2

I was reading an article on Burmese pythons in Florida and came across this sentence:

“Because of their large size, adult Burmese pythons have few predators, with humans being the exception”

What does “with humans being the exception mean”? Does it mean humans are an obvious predator but they aren’t including them in the list of what the few predators of the Burmese python are?

Link to the article: https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles/snakes/burmese-python/

Improve this question
11
  • 2
    There's no justification for including the word obvious. Humans are the exception to the statement Adult Burmese pythons have few predators. The fact that it says the exception rather than an exception means (in the writer's opinion) there are no other animals that prey on adult Burmese pythons. What is obvious is that if you make a list of "predators of adult Burmese pythons", humans will be in that list for sure. But whereas the word few [predators] implies there should be other animals in that list, the word the [exception] implies there aren't.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Aug 4 at 19:47
  • 2
    ...of course, it may be that few simply means hardly any humans would prey on adult Burmese pythons, rather than hardly any other predators. I could certainly go with that (I personally have no intention of hunting adult Burmese pythons myself, so certainly not all humans predate on ABP's! :)
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Aug 4 at 19:51
  • “ whereas the word few [predators] implies there should be other animals in that list, the word the [exception] implies there aren't.” So the sentence in the article is wrong right? “Few” and “exception” contradict each other based on your last sentence
    – penguin99
    Commented Aug 4 at 21:44
  • It's a very fine point, that I wouldn't have even noticed if you hadn't put the sentence under the microscope. And as @fred2 says, humans don't really "predate" ABPs anyway. To a first approximation, I don't see any problem with either the "few predators / the exception" conflict, OR the labeling of humans as "predators" of ABP. But you asked What does “with humans being the exception" mean? And like I said, it means Humans are the exception. They're not only "included in the list" - they are the [complete] list of what the few predators of the Burmese python are.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Aug 4 at 23:32
  • 1
    predator meaning noun an animal that kills and eats other animals.. To use this term for human beings is incorrect.
    – James Mathai
    Commented Aug 5 at 2:35

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I think the author has expressed themselves poorly. What they mean is

Burmese pythons have few predators, with humans being by far their greatest threat.

If something has "few" predators, a predator that dominates the statistics cannot logically be an "exception". There is also some ambiguity about whether control by humans is conventionally considered "predation", so the author is somewhat playing fast and loose with terminology.

All in all, it could have been expressed better.

Improve this answer
8
  • Thank you for your answer. Just to clarify, when you said “If something has "few" predators, a predator that dominates the statistics cannot logically be an "exception”.” — what you mean here is that exception means there should be only 1 predator, but the word few indicates there isn’t just 1 predator, right?
    – penguin99
    Commented Aug 4 at 21:45
  • I don't think it's reasonable to say "the author has expressed themselves poorly". I've only glanced at the full context, but all I can say is anyone who could write English at that level should never have any reason to ask questions on a site aimed at non-Anglophone learners. In context, it's pedantic quibbling to suggest that "predation" isn't the right word for what humans in Florida do to Burmese pythons. Obviously those humans are a "threat" to the pythons, which are a seriously unwanted invasive species!
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Aug 4 at 23:40
  • @penguin99 Yes, that's right. Humans are not an 'exception' to the few predators, they are the dominant predator of the few that exist.
    – fred2
    Commented Aug 5 at 16:31
  • @FumbleFingers ... I'm not sure I completely follow. The author can clearly write well, but even the best writers sometimes express themselves imperfectly. It would be entirely clear to most 'native' readers what the author meant, hence it got past the sub-editors, but, as the OP illustrates, there is a fault in the logic of the sentence which can trip up somebody reading the sentence literally.
    – fred2
    Commented Aug 5 at 16:40
  • @FumbleFingers Yes it is a little pedantic to quibble about the use of 'predation', but predation is defined as "the fact that an animal hunts, kills, and eats other animals" (Cambridge). The author is mixing the scientific definition of predation in that sense with a more metaphorical use of the word to describe human biological control of animals considered to be pests. (Admittedly, the distinction is unlikely to make much difference to the snakes ;-) .) In a context where clarity is paramount, such as a government agency website, it could be written a little better.
    – fred2
    Commented Aug 5 at 16:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .