12-11-2016, 05:22 PM
Koen.
No, it's a sea snake. Esthetically, it does approach the definition of being slightly bulbous at times, due to the flattened shape of the snake, but at no time does it ever have a consistent and uniform pattern along its length. The individual forms start small and become larger.
And even if it were a perfect match, that does not address the problem of the etymological origin of the terminology. If the name for the line derives from a snake, why is it called 'nebuly' = 'cloudy' and not called 'snaky'? The origin of the name denotes the ideological source - otherwise, what purpose does language serve?
No, it's a sea snake. Esthetically, it does approach the definition of being slightly bulbous at times, due to the flattened shape of the snake, but at no time does it ever have a consistent and uniform pattern along its length. The individual forms start small and become larger.
And even if it were a perfect match, that does not address the problem of the etymological origin of the terminology. If the name for the line derives from a snake, why is it called 'nebuly' = 'cloudy' and not called 'snaky'? The origin of the name denotes the ideological source - otherwise, what purpose does language serve?