Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus

message: 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)
thread_title: Maps

message: 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)
replies: text: While it would be impossible to tell without catching and handling the snake (something i wouldn't do if i thought it was a cotton mouth) I'm 99% sure I've seen at least one drop from a tree branch right in front of me.  It was dark with the correct colorations, very thick for it's length, and had the typical viper shaped head.  It also swam across the top of the water like a cotton mouth.  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.  I can also back-up the claim that they're not nearly as aggressive as people make them out to be.  I've had friends pick up 4' cotton mouths with snake hook and we had to provoke it just to see the characteristic open mouth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you happen to witness such a thing again, take a photo with your cell phone! Mia229 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cottonmouths in trees... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Range should mention Mississippi 

message: 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) 
:According to Wright & Wright (1957), "copperhead" was at one point or another a common name used by some people to refer to A. piscivorus. That this name is usually used to refer to A. contortrix is beside the point. However, it is a good example of how confusing common names can be. --Jwinius 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common names often refer to more than one species. It may be that A. piscivorus is generally referred to as the cottonmouth and that A. contortrix is generally referred to as the copperhead, but the point is that this is not always (or has not always been) the case. The list of common names here is simply as complete as I can make it given the available literature. I didn't make any of this stuff up: that's just the way it is. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. --Jwinius (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to go somewhere else, maybe you could use more recent literature instead of studies from the early 20th century.  There comes a point when it's more important to include correct information over cited information.  Anyone who's written that the cottonmouth is also called a copperhead was misinformed, as the two snakes share the same range.  It's not like when different regions used the same common name for two species, these two snakes share the same range so it would be incorrect to call both snakes which are found in the same place, the same name.  Even Linneus mislabeled specimens, I would not put it past the author of the source you're referencing -- and it's not like you have to include it if there's doubt to it's authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to common names, there is no right and wrong. As opposed to scientific names, there is no governing body, such as the ICZN or ICBN that can vouch for their uniqueness, and there are no taxonomic authorities and can say whether they are currently valid or not. The only exception to this rule that I know of is the AOU that regulates common names for birds in North America. So, if in some old publications on snakes certain authors refer to this species as a copperhead, then there is no choice but to accept that as a fact. Just as important, if we add information from a source, such as Wright and Wright (1957), but leave out certain items just because we don't agree with them, then we are being selective with the truth, which is just as bad as corrupting it. --Jwinius (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copperhead as a common name

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. When visiting my grandmother in Southwest Iowa, I saw a cottonmouth while fishing in the East Nishnabotna River. I am certain it was a cottonmouth. I can differentiate between cottonmouths and watersnakes. 2604:CB00:20B:CC00:61C6:8199:83EA:35B (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic range 

message: 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)
thread_title: Toxicity of venom

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction - reference to "approaching" intruders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aggressiveness

message: "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)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: Re:
:The specific name is derived from the Latin words piscis and voro, which mean "fish" and "to eat".
Doesn't voro mean "I eat"?
Paramecium13 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically "voro" can be either the first-person or stem form of the verb; you're right, it's not the infinitive ("vorare" is).  "Piscivorus" is usually translated "fish-eater" [n.] or "fish-eating" [adj.]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia229 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing takes up as much space on WP as amateur translations of foreign words. Keep it short and sweet! 46.94.151.134 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin words 

message: Question:  Is this snake poisonous?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.120.97.183 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it is venomous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Poisonous?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taxonomic changes 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051121020750/http://www.uga.edu/srel/Reprint/2583.htm to http://www.uga.edu/srel/Reprint/2583.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feeding Behavior 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How is this a good article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I read the article referenced and it is wrong. I assumed that the correct statement would be that there are only four genera of venomous snake in North America (that might be correct, but I'm not sure), but that's not the intended statement of the author of the referenced article. The author lists the "only four snakes" of North America as Cottonmouth, Rattlesnake, Copperhead, and Coral Snake. There are several (wiki says 36) species of rattlesnakes in two genera that the author sites as just one snake species and the copperhead is a close relative of the cottonmouth in the same genus. 2604:CB00:20B:CC00:61C6:8199:83EA:35B (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Venomous Snakes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
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)
replies: text: Agkistrodon piscivorus →  – WP:COMMONNAME (already redirects here). If not "Cottonmouth", then "" (which also redirects here). Both redirects have been stable for 5 years or longer. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Move history note: As far as I can tell, the article was originally at "Cottonmouth" and was moved to the Latin binomial without formal discussion on 26 April 2006 by a user who said "Scientific names should be used for page names whenever possible to avoid confusion." Another user disagreed with that move and reverted it, saying "Use common names", but the mover insisted and moved it again on 29 April 2006, saying "Snake people use sci. names much more than common names." It has been at this title ever since, except for a self-reverted move to spelling variation of "Water moccasin" for 11 minutes in May 2021. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

text: See also the similar comment above by Quincy43425 on 28 February 2021, in the section entitled "Name change". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles currently say there is only one cottonmouth species, with three subspecies and some intergradation. Even if somewhat rewritten in the future to reflect recent reclassification efforts, my understanding is that A. piscivorus remains the primary meaning of "cottonmouth" and "water moccasin", especially among nonspecialists. I think any ambiguity can be handled with a hatnote. (And SSAR appears to refer to the whole genus Agkistrodon as "American moccasins", so they don't seem to be trying very hard to discourage the use of "moccasin".) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Even if somewhat rewritten in the future to reflect recent reclassification efforts, my understanding is that A. piscivorus remains the primary meaning of "cottonmouth", especially among nonspecialists. I think any ambiguity can be handled with a hatnote. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Moving this article to  (lowercase 'c' per WP:NCFAUNA) might be an improvement over the current name, but I don't really think that is a name in common use. The fact that the name is a red link is evidence of that. It's especially hard to think of this snake as a "Northern" animal, since it is only found in The South. There is already an article about the Florida cottonmouth, so there is no need to create one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 July 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: Opposed WiLaFa (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? 97.126.89.248 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion above. WiLaFa (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why bother commenting opposed here? I saw you were opposed 97.126.89.248 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to cottonmouth 

message: :Aside from the title naming issue the "Description" section (second and fourth paragraphs) has content concerning the A. p. piscivorus. that needs removing or rewording. 
:The list in the "Common names" section (58 of them) are sourced from the single source "Handbook of Snakes of the United States and Canada". The understood meaning of WP:COMMONNAMES on Wikipedia would be a name "that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). There should be at least some sources and not one single source. Listing 58 names found in one source is overboard. Names that could be considered common, meaning someone might look for the subject by that name, should have a redirect to avoid confusion. This would include "cottonmouth", "northern cottonmouth", and "water moccasin". I may have missed it but I could not find anything under "swamp moccasin" for this snake. Loyola University New Orleans referred to the subject as Omnivore of the Wetlands but that does not make it a common name. I could find no sources to indicate this snake is considered the  "black moccasin". It is a common name of the Agkistrodon bilineatus (Mexican cantil) and not the Lampropeltis getula as the set index article shows. 
:The last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Feeding" section, , is unsourced begging a maintenance tag. 
:The subject snake is considered an opportunistic feeder and will eat smaller pythons, including tracking transmitters. As an opportunistic feeder pretty much anything in it's area may become prey.
===Appendices===
:The explanatory essay Wikipedia:Further reading states  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".
:The External links section has six links. Some things just grow overtime. This is one of the optional appendices. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links. 
:The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*ELMIN: . -- 
*ELCITE: (Not relevant here)   
*WP:ELBURDEN: .  
===Possible B-class===
:There is credible evidence that the article should be reclassified. The B-class criteria #2 states: 
:Considering taxonomic changes do not recognize any subspecies, yet there are more than a few articles on these "subspecies" and visual differences. The hybrid zone might be responsible for introgressive hybridization (hybridization and backcrossing) might explain different populations of a single species, or possibly species divergence. There may be too much for a single article. Certainly, now, there is a lot of missing material that questions that the article now "reasonably covers the topic". The other articles on non-recognized subspecies will need to be dealt with. The entire subject may require a specialist. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas needing work 

message: :There is credible evidence that the article should be reclassified. The B-class criteria #2 states: 
:Considering taxonomic changes do not recognize any subspecies, yet there are more than a few articles on these "subspecies" and visual differences. The hybrid zone might be responsible for introgressive hybridization (hybridization and backcrossing) might explain different populations of a single species, or possibly species divergence. There may be too much for a single article. Certainly, now, there is a lot of missing material that questions that the article now "reasonably covers the topic". The other articles on non-recognized subspecies will need to be dealt with. The entire subject may require a specialist. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible B-class