# tree snake or whip snake?



## alialiali (Feb 8, 2010)

Just found this little one bout 3 ft in the yard is it a tree snake or a whip snake??


----------



## Ozzie Python (Feb 8, 2010)

green tree snake


----------



## dtulip10 (Feb 8, 2010)

right on ozzie


----------



## nathan09 (Feb 8, 2010)

are green tree snakes venomous?


----------



## alialiali (Feb 8, 2010)

awesome thanks guys


----------



## dtulip10 (Feb 8, 2010)

nathan09 said:


> are green tree snakes venomous?



no but brown tree snakes are slightly


----------



## jase75 (Feb 8, 2010)

Its a Green tree Snake


----------



## Acrochordus (Feb 8, 2010)

nathan09 said:


> are green tree snakes venomous?


Green Tree Snake aren't harmless, they have neurotoxins in their saliva, they inject it by chewing into there prey when feeding. But to us there harmless.
Thanks Tim.


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 8, 2010)

Acrochordus said:


> Green Tree Snake aren't harmless, they have neurotoxins in their saliva, they inject it by chewing into there prey when feeding. But to us there harmless.
> Thanks Tim.


 

This is absolutley wrong and old dogma.

Test show they have Zero neurotoxins, they swallow prey alive, and cant inject any neurotoxins (expecially as they have none). Prey seem to die from a lack of oxygen.
This is further confirmed when snakess have been caught, and the contents of their guts explored, and live prey comes out.
In fact my Green tree snales teeth dont even penetrate my preys skin, let alone "inject" anything while chewing.

I repeat, there are ZERO neurotoxins.
This is what makes them harmless.
Dont fall for the story of neurotoxins.


----------



## Acrochordus (Feb 8, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> This is absolutley wrong and old dogma.
> 
> Test show they have Zero neurotoxins, they swallow prey alive, and cant inject any neurotoxins (expecially as they have none). Prey seem to die from a lack of oxygen.
> This is further confirmed when snakess have been caught, and the contents of their guts explored, and live prey comes out.
> ...


Do you have the test papers?
Thanks Tim.


----------



## eipper (Feb 10, 2010)

HI all,

Do not kid yourself, there are certainly toxins being produced by Dendrelaphis, most readily apparent are anti coagulants, If ever see one prey on a live item, watch the amount of blood that is lost....

Secondly, the argument that snakes have regurgitated live prey so therefore they are not venomous....

I have picked Copperheads, Red Bellies and Tigers and had them regurg live and healthy prey items

The effect of the toxins or repeated exposure to a toxin that is produced by green tree snakes is unknown, its better to err on the side of caution and leave them alone in the wild and handle with caution in captivity.

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## cris (Feb 10, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> This is absolutley wrong and old dogma.
> 
> Test show they have Zero neurotoxins, they swallow prey alive, and cant inject any neurotoxins (expecially as they have none). Prey seem to die from a lack of oxygen.
> This is further confirmed when snakess have been caught, and the contents of their guts explored, and live prey comes out.
> ...



How many threads do you need to repeat this rubbish in? It was an old uninformed idea that they were non-venmous not the other way around. You have no idea what you are talking about, so dont try and make it sound like there is some sort of science behind what you are saying.


----------



## grimbeny (Feb 10, 2010)

I would be interested in seeing a paper from either side.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 10, 2010)

grimbeny said:


> I would be interested in seeing a paper from either side.



Same. I don't care who is right or wrong in this case but i would love to know.


----------



## moosenoose (Feb 10, 2010)

I'd love to also see the paper  First I'd heard of it.


----------



## dtulip10 (Feb 10, 2010)

evidence please on both parties.


----------



## moosenoose (Feb 10, 2010)

Not sure about posting from over sites. I'm sure a moderator will remove or do something if need be, but this is a link to such a discussion someone had with Dr Bryan Fry. That's enough evidence for me to say "yep, green tree snakes do produce venom". Good call, I've learnt something new today 

Venomdoc Forums :: View topic - dendrelaphis invenomation


----------



## da_donkey (Feb 10, 2010)

your all wrong anyways so stop arguing, its clearly a whip snake.


donks


----------



## dottyback (Feb 10, 2010)

moosenoose said:


> Not sure about posting from over sites. I'm sure a moderator will remove or do something if need be, but this is a link to such a discussion someone had with Dr Bryan Fry. That's enough evidence for me to say "yep, green tree snakes do produce venom". Good call, I've learnt something new today
> 
> Venomdoc Forums :: View topic - dendrelaphis invenomation


 

imm yet to be convinced they are venomous...

would it not be easy to do an autopsy on one to find a venom gland? I thought in order to be venomous, venom must be produced in a gland..


----------



## Firepac (Feb 10, 2010)

dottyback said:


> imm yet to be convinced they are venomous...
> 
> would it not be easy to do an autopsy on one to find a venom gland? I thought in order to be venomous, venom must be produced in a gland..



If you click on the link you will see that Dr Fry estimates that the venom gland of a 2 meter specimen would be around 25mm...


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 10, 2010)

cris said:


> How many threads do you need to repeat this rubbish in? It was an old uninformed idea that they were non-venmous not the other way around. You have no idea what you are talking about, so dont try and make it sound like there is some sort of science behind what you are saying.


 

Explain why prey is alive well after being eaten, not even groggy..... 

Also explain why when I get bitten, and it munches on me for ages, why I get ZERO infection, no reddening.

I found the study, and stand behind my comments.

I guess I just wanted to know more than you about the truth of this matter.

The study I speak of also fits MY inperical evidence, I mentioned it above...

I dont care if you think it is bad or wrong, being 24 I can assume there is alot you have not researched.

Oh, and I will repeat this rubbish at any chance I get, to put in the whole evidence that I have seen and read.

People will do with my info what they will.
I also dont keep all the stuff I research, so Im afraid, you are gonna have to look for it, if you care to know the truth, or see where this version I espouse comes from and how these findings were made..

Took me a while to find, and it wasnt just some persons recollection, it was the written up papers. (im talking hours of looking at GTS info, when this gem popped up).
I am careful about what I take to be true, especially in the internet.

So concider me the pitbull, of this opinion, the GTS has no neurotoxin


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 10, 2010)

moosenoose said:


> Not sure about posting from over sites. I'm sure a moderator will remove or do something if need be, but this is a link to such a discussion someone had with Dr Bryan Fry. That's enough evidence for me to say "yep, green tree snakes do produce venom". Good call, I've learnt something new today
> 
> Venomdoc Forums :: View topic - dendrelaphis invenomation


 

Just on this,(as a reason not to trust scientists) how many scientists said, and were adimant, that BACTERIA is the killer of prey in MOnotreme lizards, like the Komodo dragon, only to find out, it also has bad neurotoxins, or "venom" at least that causes the prey to weaken, and not the bacteria.

So, I care little about the opinions of Man. I prefer the studies, they yield more knowledge than prefiferal unnderstanding in a related area.

So I use my own empirical evidence, to match observations, or concider the observation flawed. And I am good at it.
So thats my opinion of the leaders of knowledge, in any field.

Asumption of old dogma as being the total truth, is an all to often repeated mistake in science, by proffessors, down to plebs. (remember relitivity)


----------



## Jonno from ERD (Feb 10, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> Just on this,(as a reason not to trust scientists) how many scientists said, and were adimant, that BACTERIA is the killer of prey in MOnotreme lizards, like the Komodo dragon, only to find out, it also has bad neurotoxins, or "venom" at least that causes the prey to weaken, and not the bacteria.
> 
> So, I care little about the opinions of Man. I prefer the studies, they yield more knowledge than prefiferal unnderstanding in a related area.
> 
> ...



Actually, not many scientists purported that it was bacteria, and many disputed it but there was no proof until Bryan investigated it based on his hypothesis.

This is not a subject that can be based on opinion - facts are that Green Tree Snakes ARE venomous, but ARE NOT medically significant.


----------



## cris (Feb 10, 2010)

Jonno from ERD said:


> Actually, not many scientists purported that it was bacteria, and many disputed it but there was no proof until Bryan investigated it based on his hypothesis.
> 
> This is not a subject that can be based on opinion - facts are that Green Tree Snakes ARE venomous, but ARE NOT medically significant.



There are also some asian tribes that have believed Varanids to be venomous for possibly many thousands of years, but used to be laughed at by ignorant scientists because it was 'bacteria' :lol: Until someone bothered to look at it properly and found out the what locals talked about was actaully true...

The main problem is the majority of idiots think venomous means it auotmatically kills humans, which can be a bad thing if the general public think Common Tree Snakes are venomous.


----------



## eipper (Feb 11, 2010)

Tsar,

Just how long have you been studying Dendrelaphis? what have you published? It is all well and good to make a statement....qualify it.

As for Neurotoxins in Denedrelaphis.....I am not sure, I do know that most colubrids do have some from of neurotoxins, just because you do not believe they are there does not mean they are not.

I have said for a long time that Dendrelaphis and Stegonotus in particular have something (I was not sure what though) that is introduced by a bite. Bryan has since made it obvious....

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Feb 11, 2010)

:shock: Wow! The things you learn on a Thursday morning! Thanks Scott and Moose for adding another tidbit of info to the pile! I had no idea they were venomous!


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 11, 2010)

dottyback said:


> imm yet to be convinced they are venomous...
> 
> would it not be easy to do an autopsy on one to find a venom gland? I thought in order to be venomous, venom must be produced in a gland..



That's not nesecarily true. There is atleast one snake that i have read a paper on that 'recycles' venom/poison from its prey.

BoOm! That's check mate! lol


----------



## moosenoose (Feb 11, 2010)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> :shock: Wow! The things you learn on a Thursday morning! Thanks Scott and Moose for adding another tidbit of info to the pile! I had no idea they were venomous!




I had no idea either until one of the posters (too lazy to go back a few pages to quote the person :lol said they were. And thanks to that poster for raising my curiosity!

I also find it laughable that anyone would dispute Bryan Frys findings on the subject. As far as his research goes, he's a trail blazer and a deadset inspiration! Great to have a highly intelligent and passionate scientist of his calibre shining a spot light into some very dark corners!


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 11, 2010)

eipper said:


> Tsar,
> 
> Just how long have you been studying Dendrelaphis? what have you published? It is all well and good to make a statement....qualify it.
> 
> Scott


 

The study I read qualifys it. Go find it.

Evolution also supports it, in that Neurotoxins need to be injected (or need larger teeth to cut prey), there are no teeth to inject this "venomous" saliva.
Venom is also very expensive to make calories wise, and it makes sense that when an animal evolves to be more calorie efficient, the larger injecting teeth will dissapear, and so would the neurotoxins it used.
So there is a calorie effeciency that would increase the rate of survivability, due to minimising the energy used in manufacturing venom and the injecting system. Like whales loosing back legs.

So I dont just read a paper, the logic fits with the story of evolution too.

I dont know about pythons, but I bet they have no neurotoxins, as they have evolved this expensive use of energy, to stop. Strangling food instead.

So until I see a paper by another esteemed place, Im afraid, I cant help but maintain, GTS dont have ANY toxins.

Just because all the others say it must, isnt facts, like what I read about.

I dont think an animal is going to waste energy on neurotoxins, when they are too weak to be efffective.

At the very least, with all the objections, I would say perhaps, not one person has really sat down to study if it does, factually, have any toxins. Like the tests done on the komodo lizards and monotremes.

It makes no sense to produce toxins, when they dont need them, but life isnt logic either.

All I can say is I read a study, and it fits my observations, and matched the Vibe of Darwinian Evolution. The opinions of others I dont see as real, as these are opinions based on "he said she said" without due concideration for the laws of Evolution and survival of the fittest, which also include energy consumption, like unnessessary venom.

Again do Pythons have toxins? (really I dont know)


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 11, 2010)

moosenoose said:


> I also find it laughable that anyone would dispute Bryan Frys findings on the subject. As far as his research goes, he's a trail blazer and a deadset inspiration! Great to have a highly intelligent and passionate scientist of his calibre shining a spot light into some very dark corners!


 

He is just a man, as all proffessionals are. A full knowledge of psychology would see that this is a laughable position, to just BELIEVE..........man is falable. Especially in biology.

How many facts has he taken as real, when they may not have been tested at all. These facts may be in error.

So I care little about a mans idea. In my 36 years I have seen science many times flip flop on whats what.

To trust a man blindly, is to be blind yourself. I question everything, empirically. Experts are not gods of understanding to me.

Again phychology would allow one to see the unworthyness of anyone being held up as beyond questioning. I am not so nieve.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 11, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> He is just a man, as all proffessionals are. A full knowledge of psychology would see that this is a laughable position, to just BELIEVE..........man is falable. Especially in biology.
> 
> How many facts has he taken as real, when they may not have been tested at all. These facts may be in error.
> 
> ...



Tsar the only evidence you have given is some dodgy anecdotal stories, you claim you have read a paper yet you wont give us a reference. Right now you are the exact person you are telling us all to be sceptical of. I am genuinely interested in seeing the paper you are talking about, even the names of those who wrote it would be good enough for me.


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 11, 2010)

waruikazi said:


> Tsar the only evidence you have given is some dodgy anecdotal stories, you claim you have read a paper yet you wont give us a reference. Right now you are the exact person you are telling us all to be sceptical of. I am genuinely interested in seeing the paper you are talking about, even the names of those who wrote it would be good enough for me.


 

I read for my own giggles. The paper was a million internet hours ago (like 18 months). Since this is no science paper, I dont feel compelled to get the sources. I care not to, I have travelled this path. I learn and move on. 

I am saying this is what I found, pervayers of truth (like me) would have to say what I say is interesting, and maintain then, that they cant be 100% sure if these snakes do or not.

One man who knows alot, but didnt test it all, is falable, so I care not for experts. They are just repeating dogmas at times, where no personal test had been done.
All I personally think is that GTS have none, and until I see a test that proves unconditionally that they have or have none, I will think 90% that they dont have venom.

Like an honest person should ask, perhaps I and we, dont know it all, perhaps there is a possibility that we all think the wrong trhing, and keep recycling this old dogma (then an "expert" regurgetates it and its then solidified as a fact to the average punter). Dont be nieve to the faults of man.

This goes for climate change etc. Same hypocricy at play here with opinions, no one really know, but all act like there are hard facts to take a side..........poppycock

So at best one should see my commments, and perhaps not embrace them, give a person enough doubt, to no longer be 100% certain about GTS venom, as most people in here think they are.

That is bad science.

I accidently found the info, reading all I could on my litle obsession and it took a whiile on this day to find, so I am not finding it to 'win' an argument or support my side. I only read for me, so I know, and am satisfied that perhaps people are wrong in their ideas over GTS venom. 

So the best anyone can really say, and be intellectually honest, is that there is a possibility GTS have no venom. Just dont treat it as fact, is my beef.

Dismiss me if you want to be "right" but a true pervayer of truth, will just keep it in the back of their mind, waiting for evidence to confirm or deny the claims I make.
And I am not an idiot, I am science minded, and pride, in science, has no place in my world.

So my rambling is mearly repeating the ideas from a good source of info, Im carful about this. Not saying to blindly believe me, this is scientific sillyness, just be open minded about it, is this so threatening, when the limits of your knowledge are tested that we must reduce our mind to cynicism.........pride! Keep them minds open.

1 man cant hold the cup of knowledge. Perhaps we all dont really know this yet, hence hold experts in absolute blind trust.


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Feb 11, 2010)

da_donkey said:


> your all wrong anyways so stop arguing, its clearly a whip snake.
> 
> 
> donks


 
Sorry to burst you bubble Donks, specimen is clearly _Tropidonophis Mairii Arborealis._ A.K.A. Common Tree Keelback.

Back to the subject of _Dendrelaphis Punctulata_. I am rapt to have learnt such a significant scientific fact this morning! I cannot be stuffed to find the paper, however, I have located a likely source to find one on this topic. 

At, Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry - Venomdoc - Homepage you will find Bryan Fry's homepage as well as his CV. I'm afraid I will have to go with the opinion of someone who has done significant scientific research into the subject as opposed to relying on unquantified opinion and beligerance.

Sorry if linking is inappropriate mods!


----------



## Ophidiophobe (Feb 11, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> Just on this,(as a reason not to trust scientists) how many scientists said, and were adimant, that BACTERIA is the killer of prey in MOnotreme lizards, like the Komodo dragon, only to find out, it also has bad neurotoxins, or "venom" at least that causes the prey to weaken, and not the bacteria.
> 
> So, I care little about the opinions of Man. I prefer the studies, they yield more knowledge than prefiferal unnderstanding in a related area.



Are you not aware that the person who revealed venom in Komodo Dragons is the very same one who revealed venom in common tree snakes? On one hand you are praising this researcher for dismissing bacteriological claims and on the other hand you are deconstructing the exact same methodology used to identify venom glands and venom enzymes in common tree snakes. 

Venom production in varanid lizards is a big deal. Venom production in colubrid snakes is not a big deal, rather it is to be expected considering their phylogenetic relationships. 

If you're really interested in "truth", and if you are as "good at thinking" as you also claim to be, why don't you go and look at the venom gland structure in some roadkill Australian colubrid snakes. The glands and enlarged teeth are clearly identifiable.


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 11, 2010)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> I'm afraid I will have to go with the opinion of someone who has done significant scientific research into the subject as opposed to relying on unquantified opinion and beligerance.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Whatever man, if you wanna blindly hold to experts opinions, just because their rank is impressive for you, then I am sad for your learning. to not allow the option of doubt is troubling, I would have thought..................
> ...


----------



## moosenoose (Feb 11, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> He is just a man, as all proffessionals are. A full knowledge of psychology would see that this is a laughable position, to just BELIEVE..........man is falable. Especially in biology.
> 
> How many facts has he taken as real, when they may not have been tested at all. These facts may be in error.
> 
> ...



I've been dying to use this! :lol:







To ignore considerable factual research on a self-opinionated hunch is as blind as you can get! Imagine if we all ignored everyone elses research??

I could sit here arguing black and blue that the GTS has no vemom production but all that I'd achieve was looking like an idiot :lol:


----------



## Ophidiophobe (Feb 11, 2010)

Tsar please provide a reference for the material you are referring to. I am very interested in reading it. Other people have asked you to provide supporting material for your comments, it is only civil to do so.

Here is some background information for you:

"Research into the venoms of colubrids is much less advanced in comparison to the work undertaken on the venoms of most other snake families. This may be due to several factors including the perception that most colubrid snakes are harmless and difficulties in obtaining sufficient quantities of venom to sustain intensive examination. Despite these problems, the field is rapidly expanding as toxinologists search for new starting material for their studies. Stephen Mackessy (2002) reviewed the biochemistry and pharmacology of colubrid snake venoms in 2002. Recent work has shown that the secretion (‘venom’) of some species contain potent neurotoxic activity. Australian researchers, in collaboration with those from other countries, have played a key role in this work. Recently, _α_-colubritoxin has been isolated from the venom of the Asian rat snake (_Coelognathus radiatus_) (Fry et al., 2003a). The whole venom and _α_-colubritoxin both displayed potent postsynaptic neurotoxic activity. Interesting, _α_-colubritoxin, which is homologous with the three finger toxins previously thought to be unique to elapids, displayed reversible competitive antagonism at the skeletal muscle nicotinic receptor. This is in contrast to the pseudo-irreversible antagonism displayed by the majority of postsynaptic neurotoxins from snake venoms. Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC-MS) of a range of Colubroidea venoms indicated the apparent widespread distribution of three finger toxins (Fry et al., 2003c B.G. Fry, W. Wüster, S.F.R. Ramjam, T. Jackson, P. Martelli and R.M. Kini, Analysis of Colubroidea snake venoms by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry: evolutionary and toxinological implications, _Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom._ *17* (2003), pp. 2047–2062. *Full Text* via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (49)Fry et al., 2003c). Subsequently, in vitro studies were undertaken on venoms from Colubrinae (_Ahaetulla prasina_, _Boiga cynodon_, _B. dendrophilia dendrophilia_, _B. d. gemincincta_, _B. drapiezii_, _B. irregularis_, _B. nigriceps_, _Telescopus dhara_ and _Trimorphodon biscutatus_), Homalopsinae (_Enhydris chinensis_), Psammophiinae (_Psammophis mossambicus_) and Pseudoxyrhophiinae (_Leioheterodon madagascariensis_) snakes (Lumsden et al., 2004). The colubrine venoms, except for _A. prasina_, displayed potent neurotoxic activity (as evidenced by inhibition of indirect twitches of the chick biventer cervicis nerve muscle preparation). However, the other venoms were virtually devoid of neurotoxicity except for the venom of _P. mossambicus_ which produced a transient inhibition which spontaneously reversed. Overall, the neurotoxicity mirrored the relative abundance of venom components with molecular weights consistent with those of three finger toxins previously reported. As suggested by Mackessy (2002), “colubrid venoms represent a literal gold mine” for toxinologists. They will undoubtedly be the focus of much research in the future."

Taken from :Hodgson, WC and Wickramaratna JC (2006)Snake venoms and their toxins: An Australian perspective *Toxicon* Volume 48, Issue 7, 1 December 2006, Pages 931-940


----------



## eipper (Feb 11, 2010)

Tsar,

You did not answer my question....What have *YOU* published?

You rant and rave and when it comes down to it you spit out nothing actually relevant, or its so hard to read with the amount punctual and spelling errors....(I am literally struggling to follow your rants).

I call Troll

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Feb 11, 2010)

i think i will take Dr bryan Frys results as reliable information


----------



## jayden (Feb 11, 2010)

i would say its a green tree snake


----------



## the_tsar (Feb 11, 2010)

eipper said:


> Tsar,
> 
> You did not answer my question....What have *YOU* published?
> 
> ...


 

You, are not worth talking to.


----------



## Ramsayi (Feb 12, 2010)

GTS have no venom,I read it on the interwebthingy so it must be true..

Just type dendrelaphis punctulata + venom into google and use the link 5 places down.Quote "When threatened, the snake inflates its head and fore-body and produces an unpleasant scent and may bite, however it has no fangs or venom and is relatively harmless to humans."

The fact that they have enlarged rear teeth (compared to the rest of their teeth) which also happen to be grooved, as well as a venom gland is irrelevant.

Now where is that sarcastic smiley when I need it?


----------



## redbellybite (Feb 12, 2010)

Well that just makes it harder now, trying to convince people to allow the GTS, to remain in their garden now dont it .....................


----------



## Sturdy (Feb 12, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> You, are not worth talking to.



LOL, just take notice of the name EIPPER....

You will be eating your own hat in a few months.


----------



## JasonL (Feb 12, 2010)

redbellybite said:


> Well that just makes it harder now, trying to convince people to allow the GTS, to remain in their garden now dont it .....................



Killers in the tree's!!! may as well be a Boomslang and make you bleed from all orifaces, start up the rumor mill, where on a winner here!

Personally, I only call snakes venomous if you have to go to hospital  or at least are forced to spend a few days in bed.


----------



## Ozzie Python (Feb 12, 2010)

Tsar, as per one of your previous posts on the same subject, is this the fantastic paper you quoted last time that makes you more knowledgable than scientists etc that dedicate their life to reptile research? http://www.wettropics.gov.au/st/st_pdf/tropical_topics/33%20Lizards.pdf


----------



## Parko (Feb 12, 2010)

Just to throw some more wood on the fire if i'm not mistaken Aspidites(Woma's and Blackheaded pythons) have also been found to have venom glands. Hey and here's some petrol for the fire, Bearded dragons also have venom glands according to Dr Fry's findings. (Somebody correct me if i'm wrong as i've posted this going on memory only and my memory capacity is smaller than a womas venom glands)


----------



## moosenoose (Feb 12, 2010)

I, with a bunch of other VHS members, saw a lecture by Dr Fry on venom origins. You are correct in regards to bearded dragons and a surprisingly a host of other unsuspicious reptiles. 

One of the reasons behind these findings was the use of big dollar MRI scanning equipment. They scanned through a considerable amount of animals and found many of the so-called harmless species of reptile actually had, at one stage, a capacity to deliver venom. Some of these animals still had the capity of producing the venom, but not an effective delivery. 

It was one of the most informative and facinating lectures I've ever been to!



> *As per link below:*Dr Fry says it was thought toxic bacteria in the mouths of monitor lizards, such as the Komodo Dragon, gave them the ability to kill their prey. He and his colleagues have proved this is not the case – the lizards use venom.





> Using new DNA sequence data, the researchers found nine venom toxin types that were shared between lizards and snakes. Seven of these were previously only known from snake venoms, including one that had only previously been reported in rattlesnake venom but was sequenced by the team from the Bearded Dragon, one of the most popular pet lizards in the world.
> 
> Some of the toxins had potent systemic effects, such as hypotension leading to rapid loss of consciousness or coagulation disorders which can result in prolonged bleeding.



Goanna venom rocks the reptile record : News : The University of Melbourne

Until I actually did a "little bit" of digging on the subject of GTS's, I had no idea they produced venom. This thread is worth its weight in gold as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Parko (Feb 12, 2010)

That's done it for me Moose, from now on i'm using tongs on my beardies Lol.
It is odd that it is taking so long for these findings to become common knowledge in the herp hobby. Possibly because so many people are more interested in the cuddly pet and pretty colours side of the hobby and have little interest in expanding their knowledge base of species they claim to be passionate about.


----------



## varanid_mike (Feb 12, 2010)

Tongs on your beardies, tongs are killers................remember a herpetological ICON said so. :lol:
Should remove the green tree snakes and bearded dragons venom glands (replace with silicone) Then they are safe.:shock:


----------



## Joelspythons (Apr 17, 2010)

green tree snakes are harmless


----------



## Aardvark (Apr 17, 2010)

Green tree snake ARE venomous especially the blue phase ones so you better give them all to me to look after.


----------



## krusty (Apr 17, 2010)

Aardvark said:


> Green tree snake ARE venomous



they are if you ask the D.S.E.


----------



## Joelspythons (Apr 17, 2010)

Aardvark said:


> Green tree snake ARE venomous especially the blue phase ones so you better give them all to me to look after.


 
geez i jus looked it up and they are i didnt no that i didnt think they were


----------



## snake_boy (Apr 17, 2010)

i must say this is a very interesting thread. i was always under the assumption that GTS were completely non-venomous. thanks to all who had an input, this thread has increased my knowledge.


----------



## Jonno from ERD (Apr 17, 2010)

Guys, it's important to remember that they are of absolutely no medical significance to humans. They are technically venomous, but still totally harmless.


----------



## ShnakeyGirl (Apr 17, 2010)

..


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 17, 2010)

JasonL said:


> Killers in the tree's!!! may as well be a Boomslang and make you bleed from all orifaces, start up the rumor mill, where on a winner here!
> 
> Personally, I only call snakes venomous if you have to go to hospital  or at least are forced to spend a few days in bed.



My snake used to keep me in bed for days when I was a lot younger... but I always recovered.

Seriously, I'm sure there's heaps of work to be done on all this stuff. I've often noticed that python bites bleed and produce subcutaneous bruising far more than the actual injury would indicate, and for the size of the actual puncture wounds. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an anticoagulant of some sort in python saliva.

AS for GTSs, I've rescued heaps from houses in the past 5 years, (2 in the past week), and not one of them has ever attempted to bite me.

Jamie.


----------



## ReptilianGuy (Apr 17, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> You, are not worth talking to.


 
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: hahahaahahah, YOU SAID IT FOR ME, thanks:lol:

so mister highly qualified sceintist that has disected and researched a class of animal and specific species for many a year now. did you know that snakes are also split into to venom types????

Hemotoxic which effects blood and organs then Neurotoxic like the green tree snake that you are saying does not contain any form of this venom???

i don't have my book with me atm but when i get home i will look for it and break it down for you...

now if you look at the scull of the green tree snake you will find a rear fang that is conected to a venom gland which you wont see on a scull as it is bone only, no tissue. argue that with me if you wish.
a green tree snake is in fact VENOMOUS.... (shock horror)... just because it is not potent enough to effect us physically or medically does not mean they are not venomous at all. they are just regarded as VENOMOUS BUT NOT HARMFULL.

i've been bit well and proper (chewed upon) by GTS's and BTS's with no ill effects, but that doesn't make them non venomous to me, i've also been bit a DEATH ADDER (not a dry bite) which is highly neurotoxic and was effect medically through blood test etc. but was completely asymptoimatic, not effected physically or visibly if you are unsure of what that means. but i don't go saying there somewhat venomous.... just remember you are a simple keeper that reads internet content so therefore you know just as much asa most others without alot of experience... i learn my own way to but will always take the word of someone that researches something professionaly into fair consideration, and raise a question if its seems off...

also you said earlier they don't make you bleed, are they babies or somthing cos they've always got blood out of me


----------



## Spot_the_mac (Apr 17, 2010)

www.qm.qld.gov.au/inquiry/factsheets/leaflet0020.pdf


----------



## cris (Apr 17, 2010)

I have been bitten with feeding bites from 2 common tree snakes, while it didnt hurt as much a venomous green ant, i did notice the back teeth chewing in and their slicing action. Was actually quite amusing, initially the bite felt much like a python but then when they start to pull and chew you start to understand why they are able to nail frogs effectively. Would prefer a feeding bite from a python the same length, but a tree snakes defensive bites are less harmful than their stink defence(which is also over rated).

As mentioned they are not harmful to humans and IMO are the best snakes we are allowed to keep that cant kill you.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Apr 17, 2010)

Don't you just love it when a thread comes together. Excellent read even the second time around.


----------



## Jonno from ERD (Apr 17, 2010)

Spot_the_mac said:


> www.qm.qld.gov.au/inquiry/factsheets/leaflet0020.pdf



That fact sheet was written 10 years ago - Bryan published his findings only a couple of years ago.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the situation. Green Tree Snakes ARE venomous, just like Pythons have hind limbs - it may not be very obvious, and it may be useless (on humans), but there's no denying that it exists.


----------



## goneself (Apr 17, 2010)

It's a green mamba, no doubt. Run for you life!


----------



## cris (Apr 17, 2010)

Joelspythons said:


> green tree snakes are harmless



Dont snort them...


----------



## Joelspythons (Apr 18, 2010)

cris said:


> Dont snort them...


 that guy is crazy they look like mambas


----------



## Jonno from ERD (Apr 18, 2010)

Hi Joel,

What Mamba's have you been looking at? I'd love to see them


----------



## Hooglabah (Apr 18, 2010)

the green ones all covered in boogers ewww


----------



## Joelspythons (Apr 20, 2010)

Jonno from ERD said:


> Hi Joel,
> 
> What Mamba's have you been looking at? I'd love to see them


 

the really green one the scales and the colour looks like a green mamber but it isnt


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Apr 20, 2010)

Joelspythons said:


> the really green one the scales and the colour looks like a green mamber but it isnt


 
Looks nothing at all like a Green Mamba. At all. It is a Green Vine Snake (_Ahaetulla nasuta_).


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 20, 2010)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> Looks nothing at all like a Green Mamba. At all. It is a Green Vine Snake (_Ahaetulla nasuta_).



Green mamba no, but in colour and pattern it does look a tiny bit like a jamesoni.


----------

