Biology of pitvipers and the culture of pitviper biologists: six futuristic talking points
Greene, Harry W.
Museum of Vertebrates and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York USA
Biodiversity Center and Department of Integrative Biology
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas USA
Sixty years after publication of my first paper on pitvipers, I offer reflections on the past, present, and future of studying these classy serpents: 1) Relative prey bulk and relative prey mass are often more important for understanding feeding than prey taxonomy. 2) Amidst current controversies regarding species delimitation, remember that taxonomy serves more than systematics—in particular, names of organisms play important roles in other biological disciplines, nature appreciation, and conservation. 3) Past decades have brought unexpected advances in how we do research and what we know, so I advocate for “stretch goals” rather than “pre-emptive constraints of vision.” 4) Conservation of dangerous animals must entail land sharing as well as land sparing, and will more likely succeed if we are honest about risks of coexistence with venomous snakes. 5) Let’s adopt a Golden Rule attitude toward crediting prior work, which I’ll illustrate with my own failures to do so. 6) Criticism is essential for good science, especially when leveled and received without rancor. A corollary is that friends loom increasingly more important than winning arguments, so I feel fortunate that among my dearest are several with whom I sometimes strongly disagree.