It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Arabhar and other Flying Snakes

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:09 PM
Arabhar. According to Loren Coleman, these are "unconfirmed flying snakes located in the Arabian Sea region."

Snakes that can fly. Snakes can't fly, they don't have wings.

Wrong. Well, right. They don't have wings. But wrong because they can fly-ish.

Enter genus Crysopelea of family Colubridae. The flying snakes of the zoological world.

Flying snakes are a small group of species of tree snakes that live in South and Southeast Asia. At rest they appear unremarkable, but on the move they're able to take to the air by jumping from the tree, flattening the entire body, and gliding or parachuting to the ground or another tree.

This is done by flattening their bodies to up to twice their width from the back of the head to the vent. These snakes can glide better than flying squirrels and other gliding animals, despite lacking any limbs, wings, or wing-like projections.

More pictures:

Google Video Link

I think it's completely realistic that this cryptid's logical explanation is that it's a species of Chrysopelea that has not been recognized in this specific region before. Since these snakes are common in Asia, India, and some islands... I am sure that this is the case.

Other sources:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:26 PM
I agree with your theory that it is just an unidentified species of Chrysopelea.

But this raises a question, some of the Arabian Sea Region lacks tree coverage which would make it harder to determine if the flying snake would indeed be a regular flying snake. Perhaps it is evolving into a more conventional one now or something.

But, other than that, it makes a lot of sense that it is just an unidentified species, nothing really extravagant or cryptid.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by Ummarth

It's still a cryptid, haha. But I thought of that, too. I just can't think of another explanation that is as logical. If there is even sparse tree coverage, they could still survive in the region and appear to "fly". The exact range of the Arabhar wasn't available, so I assumed that it made sense. After all, some parts of India and Asia are pretty tree-less and the snakes are still present in the general region.

I think that the term Arabhar is very old. It's possible that they do exist readily where it was coined and we just don't know exactly where that is. But I did also think that perhaps they either lost population in that area or that they migrated out of the region, or simply lost the trait although I think that is least likely.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:13 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Wow, I did not know of this, but your signature linked me to it! You don't quit do you? Whats this like 5 threads in two days? All siting credible sources and making logical conclusions on the creatures. I have never heard of this one before so thank you for bringing it to my attention.

It seems perfectly logical to me that there are MANY undiscovered species in isolated regions that humanity has not trampled over. It also seems perfectly logical that a species could evolve a more effective measure than the one shown in the video in regards to gliding.

I have a question: I assume you believe in evolution right? What do you think the possibilities are of a creature like the dolphin, given the chance evolving into a sentient, intelligent, human-like, bi-pedal species? I know this is a little off topic so sorry but I am interested in your opinion on this. LOL, now I have a "go to" person on Zoological issues.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I have a question: I assume you believe in evolution right? What do you think the possibilities are of a creature like the dolphin, given the chance evolving into a sentient, intelligent, human-like, bi-pedal species? I know this is a little off topic so sorry but I am interested in your opinion on this. LOL, now I have a "go to" person on Zoological issues.

I don't mind it being kind of OT, as long as it gets people interested in cryptozoology.

Sentient, intelligent, human-like, bipedal dolphins.... like Kyle's dad in South Park?

No, haha. Okay honestly. Hm. Hard.

Well, dolphins are already very intelligent. They communicate, use logic, are able to play, to show something like "love", to plan out their actions, to learn. So, check. I would say they already are intelligent. And sentient.

Human-like and bipedal. I'm guessing that you mean physically. Dolphins are tricky. Here's what I think:
Dolphins and whales fall into the Cetacea group of mammals. They evolved from a group of animals which used to be terrestrial. Many Cetaceans have vestigial hind limb structures as part of their skeleton. So they were terrestrial once, now they are aquatic again.

I suppose that if the conditions were right and their food source became terrestrial, or they were no longer surviving better in the water, that they could become bipedal. First they would need to become amphibious in terms of developing stronger flippers that resembled legs. They would need to gradually come back out of the water. Lose all the aquatic structures, probably get fur back... it would take a long time, a number of mutations. So they would be on four legs, then they would need to gradually evolve into two legs due to necessary adaptations for getting food, whatever. It would take a long time, but if the conditions were right they could.

But if they were going to become human-like, it would have happened last time they were terrestrial, before they became aquatic again. They kind of resembled dogs. So really just the limb structure would have needed to change, lose the fur... but they would never look like humans, because Cetaceans are not primates. Their ancestors weren't. I think they missed the opportunity to evolve like us, and I don't think they ever exactly could. In theory they could have, and still could, become bipedal. But I don't really think they would need to, they're pretty well-set how they are right now.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Okay, so you think it is possible given the circumstances then? So let us say hypothetically that humans did not become the dominant species and conditions favored dolphins or a similar species becoming land dwelling and then bi-pedal. So you think that it is possible that these creatures could become like we are right now? I ask because this has some relation to a alien theory, I wont get into that but it does. These creatures would probably have large eyes right? Likely large heads? Would they retain there sonar abilities as well? I ask that because it is plausible that advanced natural sonar abilities could turn into some type of telepathy is it not? Sorry for these lengthy and peripheral questions but I am just trying to ask someone who might know something about Zoology as I have been trying to link the feasibility of the evolution of a certain "rumored alien species" to reports that they are similar to dolphins.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Oh man I think this is harder than my zoology final.

If you're just talking about sonar and large heads, that's different. I don't think that Cetaceans could really evolve to become like primates, at least not to that degree. Their brains would still be very different. They wouldn't be able to pass as human-like unless you were comparing them to, you know, mollusks or something.

Other animals have sonar capabilities, like bats. So more likely would be that some form of primate developed sonar. They would possibly need a bigger head-body ratio than other primates, probably, to accommodate that feature.

Bats and dolphins are very different organisms. So I would say that, since they both developed sonar even though they did not "evolve from each other" that primates have just as much a chance of developing sonar- if it helped them survive. I don't think it would because we don't fly or swim, we wouldn't need to rely on it to track prey or predators that move like fish or insects in water or air.

It would be a freak adaptation, and I don't think it would help the primate survive so since they wouldn't really... need it... I don't think the adaptation would stick.

Large eyes and large heads can be caused by all sorts of genetic abnormalities, though.

Keep in mind that there are patterns in nature. For instance, a butterfly is not a bird, but it can develop markings over time to resemble the eyes of one. Things like that happen a lot. It's possible that a primate could develop the patterns of a dolphin.

But I don't know why it would help them, evolutionarily. So I'm going to go ahead and say it's probably not... it probably didn't happen. I don't think it would stick if it did.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Okay, thanks for that. So you think that really evolution is far too complex to try and judge possible bi-pedal life forms source evolution? It seems like you might have been leaning towards some type of genetic manipulation that could account for a primate type being developing sonar type mental abilities.

This is you essay question

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Not genetic manipulation, a genetic mutation. That's how all new traits develop, from a mutation that is advantageous for the species.

Basically an animal won't be bipedal if it doesn't need to. We're bipedal because it helped us to get food. But other animals do just fine on four legs, or in the water, or whatever.

But if a primate had sonar abilities my guess is yes, it would develop from a genetic mutation of something that was already a primate, instead of a Cetacean or non-primate going all the way through evolution again and becoming primate-like. I think the chances of that are way smaller.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:23 PM
These are falling snakes guys, not flying ones.

Flying means you go up. Falling means you go down.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

They're able to remain more airborne than other reptile species, obviously. And a few hundred years ago if one went from tree to tree above your head, you would think it was flying, too.

They can actually use their muscular-skeletal system to propel themselves up off branches.

It's not in English, but you get the picture.

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Here is a nice, high res picture of the flying snake (Chrysopelea ).

Courtesy of

Here is an image of the animals habitat courtesy of

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

They are some of the craziest pictures I've ever seen, I'm worried about watching out for snakes on the ground when I'm abroad in some areas... but one gliding from a tree? Awesome!!

Man I really thrive on these threads, there is nothing more entertaining than animals!

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by ItsallCrazy

I agree!!
These guys are like a snake-phobes nightmare, though! Imagine just walking along and you see one shoot from one tree to another. Say whaaaat?

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:22 PM
There are a lot of other species that jump from tree to tree also. The water moccasin would be a fine example. They do not only dwell in water but also find refuge in trees and sometimes land on an unsuspecting passer by (personal experience).

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by DaMod

Awesome. I doubt that they can glide as far because I don't think they can flatten themselves as Chrysopelea can. But they are pretty common in America. The weird thing about water moccasins is that they are aquatic! And arboreal! So cool.

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:55 PM
I think its amazing that snakes have adapted that way... good find
its funny to see them jumping out of a tree and gliding down hehe!

[edit on 20-6-2009 by ParaZep]

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13
Flying snakes are cool. I've a vague recollection of St. Steve Irwin discussing and pestering one of them on one of his shows. I think you present a fine case for the mythical flying snakes being related to the existing 'flying' snakes. It's also nice to see cryptids being approached from a rational angle. I'm goingto u2u you a suggestion for a good ATS thread (if it hasn't been done recently!)

reply to post by jkrog08
Hiya buddy, are you working on a 'Greys could be cetaceans' thread by any chance? That's some of the most transparent and leading questioning imaginable
Leaving aside the 'Greys=dolphin ancestor theory', wouldn't it be fascinating to see what the dolphin's intellect would produce if their skeletal evolution had taken a different branch? I can't even imagine it but I'm sure it would be profoundly different to ours.

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by Kandinsky

Thank you for the compliments! ^_^
And even though that topic was taken, you should keep in touch via U2U.

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

I just want to jump into this.

If Dolphins became bipedal, odds are their front flippers would be their "legs" and they would not have external second limbs. Evolution would favor the external appengages. Their balanace would be much like bird's in that case.

They would not be able to achieve a "human" stance - with a very few exceptions, cetecean vertibrae are fused, and as they would be using their shoulders rather than pelvis as a base, a low-slung, horozontal position would generate less physical stress.

Sonar has squat to do with telepathy. It's using sound reflection and refraction to generate an image of the surroundings. It would be useless for a terrestrial, diurnal species. In a nocturnal species, it would pretty much make eyes useless. A lack of external ears wouldn't be a problem, as the dolphin's melon should be receptive enough - Though sound passes more easily through water, so maybe that organ would need to be enlarged.

I would honestly have an easier time picturing a dolphin evolving into some sort of giant mole-ish creature rather than being overland terrestrial.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in