• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

rat snakes venoumous???

bimmer kid

New member
Dr Fry is fascinated by venomous snakes and venom evolution. Last year he set off on a worldwide herpetological adventure to track down when and in what snake venom first evolved. The result was the ground-breaking discovery that snake venom developed only once in evolution and it did so about 60 million years ago, millions of years earlier than previously thought, and before the snakes we commonly think of as non-venomous even arrived on the scene.

"Contrary to popular belief, venom appears to have evolved at about the same time as advanced snakes started to appear. Even fangs and large venom glands arrived much later," says Dr Fry.

"This means the first venomous snakes evolved from the heavy-bodied swamp monsters similar to the anacondas of today. These snakes traded in their heavy muscle for speed and agility. Venom rather than muscle became the tool necessary for these snakes to capture their prey," he says.

The consequence of this is that venom is an inherent condition of virtually all advanced snakes, and that includes the assumed non-venomous species.

Dr Fry has now analysed the venoms from the many different snake lineages collected from his worldwide hunt and elsewhere, some of these were common pet-store snakes. He discovered that their venoms are just as complex as venoms from some of the world's deadliest snakes such as the cobras, puff adders and taipans.

"Some non-venomous snakes have been previously thought to have only mild 'toxic saliva'. But these results suggest that they actually possess true venoms," says Dr Fry.

"We even isolated from a rat snake, a snake common in pet stores, a typical cobra-style neurotoxin, one that is as potent as comparative toxins found in close relatives of the cobra," he says.

Fry's worldwide wandering has also boosted the number of what were previously assumed to be non-venomous snakes from a mere few hundred to more than 2000.

These snakes typically have smaller quantities of venom and lack fangs, but they can still deliver their venom via their numerous sharp teeth," says Dr Fry.

"But not all of these snakes are dangerous. It does mean, however, that we need to re-evaluate the relative danger of non-venomous snakes," he says.

Dr Fry trekked from Madagascar to Melbourne, dived for sea snakes in the remote South Pacific Islands, explored caves, climbed trees and milked over 2,000 snakes a year to gather his research findings.

"It was extreme science, but I had a complete blast doing it," he says.

As well as the evolutionary revelations, Dr Fry has also uncovered a vast range of new and unstudied toxins for toxinologists.

"The natural pharmacology that exists witihin animal venoms is a tremendous resource waiting to be tapped," he says.

"The toxin isolated from the ratsnake is an excellent candidate for use as a laboratory tool or even as a scaffold for use in drug design and development. The medical community may also benefit by exploring the effects of these unknown toxins in the human body."
 
This one has come up before here.. I think without disputing anything he says (he knows his field better than me I'm sure) that we can still view them as being essentially nonvenomous since they haven't the ability to put that venom into you in any amount that threatens us. If they were there are many many people on this site that would have been dead by now. Myself included.. So maybe now technically venomous, but just on a technicality, LOL.
Makes you wonder though if they lost that ability (to use the venom that is) over the years in FAVOR of constriction. In the way that animals in caves who never need them seem to lose their eyes (or have them covered over).. We humans think of venom as being worse, but I wonder which one you'd rather face if you were a mouse? Bite and release, at least I've got a few minutes to run before it hits you, constriction not so, LOL. You're done.
 
yeah, I really love these type of researches as well. I have a really old book about snake evolution, and it's really funny what type of information is in it. There's one question that I personally have that I would love an answer to, what makes certain snakes evolve to mimic venomous ones? for instance a coral snake, and milk snake, or certain king snakes. There's also a snake that lives in the natural range of cobras, that can mimic their hood but are'nt venomous. My only conclusion was that you have a million types of snakes that vary in color, pattern, venomous/non-venomous, constrictors. And certain traits, like those of non venomous snakes that mimic venomous ones, have just survived and not exactly "evolved" to look that way. Which is still evolution don't get me wrong, but not evolution as in they have taken physical changes to mimic venomous ones, I mean in the sense that they have survived because of their appearence. And some have lost the venom, and now use constriction based on the effectiveness of holding prey, versus invenomating and chasing it down.
 
I think that what he means to say is that it's exciting to find small amounts of venom in harmless snakes because it shows us something about how they evolved, rather than as a warning that the corns can hurt us... Not that anyones suggesting that, just saying.
 
This kind of reminds me of the Komodo Dragon. Not only do they have a mild venom that isn't neccessarily deadly to man, but they also have a virtual soup of virulent bacteria in their saliva that will kill the prey ( human or otherwise) by causing septicemia within a week of the bite.
 
.... that we can still view them as being essentially nonvenomous since they haven't the ability to put that venom into you in any amount that threatens us. If they were there are many many people on this site that would have been dead by now. Myself included.. So maybe now technically venomous, but just on a technicality, LOL.
Lets not confuse the term venomous with being deadly or having the ability to deliver the venom in an efficient way. If think if Brian Fry says ratsnakes are venomous, they are.
 
LOL, Wade I think that's the point I'm making though I did use the word wrong.. I've read somewhere on these boards where that's SOMEONE'S pet peeve..:grin01:
 
This really makesme wonder tho...and maybe this is me reading into this too far...but, I just got doen watching a show where they were working with chicken DNA, and they found out how to turn on and off certian genes that have been "Physically" lost through eveolution...and results were. they could make a chicken have a longet tail..and make a chicken grow teeth...they just used some, amino acid..(I believe)...to turn the selected genes on and off...and ovbiousley these genes were passed down from their early..reptile-like ancestors....(kinda a kick to the teeth to people who dont believe in evolution...HA! HA!.."we told ya so!)
anyway...what I am wondering is...I bet all snakes..way, deep down in their genes carry the ability to produce venom.... its just a matter of it being the right time to have that ability turned on or off.a way of eveolution and maybe natural slection...Because your genome is kinda like'a timeline in a way that you will always carry a blue print of what was...and whats now...It does make you wonder tho....what we could create, with a little knowledge....My god this stuff just sucks me in....lol..sorry for the long reply!:crazy01:
 
Yeeer man I see it too.......

Sorry I mean yes I see what you mean....
No I mean I know what you mean but I'm too shallow to think too much about it..... But I believe you... And thats what counts in the grand scheme of things....LOL
 
Did I misunderstand you? If so, I'm sorry.

No problem, you're right though, I did say it.

I guess what I thought I was saying (over all if it didn't come through clearly) is that I'm quite sure he knows what he's talking about. If he says he found some amount of venom production in rat snakes, I believe him that he did. And that technically makes them 'venomous'.. My point was that nobody need worry about corn snake bites any more than they did before finding this out. I think the main significance (as I took it anyway, I may be wrong) of what he's saying, is what it tells us about their evolution. Maybe when he says that the concept of being 'venomous' is more or less more complicated than just "will it hurt people" if we are bitten by them, is something that worries me though. It does because though WE may understand that, it could be getting the wrong message out there. When we say, "Ok, rat snakes are now venomous" people that don't have the patience for all the information will get the wrong idea.
Can you imagine the hype that could be made by those who don't like reptiles as pets? PETA would sure love that headline.. "Corn Snakes found to produce Cobra Venom!!!":rolleyes:
 
lol..yeah, and there would be an international bann..ha...it would be ugly..we'd have to smuggle them into our homes inside VCR's...lol...I just dont know now'a'days..
 
Yeeer man I see it too.......

Sorry I mean yes I see what you mean....
No I mean I know what you mean but I'm too shallow to think too much about it..... But I believe you... And thats what counts in the grand scheme of things....LOL

BTW..that whole speel was not herb induced..I haven't done that since Fr. year in high school..just me pickin' my own brain..lol
 
people that don't have the patience for all the information will get the wrong idea.
Can you imagine the hype that could be made by those who don't like reptiles as pets? PETA would sure love that headline.. "Corn Snakes found to produce Cobra Venom!!!":rolleyes:


That could be Tom. But then, we have been selling venomous Hog Nose snakes for a long time without issue. Tarantulas are all venomous but not dangerous. Poison Dart frogs. There are lots of things that are venomous but are not dangerous. (I know poison darts are poisonous and not venomous, don't write me a letter). :grin01:
 
No problem, you're right though, I did say it.

I guess what I thought I was saying (over all if it didn't come through clearly) is that I'm quite sure he knows what he's talking about. If he says he found some amount of venom production in rat snakes, I believe him that he did. And that technically makes them 'venomous'.. My point was that nobody need worry about corn snake bites any more than they did before finding this out. I think the main significance (as I took it anyway, I may be wrong) of what he's saying, is what it tells us about their evolution. Maybe when he says that the concept of being 'venomous' is more or less more complicated than just "will it hurt people" if we are bitten by them, is something that worries me though. It does because though WE may understand that, it could be getting the wrong message out there. When we say, "Ok, rat snakes are now venomous" people that don't have the patience for all the information will get the wrong idea.
Can you imagine the hype that could be made by those who don't like reptiles as pets? PETA would sure love that headline.. "Corn Snakes found to produce Cobra Venom!!!":rolleyes:

Please no one let ANY of the shipping companies know this either. :rolleyes:We have enough problems with them already.:rolleyes: Rich should just bury this thread in his backyard and we should never mention cornsnakes and venom in the same sentence, much less think about the two...:sidestep:
 
BTW..that whole speel was not herb induced..I haven't done that since Fr. year in high school..just me pickin' my own brain..lol

Sorry I was playing..... Though my shpeel was alcohol induced if it's any consolation...LOL

Please no one let ANY of the shipping companies know this either. :rolleyes:We have enough problems with them already.:rolleyes: Rich should just bury this thread in his backyard and we should never mention cornsnakes and venom in the same sentence, much less think about the two...:sidestep:
I think corns have advanced as far as to not producing any venom at all now....
It's Rats that still produce a very small quantity of the hard stuff....
And in reality the mechanism isn't there for envenomation... Or the quantities to make it dangerous... But it is linked to the 3FTx venom and their isn't any need to produce an anti venom serum... So out of the four things that determine how dangerous a snakes bite is the two main factors in envenomation are missing..... Though if it did get you, your stuffed due to the last one... No serum...LOL... Though as we all know that ain't ever going to happen...... Otherwise Hoggies would be on the list already....
 
This really makesme wonder tho...and maybe this is me reading into this too far...but, I just got doen watching a show where they were working with chicken DNA, and they found out how to turn on and off certian genes that have been "Physically" lost through eveolution...and results were. they could make a chicken have a longet tail..and make a chicken grow teeth...they just used some, amino acid..(I believe)...to turn the selected genes on and off...and ovbiousley these genes were passed down from their early..reptile-like ancestors....(kinda a kick to the teeth to people who dont believe in evolution...HA! HA!.."we told ya so!)
anyway...what I am wondering is...I bet all snakes..way, deep down in their genes carry the ability to produce venom.... its just a matter of it being the right time to have that ability turned on or off.a way of eveolution and maybe natural slection...Because your genome is kinda like'a timeline in a way that you will always carry a blue print of what was...and whats now...It does make you wonder tho....what we could create, with a little knowledge....My god this stuff just sucks me in....lol..sorry for the long reply!:crazy01:

I'm inclined to disagree, I know I am the minority on this forum but I personally do not believe in macroevo.(the evolution from one species to another) I do believe in microevo.(the mutations and adaptations within a species) I would be hard pressed to find someone that can disprove micro evolution. Given my beliefs have their roots in my religion and I do not mean to start any kind of negative conversation but I think that in time the chickens that were mentioning simply did not have a need for certain attributes that were once needed in the past. Not eating meat any more, ok no teeth, no need for a tail, alright short tail, no need to fly because all the food they need they can get from the ground, muscles in their wings began over time to get weaker and weaker and they can no longer fly. This can also be applied to the venom in snakes, although I was under the impression that the species that use constriction as a way to kill were the inferior species and the more advanced were the venomous. So I am curious if this means that it is the other way around?? Very interesting results. Just my .02, feel free to start a Christian witch hunt:sidestep:
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that the species that use constriction as a way to kill were the inferior species and the more advanced were the venomous. So I am curious if this means that it is the other way around?? Very interesting results. Just my .02, feel free to start a Christian witch hunt:sidestep:
No witch hunt...... No one can prove you wrong in your theory.... So it's as valid as any other...IMO....
I added this as you sound like your interested..

http://venomdoc.com/

This is where the OP started this debate from....
 
Back
Top