Get off you're high horse Australia!

[junglepython2]

Well it shows that the is a very likely chance that the ld50's for humans would be different than the ld50's for mice, dogs, cats, elephants, cattle, mongooses etc. So its not credible to just delcare that Australia has 6 of the top 10 just because they do for mice... Of course theirs no test on humans to prove that they it isnt credible either....

I will post the studies soon[ I need to find them all] but the thing with studies is that their are so many factors that effect envenomation symptoms that it is very hard to compare them are reach a conclusion...It's a bit like the ld50 in that regard through its probably even more hard to judge how credible it is.

Using envenomation symtoms from uncontrolled studies or reports is next to useless in deciding who has the most toxic venom drop for drop for numerous reasons. While not perfect the LD50 is the only controlled test we currently have. On a side note I have no doubt that overseas snakes have more serious symptoms or side-effects for those that manage to survive the bite.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

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.

I agree it's all really about what would be worse to get bitten by , not how many people die from.....The real test would be getting a large number of people and envenomating them with different snake poison and testing the kill rate and speed, however seeing the impracticality of this they used mice instead. Which is why i'd go with the Ld50 test.

 

[AllThingsReptile]

I wanted so desperately to post this next pic....but I'm enjoying the thread too much. Don't let it deter you....please continue

snake food........

 

[moosenoose]

We've got the deadliest nar-nar-nana-nar

 

[eipper]

this thread is load of entertainment and not much more...

a few misconceptions.....Australia has the top 10 most toxic snakes to mice.....not true....

The list that seems to be continually referred to is list complied by Broad et al in the late 70's.....it has predominately Australian species from which they had run ld50 tests on. Three controls were added to the list to gauge where Australiasian species were in regard to other well known dangerous species... Naja naja (which may of been N. kaouthia or another species), Ophiophagus hannah and Crotalus adamanteus, with regards to these three controls, a number of Australian snakes were more toxic.

The ld50 differs on the injection site....subcutaneous is most indicative of snake envenomations, however even lower venom weights are required for intravenous injection sites.

While Mice ARE flawed as test subjects, they can be used as an indicator of what could happen, results can be calculated to give an estimation what what dosage would be required to kill a mammal of a certain body weight. Species that prey on species other than mammals may have a higher ld50 rating for mice.....they are designed to eat other things....their ld would most likely be higher in their chosen prey type.

With regards to the actual dangerousness of a snake, there are 5 factors that should be considered (see a paper in Venoms and Victims published by Queensland Museum) toxicity, yield, fang length, temperament and geographical proximity...all of these ring true dependant on which ever localities you wish to include.

The myth that viperids have mainly cytotoxic/haemotoxic fractions and that elapids are restricted to neurotoxins and coagulants does not ring true....Crotalus tigris and Pseudechis porphyriacus are examples from both sides....

Finally.....at the end of the day snake venom has differing adverse reactions on different people.....sensitivities/immunities are different for each person....so therefore the most dangerous is the one that just bit you....

MMAfan....there are plenty of records of localised necrosis from Australia species

Cheers,
Scott Eipper

 

[Klaery]

I don't have a problem with Australia claiming to have the top whatever number of deadly snakes or not. In fact I think it very likely that we do. Stop using LD50 on mice as a reliable reference though as has already been said like a billionty times it is not conclusive and thus is NOT evidence.

I do not think mmafan has any evidence what so ever that Aus snakes should not be in their current places as the most venomous. But on the other hand I do not believe the people arguing with him have any evidence what so ever that they should be.

The best we can do is guess.

But why do you think its "very likely" that australia has the top number of venomous snakes? What real evidence is their for that? If not for the ld50 what reliable references for such a statement do you have? I agree with you...the real awnser is that none of us have any real clue as to which snakes are the most potent to humans... we can hypothesize and make decent guesses and maybe get a few of them right but we certainly dont know for a fact and statements such as "this is the 2nd most toxic land snake etc etc" are unforunded imo and this debate is useless because their is no evidence either way

That is why I said I 'think'. Feelings/guesses are not facts and I thought you would have been one of those in this thread who knew the difference the way you have been talking. As I said we would just be guessing and the LD50 test for mice is no real indication.

 

[mmafan555]

I agree it's all really about what would be worse to get bitten by , not how many people die from.....The real test would be getting a large number of people and envenomating them with different snake poison and testing the kill rate and speed, however seeing the impracticality of this they used mice instead. Which is why i'd go with the Ld50 test.

First off... In responding to hooglabah...Taipans, browns, tigers do not have the highest venom potency based on the ld50 tests... The order is actullay... Inland Taipan, Eastern Brown, Coastal Taipan, Many Banded Krait, and then a few aquatic snakes and then the peninsula tiger snake... The many banded krait intervenes between the coastal taipan and the peninsula tiger snake for land snakes.

this thread is load of entertainment and not much more...

a few misconceptions.....Australia has the top 10 most toxic snakes to mice.....not true....

The list that seems to be continually referred to is list complied by Broad et al in the late 70's.....it has predominately Australian species from which they had run ld50 tests on. Three controls were added to the list to gauge where Australiasian species were in regard to other well known dangerous species... Naja naja (which may of been N. kaouthia or another species), Ophiophagus hannah and Crotalus adamanteus, with regards to these three controls, a number of Australian snakes were more toxic.

The ld50 differs on the injection site....subcutaneous is most indicative of snake envenomations, however even lower venom weights are required for intravenous injection sites.

While Mice ARE flawed as test subjects, they can be used as an indicator of what could happen, results can be calculated to give an estimation what what dosage would be required to kill a mammal of a certain body weight. Species that prey on species other than mammals may have a higher ld50 rating for mice.....they are designed to eat other things....their ld would most likely be higher in their chosen prey type.

With regards to the actual dangerousness of a snake, there are 5 factors that should be considered (see a paper in Venoms and Victims published by Queensland Museum) toxicity, yield, fang length, temperament and geographical proximity...all of these ring true dependant on which ever localities you wish to include.

The myth that viperids have mainly cytotoxic/haemotoxic fractions and that elapids are restricted to neurotoxins and coagulants does not ring true....Crotalus tigris and Pseudechis porphyriacus are examples from both sides....

Finally.....at the end of the day snake venom has differing adverse reactions on different people.....sensitivities/immunities are different for each person....so therefore the most dangerous is the one that just bit you....

MMAfan....there are plenty of records of localised necrosis from Australia species

Cheers,
Scott Eipper

I never said anything about vipers only having cytotoxic or hemotoxic venoms or elapids only have neurotoxins... I said generally this is the case...Their are a few vipers that are entirely cytotoxic and not hemotoxic and there are a few vipers that have cause hemotoxiity and neurotoxicity in bites[ Sri Lankan Russells Viper] and then their are the extremely rare vipers that cause pretty much only neurotoxicity [ Movave Rattler]... Most vipers however cause necrosis/ or some type of local effect and then a range of hemotoxicity that ranges in severity... and most do not cause neurotoxicity.. For elapids there are exceptions as well.. Spitting cobras dont cause neurotoxicity... they cause severe necrosis.. and some non spitting cobras cause severe necrosis[ which is very unusual in a elapid bite] and neurotoxicity.

2 things you are leaving out... 1].... NOT all of the highly venomous snakes were tested in the ld50... Their are actullay quite a lot of snakes that are missing from the test and have never received an ld50 value because their venom hasnt been subjected to the test.... Their's a myth that people seem to think that all the lethally venomous snakes are in the ld50 test... and they are not.


2].... Their is no set ld50 value for a given snake... because venom composition and effects can vary tremendously in potency and components throughout a snakes range. A spectacled cobra from India will not have the same ld50 value as a spectacled cobra in nepal/sri lanka/pakistan etc etc...A russells viper will not have the same ld50 value in India as a russells viper in Sri Lanka/Burma etc etc...So in that regard it is also flawed as well... Also some snakes start to produce poorer quality of venom when in captivity as they stress out... which could also effect the test.

That is why I said I 'think'. Feelings/guesses are not facts and I thought you would have been one of those in this thread who knew the difference the way you have been talking. As I said we would just be guessing and the LD50 test for mice is no real indication.

I wasn't challenging you views or anything[ You have shown to me in this thread that you are knowledgeable on snakes].. I was just wondering why you have the opinion that they are most likely the most venomous...Your completely right that none of us know for certain and we can only make a rough guess in reality

 

[Jungletrans]

" Facts " are funny things and can be twisted to prove anything . Did you know that ; Worldwide more people are kicked to death by donkeys than die in airplane accidents .

 

[slim6y]

" Facts " are funny things and can be twisted to prove anything . Did you know that ; Worldwide more people are kicked to death by donkeys than die in airplane accidents .

But if you were going to be kicked by an aeroplane, the aeroplane would surely be more deadly though... right???

I would say they LD50 for donkey kick vs Aeroplane kick would be very one sided... You could test that on everything from mice to horses... and I'd say the outcome for donkey kick would be a decreasing LD50 proportional to size... Where the LD50 for the Aeroplane kick would remain high regardless of size of the target animal.

 

[Klaery]

But the donkey has a mind of its own :S unstoppable!

I wasn't challenging you views or anything[ You have shown to me in this thread that you are knowledgeable on snakes].. I was just wondering why you have the opinion that they are most likely the most venomous...Your completely right that none of us know for certain and we can only make a rough guess in reality

Sorry mate didn't mean to sound so pointed in that post, was just making sure that my view wasn't confused by others I mentioned my gut feeling just as a side note so that others knew when I was arguing the validity of ld50 it was coming from the point of reason rather then my personal feelings.

Haha I would know a lot less about elapids than most in this thread. I keep funnelwebs though so have done my fair share of venom research ;-)

 

[mmafan555]

" Facts " are funny things and can be twisted to prove anything . Did you know that ; Worldwide more people are kicked to death by donkeys than die in airplane accidents .

What exactly are you trying to say?... Please tell me you are not comparing the dame inflicted by bites of aussie elapids to airplane accidents and then the damage inflicted by bites from other highly exotic venomous snakes to kicks from donkeys... Please clarify

But the donkey has a mind of its own :S unstoppable!



Sorry mate didn't mean to sound so pointed in that post, was just making sure that my view wasn't confused by others I mentioned my gut feeling just as a side note so that others knew when I was arguing the validity of ld50 it was coming from the point of reason rather then my personal feelings.

Haha I would know a lot less about elapids than most in this thread. I keep funnelwebs though so have done my fair share of venom research ;-)

Well regardless of your experience with elapids... you showed a lot of common sense in this thread when many others did not...As for the funnelwebs eek! I hate spiders... not gonna lie they scare the **** out of me.. I could be near any snake and not be scared but spiders... hell no their scary as hell

 

[mmafan555]

Just out of curiosity.... If australians constantly claim to have the most venomous snakes based on the ld50... The why do they also constantly claim that they have the most venomous spider[ the funnel web] as it scores so low on the ld50??? Hmmmm.....

 

[hugsta]

I don't have a problem with Australia claiming to have the top whatever number of deadly snakes or not. In fact I think it very likely that we do. Stop using LD50 on mice as a reliable reference though as has already been said like a billionty times it is not conclusive and thus is NOT evidence.

I do not think mmafan has any evidence what so ever that Aus snakes should not be in their current places as the most venomous. But on the other hand I do not believe the people arguing with him have any evidence what so ever that they should be.

The best we can do is guess.

Daniel we do not have the most deadly number of snakes. Most deadly generally refers to the animal responsible for the most deaths, and Australian snakes are pretty low on the list. They are however highly venomous, an entirely different thing. Secondly, the LD50 is a reliable source of info, it is the only one we have, if we didn't have it, this discussion would not exist, or you could say the animals that kill the most people must be the most venomous, again this would be false and purely up to the individuals personal believe that snake x or y must carry the most toxic venom due to the amount of people they kill.

Also, if you care to read my previous posts, you will read that I agree that venoms react differently to different people and also to different animals. I am not debating this fact. I am however saying that you cannot compare an LD50 test against tests that do not exist, therefore it is an inconclusive arguement. If an LD50 was carried out on primates, then the whole list of most venomous reptiles may change, but until this happens, we cannot argue the proven facts of an LD50 test on mice.

I agree it's all really about what would be worse to get bitten by , not how many people die from.....The real test would be getting a large number of people and envenomating them with different snake poison and testing the kill rate and speed, however seeing the impracticality of this they used mice instead. Which is why i'd go with the Ld50 test.

Really..!!! So what would be worse to get bitten, something that will cause severe necrosis or something that will kill you..?? I will have the necrosis thanks, would rather lose a hand or severely scarred than be dead any day. JMO

Lol I could pull up about 50 sites that say that australia has 7-10 of the deadliest venomous snakes in the world etc etc... Irwin said that OZ has all ten lmao....Australians love to talk up their dangerous animals.....Seymour is the absolute worst and he has zero credibility as far as I am concerned. Theirs nothing wrong with that and I'm sure some of it is very true... but it does get tiring at times.. You know what if you want to believe that the ld50 test is okay than go right ahead.... You are right their is obviously no test on humans or any type of primate that I know of... so the only thing we really have is mice...I dont think its credible for humans... but thats just my opinion and you are entitled to yours....But if your going to use it please be accurate with it and say 6 of the top 10 instead of all the other wrong info...But also remember that means its perfectly safe to pick up a funnel web as their likely not dangerous to you... and also next time you go for a walk dont worry about your dog getting a tarantula bite... as tarantula bites only cause mild symptoms in humans so it should be all good...etc etc

Once again it is you mmafman that is consistantly bringing up Australia and they way 'we' are going on about having the most venomous snakes in the world, but you are the only one mentioning it....!!!

Maybe you just need to realise that we have the most venomous snakes in the world, the most venomous spiders in the world and the most venomous jellyfish in the world to go along with our deadly great whites. You should come over for a holiday and get away from your pansy asss snakes and spiders.

 

[Redtailed]

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?

up yourself much?

 

[Echiopsis]

This thread is the most long winded, cyclic waste of time i have ever read. The fact of the matter is we have snakes that can potentially kill you, does anything after that really matter if youve been bitten?

Really..!!! So what would be worse to get bitten, something that will cause severe necrosis or something that will kill you..?? I will have the necrosis thanks, would rather lose a hand or severely scarred than be dead any day. JMO

Id take possble death personally, not interested in having my flesh necrotise, particularly if ive been bitten while answering the call of nature :lol: Each to their own....

 

[Snake_Whisperer]

This thread is the most long winded, cyclic waste of time i have ever read. The fact of the matter is we have snakes that can potentially kill you, does anything after that really matter if youve been bitten?



Id take possble death personally, not interested in having my flesh necrotise, particularly if ive been bitten while answering the call of nature :lol: Each to their own....

Agreed on both counts. I could not bear to to have necrotised flesh on this perfect specimen of a body of mine. And don't get me started on my face!

 

[Wild~Touch]

I could not bear to to have necrotised flesh on this perfect specimen of a body of mine. And don't get me started on my face!

Aaron you will killl me yet..I can't breathe I am laughing so much

 

[mmafan555]

Also, if you care to read my previous posts, you will read that I agree that venoms react differently to different people and also to different animals. I am not debating this fact. I am however saying that you cannot compare an LD50 test against tests that do not exist, therefore it is an inconclusive arguement. If an LD50 was carried out on primates, then the whole list of most venomous reptiles may change, but until this happens, we cannot argue the proven facts of an LD50 test on mice.

Of course we can... Didn't I just say about 20x that not all of the highly venomous snakes have been tested in the ld50?? In fact their are ALOT of snakes that dont have a rating... Doesn't that make the claim that the inland taipan is the most venomous not credible regardless of the mice part.

And also like I said venom composition and potency varies tremendously in the same species across its range... so that raised additional questions.

Really..!!! So what would be worse to get bitten, something that will cause severe necrosis or something that will kill you..?? I will have the necrosis thanks, would rather lose a hand or severely scarred than be dead any day. JMO

Nowadays, I would prefer to be bitten by an australian snake EASILY over a highly venomous foreign snake...Nothing to do with which is more toxic but antivenom will give you an extremely high chance of survival with usually no complications from an aussie bite. Even if you get antivenom from a viper or cobra bite... theirs still a decent chance that you will have swelling/pain/necrosis as antivenom is only moderately effective at stoping these effects.

Now if this was 1820 where their was no antivenom or mechanical respiration... and my goal was to survive than it would depend on the snake. Of course I would rather get bit by a puff adder/rattlesnake than a taipan.

Once again it is you mmafman that is consistantly bringing up Australia and they way 'we' are going on about having the most venomous snakes in the world, but you are the only one mentioning it....!!!

Lmfao!!

Maybe you just need to realise that we have the most venomous snakes in the world, the most venomous spiders in the world and the most venomous jellyfish in the world to go along with our deadly great whites. You should come over for a holiday and get away from your pansy asss snakes and spiders.

hahah look at the hypocrite... It is well known that the funnel web isnt toxic at all to mice let alone the worlds most toxic spider.. So if your going to say that its the worlds most toxic spider that means that you are refusing to accept the ld50 test as accurate as according to that test its not even really toxic. So you either say that Australia has 6 of the top 10 most venomous snakes and not the most venomous spider... or you deny the ld50 test... Cant have it both ways!

And at the worlds most dangerous jellyfish... Another exaggerated animal but that's a different story for a different time.

America doesnt have pansy snakes or spiders[ through aussie snakes are probably more impressive]....And we actullay have many dangerous large land animals unlike Aussie Americas got more dangerous animals!!

 

[Snowman]

Thats true america has some of the most dangerous animals in the world... Americans... (just kidding dont shoot me!)

Their snakes are pussy's though... Even though every american talks them up....

And as for thier "dangerous land animals"... they've done a pretty good job of killing most of those. Historically conservation isn't one of Americas strong suits... Arizona jaguar?

 

[ezekiel86]

good read ...better laugh