# Talk:Puff adder

Line at the start of the article makes no sense "Its wide distribution, common occurrence, large size." ... that's not a sentence. 

To 84.177.221.84: If you find it irritating that I keep removing your edits, I apologize. However, Mehrtens (1987), Living Snakes of the World in Color, clearly states that Bitis arietans is not found in rain forests or true deserts. Therefore, this statement should not be changed. Others, such as Spawls and Branch (1995), The Dangerous Snakes of Africa, also mention that B. arietans is absent from extreme deserts.
If you've found a reference somewhere that contradicts those claims, by all means, please add to the article -- along with the reference! After all: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why your reference would be so important in this case.
On the other hand, original research -- and that includes personal experiences -- are not added to Wikipedia. This is a basic rule. After all, since there's no way to check the veracity of such statements, there's no reason why anyone should believe them. For example, even if you explain your experience in the article, there would still be questions that nobody can check up on: what was the exact location where your daughter was bitten? How far is that from what would be considered acceptable habitat for B. arietans? Was it really B. arietans? Several Bitis species are found in the Namib, so this is quite possibly a case of misidentification. And who is 84.177.221.84 anyway?
Finally, even if everyone knew who you were, you had pictures to prove that it was B. arietans and GPS coordinates for the location, one lost specimen does not equal a trend. For instance, Spawls and Branch (1995) includes lots of distribution maps with areas showing the general ranges of certain species, along with occasional dots outside those areas indicating where individual specimens were found. Your case, if true, could be in that last category.
Anyway, sorry for being so hard on you, but it's tough to write accurate articles. And in the case of Wikipedia, it's sometimes hard to keep them that way! --Jwinius 16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting the venom out was just too important besides organizing the SOS Rescue by plane. I agree to scientific ways of retrieving data but then the text should also give reference to the exceptions that you stated. The way it was written it seems 100% and no other point of view acceptable. This is what bothered me as I have the evidence of a 12 year old child who just made it. I have no problem with your open and straight way of discussing the issue and I must admit to have made mistakes in my approach to Wikipedia but after all it serves as an information for a general public and only because something had been quoted and printed at least 10 years ago does not mean that things do not change. Nothing is as rare as the status quo.

That's quite all right. These articles are here so that people can learn; in the case of Wikipedia, I suppose that includes learning how to write them as well. I'm glad your daughter survived; I was bitten by a viper too once, and it was not a pleasant experience. Luckily, mine was more like what is described in Bitis schneideri -- the smallest Bitis species. Anything larger can only be much worse. I hope there was no lasting tissue damage.
As for the way the article is written, as I was saying, I'm only quoting from the books that I own, and that's the way they are written. But, that's not to say that habitat information (or info related to other fuzzy subjects, like geographic range, behavior, feeding, reproduction and even venom) should always be taken as absolute fact; only as a general indication. There are always exceptions to such rules.
Regarding the age of some of my sources, some things don't change that much. That bit of habitat info from Mehrtens (1987) is also quoted in Mallow et al. (2003). Indeed, Mehrtens may very well have acquired it from a much older source. However, it is still accepted because nobody since has found any real reason to doubt it. If there was, such as if a viable population of Bitis arietans were to be discovered tomorrow in the middle of the Namib, then you can bet that there would soon be a new paper out there describing it. If it sounded convincing enough, everybody would soon be quoting it and part of Mehrten's statement would henceforth have to be ignored. In this way, science builds continuously on the works of the past and it's not uncommon to see modern articles quoting from others that are over 100 years older. This is rather different from, say, politics, where in 10 years time things will have changed quite a lot (and hopefully for the better). --Jwinius 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On a National Geographic Explorer special entitled "Africa's Deadly Dozen"- the show explored the most dangerous snakes in Africa. The snake that was listed first- the black mamba. It was listed first because of its venom. In terms of venom, the black mamba is Africa's deadliest snake. The puff adder was on the list- but not first.  
Deadly snakes of Africa:
1. Egyptian Cobra
2. Spitting Cobra
3. Rock Python
4. Boomslang
5. Gaboon Viper
6. Horned Viper
7. Saw-scaled viper
8. Puff adder
9. Black Mamba
10. Green Mamba
11. Cape Cobra
JCH

Most dangerous on TV and most dangerous in real life are two different things entirely. --Jwinius 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass
Additional comments: Excellent article overall. Some technical terms are not defined (supralabials, suborbitals, circumorbital ring). Overuse of may, can, primarly, mainly and often - makes text sound a little 'woolly'. More external links would also be an improvement. TimVickers 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A bot  has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article.  If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"They are bad-tempered" ... Are you kidding? I know personal anecdotes can't be used in the article, but maybe we need to look for a new source on this. I picked up one (~ 1 meter long) near an elementary school in Tanzania, and carried it for a good 2 km to release it in the hills. It got a bit agitated with dozens of kids thronging around touching it near the school, but it never once this is retaurded  tried to bite. After a while, when I'd gotten outside town and there was no-one around to startle it, I didn't even bother keeping a grip on its head, and when I released it, it just crawled a meter or so into the bushes and didn't mind my proximity. It was one of the most gentle snakes I've ever come across. — kwami (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's their general reputation, which is generally well-deserved, but there are always exceptions. I'm pretty sure all reptile species are like that. As a kid in the US, I once had a similar experience with a black snake, Coluber constrictor. These may be non-venomous, but they are also known as nervous and quick to bite. Up to that point I had no reason to believe otherwise. Until I happened upon this one specimen that was so tame, I thought perhaps I was wrong and it was actually a small indigo snake, Drymarchon corais, which have a reputation for making much better pets. Nevertheless, it was still C. constrictor. Your experience and mine just goes to show that snake behavior, even among the individuals of a single species, can vary significantly. --Jwinius (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, people did think I was utterly insane, and I made sure to point out to the kids an old man who'd been bitten by one and had no calf muscle on that leg, so they wouldn't pick up any themselves. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement, but I don't have the knowledge. Many articles on flora and fauna list where the species lies on the Endangered-Not threatened spectrum. I was curious about this and disappointed not to find out. Does someone know?Lightningbug (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Lightningbug

Puff adders are very common.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:58FF:8BE0:22C9:3DE7 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the assertion

This species is responsible for more snakebite fatalities than any other African snake

is correct, based on the fact that  says (about a different snake species)

It is responsible for more human fatalities due to snakebite than all other African species combined.

That information is reiterated in , which has

Additionally, the ocellated carpet viper is responsible for more human fatalities due to snakebite than all other African species combined.

In other words, there is a direct conflict between other Wikipedia articles and this one, unless it means to include "non-human" fatalities.
[ Edit ] also has some information on this.
81.191.184.223 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 81.191.184.223 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bitis arietans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314192246/http://www.savp.co.za:80/Venomous/slides/Puff%20Adder%20bite.html to http://www.savp.co.za/Venomous/slides/Puff%20Adder%20bite.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puff_Adder._bitis_arietans,_Western_Cape,_South
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bitis arietans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402114801/http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Arietans.htm to http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Arietans.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The only mention of puffing is in the caption of a video clip. The article does not describe puffing, explain its physiology, purpose and function, or give any other information about it. Since puffing gives the snake its common name, a reader would expect to find some information about it in this article.--8.9.88.105 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The article mentions "100 mg (1.5gr)" but 100 mg = .1 gram. 2601:282:103:B50:896E:D881:74E8:AD1A (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)