This should really be re-titled NCBI WTF. WTF were they thinking?!

I was wondering about the source of their materials, but unfortunately the Acknowledgments was a bit cryptic…

“Acknowledgments–The authors thank J. Chiszar and E. Goldberg for help with various aspects of our work with brown tree snakes…”

That’s messed up.

Reminds one of an old joke about what vampires drink…

You’d think they’d credit the women who provided the samples!

Seriously tho, would the results be affected by whatever it was the women had been ingesting in the previous few days? If they had been eating or drinking something else that tickled a snake’s fancy, would that not affect the sample and put some doubt as to whether the snakes were sniffing the blood per se or something in the blood…?

Aren’t they afraid they are teaching snakes to attack women on their period?

I’ve always heard that menstruating women should be more wary of bear attacks when camping. Now they have to worry about snakes eating their tampons as well?

I can see the marketing potential in this: “New Backwoods Tampex. With our patented Kevlar Panty-Liners, they’re now 300% more fang-resistant that those other brands.”

Kinda reminds me of my grad program in Forensic Science. Most of the students were females. I wonder if they made the connection between me and the other few males in the program and the sperm samples we extracted DNA from in class.

Can I assume someone, somewhere is raising an army of woman-hunting snakes?

Volunteers who provide blood samples etc in studies usually aren’t credited by name.