Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
When you line every snake up and test the toxicity of their venom, we can go ahead and brag that we have some venomous snakes for sure. In their natural environment, however, the most venomous are not necessarily the most deadly to humans.

Many snakes are shy and don't bite unless provoked (whether intentional or not) and many snakes live in places that are practically void of humans. So, although those snakes are venomous, they are not deadly. However, the shy, remote, highly venomous snake is still dangerous, should you cross its path.

If I were a traveller, venturing into the unknown, I would not want to know the venom toxicity of the snakes in the country I was visiting. I would rather know which are the deadliest snakes, because those are the ones I would most likely encounter on my journey.
 
IMO extremely large pythons are possibly the most dangerous as they will hunt and kill ppl. There is very little you can do to save your self too, a pressure bandage and AV wont help you much when you can pass out in seconds.

How dangerous a snake is depends on the indivdual situation.
 
Hahaha. That post made this whole thread worthwhile!


Your a tool, who cant be wrong. Everyone has different opinions, why argue with everyone who doesnt share yours > crap thread,

P.S. get a life
 
Your a tool, who cant be wrong. Everyone has different opinions, why argue with everyone who doesnt share yours > crap thread,

P.S. get a life

Oooohhh. I guess you got me there.

Truth is COOP i'm just more clever than a lot of people here and that make some people sad and angry. If i agreed with everyone what would there be to talk about?
 
When you line every snake up and test the toxicity of their venom, we can go ahead and brag that we have some venomous snakes for sure.

Actullay Australians cant claim that at all... You know why?? Becuase the OP and Brian Bush are right... Mice ARENT humans!!!! I swear the ld50 test and so called toxicity of Australian snakes has got to be the most ridiculous myth in the entire animal kingdom... All animals would have different ld50 values for different snake venom's... It's not even a mammal vs reptile/amphibian feeder... its literally each individual animal would have a different top 10... The claim that since australia has 6[ its not 7,8,9.10 like alot of the australian idiots claim]of the top 10 most venomous snakes drop for drop to mice means that they would have 6 of the top 10 to humans is absolutely abusurd... All animals would have a different top 20 and the common claim that Australia has the most venomous snakes is just complete garbage... Their lucky to have 1 or 2 of the most venomous to humans

I was looking for a list of the most dangerous snakes on google and i came across this paper.

Australia's Venomous Snakes: The Modern Myth



It is well worth a read and makes some really good arguments about our snakes being pussies in comparison to some other snakes in the world. The author has a good old dig at the LD50 test (which we base most of our assumptions of our snakes being the most venomous on) and explains why it doesn't correlate to human envenomation.


Wow!! I am speechless... Do I sense an actual intelligent knowledgeable Australian herpetologist..... I thought that Brian Bush was the only one........Damn I never through I would see the day where their would be another one... I'm impressed...
 
Last edited:
I gathered the LD50 was just a comparable indicator. I think it is "others" who have wrongly "assumed" it has something to do with humans, when in fact it's nothing more than a basic gauge. I mean, how do you rate a sea-snake venom's on a mouse?? This venom wasn't produced by evolutionary means to deal with rodents. So what do we do? Have subject variations for LD50?

There are some venoms out there which probably wouldn't kill you, but after being invenomated by it, you'd probably wish you were :lol:
 
The other point it is making is that the LD50 test of venom potency test how deadly the venom is to rodents. So if a snake, like a mulga that feeds on frogs and reptiles, is compared to a gwardar, which feeds on reptiles and mammals the results do not correlate and then to try and compare the affects to people... Although it is probably a good guideline the methodology is flawed because we aren't mice.

Its not even a mammal vs reptile or amphibian eater issue... Its an individual animal issue. The inland taipan[ an exclusive plague rat eater] has the most drop for drop toxic venom to mice in the world... however it could be number 10 drop for drop to dogs, 20 drop for drop for cats, 15 for horses etc...If you tested every mammal[ including primates] with the ld50 tests virtually all would have different results and some would have drastically different results... reptiles would be very different results aswell...

So the ONLY way to tell which snakes are the most drop for drop venomous to humans is to either test it[by under the skin injections] on chimps or humans[ obviously impossible] or to look at studies on bites by various species of snakes and after factoring in everything coming to a rough guess as to which snakes are the most toxic to humans and cause the most severe bite symptoms....I have seen countless studies and the so called "most venomous australian snakes" for the most part dont cause anywhere near as severe of symptoms as Asian snakes do...Taipans are the exception but that appears to be it
 
The lack of sufficient medical treatment in a poor country can make a snake more dangerous, but lets say for arguments sake Inland Tai's were introduced and thrived in these countries where they cannot seek proper medical attention when bitten, fatal bites from Tai’s would surpass that of the other previously thought “deadliest” species that you speak of.
 
I gathered the LD50 was just a comparable indicator. I think it is "others" who have wrongly "assumed" it has something to do with humans, when in fact it's nothing more than a basic gauge. I mean, how do you rate a sea-snake venom's on a mouse?? This venom wasn't produced by evolutionary means to deal with rodents. So what do we do? Have subject variations for LD50?

There are some venoms out there which probably wouldn't kill you, but after being invenomated by it, you'd probably wish you were :lol:

Thats all it is... and its a very "rough indicator at best." But honestly why do Australians seem to hype up and overrate everyone of their so called dangerous animals... I mean think about it... Australia has some of the LEAST dangerous animals of any continent yet they constantly boast and brag to foreigners that their animals are so deadly etc etc... Australia has 1 dangerous native large animal[ salty] thats it.... And then they have an assortment of "dangerous" marine venomous animals that kill like 1 person a year and are found all through the asian/pacific region.. Then its the snakes lol which are so ridiculously hyped and overrated by Australians.

So why do Aussies seem to love to exaggerate the danger of their animals?

I asked one of my friends this[ his parents are australian through he grew up in Florida] and he also agreed that Australian animals have very ridiculous undeserved reputations and he said that in his opinion Australians do it because "its as an attempt to differentiate Australians from other western cultures. As our culture is very similar/influenced by USA/UK, we use our nature to make Australia seem unique."

The lack of sufficient medical treatment in a poor country can make a snake more dangerous, but lets say for arguments sake Inland Tai's were introduced and thrived in these countries where they cannot seek proper medical attention when bitten, fatal bites from Tai’s would surpass that of the other previously thought “deadliest” species that you speak of.

No they wouldnt.. And I actullay think the Taipan is top 3 to humans based on the studies on human taipan bites that I have read[ not sure if number 1 like it is for mice through] its the other Aussie snakes that are completely overrated... But I dont see why the taipan would cause more deaths
 
Last edited:
So why do Aussies seem to love to exaggerate the danger of their animals?

I have no idea why Aussies like to brag about such things, particularly when most Aussies carry on like the biggest bunch of moronic wusses when faced with one! The run off (in most cases away from the snake) to grab something heavy in the hope of bashing in the brains of a creature that in reality wouldn't stand a bloody ghost of a chance against a human being...THEN.....stand around bragging about how fantastic and masculine they are! Go figure!

If I see someone killing a snake, I just automatically draw the conclusion that their balls are the size of tic-tacs and they love to cross dress. I dunno why I assume this, but I just do! :lol:
 
What?
Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.

Yet the author of that paper is Australian. Infact I doubt you could find a more Australian bloke than Brian Bush!
 
I have to laugh at these arguments, some are talking most deadly some most venomous...lets throw most toxic and poisonous into the mix as well, just to show how little most of you understand about the topic.
According to a legitimate scientific LD50 test, 6 of the top 10 most venomous LAND snakes are endemic to Australia. This cannot be argued with. It is a proven, measured fact. You can try to argue that we are not mice but human...true but mice are mammals and so are we, we have the same circulatory systems and function in the same way. Of course a snake will always envenomate a mouse with just enough venom to kill it but won't always envenomate a human, they strike in defense. Then you have different types of venom, neurotoxic, cytotoxic etc one travels down the lymph nodes and shuts down organs while the other causes necrosis and travels using the circulatory system, which is better? Neither/both, they are designed to function in different ways for different purposes on different prey sized small enough to fit in the mouth of the snake whole.
As far as deadly is concerned, there are far too many variables to take into account. Anyone CLAIMING "The Most Deadly" is just giving an OPINION and not stating scientific fact so you should take it with a grain of salt.
 
I have to laugh at these arguments, some are talking most deadly some most venomous...lets throw most toxic and poisonous into the mix as well, just to show how little most of you understand about the topic.
According to a legitimate scientific LD50 test, 6 of the top 10 most venomous LAND snakes are endemic to Australia. This cannot be argued with. It is a proven, measured fact. You can try to argue that we are not mice but human...true but mice are mammals and so are we, we have the same circulatory systems and function in the same way. Of course a snake will always envenomate a mouse with just enough venom to kill it but won't always envenomate a human, they strike in defense. Then you have different types of venom, neurotoxic, cytotoxic etc one travels down the lymph nodes and shuts down organs while the other causes necrosis and travels using the circulatory system, which is better? Neither/both, they are designed to function in different ways for different purposes on different prey sized small enough to fit in the mouth of the snake whole.
As far as deadly is concerned, there are far too many variables to take into account. Anyone CLAIMING "The Most Deadly" is just giving an OPINION and not stating scientific fact so you should take it with a grain of salt.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows the difference between the most dangerous snakes and the most venomous snakes[ through in reality they are probably at least somewhat similar]... What people unfortunately fail to understand is the difference between the most venomous to mice and most venomous to any other animals[ including humans]... Thats what people need to learn through of course since it hasnt been tested we really dont know.
You are right that for what we know now australia has 6 of the top 10 to mice on a drop for drop basis based on the snakes tested... However NOT all the highly venomous snakes were/have been tested... so its not a fact by any means... Their are plenty of snakes that are missing from D.R. Bryan fry's ld50 chart through it is the most substantial list that we have as of now. Also it is 100 percent wrong to say that a snake has a set ld50 value... Thats just NOT true... Snake venom varies considerably depending on population, location etc... For example eastern brown snakes from queensland are said to be numerous times more toxic than the ones from SA[ atleast based on mice analysis :) ] This type of variation likely applies to most highly venomous snakes... what I mean by that is a Naja Naja[ common indian cobra] from nepal may have a more/less potent venom than a Naja Naja from India or Sri Lanka etc even through they are all common cobras... venom composition and potency can vary quite a bit. So their is not set number for a specific snake... only a set number for the specific region/area where that snake was found... Other factors play a role aswell such as stress to the animal, what season it is, possibly even sex of the snake etc..

And no you are wrong on mice react basically like humans or other mammals would. they may act somewhat like humans would but their would be differences just like if you compared mouse and other animals to snake venoms.. I can post a decent amount of examples of huge variation in how different animals reacting to specific types of venoms etc... I'll find them all and post them tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I
According to a legitimate scientific LD50 test, 6 of the top 10 most venomous LAND snakes are endemic to Australia. This cannot be argued with. It is a proven, measured fact. You can try to argue that we are not mice but human...true but mice are mammals and so are we, we have the same circulatory systems and function in the same way.

Not so. take that same t4est and apply it to spiders. The old sydney funnelweb has toxins that effect primates far more than other mammals like mice. testing Funnelweb venom to the LD50 on mice you'd conclude that funnelweb spiders would give a nasty bite but wouldn't be too much of a worry to healthy adult human.
 
In asia there is a little snake called a Saw Scaled Viper
I have played with a few as well as King cobras and kraits etc
When the Saw Scale hits you his whole body is incorporated into the strike
EVERY strike leaves venom
They kill a lot of people and dont back off
Inland Taipans are not aggressive
Saw scale is a long way down the venom count but I would put it right up there as VERY dangerous
less than one metre but nasty
 
another rubbish thread based on recorded and documented data which is relying on the ignorance, stupidity and lack of communication regarding a real danger in an undeveloped country. Yes it is stupidity when you know that something on the ground can kill you if you tread on it or get to close to it and you don't watch where you walk, if you don't know then it is a lack of communication, if you don't worry it is ignorance!

someone said no deaths have been recorded from inland tais, but find a traditional aboriginal from their habitat who has been passed down info about them and ask him or her to catch one for you.

i bet that they have killed lots of humans in the past, but gradually they taught each other to keep well clear of them through a well deserved respect. Death adders are feared and yet the pre anti venom death rate to humans was only about 33%.

I agree also that I would rather be tagged from some of our elapids instead of a malaysian pit viper, but adders have cytotoxic venom and blacks have toxins that damage various elements in our bloodstream, so if i was close to medical treatment i would rather be tagged by a tai or a brown, than anything else. If I wasn't close i would prefer to be tagged by the "deadliest" and cut my foot (preferably toe) or hand off (preferably finger).

and longqi, yes inlands aren't aggro, but when captive they lose their fear of humans and stop being shy, so an escaped captive in summer would be a nightmare. I have seen a large breeding pair which if they escaped when they were hungry, they would be the deadliest.

It is all circumstantial.
 
waruikazi can you please stop using my quote on the end of all your posts, its getting a little old and its also making fun of freedom of speed on this site!!.'
thanks mate
 
So lets put fierce snakes and browns or any other Australian ven in a heavily populated
place and see what happens.
 
Ok my last post didn’t explain my point clearly, bad example. What I’m saying is that what makes a snake the deadliest is not really their venom. Factors such as population and lack of sufficient medical facilities that other countries have play a role in this.
Everyone is trying to argue their point when no one is actually talking about the same thing. Some saying deadly, some most venomous, people are getting the two confused.
Australia definitely doesn't have the 'deadliest' snakes, and I agree that the LD50 test may not be relevant to humans, but how do we know? No one can really argue against it until testing on humans is done. As far as the most 'venomous' snakes, considering we only really have the LD50 test to go by for the moment, Australia wins.

Edit - damn it I accidently changed the font somehow and can't find the origonal one...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top