Figure S1;Figure S2;Figure S3;Table S1;Table S2 from Olfactory self-recognition in two species of snake

photograph of the testing arena (still from a trial video) with measurements. The green line shows the extent of the zones within which snakes were considered to be inspecting each stimulus.;the proportion of short tongue-flicks (A) and time spent in each zone (B) for gartersnakes in each condition. The graph shows the proportion of tongue flicks towards or the time spent near the stimulus of interest. In each x-axis label, the stimulus of interest is listed first. Black dots show all the raw data; white lines inside the bars give means; the bars extend from the 25th to the 75th quantiles, and error bars show 95% confidence intervals. S = self, M = mark, SM = self + mark, F = familiar conspecific, FM = familiar conspecific + mark.;the proportion of short tongue-flicks (A) and time spent in each zone (B) for ball pythons in each condition. All other details are the same as in Figure S2.;Age, sources, sexes, and weights of the gartersnakes (A) and ball pythons (B) used in the experiment, along with the conditions that each snake completed. For familiar scents, snakes of the same sex but from a different source were used. Snakes identified with an asterisk were only used as stimulus snakes. Ages are based on approximate birth dates and testing windows. All weights are in grams. Trials each snake completed are listed using the same abbreviations as in Figure S1.;Bayesian ANOVAs on total number of long (A) or short (B) tongue flicks, or total time spent near either stimulus (C) as a function of species and condition. The tables show, for each model considered, the Bayes Factor (BF) for that model compared to the null, and the Bayes Factor for inclusion (BFincl) for each factor, similar to a main effect. The best model is highlighted.