|
1-10 of 18 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by tj on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If anyone has seen a b.taeniata you'd know they have HUGE fangs, but just how long are they? Dr.B, have you milked any of these snakes? I'm curious if they may be one of the longest.
Thanks,
Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Point of clarification:
Used to be known as Bothrops taeniata but now is designated Bothriopsis taeniata. May be a good idea when posting to just spell out the genus because of all of the re-classification taking place. All of the resulting groups "Genus" still all start with "B".
Talk about confusing!
Cool snake and good question TJ :-)Looking forward to the answers.
Al
|
| |
|
What's HUGE?
|
Reply
|
|
by MattHarris on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe on a relative basis, they are huge, but I'm curious as too their total length. Relative to head size, I believe bushmasters have the largest fangs. They still aren't the absolute longest, but when compared to the length/width of their head, they are without a doubt, the largest in terms of relative size. I would say Bothrops asper is next, given that their heads are typically, not quite as large as a gaboons. The longest I have measured thus far (along the curvature of the fang) is 1 3/8" from a 2.2m female asper. I've not had any bushmaster fangs quite that long(maybe within 1/8" though).
MH
|
| |
|
RE: What's HUGE?
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, they are Bothrops since genetically they sit right in the middle of this large diverse group. The only other option is to split Bothrops into a myriad of different genera. Wolfgang can elaborate upon this.
As for the fangs, yeah they are bloody huge! We've milked a few different localities as part of the huge viper venom evolution study we're doing. ;-)
Cheers
Bryan
|
| |
|
RE: What's HUGE?
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As for fang/head ratio, near the top of this list would certainly be the pygmy rattlesnakes. First one I ever milked spun me out! They are actually extremely difficult to milk since there is so litle room for error because of the small heads and big fangs.
Cheers
B
|
| |
|
RE: Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee, I'm really confused about that genera now! Should I take what I see on the EMBL site with a "grain of salt"?
Al
|
| |
|
RE: Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on August 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Should I take what I see on the EMBL site with a "grain of salt"?
and a shot of tequila ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by CAISSACA on August 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I said what I have to say about Bothrops and Bothriopsis in our 2002 paper in "Biology of the Vipers" (downloadable from http://sbsweb.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/Publications.htm ), and in terms of scientific data nothing has changed - basically, Bothrops (including Bothriopsis) is a good monophyletic group, and "Bothriopsis" sits right in the middle of it. Bothrops is diverse both in terms of morphology and species numbers becuase it underwent adaptive radiation after becoming the first pitvipers in South America. Keeping it as a single genus is a very appropriate reflection of this. If one wants to keep recognising Bothriopsis, then that implies splitting Bothrops into a whole bunch of small genera, which obscures that evolutionary and biogeographical pattern, confuses the nomenclature of a whole series of medically important species, and which I do not regard as helpful or constructive. Other authors differ from that point of view and feel that splitting Bothrops into a number of smaler general would be more informative.
The important point is that this is a matter of personal opinion or philosophy: do you prefer to focus ont he wood or the trees, the larger picture or the details? The fact that one version is adopted by a particular "standard work", however good it may be, does not mean that the matter is settled and any departure from it wrong - everyone is entitled to decide for themselves whether they find the argument for or against retaining Bothriopsis and splitting Bothrops more compelling. That applies even if others describe new genera to accommodate some of the species groups within Bothrops - there is nothing "official" about this, and adoption of any of these changes is purely a matter of personal preference.
As to fang length, yes, Bothrops taeniatus does have some very impressive chompers. And venom to match, as a friend found out not long ago...
Cheers,
Wolfgang
|
| |
|
RE: Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on August 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I said what I have to say about Bothrops and Bothriopsis in our 2002 paper in "Biology of the Vipers"
And thats all I have to say about that Bubba.
--------
Thanks Gump! :-D
|
| |
|
RE: Fang length
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on August 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Should I take what I see on the EMBL site with a "grain of salt"? <
>and a shot of tequila ;-)<
Now that's what I'm talking about!! Brain & Liver beware! :-D
Al
|
| |
|
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.
|
