VenomousReptiles.org Survey

Survey Question	Current Survey Question Should hobbyists ever free handle venomous reptiles with their hands? Recent Surveys Most venomous/toxic Naja species in the world? I have read that the Philippine cobra is the most venomous (mice, 0.2 mg/kg SC with the lowest reported value being 0.14 mg/kg SC) (Brown, 1973). I have recently, come across something in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology (Vol. 30, (issue 12), pages: 1158-1162, 1992) which stated that the LD50 for Naja oxiana was the most toxic/venomous (mice, 0.18 mg/kg SC and lowest reported value was 0.10 mg/kg). Along with that, the mortality rate for untreated Naja oxiana bites are the highest among all Naja species (70-80%). N.oxiana also produced the lowest known lethal dose (LCLo) of 0.005 mg/kg, the lowest among all cobra species ever recorded, derived from an individual case of poisoning by intracerebroventricular injection. Following N. oxiana and N. philippinensis are N. melanoleuca at 0.225 mg/kg SC and then N. samarensis at 0.23 mg/kg. The water cobras (N. annulata and N. christyi also have very toxic venoms, but no SC values are listed. Only intraperitoneal (IP) values of 0.143 mg/kg for N. annulata and 0.12 mg/kg for N. christyi. IP values tend to be generally lower (more toxic than subcutaneous values, so it would be unfair to compare their IP results to the subcutaneous (SC) results of other Naja species. Then I have heard that (without solid evidence) that Naja nivea is the most venomous, although their murine SC LD50 range anywhere from 0.4 mg/kg (Toxicon, Vol. 5, issue 1, page 47, 1967) to 0.72 mg/kg (Australian venoms and toxins Databse). So which is the most venomous? To me it seems obvious that it is the Caspian or Oxus cobra (Naja oxiana), followed by the Philippine cobra (Naja philippinensis). What do you think or know? I've noticed that the Australian venom and toxin Database seems to have higher LD50 values for all snakes across the board. For example, for the black mamba IP value of 0.01 mg/kg is listed (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004101018890219X) and Ernst and Zug et al 1996, list a SC value of 0.05 mg/kg for the black mamba. While the Australian venom and toxin Database listed much less toxic LD50's. So there seems to be a lot of variation. 2014-01-23 What's Your Favorite Venomous Snake? 2013-11-13 Deadliest Bite? 2013-09-16 IF the science of self-immunization for a snake envenomation was proven/perfected what is the least benefit(percentage) you would accept before practicing it on yourself? 2013-06-06 how did you learn to keep venomous reptiles? 2013-03-02 View All Survey Questions Have a good idea for a VenomousReptiles.org Survey question? Enter your idea!
Are you in favor of accepting the new mDNA / Nuclear DNA way of classifying snakes?   Posted: Mar 16, 2009   (61 votes, 6 comments) by Ptk   Yes   No   I don't know what you are talking about!   Could care less either way.   Other     (61 votes, 6 comments)
Survey Results
Yes 49% (30) No 28% (17) I don't know what you are talking about! 15% (9) Could care less either way. 8% (5) Other 0% (0)
Survey Comments
DNA I agree that DNA gives us the best information on the relationships of a group of animals, however a problem arises when scientists decide at what level in the phylogenetic tree to divide up species, genera, and higher taxonomic levels. Some scientists are lumpers, some are splitters. New genera have been assigned using genetics without first seeing if the morphology of preserved specimens agrees with the diagnosis. In the last ten years the North American Ratsnakes changed from Elaphe to Pantherophis, to Scotophis. Pantherophis was erected because N American taxa are more closely related to each other than to other asian Elaphe. This does not mean that N. American snakes are not also related to Asian Elaphe and cannot be placed as a branch within Elaphe. Also remember that scientists can only suggest that the new taxon names be used, we can ignore the changes and continue using, for example, Elaphe. The idea behind a scientific name is to have a constant name (as opposed to local common names) for a species that everyone will recognize. I am concerned that repeated changes to the taxonomy of threatened species will lead to confusion. Politicians may take advantage of this and decide that the taxon does not exist and bulldoze the habitat. Posted by kucycads on April 15, 2009 DNA not the last word either. View use of DNA as one of many tools, and always remember, that other tools might come along that will replace it. Science is not static, it is ever changing. John Z This helps summarize my thoughts. Man is so arrogant most times a new technology comes along he figures it's the last word. DNA IDing one day will be found to have holes also, like EVERYTHING has. Question is as far as snakes how much harm will be done? As far as justice just ask those convicted on lie detectors years ago. Steve Melton Posted by Voided37 on April 14, 2009 DNA Use The use of mDNA / Nuclear DNA as a way of classifying snakes can be used to reveal unknown ancestrial relationships of animals. However, it is just one more "tool," and items like pattern, coloration, size, shape, scale counts, location, hemipenes, and osteology are still of value, and are often considered along with DNA evidence by various scientists. DNA usage can leave unsolved questions about relationships that cannot be answered at this time. How a scientist uses DNA research can vary hugely, based on how he "weighs" the many various factors that make up the final conclusion. Also, relationships of animals must fit within various established "rules" of taxonomy and cladistic systematics, however, as we can see by the recent threads on this site titled "Yikes," there can be strong disagreement among researchers. We are finding that just because groups of animals "can" be split up based on ancestry, that perhaps they should be left alone, as the ultimate idea is to prevent confusion and complication, and create a naming system for animals that can be universally understood. In other words, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." View use of DNA as one of many tools, and always remember, that other tools might come along that will replace it. Science is not static, it is ever changing. Just this week, on Science Daily, this was announced: "In a dramatic rewrite of the recipe for life, scientists from Florida are describing the design of a new type of DNA with 12 chemical letters instead of the usual four." This could lead to new classification systems, and man-made DNA, and, perhaps even man-made lifeforms. This could also help explain many of the unknowns of DNA we now have concerning partial gene expression. "One of the greatest mistakes a person can make, is to look for finite answers..... They do not exist." John Z Posted by Cro on March 30, 2009 DNA Molecular work is always the best way to categorize relationships and phylogenies. Systematics of snakes is a mess as it is, we need a clear picture and only molecular genetics will give us the true answers. Posted by Leftoflarry on March 19, 2009 Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA certainly provide clear concrete proof of descent and relationships. Posted by Crotalusssp on March 17, 2009 DNA I am in favor because it gives us a clearer picture of origin and relationships.I do not have to like the results.Lately I find I prefer the cold hard facts over what I perceive to be truth. Posted by pictigaster1 on March 16, 2009 To post a comment, you must be logged in. If you are not a member, become one now!