Talk:List of dangerous snakes

Some initials comments

Note: The following is a replication of this post from this discussion at Talk:Snakebite, from which this article has been recently spun-out:

While it seems that the IP editor's position that Dendro was cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources seems to be have been validated by ANI (along with evidence of socking via SPI), I would point out that some of the points he made were not altogether invalid. For one, on this project, lists of the sort being debated (in articles which are not themselves list articles) are generally avoided as unencyclopedic content. I see the content under debate has now been spun out to List of dangerous snakes by Jmh649 and while in principle, I think this could be a useful article, I have to note that the present version has some rather serious issues, and I can see how this content led to disruptive discussions here. For starters, that new article does not exactly hold tight to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; a huge eyesore of a table tops the article, containing detailed clinical information that is of dubious encyclopedic value / questionable use to our readers -- given further that about 70% of it's cells lack any information at all, I question it's usefulness. In addition to this table, numerous sections bellow contain massive, unbroken, and unformatted blocks of text concerning clinical details and little in the way of context. Compounding the issues with readability further is the fact that the prose itself (that which is not dedicated to technical specification on venom amounts and potency) is incredibly weak and sub-par to our general project standards. If it is to stay, this article is going to need significant improvement utilizing the perspectives of new contributors. As such, I advise the IP that, though he has come out on top of this recent row (which, I might note, neither party approached in strictest manner as regards civility), he should be prepared for the fact that the article may need to be significantly parsed down to meet summary style, or at least improved drastically for readability. Snow talk 05:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Methodologies of the danger categorization

I think a clear methodology should be shown in order to let readers know how the danger of these snakes were categorized. In particular, I'm not quite agree that the many-banded krait is superior to cobras when it comes to danger levels. The latter ones are often more aggressive when disturbed with larger fangs, despite their lower LD50 toxicity. Temperament is more crucial in my opinion as, otherwise, a given species is just potentially hazardous (although this can be a very subjective issue). Maybe, we can separate the categories using different dimensions, like toxicity, general temperament, venom delivery efficiency, etc. Biomedicinal

I also have issues with the methodology. This article lists the Australian eastern brown snake as the second deadliest snake in the world. Sure, it may have the second most toxic venom gram for gram but it delivers minute quantities compared to other snakes such as the Australian tiger snakes. A solid envenomating bite from an Indian Cobra compared to a bite from a tiger snake would be like being shot with a 50 cal compared to being shot with a Howitzer. (Of course, you still don’t end up any deader). This comparrison is also reflected in the coastal taipan. On the other hand, cobras live where more people live and are probably more dangerous for this reason alone.

I have both venom toxicity and milking records of some Australian snakes from several sources, but can’t use them on Wikipedia because they are either personal research or they haven’t been publically published. They show the brown snake way down on the list as far as deadliest. Tiger snakes also have very rapid venom replenishment and can strike multiple times making them much more deadly than brown snakes. A friend of mine was bitten 3 times in very rapid succession. Thanks to ambulances, hospitals, intensive care units and anti-venom he survived but he is no longer the same fit, strong person he was before even several years after the bite.

Even so, I consider brown snakes to be more dangerous. They are much more aggressive, faster moving and live where more people live.

“Venom toxicity”, “deadliness” and “dangerous” are not all the same thing.Euc (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Black mamba sections

I have removed some unsourced info concerning death time in humans for the black mamba and also a sourced statement that D.polylepsis has been know to cause death within 20 minutes. This statement was sourced to a Nat Geo animal summary page, which does not evidence the claim at all, and the second was to a children's book on snakes... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Serious problems

This article appears to have been heavily contributed to by DendroNaja (talk · contribs) (under a variety of other usernames) who was banned for sock puppetry, plagiarism and generating fake references. I have uncovered a couple such examples and removed them from the article, but it is safe to assume that potentially large parts of the remaining article may be padded out with completely misrepresented or non-existent references. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Factual error- identical venom data quoted for two different species

In this article, both the "Black Mamba" and the "Coastal Taipan" (two distinct species from different continents) in their respective sections are said to produce an average of 120mg of venom per bite with a single record of 400mg. Obviously both cannot be correct, I believe it's the Mamba actually, therefore the Taipan info is incorrect. It appears the author has quoted the same reference for both snakes, I personally haven't checked the whole article and it is likely full of similar errors/mistakes. --Jasonmc132 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok for the first one, the black mambas venom kills u UNDER 20 min Duh RubberDucky2232 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you source that? Meters (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of dangerous snakes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029190702/http://www.toxinology.com/fusebox.cfm?fuseaction=main.snakes.display&id=SN0170 to http://www.toxinology.com/fusebox.cfm?fuseaction=main.snakes.display&id=SN0170

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of dangerous snakes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419012946/http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/scientists/interviews/f/fry.html to http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/scientists/interviews/f/fry.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avru.org/?q=general%2Fgeneral_mostvenom.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425231856/http://www.zoocheck.com/Reportpdfs/Venomous%20snakes.pdf to http://www.zoocheck.com/Reportpdfs/Venomous%20snakes.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402114831/http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Dendroa1.htm to http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Dendroa1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402114841/http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Naja3.htm to http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Naja3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402114801/http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Arietans.htm to http://drdavidson.ucsd.edu/Portals/0/snake/Arietans.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060401022204/http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/2380861/detail.html to http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/2380861/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of dangerous snakes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212151340/http://rockyourpaper.org/article/production-of-effective-antivenin-to-treat-cobra-snake-naja-naja-oxiana-envenoming-887be8012ae6d7d5cbc366419e6afe8c to http://rockyourpaper.org/article/production-of-effective-antivenin-to-treat-cobra-snake-naja-naja-oxiana-envenoming-887be8012ae6d7d5cbc366419e6afe8c
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109073532/http://www.afpmb.org/content/venomous-animals-b to http://www.afpmb.org/content/venomous-animals-b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hole in table. Maths wrong.

0.01 110 550,000 138 Inland taipan (O. microlepidotus)

0.225 1102 244,889 61 Forest cobra (N. melanoleuca)

0.03 155 258,333 65 Eastern brown snake (P. textilis)

0.106 400 188,679 47 Coastal taipan (O. s. scutellatus)

0.18 590 163,889 41 Caspian cobra (N. oxiana)

0.28 400 71,429 18 Black mamba (D. polylepis)

0.162 268 82,716 21 Russell's viper (D. russelli)

1.09 1000 45,872 11 King cobra (O. hannah)

0.8 610 38,125 10 Indian cobra (N. naja)

0.4 250 31,250 8 Cape cobra (N. nivea)

3.1 1530 24,677 6 Terciopelo (B. asper)

5 2400 24,000 6 Gaboon viper (B. gabonica)

0.151 72 23,841 6 Saw-scaled viper (E. carinatus)

The fatality table figures should be, as above.

The “count” is for 20g mice and 80kg humans. For some reason, line 1 (currently) uses 10g mice and 38kg humans.

(I couldn’t figure out how to get a table display on this page. And there’s no Tab key on an iPhone, so the alignment is crap.)

MBG02 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: The toxicity for the Inland taipan (O. microlepidotus) is 4.4 times the value cited in the table immediately above it – and (likewise) 1.77 times for the Eastern brown snake (P. textilis). MBG02 (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding the "Water mocassin" also known as "Cotton mouth" (or "Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma")

Nice article, I think it would be interesting to add this snake: "Water mocassin" also known as "Cotton mouth" (or "Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agkistrodon_piscivorus_leucostoma to the list. There is maybe not much bites or fatalities but it's the same for the Tiger rattlesnake(from the article), which is in the list already. Thanks! Akem75 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Australian Copperheads

I agree. Also there is mention of American copperheads, but nothing on the Australian versions (Austrelaps superbus and Austrelaps ramsayi) which are more significant and would probably fall close in equivalency to the cobras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:31F7:F901:0:0:0:5 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Australian Copperhead certainly deserves mention, but I'm not sure the American Copperhead does. It's not a particularly dangerous snake. The Audubon field guide says "Copperhead bites are painful, but rarely pose a serious threat to life." (And the "Australian versions" are actually unrelated.) MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Carpet viper

The carpet viper is not linked here in the first paragraph but it has its own article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echis_pyramidum

I was going to change this but the page is locked. Aholver93 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Aholver93, Echis ocellatus is also called the carpet viper, so we link to Echis. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! Aholver93 (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a "List of" article!

This article is not a "list of" type of article. It should be just a list of snakes, with minimal commentary. Some of the text should be merged into the snake or snake venom article. Most of it should be merged into the articles of individual species. And the list should be expanded... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

On envenomation and the speed of biting

Right now this article contains the following text: "Envenomation by this species invariably causes severe neurotoxicity because black mambas often strike repeatedly in a single lunge, biting the victim up to 12 times in extremely rapid succession.[57] Such an attack is fast, lasting less than one second, and so it may appear to be a single strike and single bite. With each bite, the snake delivers anywhere from 100 to 400 mg of a rapid-acting and virulently toxic venom. " Problem is, that sounds absolutely absurd (12 bites in a single second?? Is it a jackhammer?" and the source to which it used to link is now dead. I would love to see a legit source for this. For now, its just a good story, and I am removing it. A loose necktie (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Name

About of this snake like it's name 157.42.227.200 (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Tremendous work

Whoever has been working on this article has done a bang-up job. Truly valuable contributions. Bravo bravo. jengod (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Scientific Issues

First of all, the table of "various species' mice & human killing capacity" is extremely unnecessary to exist under the "Most Venomous" section for having no base of selection and being not scientific. Such killing capacity heavily bases on assumed masses of rodents, which may vary drastically, and injection methods (SC, IV, IM e.t.c.). It is extremely not scientific to compare since some species may not have adequate LD50 data for a particular injection method, resulting in inconsistent methodologies by which those "headcounts" are calculated. Moreover, in reality vipers have far larger fangs than elapids, resulting in more probabilities of injecting venom intravenously rather than subcutaneously. Thus, even standardizing the injection method produces math deviating from facts. Even worse, human physiology differs from murine. It is highly controversial to include such claims.

Secondly, all these species are medically significant. Classifying them into different danger levels often draws controversy for what merits this list should adopt. There is NO consensus even among herpetologists. For instance, some experts suggest actual morbidities are far more important than mortality rates after bitten since the latter are counted theoretically (assuming that one REALLY encounters a species and DOES get bitten afterwards). Others think that the one which bit you is the most dangerous. It is a joke to place lancehead vipers under taipans since the former group causes far more human snakebites and causalities due to their proximity, subtle threat displays and aggression if provoked. Similarly, the puff adder has been listed by NatGeo as a more dangerous African snake than the black mamba in their "most dangerous animals" series because of its much higher snakebite morbidity. This is a matter of definitions on "most dangerous". To be more neutral, avoid such rankings.

Third, this type of aggregate is almost always inconsistent to those main pages. It is hard to maintain its accuracy. I personally see no reason to include lengthy contents under each individual section here. Often, when the info on a particular snake has been updated, this page keeps the old. Discussing accuracy, the king cobra has been described way too docile based on just a single source ("page specify" request has been made for the source) while the forest cobra has been lifted with an outlier datum on its venom yield (even the paper itself states that the result was obtained from two individuals after 59 times of milking which is a small sample size). I suggest to include only the murine LD50 data, common clinical signs and venom onset, as well as snakebite morbidities among humans for each species here.

Any other voice of how to condense? RoyalRover (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Source for number of venomous snake species

Cannot find a source at all for the number of venomous snake species. I am trying to write an essay and I need a source for this fact, and I am concerned that wikipedia does not have it. Owlerrrr (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)