Eastern Brown or Coastal Taipan
- Thread starter RobEvans
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
waruikazi
Legendary
Maybe in your head champ.
And what will your excuse be when I post the studies on box jellyfish stings and compare them to studies on bites from snakes? As I have said in the past, I am currently in college now and am working on a bio degree. "A bachelor of Google' will easily be enough to win the debate if or when it actullay happens.
No it is you who has avoided my questions. I already asked you if you wanted to debate the issue. Box Jellyfish are not even close to the most venomous animal in the world like Mr. Seymour claims. He could be a Harvard graduate for all I care...the studies do not match his claims that the box jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal..Once again I will gladly debate this with you or anyone else.
I don't recall ever mentioning that the Inland Taipan isn't the worlds most venomous snake to humans. All I said was that we don't have any real idea which are the most venomous snakes to humans...so the Taipan could be number 1..or it could be number 25. And their is no such thing as a broad "most venomous snake"...only most venomous for a particular animal.
I think I could argue that some types of Kraits are equal to the Taipans and more venomous than the Eastern Browns to humans, but this is very is hard as their aren't many studies on bites from taipans and almost none on bites from Inland Taipans as their have only been a handful of recorded bites.
You also have to factor in that the care a person would receive in India is not even close to the care they would receive in Australia and all the other factors when comparing a 3rd world to a 1st world country. So looking at studies is also a pretty hard thing to do and by no means fully accurate at all. Which leads me back to my original point...in reality we don't know which are the most venomous snakes to humans and we never will until they are tested on humans( and since that is impossible...well I guess we will never know)
Last edited:
GeckPhotographer
Very Well-Known Member
While I have no idea if he inflates his evidence or not. How would inflating the reputation of toxicity of the box jellyfish be bias toward Australian animals? The box jellyfish cannot be claimed as an 'Australian animal' in the respect of it not being endemic to Australia and thus leaving other nations open to the same claim of 'the worlds most toxic animal.'
Another question I am curious, do you read every single thread hoping to find someone who has made a venom related comment so you can start this debate cause it sure seems like it?
MMAFAN,
Did you read my post, I thought my question to was valid towards the tone of the thread?
Secondly, what is your name other than your alias, it seems that you have no problem in making claims against people that are unable to refute the claims, why not use your real name and tell the world who you are....or is it just that you would rather make claims and comments while hiding behind an alias.
Cheers,
Scott
Did you read my post, I thought my question to was valid towards the tone of the thread?
Secondly, what is your name other than your alias, it seems that you have no problem in making claims against people that are unable to refute the claims, why not use your real name and tell the world who you are....or is it just that you would rather make claims and comments while hiding behind an alias.
Cheers,
Scott
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
Mmafan555,
You quoted me as saying a couple of things I didn’t – but we will not quibble about that. Personally, who you are and what qualifications you do or don’t have are not important to me. What is important is what you have to say, its voracity and the logic behind any reasoning.
I have a few points on toxicity to make….
Firstly, you mentioned that the toxicity of venom varies within a species. That is correct. There are a number of contributing factors which can alter venom toxicity. In snakes, however, they tend to be minimal. There is, however, a very few species that demonstrate variation in venom toxicity related geographical location, the most toxic of which is the Small Eyed Snake (Cryptophis nigrescens). The reason for this has yet to be investigated in Australia but overseas they found subtle variations in the chemical make up of the toxins between members of the same species. This may explain it – only time will tell. Unfortunately I cannot tell how that is taken into account in selecting the venom sample to be tested for the LD50. All I emphasise is that this is not a significant factor with nearly all the snake species evaluated.
Secondly, you are correct that a quite a number of venomous Asian, African and American snakes have not been assessed in terms of the LD 50. However, quite a large number have been assessed, including all those known or suspected to be responsible for fatal bites. These include the Indian Cobra, King Cobra, Eastern and Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes, Common Krait, Russel’s Pit Viper, Saw-scaled Viper, Egyptian Cobra, Puff adder, Beaked Sea Snake, Golden Lance head, Fer-de-Lance, Black Mamba, Bushmaster, Forest Cobra, South American Rattlesnake, Mexican West Coast Rattlesnake and many more. The only real hole in this is the sea snakes. They have yet to assess a lot of the species which many consider are probably highly toxic. This is a long-winded way of saying that there are none longer those gaps. All known highly venomous snakes have been assessed thanks to places like Instituto Butantan, a huge venom-research facility in Sao Paulo, South America.
Thirdly, I believe the LD50 is of some use in drawing conclusions about relative toxicities of venoms on humans. Researchers have investigated the clinical signs and intensity developed in severely envenomated individuals bitten by an identified species. This has been compared with other species, including the LD50. While it leaves a lot to be desired as an accurate predictor, there is a rough correlation. Certainly enough to predict that the venom from an Inland Taipan would likely have catastrophic effects, beyond those of other species, on a severely envenomated individual.
Blue
Mmafan555,
The Box Jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri) has the capacity to kill in as little time as 3 minutes or less as a result of the toxins injected from the stinging cells (nematocysts) in the tentacles. Can you name another animal which has a faster acting set of toxins and can produce a fatal effect?
Blue
You quoted me as saying a couple of things I didn’t – but we will not quibble about that. Personally, who you are and what qualifications you do or don’t have are not important to me. What is important is what you have to say, its voracity and the logic behind any reasoning.
I have a few points on toxicity to make….
Firstly, you mentioned that the toxicity of venom varies within a species. That is correct. There are a number of contributing factors which can alter venom toxicity. In snakes, however, they tend to be minimal. There is, however, a very few species that demonstrate variation in venom toxicity related geographical location, the most toxic of which is the Small Eyed Snake (Cryptophis nigrescens). The reason for this has yet to be investigated in Australia but overseas they found subtle variations in the chemical make up of the toxins between members of the same species. This may explain it – only time will tell. Unfortunately I cannot tell how that is taken into account in selecting the venom sample to be tested for the LD50. All I emphasise is that this is not a significant factor with nearly all the snake species evaluated.
Secondly, you are correct that a quite a number of venomous Asian, African and American snakes have not been assessed in terms of the LD 50. However, quite a large number have been assessed, including all those known or suspected to be responsible for fatal bites. These include the Indian Cobra, King Cobra, Eastern and Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes, Common Krait, Russel’s Pit Viper, Saw-scaled Viper, Egyptian Cobra, Puff adder, Beaked Sea Snake, Golden Lance head, Fer-de-Lance, Black Mamba, Bushmaster, Forest Cobra, South American Rattlesnake, Mexican West Coast Rattlesnake and many more. The only real hole in this is the sea snakes. They have yet to assess a lot of the species which many consider are probably highly toxic. This is a long-winded way of saying that there are none longer those gaps. All known highly venomous snakes have been assessed thanks to places like Instituto Butantan, a huge venom-research facility in Sao Paulo, South America.
Thirdly, I believe the LD50 is of some use in drawing conclusions about relative toxicities of venoms on humans. Researchers have investigated the clinical signs and intensity developed in severely envenomated individuals bitten by an identified species. This has been compared with other species, including the LD50. While it leaves a lot to be desired as an accurate predictor, there is a rough correlation. Certainly enough to predict that the venom from an Inland Taipan would likely have catastrophic effects, beyond those of other species, on a severely envenomated individual.
Blue
Mmafan555,
The Box Jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri) has the capacity to kill in as little time as 3 minutes or less as a result of the toxins injected from the stinging cells (nematocysts) in the tentacles. Can you name another animal which has a faster acting set of toxins and can produce a fatal effect?
Blue
Last edited by a moderator:
That is not true... Their can be a very large degree in variation in composition and potency over a geographic region. I can post numerous sources for both Australian and Asian/African/North American snakes that state that their can be a tremendous difference in venom composition across a snakes geographic range. It would have a big effect..Now granted a spectacled cobra( Naja Naja) from a particular population that was tested scored a .45 on the toxicity test( Brian Fry) and it probably at its most toxic location would not get under a .25-.30 and probably a 1+ in its lesser toxic locations but still it is a significant variation that makes you question any type of ld50 test.
That is once again...not true.. Here is the most comprehensive list we have.
For Subcutaneous bites( which are the only bites that would be applicable for any snake except a big viper with large fangs)
http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/ld50sc.html
I see only 3 types of Bungarus on the list. ( Many banded Krait, Common Krait and Banded Krait) and their are 12 species is and 5 sub species of Bungarus...and most species of Bungarus has large distributions where they would unquestionably have a large variation in their venom composition and potency.( Most Bungarus species live in multiple countries)
And as you can see Bungarus Multicinctus is already number 4 ( right behind the coastal taipan) and only 3 of the 12 have been given a ld50 value...Bungarus also only on rare occassions eats mice( they usually eat frogs, small snakes, lizards and then mice) where as the Taipans are mice specialists.
The Boomslang is also missing from the Subcutaneous list, through it is listed in the Intravenous list...and I am sure that if I took the time I could easily find many more than are missing... The Phillipine Cobra is missing from the ld50 list also and it is an extremely venomous snake and probably the most venomous cobra drop for drop.
I can't say one way or another how much use it has...but it has numerous MAJOR flaws..and like I have shown in the past all animals react differently to different venoms....and then you have the regional variation and the missing snakes.
Nope don't buy that... Of course it could be right but it could be very wrong as well and we dont have any real way of knowing. It certaintly would have a very high untreated death rate and most likely one of the highest.. But the highest of all snakes? I have absolutely no idea and neither do you.
And by the way when you get into the really toxic snakes...Their is little difference..If you take a full bite and dont get antivenom or treatment...you die. Doesn't matter if the snake is number 1 on the list to mice or number 10...the result is likely the same..If you get a full on bite from a taipan and a black mamba and don't go to the hospital...the result will be the same..Of course people have survived bites from these snakes with dry bites, or only a small amount of venom was injected, or the snake only got one fang in..But if you take a full on bite with a good amount of venom injected from a really toxic snake( and dont get help) their is little difference in the outcome.
As for "catastrophic" well we have different views on this. An inland taipan would surely have a very very high untreated mortality rate...but if you got antivenom you would be fine and have no long term damage.. That is not the case for many snakes around the world...particularly vipers and some types of cobras( some cobras can cause extreme local damage/necrosis like a viper bite).....So in that way I would consider an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake bite much more catastrophic just because even if you do get antivenom quickly their is a chance you will have some serious or long term damage. Obviously the taipan has more potent venom and a higher untreated mortality rate but it would not cause this local damage.
Last edited:
It was a great decision on my part not to debate this with you mmafan, you are an agrumentative creature aren't you? Now you are comparing a local damage with fatal impact .... how does LD50 figure in that? 
I am still watching this thread and looking for your answer to Blue's last question (the box-jelly one) you avoided to comment on.
By the way, species names are in lower case.
I am still watching this thread and looking for your answer to Blue's last question (the box-jelly one) you avoided to comment on.
By the way, species names are in lower case.
It was a great decision on my part not to debate this with you mmafan, you are an agrumentative creature aren't you? Now you are comparing a local damage with fatal impact .... how does LD50 figure in that?
I am still watching this thread and looking for your answer to Blue's last question (the box-jelly one) you avoided to comment on.
By the way, species names are in lower case.
Way to quote something I never said... When did I ever compare the ld50 with local damage....Nice misquote bro...I never said anything of the sort and I clearly outlined that overal lethality/toxicity/ld50 inb mice and local damage have little/nothing to do with each other. Just like the ld50 in mice has little/nothing to do with the ld50 for any other animal.
And the Box Jellyfish isn't even close to being the most lethally venomous animal...Not even remotely close and it isn't even remotely close to causing the most local damage either. Their are a good 50 snakes that are more lethally venomus than the box jellyfish and many that also cause more local damage.
Seymours claims are absurd.
No... I'm not silly! I said that their are many snakes that are much more devastating than a Taipan if you have access to treatment( ie long term damage even with prompt treatment). Obviously this doesn't have anything to do with untreated mortality rate or overall lethality/ fatal impact..And obviously your chances of dieing from a taipan bite( if you can't get treatment) are much higher than from a rattlesnake bite. Don't misconstrue my words.
The ld50 shouldn't really factor much into anything to be honest.
Last edited:
waruikazi
Legendary
How do you know they are more venomous? What methods are you using/relying on to make that claim?
Well based on the studies that I have read..Most Chironex stings barely even require hospilization...and nearly all the deaths have been young children.... I can certainly think of many snakes that cause much more severe symptoms in bites than a typical Chironex sting.
50 may be an exaggeration but their are certainly quite a few snakes from many continents that cause more severe symptoms in a typical bite than a chironex sting.
I will post the studies soon... It will take a little bit of time to find them...Then you can judge for yourself.
Completely ignoring this troll now, here is something of interest for you Blue and Gordo: PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases: Preclinical Evaluation of Caprylic Acid-Fractionated IgG Antivenom for the Treatment of Taipan (Oxyuranus scutellatus) Envenoming in Papua New Guinea
Aka im just butthurt that I can't win this debate so I will just give up now.
The Box Jelly is not even close to the "worlds most venomous animal" like seymour claims...He has poor credibility.
The Taipan is different...It is clearly extremely venomous and possibly even number 1 in drop for drop toxicity to humans...I just can't say for certain that it is number 1 for humans and neither can you or anyone else. So those type of claims are misleading.
Last edited:
waruikazi
Legendary
Who are the people making these claims?
But that is not what you said. You claimed that xxx amount of snakes are more lethally venomous than a box jelly, you said nothign about a typical bites/stings. You are moving the goal posts to suit yourself. That is why no one is taking you seriously.
You seem to be getting yourself mixed up and confused with the terms you love to use for your own gains, venomous, dangerous and deadly.
Last edited:
My God do you Aussies love to misquote... Seymour makes the quote routinely...Thats it. My comments refer to him and I didn't say he was stupid, he obviously isn't I said that his claim that the Box Jellyfish is the worlds most venomous animal is incorrect and leads me to question his credibility on the issue of venom. I didn't say it's safe to pet a box jellyfish or that I would go swimming in an area where they are in the summer...I said it's not the most venomous animal in the world... Period.
I was just giving a vague estimate... The box jellyfish causes stings about as severe as a typical pit viper bite. And then on extremely rare instances it can cause death in as little as 3 minutes( for a child)..but on average its about as severe as a pit viper and their are PLENTY of snakes more venomous than it.
No...I am saying that the studies that I have read on Chironex Stings indicate that it is in no way the most venomous animal and it is less venomous that a variety of different snakes.
This is pointless...Let me just post the studies and then we can compare them. You know what I will make a seperate thread about studies from bites of venomous animals and then we/you can compare them with each other.
waruikazi
Legendary
Then i will ask you again. What METHODS are you using or relying on to make this claim?
- Status
