|
Sas, I tried to warn ya.......
|
Reply
|
|
by filthy on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most of us have been doing this for one hell of a lot more than 7 years. I, myself, have been in the Timber hibernaclums and observed them up-close and very personal. I have talked to the Moccasins and they've answered me (chuckle). I do not feel threatened by anyone. If someone knows more than I, and there are many, then I can learn something. The other way around, I can teach. I do a pretty fair amount of teaching.
Re: venom: Hemo / Neuro is something of a simplifacation. All snake venoms contain both in greater or lesser proportions. There are also myotoxins, cardiotoxins, and other protines and enzimes. It is a complicated mix that varies from species to species, and can even vary from population to population within a species. The Canebrake Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus atricaudatus) is a prime example. And the Crotalus durissus complex has neurotoxic heavy venoms that would make scutaltus look mild. Crotalus tigris also has 'hotter' venom, thought by some to be the most neruotoxic of the U.S., native species. Crotalus lepidus too, can put a hurtin' fer certain on a small creature's nervous system.
I am not sure of your purpose. Why are you posting here? Are you trying jack us up?
I hope not. I hope you are serious. I further hope you are here to learn what we can pass on. And I have no doubt that somewhere along the line, you have picked up something that I / we haven't.
So. Let us reason together.
f
|
| |
|
RE: Some interseting facts about pit vipers.
|
Reply
|
|
by biff on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i've just gotta think this is the biggest troll i've seen on any forum since i've been here!
|
| |
|
RE: I realize that it is threatening for a lot of
|
Reply
|
|
by Ken_Harbart on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem here Sas, is that your ego is a bit large. You are claiming to be an expert, when you clearly are a novice. So why not sit back, drop the pseudo-expertise, and try to learn something
So then, if you think we are intimidated by your vast expertise. Tell us just what qualifies you as an expert. Surely its not seven paltry years, because as I've previously stated- you are still a relative newbie.
Now then, since you don't have the experience to justify your claims of being "one of the foremost experts", what compensates for it:
Education? surely you must have at least a Masters in Zoology or Herpetology
Accomplishments? Perhaps you've been published? I must have overlooked your name the last time I perused a copy of Copeia or Herpetological Monographs. Also, I'll be attending the IHS this year, but I didn't see your name among the distinguished speakers. Come to think of it, I don't bnelieve I've seen it any year!
Reputation? I have a strange feeling that you have no reputation to speak of, otherwise I'm sure Dave Barker would have mentioned the "great one", who attained the pinnacle of herpetological knowledge the last time we talked.
Position? With that vast expertise that you acquired in the past seven years, I'm sure Universities were falling all over themselves to have you on their faculty. So which one was successful in granting you tenure?
That being said, your "interesting fact" of neurotoxicity vs hemotoxicity has me somewhat amused. It is such a simplistic and broad generalization. Did you get that out of a book published by TFH? Snake venoms are comprised of both, in varying proportions.
By coming in here and touting yourself as "one of the foremost experts", you're not intimidating us, you're merely giving us a good laugh. Like my previous analogy about the pre-med student, you are amongst many people with more education, experience, accomplishments, reputation, and position. To claim that those who responded to you are intimidated is laughable at best. As was previously recommended- try coming back down to reality.
|
| |
|
irony
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very amusing thread. While the original poster certainly was rather lofty, the irony of it all is that he actually made a very good point, one that all the replies completely ignored..... the use of venom solely as a defensive weapon to physically protect the animals. Venom solely used for defense is done so much by snakes (which use if for prey capture primarily and defense secondly) but by bees, wasps, gila monsters, stonefish, etc... and the venoms are invariably extremely painful and often contain extremely large proteins rather than small peptides. This of course is not a great revelation, nor is the use of warning colours, rattles, hood, etc... to advertise the venomous nature of the snake. All stuff, like someone already pointed out, available in any TFH book (along with the same tired photos).
SS, got anything interesting to contribute?
Cheers,
BGF
|
| |
|
RE: irony
|
Reply
|
|
by TIMFRIEDE on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No way, I disagree B. It wasn't a good point, because many snakes with venom bite and hold. Same as a constrictor, that's no secret. I just fed 4 mambas, they all bit and held. Most of my Bitis do the same, not to mention my rears. No correlation. It's a crap shoot, bigger then shit. People look for something that ain't there. Tim
|
| |
|
So what you're saying is...
|
Reply
|
|
by Jaffo on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...that snake venom is too complex for it to be meant as predator deterrant. Yes, that is interesting. But I don't think that validates much of Bigfoot's original post, or any of them for that matter.
But I have to question the acceptance of the idea that hoods, colors, and rattles are present to "advertise the venomous nature" of the animals. I think these are surely characteristics that are usefull in self preservation and survival, but if you are to suggest that these features are primarily related to venomous capabilities, then it seems like you would be ignoring the fact that there are many non-venomous species that share these defensive features and behaviors. I think rattlesnakes are advanced in their evolution to the point that not only do they have a complex venom delivery system, but they even have developed rattles on their tail to warn animals of their location. This could be meant to keep animals from stepping on the snakes just as much as it could be a warning that venom and fangs are close. Many species of snakes will hiss loudly when encountered, and it seems to cause caution in most any predatory animal. I believe rattles to be an extention of this. I also wonder if tri=colored snakes really developed those colors in that pattern as a mimic to coral snakes, or just as successful color pattern for assisting in escape. Also, hognosed snakes and many tree snakes can hood or otherwise inflate their bodies to look big. I think maybe cobras and mambas developed that ability for the same reasons other snake have it-- to look big and scary.
The only reason I am inclined to think so, is because it seems that venomous snakes are more evolved than their non-venomous counterparts. As such, they would likely have more physical capabilities, including the features that other snakes have had all along. Venomous snakes don't need to advertise their potency. Look at black mambas-- bland looking at best. Then look at many of the asian rat snakes. They have the same defensive behaviors, and much brighter "warning" colors.
I agree that most venomous species have striking colors and interesting defensive behavior to go along with it, but I wonder if it's actually BECAUSE they are venomous?
What do you think? You're going to know a hell of a lot more than I on the subject. But How much do we actually know in terms of lineage? Which came first, the bad-ass venomous snakes or the mimics?
(Look everyone, I'm questioning BGF!!! See Bigfoot, THIS is how you do it. LOL.)
Jaffo
|
| |
|
you're right
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Went back and reread the original post and realised that I had jumbled it up (its early here and I've only had one cuppa so far ;-)
>Interestingly, when a snake is able to bite it's prey and then release, it avoids being
bitten or otherwise injured.
A fascinating evolutionary adaptation.
While on the surface (ie... TFH level) this might appear to be true and quite axiomatic, the second most venomous snake in the world (Pseudonaja textilis, the eastern brown snake) actually holds on and partially used constriction for feeding. So much for that theory. Things that I would like to see answered are:
- venom composition of rear fangs in relation to prey specificity
- what is actually in the saliva of a cobra vs. the venom gland. ie.... are the venom glands simply modified salivary glands as is gospel but hasn't been critically examined
- why aren't there more venomous lizards? Why aren't there any venomous turtles?
- why bockadam (Cerberus rynchops) venom is so unstable (sorry, its been a bad week in the lab with this @#$#@!$ venom)
- how deep can an elapid actually deliver its venom? While the fangs are rather short, the jaws are actually incredibly strong in the majority of the species. So, how much tissue compression actually occurs. I've had big kings and mulgas crack specimen jars during milkings.
- what is in python saliva? Is it simply lysozyme or is there anything else in there?
- what was the toxic component in male funnel webs evolved against? While it is 'primate specific' due to us lacking a circulating antibody found in adult rats, mice and other mammals, what was the toxin actually for? Juvenile males have the same profile as females of any age, it is only when they go through their final molt and are sexuallly mature that the venom changes. This is also the only time that they leave the burrow to wander. However, primates were not in Australia during the evolution of the species and nor do they feed. Thus, it was evolved simply as defense against ????? The dunnarts and antechinas are not sensitive to it so either it wasn't designed against these small marsupial carnivores or the marsupials have moved on quicker than the spiders.
- why are some of the snakes so incredibly more toxic than similar ones that occupy essentially the same haibitat and eat essentially the same prey (ie... Oxyuranus microleptidotus vs. Pseudonaja textilis?). Is the more toxic venom what allows the former to snap and release while the later holds on or is that a factor of fang length and venom yield? Which is more effective (the Pseudonaja species are spread all over Australia while the Oxyuranus are specialised habitat dwellers)
many many many more Qs but I have only so much time to research them myself. Give me 20 million to hire my own army of venom researchers.
Enough pondering.
Cheers,
BGF
|
| |
|
RE: So what you're saying is...
|
Reply
|
|
by TIMFRIEDE on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
People, the harder we look, the more we confuse ourselves, that's it, for what it's worth. Don't dig so deep, it will F you up. The shit's simple, it's beyond control. There's no logic, call it what you may. Here's the best thing you can do> Buy every ven. snake you can and sit in a room, then watch every move they make and record it, those will be the facts.Then get the av, the milk it, then chart the yields. Sit back and enjoy the show, you will be surprised. And if you live, you can talk. Been there. Don't forget the dope. Tim
|
| |
|
RE: So what you're saying is...
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> But I have to question the acceptance of the idea that hoods, colors, and rattles are present to "advertise the venomous nature" of the animals. I think these are surely characteristics that are usefull in self preservation and survival, but if you are to suggest that these features are primarily related to venomous capabilities, then it seems like you would be ignoring the fact that there are many non-venomous species that share these defensive features and behaviors. I think rattlesnakes are advanced in their evolution to the point that not only do they have a complexanimals of their location. This could be meant to keep animals from stepping on the
snakes just as much as it could be a warning that venom and fangs are close. Manyspecies of snakes will hiss loudly when encountered, and it seems to cause caution in most any predatory animal. I believe rattles to be an extention of this.
True. It is interesting to note that the mimics of rattlesnakes (gopher snakes, bull snakes, pines snakes, and even some of the king snakes) also vibrate their tail when threatened. Against leaves, this can sound superficiallly like a rattle.
> I also wonder if tri=colored snakes really developed those colors in that pattern as a mimic to coral snakes, or just as successful color pattern for assisting in escape.
I just read a study (but can't remember for the life of me in which journal) where they studied the effectiveness of tricolours in deteriing predators in areas where corals did or did not exist. Their model got attacked by predators much more often in the areas where the corals didn't occur.
> Also, hognosed snakes and many tree snakes can hood or otherwise inflate their bodies to look big. I think maybe cobras and mambas developed that ability for the same reasons other snake have it-- to look big and scary.
Good point. Much like the frilled dragon.
> The only reason I am inclined to think so, is because it seems that venomous snakes are more evolved than their non-venomous counterparts. As such, they would likely have more physical capabilities, including the features that other snakes have had all along. Venomous snakes don't need to advertise their potency. Look at black mambas-- bland looking at best.
Ditto with many of the Australian elapids. An interesting pattern emerges, the snakes that feed during the day don't advertise as much by colour or pattern since it would interfere with their hunting. The night time ones do (ie... corals). However, the banding of a coral actually is effective camaflouge on a moonlit night (just as is the banding of a krait). The flicker fusion is quite hard to follow. So, is colour and pattern an overrated concept? How often is it really used?
> Then look at many of the asian rat snakes. They have the same defensive behaviors, and much brighter "warning" colors. I agree that most venomous species have striking colors and interesting defensive behavior to go along with it, but I wonder if it's actually BECAUSE they are venomous?
Don't know. One thing that I am terribly interested in is whether the blood of any of the venomous species is toxic? Ammodytes and Berus did some work in the 16th century and stated that the blood was lethal when injected! This has been reread in the original language by one of the guys here and it is not a tranlation mistake. They clearly distinguished between blood and venom. Fasinating stuff. We are going to spin the blood down and repeat using the serum to see if it is toxic. A fun little side project.
Cheers,
BGF
|
| |
|
RE: you're right
|
Reply
|
|
by TIMFRIEDE on May 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
See B, you just proved my point, no one frickin knows. It's a crap shoot and we waste our time trying to find out. We are an experiment in time, trying to fiqure out the complexities of life itself, which is beyond our own reason. Lets not waste time, and party. What was the question? Tim.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
