V. On the fascinating Power of the Rattle-Snake, with some
Remarks on Dr. Barton’s Memoir on that Subject^*. By
Professor Blumenbach. From Professor Voigt’s Ma-
gazin für den neuesten zustand der Naturkunde. Part II.
1798.

It has been asserted of many animals, both warm and cold-
blooded, and particularly of different snakes, poisonous as
well as harmless, in the old^† and new world^‡, that even
when at some distance from other animals, especially those
which serve them as food, they have such a fascinating power
over them, that they are forced to approach them just in the
same manner as if attracted by them.

The rattle-snake has been particularly celebrated on ac-
count of this property, which has been denominated its fas-
cinating power; and naturalists have endeavoured to explain
it on the following principles. Many suppose that the small
birds, squirrels, etc. which have been seen to fall from the
branches of trees, as it were spontaneously, into the mouth
of the rattle-snake, must have been previously bitten by the
snake; and that, weakened by the activity of the poison, they
were incapable either of flying away or of remaining longer
on the tree. Some suppose that the rattle-snake, under cer-
[Seite 252] tam circumstances, emits from its body a stupefying vapour;
and that it is this which produces the effect. Others are
said to have remarked that this terrible animal, on such oc-
casions, makes a noise with the rattle in its tail, a singularity
which exclusively belongs to it, and that there is reason to
suppose that the whole charm is to be ascribed to the terror
produced by the found of that organ. Against these three
ways of accounting for this phenomenon Dr. Barton makes
the following objections: In regard to the first, the com-
mon symptoms after the bite of the rattle-snake are very dif-
ferent from those which have been remarked in small ani-
mals supposed to have been fascinated. Besides, this pre-
tended fascination can be destroyed, and the animal saved, if
the snake be immediately killed near it; and in the last place,
this so called fascinating power is ascribed to many serpents
that are not poisonous, as for example the coluber constrictor.

He endeavours to weaken the second mode of explanation
by remarking, that many observers have seen nothing of that
mephitic evaporation of the rattle-snake; that small birds,
when enclosed in a box with the animal, have remained
lively and well; and that the rattle-snake often lies whole
days under bushes and trees, while thrushes and fly-catchers
nestle in them without any danger^*.

As Dr. Barton’s argument against the third manner of
accounting for this property is particularly and solely di-
rected against a passage in my Manual of Natural History, I
shall first quote the passage itself, before I offer any remarks
on his objections.

‘“That squirrels, small birds, etc. fall down spontaneously
from trees into the mouth of the rattle-snake, lying below
them, is an undisputed fact, and is the less surprising, as the
like phenomena have been remarked in regard to other
snakes, and also toads, hawks, and cats; all of which, in
[Seite 253] certain circumstances, as appears, have the power of drawing
towards them small animals, merely by fixing their eyes
stedfastly on them. In regard to the rattle-snake, this effect
is produced by the rattle in its tail, the hissing noise of which
makes squirrels, etc. whether through curiosity, mistake, or
terror, seem to approach the animal as it were spontane-
ously. At any rate, I know from the information of intel-
ligent eye-witnesses, that it is a common stratagem of the
young savages in America to conceal themselves in the
bushes, where they imitate the hissing noise of the rattle-
snake, and by these means attract squirrels, which they are
then enabled to catch.”’

Dr. Barton’s objections to this passage are as follows:
‘“1. This fascinating power is by no means peculiar to the
rattle-snake.”’ This is literally what I said myself, with the
addition, that the effect is produced by the rattle. This lazy
animal, when lying on the ground, might certainly employ
that singular organ for enticing animals, as well as the ce-
rastes employs its horns for the same purpose, at least ac-
cording to common report.

2. The author says he has been assured by some persons
that ‘“the rattle-snake, during the time of its supposed fasci-
nation, does not employ its rattle.”’ It is very probable
that the case here may be altered by circumstances. Dr.
Barton, however, was told the contrary by other persons.
A Mohigan Indian informed him that the rattle-snake
fascinates squirrels and birds by means of its rattle; and by
its noise can bring down animals from trees. An inter-
preter, who enabled him to carry on a conversation with a
Choktaw Indian, told him the same thing; and the experi-
ments of M. Vosmaer are well known.

3. In regard to the stratagem of the savages, Dr. Bar-
ton knows nothing of it; and others, of whom he made
enquiry, were equally ignorant on the subject. He is there-
fore inclined to believe that I have been imposed on, or that
this story perhaps has taken its rise from the following cir-
[Seite 254] cumstance: – ‘The young Indians place a reed cross-wise in
their mouth, and by a tremulous motion of the lips imitate
the cry of young birds, by which means they entice the old
ones, so that they can then easily shoot them. In this
manner the butcher bird (lanius excubitor), concealed in
the thickest bushes, imitates the cries of young birds, and
thus often catches the old ones, who approach deceived by
the similarity of the sound.”’

As far as I know, Dr. Mead, about fifty years ago, when
controverting the idea that providence had furnished the
rattle-snake with its rattle to give warning to travellers, was
the first who asserted that it serves the animal to terrify
squirrels and small birds, which are then so stupefied by the
fight of an enemy so terrible to them, that they at length
drop down and become its prey, and that this is what the
Indians call fascination. He himself observed, that when a
hawk was perched on a tree in a garden, the small birds in
the neighbourhood were so stupefied that they fluttered
about within a small circle, but were not in a condition to
escape from the claws of the ravenous animal. This ac-
cords perfectly with what Dr. Barton says himself, in
general, that nature has taught different animals what kind
of animals their enemies are, and that if small animals are
attracted by the rattle-snake it may be owing to fear. In
regard to the pretended effect of the noise occasioned by the
rattle, nothing can agree better than what Dr. Barton says
himself in regard to the stratagem of the young Indians with
a reed in their mouth.

I shall here observe, that I obtained my information from
Major Gardner, who, with his family, resided many years
in East Florida. He is a very intelligent naturalist, an ac-
curate observer, and certainly would be very far from im-
posing upon me.

Dr. Barton, after endeavouring by the above objections
to refute the before-mentioned three methods of accounting
for the fascinating power of the rattle-snake, gives himself a
[Seite 255] fourth method; the sum of which is, that those birds which
under certain circumstances, as has been asserted, flutter
into the mouth of the animal, are in general those which
nestle on the ground, in bushes, or on low trees, and which
having eggs or young in their nests, expose their lives
through love for their brood on the approach of this
dangerous enemy.

With this method of explaining the phenomenon I have
been acquainted since 1785, from the before-mentioned Essay
of Michaëlis, who, among many ways of solving the problem,
gives the following:

‘“Others believe that it is owing merely to the care of
the old ones for their young, which throw themselves
between the latter and their enemies, and by these means
became a prey to them. One of my friends, Mr. David
Colden, at Flushing, an amateur of natural history, and son
of Governor Colden, whose service to science is so well
known, assured me that he had several times seen birds
fascinated by snakes, but always found the nest of the bird
either with eggs or young ones in the neighbourhood,
which made the spectators give up the idea of fascination.
But, Mr. Michaëlis adds, I know some instances where no
nest could be in the neighbourhood, and where, though
the snake was at first at a great distance from the bird, it
nevertheless fell towards it.”’

I would however add another mode of explanation from
Dr. Barton’s work itself, where he assures us that the result
of his enquiries, whether the rattle-snake creeps up trees or
not, induces him to believe the latter to be the case. He
had an opportunity of seeing many of them, but he always
observed them on the ground. They never move, like the
most part of the other serpents, in a spiral manner, but
straight on; and this is the reason why they cannot ascend
trees. The rattle-snake is also one of the laziest of all the
serpent tribe; under these circumstances it seems very
natural that such a lazy animal should be endowed with the
[Seite 256] fascinating power of bringing down from trees small animals,
which otherwise would have nothing to fear from a snake
that cannot creep upwards.