Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Alot of you might recognize my screen name, I've been doing alot of research into venomous herps for some time now trying to decide if it's something I'd like to get into before they ban it completely. To make a long story short I was looking at a L.D. 50 list and noticed it had copperheads higher on the list than eyelash vipers? Also, timbers ranked higher than russel's vipers? Am I reading this wrong, not understanding what I'm reading or what? Can anybody clear this for me?

Where did you see the list, maybe we can take a look at it and get an idea why you might be seeing things the way you are, sounds funny to me too!
-----
Tom
TCJ Herps
"The more people I meet, the more I like my snakes"

The ld 50 list on Dr. fry's site, venomdoc.com. Under sub-cutaneous it has the eyelash at 33.2 and the southern copperhead at 25.6. I was thinking it was because a copperhead may inject more venom than an eyelash but then I stared thinking that should have nothing to do with the ld 50. I'm lost.

...very few Copperhead, Timber, Russels or eyelash bites are simply subcutaneous. This implies that the venom travels primarily through, the lymphatic system...which is not likely with pit-vipers. They inject deeply, and you should look at intra-muscular or intrvenous LD 50 numbers. Subcutaneous is more appropriate for elapids with short fixed fangs (except in instances such as taipans or king cobras or death adders, which all have long fangs for elapids).

MCH

Matabuey Home Page.

Intravenous injection is of course rare.
The other two methods vary so much it is hard to judge what will happen, just as it is hard to judge if the snake will bite dry or not.

Consider that alot of us have a lot more subcutaneous tissue than normal, even gaboon vipers would have to be lucky to get IM.
While on the other hand, myself for example, have a hard time keeping weight on, thus an IM injection is quite likely with many snakes.

All in all, when choosing a snake, go with what fascinates you most, while choosing from the species you are capable providing for. From mangrove to tiapan, recieving a bite is not an option, right? The security net is antivenom and having a snakebite protocol previously laid out.

Just my opinion of course,

Matt's correct with his accessment but I would like to add to his comment.

Too many people use the LD50 #'s as an exact value, it's not, it's just a guideline to quantify relative toxicity between species. These trials are done on mice, a normal prey species to some of these snakes, therefore one should expect they would be sensitive to these venoms. In the lab trials on mice it's very difficult to ensure that injections of venom end up in the right place. Try doing Subq,IP, IM and IV injections on mice sometime yourself. Thus some of the data might be slanted, that's why they use hundereds of mice to paint an accurate picture. Trying to apply this data to human snakebite, just doesn't work to well because of too many variables when humans enter the equation.

LD50's really only takes into account the systemic lethality of a venom but not the local effects a human might encounter.

You have a better chance of keeping all your finger with a Copperhead (Agkistrodon) bite than you do with an eyelash viper (Bothriechis schlegelii) bite. I've tasted "horridus" venom, that was bad enough.

Cheers!
Al
-----
Save a Rattlesnake...Skin a Sweetwater Resident!

Who cares?? LD50 means nothing unless you are a line bred mouse that is sure to be injected with venom a certain way.

I suggest reading real actual case histories where human beings were envenomated (by actual snakes), rather than what a certain species can do to a mouse under controled situations.
-----
Chad Bachman

Hey Chad...

Where were you before I wrote all of that out...LOL

You did sum it up nicely.

Cheers Mate!

Al
-----
Save a Rattlesnake...Skin a Sweetwater Resident!

You would imagine a person would stand up to a bite much much better than a 3 ounce mouse. I realize there are alot of factors involved that testing on mice can't take into consideration. I just thought it was interesting to see where some stacked up on the list and suprising to see where other were. Also, one could make the argument why test cancer drugs on lab mice and rats if it holds no value? Granted, it goes alot farther than just testing on mice and rats in a case such as that, but it is a start which has to say something.

Also, keep in mind that LD50 only takes into mortality in the first 24 hours which might miss longer term problems like organ damage.