a few occasions two or three feet up in bushes and trees, over water and dry ground. WiLaFa ( talk) 05:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
One other thing, these snakes are located in Mississippi, as well. I do not know why that state did not get mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.103.159 ( talk) 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This page could benefit from a picture of a non-venomous watersnake swimming. Then readers could see the diference in how they swim, as this is a key way of distinguishing between cottonmouths and other watersnakes. JeffStickney 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure that Copperhead is a common name for a Cottonmouth? I'm pretty sure it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjuan ( talk • contribs) 17:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I live in the SouthEast (of North America) - in the area it's pretty common knowledge that we have three types of poisonous snakes: Rattlesnake, copperhead, and the water moccasin (aka cottonmouth). I would agree that there might be people that confuse two snakes (everyone gets the rattlesnake right), but I find it highly confusing to think that the three poisonous types of snakes are Rattlesnake, copperhead, and copperhead. Msull ( talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Overall:
So far, I've addressed almost all of your points, even to the extent of creating a new article: Intergradation. I guess the introduction can still be expanded, but I'm not in favor of summarizing the list of reported prey species: I believe it is informative, even to the extent of being entertaining! But, I'll admit that you probably have to be more into the subject to appreciate that level of detail. -- Jwinius ( talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
what can i do to get rid of water moccasins? how can i tell if it is indeed a baby water moccasins or not? please let me know it's very important, due to the fact that i've done killed two in my house and i have a 3 yr old son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.163.109 ( talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone ever heard of these snakes being referred to as rattlers? Maybe by someone who calls all venomous snakes rattlers, but as these snakes have no rattle and have no audible warning, outside of hissing, I don't believe this is a common name for these snakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The geographic range map show these snakes existing right up to the very edge of the border of the state of Kansas, but I am quite sure they do exist in that state, as my best friend grew up with a boy who was killed by multiple bites from these snakes (upon diving into a water-filled rock quarry), in approximately 1980. There is no other species of aquatic or semi-aquatic, venomous snake in the continental United States, so it had to be this snake. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The geographic range map shows that these snakes stop in southern Missouri, however they are found in just about every pond, lake, river, and creek up here in northeastern Missouri as well. They are all over up and down the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, so its likely they are found in any state these 2 rivers run through. So I think its safe to say the current map is quit a bit off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryu80x ( talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree the map is too limited. I grew up in an area of metropolitan Atlanta that would be excluded from this map (at the time in a relatively undeveloped marshy suburb, now a concrete jungle), but had multiple run-ins with cottonmouths. I can also factually (though anecdotally) state that cottonmouths are, at least at times, quite deserving of their aggressive reputation. I was 'chased' (forced to back away very quickly and followed by a threatening snake) on two occasions. Taterbill ( talk) 15:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
First sentence makes an assertion that the venom can be sometimes fatal. According to http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/771329-overview, at least one fatality has been reported, so this might make a good citation for that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.23.158 ( talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It is common or tribal or pseudo knowledge that Cotton Mouths are aggressive. "Urban" (the term doesn't seem to quite fit here) legends have it that these snakes will approach and attempt to enter boats and have "chased" people and dogs.
The article does not really weigh in heavily on this issue, but does refer to the animals "approaching" intruders. The nearest citation to this statement, however, does not mention such behavior.
Given the variety of beliefs and statements on this aspect of Water Moccasin behavior, it would be helpful to strengthen this part of the article.
Pondhockey ( talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (Pardon my clumsiness and possible ignorance of etiquette; I'm new to this kind of discussion and editing.)
Here we go again! How about some unbiased writing not giving undue weight to a single study!
One study in 2002 found few snakes in the experiment to exhibit aggressive behaviors as defined by the researchers. That is NOT a finding that the water moccassin is not aggressive!
Did they test the aggressivenss near the nest or with young? Did they test while feeding or preparing to feed? Did they test in all seasons? Did they test both in the water and out of the water? Were they confirming prior studies or was this the first -still not duplicated- study? Furthermore, one sub-species could be more aggressive than others, but again, we just don't know, do we?
Not only that, the behavior reported by the study was different in repeated tests, with most snakes trying to escape in one study; and with most snakes adopting a defensive threat posture in another test!. What can really be concluded from this?
We also suffer from the inability to review the full text -freely- in order to evaluate -and criticize- the methodology. The bottom line is, Wikiteurs should not cite studies unless they cite reviews and not original research, which by definition is not yet the established body of knowledge -remember cold fusion?-
Clearly the wikiteurs have no clue about the scientific process to find the truth, as always evolving process. The paragraph should state instead that it is not settled whether the snake is aggressive and then cite representative studies or reports from both sides. This is what you do until a study is duplicated by others under the same conditions. Then you can conclude that, given the same conditions, i.e. temperature, humidity, lighting, season, maturity, etc., etc., what was reported can be generally accepted. Wikipedia is NOT a *Real* encyclopedia!
Disclaimer: This is a critique of a specific paragraph, not the whole article! 146.23.68.40 ( talk) 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree. See my anecdotal post under Geographic Range above. *Something* can make them display aggressive behavior. Taterbill ( talk) 15:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
"Harmless watersnakes of the genus Nerodia are often mistaken for it. These are also semiaquatic, thick-bodied snakes with large heads that can be aggressive when provoked,[5] but they behave differently. For example, watersnakes usually flee quickly into the water, while A. piscivorus often stands its ground with its threat display. In addition, watersnakes do not vibrate their tails when excited.[18] A. piscivorus usually holds its head at an angle of about 45° when swimming or crawling.[5]"
But it says earlier in the aggressiveness section that water moccasins usually swim away. What is the deal? Do they stand their ground or do they swim away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Doesn't voro mean "I eat"? Paramecium13 ( talk) 22:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I am disturbed by this notation:
"Although their aggression has been exaggerated, on rare occasions territorial males will approach intruders in an aggressive manner" [3] epa.gov Wharton, C.H. 1969. The cottonmouth mocassin on Sea Horse Key, Florida. Bull. Florida St. Mus., Biol. Sci. 14:227-272.
I would question this completely. Perhaps there needs to be clarification... My belief is that there needs to be a distinction between aggressive behavior on land or in the water.
I understand that anecdotes are forbidden in wikipedia archives... therefore I would leave it up to someone to research this and actually determine the aggressive nature of these snakes... but I would caution the EPA's statement that aggression "has been exaggerated". What exactly does it mean when something has been exaggerated? Is the EPA taking anecdotes and dismissing the aggression completely? That is certainly what the tone of the sentence is.
If anything, I would recommend that the statement from the EPA be scrapped completely unless an aggression study is actually done. From my own anecdote which occurred not even 20 minutes ago August 14, 2011 @ approximately 10:45 AM CST, I can tell you that cottonmouths are extremely aggressive on land. I wish I had made a video to record the "attack first" disposition of this particular cottonmouth... For the record, I live in Denton County Texas, next to lake Lewisville... to give some kind of geographical perspective... who knows... there are so many sleight variations of species based on location, it could be that the species in Florida is more "docile".
I am inclined to think, however, that there is a distinction between aggression on land versus water... the droughts here in TX means that cottonmouths probably have less water to reside; therefore they are forced onto land more frequently. There might be a connection between mobility and aggressive behavior. They are adept at moving in the water, but what about land? There may be a natural tendency for "fight" due to the fact that the land, for this species, is "unsafe" territory.
UPDATE:
I found this article regarding the aggressive behavior of the cottonmouth... Here is the citation:
<ref>Means, Bruce. "Blocked-Flight Aggressive Behavior in Snakes" (PDF). IRCF ReptIles & AmphIbIAns • Vol 17, no 2 • JUn 2010. Retrieved 14 August 2011.</ref>
This is a great article and explains exactly what happened with me and the cottonmouth I encountered. Dr. Means is calling this "blocked flight aggressive" behavior. An excellent article on the aggressive nature of this snake and other snakes. It's a great find.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blaine72 (
talk •
contribs) 16:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is this snake poisonous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.120.97.183 ( talk) 03:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, The taxonomy of this complex was recently revised.
Two species and no subspecies are now recognized. Agkistrodon conanti on the SE coastal plain in Florida and Agkistrodon piscivorus everywhere else with gene flow between species. While exciting, this isn't an unexpected development and these biogeographic patterns have been well described in the literature and served as key examples in Avise's work that founded the field of phylogeography.
Link to full text: http://cnah.org/pdf/88290.pdf - this includes maps, niches and putative hybrid zones for both this species and its congeners, Agkistrodon contortrix and Agkistrodon laticinctus. The Society for the Study of Reptiles and Amphibians, as well as the new Peterson Field Guide to ENA snakes accept these changes and they should be incorporated into wikipedia at (y)our earliest convenience. Phylogenizer ( talk) 20:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Phylogenizer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phylogenizer ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agkistrodon piscivorus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel this long list would be better presented in some kind of table format. Right now, it's far too cluttered to be readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ0053 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I’m curious as to how this page meets good article criteria when I have observed at least 3 citation needed tags throughout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8880:5E80:CDF9:B68A:D461:E08F ( talk) 05:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It is outdated as well. The taxonomy has been changed so the former species was split into two. The rangemaps are now wrong and the picture in the header appears to be A. contanti, not A. piscivorus. More info can be found at https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12211 and Peterson's 4th Edition Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America (2016). I am not very familiar with Wikipedia yet, so I don't really feel comfortable updating it myself, but I hope someone addresses it. SilverSheWolf ( talk) 03:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The article say that there are only four venomous snakes in North America. I can name off the top of my head more than four species of venomous snakes that I have seen just in the states of Arkansas and Missouri where I have lived. Copperheads, Pygmy Rattlesnake, Canebreak Rattlesnake, Diamond Back Rattlesnake, and Cottonmouths. All of those species I have seen in the wild in North America. That is more than four. 2604:CB00:20B:CC00:61C6:8199:83EA:35B ( talk) 05:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t like the fact that the article is named Agkistrodon piscivorus, Because most Wikipedia articles used the species common name. Quincy43425 ( talk) 23:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. New evidence has been presented that the proposed name is not precise enough, the original Cottonmouth species having been split in two. Opponents also point out that there is no pressing reason to move away from the scientific name, which is consistent with those of related species. No such user ( talk) 12:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Agkistrodon piscivorus → Cottonmouth – WP:COMMONNAME (already redirects here). If not "Cottonmouth", then " Water moccasin" (which also redirects here). Both redirects have been stable for 5 years or longer. — BarrelProof ( talk) 10:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two species of cottonmouths. Herpetologist (and ornithologist) and herpetological societies like the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, and others, have been trying to establish standardized common names for reptile and amphibians for decades. The current and up to date list should be consulted before making changes.
Checklist of the Standard English Names of Amphibians & Reptiles
Herpetologist and herpetological societies have discouraged the use of the name "water moccasin" since the 1960s.
Common names for many North American and European species are probably ok if established standardized common names are followed, but for tropical species common names are not established or meaningful, and are often confusing with the same names often applied to many species. Keep in mind, with a shift in the last 20 to 30 years from morphologically based taxonomy to molecular (DNA) based taxonomy, and from traditional based taxonomic theories to phylogenetic theories, many names that had been stable for decades and even centuries, are unstable, in a state of flux, and change often.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilafa ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are currently out of date. The change was made in 2014.
Burbrink, Frank T. and Timothy J. Guiher. 2014. Considering gene flow when using coalescent methods to delimit lineages of North American pitvipers of the genus Agkistrodon. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 173: 505–526. ( http://cnah.org/pdf/88290.pdf)
the new and current arrangement is -
Most of the scientific literature, as well as the new mainstream books and websites are using the new taxonomy, such as the most recent edition of the Peterson Field Guides and the Reptile Database
Powell, Conant & Collins. 2016. Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. New York. 494 pp.
As I stated, the name "water moccasin" has been discouraged. Water moccasin and American moccasins are not the same thing. WiLaFa ( talk) 02:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current Agkistrodon piscivorus article is out of date, and it could use some improvement in a few areas. If the name of the article is to be changed from the Latin name to the common name (which on this particular page I have no objections to), I would suggest the following -
While I certainly DO NOT think this work requires a PhD. herpetologist, I would hope anyone making these kinds of changes would have solid knowledge of the subject and an understanding of the impactions of the changes they make. The point is to improve Wikipedia and keep it up to date, not sidestep outdated information and compound problems in doing so. WiLaFa ( talk) 04:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
You do have a couple of valid points, it is a snake with a distributional range in the south, and the name northern cottonmouth is not in common use either. However, the northern cottonmouth's distribution is "north" in relation to the other species of cottonmouth, the Florida cottonmouth. The name northern cottonmouth is not in common usage because it is new, as of 2014 when the taxonomy was changed.
Nevertheless, it is the new standardized common name, and it is being recommended and used by the scientist and specialist in the field, including all of the major herpetology societies: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the Herpetologist's League. It is also slowly finding its way into popular usage and is being used by most of the new books, new editions of popular field guides, and websites. The Reptile Database is using it, iNaturalist is using it, and some pages on Wikipedia are using it, List of reptiles of North America. The IUCN Red List is not using it, but their Agkistrodon piscivorus page says it was last assessed on 1 March 2007 and needs updating.
I agree, "northern cottonmouth" was not a great choice for the standardized common name. But that is what has been proposed and generally accepted by the field of herpetology and it is slowly finding its way into popular science and mainstream publications on the subject. Wikipedia is not really the forum for challenging or arguing alternative views on taxonomy and nomenclature. A review, or some comments under the "Common names" heading of the article could certainly include some views or information on the subject, even about popular usage and perception. I wrote one for the Bothrops asper article a while back. But I think the name of this article should be Agkistrodon piscivorus or northern cottonmouth (either one).
If there are already articles for each of the old subspecies, I would suggest changing the name of the Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti, to Florida cottonmouth and updating the taxonomy to Agkistrodon conanti. Then merging the Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus and the Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma articles with the current article under the name northern cottonmouth. WiLaFa ( talk) 20:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) Currency: "If the scientific name of animal has recently been changed (e.g. a species has been transferred into a different genus), and there is no reason to believe that the name change is contentious, use the new name regardless of usage in older reliable sources. It is not appropriate for us to retain archaic terminology while we wait for usage in older reliable sources to be swamped by usage in newer sources." WiLaFa ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
What I mean by that is, Wikipedia should be educating people, not reinforcing outdated and obsolete information because it is familiar, and ignoring new information because it is not familiar to people. There used to one species of cottonmouth, now there are two.
Also, see heading Currency under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)
Cottonmouth does not meet "the five criteria" listed in your link.
"Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "
cottonmouth is ambiguous, there are two different species.
"Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. "
cottonmouth is not concise for the same reason above.
"Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. "
Of the 16 pages in the Category: Agkistrodon, 14 use are using the Latin names and have been for years, and the two that are not where just changed in the last 20 days (one at your request). WiLaFa ( talk) 17:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Common name pretty clearly the standard for animal names. the last move attempt seemed 50/50. The opposed votes seem to be opposed because they feel Wikipedia as a whole should use scientific names instead. but the fact is that Wikipedia prefers common names and the fact that this article isn’t at the common name makes the website more inconsistent and makes this article look like it’s a stub. 97.126.89.248 ( talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Otr500 ( talk) 09:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Burmese pythons are an invasive species in Florida with the capacity to inflict great damage to the local ecosystem, so it is hoped that A. piscivorus may be in the process of modifying its diet to enable it to hunt the pythons, is unsourced begging a maintenance tag.
The Further reading section of an article contains a bulleted list of a reasonable number of works that a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject.Somehow I do not consider 48 entries to be "a reasonable number of works". The "Limited" section has more on that. For any that might cry "it is only an essay", I would submit that some essays are used by a broad majority so are more relevant than others. Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) is an "explanatory essay" but if someone runs afoul of this they can be banned or blocked. Maybe a reason to wonder why it hasn't been promoted. Also, MOS:FURTHER, refers to this essay and states "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications".
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Minimize the number of links. --
Do not use {{ cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.