tree snake or whip snake?

[the_tsar]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..................

Since you have yet to see the paper I refer to, your remarks are quite nieve. There is more than 1 person studying snakes.

 

[moosenoose]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jayden]

i would say its a green tree snake