Reptile & Amphibian Forums

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8331

Hadn't seen any discussions on this, just curious on yalls thoughts.
-----

Komodo dragons are the only so called poisonous monitors.Thats as weak as Gila monsters(IN effect)Much l;arger bite!!!

There are no such things as poisonous lizards(or snakes for that matter).
-----
Treemonitors.com

i couldn't agree more. if you were to eat one, you would definitely not die.

........ok, I think we all know I meant VENOMOUS >_
-----

i know. i know. we were just teasing you a bit.
thanks for taking it so well.

It is possible to die from eating one. If not cooked well, could pass on a bacterial infection and die from it. You could possibly choke to death on a piece of meat or bone. Or you can have an alergic reaction to the siliva with its various proteins?

Im just sayin its not impossible

I believe that we are talking about a particular animal being 'poisonous', not 'hazardous'. Of course we can choke on just about anything we consume, but that is not what we are discussing here in this thread.
-----
Treemonitors.com

'poisonous', not 'hazardous' ???

Someone actually used the term 'poisonous' by accident and actually wanted to say 'venomous'. Someone else opened the door for being 'hazardous' by saying you would 'definitely' not die from eating a monitor, I just wanted to make it clear it was possible.

So I would say this has become a 'poisonous', 'hazardous' and 'definitely' a 'venomous' conversation.

You'll have to search mid-winter for the original discussions on the topic.

Specific tests havn't been done on all monitors, but it's very likely that at least the majority of them have well developed venom glands along the lower jaw. The information is new enough where many deductions have been made, but few have yet to be proven. For instance, is this why varanid bites tend to ache more and bleed longer? Perhaps, but we dont' know. Does this explain further, why the komodo dragon's bite kills the way it does (bacteria aside)? We just don't know yet.

For more detailed info, and the actual study itself, go to venomdoc.com

Ian

It has now / good info n/p

These monitors we speak of are no more venomous today, then they were, six months ago. You know, when they were not venomous. They are exactly the same. No changes. That is the reality.

We(humans) can change the names and difinitions back and forth. But what does it have to to with the monitors? As they are still as harmless as they were before.

This type of converstion reminds me of two people arguing over which is worse, getting sprayed by a striped skunk or a spotted skunk. One stinks way more then the other, but both stink like heck. But then, getting squirted will not hurt you. It just sorta stinks.

In this case, this new determination of these species being "venomous" does not make their bite any worse then when they were harmless. Besides in reality, its not the venom that may cause real harm, its those dang sharp teeth and those powerfull jaw muscles. In reality, thats what you need to worry about. This thing called reality actually sucks, hey?

Thats why I argued with Venomdoc in the first place. While they do have something you can call venom, in reality, its still a harmless venom. So why call it venom. By difinition, venom is suppose to cause harm, not have the potential to cause harm. Venom to people is what causes harm to people, not a mouse. To be harmful to humans they must be harmful to humans. Or they would be spotted night snakes. Those cause strong venomous reactions on geckos, but nothing to humans. So they are harmless. Venom wise, monitors are harmless to humans, with the possible exception of Komodos. But then, a Komodo bite without venom would not be harmless either. Just the bite would cause serious harm.

So why call them venomous? I know why, because you can. It does have some similarities to real effective snake venom, all except the delelterious part. Which is the venomous part. Cheers

Caffeine is called a drug because it is a drug. It may be in a different classification, but it still is a drug. Maybe you should promote a new category for monitor venom, comparable to caffeine drug category instead of trying to hide the existence of it completely.
You try to fight for herpetologists rights with this indirect behavior it will backfire on all of us. Honesty of the facts will make the others who do not understand monitors more compassionate to your cause or defense.

Frank, I know your intentions are good, but your radical ideas and long stories only work on a few here, the educated in the outside of this forum might label all of us as dishonest or at least evasive in our words due to your agenda.

Man are you odd. Did anyone say caff. is not a drug, son, we are talking two different things.

But if you want to included caffine in this thread, I will. Caffine is not considered poisonous. That is, unless you take enough of it, then it will poison you. So why don't we consider caffine poisonous?

Which is my point, I would imagine spit/saliva from all sorts of animals can have venomous effects in injected in enough quanities. After all, saliva is the begining of digestion and contains compounds that break different things down.

I will say, its kinda fun to see how you stretch things in order to make some misled point.

All in all, I still say, ackies and gophersnakes are today as harmless as they were last year or five years ago. Which also insinuates that they are no more venomous today, then they were last year or five years ago. Do you argue that?

I never said that monitors are any more dangerous, I just think you are reacting to some good science in a very deffensive way. Dont forget, many rear-fang snakes are legal due to their lack of danger to humans and this has been common knoledge...so don't go getting your panties in a bunch.

>>I never said that monitors are any more dangerous

G'day mate,

Thats exactly the key. There is a remarkable difference between venomous from an evolutionary perspective and venomous from a medical implication perspective.

This is something we have gone to great pains to make clear. The fact that varanids are venomous is a fascinating piece of natural history. However, this does not make them venomous in the sense that a cobra is. Apples and rocks. The medical implications of varanid venom is trivial.

Therefore from a legislative/practical perpective they should not be considered on the same level as dangerously venomous snakes. This doesn't change the fact that they are venomous.

Some people can't seem to grasp that obvious difference.

Things just need to be considered in the proper perspective.

Cheers
B
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Venom Research Unit,
University of Melbourne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Population and Evolutionary Genetics Unit,
Museum Victoria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venomdoc.com

We were when you posted the information here. You did not say, they were more dangerous. But sir, unfortunately, your not the one doing the "saying". The legislators are the ones and they are using your information in a negative way. Even though you did not intend for that to happen.

This was very easy to predict. You offered a tool. They will use the tool. Even if they use it improperly. Its like Black&decker(powertool builders) They only build the tools, they did not cut your finger off with it. But the finger is still cut off.

Of course it was not your intention that this information would be used in a negative way, but then our intentions rarely come out the way we want, or we would all be handsome, rich and dating Nicole Kidmen(or a facimile thereof)(humor mate)

The problem still exsists, your work was quoted within a month after you made it public. "these invasive monitors(niles) are venomous too" Just another tool to use improperly.

My only wish was, you used a different term. Not venomous like rattlesnakes(crotimine) It would come off like saying blueys in your country have saliva thats venomous like a taipan or death adder. The association was simply to strong, in my opinion. It was not about your science, it simply was something that will be used improperly.

While you and I understand, the reptiles in question, are still as they were before you published your information, even monitor folks do not understand that. I imagine sometimes we have to much faith in other people. Or not. Cheers

Reporter, lawyer, and or politician does not care nor want to understand the difference between "from an evolutionary standpoint" or "from a medical standpoint", they just care that "venomous" means "poisonous", poisonous means "dangerous", dangerous means outlaw, kill, and or fear it.
I like the term "specialized glands", why because the average person in this category doesnt go into witch hunt mode. Venomous is a bad term for what they are, maybe the article should have covered a complete list of reptiles and amphibians that are considered to have, may possibly have any reminant, or relation to being, or having these "specialized glands".
Also Id like to know if monitors from Africa, and Asia have these glands and have shown any proven symptoms of these components.
I wouldnt call them venomous unless it meant medically to humans.
Personally Ive felt mild effects from bites from Aussie species, but none that can be considered near the same from African or Asian species of monitor.

The definition of venom has nothing to do with human effects, whether the venom of a goanna, snake, cone snail etc. Any effect upon us is merely a pleasent side-effect as far as the animal is concerned. The evolution of venom in pretty much every lineage occured on a vast evolutionary timescale long before humans showed up on the scene. For example, the funnel web spider venoms are unusually toxic to humans. However, this is an evolutionary fluke as the spiders evolved tens of millions of years before humans evolved and in fact there weren't even any primates in Australia at the time of the evolution of funnel web venoms.

We have shown that venoms evolve via a process by which a gene encoding for a normal body protein, typically one involved in key regulatory processes or bioactivity, is duplicated and the copy selectively expressed in the venom gland. The newly created toxin type evolves via the birth-and-death model of protein evolution, in which a toxin multigene gene family is created by further gene duplication events followed by the deletion of some copies and conversion of others to non-functional copies or pseudogenes. As a result paralogous groups of genes are generated across taxonomic lineages where the gene duplication event occurred prior to their divergence. These evolutionary patterns are similar to those observed for multigene families involved in the adaptive immune response such as immunoglobins and major histocompatibility complex genes, a process which is thought to contribute to an organism’s ability to react to a wide range of foreign antigens. In an analogous manner, animal venom toxins must react with diverse compounds in their prey. The birth-and-death model of protein evolution generates suites of toxins that allow the predators to adapt to a variety of different prey species.

In our study, we identified expressed proteins from the venom glands of two families of lizards (Varanidae and Agamidae), which are homologous to toxins in venom gland secretions found in the venomous helodermatid lizards and many venomous advanced snakes. Toxic effects were demonstrated for both the crude protein and purified type III PLA2 isolated from the venom of a representative varanid. Consistent with the conserved functional residues, the activity of the varanid PLA2 toxin was identical to that of well-characterised forms from Heloderma venoms.

The relative abundance of toxin types sequenced and dominant effects of the crude venom were also congruent with the venom liquid chromatography – mass spectrometry fingerprinting of the venom, a technique previously used by us in the course of investigating snake venom evolution.

We simultaneously showed that all squamate lineages possessing homologous toxin-secreting oral glands form a strongly supported clade and interpreted these data to indicate an early evolution of the venom system in squamate reptiles

Our findings also highlight that venom delivery systems, like any other complex biological structure, exhibit a range of forms. The newly characterised venomous lizards possess relatively simple venom delivery systems. The varanid glands, for example, are characterised by possessing a compound mandibular gland with venom storage lumen and venom ducts (very similar to the venom system of Heloderma lizards), but lacking the highly specialized dentition (e.g. hollow fangs) and highly kinetic skulls and muscle attachments of some advanced snakes (e.g. atractaspidids, elapids, viperids). Thus, the venom systems of the front-fanged advanced snakes are highly specialized derived states, and not the only “true venom systems”.

The early appearance of the specialized, protein-secreting dental glands made possible the organization of the incipient toxin-producing organs. These glands are found in both the upper and lower jaw of the iguanians, have a multi-duct system connected with the teeth and produce several toxins in common with venomous snakes. These and other toxins may have evolved “locally” or may have been “recruited” from other organ systems and then continued along two lines – towards the mandibular venom glands of the anguimorphs and the complex maxillary venom glands of snakes. This does not preclude the possibility of additional toxins being developed or recruited at later stages in the different groups.

New insights into the evolution of venom systems and the medical importance of the associated toxins cannot be advanced without recognition of the true biochemical, ecological, morphological and pharmacological diversity of venoms and associated venom systems.

Cheers
Bryan
Nature paper

-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Venom Research Unit,
University of Melbourne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Population and Evolutionary Genetics Unit,
Museum Victoria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venomdoc.com

There are many difinitions to one word. The scientific difinition, and the common difinition. Then theres the common understanding. Your interpitation of venomous. Other academics interpitations. All slightly or radically different.

I imagine thats way there is a scientific dictionary and a general dictionary.

If there was one real difinition then there would be no problems. But thats not the case.

The public difinition is, if it causes no harm, its harmless(how simple is that) If it can kill or cause lots of harm, its venomous. Of course, legislators will use the "real"(the one that suits them) difinition. cheers

I would love to know how to get into this field of research. Is is mostly biotoxicology, biomedicine, toxicology, herpetology, or some other field of science? Do you know of any specific colleges that are well known for research of this type?
Also, I always approve of discovering new information. I think that it is all valuable whether we can see why or not.
Of course I am not an expert, but I do believe that with growth in knowledge, there must be growth in terminology. I know nothing of the sorts of appeals necesarry to instate new terminology or classification, but I feel it will eventually be necesarry to classify venom and/or use terms that immediately identify its potency. I imagine it would be necesarry to classify it into different groups for different reason. As far as preventing ignorant legislation, a classification based on threat to humans would make sure the information is put only to good use.
None of this is more than opinion. Just expressing myself.
Peace!

>>I would love to know how to get into this field of research. Is is mostly biotoxicology, biomedicine, toxicology, herpetology, or some other field of science?

It can be approached from many different angles as it is an inherently complex area. Best angle to approach it from would be the one that interests you the most as you'll then be more driven. Passion = fuel.

>Do you know of any specific colleges that are well known for research of this type?

There are many people at various universities around the world doing excellent work. This is more of a consideration for grad school. Undergrad education would not involve this as a major, rather you'd be taking generic courses so the overall quality and reputation of the University would guide the decision.

>>Also, I always approve of discovering new information. I think that it is all valuable whether we can see why or not.
>>Of course I am not an expert, but I do believe that with growth in knowledge, there must be growth in terminology. I know nothing of the sorts of appeals necesarry to instate new terminology or classification, but I feel it will eventually be necesarry to classify venom and/or use terms that immediately identify its potency.

Actually, the components we've been isolating from the varanid venoms are quite potent. The key is quantity and efficacy of delivery. People get too caught up on potential human effects, which is totally outside of the evolutionary context.

>I imagine it would be necesarry to classify it into different groups for different reason. As far as preventing ignorant legislation, a classification based on threat to humans would make sure the information is put only to good use.

We have gone to great pains to distinguish venomous from a technical classification and venomous from a human medical classification. This is no different than segregating various colubrid snakes into groups that are venomous but of only triivial human concern (most of them, e.g. garter snakes) and venomous from a medical perspective (such as Conophis, Dispholidus, Phalotris, Rhabdophis, Thelatornis).

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Venom Research Unit,
University of Melbourne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Population and Evolutionary Genetics Unit,
Museum Victoria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venomdoc.com