Talk:Adder

message: This web page states that the venom of Vipera berus is more toxic than that of the Saw-scaled viper,Common mamba and the Eastern coral snake,[],so this information can be included in the article.
:Sorry, but that is not what you call a reliable source. Anybody can post material on the web, but that doesn't mean it's true. What qualifies Rob Nelson to make such statements and where does he get his LD50 information from? Also, he doesn't say what kind of LD50 tests he's talking about: IV, IP or SC. He could be using IV for one and SC for the next, which is like comparing apples and oranges. I would say that sources currently cited in the article are quite a bit more reliable and authoritative than Rob Nelson's information. However, in this matter you can also use your common sense. For example, there have been very few documented fatalities for V. berus, but many more for the other species you mention. --Jwinius 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps you're right about that. Only two documented fatalites were attributed to M. fulvius in the 1950s and none have been reported since Wyeth antivenin became available for it in the 1960s. Also, M. fulvius does not account for many cases of snakebite in the US because of its secretive nature and general reluctance to bite (its venomous potential was still being debated in the 1880s). In addition, it is estimated that envenomation occurs in only 40% of all bites. Historically, however, the mortality rate was estimated to be about 10-20%, with death occurring in as little as 1-2 hours, or as much as 26 hours post bite. This is not that surprising, since the LD100 for humans is estimated to be 4-5 mg or dried venom, while the average venom yield is 2-6 mg with a maximum of more than 12 mg. This is probably why it is currently standard hospital procedure in the US to start with antivenin therapy for coral snake bites even if there are no symptoms yet (since there may not be any noticeable localized symptoms) (Campbell & Lamar, 2004). Compare that to this statistic for V berus: in 1967, Gitter & de Vries reported that there were an estimated 1300 bites annually in Sweden, but that only 12% required hospitalization (Mallow et al., 2004). Since V. berus also has a higher average venom yield than M. fulvius, that sounds a lot less toxic/dangerous to me. --Jwinius 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you get all your information from the web? Those are not exactly scientific papers your citing. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that you're right and that M. fulvius does only have a 10% fatality rate in untreated envenomation cases, and not 10-20% as mentioned by Campbell & Lamar (2004). That still doesn't help you in your main objective, which is to offer credible evidence that V. berus venom is actually more toxic than the current WP article suggests. A mortality rate of over 10% for V. berus? Where? That's what I call an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. However, all you've come up with are a couple of identical and bogus LD50 lists on the web, and nothing at all to support your claims regarding the properties and toxicity of V. b. bosniensis venom compared to that of V. b. berus. --Jwinius 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're going to have to do better than that. An article on the subject from a peer-reviewed journal, for instance, would be more like it. Otherwise, your claims remain firmly in the folklore category. You could ask the museum where they got their information from, but you'll have to be critical of their evidence, because it sounds like they may not have been. --Jwinius 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article fails to recognise the difference between different types of injection, as well as the difference between southeastern berus and northern berus venom, which differ a lot. According to some sources, berus has one of the strongest IV venoms known for snakes, but a moderately LD50/mice via SC injection. Sometimes different types of injection have been compared directly, but they are incomparable. In fact, the LD50 varies enormously for SC injections,  from LD50 of 0.41 mg/kg for a Hungarian sample, to 2 mg/kg for a sample of unknown provenance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.59.202.218 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Venom

message: "In Britain there have been only 14 known fatalities since 1876; the last a 5-year-old child in 1975"
See: http://forums.forestresearch.gov.uk/forestry/Adder
"No one has died from adder bite in Britain for over 20 years"
If it was 1975 surely they would say over 30 years?
The site could be a good reference btw.
134.36.93.46 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info

message: Recently a 108 cm (42½ in) specimen was killed and measured by Rolf Lindström in Ingskär, Dragsfjärd, Finland. There was an article about it, featuring a photograph, in the Finnish tabloid Ilta-Sanomat (official site) on July 9, 2007 (page 5). The previous Finnish record was 94 cm (37 in). Unfortunately I've been so far unable to find a web reference. --Anshelm '77 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. That will make a good addition to the article as soon as someone can manage to find a reliable reference it. What a pity, though, that it was killed; so often the outcome when man meets snake. --Jwinius 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, well. At least this is an excellent example of why articles in newspapers and on websites should never be taken too seriously. --Jwinius (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New world record specimen? 

message: I went ahead and did it before reading the rationale (sorry about that); I too ultimately would feel more comfortable with all organisms at scientific names rather than common names (rather than just plants and fungi as is now), but more than one common name is a good reason to argue if someone else wants to push the point anyway.
Having the common name section under the lead facilitates them not being all mentioned in the lead.
I reorganised it to make the sections less stubby and give a layout which gives a hierarchy of headings (i.e. diet and reproduction as part of behaviour). 
===Bits which could help for a push to FAC===
*I noticed...there is nothing which tells me what colour(s) the snake is, or the incidence of meanistic forms.
*Also, a line on when it gained its common name (by the erection of the genus Vipera would be good and complete the first section nicely.
*Making the subspecies into a prose section and explaining why/how they differ. Common Raven is a good example.
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree with your edits, but I've worked very hard on applying a common format to the entire Viperidae series, as well as some 200 other snake articles. If you have a problem with the format, I can explain, but you'd have to come up with some pretty good reasons for making such dramatic changes to so many articles; that would mean weeks, if not months, of work. Anyway, this article already has a GA status, so why go to all that trouble? Yes, the color-pattern info should be expanded. --Jwinius (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging article 

message: *I noticed...there is nothing which tells me what colour(s) the snake is, or the incidence of meanistic forms.
*Also, a line on when it gained its common name (by the erection of the genus Vipera would be good and complete the first section nicely.
*Making the subspecies into a prose section and explaining why/how they differ. Common Raven is a good example.
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to disagree with your edits, but I've worked very hard on applying a common format to the entire Viperidae series, as well as some 200 other snake articles. If you have a problem with the format, I can explain, but you'd have to come up with some pretty good reasons for making such dramatic changes to so many articles; that would mean weeks, if not months, of work. Anyway, this article already has a GA status, so why go to all that trouble? Yes, the color-pattern info should be expanded. --Jwinius (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bits which could help for a push to FAC

message: Click on the image to see the shape of the pupil.  The shape of the pupil is not mentioned in the article as far as I can see.  In the corresponding article in Norwegian it is stated that of the three Norwegian snakes, the two non-poisonous ones have round pupils, while this one (hoggorm/huggorm) has a slit-type pupil.  This ought to be mentioned here.  I know not much about snakes, so someone else should do it.  - Hordaland (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the eyes 

message: The question of the copyright status of this article was raised at the copyright problems board on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 October 31 and came current for admin closure today. At issue is whether this article infringed on . A close comparison shows substantial similarity between this article and that work, but evaluation suggests the material evolved naturally on Wikipedia and that infringement may be reversed. I believe that that external source used the Wikipedia article as the basis for their own at some point after January 2007. 
These September 2006 edits are those I've identified as introducing text that is also substantially present at the external source:
*
*
*
There may be more. I stopped comparing after finding sufficient evidence to satisfy me that infringement was reversed.
While there is undeniable similarity between this article and that external site, there is also evidence that the material evolved naturally here on Wikipedia. For example:
*This edit introduces an alteration that is present in the external site: "Juveniles will eat nestling mammals, small lizards and frogs, as well as insects, worms and spiders. Once they reach about 30 cm in length, their diet begins to resemble an adult diet." → "Once they reach about 30 cm in length, their diet begins to resemble that of the adults." 
*Another promising edit to support reverse infringement: "In this act, they confront each other, raise up the first part of the body vertically, make swaying movements and attempt to push each other to the ground" → "In this act, the males confront each other, raise up the front part of the body vertically, make swaying movements and attempt to push each other to the ground"; "This is repeated until one become exhausted and crawls off to find another mate" → "This is repeated until one of the two becomes exhausted and crawls off to find another mate". Both of these are altered to the form used in the suspected source.
*Finally (and the clincher for me): This edit, months later and by an IP contributor, alters "If dry ground is locally available, they will not avoid wetlands" → "They will venture into wetlands if dry ground is available nearby." The suspected source says, "Adders will venture into wetlands if dry ground is available nearby."
While certainly evaluation of these situations is very important, as we must ensure that our content is free, these kinds of signs of natural evolution argue strongly that we have the right to the text. Accordingly, I am restoring the text which was properly blanked for the investigation and marking this as a backwards copyright violation. If there is an additional evidence to support this conclusion or refute it, please feel free to add it here. Should strong additional evidence emerge to refute the conclusion, please blank the article with  and relist it, with explanation, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
Copyright concerns are important, and we appreciate all the help with them that we can get. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Vipera berus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: On hold===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.
#The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
#:Lead expanded. Albeit smaller than usual, all the Viper articles have been crafted by Jwinius to have a minimalistic lead. Please indicate whether more expansion is required. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nehrams, Jwinius is on a (permanent?) wikibreak. So I'll address some of the issues to the best of my abilities. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.
#The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
#:Lead expanded. Albeit smaller than usual, all the Viper articles have been crafted by Jwinius to have a minimalistic lead. Please indicate whether more expansion is required. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nehrams, Jwinius is on a (permanent?) wikibreak. So I'll address some of the issues to the best of my abilities. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: On hold

message: Good work addressing the issues. I went through and made some minor changes, please review my edits. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Kept

message: The average weight of these snakes is totally wrong in the article (1.5 to 1.8 kg). A 60cm specimen is likely to only weigh 60 - 70g...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.16.194 (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1.5 to 1.8 kg figure is reffed, but is indeed wildly too large.  Yours is closer, but seems low – where did you get it?  I've had trouble finding academic refs that are not locked, but I did find one or two. This paper on male adder mass loss during reproduction includes a chart (p 456) showing mass ranging from 50 to 120g; females would be a good bit more, as they are both longer and thicker in proportion.  [(http)://biologie-oradea.xhost.ro/BihBiol/cont/v3n2/bb.031206.Strugariu.pdf This] paper gives measurements of two individual female adders, one of body length 61.6cm, mass 123.8g, the other 60cm, 163.4g.  As the length of females can be much more than this the range must go up higher, so I think we can say "from 50g to about 180g".  I've changed the article.  Richard New Forest (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass

message: Suggest making the synonymy in the taxobox collapsible, as seen in Loggerhead sea turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonymy 

message: I've noticed two things, which you might want to repair (I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia):
* The link from references (note 20) refers to some other Berne Convention, the actual convention is here
* Vipera berus is obviously not included in any Appendix of Berne Convention or I couldn't find it there. Maybe it has been deleted from the Appendix? 
--195.113.155.3 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berne convention 

message: I'm pretty sure that in the Appennines, specimens of 100 cm of length are quite common. I got under alcohol a specimen of 103±2 cm. 84.222.239.135 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Vipera Berus specimens 

message: The Wyre Forest's Adders have been the subject of a notable study by Sylvia Sheldon.(;) It would be good to include mention of this, if anyone has more academic references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sylvia Sheldon 

message: The article on vipers mentioned that this species is even found within the Arctic Circle, citing: 
Mallow D, Ludwig D, Nilson G. 2003. True Vipers: Natural History and Toxinology of Old World Vipers. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar. 359 pp. .
If this is true, is it worth specifically mentioning within this article? Pete unseth (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution even into the Arctic Circle? 

message: I am surprised there is nothing in the article about predators of this species (apart from humans). Is there anything published? I can only find anecdotal evidence of predators, such as hedgehogs. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predation 

message: Some joke (?) names added at the top of the page without references on 24 April 2019. Please remove them! 82.42.70.116 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced nonsense

message: It is claimed that it is illegal to kill adders in the UK, but I believe the source cited is mistaken. A close reading of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would seem to reveal that first, it doesn't extend to Northern Ireland (where they're not endemic; see section 74) and second, even in Great Britain it is, in fact, legal to kill adders and grass snakes because schedule 5, where they are listed, says they are only protected in respect of section 9(5), which forbids trade in protected species (presumably section 5A, which makes it illegal to allow such trade, also applies). Additionally, it is claimed that it is legal to capture an adder, but the same subsection that forbids killing or injuring a protected species also forbids taking it (s. 9(1)), so both cannot be true. Other protections that apply generally but not to snakes are possession (s. 9(2); as covered by "keeping", but also applies to remains) and interfering with its shelter (s. 9(4)).
My analysis is not supported by other secondary sources, for example Scottish Natural Heritage agrees that possession is legal but killing is not. I don't know what the basis for this analysis is (maybe some European case law relating to the 1992 Habitats Directive?), but the secondary source takes precedence over my original research. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Statutory instrument 1991 No. 367 "The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedule) Order 1991" modifies Schedule 5.  "The adder (Vipera berus) (which is already listed in Schedule 5 to the Act in respect of section 9(5) only) is hereby further listed in respect of section 9(1) so far as it relates to killing and injuring." GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of adders (and grass snakes) in the UK 

message: why does the map of the adder's range only show Europe?  the article says that the adder's range goes to East Asia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:DCC9:4A19:8E97:699C (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The image has a caption attached: "Distribution of the European adder Vipera berus in Europe. In the east, its distribution ranges to the Pacific but is not known well enough to be mapped." 2001:14BA:A0F6:5F00:0:0:0:953 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  why does the map only show Europe? 

message: Since most Wikipedia pages use the species common name. Why can’t this one? Is the common name used somewhere else, if not should I move it? Quincy43425 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Which common name? Species and subspecies and lower taxons all have multiple "common" names, however there is only one Scientific (Latin) name, which is recognized everywhere. Just because some Wiki pages uses common names instead of the correct Scientific name I don't think is justification for changing the name. I think it should be kept to this correct name. Bibby (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the page 

message: I've started a move request at Talk:Adder#Requested_move_8_May_2023 which may be of interest to people here. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move for Adder 

message: Is there any other species whose common name includes the word "adder"?  If not, should we move this article to just plain "adder"? PatGallacher (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Jerium (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Vipera berus →  – We should use the common name, see WP:FAUNA.  "Adder" redirects here. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Change back to a disambiguation, there are multiple snakes known as adders, see here. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 May 2023