Just was looking at the museum web site and seen this page. Ive seen it many times before but something hit me as being wrong this time.. here is the link.
http://www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au/features/snakes/dangerous/index.asp
Now according to this page, the small eyed snake is potentially fatal, AND it is listed as being more dangerous than the Rough Scaled Snake, Speckled Brown Snake, and both Hoplocephalus species.
This is news to me. I just looked them up in all my books again, and as I thought, not considered fatal. I consider them as just a painfull bite with some possible illness.
Firstly, it does say it is a list of the potentially dangerous land snakes of Queensland in decreasing order of potential danger. Now I interpret this statement as meaning... if we were to go about our lives normally, and come across a snake, these are the snakes we are most likely to get killed or injured by.. Now this could make scence then.. maybe there is more chance we could be injured or killed by a small eyed snake than by a speckled brown, because speckled browns are very rare in populated areas, and small eyed snakes are quite common.. so the chances of being bitten are increased and bump it up on the list. SO WHY THEN ARE FIERCE SNAKES ON THE TOP?????? I dont care how dangerous they are, they pose very little "potential threat" because they live no where near anyone!!! So, the fact that smalled eyed snakes are above speckled browns and rought scaled snakes, which are proven killers, but below feirce snakes (never killed anyone on record) is a contradiction.
So my point is, if the list was a list of highest toxic venom in QLD in decreasing order, then it doesnt make scence because speckled browns have more toxic venom than small eyed snakes, as does rough scaled snakes.
If it was a list of "potential danger" which would reflect past cases of serious envenomations and fatalities then it is wrong because the Eastern Brown followed by the Eastern Tiger pose the most "potential risk" in australia.
I am tied and its late, the first person to reply to this could prove me an idiot.... but can anyone see my point?
Craig
http://www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au/features/snakes/dangerous/index.asp
Now according to this page, the small eyed snake is potentially fatal, AND it is listed as being more dangerous than the Rough Scaled Snake, Speckled Brown Snake, and both Hoplocephalus species.
This is news to me. I just looked them up in all my books again, and as I thought, not considered fatal. I consider them as just a painfull bite with some possible illness.
Firstly, it does say it is a list of the potentially dangerous land snakes of Queensland in decreasing order of potential danger. Now I interpret this statement as meaning... if we were to go about our lives normally, and come across a snake, these are the snakes we are most likely to get killed or injured by.. Now this could make scence then.. maybe there is more chance we could be injured or killed by a small eyed snake than by a speckled brown, because speckled browns are very rare in populated areas, and small eyed snakes are quite common.. so the chances of being bitten are increased and bump it up on the list. SO WHY THEN ARE FIERCE SNAKES ON THE TOP?????? I dont care how dangerous they are, they pose very little "potential threat" because they live no where near anyone!!! So, the fact that smalled eyed snakes are above speckled browns and rought scaled snakes, which are proven killers, but below feirce snakes (never killed anyone on record) is a contradiction.
So my point is, if the list was a list of highest toxic venom in QLD in decreasing order, then it doesnt make scence because speckled browns have more toxic venom than small eyed snakes, as does rough scaled snakes.
If it was a list of "potential danger" which would reflect past cases of serious envenomations and fatalities then it is wrong because the Eastern Brown followed by the Eastern Tiger pose the most "potential risk" in australia.
I am tied and its late, the first person to reply to this could prove me an idiot.... but can anyone see my point?
Craig