I'd have said infectious/pathogenic (no not parthenogenetic, before anyone asks
). I think the infection will be much more of a problem than the toxins initially delivered, but I suppose the initially introduced toxins may be important too.I cringe to agree with Mr Buckley, but seeing venomous spelt as venemous is a pet hate of mine, even more than people calling venoms poisons. I think it's wrong to blame people for calling venoms toxins; it's a specialised area or knowledge and even most reptile folk get it wrong, in fact, many dictionaries mention 'poisonous snakes' under the 'poison' entries, with definitions like 'toxic substances which can cause harm or death, such as the poison of a snake'. Even the bible makes reference to poisonous snakes in most translations (funny that something written by god and his cronies could have so many errors like that!). I think the fact that in pointing out your own pet hate, you've prodded other peoples' shows that we all have to be as tolerant of other peoples' ignorance as possible in some cases. It's difficult and something I don't always manage to do well. I used find the "poisonous snake" thing annoying, but I soon gave up because it really doesn't matter as much as many of the other things I could spend less time on. Most of the threads on this site contain horribly inaccurate information and I manage to survive reading it!
Where do you draw the line? Some venoms actually are poisonous and many poisons will harm you if injected. Is the same substance either a venom or a poison depending upon the way in which you are exposed to it? Many venoms can be absorbed through the skin, eyes, lungs (think spitting cobras!). Nettles cause a nasty reaction... it's not black and white.
Oh, and many many people have survived more than five bites from venomous snakes (including myself, although not recently). It's nothing special or unusual, especially among careless idiots who put insufficient value on their lives.
