Mmafan555,
I do apologise. I should have qualified my comments about venom toxicity varying geographically. I was referring exclusively to Australian snakes. My mistake.
There are indeed some major holes still, so it would seem. On the basis of closely related species and their ranking on the LD50 I suspect the top end would remain unchanged but that may not be the case. None-the-less I have some homework to do and I thank you for correcting my error.
When determining LD50 of Cobras, for example, do you know whether they tend to use the least toxic result or the most or simply random chance? Also, do you know how the variation in venom toxicity for the one species has been determined?
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. I
Just the Australian sources would be very much appreciated.
...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)
Given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity, and variation thereof, of a snake not even measured, using a “flawed” technique or otherwise?
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.
Again, given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity of a snake not even measured using even a “flawed” technique?
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.
I agree with you that there are clearly limitations to the LD50 and how it can be used. But I remain to be convinced that it has “numerous MAJOR flaws. Other than the potential variation in venom strength, would care to elucidate me on what the other flaws are? The statement that “all animals react differently to different venoms” is a gross generalisation. You can show me cases where it holds and I can show you cases where it doesn’t hold. I be happy to accept the middle ground that not all animals react to the same venom in the same way.
That people automatically equate the LD50 and the danger level of a snake to humans is incorrect. That, to my mind, is a separate issue to what you have stated. It is about how people make use of the LD50 rather than the LD50 itself..
But the highest of all snakes? I have absolutely no idea and neither do you.
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.
These two statements are contradictory – that is not at all helpful in establishing the voracity of your claims.
I don’t recall mentioning antivenom in my statement on the effects of an Inland taipan envenomation. That aside, allow me to rephrase it to get around the generalised term “catastrophic effects”. The bite from an Inland Taipan would require only a small injection of venom to produce fatal result (untreated).
You will get no argument from me on the effects of a full bite from any highly venomous snake. Dead is dead, not matter which species caused it. However, I went to some lengths to distinguish between how toxic, how venomous and how deadly. I totally agree with you that venom toxicity is only one factor out of many in the likely outcome of an untreated bite. On the basis of the LD50 alone, if I had to a bite from a snake that I was allowed to fend off with my hands (with the strong possibility of sustaining a glancing blow) it sure as hell would NOT be an inland Taipan. You may choose differently…
Well that will teach me not to compose my response off-site and then post without reading!
And all this time I have been labouring under the misapprehension that Australia’s Tourism Industry has been trying to down-play the image created as a result of the ‘most toxic’ or ‘most dangerous’ lists that have been created. Those that I have seen have seen have emanated mostly from overseas sites. Usually Inland Taipans, Funnel Web Spiders, Sea Wasps and Salt-water Crocs crack a mention and occasionally Great White Sharks, all of which are highly avoidable.
Bee stings are responsible for approximately five times the number of deaths due to snakebite in Australia and horse riding is nearly double that. If you really want to increase your chances of dying, go for a swim at the beach…
Blue
