Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi Wolfgang,

I have been spending a multitude of hours visiting the University of Adelaide Toxinolgy Resources Website while researching various venomous snake data.

I was very pleased to find that even N. mandalayensis and N. nubiae were included.

It was suprising to find that N. sagittifera was omitted, or possibly this an was oversight.

Since I am not a professional, it would not be appropriate for me to Email them even though the site indicated that contact should be made when species omissions occur.

I think it would outstanding if all twenty species of Naja were covered in lieu of nineteen.

Cheers,

Derek K.

Hi Derek

>>I was very pleased to find that even N. mandalayensis and N. nubiae were included.
>>
>>It was suprising to find that N. sagittifera was omitted, or possibly this an was oversight.

They've listed it under N. kaouthia, with the comment that " NB Some authors recognize Andaman Island specimens as Naja sagittifera ( Wall, 1913 ). Specimens collected have 60 or more subcaudals."

Considering how little is known about N. sagittifera, it's almost forgiveable... after all, they are only toxinologists

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW

WW Home

Well,

I should have known better; that following up on a hunch is imperative when doing research !

Reason: I read the following in Dumerilia Volume 3 Les serpents venimeux du monde: systematique et repartition previously, and didn't recheck "ALL" the data listed for N. kaouthia in the Toxinolgy Resources Website:

WUSTER et al. (1995b) raised this taxon, previously considered a synonym of Naja naja or " Naja kaouthia" to specific status.

Thank you for taking the time to point out my unexcuseable oversite.

Cheers,

Derek K.