I suspect that blotches that "oppose each other middorsally" are symmetrical along the back. If a description includes "headphone-shaped" there's little excuse for this style of "professional" jargon in a popular reader's guide like Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Symmetrical? I think this term would be a bit too strong; often (parts of) the patterns seen within this species are staggered. This is unlike the rattlesnakes, for instance, which tend to have nice symmetrical patterns centered over the vertebral line. "Headphone-shaped"? Yes, it's a bit odd, but I didn't make that up. Besides, it is a rather fitting description. See for yourself: Bothrops alternatus image. That may not be the same species, but the pattern occurs more often within the genus. It's also a good example of a "dorsolateral" pattern; one that's centered half-way between the back and sides.
Regarding the formatting for the references, that's something I developed before the cite template became popular. I don't like cite mostly because it italicizes the entire title by default; the bibliographical lists I modeled my format after only use italics for scientific names and I see no reason not to follow suit. Besides, changing several thousand such references now would be a major pain! --Jwinius (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)