Eastern Brown or Coastal Taipan

[mmafan555]

Mmafan555,

I do apologise. I should have qualified my comments about venom toxicity varying geographically. I was referring exclusively to Australian snakes. My mistake.

No problem....You seem to know alot about snakes and venoms and don't seem to be clouded by Australian native bias....But it still does vary geographically for Australian snakes.

There are indeed some major holes still, so it would seem. On the basis of closely related species and their ranking on the LD50 I suspect the top end would remain unchanged but that may not be the case.

Well like I said many snake species are missing from the list...so that in itself would likely cause changes....

If you took a cats, dogs, humans and mice...the top ten lists would be different.... maybe vastly different or maybe just slightly different...but they would not be the same.. Their is no "most venomous snake"...That is dopey talk for idiots who want to feel proud that their country has the top snake...Only most venomous for a particular animal....and right now we only know that for mice( and that is of the snakes that were tested)

When determining LD50 of Cobras, for example, do you know whether they tend to use the least toxic result or the most or simply random chance? Also, do you know how the variation in venom toxicity for the one species has been determined?

Nope...I haven't got a clue...Most likely they just used the spectacled cobra from one region and gave it a value and then assumed all the spectacled cobras would have that same value...Of course this is 100 percent incorrect and wrong...Whether the cobra tested was from an area with higher/lower than average toxic cobras? I have no idea..

Just the Australian sources would be very much appreciated.

Sure here is the Eastern Brown snake
Comparison of active venom components between Eastern brown snakes collected from South Australia and Queensland - UQ eSpace

Unfortunately I used to have the full text...But now it makes you pay for it... So now only the abstract.

Tiger snake: The abstract only says that the venoms were made up of different proteins and composition...but this would obviously have an impact on potency

ScienceDirect - Toxicon : Venom constituents of Notechis scutatus scutatus (Australian tiger snake) from differing geographic regions

If you want to see similar info for Asian snakes just ask and I will post them

Given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity, and variation thereof, of a snake not even measured, using a “flawed” technique or otherwise?

Not quite sure what you mean... If you asking how I am sure that Bungarus are extremely toxic to humans...Well you will find out in about 15 minutes when I make a thread on them. They are very very venomous to humans...a hell of alot more venomous than the overrated Box Jellyfish

Again, given that the main thrust of your argument is that the current method of measuring venom toxicity is “flawed”, how are you able to make such an assertive claim about the probable toxicity of a snake not even measured using even a “flawed” technique?

Because I will post studies on bites from humans later on. They are also very very venomous to humans.

I agree with you that there are clearly limitations to the LD50 and how it can be used.

That is a kind of an understatement imo but I respect your opinion.

But I remain to be convinced that it has “numerous MAJOR flaws. Other than the potential variation in venom strength, would care to elucidate me on what the other flaws are?

Animals react differently to a particular venom...It is tested on mice and therefore their is no evidence to suggest that it would be the same for any other animal. It also leaves out snakes and also gives people a false impression of how severe a bite is...It is very safe to say that an Eastern Brown has way more toxic venom than an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake to humans, but since it only has tiny fangs and venom yield( as opposed to huge fangs and a huge venom yield for the Eastern Diamondback) the untreated fatality rates are pretty similar. Of course this last statement has nothing to do with drop for drop potency( in case anyone wants to twist my words again for the 50th time) but it does have to do with untreated fatality rates and overall danger of a bite.

The statement that “all animals react differently to different venoms” is a gross generalisation. You can show me cases where it holds and I can show you cases where it doesn’t hold.

Yes it is a generalization...but I am pretty sure you knew what point I was trying to make. It was just easier to say it that way( even through it is a generalization)

I be happy to accept the middle ground that not all animals react to the same venom in the same way.

They don't....I will pm you the studies

That people automatically equate the LD50 and the danger level of a snake to humans is incorrect. That, to my mind, is a separate issue to what you have stated. It is about how people make use of the LD50 rather than the LD50 itself..

Its both... Both the ld50 and the way people make use of it is flawed.

These two statements are contradictory – that is not at all helpful in establishing the voracity of your claims.

No their not...I am basing that comment on the studies of Taipan bites on humans that I have read...It is clearly highly venomous to humans...I just can't be sure where exactly it places...It could be number 1 drop for drop or 20...we just don't know, but it is obviously very very toxic.

The studies reveal that Chironex is not that toxic to humans...and certainly not the "most venomous animal in the world"

I don’t recall mentioning antivenom in my statement on the effects of an Inland taipan envenomation. That aside, allow me to rephrase it to get around the generalised term “catastrophic effects”. The bite from an Inland Taipan would require only a small injection of venom to produce fatal result (untreated).

Yea I agree... A MUCH smaller amount of Taipan would be needed to cause death than Rattlesnake venom. I was just being picky and talking about your term devastating.. But most people usually don't have long term symptoms/damage from a Taipan bite after they survive and get antivenom...that is not always the case for Rattlesnakes and some types of Cobras, Vipers etc. Of course that has nothing to do with drop for drop potency.

Basically if it is 1850 and their is no antivenom available I would take a rattlesnake bite over a taipan bite easily( as the taipan has a far higher untreated mortality rate)

However if it is 2010 and you know you will be able to get antivenom for both species quickly...I would take a Taipan bite over a Rattlesnake bite, because the Taipan does not have cytotoxins in its venom that cause severe local damage which can be long term and debilitating.

As for the taipan being the most drop for drop toxic to humans...Like I said studies show it clearly is HIGHLY venomous to humans...and I would not be surprised at all if it was number 1 for humans, but we just have no way of telling how it would score if tested on humans compared to the other ultra venomous snakes...It would not be a good bet to bet on any snake as we just have no idea.

And all this time I have been labouring under the misapprehension that Australia’s Tourism Industry has been trying to down-play the image created as a result of the ‘most toxic’ or ‘most dangerous’ lists that have been created. Those that I have seen have seen have emanated mostly from overseas sites. Usually Inland Taipans, Funnel Web Spiders, Sea Wasps and Salt-water Crocs crack a mention and occasionally Great White Sharks, all of which are highly avoidable.
…

Yea most probably are...but still it seems to me that many Australians love to push that reputation for whatever reason..

 

[Waterrat]

Yea most probably are...but still it seems to me that many Australians love to push that reputation for whatever reason..

.... whilst one American loves to push his own reputation. Man, you don't give in, do you?

 

[mmafan555]

..Man, you don't give in, do you?

No but I probably should...You know what I don't even care really about this topic anymore because its such a pointless never ending topic...No point debating something we both can't really prove...You can't prove that the ld50 for mice would have the same results for humans and other animals and I can't prove that it would be different. I can prove that animals react differently to different venoms.. Here is an earlier post of mine from a different thread.

.

Here are some examples of different animals reacting differently to given toxins

1. Sydney funnel web venom causes only extremely mild signs in dogs cats mice rabbits etc but is very toxic and potentially lethal in even adult humans. The funnel web possessed a neurotoxin
Spider Envenomation, Funnel Web: eMedicine Emergency Medicine



2. Queensland Tarantula venom causes only very mild symptoms in humans, even in young children[ local pain] yet has a near 100% DEATH rate for dogs and a nearly 50 percent death rate for cats

"There were nine confirmed bites by spiders of the family Theraphosidae in humans and seven in canines. These included bites by two Selenocosmia spp. and by two Phlogiellus spp. The nine spider bites in humans did not cause major effects. Local pain was the commonest effect, with severe pain in four of seven cases where severity of pain was recorded. Puncture marks or bleeding were the next most common effect. In one case the spider had bitten through the patient's fingernail. Mild systemic effects occurred in one of nine cases. There were seven bites in dogs (Phlogellius spp. and Selenocosmia spp.), and in two of these the owner was bitten after the dog. In all seven cases the dog died, and as rapidly as 0.5-2h after the bite. This small series of bites by Australian theraphosid spiders gives an indication of the spectrum of toxicity of these spiders in humans. Bites by these spiders are unlikely to cause major problems in humans. The study also demonstrates that the venom is far more toxic to canines."

Bites by spiders of the family Theraphosidae in hu... [Toxicon. 2003] - PubMed result


3. For Redback spider and Black Widow bites.
“There is considerable species variation in susceptibility to envenomation. The guinea pig, horse and camel are very susceptible while the dog is relatively resistant to the effects of the venom. It is seldom lethal in dogs unless a considerable number of bites are inflicted, as would most likely only occur under experimental conditions. The susceptibility of the cat probably lies between that of guinea pigs and dogs."
"Redback antivenom is not normally required as a life saving measure in dogs, but its use may be considered in cases where redback envenomation is suspected in order to relieve the immediate discomfort or where a pre-existing condition, such as cardiac dysfunction, is present.”

“It is reported that cats, being more susceptible to redback venom, do receive antivenom from veterinarians and respond dramatically in minutes with significant lessening of signs."

Spider Bite | Australian Venom Research Unit

So their u have it many different animals reacting way differently to different individual neurotoxic venom's. The dog is resistant to the neurotoxic venom of the redback and black widow, extremely weak to the neurotoxic venom of the tarantula and highly resistant to the funnel web neurotoxin. The cat is then highly resistant to the funnel web, weak to the redback and the black widow and very weak to tarantula[ through not as weak as the dog]. Humans are weak to the funnel web, very resistant to the tarantula and moderately strong to the funnel web/black widow. Rabbits are very resistant to the funnel web neurotoxin yet they get taken out in the 20's by black mamba neurotoxins and the same goes for dogs[ I have an account where 4 dogs were killed at once by a single black mamba] yet they are resistant to most spider neurotoxins[ except for the tarantula which they are extremely weak to] and they extremely weak to many snake neurotoxins.

And look at this... A single black mamba killed 15 rabbits at one time[ without getting hurt]

Black Mamba | Nature | PBS Video

The scene happens from 00:31:48-00:32:12

So this is another example... Both the black mamba and the funnel web are neurotoxic... but the funnel web barely hurts rabbits at all and a black mamba venom absolutely devastates them... So why is that..? Easy answer... because ALL animals react differently to different snake venoms.. Their is no uniform level of toxicity for all animals... And the only way to get an accurate reading is to test it on THAT SPECIFIC ANIMALS ie humans... Obviously this will never happen but the mice tests are a sorry excuse for a "toxicity study"

So this proves that animals do react differently to different venoms and often drastically. It obviously does not prove that any snake is more or less toxic than another to humans... So in that sense this debate is pointless. I can't prove that Australian snakes should not be in their current places on the list( if it were for toxicity to humans) and you can't prove that they should be...So it is a pointless debate that goes nowhere...if you want to assume that the top 10 for mice would be the same for humans...go ahead I don't care anymore...


But what I do care about is that you atleast represent the ld50 list fairly... It is top 3( inland, eastern brown and coastal) and 6 of the top 10 for Australia and some snakes that are highly venomous to humans are missing. Only 3 of the 12 land kraits have a value( and already the Many Banded Krait is right behind the Coastal Taipan at # 4) and no Boomslang or Phillipine Cobra.

 

[Waterrat]

This is by far the most intelligent view you posted so far. Who has done all the arguing here?
You could have done better without insulting people like Jamie Seymour, a prominent scientist (and a friend of mine) because you, my boy, don't stand up to his ankles.

 

[waruikazi]

mmafan555

No one in this thread, or any other you have posted in has misrepresented the LD50 test or claimed it to be anything other than it is. You are arguing with yourself. Lucky, because i think no one else cares to listen to you.

This is essentially you in every thread i've seen you post in.

MMAFAN: 'This snake is not the xxx most venmous snake to people in the world.'

Everyone else: 'We never said it was.'

MMAFAN: 'You Australian's are butthurt, i heard one Australian on TV once say that they are the most dangerous in the world, he's butthurt and here are some studies.'

Everyone else: 'We don't care, go away.'

MMAFAN: 'You can't prove it's the most venomous in the word! Shutup you're butthurt! And i have a study.'

 

[eipper]

I know of a few bites from Taipans that have left people with some pretty nasty permanent? effects....don't just assume because a venom is not primarlily haemotoxic or cytotoxic that there cannot be devistating permanent effects.

Cheers,
Scott