The legend of Thamnophis elegans

For my doctoral research, I am studying the evolutionary biology of a species of garter snake known as Thamnophis elegans. This species ranges across the Western North America, from Baja California to British Columbia, and east to South Dakota. A quite adaptable little species and has been cited as having the widest diet of any colubrid snake in the world; eating fish, amphibians, mammals, birds, leeches, worms, slugs and a variety of other invertebrates.

Having done a lot of searching for information about garter snakes, I stumbled upon a few rather interesteting Native American legends about garter snakes in the Pacific Northwest. Judging by the location of these legends, these are almost certainly about my study species, Thamnophis elegans. Here is the first:

“Kemush, Old Man of the Ancients, ruled as follows: The Klamath Lake people, Maklaks, from a service-berry bush, from Tschak, he made. He made the Kakalish people from skunks. Northward while he had gone, he created them on his way. Klamath Lake people he laid down in the sun heat. The white people he laid in the shade. Therefore the Maklaks are dark. The white race is light and beyond the sea he made a world for them.

 Kemush made mole also, flybug also, garter snake also. When he had made them, they began to argue about man.

Mole said: I want human beings to live to a great age.

Garter snake thus spoke: "I order man to be thus made. Garter Snake began shedding its skin, saying: This way I want man to become, after having grown to be of great age — always to grow young again.

On that subject Mole said: And I want human beings to be thus made — decrepit by age. Shivering, he said, Thus I want human beings to shiver.

 Flybug also voted with Mole, Flybug said: Many human beings, acting cruelly, will step on me and crush me. Thus they argued.”

 –in Myths and legends of the Pacfic Northwest by Katherin Judson

The Klamath garter snake (Thamnophis elegans “biscutatus”), now considered to be an intergrade between the Mountain garter snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans) of the Sierras and the Wandering garter snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) of the great basin, is quite spectacular as garter snakes go. It is extremely large for the species, and as numerous herpetologists before me have noted, they are astoundingly common around Klamath Lake. It is little wonder that the native americans in this area have legends about them, as they likely encountered them on a daily basis. What amuses me most about this legend is that, ironically, Thamnophis elegans has started to become a model system for the evolution of aging . As with all reptiles, garter snakes exhibit indeterminate growth. That is, adults never technically stop growing, although they slow considerably. I appreciate this legend especially since the snakes around Klamath Lake are among the largest of the species, and may in fact be the longest lived. I have found many that exhibit many scars and wounds from past battles, likely indicating that many of the large snakes found around the lake are also quite old.  This is one of my favorite snakes, a gravid female Klamath garter from Modoc county in California with numerous wounds, to illustrate:

Inspired by this story, I searched the internet for more legends and found this Okanagon indian legend:

Every snow, Thunderbird [Suck-z'-cum] of the snow-land came to devour the fairest of the virgins among the villages. It was the custom that the maiden go meet the monster, to be eaten for the sake of her tribe. Thunderbird was satisfied to leave the people unmolested so long as he was given this yearly sacrifice; but it must be at his first appearance from the snow-land, at his first rolling among the clouds. No one had ever been able to scare Thunderbird, could not frighten him from his human feast. With the spring there was wailing for the victim.
At last Garter Snake [Sku-qua-wel'hau] thought that he would try to meet Thunderbird. The maiden chosen to perish was one that Garter Snake loved. When she left the village crying, going to her terrible death, Garter Snake put on his best warbonnet and followed her. The maiden saw him. She begged him to return lest he also be killed.

Garter Snake said, “No! I am going to die with you.”

She said to Garter Snake, “Go back to our people! You cannot stand before Thunderbird! I alone will die!”

But Garter Snake would not turn back. Soon he heard the flapping of great wings. It was Thunderbird coming. Garter Snake’s legs shook with fear. He wanted to run away, but his pride, his love for the girl, made him brave. He met Thunderbird without revealing that he was afraid.

Thunderbird spit fire, spit lightning towards Garter Snake. Garter Snake did not run. He spit fire back at Thunderbird. This stopped Thunderbird. Thunderbird thought, “This must be someone more powerful than I to Spit fire as I do”. Thunderbird said to Garter Snake, “What do you fear? What are you afraid of?”

Garter Snake answered, “I fear nothing! Nothing can hurt me. If you wish to fight, I will show you how big a fire I can spit.”

These words Thunderbird believed, for none of the tribes had dared to meet him before. Only the timid maidens who came crying to their death had ever faced him. Thunderbird spit a bigger fire, thinking to scare Garter Snake. But Garter Snake spit a great fire streaming in the face of Thunderbird. This soon scared Thunderbird, who turned towards his snow-country home. Garter Snake followed him, spitting fire as he chased the big Thunderbird.

Garter Snake said to him after driving him home, “From this day you will never come back to our land to devour the people. You will only roam the skies, only make rumblings and crashing amid the storm gathering.”

Since that time Thunderbird has kept away from the people. He was ashamed because Garter Snake had driven him away with spitting fire. He never came back to destroy the tribes of the warm countries. He could only fly through the upper space, only clash his broad wings among the clouds, spitting fire from his great mouth.

Garter Snake went back to his people with the maiden whom he had saved. For his bravery in protecting the tribes from Thunderbird, for scaring away the mighty air-monster with his pretended power, they gave Garter Snake a pretty green blanket with stripes. This garb Garter Snake wears to this day.

(Okanagon)

Furthermore, the website had this blurb:

The Indian name for Garter Snake can be transcribed as Sku-qua-wel’hau. Modified to Chewelah, the name is give to the town in Stevens County, and to the creek that runs through it. The location for both was apparently known for garter snakes, though some sources say, small water snakes. Others say that from the surrounding mountains, the small brook wound around like a garter snake.

Chewelah, Washington is top on my list of places to go now. This again is almost certainly Thamnophis elegans, but this time it is the Wandering garter snake Thamnophis elegans vagrans. What’s great about this legend is that the Wandering garter snakes from eastern Washington are notoriously bitey. Having experienced Thamnophis elegans from a variety of regions, I can tell you that there is enormous geographic variation in the aggressiveness of these snakes. In many areas, I can collect hundreds of snakes without ever getting a single bite. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the venom of T. elegans vagransfrom eastern Washington causes myonecrosis; that is, the venom of this species can cause death of muscle tissue and has shown activity in humans. While certainly not life threatening, I have heard first hand experience of bites from eastern Wa. garters causing a person’s hand to freeze up. I have tested this with Eastern Oregon snakes. Although they are much less aggressive, I let one chew on my hand for as long as it wanted. Because they lack specialized delivery fangs, the venom essentially just oozes into the wound by diffusion, making it much less efficient than the specialized, hollow fangs of vipers, for example. Nevertheless, once the snake released I immediately felt numbness and tingling in the area of the wound. Blood flowed freely from the wound for several minutes, indicating anti-coagulants in the venom. Within 5 minutes, my hand started to swell, and pain and stiffness followed. In about an hour or two, my entire hand was swollen and looked like an inflated rubber glove. I could still feel tenderness on my hand for days.

Reading the legend, it is obvious that the native people of eastern Washington had similar observations of the personality of their snakes. Likely, they knew that the garter snakes in their region were much braver and aggressive than snakes in other areas. Furthermore, the “spitting fire” from its mouth could easily stem from observations of the potency of its venom.

I often wonder why the snakes I catch elsewhere don’t bother even trying to bite, it seems like they should. They have venom, they have teeth, and as far as they know, I’m going to eat them; so what do they have to lose? Yet 9 times out of 10, most garters will not bite when caught, but merely try to escape. I rather like the sentiment that the snakes in eastern Washington behave the way they do out of an act of great bravery, and a sudden realization of the dormant power they hold in “spitting fire”.

Garters are probably the most successful snake, and possible reptile, at resisting the negative impacts of human invasion. They live alongside us in our cities throughout the Pacific Northwest, and simply try to get by without us noticing them. Yet, the shelves of the local home depot are stocked with snake repellant and if I mention I’m searching for garter snakes to any locals they give me lame responses like “make sure you don’t bring any around here!”. What I love about these legends is that they accurately capture the character of the snakes in their region. The Native Americans knew the snakes, they knew the personality and the character of their snakes based on frequent observation and interactions. People now do not know snakes, yet they make the judgement that they’re scary and need to be chased away, because that’s what culture tells them they should think. It makes you realize how far we’ve come away from really interacting with nature and knowing the natural history of our local environment. These snakes are easily found by any careful observer, why not take some time to learn the personality of your local garter snake?

So I’m gonna start blogging

Why? Well I doubt I’ll be very good at it, but I have some rants that I want to try and make into cohesive arguments and test in the waters of humanity. Who knows if anyone will actually read these or take an interest, but I’ll give it shot. If nothing else, I’ll hear myself think.

About me: I’m a PhD student studying evolutionary biology in Oregon. I study reptiles and amphibians, and have always been a bio-nerd. I actually was a creationist in high school, but couldn’t hold on to it no matter how hard I tried. Nothing to spite anyone, just couldn’t rationally think any other way. I was entirely apolitical growing up, it was against my religion and actually, it was against my personality. Even now, I don’t get worked up by the issues, I get worked up by the way people treat the issues. I am not overly well educated on politics, basically I listen to talk radio, NPR and read internet headlines. Talk radio is fascinating to me, I don’t often agree with conservative talk show hosts, but they do often have valid points of view. I find it keeps me grounded on where I stand in the world to have the balance of their viewpoints, since it is so rare to find them in university towns, or at least in my circle. I think it’s important to know what is valid about an opposing view, and to dissect it into more fundamental values. Again, I’m not educated in philosophy, economics or politics; and have limited experience with all 3. Maybe I shouldn’t be talk about them ever, but what I do know kind of is biology, and it has taught me some lessons I think might be useful elsewhere. So here it goes…

What evolutionary quantitative genetics has taught me about politics

            As a scientist, or scientist in training as you may see it, I am deeply bothered by the politicization of science. I don’t think that your beliefs regarding science should fall along party lines, in my opinion, politics is about the “should” questions, that are dependent on your values and beliefs. Science is not about values or beliefs, it’s about the how, why and what.

           I find it somewhat disappointing that the most prominent spokespeople for science, such as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, also tend to espouse their political views at the same time. While this is very entertaining and most of the time I am sympethetic to their sentiments, I think that it can be very damaging to our cause. Of course, they have every right to their opinions and to promote their beliefs, science or otherwise. Still, I believe the first priority of the scientist should be to separate their trade from the political ideologies.

            It is very difficult in academia to keep a balanced and apolitical view of the world. By and large American universities are “bastions of liberal ideology”, to use the terminology of a friend. Among the most liberal people in this country are college students, and the professors who teach them. A conservative person is someone who has conservative values, which are legitimate and their right to hold them should be protected at all costs. However, when almost everyone who is in academia, or at least in science, seems to be liberal, they see us as a threat to their entire belief system and values. Many of these values have nothing to do with science, and are perfectly legitimate responses to the great “should” questions of society. For example, you can accept the science of evolution and global warming, and still have conservative views on economics, foreign policy, immigration, morality, you can torture Guantanomo prisoners if you want, you can think abortion is murder, you can think welfare and universal health care would destroy our society…the list goes on and on. Honestly, what do any of these things have to do with evolution or global warming? Too many times in the culture of the university, I have noticed the tacit assumption that everyone in our field should agree on issues that have nothing to do with biology.

            My favorite example is abortion. To absolve myself of a strong political stance on this issue, I will briefly tell you my personal beliefs on the issue. I have trouble with the issue, I see it as an issue of when the developing thing becomes a human life. I can’t very well see a blastula as worthy of human rights, but I can’t very well see the distinction between the abortion of an 8-month old fetus and the killing of a newborn baby. There is a gray area, I honestly struggle to see where the line is. Yet, I have seen many a time that someone assumes because you are an evolutionary biologist, and that you are probably liberal (for god’s sake, if you voted for the republican the last two terms, you voted to have your science disregarded as not even existing), they assume that you also are for abortion. See the recent posting by PZ Myers in support of putting progressive pressure on Barack Obama. How is it that being even an atheist precludes you from being against abortion? Could it not be feasible that maybe after millions of years of evolutionary selective pressure for valuing life and maternal care, that maybe someone might be uncomfortable with the thought of destroying a developing life, no matter what the stage? Honestly it makes sense in entirely atheistic and evolutionary terms for some creature out there to be entirely disgusted by the thought of abortion, such a belief could conceivably confer higher fitness in an evolutionary sense. Similarly, conservative religious groups often make exclusive claim to “Judeo-Christian values”, a claim fought tooth and nail by many atheists and non-Christians. I fully agree that most of these supposedly religious values actually have roots in much more fundamental, human values and can actually be explained by the evolutionary history of a social organism. The point is that abortion is not a religious-non-religious issue. It’s not a conservative-progressive issue. It’s a simple judgement call about one issue: abortion. There really shouldn’t be any correlation between your view on abortion and your view on evolution (after controlling for religion). Yet I think there is, although I have no data on this, and I think it is a very, very strong one.

            Much of this is probably the fault of religion, which imposes strong correlations. But I think there is more to it in that. Scientists are often liberals because they are surrounded by liberals. It is inherited from family, friends and local culture. So I present to you a view of our political polarization based on lessons I have learned from evolutionary quantitative genetics, which is the study of inheritance of complex traits, which surely political ideology is.

            In quantitative genetics an organisms phenotype (in this case, political ideology) is influenced by their genetics and by their environment. Only the genetic portion is passed on from generation to generation. It’s somewhat more complex with a concept such as belief, and Richard Dawkins’ concept of a meme (a learned feeling, thought or behavior) may be more appropriate than a gene. In this country we have highly correlated phenotypes. That is, a person who has a certain belief on one issue, say abortion, is likely to have a highly non-random opinion on another issue such as health care. There are two reasons why these correlated phenotypes might exist in particularly high frequency in a population. If it were a morphological trait, these two reasons would be pleiotropy and linkage disequilibrium. Pleiotropy refers to one gene influencing many traits (for example, a single mutation in a single gene causes phenylketonuria, which causes mental retardation, reduced skin pigmentation and reduced hair). In the case of beliefs, there may very well be a pleiotropic underlying philosophical value that influences a person beliefs regarding a spectrum of issues. No doubt, this is partly the case. However, the other possibility is that linkage disequilibrium (LD) generates these correlated phenotypes. Linkage disequilibrium can arise for a variety of reasons. The two most likely reasons for LD in our context are non-random mating and correlational selection. What I mean by non-random mating in this context is that a person doesn’t just inherit their political views at random from the population of the USA, they inherit from their local society. They get a very non-random influence of parents and peers in their local environment, and are therefore, statistically more likely to share views on a variety of topics. This likely exerts a very strong influence, and I believe, is a major cause for the phenotypic integration (strong correlation between views on a variety of issues) that we observe in America. The other cause of LD that likely plays a role is correlational selection, where the two opposing memes of political views have better survival rates than other, less integrated phenotypes. Surely, America’s two party system plays extraordinarily large role in the observed polarization, as any third-party will tell you, survival rates off the major axis of variation are slim to nill.

            As a scientist, there is relatively little we can do to keep “acceptance of science” from being a phenotype correlated to political party. Surely, pleiotropy and correlational selection play a role in a person’s perception of science. However, what we can do is to keep ourselves from exerting our own correlational selection on the variance of political views, and exacerbating our current situation. When a conservative sends their child to the classroom of a biologist, or any other topic in a university for that matter, they fully believe that their child is going to get correlational selection away from their world view. They believe not only that their child will be pressured to believe evolution, but that they will be pressured to accept all aspects of “progressive ideology” (see the open letter to Barack Obama). Granted, I have a very hard time with people who are against gay marriage, for example. My personal values find this a violation of human rights. But science says nothing about what we “should” do about gay marriage. Again, we often blame religion for homophobia. I personally don’t buy it; I think homophobia has cropped up in far too many societies to be blamed on any one religion, or any religion for that matter. Science makes no judgement, homosexuality is a common phenomena in the animal world, but apparently, homophobia is just as common a phenotype, possibly even shaped by evolution. So as a scientist, I will portray myself neutral on the issue. Speaking as an individual, I can say and believe whatever I want, but as a scientist, I would consider it unprofessional to take a specific stance on this issue, as some evolutionary biologists have done. The issue is that the most vocal proponents of evolutionary biology, those most often quoted by the intelligent design supporters, are those that have this highly integrated phenotype of beliefs, and tend to espouse all of them with great vigour and defiance (read: Crackergate). What science needs is a neutral face, we need a Tiger Woods. Someone who won’t take any position except science’s position. If we could have this face, science would be more acceptable to everyone. The great crime of the average academic biologist is to rejoice in any selection on the mean phenotype toward the “liberal ideal phenotype”, and not just selection toward increased acceptance of science. We should praise McCain for breaking somewhat from the republican party and accepting many aspects of science. We should be working to break the correlation, not trying to shift the mean. Ideally, if we broke this correlation, each individual person would choose to believe evolution on the merits and evidence for evolution. Given the strength of evolutionary theory, this would surely be an improvement. But if we try and shift the “multivariate mean”, we will only be met with opposition from not only anti-evolutionists but the entire conservative movement, and the result will be even greater polarization in our society and ever more politicization of science (and then what? every time a republican gets elected we lose our funding?)           

            In an act of great nerdiness, I’ve prepared some figures in R to illustrate my point:

 

Figure 1. Each dot represents a hypothetical individual. In my ideal scenario, I would hope that each individual would form an opinion on an issue independent of other, value-based issues. In this case, the relationship between evolution and one’s political ideology does not exist, and hopefully, a person would be more likely to form their opinion based on the merits of evolution:

 

Figure 2. What seems to be occuring in our society, where acceptance of science and evolution is highly correlated to political ideology. Following classic CNN coverage, I have depicted red as conservatives and blue are liberals.

 

 

Figure 3. In society A, increasing acceptance of evolution via science education (shifting beliefs from gray to red) does not change the mean in political ideology, in fact, it doesn’t change at all. The only resistance to this type of education you are likely to face is from those in direct opposition to evolution. However, in society B, because the two phenotypes are so tightly correlated, the “fastest and easiest” way to increase acceptance of evolution is to concurrently select on political ideology, so that an increase in acceptance of evolution corresponds to a shift in political ideology. This is the underlying fear that I perceive in campaigns from conservatives to undermine evolutionary theory. Furthermore, I think they’re right. Too many liberal scientists would be only too happy to see this scenario in society B play out. The result? Science education will be met with resistance from not only anti-evolutionists, but the entire might of the conservative party.

 

 

Figure 4. My solution: What we can do as scientists is be neutral on political ideology (at least the ones not directly related to science) in our professional lives. This means avoiding the temptation to try and shift the mean from dark gray to red (which may be where you think this country should be). Instead the scientist’s education program and professional stance should be at the black point, act only for science. Furthermore, the more we break the correlation, the more effectively we will achieve our goal. (Note that if you took my metaphor too literally, you should probably vote for McCain, because he lies off the principal axis of variation, and would do more for breaking the correlation than Obama would and could potentially do more for this country in improving our view on science.)