Response of hatchling Komodo Dragons (Varanus komodoensis) at Denver Zoo to visual and chemical cues arising from prey

Abstract

Five hatchling Komodo Dragons (Varanus komodoensis) at Denver Zoo were observed in two experiments that studied the effects of visual and chemical cues arising from prey. Rate of tongue flicking was recorded in Experiment 1, and amount of time the lizards spent interacting with stimuli was recorded in Experiment 2. Our hypothesis was that young V. komodoensis would be more dependent upon vision than chemoreception, especially when dealing with live, moving, prey. Although visual cues, including prey motion, had a significant effect, chemical cues had a far stronger effect. Implications of this falsification of our initial hypothesis are discussed.

Flexibility in locomotor-feeding integration during prey capture in varanid lizards: effects of prey size and velocity

“…This demonstrates how prey mobility is key information for the success of prey-capture behavior in varanid lizards. By extension, it illustrates the importance of sensory feedback from visual cues and chemoreception during the approach of varanid lizards in order to assess the risk of prey escape (Cooper, 1989;Garrett et al, 1996;Kaufman et al, 1996;Cooper and Habegger, 2001;Chiszar et al, 2009;Gaalema, 2011).…”

Response of Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes (Crotalus Atrox) to Chemical Cues of Mice (Mus Musculus) of Different Genders and Reproductive Status

“…They were housed individually in glass terraria (61 × 41 × 44.5 cm) containing a water bowl, newspaper bedding, and a rock to assist with shedding. The rattlesnakes were presented with an opaque plastic box (10 × 10 × 10 cm) with 18 perforations in each side (Chiszar, Krauss, Shipley, Trout, & Smith, 2009;Chiszar, Taylor, Radcliffe, Smith, & O'Connell, 1981). All perforations were circular drill holes, 2 mm in diameter, certainly large enough to permit passage of volatile chemicals but not large enough to permit visual examination of the interior of the box.…”

Prey capture in lizards: differences in jaw-neck-forelimb coordination

“…Here, our objective is to compare jaw–neck–forelimb integration in this species with other lizards that use jaw prehension: Tupinambis merianae Duméril & Bibron 1839 (Scleroglossa, Autarchoglossa, Lacertoidea, Teiidae), Varanus niloticus Linnaeus 1758, and V. ornatus Daudin 1803 (Scleroglossa, Autarchoglossa, Varanoidea, Varanidae). Tupinambis merianae , V. niloticus , and V. ornatus were selected because they share comparable ecological and behavioural features associated with feeding: an omnivorous diet (Presch, 1973; Losos & Greene, 1988; Cooper, 2002), and similarities in foraging mode (Cooper, 1995; Thompson, 1995), prey detection (Cooper, 1989, 1990, 1996; Yanosky, Iriart & Mercolli, 1993; Kaufman, Burghardt & Phillips, 1996; Cooper & Habegger, 2001; Chiszar et al ., 2009), and transport mode (Elias, McBrayer & Reilly, 2000; McBrayer & Reilly, 2002b; Montuelle et al ., 2009b; Schaerlaeken et al ., 2011). Morphological similarities in skull shape and body proportions have also been documented (Vitt & Pianka, 2004; Stayton, 2005).…”