Scott I agree that we are probably just going to have to disagree on this issue. I understand that you like to be able to positively ID a snake in question and I agree that ultimately a positive ID from a photo would be great. We disagree in cases where the photo does not permit a positive ID I personally see no problem with a list of likely suspects being compiled as long as the reasons for those inclusions are given and of course as long as they are reasonable inclusions based upon the information that is available. Once again the very specific piece of information for me from the OP was the specific suburb.
I deliberately said pets, as for a person a svdk would be administered. The difference in cost for a vial of Polyvalent vs mono is huge. At the end of the the day the call is place with the owner of that pet whether or not a/v is administered. At this point the person who has seen the snake will be making the call.
Perhaps procedures are different in different places around Australia but in my experience the medical professional makes the call as to what a/v is administered so I disagree that your scenario is likely. But lets use your scenario to illustrate my whole point here.
1. If no ID's are suggested due to a poor quality pic the OP has no info other than what they know i.e. brown coloured snake, so they head off to the vet and state that their dog was bitten by a brown snake (perhaps blisfully unaware that there are a whole range of brown coloured snakes other than a brown snake) which I am sure happens quite a lot but is clearly not ideal. OR
2. If a list of possibles is given but no positive ID possible then the OP heads off to the vet and says my dog has been bitten by a brown coloured snake and here is a list of possibles that it seems it could be.
It is my view that in both cases no monovalent would be given unless the vet has a positive ID but even if you are right I don't see a major advantage over example 1 than example 2 but I can see some advantages in the OP being at least aware that there are a range of possible brown coloured snakes in their area.
I disagree that an educated guess is better than nothing.....at least with nothing you not going to be wrong - you may not help the person but you will not lead them down the wrong path either, all the while thinking they know the answer.
Scott there are five answers so are you suggesting that the OP is going to choose one over the others. Well I suppose he could but then again I suppose he could decide for himself that your positive ID on another snake is wrong and go with his gut feeling. We can't control what people do with the information provide but we can provide the best information possible in an effort to help them and I believe this is what has been done on this thread and exactly why I raised my concerns with some members disparaging other members for their valid opinions.
The body shape of both Demansia and Pseudonaja are more or less identical, these two genera are that closely related that they were thought to be in the same genus for many years.
I don't think this should be discussed on the genus level as there is too much possible variation among the species in the relative genus. In relation to the two specific species in question the body shape of an Eastern Brown and Yellow-faced Whip Snake in the Sydney locale are very different. With colouration aside the latter has a much larger head in proportion to neck, much larger eyes, and a longer thinner tail as well as an overall thinner girth along its body. All of those factors are proportional but to the experienced eye the overall body shape of the two species is quite different. The OP's photo is not clear enough to distinguish the above with any certainty but I have an opinion as to what I think as do you. Out of curiosity I would be interested in your opinion on the species in the photo if you want to PM me.