Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The link attached makes some provacative statements. Sure to cause dismay among us herpers. So you suppose there is any truth to it? http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3407

"So you suppose there is any truth to it?"

Well, yes and no. Yes, the study is real. Dr. Fry did find Cobra like venom in "old world" Ratsnakes(Elaphe), produced in their Duvernoy Glands. No, it doesn't mean ALL snakes are venomous. Lampros (Kings and Milks), Panthers (Corns and N.A. Rats) , and Pits (Bull and Pine) don't have Duvernoy Glands. So, this study wouldn't apply to them. I don't think Boids have Duvernoy Glands either? It's been known for awhile that Garters and Hognoses are "somewhat" venomous. Just because a snake has venom doesn't mean it's dangerous to humans.
-----
Ace

>>"So you suppose there is any truth to it?"
>>
>>Well, yes and no. Yes, the study is real. Dr. Fry did find Cobra like venom in "old world" Ratsnakes(Elaphe), produced in their Duvernoy Glands. No, it doesn't mean ALL snakes are venomous. Lampros (Kings and Milks), Panthers (Corns and N.A. Rats) , and Pits (Bull and Pine) don't have Duvernoy Glands. So, this study wouldn't apply to them. I don't think Boids have Duvernoy Glands either? It's been known for awhile that Garters and Hognoses are "somewhat" venomous. Just because a snake has venom doesn't mean it's dangerous to humans.

None of the primitive snakes (blind snakes, pipe snakes, boas, python etc. have any trace of venom. However most colubrids do, the North American lampropetine radiation being one of the few exceptions. Some of these venoms are highly potent, and a few colubrids have very large amounts of them, so there are certainly some species out there which may just be a lot more dangerous than we realise at the moment.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

This paper has resulted in a mixed blessing at best. While one cannot dispute the physical evidence of the gland, it has also resulted in many TOTALY HARMLESS snakes being placed in doubt. While I respect the work that went into the paper, personally I don't find the value of the small percentage of snakes that this information suggests "possibly" could be harmful to balance the cost of the questions that now are posted about a large amount of snakes that over many years keeping have proved safe. It's a question of where do you draw the line. Under the right circumstances even a Kitten could kill a man. Sometimes pure science Can do more damage than good.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

as a negative against the keeping of snakes by ordinary folks. So many States and localities are passing laws restricting the keeping and selling of these fabulous animals. Seems to me that this kind of paper would be an excellent argument against those of us who enjoy collecting and breeding. I hope that is not the case.

>>This paper has resulted in a mixed blessing at best. While one cannot dispute the physical evidence of the gland, it has also resulted in many TOTALY HARMLESS snakes being placed in doubt. While I respect the work that went into the paper, personally I don't find the value of the small percentage of snakes that this information suggests "possibly" could be harmful to balance the cost of the questions that now are posted about a large amount of snakes that over many years keeping have proved safe. It's a question of where do you draw the line. Under the right circumstances even a Kitten could kill a man. Sometimes pure science Can do more damage than good.

The paper presented new results of evolutionary research into the origin of venom. This is something scientists have been puzzling about for a prolonged period of time, so the new information was certainly of scientific interest. What exactly should we have done with it? Suppressed the data because it might inconvenience someone??? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The whole point of this is not to say that your king/garter/corn snake is dangerous - tens of thousands of people have kept them safely, so they clearly aren't.

However, the simple fact is that there is a large number of colubrids out there that may cause dangerous bites on very rare occasions. The problem with any of the venomous colubrids is that only a small minority of bites are actually symptomatic. That means that you need a very extensive history of husbandry of the species to be certain that you know the full envelope of the species' capacity. In other words, "I've been bitten twice and nothing happened" does not count for anything. For instance, there was a recent bite to a pet shop employee by Coluber rhodorhachis that caused extensive neurotoxic symptoms - there is nothing whatsoever in the literature on this snake that suggests that it would be capable of causing anything more than swelling. There are other species out there like that, and that's we are urging caution with the *less well-known* colubrids, i.e., those not in amss husbandry: somewhere out there, there will be another boomslang, or another Rhabdophis (the cute Asian "garter snakes" that were popular as pets in the 70s, until a number of keepers came close to dying from bites due to massive hemorrhages), and with the current legislative climate, it will be vastly better for the herp hobby to take sensible precautions with poorly-known colubrids than to face headlines along the lines of "12 year-old killed by "harmless" pet snake" - no prizes for gessing what will happen to herpetoculture then.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

I agree with you 100%. I dont think anyone should really worry. I found it most interesting since my favorite Rat Snake are the Russians. Does this article mean I handle them less, nope! I will find the article again so I understand it better for my own knowledge Randy

Something I learned as a small boy. Honesty only works if the rest of the world is honest. In a perfect world I would agree with you Wolfgang. I was one of the people that was bitten by Rhabdophis (and by luck did not get envenomated) so your point is not lost on me.
However, we are in a time when powerful groups (particularly in the USA) are looking for reasons to take away our right to keep reptiles. These people are not above using your information as ammunition to prove ALL SNAKES are dangerous,and should not be in private hands. The problem being, that most people (and politicitians too) lack the education and/or desire to properly interpret what the paper says. In this country a boy gets bitten by a common gartersnake and almost dies...It made national news back in the seventies. Somehow the fact the thousands upon thousands get bitten by the same species with no ill effects whatever was never reported.
There is no doubt that knowing which snakes are potentially harmful is important, but having read the paper you would need a strong background in Toxinology to be able to pick those from the rest. At that, many of the snakes with dangerously potent venom lack the ability to deliver sufficiant quantities to make them worthy of concern.
If you really wanted to accomplish your motive then I suggest that you go back and do the research as to which snakes actually do present a threat of serious envenomation, because as it stands now, people who have heard of that paper are asking me if a 8" ringneck is dangerous! I also have seen several comments injected refering to that paper (by it's authors) refering to 3 finger venoms but not qualifying on a case by case basis the actual danger potential of the species discussed (namely,whether it can even deliver that venom).
The arguement about only having been bitten twice... only applies to the rarest of species. I have been bitten (with minimal effect) by dozens of so called dangerous rearfangs repeadedly over the last thirty odd years. Makes me wonder when someone plays up their danger..
I do not favor repressing knowledge. But here is the flip side of the blessing. I am sure the people who did the first research on Atomic energy did not antisipate it's use as a weapon. Wisely, every effort has been made to suppress that knowledge. It is a question of motives. Gun powder was first used to make fireworks for amusement.
Scientists seek knowledge for the sake of learning and frequently it is coupled with the desire to improve man's lot. But knowledge has consequences and too frequently the scientist does not consider that issue. I do not say that it was wrong to write the paper...But the sad truth is that the publicity in this case IS doing more harm than good. And that is my point and the simple truth of it.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

To clarify a point....I was refering to an American (Florida) ringneck Diadophis p.punctatus in the above post.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Ace is right, all spiders are venomous but not all are dangerous. That seems really interesting though.
-----
People Who Say Money Can't Buy You Happiness Obviously Didn't Know Where To Buy A Herp

2.0 Corns (CC & Norm: Peppermint & Guttata)
1.0 Ball Python (Norm: Ade)
0.1 Cali Kingsnake (Norm: Lady Macbeth)
1.0 Bearded Dragon (Yellow x Gold: Vito)
0.0.1 Leopard Gecko (Norm: Pardus)
0.0.1 Marbled Gecko (Norm: B.B.)

I have also read in a old jounal that some old world elaphe are "venomous". It caught my eye becouse one of the snakes studied was the Russian Ratsnake (Elaphe Schrencki)which I keep. I cant imagine a Russian biting you, I've never kept a more docile snake. Now I'm going back to the Library to read the article again. Randy