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.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance Agkistrodon piscivorus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure that's a young cottonmouth. As juveniles these two species are very much alike, but according to Conant (1975), the main difference is that young cottonmouths have a dark postocular stripe (a line on the side of the head that descends from behind the eye to the angle of the jaw) and young copperheads do not. In the picture, you can just see a postocular stripe on the left side of the animal's head. --Jwinius 10:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cottonmouth. The young look very similar to ccopperheads, leading a lot of people to believe that coppers live in areas where they don't (like South Florida). Lfishel 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. These animals, in their youth, can look a *lot* like their smaller relative, the copperhead (_Agkistrodon contortrix_). The Southern Copperhead, _A. c. contortrix_, only ranges into a teeny bit of northern Florida, but I've known people in counties where copperheads aren't known to occur who have insisted that they had seen them there; invariably it turns out that the snake they saw was either a young cottonmouth or a colubrid (usually a watersnake of the genus _Nerodia_; I think these feisty but harmless animals may be responsible for the cottonmouth's reputation for aggression, since my impression has been that cottonmouths are shy, mellow snakes, reluctant to strike unless they've tried every other self-defence technique at their disposal, and not aggressive in the slightest).

One easy way to tell that a pitviper of the genus _Agkistrodon_ (copperheads, cottonmouths, cantils) is a juvenile is by the almost fluorescent greenish-yellow tail tip (about the colour of a tennis ball), used by the young snakes in caudal luring; if you're in Florida and you see a juvenile pitviper, consider the likelihood that it is a cottonmouth (the southern limit of the copperhead's confirmed range is Liberty County). Copperheads' colouration is typically more tan, sometimes even yellowish, although it may be reddish -- it evolved to blend in with leaf litter -- while newborn cottonmouths tend either to be very bright reddish-orange, or have a very pale background colour, sometimes with a pinkish tint (as in the picture) and dark brown or reddish-brown markings; they darken as they get older, so that the pattern on an adult cottonmouth may be barely visible (particularly among the Western race). Also, the Southern Copperhead (the subspecies that just barely enters Florida) usually just has saddle-shaped markings, often narrower than those of the Northern subspecies -- sometimes they actually don't meet in the middle, instead forming triangles on the snake's sides; juvenile cottonmouths usually have spots on the inside of and in between the bands, more like the markings typical of the Northern Copperhead (if anything the young cottonmouth's markings are more ornate than those of a Northern Copperhead). Note, however, that in the northern part of the cottonmouth's range, in the Carolinas and southeastern Virginia, the copperheads may be the Northern race (_A. c. mokasen_) or Northern-Southern intergrades, and may have some of the more elaborate patterning typical of the Northern race.

The two southwesternmost-ranging subspecies of copperheads, the Broad-Banded (_A. c. laticauda_) and Trans-Pecos (_A. c. pictigaster_) Copperheads, who reside in central and western Texas and Oklahoma, are easier to tell apart from young cottonmouths; these copperheads tend to be darker -- sometimes a very dark grey -- as juveniles, and instead of the saddle-shaped markings typical of the other races of copperheads, they have straight, wide bands (as suggested by the common name and species epithet of the former).

Cottonmouths may be identified easily if they choose to exercise their eponymous warning display, since the lining of a copperhead's (or a watersnake's) mouth is pink (about the same as a human's). There are other vipers and pitvipers whose mouths are white or pale pink on the inside (such as the Eyelash Palm Pitviper, _Bothriechis schlegelii_, of Mesoamerica), but none whose ranges overlap with that of the cottonmouth, that I am aware of. Mia229 (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

no they have not proved!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.221.195 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you happen to witness such a thing again, take a photo with your cell phone! Mia229 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to include a picture of a swimming Cottonmouth either! Anyway, I have a picture I took in Nashville, TN (on the Harpeth river) in 2006. I was later told it was a Cottonmouth, although from this article, Nashville would be outside of the snake's natural range?

If it is indeed a Cottonmouth, perhaps we can include it as such. If it is a different and non-venomous watersnake, that would satisfy the original request!

(Not sure why the file is not embedding, so here's a link to the Wikimedia page.) --Chinmay7 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I included it in the article and have displayed it at right of these comments. That looks like a cottonmouth to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agkistrodon piscivorus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

• It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

• "Large and notorious" - not a very precise way of putting this, notorious amongst whom? Notorious for what?
• "It" - constantly repeated in the lead. Try interspersing "this snake" or "A. piscivorus" to break it up a little
• Link or define "nominate subspecies" - technical term
• "integradation" - undefined and unlinked technical term
• "possibly extirpated" - a bit floridly-worded maybe just say "probably extinct"
• "The population trend is stable. Year assessed: 2007" - merge into a single grammatical sentence.
• "Constant persecution and drainage of wetlands" - unintentionally funny! Wetlands are not persecuted.
• The huge list of food species is not particularly informative, might be better to summarise along the lines of "Frogs, newts, fish, snails.."

• b (MoS):

• Lead fails to summarise the article, should at least touch on the main sections in the text.
• Don't mix feet and inches, and cm and mm as units
• cc is not a standard unit, millilitres are the direct SI equivalent.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): Good

b (citations to reliable sources): yes

c (OR): no

• It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): yes

b (focused): yes

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias: yes

• It is stable.

No edit wars etc.: yes

• It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Cottonmouth Snake, Gaping.jpg could swap to the FDA-gov tag

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): yes

Overall:

On hold

Overall pretty damn good, just some tweaks needed. Nice work! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, that's up to you. Very good work, congratulations! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Call an exterminator!! Though they probably won't attack unless provoked I wouldn't take my chances! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Most likely the snakes that you have encountered are not water moccasins at all and are probably harmless. --Jwinius (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, may I ask exactly where you live? I ask because I've known many people who thought they had encountered cottonmouths in locations that were outside the range of these snakes (including one in New England!). According to reverse lookup you are in central Texas, which is the westernmost edge of the cottonmouth's range, but if you are willing to tell me what specific metro area you live in I can probably find out whether there are cottonmouths there.

Wildlife rehabilitation (a volunteer service which should be listed in the phone book) should be able to identify whether they are cottonmouths or not. If the snakes are indeed cottonmouths, check under "wildlife" or "animal;" there should be a local service that can relocate them safely and humanely; these are more likely to have experience with snakes than an exterminator. I should mention that the cottonmouth that is dangerous is the one you don't see, and if you've seen them on your property, the chances are that you will continue to encounter them. You should be careful to watch where you step, and don't reach somewhere you can't see (like in a tree hollow, behind a rock, in deep grass, etc.); teach your child to be careful as well, and not to disturb a snake or approach it too closely (staying five feet away will be more than sufficient). Cottonmouths are not aggressive and will not attack a human unprovoked; even if they feel threatened, they are unlikely to strike without first trying other tactics such as crawling away, gaping, or spraying musk.

I strongly recommend you not try to kill or remove cottonmouths or other venomous snakes yourself. A very large percentage of the venomous snake bites in the US are the result of people (usually young men) trying to catch or kill a snake (I've seen various statistics, between 40% and 90%, but it's definitely a lot). If you are finding snakes inside your house, there is a high likelihood that you have a rodent problem; dealing with this should cause the snakes to lose interest.

Here is an article about snakebite by Prof. Whit Gibbons, an experienced herpetologist at the University of Georgia's Savanna River Ecology Lab: http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoviews/ecoview020909.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia229 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My understanding is that this term comes from the cottonmouth's habit of vibrating its tail when agitated--a trait shared with other poisonous and non-poisonous snakes. In shallow water, this in turn agitates the water or in leaves or other debris it makes a rustling sound. Pinethicket (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile cottonmouths and copperheads also wiggle their tails i

According to Campbell & Lamar's _Venomous Snakes of the Western Hemisphere_, cottonmouths are or at one point were sometimes called "water rattlesnake," "mangrove rattler," or "saltwater rattler." I don't know if any of these names are still used. Pinethicket is right, they can make noise by wiggling their tails in water or leaf litter.

Mia229 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

The Florida Cottonmouth (_A. p. conanti_) is a different subspecies than the Western Cottonmouth (_A. p. leucostoma_), which ranges as far as eastern Texas. It's possible there are differences in behaviour. Cottonmouths are semi-aquatic; they're as mobile on land as other pitvipers such as the copperhead, so I don't think that's it, but it may be that other adaptations for water (such as a preference for aquatic prey, although the species is also known for being willing to eat almost anything) make them more comfortable there and so the drought is leading to increased desperation to flee. It is true that the species is almost always found in or near water. Mia229 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I remember this report; Dr. Means refers to the behaviour as "shammed aggression," or "bluffing aggression," since the intent is clearly defensive and in any case is hardly unprovoked. (If I were the snake, I would certainly consider preventing me from escaping a provocation, especially if the one doing the blocking is a big scary human-monster. :->)

It's rare to happen upon a cottonmouth with her babies, as the young pitvipers only stay with their mother for a short time (about 2 weeks max). Mothers of other species of pitvipers, and other viviparous snakes such as boa constrictors, have been known to cover for their newborns by making false strikes while the young retreat to safety (up a tree, into a burrow, etc.), though. (I don't know whether any oviparous snakes do this too, although I would expect it at least in the case of oviparous pitvipers such as the bushmasters (_Lachesis_) and Malayan pitviper (_Calloselasma rhodostoma_), and perhaps pythons (which also brood their eggs).

I would say the EPA is correct that aggression "has been exaggerated," although I agree that this statement is rather ambiguous; I'm dubious as to whether this bluffing behaviour (which is, as Dr. Means makes clear, *not* an actual attempt to bite) even ought to be considered "aggression," but even if it is, Dr. Means seems to be right that it only occurs under particular circumstances, does not appear to pose any threat of a bite, and probably can be avoided simply by letting the cottonmouth go on its way rather than blocking it. The rumoured "aggression" by cottonmouths is, in any case, much more extensive than that which has been documented reliably. The EPA didn't rule out aggression, though, they just said that rumours have exaggerated it. Mia229 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot personally attest to the aggression... but my late wife was, as a pre-teen, chased over a dozen yards by one.

Wait. No. Yes, I can, but I'd actually forgotten. My brothers and I once had to scramble into the back of a pickup to get away from a nest of them, and then I had to get in the front seat without getting into their reach to drive us away (I was the only one who knew how to drive the pickup, at 13). I've never seen nor heard of so many together before or since, but I'd forgotten it, given that it was almost forty years ago. Frankly, I never want to. Dstar3k (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this snake poisonous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.120.97.183 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is venomous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opposed WiLaFa (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 97.126.89.248 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion above. WiLaFa (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bother commenting opposed here? I saw you were opposed 97.126.89.248 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For possible future discussions.

First, this article really needs updating. Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus and the Western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) should be discussed for merging.

I can't imagine any benefit of keeping the above articles. For a long time they have been wrongly classified as subspecies. However, indepth research articles have been written on supposed subspecies like: "testis of the male Western Cottonmouth Snake, Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma".

user:Wilafa's suggestions of "Northern Cottonmouth" has merit as there are a multitude of states, universities, organizations, and media, that use the common name "Northern Cottonmouth". In the US, especially in areas where there are no possible hybrids (hybrid zones), it is common to find the nomenclature of just cottonmouth or water moccasin as there is no confusion with other snakes in these areas.

Scientific nomenclature on articles are expected when there is not a clear unambiguous more common name. The suggested names "Cottonmouth" and "Water moccasin" (or combination "Cottonmouth water moccasin") seem too vague for a world-wide encyclopedia. The Mexican moccasin (Agkistrodon bilineatus), commonly called the "Black moccasin", Mexican moccasin, cantil, or Mexican cantil, should be considered even though these alternate names still only refer to the same Agkistrodon bilineatus.

States that use "Northern Cottonmouth":

• Oklahoma,
• Missouri,
• Washington University in St. Louis lists the Northern Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) but also still lists the Western Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma).
• Illinois,
• Louisiana,
  • Virginia is titled "Snakes on the Water: Cottonmouth or Watersnake?] and the image has the caption "Northern cottonmouth (venomous)"

• South Carolina Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (SCPARC), formally the South Carolina Herpetological Society
• The Virginia Herpetological Society
  • Note: herpsofarkansas uses Agkistrodon piscivorus subtitled Northern Cottonmouth
• Texas A&M University title: "Detectability of Northern Cottonmouth Snakes (agkistrodon Piscivorus) Within Constructed Wetland Complex"
• Sam Houston State University title: Foraging Activity Time and Refuge Site Selection in the Northern Cottonmouth, Agkistrodon Piscivorus"
• The Kansas Herpetofaunal Atlas: Titled: Northern cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus (Lacepede 1789)

• Shreveport Times: Northern cottonmouth
• Newsweek lists; Northern cottonmouth water moccasin.
• Springfield News-Leader: "The northern cottonmouth — the type of cottonmouth found in Missouri..."
• The Advocate covers a story of 6,000 posters being distributed to Louisiana schools identifying eight venomous snakes in the state. The first snake on the poster is listed as the Northern cottonmouth.

• expert website
• "The Maligned Cottonmouth" Image of snake with the caption "Agkistrodon piscivorus (Northern Cottonmouth)"

• Alabama still recognizes three subspecies, with the "Eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus)".
• Tennessee uses Agkistrodon piscivorus but also still recognizes Western Cottonmouths.
• North Carolina still uses "Eastern cottonmouth".
• JSTOR uses the Eastern Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
• The above information was found on a fast search meaning there are likely more examples. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think northern cottonmouth is fine. I don't think it's a real common name, more of a technical name. That articles titled Cottonmouth and Florida cottonmouth would be fine but clearly others don't. I would support a move to northern cottonmouth.

As off topic rant, I don't like that the bar for species has moved from produces viable offspring to something more vague. Agkistrodon piscivorus and conanti have overlapping ranges and commonly hybridize in the wild, so it's unclear to me how they are different species. But sources are sources. Always beleive in hope (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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 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.

The explanatory essay Wikipedia:Further reading states 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".

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: 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.
• LINKFARM states: 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.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: (Not relevant here) Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

There is credible evidence that the article should be reclassified. The B-class criteria #2 states: 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.

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)[reply]