Poisonous or Venomous

[slim6y]

Based on the title of the thread - POISONOUS vs VENOMOUS...

There's a BIG (but subtle) difference... Poison and Poisonous. Venom and Venomous. ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Venomous animals are NOT POISONOUS!

Poisonous animals are NOT VENOMOUS!

Though I am sure there's some venomous animals which are also poisonous and some poisonous animals which are venomous.

A venom is a poison.

A poison is not a venom.

And the links saximus put up for us should be enough for everyone to tell the difference.

The idea is that saximus is a little peeved that people say our snakes are poisonous when it is clearly incorrect use of the term as they are in fact NOT poisonous (in exactly the same way that beef isn't poisonous).

The same idea therefore reflects that our elapids in Australia are in fact venomous (in exactly the same way that an elapid is venomous).

So how can it not be so cut and dry that we use a little bit of English in our lives and use words with similar, but subtle differences to describe the methods by which our elapids hunt.

Could we all do with a little bit of culture in Australia? Even if it was to learn a few key words from our language!

 

[Red-Ink]

. The wide use of the term poisonous to describe snakes though means that it is sufficient to convey the intended meaning to all audiences.

That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?

 

[slim6y]

Slim, I agree with your points here. Snakes can be eaten with no ill effect. That is not being debated, everyone in this thread agrees with that. The topic being debated is which definition of poisonous is correct.

Steve1's dictionary defines poisonous as:

"producing or being able to inject a poison"

with the specific example "poisonous snake"

Looking through the scientific litterature I have seen snakes defined as poisonous:

"The venom of poisonous snakes comprises a complex mixture of several proteins with other less significant constituents, resulting in principles capable of changing viable tissues."(Cesaretly & Ozkan, 2010)

"A focal troop of free-ranging Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) living in an open scrub forest around Jodhpur was observed mobbing poisonous snakes on two different occasions during field observations of about 4,109 h."(Srivastava, 1991)

Now I am not saying that snakes should be reffered to as poisonous, venemous is a more precise term. The wide use of the term poisonous to describe snakes though means that it is sufficient to convey the intended meaning to all audiences.


LITERATURE CITED

CESARETLI, Y and OZKAN, O. Snakebites in Turkey: epidemiological and clinical aspects between the years 1995 and 2004. J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis [online]. 2010, vol.16, n.4 [cited 2011-03-09], pp. 579-586 . Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992010000400007&lng=en&nrm=iso>. ISSN 1678-9199. doi: 10.1590/S1678-91992010000400007.

Srivastava A. 1991. Cultural Transmission of Snake-Mobbing in Free-Ranging Hanuman Langurs. Folia Primatol 56(2):117-120.

PS - You know there is something seriously wrong with you when you go to this much effort for a debate that has absolutly no relevance to anyone.

HAHA!! There is something wrong with me... I've known this for a week, I'm completely stressed and I like to use my mind for meaningless matters to fulfil that gap that is created by weather related depression.

Just type venomous snakes into google and you'll answer your own question...

 

[grimbeny]

That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?

Although it may be better to use the word venemous because all intended audiences can imediatly determine you are refering to an animal capable of injecting a poison, it is wrong to criticise someone for using the word poisonous to describe a snake.

 

[slim6y]

That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?

+1 for the venomous vs poisonous argument - that's a win in my book... And so eloquently said as well!

In fact, I think that is such a good win that we should all celebrate by milking the venom (not milking the poison) from a coastal taipan, the worlds third most venomous (not poisonous) snake.

 

[saximus]

Slimey and Red-Ink you've pretty much hit it right on the head. As I said in an earlier post that we all know what people are talking about when they say "poisonous snakes" but the fact is that it isn't exactly correct. I didn't mean for this to turn into such a heated debate I just thought that people on here would (should?) know better. I think if this continues it will just keep going round in circles with people like Slimey/Red-Ink and myself arguing for my point of view and people like Sdaji and Steve arguing for theirs. So maybe we should just agree to disagree...?

 

[Elapidae1]

I think the problem is, that people mistakenly feel that a toxin has to be injested or absorbed through the skin to qualify as a poison, it doesn't. a poison can be injected under the skin by snakes, bees, wasps certain fish ETC. This poison and the poisonous animals that use this method are better described as venom and venomous. We call a Spotted Brown P affinis the eastern brown P textilis they are both brown snakes but given different names to differentiate between the two. we use thew term venomous to differentiate between an animal and/or plant that merely secretes its poison in the hope prey or predator will injest it, and animals that inject it. Bottom line is though they are still poisonous.
To say that the snake itself is not poisonous only its venom is is ridiculous, its like saying a kid with chicken pox isn't contagious only his chicken pox are. Yeah, it's the virus itself that is contagious not the carrier yet it is still correct to label the carrier as contagious.

In my opinion people who keep snakes should be using the terms venom and venomous it better illustrates their understanding of the animals, but to be annoyed at the use of poison and poisonous is silly

 

[slim6y]

Don't give in so easily saximus - we've got them by the short and curlies - they're reeling back now and we can crush the revolution - or start one... Which ever is better....

 

[Elapidae1]

That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?

We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard, my problem is imposing that standard on others that don't have the same interests as us

 

[Red-Ink]

Although it may be better to use the word venemous because all intended audiences can imediatly determine you are refering to an animal capable of injecting a poison, it is wrong to criticise someone for using the word poisonous to describe a snake.

I totally agree with that.. It would be bad form to criticise it when the meaning was understood in the context.

 

[slim6y]

In my opinion people who keep snakes should be using the terms venom and venomous it better illustrates their understanding of the animals, but to be annoyed at the use of poison and poisonous is silly

It shouldn't be a crime, or seen as nerdy, geeky or 'anal' to assist people in understanding the correct use of terms. Especially when we can consider ourselves 'experts' or at the very least 'knowledgeable'.

It should not be harmful to politely explain that our pythons are neither poisonous nor venomous. But in Australia there are a variety of venomous (not poisonous) snakes.

I don't want to attack your analogy of chicken pox - because it was a nice try, but I think you can see it is flawed.

And to say a snake isn't poisonous - only its venom is - is nothing short of the truth - it's exactly what they are. The venom is highly poisonous (in some cases deadly). The snake on the other hand is not poisonous - and it doesn't harm for you to tell that to people - the bitey end is the poisonous end.

But one thing you have got me on... I am about to look it up, but I have classes to teach... Plants... Could a stinging tree be considered venomous?

Well Steve1... you've got some work to do....

 

[Red-Ink]

We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard, my problem is imposing that standard on others that don't have the same interests as us

Definitely, I would have a problem with that as well. In saying that though..... in the context of this forum we should use the appropriate terms accordingly.

 

[Elapidae1]

Slimey most of the poisonous plants and animals have non poisonous parts, but we still refer to them as poisonous in their entirety. Cane toads are poisonous yet some animals have learnt to roll them over and eat the bellies, the Japanese prepare puffer fish as food removing the part that is poisonous but we still say that it is a poisonous fish, many plants have poisonous flowers ETC but the stem and leaves are safe to eat we generally refer to the plant as poisonous, If you wish to eat a snake you should cut of its head back from the venom glands removing the poisonous part of what can be refered to as a poisonous animal.

I don't understand why have a lot work to do.

 

[Red-Ink]

I think we would need to put a stop to this...

The words in contention Venomous vs Poisonous

You guys do realise were debating two diffrent things here but getting no where as we're going in circles...
On one hand we are debating the meaning of the two words
On the other the context but somehow we are mixing the two arguments together... does nobody else see that?

Poisonous snake = context
Venomous snake= definition

Poison and venom = toxin (anybody actually calling them a toxic snake,berry or frog cause that's what a poison or a venom is, a toxin. It's all in the context)

 

[hugsta]

Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?

Yes we should, therefore we should be refering to venomous snakes as venomous, not poisonous.

Slimey most of the poisonous plants and animals have non poisonous parts, but we still refer to them as poisonous in their entirety.

Most of the venomous snakes have non venomous parts, but we still refer to them as venomous in their entirety.

 

[Necromanced]

Stinging nettles have hollow hairs much like the hollow fangs of a venomous snake.
Stinging nettles; poisonous of venomous?

Segué to the rescue!

 

[TurtleEater]

toxic

 

[hugsta]

toxic

lol

 

[TurtleEater]

Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as biological toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances which are absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut.

dimethyltryptamine is a biological toxin that is naturally occurring in small amounts in rat brain, human cerebrospinal fluid, and other tissues of humans and other mammals