rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Another problem with Zodiac hic (human/star-interactions-calculator) is the different size of the star signs. Nevertheless is the period of each sign (in this case thirteen) equally distributed over the time of earth rotation around the closest star. Libra is a very small sign and should only have around seven days of influence before scorpio takes over. And the neglected Ophiuchus is much bigger and should have a much longer period than a month.
That is not a problem for the deductive minded mythologists. Ignorance is the bliss of the speculative mind.😀
I think the reason why Ophiuchus is not a part of the classical zodiac is that the zodiac dates back to the Babylonians (you can see this nicely from the dates, which ignore a few thousand years' worth of precession) and that the Babylonians didn't recognize Ophiuchus as a constellation.
We shouldn't discount the mythologists entirely; much of the early progress of astronomy until early modernity was driven by the desire to perfect astrological models, and the contribution of mysticism and occult studies to science was quite significant until well into the modern age (even Isaac Newton was an ardent occultist). Of course this is obviously not why people are interested in astrology today, nor does it make it scientific in any modern understanding of the term - my favourite argument in this vein is that brought forth by Thomas Kuhn (of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" fame). He answers to Karl Popper's classic argument (that astrology is not a science because it doesn't generate testable predictions), saying that wouldn't be a science even if it actually did generate testable predictions and if the stars actually did govern our fate, not because it doesn't generate testable predictions but because it doesn't generate new problems and hypotheses.