Get off you're high horse Australia!

[waruikazi]

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

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bush/myth.html

For too long we have been telling the world, as well as each other, that Australia's snakes are the most venomous. On what evidence do we make this assumption? Solely on their ability to kill mice! What a joke!

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.

 

[slim6y]

I've read that paper before - love this comment:

"Nor do we have as negative an attitude to Australia's deadliest venomous animal: the honeybee, an exotic introduced from Europe!! It causes an average of ten deaths per year."

 

[waruikazi]

Did you know that Australian pythons have killed more people than what we call the worlds most deadly snake?

 

[craftsman]

This is quite an old paper (1995) but also very good one.
Dr. Jamie Seymour (James Cook University) recently conducted venom research using human cardiovascular tissue instead of mice. I would have to dig in to find the references to his work but there is a doco by Digital Dimensions (digitaldimensions.com.au) called "World's Worst Venom" produced for the Australian Natural History Unit (anhu.com.au). Worth seeing.

 

[waruikazi]

Where could we find that doco? Might try and youtube it.

 

[craftsman]

go to the sites I mentioned in my post.

 

[Inlandtaipan078]

So if the numbers of the kingbrown were the same as the numbers of the Oxyuranus microlepidotus i'll tell you if that this was the case this article is rubbish it doesen't matter how many mice are used! fact is they are rare and in three bites one survived 2 were herps and lasted five mins i'd like to see more real proof from this article lol

 

[slacker]

A snake that causes more deaths than others is not necessarily the most deadly by default.
I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to most deadly snake.

Just because there have been more recorded deaths for a given snake, it does not necessarily make it in itself any more or less deadly than another. The "victims" might not have had access to antivenin. They might not have the requisite knowledge or ability to apply proper first aid. The density of human inhabitants throughout the distribution of the offending snake might be greater. etc

If you look at the LD50 (based off Fry's compilation), without further information one would assume it'd be far better to be bitten by a western diamondback rattlesnake (18.5 mg/kg) than a red belly (2mg/kg). If I had a choice between getting bitten by one of those two, however, I can assure you that it would not be the diamondback that I would choose.

To quote Fry on this: "The debate of what are the most venomous snakes is one that occupies a disproportionate amount of time, it is of course purely academic... dead is dead."

 

[waruikazi]

So if the numbers of the kingbrown were the same as the numbers of the Oxyuranus microlepidotus i'll tell you if that this was the case this article is rubbish it doesen't matter how many mice are used! fact is they are rare and in three bites one survived 2 were herps and lasted five mins i'd like to see more real proof from this article lol

What?

No one has died from a fierce snake! Like i said, get off your high horse!

Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.

 

[Inlandtaipan078]

Anthony vhs

maybe you should check it out a bit more

 

[Hooglabah]

he makes a valid point.
however what he doesnt take into account is the actual human population hes saying that more people are killed by snakes in Srilanaka than in aus. okay fair enough thats true, but lets look at the people. Srilanaka is a mostly impoverished country with little or no wild life education and nowhere near as many readily accesible hospitals also thier population is substantialy bigger than ours and a far greater portion of their counrty is habited by humans. take that into account and then consider the fact that because there is a far lesser area of uninhabited terrain the snakes like cobras are forced to come in contact with people. never mind the fact part of thier culture involves snake charming and even gambling games that put them in extream risk of getting bitten (thus the gamble). basicaly the snake has had to evolve to deal with us.
yes this makes them more DEADLY and DANGEROUS as the writer states but not more venomous as he starts the paper with. Aussie snakes (browns, tipans, tigers ect ) have the highest venom potency of any elepid.

 

[waruikazi]

A snake that causes more deaths than others is not necessarily the most deadly by default.
I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to most deadly snake.

Just because there have been more recorded deaths for a given snake, it does not necessarily make it in itself any more or less deadly than another. The "victims" might not have had access to antivenin. They might not have the requisite knowledge or ability to apply proper first aid. The density of human inhabitants throughout the distribution of the offending snake might be greater. etc

If you look at the LD50 (based off Fry's compilation), without further information one would assume it'd be far better to be bitten by a western diamondback rattlesnake (18.5 mg/kg) than a red belly (2mg/kg). If I had a choice between getting bitten by one of those two, however, I can assure you that it would not be the diamondback that I would choose.

By definition the most deadly snake is the one species that has killed the most people. You can't really argue that. Dangerous, deadly and venomous are three terms that are interchanged but shouldn't be, they all mean different things and cause a lot of confusion. The most deadly snake may not be the most venomous snake and the most venomous snake may not be the most dangerous because it never comes into contact with people.

As for rattlers and vipers and bitis or whatever they are called. I would sure as hell rather be whacked by any aussie elapid that by any of those, they may not kill you but they do serious damage to your body. In alot of cases people don't make a full recovery, whereas our 'deadly' ones most people do fully recover.

 

[pythons73]

That was a very interested read,imo i reckon the most recorded deaths or bites,occur from browns,but that doesnt make it more deadlier than any other species.imo i no that browns chase ppl thats why more ppl get bitten,compared to red bellys etc.I havent had any experience with any other snakes...

 

[waruikazi]

maybe you should check it out a bit more

Check what out a bit more?

No one has died from a Fierce snake bite.

 

[Hooglabah]

What?

No one has died from a fierce snake! Like i said, get off your high horse!

Aussies hate being second at anything, especially at the most dangerous stuff.

yes thay have 2 people both died in the same week at the venoms reaserch facility last year in august i believe both people died in under half hour (anafalaxis). i found out when i called up to apply for volunter work there.

 

[craftsman]

aspidites: "I am personally of the opinion that there is too many variables to make a claim to most deadly snake."

That is precisely what Jamie Seymour looked at - all the factors and not only with Australian snakes, also exotics, spiders and jellyfish. Interestingly, he identified one of thew small African vipers (I think Saw-scaled viper) as the most dangerous snake in the world.

 

[Inlandtaipan078]

Would that be becouse it's injected and a lot more venom is inserted

 

[waruikazi]

he makes a valid point.
however what he doesnt take into account is the actual human population hes saying that more people are killed by snakes in Srilanaka than in aus. okay fair enough thats true, but lets look at the people. Srilanaka is a mostly impoverished country with little or no wild life education and nowhere near as many readily accesible hospitals also thier population is substantialy bigger than ours and a far greater portion of their counrty is habited by humans. take that into account and then consider the fact that because there is a far lesser area of uninhabited terrain the snakes like cobras are forced to come in contact with people. never mind the fact part of thier culture involves snake charming and even gambling games that put them in extream risk of getting bitten (thus the gamble). basicaly the snake has had to evolve to deal with us.
yes this makes them more DEADLY and DANGEROUS as the writer states but not more venomous as he starts the paper with. Aussie snakes (browns, tipans, tigers ect ) have the highest venom potency of any elepid.

The point he is making is that the LD50 'potency' test can't be reliably related to humans. Take the example of the olive whip snake he made. That made it i think in the top 20, that's higher than a collettes, pale headed snake, copper head etc but there is little chance that an olive whip will kill a person.

 

[hodges]

That was a very interested read,imo i reckon the most recorded deaths or bites,occur from browns,but that doesnt make it more deadlier than any other species.imo i no that browns chase ppl thats why more ppl get bitten,compared to red bellys etc.I havent had any experience with any other snakes...

Chase people ?.

 

[Retic]

I think a lot of it does come down to bragging rights to be honest. My opinion is that the snake that kills the most people is the deadliest.