Theres nothing to stir, I think its been known since the late 1800's that hogs had large rear teeth and were mildly venomous, but not dangerous. As are so many other "harmless" snakes.

What seems to be lost is the definition of harmless. It becomes a bit of a choice. A hog bite or a medium to large boa, I would take a hog bite anyday. A hog bite or a large coachwhip or eastern black racer, again the hog. A hog bite or a friggin four foot or larger watersnake, hmmmmmmmm hog bite. A hog bit or a snapping turtle, hog wins again. A hog bite or a rosy boa, hmmmmmmm the boa wins this one, they don't have those extremely large rear teeth.

I am still waiting for someone to report a serious bite, like losing a finger, hand, arm or their life. Maybe the use of antivenom is telling. If antivenom is not required ever, then maybe hog bites are not considered dangerous or threatening. Or even harmful. Therefore, they are considered harmless.

Again, even the early descriptions of hogs, included the fact that they were mildly venomous/ toxic but not poisonous. Those terms are not exacting, so they are often interchangeable.

So are the terms Anery/e and axanthic. There is a real possibility that there are hogs lacking red and having yellow. Time will tell. Best wishes

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]