Talk:Venomous snake

message: 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)
thread_title:  "true poisonous"? 

message: The Merriam Webster definition of "poison" [] 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)
thread_title: Venom is a subset of poison.

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Top 10 Venomous snakes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clinical mortality rate & death timespan of the inland taipan? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LD<sub>50</sub> measurements 

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

message: 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†NajaTalk to me! 02:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are removing scientific consensus , reliable sources information.79.176.152.55 (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No more "Top 10 most venomous species" lists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wfjz