Talk:Venomous snake

	Venomous snake is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"true poisonous"?

What is meant by "true poisonous" for snakes? Why are snakes of the genus Rhabdophis alone worthy of this designation? Nothing on the pages of the three species documented there suggests that these are anything other than ordinary venomous snakes. I vote that this "see also" be deleted. 198.81.129.186 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crucial for both human safety and snake conservation 208.122.85.254 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO "TRUE POISONOUS?" There's a difference between poison and venom. It's explained at the end of the page. If you understand the difference between the two, you'll understand why there needs to be a "see also" link to true poisonous snakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.162.36 (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venom is a subset of poison.

The Merriam Webster definition of "poison" [[1]] does not exclude venom, even if the venom must be injected. The only requirement for a chemical to be a "poison" is that it does its damage through chemical action.

Also, most dictionary definitions either explicitly refer to venom as a poison, or use the words "toxin" or "toxic". In those dictionaries, toxins are defined as poisonous.

There is a distinction between animals properly referred to as "venomous" and animals properly referred to as "poisonous" , but venom itself is a form of poison.JeffStickney (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How Long?

Most guides on the subject of venomous snakes have been very ambiguous about this, but around how long do you have to get medical attention after getting a bite from a venomous snake, in a case where venom is injected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.74.232 (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all cases, simply as soon as possible. How much time you have before your condition deteriorates significantly is almost impossible to say because it depends on very many factors, including (but in no particular order of importance):

Species of snake
Size of snake
Age of snake
Health of snake
Time of year (influences amount and concentration of venom in glands)
Level of agitation of individual snake
Geographic location (where the snake is from)
Amount of venom injected
Body mass of victim
Age of victim
Health of victim
Amount of physical exertion performed by victim following bite
Possible allergy or sensitivity to venom of victim
Location of bite on victim's body
How deeply the venom was injected (subcutaneous or intramuscular)
Whether or not the venom was injected directly into the bloodstream
Possible countermeasures taken that actually exacerbate victim's condition

There are probably more. Many of the first factors influence how much venom is injected. Even if the bite is not fatal (and most are not), many types of snake venom, especially viperid venoms, work by destroying tissue that can result in damage to skin, muscles and tendons. In severe cases, amputation may be necessary, but even if not such bites are a very painful experience. The sooner you get to a hospital, the better your chances of survival, the less pain you will suffer and the lower your chances of permanent tissue damage. --Jwinius (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that generally, (and without relying on it) the more triangular the head of the snake is, the more likely it is to be venomous? Writing on the actual venom gland might help this article.Virillustre (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What word or words should start this sentence, "Carl John Nikko Montemayor use modified saliva, snake venom, usually delivered through highly specialized teeth such as hollow fangs, for the purpose of prey immobilization and self-defense. In contrast, non-venomous species either constrict their prey, or simply overpower it with their jaws." I'm glad I don't know Carl.Jtyroler (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Venomous snakes

I think the list should be taken out because (a)the article itself claims this:

Lists or rankings of the world's "most venomous snakes" are tentative and differ greatly due to numerous factors, including the age and reliability of the data, the number of species analyzed, and the testing methods used.[3] In addition, since mice are the common indicator used to test venom from venomous snakes in LD50 tests, the LD50 results may not reflect the actual effects on humans due to the physiological differences between mice and humans.

And (b) it's also true that the vast majority of species don't have a "LD50" number that's solid because different studies produce different sets of data/numbers and usually species have a LD₅₀ range (ie. the black mamba has a range of 0.05-0.32 mg/kg - these numbers come from different toxicology studies). There are studies done on mice, rabbits, dogs, and monkeys and all produce differing data on venom toxicity. According to recorded human snakebites, the "most venomous land snake" the Inland taipan has two recorded bites and both were non-lethal (both victims survived without the use of antivenom), while the "less venomous" coastal taipan and the black mamba both have a 100% mortality rate in humans if bites are left medically untreated. It is unheard of for a person to survive a black mamba bite without the administration of medical treatment (antivenom therapy, mechanical ventilation, use of drugs, etc). For this reason I believe the list should go. RedGKS talk contribs. 15:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many readers/editors are fond of the "deadliest snake" concept and judge it by LD50, thinking it is a scientific way. The current presentation might be Ok, as it sorts of demonstrates the futility of LD50. I would just add sourced data to the table demonstrating that the values vary a lot even for mice. Another option (if systematic data are available) is to add data for other animals/administration routes. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also have some questions to ask.

The table listing the 10 most venomous land snakes is said to be based on a book published in 1996. I am not sure if it is necessary as a lot of similar lists can be found with different statistics (like this one which shows that the mamba's SC LD50 is 0.32 not 0.185).

Moreover, a large proportion of the content is comparing the danger of three species (coastal taipan, black mamba and eastern brown snake) but I think it is unnecessary here as we are aiming to tell readers that LD50 is not the sole factor to determine the danger of a snake but not comparing which one is more dangerous than the others (in fact this issue is quite controversial) and some sentences do not even have references to support the data.

I summarized the content of the section of "most venomous snakes", rearranged the order of the information there and added a table showing the toxicity ranking provided by Australian Venom and Toxins database.

User:Toxic Walker (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical mortality rate & death timespan of the inland taipan?

I interpret "clinical mortality rates" as the rates counted by total fatalities over the total snakebites (clinically proven) caused by a given snake species. For this reason, inland taipan bites shouldn't have such a rate since this species hasn't caused any documented human death. This is also the problem of its causing death timespan as we don't have any REAL case for reference (unlike the black mamba's rate which is based on REAL clinical cases) so I'm very confused how the sources figure those statistics out. I'd say these are potential and estimated only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.85.23.98 (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine these rates would have been guesstimated from the severity of recorded bites (i.e., how many of those patients would have died without treatment), but they are just that, guesstimates. The reality is that we only have good clinical series (as opposed to cherry-picked individual anecdotes) for a very small number of species, so these mortality figures are guesstimates even for the majority of species for which we do have documented fatal cases (including the black mamba - there are certainly anecdotal accounts of untreated, non-fatal bites, so 100% mortality is an overstatement). Caissaca (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LD₅₀ measurements

According to this paper, the studies which Ernst & Zug (1996) conducted on the median lethal dose (LD50) of almost every single medically important species of snake is more accurate than what was reported by the Australian Venom and Toxin Database (AVTD). The utilisation of 0.1% bovine albumin has proven to produce consistent results over and over again. Saline used as a diluent produced vastly differing toxicity ratings in studies conducted not just by the Australian Venom and Toxin Database, but by Spawls & Branch, Shermin A. Minton, and even Brown. For example, Naja nivea has a 0.72 mg/kg via subcutis according to the AVTD, while Brown lists a value of 0.4 mg/kg subcutis. Brown administered doses of a multitude of venomous snakes in the same species of mice of the same weight - and guess what? He got such varying results that he couldn't list a single approximate LD50 value for any of the species he used as part of the study. He listed all the wildly varying values in his work. It is generally now accepted among the herpetological community at large that 0.1% bovine albumin is what should be used in such toxinology research as the results of the testing is consistent and not wildly ranging in its results. --DendroNaja (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most venomous snakes of the world list - Ernst and Zug (1996). Snakes in Question: - Totally not reliable

I have been looking at the list that Ernst and Zug published in their book "Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book" from 1996. and it simply didn't make sense.

First of all the list posted in the article is not the list published in the book. This is the list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3).

As you can see , this list is very strange. it is widely known that the inland taipan has the highest LD50 in mice. so what's with the Hook-nosed sea snake (Enhydrina schistosa) and even Russel's Viper (Vipera russelii) doing above it? with crazy LD50. and other snakes don't belong there like the black mamba, boomslang or Tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris). I was scratching my head about this.

I found the answer from Associate Professor Bryan Grieg Fry the venom expert. he answered somebody on his blog regarding that exact list in the book :

Question: " ...I was talking to another herpatolagist and he said the hook nosed sea snake was the most venomous of all" Fry Answers: "The hook nosed myth was due to a fundamental error in a book called 'Snakes in question'. In there, all the toxicity testing results were lumped in together, regardless of the mode of testing (e.g. subcutaneous vs. intramuscular vs intravenous vs intraperitoneal). As the mode can influence the relative number, venoms can only be compared within a mode. Otherwise, its apples and rocks."

I will give few examples you'll get the picture:

Tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris) , 'Snakes in question' quotes it LD50 of 0.06. if you go to a peer reviewed paper you see what they did : "This is based upon its venom’s high lethality, rated the highest of all rattlesnake venoms (LD50 value for mice is 0.07 mg/kg intraperitoneal, 0.056 mg/kg intravenous, and 0.21 mg/kg subcutaneous)7–9."

Inland taipan (small scaled snake), 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.03. published peer review paper 0.01 (bovine serum albumin) and 0.025 (saline) both subcutaneous.

Hook-nosed sea snake/Beaked sea snake (Enhydrina schistosa), 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.02. published peer review paper 0.173 (bovine serum albumin) 0.164 (saline) both subcutaneous. another peer review here is the same. Another scholarly paper 0.1.

Black mamba, 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.05, every other published source quotes subcutaneous LD50 around the same level Dr. Brian Fry 0.32 subcutaneous, 0.25 intravenous, 0.941 intraperitoneal, Spawls & Branch and Minton & Minton both listed the SC 0.28 and so does reptile magazine 0.28,

The best place to see the difference quotes between subcutaneous/intramuscular/intravenous/intraperitoneal is Dr. Fry List put in categories http://web.archive.org/web/20120413182323/http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html

So there's our problem.

I agree with the above post, LD50 is most accurate to 'real life' when tested using bovine serum albumin. This peer reviewed paper indeed says this as well and gives a good list, mostly are australian snakes: http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu5/broad1979b.pdf

The Australian research Unit lists more snakes, but only with Saline solution http://web.archive.org/web/20140111053927/http://www.avru.org/compendium/biogs/A000084b.htm

Fry list is also very good but I'm guessing its using Saline http://web.archive.org/web/20120413182323/http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html

What i suggest for the wikipedia article is to make a list Using Fry's categories + Saline and bovine serum albumin subcutaneous quotes side by side. The "Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book" from 1996 is useless and misleading.109.67.27.138 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No more "Top 10 most venomous species" lists

I have removed the list of "most venomous snakes" because there are way to many variations and factors involved in venom toxicity/lethality. Such lists are unencyclopedic. --Dendro†Naja ^{Talk to me!} 02:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing scientific consensus , reliable sources information.79.176.152.55 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm removing garbage that's unencyclopedic. "Top 10 most venomous snakes" is not encyclopedia material. There are far too many factors that play a role in the toxicity of any particular specimen of any species. Diet, age-dependent change, geographical location, gender, and the list can go on and on. It is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. I can see it in a children's book, but not on here. --Dendro†Naja ^{Talk to me!} 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a charlatan. if that is the case, how come you list the black mamba as "the fourth most venomous"? why do you leave the other list too ?. you are deleting information to support your favorite snake. real encyclopedic at work here. once some admin look into the matter, they will ban you79.176.152.55 (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Top 10 lists" are for children's books, not for encyclopedias. --Dendro†Naja ^{Talk to me!} 05:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Should the List of most venomous snakes by LD50 from reliable sources stay in the article?

Consensus seems to be against this. Number 5 7 10:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the table showing the list of most venomous snakes LD50 by route of injection stay in the article? 79.176.152.55 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See detailed explanation http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Venomous_snake#Most_venomous_snakes_of_the_world_list_-_Ernst_and_Zug_.281996.29._Snakes_in_Question:_-_Totally_not_reliable . The editor -Dendro†Naja who removed it, did it, and not in good faith, because his favorite snake Black mamba is not listed in it. he is quoting wrong data on that article too 79.176.152.55 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Not sure what is going on between the two editors here and across multiple snake articles, but purely looking at the table in this version I would be opposed to including it. From what I can gather from reading the conversations above (and elsewhere) the LD50 measurements vary quite a bit. The start of the section even says "Lists or rankings of the world's most venomous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors". On top of that the table is missing a lot of information and does not add a lot in my opinion to what is already mentioned in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor DendroNaja has been banned indefinitely for continuous sock puppetry (has been banned indefinitely more that 5 times over the years). he has a long history of misrepresentation and misinformation "for long-standing abuse of editing privileges, including insidious vandalism, misrepresentation of references, and abusing multiple accounts. " (quote from his original banned account talk page)

See the ANI http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor_in_Snake_articles.

I'll show you a fine example how he manipulated other editors like you: that sentence "Lists or rankings of the world's most venomous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors". is a miss-quote (I know i first put them on wikipedia in a different article). the authentic quote is "world's most dangerous snakes" not most venomous. The banned editor has simply gamed the system in order to promote his favorite snake (Black mamba). most of the passages he edited in the venomous snake articles are misrepresenting the citations in a fraudulent way. and will be fixed shortly (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Lists of top ten venomous snakes don't belong in ANY encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. These kinds of lists belong maybe in a children's book. Venom composition is not static. Even within a single individual, it will vary in quantity and relative proportions of components over time. Greater variability in components is seen between individuals of a species, greater still between species. Further, venom continues to evolve, often very rapidly, so there may be wide variations in venom composition and toxicity within a single species, over its geographic range. This is especially true for widely distributed species and may cause problems in antivenom effectiveness. Factors involved in the variation of venom and its toxicity include diet/habit variability, seasonal changes, geographical location, age-dependent variability, gender-dependent/sexual variability, altitude, and the list goes on. Then you've got the research methods used. This can be critical, as some snakes produce many venom components, but eject them sequentially, rather than as a uniform mixture. The immediate fate of the venom after collection is important, particularly in relation to environmental conditions that might denature certain components. The storage of the venom is also vital, and exposure to heat may cause damage to certain toxins. Prolonged storage in liquid form may damage others. Pooled venom may introduce many variabilities, because each pooled batch of venom will contain venom from different specimens, compounding both intra-individual and intra-specific variability. There are many potential variables in such research that may affect comparability and interpretation of results. The choice of test animal may be crucial, because each species may respond differently (including humans). The choice of route is also critical. The standard test of toxicity is the LD₅₀. Mice are most commonly used. The LD₅₀ remains the most universal standard for determining and comparing toxicity of venoms. As an example, the rough scaled snake (Tropidechis carinatus) has a much less potent venom than the tiger snake (Notechis scutatus), on LD₅₀ testing in mice. Yet clinically, the two venoms are virtually identical in the type and severity of effects on envenomed humans. There are many examples just like this across all species. The black mamba is not the most venomous snake species in the world, but it untreated human moratality rates are 100% and produces death in the most rapid time. To compare, the many-banded krait has a more potent venom on mice, but doesn't produce the same devastating effects on humans the way the black mamba does. Many more examples are readily available. Mice aren't humans. Yes, they may give us an idea on toxicity, but they aren't the same as humans. --Dendro†Naja ^{Talk to me!} 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denrdo-Scumbag, you have been caught and banned indefinitely. You should feel ashamed of yourself for distorting and manipulating scientific data on a constant basis. (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No First, individual susceptibility is variable depending upon many factors, to include species envenomed. Secondly, venom can vary incredibly, depending again on may confounding factors. Indeed, making a top ten is meaningless, as one is comparing different forms of venom, based upon sparse information that can only introduce some degree of POV. Finally, anaphylactic reactions can also play a significant part in the outcome of envenomation. Introducing such information is shoddy work at best, POV at a midline and misleading at worst, potentially giving bad information to readers that could potentially contribute to a tragic outcome. There are too many variables to make something like one of the suggested simplified charts and it would be unencylcopedic to do so.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been influenced by the pseudo scientific garbage DendroNaja has been spewing on wikipedia for the past few years, and is now again blocked indefinetly. Lists of LD50 are common practice, in Peer review and Academia, he has corrupted a huge paragraph in this article that conflict with mainstream science in order to push his POV in the black mamba article (same ip editor)79.179.106.114 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be reasonable to make the table a list of snakes ranked by their LD50 toxicity. After some preliminary search, it does seem like this measure is used. It seems like the wording, "most venomous," is the problematic part of the table. I tend to agree with the criticisms that "most venomous" is problematic wording, but I think a table of snakes ranked by LD50 might be useful. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very well written.

I'm sorry you've had so much trouble with people rooting for their favorite snakes. I can find no faults with the way you've aproached this piece. Good job!

Hindrance & redundancy of sources regarding the inland taipan

Reorganization and provision of clearer titles of each section/subsection were done. Moreover, redundant detailed LD₅₀ methodologies, as already mentioned on the main page, were removed .

All the sources regarding the inland taipan as the most venomous snake are retained but some of them appear to be a bit redundant since they simply give a passing statement about "the most venomous snake issue". Plus, the point form citation format, while saving space, hinders the reuse of the components there in other parts of the article.

Wfjz

Wfjz-mối-quan-hệ -mối quan hệ giữa gia đình và bạn bè.... Mối quan hệ giữa con người với loài vật... - 171.253.143.193 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]