# Poisonous or Venomous



## saximus (Mar 9, 2011)

Does it annoy anyone else when snakes are described as "poisonous" or am I just too picky?


----------



## Wild~Touch (Mar 9, 2011)

Venomous is correct 

It is only through lack of education that the word poisonous is used when referring to snakes

Cheers
Sandfee


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

You are a little bit picky... I've picked up on that.... Was it the 'toad' thread where someone mentioned venoms/toxins - but when in relation to a toad it is most definitely toxins...

But I guess you can remember this - ALL venoms are poisons, but not all poisons are venoms....

By their very definition a venom is still poisonous (depending on who to) but its method of administration is different.

With Australian snakes, it would be possible to drink the venom of a taipan... So long you had NO cuts in your gums, tongue, cheeks, or anywhere the venom passes over - of course I wouldn't risk it!


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Yep use both words doesn't matter.


----------



## Fuscus (Mar 9, 2011)

MY Standard reply 


> There are no poisonous snakes in Australia, they are all safe to eat


----------



## reptilesrkool (Mar 9, 2011)

i got told by a person doing a snake show in primery school the venomous is when it bites u and poisonous is if u bite it


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Venom is a poisonous substance administered through a snake bite, therefore Australian Elapids are poisonous. it really doesn't matter we all know what the other means and anyone who cares is just being anal


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

steve1 said:


> Venom is a poisonous substance administered through a snake bite, therefore Australian Elapids are poisonous. it really doesn't matter we all know what the other means and anyone who cares is just being *anal*


 
Cloacal - it's cloacal... 

Australian elapids are venomous, not poisonous. You could eat smother all over your skin, inhale (perhaps) an Australian elapid - but you could not inject one... Hmmmm or it's venom... Which incidentally, as I pointed out in a previous post, the venom is completely harmless when ingested, UNLESS you have a cut in your mouth....

And NO... I wouldn't try it... Because I could not guarantee I did not have a cut in my mouth!


----------



## saximus (Mar 9, 2011)

steve1 said:


> Venom is a poisonous substance administered through a snake bite, therefore Australian Elapids are poisonous. it really doesn't matter we all know what the other means and anyone who cares is just being anal


 Venom is a TOXIC substance administered through a bite/sting. 
Poison is a TOXIC substance that is absorbed through the skin or ingested
Like you said I am admittedly being cloacal P) about it but it's just one of those silly things that annoys me


----------



## hugsta (Mar 9, 2011)

saximus said:


> Venom is a TOXIC substance administered through a bite/sting.
> Poison is a TOXIC substance that is absorbed through the skin or ingested
> Like you said I am admittedly being cloacal P) about it but it's just one of those silly things that annoys me


 
Not really being fussy as it is what it is. They are two totally different things, then end result is you end up poisoned, but the method of which you get it is totally different and is not the same. Therefore you are not being anal. No different to people saying reptiles hibernate when they actually brumate, there is a difference between the two.


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

My understanding is this: venomous animals ACTIVELY use their venom to subdue their prey and in defence (e.g. venomous snakes, wasps, cone-shell, spiders, box jellyfish, etc.). Poisonous animals use their toxins / poisons (the same thing) PASSIVELY. Victims are affected when the animal is stood, eaten or by some form of contact with skin. (e.g. cane toads, pufferfish, stone-fish, poison-arrow frogs, etc.).


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

posted before, and considering that the word itself comes from the Latin for poison I think they are the same thing


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

They can't be the same thing....

For one - a venom is a poison, but a poison is not a venom...

Ok... How about this then... (so off topic, but maybe you need it to see the light) - ALL cactuses are succulents, but not all succulents are cactuses!

The method of administration is completely unique - there is no way that both are the same thing - and it's not a small technicality... You could rub poisonous inland taipan venom all over your body, so long your body has no cuts on it, the venom will not be able to poison you.

Now if you did the same thing with (let's say) bleach (very high concentration) you'd end up with chemical burns, inhalation problems, and probably death... 

So how can they be the same thing?

Of course, if a snake had bleach venom - then the method of administration will dictate how someone had died - ie, they were poisoned (external, inhalation, ingestion) or envenomated....


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

OK slim, I should said "animal toxins" and "animal poisons". Better?


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> OK slim, I should said "animal toxins" and "animal poisons". Better?


 
Ummmmmm.... Well, ok, if you want.... I wasn't actually referring to your posts Michael... but never-the-less 

To be perfectly honest I thought your post summed it up nicely... The differences between administration... I was more referring to Steve1's post...


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

slim6y said:


> Ummmmmm.... Well, ok, if you want....



I forgot why I used to hate school teachers as a child.


----------



## SouthernSon (Mar 9, 2011)

i think u just need to sort ur life out and get over it. if somthing that pointless gets under ur skin. u need to re think your love of herps and if your in it for the right reasons.


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

and u need 2 learn 2 rite. ur not on a mobile here.


----------



## SouthernSon (Mar 9, 2011)

ima more learn by doin kinda guy


----------



## saximus (Mar 9, 2011)

Something that also gets under my skin is people who can't work out which "your" or "you're" to use in which situation but that's a topic for another day . I welcome constructive input on this topic but please don't question my love of herps. They are mutually exclusive concepts


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

SouthernSon said:


> ima more learn by doin kinda guy



You're really making a lot of sense here. Huge improvement!


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 9, 2011)

SouthernSon said:


> i think u just need to sort ur life out and get over it. if somthing that pointless gets under ur skin. u need to re think your love of herps and if your in it for the right reasons.


 
All people are trying to do is raise the standard of the technical debate on venom vs toxin. Venoms are toxins, but toxins may not be venoms. If your working with these things they're a mile apart in meaning. If you're the kind of person who doesn't give a toss, that's fine. But for those who want to learn, and refine their knowledge, you should give them the space to do so.

J


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Slim you are contradicting yourself. The word venom has more to do with the method of delivery rather than the substance. You yourself said that all venoms are poisons therefore how can it be incorrect to describe a snake as poisonous. I agree that the term venomous is a better description to use, but poisonous is satisfactory and correct.

I should have just looked up poisonous before venomous
View attachment 189756


----------



## adderboy (Mar 9, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> If your working with these things they're a mile apart in meaning. If you're the kind of person who doesn't give a toss, that's fine. J


 
Quick, Jamie, correct your typo or a ton of bricks will descend upon you!


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Jamie, could you please elaborate a bit on the comment Adderboy has just quoted.


----------



## Dannyboi (Mar 9, 2011)

SouthernSon said:


> i think u just need to sort ur life out and get over it. if somthing that pointless gets under ur skin. u need to re think your love of herps and if your in it for the right reasons.


Not necessarily things get under people's skin for a reason. Take me for example I hate it when people say PIN number or ATM machine. Venomous sounds much more appropriate when talking about snakes and other organisms that have a specialised delivery system.

Put it this way would you say poisonous or venomous berries?


----------



## Sdaji (Mar 9, 2011)




----------



## saximus (Mar 9, 2011)

lol that was always one of my favs Sdaji


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

berries don't contain a poison that is delivered via a sting or bite, snakes do, so the berry argument is void. Plenty of people say snakes are poisonous and are correct in doing so. Why would anyone refer to a berry as venomous?


----------



## -Peter (Mar 9, 2011)

Venom is a subset or group within the overarching category of poison. As such you may refer to snakes being poisonous but you may not refer to oleander as venomous.

Thats it, no more discussion. Any abherence from this is wrong.

For the record, I keep venomous snakes and lock the poisons cabinet. Its neater that way.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 9, 2011)

Oops... YOU'RE sharp eyed there Adderboy!

Steve, you're wrong I'm sorry to say. The berries you mention are POISONOUS because if you eat them you die. Snakes are not POISONOUS because you can eat a VENOMOUS snake and not die, or suffer any ill effects at all. A snake is only POISONOUS if, when you eat it, it makes you sick because of the toxins in its tissue. You can drink a cup of Inland Taipan VENOM and not be POISONED! (although you'd be silly if you did, it's worth far more than gold as dry weight...)


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

The argument is becoming trivial. "People" may say sakes are poisonous and get away with it. We, on the other hand should be using the correct terminology and in most cases we do. 

I can be very poisonous when I got the s*&^%, the venom oozes out of me ... but I don't bite.


----------



## saximus (Mar 9, 2011)

lol Michael this is exactly why it annoys me. People on here should know better. Of course everyone knows what you're talking about when you talk about a "poisonous" snake but that's not the point


----------



## Dannyboi (Mar 9, 2011)

steve1 said:


> berries don't contain a poison that is delivered via a sting or bite, snakes do, so the berry argument is void. Plenty of people say snakes are poisonous and are correct in doing so. Why would anyone refer to a berry as venomous?


And vise-versa with snakes.


----------



## Tristan (Mar 9, 2011)

I think its pretty simple my self. 
Toxin - any substance that can cause harm 
Poison - a toxin that causes its effect through ingestion or absorption
Venom - a toxin that causes its effect through administration via a specialized delivery system.

Example! Tetrodotoxin is a toxin that can be a poison or venom. It is a poison in puffer fish, causing its effect when tissues from this fish are eaten. It is venom in the blue-ringed octopus, being stored in salivary glands and delivered into a wound caused by the beak of the octopus.
Thus, snakes are venomous since the toxin is delivered via specialized apparatus while poison arrow frogs are poisonous since the toxin is absorbed.

and i agree with Michael, that people don't need to get "upset" when some one confuses the two but we on the forum should be encouraging others to use the correct meaning in the correct instance.

and to more directly answer the opening post question, i Personally don't get up set but if i can be bothered i will explain the difference between the 2.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> Oops... YOU'RE sharp eyed there Adderboy!
> 
> Steve, you're wrong I'm sorry to say. The berries you mention are POISONOUS because if you eat them you die. Snakes are not POISONOUS because you can eat a VENOMOUS snake and not die, or suffer any ill effects at all. A snake is only POISONOUS if, when you eat it, it makes you sick because of the toxins in its tissue. You can drink a cup of Inland Taipan VENOM and not be POISONED! (although you'd be silly if you did, it's worth far more than gold as dry weight...)



No need to be sorry. But I believe and have supplied dictionary definitions to back it up, that snakes are still poisonous. You can eat snakes because the delivery method of snake venom/poison differs from that of the absorption method that plants have developed. I say snakes are venomous because it is an accurate term that describes a poisonous animal that injects a poisonous/venomous substance via an advanced delivery system.
Yes it is very trivial, but it is not about getting away with anything, some people usually through lack of understanding use a less descriptive term, though not an incorrect one.
No Dannyboi it is not vice versa with snakes. go back through the thread and read the dictionary definitions I have provided.
LAT _venenum,_ poison


----------



## Dannyboi (Mar 9, 2011)

I meant saying a berry was venomous is not right and saying a snake is poisonous isn't wither perhaps I should have worded that differently.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

LOL thats the problem the berry isn't venomous, however the snake is poisonous. No viceversa. It may be descriptively inaccurate but not incorrect.


----------



## Dannyboi (Mar 9, 2011)

The snakes venom is poisonous the snake can be eaten. You know what this argument seems like it could go on for a while I will just step back.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

steve1 said:


> Slim you are contradicting yourself. The word venom has more to do with the method of delivery rather than the substance. You yourself said that all venoms are poisons therefore how can it be incorrect to describe a snake as poisonous. I agree that the term venomous is a better description to use, but poisonous is satisfactory and correct.
> 
> I should have just looked up poisonous before venomous
> View attachment 189756


 
No contradiction at all... but perhaps clarity of meaning is deceiving or slightly more subtle....

The word venom would indicate the type of poison and in some instances the way it is introduced to the body. For example a snake bite, a jellyfish stings, a wasp or bee stings - all these are venomous.

As for poisons... Directly eating a toad, eating poorly made fugu (puffer fish is it?), or eating poisonous mushrooms - no mushrooms are venomous however. Nor are puffer fish venomous, and nor are toads... But all are poisonous.

RBBS are not poisonous, they're venomous... Surely you can tell the difference now???

Box jellyfish are venomous - however, the stings can be introduced internally, therefore making them impossible to eat for humans, but funny enough, not for some sea turtles!

No contradictions, merely facts...


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 9, 2011)

Is a Latin definition approriate in these enlightened times? Just asking... Many of those defs would have been written when understanding was poor...

J


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

Dannyboi said:


> The snakes venom is poisonous the snake can be eaten. You know what this argument seems like it could go on for a while I will just step back.


 
Not entirely true - most snake venom (in Australian elapids) is able to be ingested - in other words, you could eat snake venom here - however, the risk is very high especially if you have a cut in your mouth!



steve1 said:


> LOL thats the problem the berry isn't venomous, however the snake is poisonous. No viceversa. It may be descriptively inaccurate but not incorrect.


 
The snake venom is poisonous the snake IS NOT! The berry is (possibly) poisonous - the snake is NOT!


----------



## Dannyboi (Mar 9, 2011)

Not what I was getting at but I get you.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

How are these facts, the fact is I gave you dictionary examples that clearly define RBB as a poisonous snake.
Surely you can see that my conclusions are reasonable???


----------



## Sdaji (Mar 9, 2011)

Strange argument. Any chemical which can harm you is a poison. Clearly, venom is a poison, because it contains chemicals which can harm you. Clearly, venomous snakes are poisonous snakes.

Being able to ingest something without harm doesn't mean something isn't poisonous. Plenty of things are poisonous if injected but harmless if swallowed. Kerosene is an example. You can drink it if you want to, it won't hurt you. Inject yourself with kerosene and things won't be pretty. Does that make a bottle of kerosene venomous?

Saying that snakes aren't poisonous because they are venomous is like saying your pet is not an animal because it is a dog. How can it be an animal? It isn't an animal! It's a dog! How can it be two things at once? Well, it can, because a dog is a type of animal. Dog is more specific, but it is both a dog and an animal.

Snakes are both venomous and poisonous. Venomous is more specific, but poisonous is perfectly correct.

...and yes, I have just become the idiot stick figure I posted a picture of earlier in the thread.

Oh, and someone said you could inhale a venomous snake. Well, other than anything else that would mechanically block your lungs and asphyxiate you, but if you were to inhale just the venom it would be much more deadly than if you injected it. The lungs are designed to take air (oxygen) into your blood. If instead of air you put venom into them, you've just utilised an extremely efficient method of putting venom directly into your blood and distributing it throughout your body. Oops!


----------



## Waterrat (Mar 9, 2011)

Excellent John, that should stop the argument once for all.
.... or I'll get really poisonous! :evil:


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Thankyou Sdaji I just wish I had your way with words


----------



## slim6y (Mar 9, 2011)

Kerosene injected isn't a venom - it's just plain stupid...

A venomous snake injects its VENOM which is a poison into you - there's no ifs no buts it's black and white - pure and simple!

A snake is not poisonous like a toad is... A toad is poisonous as it does NOT inject its venom as it lacks venom, but produces a toxin which it secretes over its upper body. This is particularly DIFFERENT than a venom.

Therefore, regardless of who worships the ground you walk on sdaji... you're plain and simply wrong and I've become 'that guy'...


----------



## ecosnake (Mar 9, 2011)

I ate a brown snake and I was poisoned


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't worship anybody Slimey. I agree a snake is not poisonous like a toad, because a snake injects venom and for that reason can be considered a poisonous animal. Again I have given you two dictionary examples that back this. using your logic I could say that the cane toad isn't poisonous only it's toxic secretions are. No ifs no buts its black and white I'm right and your wrong.
Did someone say your a school teacher?

Ecosnake if your going to eat roadkill then maybe try and get it when it's fresh to avoid poisoning.


----------



## Dannyboi (Mar 9, 2011)

Short Sharp Science: Dictionary definition of 'siphon' wrong for 99 years dictionaries can be wrong.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Yes but so can Slimey


----------



## grimbeny (Mar 10, 2011)

As a self appointed mediator for this debate I have come to the following conclusion:

Although the dictionary is probably not the best resource for this kind of thing, steve1 is the only person in this thread who has used more than their ego to justify their opinion. I think the dictionary definition is better than the uneducated opinion of anyone in this thread. I think steve1 can be declared the winner of the argument until someone can justify why the alternative definition is better than the one provided by the dictionary.


----------



## saximus (Mar 10, 2011)

lol I didn't put references because I figured most people on here would agree that there is a difference. However since you ask here are a couple I found with a quick Google search:
Venom Vs. Poison
poisonous vs venomous : Common Errors in English
California Academy of Sciences - Venoms: Striking Beauties
Great Barrier Reef - Reef Biosearch Venomous
Home Page


----------



## impulse reptiles (Mar 10, 2011)

saximus said:


> Does it annoy anyone else when snakes are described as "poisonous" or am I just too picky?


 some people on here that have been a member for a long time, still can't tell if its a boa, retic or a ball python in a picture, maybe your just too ''experienced''? just watch your spelling and don't say your from canada and youl be alright :lol:


----------



## saximus (Mar 10, 2011)

impulse reptiles said:


> some people on here that have been a member for a long time, still can't tell if its a boa, retic or a ball python in a picture, maybe your just too ''experienced''? just watch your spelling and don't say your from canada and youl be alright :lol:


 lol I was lucky enough to see that thread before most of the comments got deleted. If that was a real question I feel sorry for the guy


----------



## slim6y (Mar 10, 2011)

Actually Grimmy... Grimmybear.... I have previously put down many references to this very argument on this very site... And as I chose not to use ego - but more 'logic'...

Sorry Steve1... I didn't realise you'd been appointed the winner of the argument, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to bed last night and I would have found a million references to rub it in your face 

However... Let's go back to this:

There's two words - both with similar, but tiny and perhaps subtle differences. These tiny and subtle differences are why there's TWO words...

We're led to believe a snake can be eaten (providing it is prepared properly - although, even then, the snake still isn't poisonous, the bacteria associated with it are). If a snake can be eaten, it can't be considered poisonous. Surely...

If a snake bites you - sure, there's a poison injected into you in the form of a venom...

The same way that radiation poisoning is from radiation... It isn't a venom, it's the METHOD of poisoning (via high frequency electromagnetic waves, beta or alpha particles causing ionisation etc etc...).

It's merely the method... Ego stroked... not a bit... I would just like everyone to be as right as I am all the time!


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Mar 10, 2011)

Fuscus said:


> There are no poisonous snakes in Australia, they are all safe to eat
> MY Standard reply


 
I've always said the same sort of thing.


----------



## Necromanced (Mar 10, 2011)

"the poisonous fluid that some animals, as certain snakes and spiders, secrete and introduce into the bodies of their victims by biting, stinging, etc."
Dictionary says that. Venoms are poison; people are saying that there are two words for a reason. Never heard of synonyms? Two words can be used for the same meaning. Then I suppose you could argue that with the word toxin, however, toxin is merely a collective/umbrella term for chemicals that can harm you; poison and venom come under what are toxins. No, I'm not saying venom/poison come under venom/poison, but I am saying they are used synonymously.

Putting it into perspective, I suppose venoms are injected (and pls, don't start saying you can use a syringe to inject a poison just to be cantankerous) and poisons are secreted, as from toads etc.
I guess it could also be said that venoms are used to subdue prey whereas poisons are used as a defense mechanism. 
The main difference (or what I consider to be the main difference) is that poisons are ingested, and venoms are directly introduced into the lymphatic system, which has a faster onset effect than poison could. The difference for poisons is that it has an effect on organisms on a molecular scale, in such terms that it disrupts the chemicals in, lets say for arguments sake, mitochondria, to destroy the organism in question. Two different places that each effect, again, a big difference.


----------



## grimbeny (Mar 10, 2011)

Slim, I agree with your points here. Snakes can be eaten with no ill effect. That is not being debated, everyone in this thread agrees with that. The topic being debated is which definition of poisonous is correct.

Steve1's dictionary defines poisonous as:

"producing or being able to inject a poison"

with the specific example "poisonous snake"

Looking through the scientific litterature I have seen snakes defined as poisonous:

"The venom of poisonous snakes comprises a complex mixture of several proteins with other less significant constituents, resulting in principles capable of changing viable tissues."(Cesaretly & Ozkan, 2010) 

"A focal troop of free-ranging Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) living in an open scrub forest around Jodhpur was observed mobbing poisonous snakes on two different occasions during field observations of about 4,109 h."(Srivastava, 1991)

Now I am not saying that snakes should be reffered to as poisonous, venemous is a more precise term. The wide use of the term poisonous to describe snakes though means that it is sufficient to convey the intended meaning to all audiences.


LITERATURE CITED

CESARETLI, Y and OZKAN, O. Snakebites in Turkey: epidemiological and clinical aspects between the years 1995 and 2004._ J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis_ [online]. 2010, vol.16, n.4 [cited 2011-03-09], pp. 579-586 . Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992010000400007&lng=en&nrm=iso>. ISSN 1678-9199. doi: 10.1590/S1678-91992010000400007. 

Srivastava A. 1991. Cultural Transmission of Snake-Mobbing in Free-Ranging Hanuman Langurs. Folia Primatol 56(2):117-120.

PS - You know there is something seriously wrong with you when you go to this much effort for a debate that has absolutly no relevance to anyone.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 10, 2011)

Based on the title of the thread - POISONOUS vs VENOMOUS...

There's a BIG (but subtle) difference... Poison and Poisonous. Venom and Venomous. ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Venomous animals are NOT POISONOUS!

Poisonous animals are NOT VENOMOUS!

Though I am sure there's some venomous animals which are also poisonous and some poisonous animals which are venomous. 

A venom is a poison.

A poison is not a venom. 

And the links saximus put up for us should be enough for everyone to tell the difference.

The idea is that saximus is a little peeved that people say our snakes are poisonous when it is clearly incorrect use of the term as they are in fact NOT poisonous (in exactly the same way that beef isn't poisonous). 

The same idea therefore reflects that our elapids in Australia are in fact venomous (in exactly the same way that an elapid is venomous). 

So how can it not be so cut and dry that we use a little bit of English in our lives and use words with similar, but subtle differences to describe the methods by which our elapids hunt. 

Could we all do with a little bit of culture in Australia? Even if it was to learn a few key words from our language!


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 10, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> . The wide use of the term poisonous to describe snakes though means that it is sufficient to convey the intended meaning to all audiences.



That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?


----------



## slim6y (Mar 10, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Slim, I agree with your points here. Snakes can be eaten with no ill effect. That is not being debated, everyone in this thread agrees with that. The topic being debated is which definition of poisonous is correct.
> 
> Steve1's dictionary defines poisonous as:
> 
> ...


 
HAHA!! There is something wrong with me... I've known this for a week, I'm completely stressed and I like to use my mind for meaningless matters to fulfil that gap that is created by weather related depression. 

Just type venomous snakes into google and you'll answer your own question...


----------



## grimbeny (Mar 10, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?


 
Although it may be better to use the word venemous because all intended audiences can imediatly determine you are refering to an animal capable of injecting a poison, it is wrong to criticise someone for using the word poisonous to describe a snake.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 10, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?


 
+1 for the venomous vs poisonous argument - that's a win in my book... And so eloquently said as well! 

In fact, I think that is such a good win that we should all celebrate by milking the venom (not milking the poison) from a coastal taipan, the worlds third most venomous (not poisonous) snake.


----------



## saximus (Mar 10, 2011)

Slimey and Red-Ink you've pretty much hit it right on the head. As I said in an earlier post that we all know what people are talking about when they say "poisonous snakes" but the fact is that it isn't exactly correct. I didn't mean for this to turn into such a heated debate I just thought that people on here would (should?) know better. I think if this continues it will just keep going round in circles with people like Slimey/Red-Ink and myself arguing for my point of view and people like Sdaji and Steve arguing for theirs. So maybe we should just agree to disagree...?


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 10, 2011)

I think the problem is, that people mistakenly feel that a toxin has to be injested or absorbed through the skin to qualify as a poison, it doesn't. a poison can be injected under the skin by snakes, bees, wasps certain fish ETC. This poison and the poisonous animals that use this method are better described as venom and venomous. We call a Spotted Brown P _affinis _the eastern brown P _textilis _they are both brown snakes but given different names to differentiate between the two. we use thew term venomous to differentiate between an animal and/or plant that merely secretes its poison in the hope prey or predator will injest it, and animals that inject it. Bottom line is though they are still poisonous.
To say that the snake itself is not poisonous only its venom is is ridiculous, its like saying a kid with chicken pox isn't contagious only his chicken pox are. Yeah, it's the virus itself that is contagious not the carrier yet it is still correct to label the carrier as contagious.

In my opinion people who keep snakes should be using the terms venom and venomous it better illustrates their understanding of the animals, but to be annoyed at the use of poison and poisonous is silly


----------



## slim6y (Mar 10, 2011)

Don't give in so easily saximus - we've got them by the short and curlies - they're reeling back now and we can crush the revolution - or start one... Which ever is better....


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 10, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> That's a given I think as from Sdaji's response... the contention of the words or for the purpose of this thread is, should we relegate ourselves to the stature of the "all audiences" given our predispositioned interest in reptiles? Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?




We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard, my problem is imposing that standard on others that don't have the same interests as us


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 10, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Although it may be better to use the word venemous because all intended audiences can imediatly determine you are refering to an animal capable of injecting a poison, it is wrong to criticise someone for using the word poisonous to describe a snake.


 
I totally agree with that.. It would be bad form to criticise it when the meaning was understood in the context.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 10, 2011)

steve1 said:


> In my opinion people who keep snakes should be using the terms venom and venomous it better illustrates their understanding of the animals, but to be annoyed at the use of poison and poisonous is silly



It shouldn't be a crime, or seen as nerdy, geeky or 'anal' to assist people in understanding the correct use of terms. Especially when we can consider ourselves 'experts' or at the very least 'knowledgeable'.

It should not be harmful to politely explain that our pythons are neither poisonous nor venomous. But in Australia there are a variety of venomous (not poisonous) snakes.

I don't want to attack your analogy of chicken pox - because it was a nice try, but I think you can see it is flawed. 

And to say a snake isn't poisonous - only its venom is - is nothing short of the truth - it's exactly what they are. The venom is highly poisonous (in some cases deadly). The snake on the other hand is not poisonous - and it doesn't harm for you to tell that to people - the bitey end is the poisonous end.

But one thing you have got me on... I am about to look it up, but I have classes to teach... Plants... Could a stinging tree be considered venomous?

Well Steve1... you've got some work to do....


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 10, 2011)

steve1 said:


> We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard, my problem is imposing that standard on others that don't have the same interests as us


 
Definitely, I would have a problem with that as well. In saying that though..... in the context of this forum we should use the appropriate terms accordingly.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 10, 2011)

Slimey most of the poisonous plants and animals have non poisonous parts, but we still refer to them as poisonous in their entirety. Cane toads are poisonous yet some animals have learnt to roll them over and eat the bellies, the Japanese prepare puffer fish as food removing the part that is poisonous but we still say that it is a poisonous fish, many plants have poisonous flowers ETC but the stem and leaves are safe to eat we generally refer to the plant as poisonous, If you wish to eat a snake you should cut of its head back from the venom glands removing the poisonous part of what can be refered to as a poisonous animal.

I don't understand why have a lot work to do.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 10, 2011)

I think we would need to put a stop to this...

The words in contention Venomous vs Poisonous

You guys do realise were debating two diffrent things here but getting no where as we're going in circles...
On one hand we are debating the meaning of the two words
On the other the context but somehow we are mixing the two arguments together... does nobody else see that?

Poisonous snake = context
Venomous snake= definition

Poison and venom = toxin (anybody actually calling them a toxic snake,berry or frog cause that's what a poison or a venom is, a toxin. It's all in the context)


----------



## hugsta (Mar 10, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> Should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard and using each term in the appropriate manner?


 
Yes we should, therefore we should be refering to venomous snakes as venomous, not poisonous.



steve1 said:


> Slimey most of the poisonous plants and animals have non poisonous parts, but we still refer to them as poisonous in their entirety.


 
Most of the venomous snakes have non venomous parts, but we still refer to them as venomous in their entirety.


----------



## Necromanced (Mar 10, 2011)

Stinging nettles have hollow hairs much like the hollow fangs of a venomous snake.
Stinging nettles; poisonous of venomous?

Segué to the rescue!


----------



## TurtleEater (Mar 10, 2011)

toxic


----------



## hugsta (Mar 10, 2011)

TurtleEater said:


> toxic



lol


----------



## TurtleEater (Mar 10, 2011)

Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as biological toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances which are absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut.

dimethyltryptamine is a biological toxin that is naturally occurring in small amounts in rat brain, human cerebrospinal fluid, and other tissues of humans and other mammals


----------

