Reptile & Amphibian Forums

To my understanding, hognose are mildly venomous, is this correct? Is it harmful at all, i am thinking of getting a hognose and i was wondering about their venom issue. Also what is the difference of all the types (eastern, western, etc.) What would be the best type to get? About how much do they cost? What is their general care like? (temp, caging, feeding, etc) Do they ever bite?

Sorry for all the questions

thanks
-Eric-

Technically: yes, they are venomous. Should it be a deciding factor? No. Almost all bites are preventable because they are caused through carelessness (prey scent on hands). They ONLY bite from a feeding response. It should not be an issue unless you have are deathly allergic to stings (pure conjecture on my part).

Westerns are best, they are widely captive bred and readily eat mice more so than any of the others. As cheap as $30.

To learn more, scroll through this forum and come back often!
click here for the link

-----
...the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling it."
Aldo Leopold (1938)

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin and Hobbes (Scientific Progress Goes 'Boink', 1991)

their "venom" isn't really an issue unless you're a toad. they have a toxic saliva that could irriate you if you get bit, but this depends on the person. some people experience nothing at all. At its worse, you could compare it to a bee sting, slight swelling that goes down in a few hours. They have rear fangs that usually don't come close enough to the skin to catch you. However, you would be hardpressed to get one to bite. they might strike and bluff at you but they almost never open their mouths. Their care is pretty much like any other colubrid, except that they burrow more and don't get nearly as large as say kings or milks. As for the different species, get a western. Easterns can be a pain when it comes to feeding as they usually only take toads. they are also harder to find anyways. Southerns are very rare and cost a small fortune. Mexicans are just like westerns except for slight coloration differences and they cost a little more. If you want to know more go to hognose.com, you can find all you would ever want know there. goodluck

Yes they are venomous and it is a proper venom, not 'toxic saliva'. This is because venom evolved only once in snake evolution, at the very base of the advanced snake tree, long before any of the 'colubrid' snake families popped up. The hognosed snakes are in the Xenodontinae snake family, along with the Brazilian smooth snake (Hydrodynastes gigas), aka false water cobra (a totally inappropriate name since cobras don't occur in South America!).

The venom is rich in enzymes which means that it typically will cause little more than localised swelling (neurotoxins are present in only low concentrations) and it is produced in rather small amounts. Enough to help settle a toad down but not enough to cause severe reactions in humans.

Click on the link below for a recent paper by us that examined this venom as well as other 'colubrid' venoms.

Enjoy, they are cute little snakes.

Cheers
Bryan
Colubroidea snake venoms

-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

I really appreciate the contributions you make to this forum such as this...

The term "venomous" has some nasty connotations associated with it that certainly make MY ears perk up, especially when it comes to legislation that specifies venomous reptiles (i.e., prohibition, permitting, etc). Although Heterodon is not lumped into the category as "hot" (that I assume is a commonly accepted slang term for those reptiles that are truly life threatening), how do we go about separating those "cute little snakes" from ones that can truly put you down or rot a limb off? I am hoping that we can have better term to refer to them as so as to prevent any panic related lumping with the hots, especially by lawmakers.

While I have you on the line...
I have been doing a Heterdon literature research lately, and I have been collecting the toxicity related papers going back to Bragg's 1960 paper. From the book, Medical Herpetology (1994), the author cites W.G. Weaver (1965) who claims that vipers evolved from Heterodon and Xenodon. I find this fascinating (largely due to my lack of understanding of true evolutionary relationships, therefore I was suddenly enlightened), hogs are being described as protovipers. What is the modern thinking of this? Do you have an opinion? Should this have an effect on how we categorize them?
-----
...the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling it."
Aldo Leopold (1938)

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin and Hobbes (Scientific Progress Goes 'Boink', 1991)

>>I really appreciate the contributions you make to this forum such as this...
>>
>>The term "venomous" has some nasty connotations associated with it that certainly make MY ears perk up, especially when it comes to legislation that specifies venomous reptiles (i.e., prohibition, permitting, etc). Although Heterodon is not lumped into the category as "hot" (that I assume is a commonly accepted slang term for those reptiles that are truly life threatening), how do we go about separating those "cute little snakes" from ones that can truly put you down or rot a limb off? I am hoping that we can have better term to refer to them as so as to prevent any panic related lumping with the hots, especially by lawmakers.

Thats a very good question and one without an easy answer. They are venomous (as are virtually all other 'colubrids'). However, this should not be confused with dangerous. The vast majority of 'colubrids' are not dangerous despite being venomous. However, each of the 'colubrid' families has dangerous species within it. I think it should be on a genus by genus basis. If a genus has had a species located within with a well documented severe or even lethal envenomation, then entire genus by implication should be regarded as truly venomous. Philodryas is a good example of this, with fatalities having occured from bites. In contrast, the garter snakes have caused only minor localised reactions typically with only one neurotoxic envenomation having been recorded so this genus should be treated as harmless for legislative purposes. It is a process of education and preemptive maneuvers rather than letting the morons at PETA and API dictate the agendas. It is a similar situation to all spiders being venomous but only select ones being able to cause severe envenomations.

>>
>>While I have you on the line...
>>I have been doing a Heterdon literature research lately, and I have been collecting the toxicity related papers going back to Bragg's 1960 paper. From the book, Medical Herpetology (1994), the author cites W.G. Weaver (1965) who claims that vipers evolved from Heterodon and Xenodon. I find this fascinating (largely due to my lack of understanding of true evolutionary relationships, therefore I was suddenly enlightened), hogs are being described as protovipers. What is the modern thinking of this? Do you have an opinion? Should this have an effect on how we categorize them?

That thinking has been shown to be utterly wrong (ditto with the large teeth of Heterodon being used to deflate toads). The Viperidae family was one of the first off the rank amongst the advanced snakes while the Xenondontinae came much later.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

That was the info I was looking for, thanks.

I guess as hognose forum users, we should always answer questions like these as, Venomous? Yes. Dangerous? NO.

Question is now, do you consider the account in the following link to be a severe envenomation?
click here for the link

-----
...the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling it."
Aldo Leopold (1938)

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin and Hobbes (Scientific Progress Goes 'Boink', 1991)

>>That was the info I was looking for, thanks.
>>

I am firmly opposed to any blanket inclusion of all the different families of 'colubrids' into the category of venomous in regards to legislation. This would be an utterly assinine approach.

>>I guess as hognose forum users, we should always answer questions like these as, Venomous? Yes. Dangerous? NO.
>>

Exactly.

>>Question is now, do you consider the account in the following link to be a severe envenomation?

I would consider that to be about the maximum ability of a hognosed and certainly not life threatening and therefore not a severe envenomation. The localised effects were obviously rather 'interesting' but it was not life threatening nor was there permanent tissue damage.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

thanks for all the correct info. i read up on them a long time ago and just got confused as to the popular term of venom or toxic saliva. that link is nuts, i've seen pics of bites and it was nothing more than a , or at worse a swollen finger, nothing like that. my guy is getting a little more respect now......lol

Mr. Fry, on your website you mentioned getting cobra-type venom from ratsnakes. What species was this? Have you ever done studies with our NA rats (pantherophis)? What did you find?

Now the venomoid issue, I agree that hacking the glands out of a snake to accomidate a novice that shouldn't have it is wrong but one of the main defenses of the antivenomiod crowd is that crotilids rely on there venom to such an extent that they simply can't digest prey with out it. To me this seems a little extravigant, snakes are generally an adaptible thing. Do they truly rely on envenomation completly for digestion or can they make due without it.

Hi mate

>>Dr. Fry, on your website you mentioned getting cobra-type venom from ratsnakes. What species was this? Have you ever done studies with our NA rats (pantherophis)? What did you find?
>>

We looked at a pretty large amount of snakes, including representatives from as many of the families of 'colubrids' as we could. It appears that the common N. American ancestor of the clade that contains such snakes as Lampropeltis/Pantherophis/Pituophis underwent a secondary loss of the venom and reverted back to the more primative constricting condition. This is not unprecendented. Within the highly venomous elapids for example, two lineages of sea snake have independently begun the process of becoming non-venomous, they feed exclusively on fish eggs and have greatly atrophied venom glands and tiny fangs.

>>Now the venomoid issue, I agree that hacking the glands out of a snake to accomidate a novice that shouldn't have it is wrong but one of the main defenses of the antivenomiod crowd is that crotilids rely on there venom to such an extent that they simply can't digest prey with out it. To me this seems a little extravigant, snakes are generally an adaptible thing. Do they truly rely on envenomation completly for digestion or can they make due without it.

Predigestion is an interesting issue. I have seen even vipers, which do use the venom for predigestion, that we devenomised that did not have any apparent health problems, growing as rapidly as still venomous clutch mates. In captivity, most venomous snakes are fed dead prey and many do not even bother to envenomate anymore so predigestion is not as crucial of an issue. WIth the venomoid snakes, it comes down to two things: an emotive reaction about the snakes losing their 'mojo' and a very real concern regarding pain and suffering.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

ok, i was checking that link out again. he said he has had that snake for over 8 years and it's only 18 inches. then looking at the pic, the snakes head looks only slightly bigger than my yearling, which is only 9 inches. anyone else think that looks/sounds a little bogus?

>>ok, i was checking that link out again. he said he has had that snake for over 8 years and it's only 18 inches. then looking at the pic, the snakes head looks only slightly bigger than my yearling, which is only 9 inches. anyone else think that looks/sounds a little bogus?
-----
Chris Harrison