Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This is regarding the perspective that small venomous snakes are more deadly than large ones...
It seems an unreasonable conclusion to say such a thing, as larger snakes have longer fangs and larger glands. (Then again, it seems to me younger rattlers tend to be overly excited when confronted, and perhaps their invigorated fear makes them more likely to "go for the kill".)
I quite often argue the point that bigger snakes are more deadly and venom purity is a non-issue, since quantity and depth of delivery would be more influential in the outcome. Consequently, if I had my druthers, I'd druther be bitten by a small snake than a large one.
Is there anything to the "venom purity" argument? (Within a species of course, not regarding mamba/cobra/taipan comparisons etc...) I seem to remember reading in Klaubers' book "Rattlesnakes" that snake venom was anything but pure...?

Snake venoms are anything but pure. Most of them contain many different components and some of these are toxic to man. For instance, in the common tiger snake venom, Notechis scutatus, there have been at least 6 neurotoxins described. There are several haemotoxins, 2 interfering with activation of the clotting factors and some weak haemorrhagins. Some of the neurotoxins also cause muscle damage. There are also toxins which can cause a drop in blood pressure in this venom.
There are also many components in most venoms that are still uncharacterised. It is the combined effect of all the components in snake venoms that gives it its overall toxicity.

:

The small younger snakes have a more potent venom.
so they can take down the prey faster a bigger older snake has a slightly weaker venom but it has a greater volume to deliver.
so it is still better to be bit by a smaller snake.
depending on the species some are capable of a fatal bite at birth.
this help?
bud

: