Talk:Sea snake

message: It should be useful to know which animal species was used for the LD50 experiment.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila v m (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venom  

message: Are these snakes closely related to cobras, or not?  The article says both. (Anonymous)
:I don't see any contradiction in what it currently says. Perhaps this has been edited. The entry, particularly in the Sea krait paragraph where it seems  to use 'sea snake' and 'sea krait' interchangably, is rather confusing though and could be better organized. CFLeon 04:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: Does anyone know how dangerous the venom is? Do they attack swimmers? What is their normal prey? Get-back-world-respect 12:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This site has useful information http://www.venomdoc.com/ Highlandlord 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerousness 

message: I am familiar with the yellow-bellied sea-snakes found along the pacific coast of central america.  The Smithsonian tropical lab in Panama had a couple in one of their tanks.  They stressed the following:
Their venom is extremely dangerous.  I spoke with someone who got lucky after being bit by one but it didn't inject any venom.  He was moving it from one tank to another tank.  It bit him, he finished moving it tot he other tank, then waited, and after 15 minutes he figured it didn't inject any venom, as he was still ok.  I have heard sources listing them as the most lethal snake venom in the world (but most references I can find list the Inland Taipan of Australia as the most lethal).  
they had no recorded instances of a swimmer ever being bit by one, even during the season when they show up in large numbers.  However, they have bitten people when handled outside of the water, as in the case of the guy moving it to another tank, and (more commonly) in fishermen trying to remove them from nets.
one of the concerns of the Panama Canal was that it might get introduced to the carribean.  A sea level canal would have definitely done this, but the loched canal has not, though in theory it might happen with ship ballast.  Studies done with carribean fish show that they have no clue about respecting the sea snake and giving it distance like the pacific fish do.
- Andrew Apold
: The Inland Taipan's venom is the most toxic of any *land* snake.  Seasnakes are deadlier, although as many people have noted they tend to be quite gentle.  I once encountered a beached yellow-bellied seasnake (Pelamis platurus) in southern California.  He was trapped because, as the article notes, true seasnakes (unlike seakraits) don't have the type of ventral scales that snakes need to be able to crawl on land, so I warned everybody to stay back (especially people who had kids) while I used a shovel to lift the snake back into the ocean.  He was very relaxed, not at all a nervous animal -- surprising considering how scared I would have expected him to be under the circumstances.  As far as I know, this is the only species of seasnakes ever found off the coast of the USA. Mia229 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow-bellied Sea Snake 

message: reverted vandalism by user 64.112.218.155, who is a repeat vandal. CFLeon 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: I find it distressing that a large group of reptiles which are to be found on every seashore do not have a single image in Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Help. Can someone alleviate this scarcity of photos? AshLin 09:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Is the reason that this article says they are related to cobras because they are elapids? If so then they are also just as related to Tiger Snakes, Taipans, Mambas, Coral Snakes etc. as these snakes (plus a lot more) are elapids along with the cobra. Or are they elapids that are particularly close in genus to the Cobra? Finally are they ALL elapids?
See my remarks below. --Jwinius 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elapids

message: Fish presumably? Could someone expand on this? Drutt 06:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: Do not merge this article with cobras! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.176.148.67 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not merge this article with cobras! 

message: If anyone has a list of sea snake species (or perhaps genera), could you please add it to the list of marine reptiles? Thanks! — Epastore 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found them at :Category:Sea_snakes. I added those to list of marine reptiles, but have no idea how complete the list of snakes is. Can someone please have a look and see what's missing? Thanks. — Epastore 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a little research and a few corrections, I think the list of of genera in the taxobox is now the right subset (sea snakes) of the genera listed in Elapidae, but you may want to double-check to be sure. Anyway, the advantage is that you can now use this link, Elapidae, to check which species are associated with these genera. --Jwinius 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of marine snakes 

message: Overall, this article is very well done. Good lead section, good description. I made a few minor grammatical edits, and overall I think the article about ready for GA status. There are a couple of larger issues that should be addressed, however, which is why I've placed this 'on hold' at WP:GAC.
First, regarding the various sections. I think the 'geographic range' and 'habitat' sections should be combined into one, called 'habitat'. They seem to be somewhat related, and I think that referring to geographic range could be considered a subset of the overall habitat.
Move the 'conservation status' section to near the end of the article. This section is relatively short, and contains relatively trivial information, and I think is overall less important than the biological characteristics like feeding, reproduction, and taxonomy. Likewise, the 'captivity' section should probably be closer to the end of the article as well, but above 'conservation status'.
Combine 'taxonomy' and 'genera' since these are related. I think the text of the taxonomy section would make a good starting paragraph, and then put the table from the genera section after it, all in one section. Recommend calling the new section 'taxonomy'.
This sentence (in the feeding section) doesn't seem to make sense: "One species prefers molluscs and crustaceans[8][7] (prawns and mentioned[10]) and few feed only on fish eggs,..." Specifically, prawns and mentioned what?
Other than these issues, I think the article is about ready for GA. One thing that could be added on the road towards featured status, might be more information on the cultural and/or economic significance of sea snakes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Such a rapid response! Article promoted. Cheers! Dr. Cash 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dr. Cash! I combined the 'geographic range' and 'habitat' sections into one called 'Distribution and habitat'. I hope you don't mind the compromise too much, but my feelings regarding this issue are rather the reverse, since the larger regions where these animals are found strike me as being more important than the kinds of habitats that they prefer, which is on a smaller scale. Other than that, I applied the rest of your advice. I wanted to added a section called 'Sea snakes and man', but just dodn't have enough reference material for it (I need more books). The same goes for a distribution map (although I've learned enough to know that the one in the Snake article is just plain wrong regarding sea snakes), and for the geo. range data in the genus table. --Jwinius 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: While evolution is a widely accepted theory on our origins, I believe that this article should be edited to simply discuss the biological structures of sea snakes and not focus so much on evolutionary adaptations.  The constant explanation of what different biological structures developed for takes away from the discussion and explanation of the structures themselves.  I would therefore suggest a rewrite of this article to reduce references to evolution's role in sea snake's development and emphasize the sea snake's biological structures themselves as well as how those structures assist them in adapting to their habitat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.131.219 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, much of the debate that has surrounded sea snake taxonomy for the past decades concerns how they evolved from land dwelling snakes (see section Taxonomy). I don't want to start a religious debate, but the subject of evolution is, as you say, widely accepted, not to mention basic to all biology, which is why it is not surprising that it is mentioned here as well. Removing all references to the concept from this article would not do the subject any justice. (I've toned down the opening sentence in the introduction a little, undoing somebody else's changes (which I never liked), but that's all I'm willing to do for you.) --Jwinius 13:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary language 

message: This is just a suggestion, but I think someone should add different pictures.  The only ones I see (as of 5/17/08) are pictures of Sea Kraits, which are a very special type of Sea Snake.  I suggest adding different pictures of more common types of Sea Snakes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.72.128 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've added one of Aipysurus laevis, but besides another Laticauda image, there doesn't seem to be much more. I think only the German WP has an image we don't have, but it's of an unidentified species that looks like A. laevis, so it's not of much use to us. In other words, it appears we simply don't have all that much choice at the moment. Of course, you're welcome to donate! --Jwinius (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: "Sea snakes are exploited for their meat, skin and internal organs, but despite great numbers being killed every year, CITES does not afford them any protection..."
Not that this shouldn't be mentioned, but the term "exploited" is somewhat (read as "very") loaded as far as viewpoint meaning, especially when coupled in context with the second half of the statement which seems to represent an opinion that they should be subject to protection. 
I will not change it myself, but perhaps a more neutral phrasing should be considered.
DJC (unregistered user), 13 June 2008
:I see nothing wrong with using the term "exploited" in this context. After all, natural resources are "exploited" all over the world, whether it be silicon, sunshine or sea snakes. What's unfortunate is a lack of management when the natural resources are living organisms that are over-exploited (read as "very"), eventually to the point of extinction. --Jwinius (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the word exploited is used all the time to refer to use of natural resources, including by the people doing the exploiting. --86.135.221.95 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the word "exploited" MIGHT be able to be used in an NPOV way, but the use here is clearly pushing an agenda. It has been reworded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.140 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Will someone add Suta to the article? It is a genus viewable on EoL and Wikispecies. Thanks. StevePrutz (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suta is a Australian terrestrial species and is therefore not discussed here. While it's true that some have argued that all Australian elapids are descended from sea snakes, that line of reasoning has yet to be worked out convincingly. This page is dedicated to those elapids that spend most or all of their lives in a marine environment. Suta is, however, included in the list of genera on the Elapidae page. --Jwinius (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suta sp. 

message: This recent study suggesting that sea snakes need fresh water should be worked into article? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106153629.htm 76.126.210.179 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance on fresh water 

message: I added the "term paper" template for the "Behavior" section. It is typically not appropriate to mention to explicitly mention specific experts and their opinions in the text. If the expert is expressing scholarly consensus, it is preferable just to state the scholarly consensus and provide the experts work as a ref. If the expert's opinion does not represent scholarly consensus, then it is usually not appropriate to mention their opinion in an encyclopedia article. In rare circumstances where either the issue being discussed is controversial or there is a fringe opinion that is especially important, the expert and their opinion can be mentioned. Even then, however, research-paper notation is not appropriate (i.e. do not use things like "Smith (1995) says that ...").
--MC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.158.216 (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern: mentioning experts 

message: Under section “Feeding”, it says, “They feed on small fish and occasionally young octopi.” This section should be expanded, and include citations.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeding