Reptile & Amphibian Forums

How venomous are FWC'c Ive heard everthing from like that of a hognose to timber rattller anyone have any first hand experience getting bit just would like to figure this out?

Hello

Cyclagras gigas is not an opistoglyphe! It is about a species opistodonte all as Heterodon spp.

The gland of Duvernoy is not therefore directly bound to the hooks. Only saliva is toxic.

Cordially, Thomas

False water cobras( Hydronastes gigas) are classified under Boiginae which includes Boomslangs, false corals and a bunch of other interesting snakes. False water cobras (Cyclagras gigas) are classified under Xenodontinae which does include Hognoses (though they are by no means a ssp.). Confused...you should be...as previous posts have pointed out, both are considered to be the same species of snake....(Did anyone check for a gland here?) It seems likely to be that Hydronastes is correct...As to the venom (which I have involuntarily been gifted with a dose of...It burns like bloody hell for a few minutes but (in my case) that's all there was....Frank

Personally, I know several people who are made themselves bite repeatedly without none problems (hollowing, it is not a proof) but according to a toxicologist's opinion that worked on the false cobra, he/it affirms to me that it is about an opistodonte presenting a hook on the superior maxilaire, but the gland of Duvernoy is not joined there.

Hollowing, the topic will remain difficult so much as a survey more deepened won't have been made.

Cordially, Thomas

Which is one of the reasons this is such a mess...There really needs to be some serious research done here. I think one should advise that...reguardles of the source...or how it is delivered...the effects are going to vary depending on a lot of factors-Venom allergy being the most important. That it can envenomate...I can attest. Though no big deal for a normal person, for someone who has an allergic reaction to venom, any bite is serious...Frank

All made okay, but personally, I always leave from the principle that a snake and more especially a Colubridae can represent a small risk if one reacts badly to saliva secreted by the gland of Duvernoy (of the cases of reactions one been signalled already with Thamnophis spp as well as some Elaphes).

Therefore the prudence imposes itself with all animal and in particular with the species little studied like that is the case here.

Cordially, Thomas

This snake venom allergy issue is very interesting. Classically, allergy development requires an initial sensitizing exposure (like envenomation). Still, the risk of anaphylaxis to snake venom seems to be a prevalent concern among venomous keepers, even those that have not been envenomated in the past. There indeed are some case reports describing allergic reactions following venomous snakebite, and a few of these involved first-time bites. I’m trying to learn more about snake venom allergies by surveying venomous keepers and / or individuals that regularly work with reptile venoms. Do you know anyone that is snake venom allergic?

While I agree that snake venom allergy presents a significant risk for a “bad” outcome following envenomation in people that are truly venom allergic, I don’t think this is generally applicable to everyone who keeps venomous herps. For the majority, the risk of death or permanent impairment is largely dependent on the species of snake and, perhaps more importantly, quick access to appropriate medical treatment. Patient-related factors (more common than venom allergy) that increase the risk for a bad outcome include extremes of age and significant heart / lung disease. People with these conditions may not tolerate heart rate and blood pressure fluctuations that may accompany a snakebite (or snake sighting, for that matter – I know of a fatality that involved an expressive hognose and an individual with significant coronary artery disease – the snake survived).

Cheers,
WK

Wish I could help you there but I seem to be the opposite. It is rare for me to show any symptoms after a bite...and then very minor. What is interesting is for example...Bee stings have no effect on me (except the sting hurts when it first happens), but for my two sisters...they can be life threatening. I am also immune to poison ivey...my sisters...no. Now there's a genetic riddle...
Have you tried contacting Bill Haast? I have heard (but am not confirming) that he has developed a sensitivity to hemotoxins. Good luck with your research.. Frank

You can still provide valuable data because you have been exposed to snake venom. Please e-mail me at wkhan@wfubmc.edu and I’ll give you some more info if you’re interested.

Thanks,
WK

If my computer behaves....................Frank

`False water cobras( Hydronastes gigas) are classified under Boiginae which includes Boomslangs, false corals and a bunch of other interesting snakes. False water cobras (Cyclagras gigas) are classified under Xenodontinae which does include Hognoses (though they are by no means a ssp.).'

What are your sources for this? All I've ever seen is that Hydrodynastes (=Cyclagras) is a xenodontine. And I don't think Boiginae is recognized at all, recently... Dispholidus and Boiga itself now being considered colubrines.

Patrick Alexander

Your source is probably newer than mine... I used THE ATLAS OF SNAKES (TFH), Bartetts R.AND A. OF THE AMAZON and a number of old and new texts from Ditmars and Pope to Lamar... One of the problems here is the contradicions between the various source materials...There apparently was confusion about the number of species (probably due to variation in early collected specimens and/or geographic distribution) or not in the early days resulting in not only two (or more)different species but also listing them in two separate sub-familys. Hydronastes and Cyclagas appear in a lot of old books with the ID photos mixed back and forth. Even in the "Atlas" the photos contradict earlier books. Someone really needs to publish a key to the genera and end this mess.
Can't say I'm up on the latest papers on the subject (I'm a layman)but with Fry's paper and what your telling me...sounds like another mess is being created. Personally, I don't think reclassifying rearfanged snakes as colubrines is a very good idea. Separation by dentation made sense...toxic saliva is very different from actually having the "D" gland. Also, one should remember that nothing in this world is cleanly separated..if you look hard enough, the in betweens are bound to appear.
The latest info is not always the best, especially in the world where localities and species have disappeared due to habitat distruction... Sometimes Valid old information is lost, or no longer confirmable. So I do try to look back...as well as forward. I will admit though that sometimes I wonder if the "Lumpers and splitters" do these changes just to keep busy. I'm still trying to wade my way through all the changes in Ratsnakes.......
I try to stay current. can you recommend some of these sources you refer to?
Frank

Hi mate

For the references on the reclassification, follow the refs in the LC/MS paper. If you don't have access to the papers listed, drop me an email and I'll send em to ya

As for the reclassification, it was based on genetics and reflects the true diversity. Classification by teeth shoe-horned a large number of utterly unrelated snakes into a totally artificial group. There are 'rearfangs' in all the non-front fanged families. Things are actually being sorted out slowly though and its a fascinting picture. The Atlas was pretty typical for a TFH job (crap but some nice pictures). As for toxic saliva, this doesn't exist and neither does the Duvernoy's gland. This gland is the same gland as the venom gland in atractaspids, elapids and vipers. Same toxins too.

Take care
B

I'm not a geneticist (tend to be of a more basic viewpoint ie: what you see is what you get)but I have always been uncomfortable with several snakes listed (in the old ref's) as "regular colubrids" Heterodon being one example. Probably much of what you mentioned was debated on this forum before I started reading itso I won't rehash. I will admit, I do have reservations about DNA classifications. How do you establish a "Norm" to define a species? What if the Holotype is actually an aberant specimen, or an intergrade? A breeder friend of mine-for example speculated that the "Brooks King holotype" might just have been a "Hypo" Florida. And there is that "new" Louisiana ratsnake. (I think the can of Worms is a big one). I will be picky enough to point out that toxic saliva does exist... saliva being by it's nature designed to break down tissue for the digestive process (thus people are Toxic-we all knew that...didn't we?)so one has to clearly define "What is a true toxin vs Venom". As to the gland...our friend at the start of this string might not be happy right now...
What is painful here is that my old (and expensive) library is quickly becoming obsolete (not just the TFH books). Will E you on that paper....Frank

Hi mate

>I'm not a geneticist (tend to be of a more basic viewpoint ie:
>what you see is what you get)but I have always been uncomfortable
>with several snakes listed (in the old ref's) as "regular
>colubrids" Heterodon being one example. Probably much of what you
>mentioned was debated on this forum before I started reading itso
>I won't rehash. I will admit, I do have reservations about
>DNA classifications. How do you establish a "Norm" to define a
>species?

Actually, with the 'colubrids' the differences are on the family level, with vast genetic changes between the lineages.

>What if the Holotype is actually an aberant
>specimen, or an intergrade?

DNA would certainly sort this out better than eyeballing. This is also why multiple specimens should really be examined in order to provide robustness.

> A breeder friend of mine-for example
>speculated that the "Brooks King holotype" might just have
>been a "Hypo" Florida.

If this was the case, then the DNA would have revealed this.

>And there is that "new" Louisiana
>ratsnake. (I think the can of Worms is a big one).

Can't comment on that since I haven't been following the finer nuances in Pantherophis.

> I will be
>picky enough to point out that toxic saliva does exist... saliva
>being by it's nature designed to break down tissue for the
>digestive process (thus people are Toxic-we all knew
>that...didn't we?)

LOL yes, you are being picky

>so one has to clearly define "What is a true
>toxin vs Venom".

Luckily with the 'colubrids' there is no ambiguity. We isolated the archetypal cobra-style toxin from a bloody ratsnake. The purified toxin was just as potent as comparative elapid toxins and with the same effect. Some of the crude venoms of various 'colubrids' we've tested have also been staggeringly toxic. Same toxins = same gland = true venom.

>As to the gland...our friend at the start of
>this string might not be happy right now...

Such is life. However, the key is this: while the vast majority of the 'colubrids' are putting out the same venoms as elapids, and just as toxic, not all are putting out large amounts (ie full-strength beer served in a thimble) and some are pretty inefficient at delivery (ie the bar wench spilled your drink all over the bloody counter). However, some are putting out large amounts and delivering it quite efficiently.

>What is painful here is that my old (and expensive) library is
>quickly becoming obsolete (not just the TFH books).

LOL! As has mine. Guess its time for me to get serious about writing the book.

Cheers
B
Venomdoc Homepage

Read you on that one..But the problem with Brooks and many others is that they were described long before DNA was a factor. With the wild population dwindling in many species it is becoming impossible to find a "norm". Basicly its the problem with too much civilization.......Frank

I hear you. One of the best lines I ever heard was when Dr. Tim Flannery was asked what the carrying capacity of Australia was for humans, he replied 'About 300,000 Aborigines'

Cheers
B

"Luckily with the 'colubrids' there is no ambiguity. We isolated the archetypal cobra-style toxin from a bloody ratsnake.The purified toxin was just as potent as comparative elapid toxins and with the same effect. Some of the crude venoms of various 'colubrids' we've tested have also been staggeringly toxic."

In what concentrations of archetypal cobra-style toxins are you finding in these harmless ratsnakes? ppm? It's funny how you emphasize how you found these so-called potent toxins in these ratsnakes but you fail to emphasize how these ratsnakes have never ever cause any envenomations and what quantites of so-called toxins were found in ther saliva? Did you test them on humans? If you did not test these toxins on humans your experiments really means nothing! You should know that research results obtained by in vivo and in vitro experiments should be interpreted with care because extrapolations from such experiments to the situation in humans oftens leads to wrong conclusions. Here's a few examples: if we were to test the toxicity of chocolate on dogs we would find that chocolate was fairly toxic to dogs but it's a known fact its not harmful to humans. Large doses of Sydney funnel web spider venom was injected into rabbits with no apparent effect but a small dose injected into a monkeys produces the terrifying effects seen in some humans(ref. Venomous Creatures of Australia,Dr. Struan K. Sutherland,page68). Do you want me to cite more examples?

" Same toxins = same gland = true venom."

Same toxins very small quantity = harmless ratsnake = known for years.

Frank, here's some recent papers on colubrid envenomation you might like to read. You notice how BGF never mention these papers and acts like there is hardly nothing known on colubrid envenomations LOL! Link to papers below. If link does not work go to www.dekker.com and look for Journal of toxicology: volume 21#1,2

Mr. X
Colubrid envenomations and other interesting articles

For some reason dekker.com website is having technical difficulties, so if it does not work for you now try back later.

Mr. X

>In what concentrations of archetypal cobra-style toxins are you finding in these harmless ratsnakes? ppm?

parts per million doesn't apply since we are not talking about pollutants in Sydney Harbor. Rather we are talking about secreted toxins. Proportional to the total content of the venom, ~ 70% of it in the radiated rat would be made up by the neurotoxins.

>It's funny how you emphasize how you found these so-called potent toxins in these ratsnakes but you fail to emphasize
how these ratsnakes have never ever cause any envenomations and what quantites of so-called toxins were found in
ther saliva?

Didn't I just do that with the thimble analogy?

>Did you test them on humans?
Thats a pretty silly question. Like we'd ever be able to get the ethics approval.

>If you did not test these toxins on humans your experiments really means nothing! You should know that research results obtained by in vivo and in vitro experiments should be interpreted with care because extrapolations from such experiments to the situation in humans oftens leads to wrong conclusions.

But not for modes of actions upon homologous receptors. The methods we used in testing these venoms are the exact same ones that we have used for sea snakes, death adders, taipans, etc. There of course would be variances in potencies by animal model but not in the mode of action upon a highly conserved receptor.

>Here's a few examples: if we were to test the toxicity of chocolate on dogs we would find that chocolate was fairly toxic to dogs but it's a known fact its not harmful to humans.

And what does that have to do with neurotoxins? Paracetemol is toxic to cats. This has more to do with different metabolic processes than the chemical itself.

>Large doses of Sydney funnel web spider venom was injected into rabbits with no apparent effect but a small dose injected into a monkeys produces the terrifying effects seen in some humans(ref. Venomous Creatures of Australia,Dr. Struan K. Sutherland,page68).

This is due to a fluke where primates are one of the few lineages that lack a circulating factor that coincidently neutralises the funnel web toxins.

> Do you want me to cite more examples?

Please do.

>" Same toxins = same gland = true venom."
>Same toxins very small quantity = harmless ratsnake = known for years.

Did I ever say radiated rats were harmful? This thread was more to do with the evolution of venom rather than the relative danger.

>Frank, here's some recent papers on colubrid envenomation you might like to read. You notice how BGF never mention these papers and acts like there is hardly nothing known on colubrid envenomations LOL! Link to papers below. If link does not work go to www.dekker.com and look for Journal of toxicology: volume 21#1,2

M5, have you even read the LC/MS paper? If so, you'll notice that there is a rather extensive reference list there on 'colubrid' venoms.

BGF

Thankyou both for not only supplying information but adding a good debate into the fray...I hold that facts should always stand up to the questions. Besides...this is more fun than Grammar lessons! Seriously though...Thanks again for the catchup material.
Frank

In what concentrations of archetypal cobra-style toxins are you finding in these harmless ratsnakes? ppm?

"parts per million doesn't apply since we are not talking about pollutants in Sydney Harbor. Rather we are talking about secreted toxins."

The term ppm is not only use to measure pollutants in water. Greenhouse growers frequently express the concentration of fertilizers in terms ppm. Ppm is a measurment of concentrations that is used where low levels of concentration are significat. The ppm value is equivalant to the absolute fractional amount multiplied by one million. This term give scientist a way to describe how much of a substance is contained in a sample.

"Proportional to the total content of the venom, ~ 70% of it in the radiated rat would be made up by the neurotoxins."

How many mgs of venom did these ratsnakes produce?

>Did you test them on humans?
"Thats a pretty silly question. Like we'd ever be able to get the ethics approval."

I knew you could not test the toxins on humans. The point I was trying to make is that without testing the venom on humans you will never know the true effects of the toxins on humans. There is to many factors and "flukes" involve when testing venom in the lab to come up with a final conclusion on how toxic the venom is on humans.

>If you did not test these toxins on humans your experiments really means nothing! You should know that research results obtained by in vivo and in vitro experiments should be interpreted with care because extrapolations from such experiments to the situation in humans oftens leads to wrong conclusions.

"But not for modes of actions upon homologous receptors. The methods we used in testing these venoms are the exact same ones that we have used for sea snakes, death adders, taipans, etc. There of course would be variances in potencies by animal model but not in the mode of action upon a highly conserved receptor."

So what! You did test on snakes we already knew had potent venom. I bet you most of the children in Australia could have told you that sea snakes, death adders and taipans have potent venom. What does that prove? You claim that neurotoxins make up 70% of raidated ratsnake saliva(venom). You would think at least one person would of had a reaction to the snake salvia but no reaction of any type has occur. This tells me that this test might have a major flaw.

>Here's a few examples: if we were to test the toxicity of chocolate on dogs we would find that chocolate was fairly toxic to dogs but it's a known fact its not harmful to humans.

"And what does that have to do with neurotoxins? Paracetemol is toxic to cats. This has more to do with different metabolic processes than the chemical itself."

Nothing, I never said chocolate had any neuotoxins in it. The point I was trying to make is that every animal reacts different to any given toxin. It does not really matter if the animal has a different metabolic processes, the toxin theobromine is what's killing the dog

>Large doses of Sydney funnel web spider venom was injected into rabbits with no apparent effect but a small dose injected into a monkeys produces the terrifying effects seen in some humans(ref. Venomous Creatures of Australia,Dr. Struan K. Sutherland,page68).

"This is due to a fluke where primates are one of the few lineages that lack a circulating factor that coincidently neutralises the funnel web toxins."

How many more flukes are there going to be?

> Do you want me to cite more examples?

"Please do."
I will have a list for you Monday or Tuesday

>" Same toxins = same gland = true venom."
>Same toxins very small quantity = harmless ratsnake = known for years.

"Did I ever say radiated rats were harmful? This thread was more to do with the evolution of venom rather than the relative danger."

The original person who started this thread asked " How venomous are FWC".

>The term ppm is not only use to measure pollutants in water. Greenhouse growers frequently express the concentration of fertilizers in terms ppm. Ppm is a measurment of concentrations that is used where low levels of concentration are significat. The ppm value is equivalant to the absolute fractional amount multiplied by one million. This term give scientist a way to describe how much of a substance is contained in a sample.

This is fascinaating and all but has absolutely nothing to do with venoms.

>How many mgs of venom did these ratsnakes produce?

On average about 1 mg per snake. However, you seem to be perpetually overlooking the fact that I have never said the ratsnakes would pose a problem. Similarly, you seem unwilling to concede that other species may be dangerous. Particularly in light of the fact that none of the existing antivenoms touch the venoms (we have tested this).

>I knew you could not test the toxins on humans. The point I was trying to make is that without testing the venom on humans you will never know the true effects of the toxins on humans. There is to many factors and "flukes" involve when testing venom in the lab to come up with a final conclusion on how toxic the venom is on humans.

Yes, however these toxins are homologous to the ones out of elapids. Same cysteine frameworks, same activities, same toxins.

> So what! You did test on snakes we already knew had potent venom. I bet you most of the children in Australia could have told you that sea snakes, death adders and taipans have potent venom. What does that prove?

Relative potency, receptor-subtypes targeted, novel modes of action, relative neutralisation by antivenom. This is for crude venoms as well as purified toxins. Not exactly on the lips of a child here in Australia. Your glib dismissal is way off the mark. For example, death adders were assumed to have only three-finger neurotoxins. However, our work showed that the venom is much more complex than that and we even showed that many of the death adder species actually have potent effects upon the blood chemistry. Similarly, in a different study we showed that some of the sea snake species can actually profoundly affect the blood chemistry. Neither of these effects were known previous to the studies (largely due to the relative rarity of bites in Australia).

>You claim that neurotoxins make up 70% of raidated ratsnake saliva(venom). You would think at least one person would of had a reaction to the snake salvia but no reaction of any type has occur. This tells me that this test might have a major flaw.

Just because its produced in subclinical levels doesn't mean its not there. Yet again, you are consistently ignoring the fact that I never stated radiated rats themselves would pose a problem. However, this doesn't negate the existance of the same toxins being in the venom. We have a paper coming out (referenced in the LC/MS paper) where we have isolated, fully sequenced and fully determined the pharmacological action of a three-finger toxin from the radiated rat. Same nicotinic receptor sub-type. Where this gets cute is that with some of the other genera which put out much more venom (and in much higher quantities), none of the existing antivenoms touch them. One of the next papers in the series goes into this. Wanna go a couple rounds with those sorts of snakes? Be my guest. Keep in mind that for the lesser known snakes, absense of evidence of significant bites is not evidence of absense of the capacity. Atheris were thought to be quite mild until a couple devastating bites (and some nice followup work by a German group) demonstrated nicely the profound effects upon blood chemistry. Subsequently, one of my students showed that this is also the case for Proatheris and further that Atheris squamiger is also quite nicely neurotoxic as well. This highlights that even commonly kept species with low incidences of bites can ultimately be shown to be much more dangerous than assumed. On the other hand, we stated in the paper that the full range of effects can be assumed as known for some snakes such as garter snakes which have been safely kept by 10s of thousands of people with only a low incidence of mild localised effects. However, there is a record of a clinically significant garter snake envenomation.

>Nothing, I never said chocolate had any neuotoxins in it. The point I was trying to make is that every animal reacts different to any given toxin. It does not really matter if the animal has a different metabolic processes, the toxin theobromine is what's killing the dog

So? What does this have to do with the existance of three-finger toxins in 'colubrids'? Yet again, where did I ever post that radiated rats themselves would pose a danger? This snake is no different than some genera such as Simoselaps (Australian coral snakes). They put out bugger all toxins but they are still there.

>How many more flukes are there going to be?

How long is a piece of string? These red herrings will not change the fact that the three finger toxins, PLA2s, and several other toxin types are ancestral to all of the 'colubrids' and are put out by the vast majority of them. It makes perfect evolutionary sense for venom to preceed the fang. You seem incapable or unwilling to accept this.

> I will have a list for you Monday or Tuesday

Please make sure that the list explains away the presense of potent toxins in colubrids.

"Did I ever say radiated rats were harmful? This thread was more to do with the evolution of venom rather than the relative
danger."

>The original person who started this thread asked " How venomous are FWC".

Yes but its moved on from there (as a paranthetical aside you may not have noticed that I have said on several occasions that FWC normally are not likely to produce more than localised swelling although a couple more several.

The key to the various other threads is that the discovery that the 'colubrid' venoms contain the same sorts of toxins as elapids. This changes the playing field dramatically. For the snakes that are putting out apprecible quantities of venom, this reveals them as potentially much more dangerous than previously thought. However, as carefully spelt out in the paper and in media statements, not all the snakes are. Seems like a fairly straightforward point to me.

BGF

It should have read:
------------------
However, our work showed that the venom is much more complex than that and we even showed that many of the death adder species actually have potent effects upon the muscles.
------------------

The references are:

Wickramaratna JC, Fry BG and Hodgson WC. (2003) “Species dependent variations in the in vitro myotoxicity of death adder (Acanthophis) venoms.” Toxicological Science 74(2): 352-360.

Wickramaratna JC, Fry BG, Aguilar MI, Kini RM and Hodgson WC (2003) “Isolation and pharmacological characterisation of a phospholipase A2 myotoxin from the venom of the Irian Jayan death adder (Acanthophis rugosus)” British Journal of Pharmacology 138, 333 – 342

Fry BG, Wickramaratna JC, Hodgson WC, Alewood PF,Kini RM, Ho H and Wuster W. (2002) "Electrospray liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry fingerprinting of Acanthophis (death adder) venoms: taxonomic and toxinological implications" Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 16:600-608.

BGF

How many mgs of venom did these ratsnakes produce?

"On average about 1 mg per snake. However, you seem to be perpetually overlooking the fact that I have never said the ratsnakes would pose a problem."

Why did you not just emphasize that most of the colubrids sold in the pet trade can only produce very small amounts of salvia. But instead you keep saying these snakes have venom that is just as potent as cobras and hardly ever mention the small amount they secrete. Why are you doing this?

"Similarly, you seem unwilling to concede that other species may be dangerous. Particularly in light of the fact that none of the existing antivenoms touch the venoms (we have tested this)."

No, I am not going to conduct a witch hunt. Most species of snakes that you are talking about have rarely cause any severe envenomation and most of the very few ever reported evenomation by these snakes were cause because some idiot let their snake chew on them for many minutes, one of these idiots even had time to take pictures while the snake was still chewing on his hand. What do you think would happen if somebody let a blue krait chew on their hand for 5 minutes? You seem unwilling to listen to people(Mr.Price,Frank)and many, many others who keep these snakes and will tell you they have been bitten many times and never had any serious reactions. You also fail to concede to recognize that many of these snakes have been keep for many years and are well known. Propagation has been achive at least to the second generation for Thrarops jacksoni(Ref. Breeding and Keeping snakes, Dr. Dieter Schmidt) and many other read fanged snakes. Why would you test antivenom on snakes that has never cause any fatalities or near life threating symptons? In my opinion these test are just plain silly and a waste of good antivenom. What are you trying to prove??

>You claim that neurotoxins make up 70% of raidated ratsnake saliva(venom). You would think at least one person would of had a reaction to the snake salvia but no reaction of any type has occur. This tells me that this test might have a major flaw.

"Just because its produced in subclinical levels doesn't mean its not there."

What's not there? The boogy man!

"Yet again, you are consistently ignoring the fact that I never stated radiated rats themselves would pose a problem. However, this doesn't negate the existance of the same toxins being in the venom. We have a paper coming out (referenced in the LC/MS paper) where we have isolated, fully sequenced and fully determined the pharmacological action of a three-finger toxin from the radiated rat. Same nicotinic receptor sub-type."

Yea, Yea, you told us this a million times! So what do want me to do?

" Where this gets cute is that with some of the other genera which put out much more venom (and in much higher quantities), none of the existing antivenoms touch them. One of the next papers in the series goes into this. Wanna go a couple rounds with those sorts of snakes? Be my guest. Keep in mind that for the lesser known snakes, absense of evidence of significant bites is not evidence of absense of the capacity."

Mr. Price, Frank and many others have been bitten by these snakes and had no serious reactions. How many rounds do we have to go?

"Atheris were thought to be quite mild until a couple devastating bites (and some nice followup work by a German group) demonstrated nicely the profound effects upon blood chemistry. Subsequently, one of my students showed that this is also the case for Proatheris and further that Atheris squamiger is also quite nicely neurotoxic as well. This highlights that even commonly kept species with low incidences of bites can ultimately be shown to be much more dangerous than assumed. On the other hand, we stated in the paper that the full range of effects can be assumed as known for some snakes such as garter snakes which have been safely kept by 10s of thousands of people with only a low incidence of mild localised effects. However, there is a record of a clinically significant garter snake envenomation."

I never thought Atheris would have a mild venom. Matter of fact I can't think of one front fang snake I would consider to have a mild venom. How long do you think it would take to determine if Atheris were dangerous if they were sold to children? Think about it. Don't you think that was a pretty silly comparison!

>Nothing, I never said chocolate had any neuotoxins in it. The point I was trying to make is that every animal reacts different to any given toxin. It does not really matter if the animal has a different metabolic processes, the toxin theobromine is what's killing the dog

"So? What does this have to do with the existance of three-finger toxins in 'colubrids'? Yet again, where did I ever post that radiated rats themselves would pose a danger? This snake is no different than some genera such as Simoselaps (Australian coral snakes). They put out bugger all toxins but they are still there. "

I don't see why you can't figure out what I mean. I will try one more time. Just because a lab animal reacts to a toxin, it does not mean a human will have the same reaction. Okay?

"Yes but its moved on from there (as a paranthetical aside you may not have noticed that I have said on several occasions that FWC normally are not likely to produce more than localised swelling although a couple more several.

The key to the various other threads is that the discovery that the 'colubrid' venoms contain the same sorts of toxins as elapids. This changes the playing field dramatically. For the snakes that are putting out apprecible quantities of venom, this reveals them as potentially much more dangerous than previously thought. However, as carefully spelt out in the paper and in media statements, not all the snakes are. Seems like a fairly straightforward point to me"

Why would this change the playing field dramatically? The ratio between the very large number of colubrids being kept as pets and the very few serious envenomtion cause by these snakes should prove to any rational person that these snake pose very little risk to humans. That's real proof not some hypotheses on paper! BGF, I think you need to take a break from the laboratory talk to real people who keep and work with these snakes and you will find that most(almost all) of these snake are harmless and never cause any serious enveomations. I think its funny how you acted like you discovered that Psammophis might be able to cause a serious envenomation, then admit you already new this was already known.

Posted by: BGF at Tue Sep 2 08:53:23 2003 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Actually larger specimens (ie adult Psammophis mossambicus) are looking very likely to be quite capable of very severe envenomations. They have a potent, very complex venom and some of the biggest bloody glands we've seen (including comparing to quite a large number of elapids).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: BGF at Tue Sep 2 16:10:21 2003 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Hi mate

Which is what I've been saying all along. However severe bites have been recorded for Psammophiinae such as Psammophis and Malpolon. This is discussed in the paper.

Cheers
BGF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: BGF at Tue Sep 2 16:13:42 2003 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Hi Tom

Have a read through the paper and you'll understand what we are trying to say. And yes, severe bites are on record for Psammmophis. I'll dig the exact references out when I get back (I'm in the field at the moment catching sea snakes).

>Why did you not just emphasize that most of the colubrids sold in the pet trade can only produce very small amounts of salvia.

I have for some species but with others we get staggering amounts. For example, 30 cm Telescopus dhara give 15 mgs. They get to 1.2 meters which means that they could potentially give over fifty milligrams. Their venom is as toxic as a death adder. The lethal dose for a death adder is around five milligrams.

>But instead you keep saying these snakes have venom that is just as potent as cobras

Which it is

> and hardly ever mention the small amount they secrete. Why are you doing this?

Actually, at ever turn I emphasise that it is very much a sliding scale. Ranging from low venom yields (ie radiated rats), to very high (ie. Telescopus), poor delivery mechanisms (e.g. Thamnophis) up to extremely efficient (Psammophis). The toxicities also vary, from low (e.g. Hydrodynastes) to extremely potent (some of the Boiga are actually as toxic as a death adder).

>No, I am not going to conduct a witch hunt. Most species of snakes that you are talking about have rarely cause any severe envenomation

In many cases, this is due to poor or only emerging availability on the pet trade. That is one of our key points, that only a relatively small percentage of the total number of colubrids have been sold on the pet trade and even less are commonly kept. Therefore, the number of unknowns is in the majority. Some of the snakes that are little known yet written up as harmless are actually potential worries. A good example is Maheyla (Cape file snakes). I have seen them written up as harmless yet they are one of the very few colubrids with muscles attached to the venom gland, this is the next step in the evolution and greatly increases the efficiency of the venom delivery (the boomslang is one of the others).

Where our work comes in is that we have shown that the colubrid venoms are actually as complex as elapids or vipers. This hadn't been known before and all intrepretations of the colubrids were done operating on the assumption that the colubrid venom was only a toxic saliva in most cases and had evolved independtly of the vipers and elapids. Thus, their venom gland was considered a different gland and named the Duvernoys gland.

What we have shown however for the very first time is that venom evolved only one time, preceeding all the advanced snake lineages, that the Duvernoys gland was actually the same venom gland as the vipers and elapids and that the very first venom (before even the vipers split off) was already complex and potent. Indeed, these ancestral toxins are still some of the dominant toxins found today.

One of the first evolutions after the vipers split off was the recruitment of the three finger toxins. This was long long before any of the colubrids and the elapids. The three finger toxins are the hallmark of elapid venoms and are the dominant toxin type in elapid venoms (the Type I phospholipase A2 toxins are the other major toxin type). We have shown that not only do all the colubrids have the ancestral toxins, they also have the three finger toxins and we also have evidence suggesting that the PLA2 toxins are also widespread across the colubrid venoms.

In the first toxin we purified (from the radiated rat, we chose this precisely because it is the archetypal non-venomous snake and the case point for a harmless snake), a three finger toxin, this toxin differed no more from the average cobratoxin than would any other elapid three finger toxin. It had the same molecular scaffold, same mode of action and comparative potency.

To rate the capacity of a venomous snake for a dangerous bite, you have three factors: venom potency, venom quantity, venom delivery. All are important. With the colubrids it was assumed that the venom potency was low, venom quantity was low and venom delivery inefficient. We have shown that the venoms are complex and the venom quantity much higher than anticipated. Two out of three. That leaves only venom delivery which has been shown to be highly variable, ranging from poor to as efficient as any elapid or viper.

> and most of the very few ever reported evenomation by these snakes were cause because some idiot let their snake chew on them for many minutes, one of these idiots even had time to take pictures while the snake was still chewing on his hand.

Right. Thats variable three up there. Some of the snakes really suprised us though in how efficient they were.

>What do you think would happen if somebody let a blue krait chew on their hand for 5 minutes?

Almost certain death of course.

>You seem unwilling to listen to people(Mr.Price,Frank)and many, many others who keep these snakes and will tell you they have been bitten many times and never had any serious reactions.

Actually thats what I guide my choices on for number three. Our advice was based upon available information (huge venom glands and very complex venom full of three finger toxins). The fact that they have had asymptomatic bites is good data yet severe bites have been recorded for those same species. Regional variation in potency has been well documented in elapids and vipers. In one of our studies, I showed that death adders actually vary five times in their potency when examined across the range. This has obviously significant implications for the potential amount of antivenom needed. This also is quite likely to occur in colubrids and in fact we showed significant subspecies level variations in Boiga venoms. From moderate ranging up to as toxic as the average elapid.

>You also fail to concede to recognize that many of these snakes have been keep for many years and are well known.

Our consistent point has not been so much with the snakes that have been widely kept, in fact quite to the contrary. We made this particular point clear in our reference to Thamnophis and the obvious safety of it.

> Propagation has been achive at least to the second generation for Thrarops jacksoni(Ref. Breeding and Keeping snakes, Dr.
Dieter Schmidt)

Progation is quite different than widespread keeping. We're breeding spine-bellied sea snakes... we're also the only ones keeping them! F2 generation could be as soon as three years. Yes but these snakes are consistently reported by their owners as having tremendously fast prey kill times and are almost universally treated by respect by long-term owners. This combined with the relative scarcity of these snakes in captivity would account for no severe bites being reported by owners.

> and many other read fanged snakes.

This 'many' is probably less than 10% of the total number of colubrids.

> Why would you test antivenom on snakes that has never
cause any fatalities or near life threating symptons?

For the obvious reason that in the event of such a bite, we'd like to know which antivenom works.

> In my opinion these test are just plain silly and a waste of
good antivenom.

Well, we now know that none of the existing antivenoms are likely to do any good. So, in the relatively unlikely event that you are bitten, you are screwed. Having to choose, I'd rather take another sea snake bite than have to go through a severe bite by a colubrid. I know from personal experience that sea snake bites truly suck.

>What are you trying to prove??

Lets see what have we proved so far:

Venom evolved once and was key adaptation in the evolution of snakes. This ancient venom was developed at the very beginning of the advanced snake (Colubroidea) evolutionary tree. Before even the basal viper split off. We worked out which of the toxin types studied to date were present in the first venom and therefore are present in the venom gland of just about all the colubrids. Cool.

>Yea, Yea, you told us this a million times! So what do want me to do?

Get the point that the colubrids have the same venoms as a cobra or death adder. To put things in perspective. During the course of this study (I milked over 2000 snakes just for this project, not counting milkings for other studies), I had one severely neurotoxic bite from a 2.2 meter Boiga dendrophila that really knocked me on my butt. The severe neurotoxic bite by a Coluber species to a pet store employee in Georgia as a much bigger suprise though. This was newly available African species and it didn't take long to announce itself. This was exactly our point in the article, that caution should be taken with previously unavaible species.

>Mr. Price, Frank and many others have been bitten by these snakes and had no serious reactions. How many
rounds do we have to go?

Thats useful data. No where did we state all would be dangerous. What we did state is that we don't know for the vast majority and that dangerous ones were certain to be within there. Therefore, caution should be excercised whenever working with a newly available colubrid. This was spelled out in the paper.

>I never thought Atheris would have a mild venom.

Being as that may, on the various forums and even in books they have been stated as having mild venom. Noone is in a hurry to get bitten by a venomous snake but more caution is nevertheless used around highly venomous species. Obviously someone will be more likely to be cavalier with an American copperhead than a saw-scaled venom. Similarly, here in Australia people take tremendous care around their inland taipans, having the most toxic venom of any land or sea snake, despite these snakes being extremely placid.

>Matter of fact I can't think of one front fang snake I would
consider to have a mild venom.

I can think of a couple but even so I wouldn't be in a hurry to get bitten by one.

>How long do you think it would take to determine if Atheris were dangerous if they were sold to children? Think about it. Don't you think that was a pretty silly comparison!

They were still considered venomous, just not as hot as an Echis for example and of course not sold to children.

>I don't see why you can't figure out what I mean. I will try one more time. Just because a lab animal reacts to a toxin, it does not mean a human will have the same reaction. Okay?

However, what I am saying is that we discovered that the colubrids have in their venoms the exact same toxins as well documented as causing lethal reactions in humans.

>Why would this change the playing field dramatically?

Because decisions were being guided by assumptions and oversights rather than evidence. Now we know how it all really evolved.

>The ratio between the very large number of colubrids being kept as pets

Our concern is not so much with the ones being widely kept as the full gamut of reactions would be known (as we demonstrated with Thamnophis, with very few neurotoxic bites on record and only one clinically significant). However,as demonstrated by the African Coluber, clinical level envenomations can emerge from unlikely sources. Only a very small percentage of colubrids have been kept and therefore there are a lot of unknowns. This means that with the next African country that opens up for the first time, there could potentially be colubrids with severe bites in there. This is a very plausible situation. Therefore, sensible caution should be used. Prey death is certainly a good indicator. Boomslangs logically kill their prey much faster than a garter snake would.

>BGF, I think you need to take a break from the laboratory talk to real people who keep and work with these snakes and you will find that most(almost all) of these snake are harmless and never cause any serious enveomations.

Actually, I spend about 1/2 my time out in the field in various countries actually collecting these snakes.

> I think its funny how you acted like you discovered that Psammophis might be able to cause a serious envenomation, then admit you already new this was already known.

I never said that. What I did say is that I discovered that Psammophis have a very complex venom (this was not known), that it contains the same sorts of toxins as a cobra (this had also not been known) and that they have huge venom yields (this also had not been known). Therefore, in light of this, the snakes certainly have to be looked at as 'proto-elapids'. In fact, thats exactly what they are. The Psammophiinae family actually sit at the base of the elapid tree. They are what a mamba or cobra was just before fangs. The Madagascar colubrid family (Pseudoxyrhophinae) are also all protoelapids in this regard. This all fundamentally changes the entire perception of venom evolution and which snakes should be regarded as venomous.

Cheers
BGF

>Why did you not just emphasize that most of the colubrids sold in the pet trade can only produce very small amounts of salvia.

I have for some species but with others we get staggering amounts. For example, 30 cm Telescopus dhara give 15 mgs. They get to 1.2 meters which means that they could potentially give over fifty milligrams. Their venom is as toxic as a death adder. The lethal dose for a death adder is around five milligrams.

>But instead you keep saying these snakes have venom that is just as potent as cobras

Which it is

> and hardly ever mention the small amount they secrete. Why are you doing this?

Actually, at ever turn I emphasise that it is very much a sliding scale. Ranging from low venom yields (ie radiated rats), to very high (ie. Telescopus), poor delivery mechanisms (e.g. Thamnophis) up to extremely efficient (Psammophis). The toxicities also vary, from low (e.g. Hydrodynastes) to extremely potent (some of the Boiga are actually as toxic as a death adder).

>No, I am not going to conduct a witch hunt. Most species of snakes that you are talking about have rarely cause any severe envenomation

In many cases, this is due to poor or only emerging availability on the pet trade. That is one of our key points, that only a relatively small percentage of the total number of colubrids have been sold on the pet trade and even less are commonly kept. Therefore, the number of unknowns is in the majority. Some of the snakes that are little known yet written up as harmless are actually potential worries. A good example is Maheyla (Cape file snakes). I have seen them written up as harmless yet they are one of the very few colubrids with muscles attached to the venom gland, this is the next step in the evolution and greatly increases the efficiency of the venom delivery (the boomslang is one of the others).

Where our work comes in is that we have shown that the colubrid venoms are actually as complex as elapids or vipers. This hadn't been known before and all intrepretations of the colubrids were done operating on the assumption that the colubrid venom was only a toxic saliva in most cases and had evolved independtly of the vipers and elapids. Thus, their venom gland was considered a different gland and named the Duvernoys gland.

What we have shown however for the very first time is that venom evolved only one time, preceeding all the advanced snake lineages, that the Duvernoys gland was actually the same venom gland as the vipers and elapids and that the very first venom (before even the vipers split off) was already complex and potent. Indeed, these ancestral toxins are still some of the dominant toxins found today.

One of the first evolutions after the vipers split off was the recruitment of the three finger toxins. This was long long before any of the colubrids and the elapids. The three finger toxins are the hallmark of elapid venoms and are the dominant toxin type in elapid venoms (the Type I phospholipase A2 toxins are the other major toxin type). We have shown that not only do all the colubrids have the ancestral toxins, they also have the three finger toxins and we also have evidence suggesting that the PLA2 toxins are also widespread across the colubrid venoms.

In the first toxin we purified (from the radiated rat, we chose this precisely because it is the archetypal non-venomous snake and the case point for a harmless snake), a three finger toxin, this toxin differed no more from the average cobratoxin than would any other elapid three finger toxin. It had the same molecular scaffold, same mode of action and comparative potency.

To rate the capacity of a venomous snake for a dangerous bite, you have three factors: venom potency, venom quantity, venom delivery. All are important. With the colubrids it was assumed that the venom potency was low, venom quantity was low and venom delivery inefficient. We have shown that the venoms are complex and the venom quantity much higher than anticipated. Two out of three. That leaves only venom delivery which has been shown to be highly variable, ranging from poor to as efficient as any elapid or viper.

> and most of the very few ever reported evenomation by these snakes were cause because some idiot let their snake chew on them for many minutes, one of these idiots even had time to take pictures while the snake was still chewing on his hand.

Right. Thats variable three up there. Some of the snakes really suprised us though in how efficient they were.

>What do you think would happen if somebody let a blue krait chew on their hand for 5 minutes?

Almost certain death of course.

>You seem unwilling to listen to people(Mr.Price,Frank)and many, many others who keep these snakes and will tell you they have been bitten many times and never had any serious reactions.

Actually thats what I guide my choices on for number three. Our advice was based upon available information (huge venom glands and very complex venom full of three finger toxins). The fact that they have had asymptomatic bites is good data yet severe bites have been recorded for those same species. Regional variation in potency has been well documented in elapids and vipers. In one of our studies, I showed that death adders actually vary five times in their potency when examined across the range. This has obviously significant implications for the potential amount of antivenom needed. This also is quite likely to occur in colubrids and in fact we showed significant subspecies level variations in Boiga venoms. From moderate ranging up to as toxic as the average elapid.

>You also fail to concede to recognize that many of these snakes have been keep for many years and are well known.

Our consistent point has not been so much with the snakes that have been widely kept, in fact quite to the contrary. We made this particular point clear in our reference to Thamnophis and the obvious safety of it.

> Propagation has been achive at least to the second generation for Thrarops jacksoni(Ref. Breeding and Keeping snakes, Dr.
Dieter Schmidt)

Progation is quite different than widespread keeping. We're breeding spine-bellied sea snakes... we're also the only ones keeping them! F2 generation could be as soon as three years. Yes but these snakes are consistently reported by their owners as having tremendously fast prey kill times and are almost universally treated by respect by long-term owners. This combined with the relative scarcity of these snakes in captivity would account for no severe bites being reported by owners.

> and many other read fanged snakes.

This 'many' is probably less than 10% of the total number of colubrids.

> Why would you test antivenom on snakes that has never
cause any fatalities or near life threating symptons?

For the obvious reason that in the event of such a bite, we'd like to know which antivenom works.

> In my opinion these test are just plain silly and a waste of
good antivenom.

Well, we now know that none of the existing antivenoms are likely to do any good. So, in the relatively unlikely event that you are bitten, you are screwed. Having to choose, I'd rather take another sea snake bite than have to go through a severe bite by a colubrid. I know from personal experience that sea snake bites truly suck.

>What are you trying to prove??

Lets see what have we proved so far:

Venom evolved once and was key adaptation in the evolution of snakes. This ancient venom was developed at the very beginning of the advanced snake (Colubroidea) evolutionary tree. Before even the basal viper split off. We worked out which of the toxin types studied to date were present in the first venom and therefore are present in the venom gland of just about all the colubrids. Cool.

>Yea, Yea, you told us this a million times! So what do want me to do?

Get the point that the colubrids have the same venoms as a cobra or death adder. To put things in perspective. During the course of this study (I milked over 2000 snakes just for this project, not counting milkings for other studies), I had one severely neurotoxic bite from a 2.2 meter Boiga dendrophila that really knocked me on my butt. The severe neurotoxic bite by a Coluber species to a pet store employee in Georgia as a much bigger suprise though. This was newly available African species and it didn't take long to announce itself. This was exactly our point in the article, that caution should be taken with previously unavaible species.

>Mr. Price, Frank and many others have been bitten by these snakes and had no serious reactions. How many
rounds do we have to go?

Thats useful data. No where did we state all would be dangerous. What we did state is that we don't know for the vast majority and that dangerous ones were certain to be within there. Therefore, caution should be excercised whenever working with a newly available colubrid. This was spelled out in the paper.

>I never thought Atheris would have a mild venom.

Being as that may, on the various forums and even in books they have been stated as having mild venom. Noone is in a hurry to get bitten by a venomous snake but more caution is nevertheless used around highly venomous species. Obviously someone will be more likely to be cavalier with an American copperhead than a saw-scaled venom. Similarly, here in Australia people take tremendous care around their inland taipans, having the most toxic venom of any land or sea snake, despite these snakes being extremely placid.

>Matter of fact I can't think of one front fang snake I would
consider to have a mild venom.

I can think of a couple but even so I wouldn't be in a hurry to get bitten by one.

>How long do you think it would take to determine if Atheris were dangerous if they were sold to children? Think about it. Don't you think that was a pretty silly comparison!

They were still considered venomous, just not as hot as an Echis for example and of course not sold to children.

>I don't see why you can't figure out what I mean. I will try one more time. Just because a lab animal reacts to a toxin, it does not mean a human will have the same reaction. Okay?

However, what I am saying is that we discovered that the colubrids have in their venoms the exact same toxins as well documented as causing lethal reactions in humans.

>Why would this change the playing field dramatically?

Because decisions were being guided by assumptions and oversights rather than evidence. Now we know how it all really evolved.

>The ratio between the very large number of colubrids being kept as pets

Our concern is not so much with the ones being widely kept as the full gamut of reactions would be known (as we demonstrated with Thamnophis, with very few neurotoxic bites on record and only one clinically significant). However,as demonstrated by the African Coluber, clinical level envenomations can emerge from unlikely sources. Only a very small percentage of colubrids have been kept and therefore there are a lot of unknowns. This means that with the next African country that opens up for the first time, there could potentially be colubrids with severe bites in there. This is a very plausible situation. Therefore, sensible caution should be used. Prey death is certainly a good indicator. Boomslangs logically kill their prey much faster than a garter snake would.

>BGF, I think you need to take a break from the laboratory talk to real people who keep and work with these snakes and you will find that most(almost all) of these snake are harmless and never cause any serious enveomations.

Actually, I spend about 1/2 my time out in the field in various countries actually collecting these snakes.

> I think its funny how you acted like you discovered that Psammophis might be able to cause a serious envenomation, then admit you already new this was already known.

I never said that. What I did say is that I discovered that Psammophis have a very complex venom (this was not known), that it contains the same sorts of toxins as a cobra (this had also not been known) and that they have huge venom yields (this also had not been known). Therefore, in light of this, the snakes certainly have to be looked at as 'proto-elapids'. In fact, thats exactly what they are. The Psammophiinae family actually sit at the base of the elapid tree. They are what a mamba or cobra was just before fangs. The Madagascar colubrid family (Pseudoxyrhophinae) are also all protoelapids in this regard. This all fundamentally changes the entire perception of venom evolution and which snakes should be regarded as venomous.

Cheers
BGF

read the last few redundant chapters of THIS IS YOUR VENOM-a soap opera... The same back and forth keeps going here....The real issue is not how many mgs of venom the corner petshop snake is going to give you. THE FACTS ARE NOT THE ISSUE! BGF I respect the work you did. But the problem has to do with the people who read these things and make laws. They don't care how benign a ratsnake is...and they don't have the knowledge or desire to interpret your reasearch objectively...They see VEOMOUS=DANGEROUS=NECESSARY BAN... Ray (I hate to say it) is right when he says that your research won't hurt you but it will hurt those of us who are not lucky enough to have Zoo connections.
In a perfect world your research would be used wisely to make sure the wrong snake doesn't get into the hands of the inexperienced. Unfortunatly...What you say does not matter because it is not what the powers that be choose to hear...And those are the consequences we all have to deal with. Sometimes Science for the sake of Science can be damaging in ways that were not intended...That is what people are trying to tell you.
Frank

Hi mate

I got all that quite well early on and I'll say the same thing I said then, I didn't cause the venom to evolve this way, I merely discovered it.

Regarding misinterpretation, all I can do is keep repeating the facts and stating that evidence based judgements should be made not emotive ones.

Cheers
BGF

Can appreciate the thought...But in order for the reasoning to work...all sides have to play fair and view the evidence without an agenda to predjudice their judgement. unfortunately...It makes for a stacked deck in this game mate...Frank

A little off topic, but I asked this a year or so ago and there was a litlle difference of opinion. Anyway, once I was bitten by a number of garter snakes that I had located together in a burrow under a log. Must have been 50 of them all together. I just picked them up and let them bite as I did in the past. At any rate, later I noticed a redness to the area and a slight burning along with an itching sensation in the area. I also developed a very bad headacke. I cleaned everything off and applied anticeptic to the area and took asprin. It wasn't until the next morning that the arear started to clear up and the headache dissappered. The question was, could this have been an envenomation or just a reaction to dirt etc.? Thanks for a reply. n

Cant say for certain about the headache (I'm no doctor), but the redness and itching are a pretty good arguement for a possible allergic response to the bites...You might want to get a medical opion on that.
Frank

Hi mate

The garter snakes have the same venom gland and also put out the same sorts toxins (three finger toxins, CRISP toxins and a heap of enzymes).

Neurotoxic envenomations have been recorded and a headache is consistent with neurotoxicity (I have gotten some rippers after Boiga bites and this is characteristic of them).

Itchiness and redness may be due to the big enzymes present (similar enzymes to those which cause the nice swelling in Heterodon bites).

As we mentioned in the article, despite being venomous the danger of Thamnophis bites is trivial, even multiple ones or prolonged chewing.

Cheers
BGF
Venomdoc Homepage

Read this discussion between Drs. Wuster and Frye

I didn't have a reaction at all. It just felt like any other snake bite. The girl chewed on my hand pretty good too, giving me a couple slashes in the process.

(I had just gotten her and was probing her with the help from a friend. I thought I had her head well restrained but she nailed me...then, got me again on the other hand when I tried to unhook her. Evidently, she didn't care for being violated. LOL!)

However, if you go to Patrick's FWC page, you'll see pictures of his bite. He did swell up and it looked awful. Just do a search for "patrick false water cobra" and his web page will be close to, if not the, first on the list.

My advice to anyone is to be careful. Just like bee stings, for some it may be deadly and for others, nothing. My friend that was helping me probe them used to breed them. He's been bitten on many occassions and also doesn't react.

FWCs are incredibly smart (as far as snakes go) and tend to check something out before they bite. As a precaution, I always feed mine frozen/thawed so that they don't associate warmth and movement with food. That instance above was the only time I have been bitten and I have 5 FWCs!

Hi mate

FWC are as toxic as an eastern diamondback rattlesnake. However, the estimated lethal dose of the EDB is around 100 milligrams. This is vastly more than a FWC would ever be able to inject. Have a read of a venom paper we just finished, there are refs to the FWC in there. I didn't include the spectrum for this species but it was largely similar to hognosed venom.

Cheers
B
Colubroidea snake venom paper