Poisonous bites

[Nanci]

I found out yesterday that typing fingers can incite a hognose who imagines himself starving even though he was fed _Monday_ to bite.

Nanci

 

[desertanimal]

Shakespeare, I'd like to point out that the OED does not always reflect the jargon within a particular field. For exmaple: The definition of evolution: If you are a population geneticist--I daresay, if you are a geneticist of any kind, and often if you are just an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, or a member of many other disciplines concerned with evolutionary questions--evolution is defined as "change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next." This definition is quite a sticking point, because it allows for evolution to be detected unequivocally by testing for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which is what you get when no evolution is occuring. Nowhere in the following page of definitions will you find this definition of evolution, or really, anything close. Jargon is often not found in dictionaries, because it's used only by very particular groups of people. Similarly, if you are a developmental psychologist, the words temperament and personality DO NOT mean the same thing, and there have been papers published on how these words should be used. I don't use either word if I can help it when I'm talking about primate behavior becuase the psychology people are likely to get their underwear in a bunch over it. In herpetology, and, I daresay, in entymology and ichthyology as well, the words poisonous and venemous mean very specific things and are not interchangeable. Those definitions are not reflected by common (or even uncommon) usage, so they will not be found in the OED or most other dictionaries. But here, we operate in the realm of herpetology, so people adhere to the jargon of herpetology, and naturally (because they are herpetologists, really) the people here think the distiction is important. Were I to call my ex, who is a Spanish literature PhD, she would not find the distinction neither interesting nor important. She, though, is extremely picky about the usage of words like Latino and Hispanic . . .

EVOLUTION: (from the OED)
I. The process of unrolling, opening out, or disengaging from an envelope.
1. The opening out or unfolding of what is wrapped up (e.g. a roll, a bud, etc.); fig. the spreading out before the mental vision (of a series of objects); the appearance in orderly succession of a long train of events. Also concr. ‘the series of things unfolded or unrolled’ (J.).
2. Emergence or protrusion from the folds of an envelope. Frequent in Biol.
3. The process of evolving, disengaging, or giving off (gas, heat, light, sound, etc.); an instance of this process.
4. Math. a. Geom. The unfolding or opening out of a curve: (a) the straightening it out, through all intermediate degrees of curvature, till it becomes a straight line; (b) the production from it of an involute, such as would be traced by the end of a stretched flexible thread unwound from the outside of the curve.
b. Arith. and Alg. The extraction of any root from any given power; the reverse of involution.
5. a. The process of evolving, developing, or working out in detail, what is implicitly or potentially contained in an idea or principle; the development of a design, argument, etc.
b. concr. The result of this process.
6. Biol. a. Of animal and vegetable organisms or their parts: The process of developing from a rudimentary to a mature or complete state.
b. theory of evolution: the hypothesis (first propounded under that name by Bonnet 1762) that the embryo or germ, instead of being brought into existence by the process of fecundation, is a development or expansion of a pre-existing form, which contains the rudiments of all the parts of the future organism. Also called ‘the theory of Preformation’; the latter name is now preferred, to avoid confusion with the following sense.
c. The origination of species of animals and plants, as conceived by those who attribute it to a process of development from earlier forms, and not to a process of ‘special creation’. Often in phrases doctrine, theory of evolution.
7. The development or growth, according to its inherent tendencies, of anything that may be compared to a living organism (e.g. of a political constitution, science, language, etc.); sometimes contrasted with revolution. Also, the rise or origination of anything by natural development, as distinguished from its production by a specific act; ‘growing’ as opposed to ‘being made’.
8. The formation of the heavenly bodies according to the received theory which supposes it to have taken place by the concentration and consolidation of cosmic matter.
9. In recent philosophical speculation used in a more comprehensive sense, of which the senses 6a, 6c, 7, 8 are regarded as special applications. social evolution, the development of human societies.

II. A tactical movement (and derived senses).
10. Mil. and Naut. The unfolding or opening out of a body of troops or squadron of ships; hence gen. any movement or change of position, such as counter-marching, wheeling, etc., required in the due disposition of a force, whether for review, or for active operations. Also fig.
11. transf. a. A wheeling about; a movement in dancing, gymnastics, etc. Also, one of the regulated and recurring movements of a portion of a machine.
b. A winding about, an intricate form. Obs.
III. 12. In etymological sense: The action of rolling (anything) out on a spindle. rare.

 

[sfaoldguy]

Shakespeare, I'd like to point out that the OED does not always reflect the jargon within a particular field. For exmaple: The definition of evolution: If you are a population geneticist--I daresay, if you are a geneticist of any kind, and often if you are just an evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, or a member of many other disciplines concerned with evolutionary questions--evolution is defined as "change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next." This definition is quite a sticking point, because it allows for evolution to be detected unequivocally by testing for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which is what you get when no evolution is occuring. Nowhere in the following page of definitions will you find this definition of evolution, or really, anything close. Jargon is often not found in dictionaries, because it's used only by very particular groups of people. Similarly, if you are a developmental psychologist, the words temperament and personality DO NOT mean the same thing, and there have been papers published on how these words should be used. I don't use either word if I can help it when I'm talking about primate behavior becuase the psychology people are likely to get their underwear in a bunch over it. In herpetology, and, I daresay, in entymology and ichthyology as well, the words poisonous and venemous mean very specific things and are not interchangeable. Those definitions are not reflected by common (or even uncommon) usage, so they will not be found in the OED or most other dictionaries. But here, we operate in the realm of herpetology, so people adhere to the jargon of herpetology, and naturally (because they are herpetologists, really) the people here think the distiction is important. Were I to call my ex, who is a Spanish literature PhD, she would not find the distinction neither interesting nor important. She, though, is extremely picky about the usage of words like Latino and Hispanic . . .

EVOLUTION: (from the OED)
I. The process of unrolling, opening out, or disengaging from an envelope.
1. The opening out or unfolding of what is wrapped up (e.g. a roll, a bud, etc.); fig. the spreading out before the mental vision (of a series of objects); the appearance in orderly succession of a long train of events. Also concr. ‘the series of things unfolded or unrolled’ (J.).
2. Emergence or protrusion from the folds of an envelope. Frequent in Biol.
3. The process of evolving, disengaging, or giving off (gas, heat, light, sound, etc.); an instance of this process.
4. Math. a. Geom. The unfolding or opening out of a curve: (a) the straightening it out, through all intermediate degrees of curvature, till it becomes a straight line; (b) the production from it of an involute, such as would be traced by the end of a stretched flexible thread unwound from the outside of the curve.
b. Arith. and Alg. The extraction of any root from any given power; the reverse of involution.
5. a. The process of evolving, developing, or working out in detail, what is implicitly or potentially contained in an idea or principle; the development of a design, argument, etc.
b. concr. The result of this process.
6. Biol. a. Of animal and vegetable organisms or their parts: The process of developing from a rudimentary to a mature or complete state.
b. theory of evolution: the hypothesis (first propounded under that name by Bonnet 1762) that the embryo or germ, instead of being brought into existence by the process of fecundation, is a development or expansion of a pre-existing form, which contains the rudiments of all the parts of the future organism. Also called ‘the theory of Preformation’; the latter name is now preferred, to avoid confusion with the following sense.
c. The origination of species of animals and plants, as conceived by those who attribute it to a process of development from earlier forms, and not to a process of ‘special creation’. Often in phrases doctrine, theory of evolution.
7. The development or growth, according to its inherent tendencies, of anything that may be compared to a living organism (e.g. of a political constitution, science, language, etc.); sometimes contrasted with revolution. Also, the rise or origination of anything by natural development, as distinguished from its production by a specific act; ‘growing’ as opposed to ‘being made’.
8. The formation of the heavenly bodies according to the received theory which supposes it to have taken place by the concentration and consolidation of cosmic matter.
9. In recent philosophical speculation used in a more comprehensive sense, of which the senses 6a, 6c, 7, 8 are regarded as special applications. social evolution, the development of human societies.

II. A tactical movement (and derived senses).
10. Mil. and Naut. The unfolding or opening out of a body of troops or squadron of ships; hence gen. any movement or change of position, such as counter-marching, wheeling, etc., required in the due disposition of a force, whether for review, or for active operations. Also fig.
11. transf. a. A wheeling about; a movement in dancing, gymnastics, etc. Also, one of the regulated and recurring movements of a portion of a machine.
b. A winding about, an intricate form. Obs.
III. 12. In etymological sense: The action of rolling (anything) out on a spindle. rare.

I think he covered that when he wrote "This may or may not correspond to the currently accepted conventions of American herpetologists and biologists" although many biologists and herpetologists do agree with it.

 

[Snakespeare]

I'd like to point out that the OED does not always reflect the jargon within a particular field.

I'm quite aware that the OED doesn't always reflect usage by specialists, and I believe I offered an adequate qualification on this point in the first sentence of my post: "This may or may not correspond to the currently accepted conventions of American herpetologists and biologists . . . ."

Could you cite some explanations from specialists, or definitions from the relevant herpetological lexica so those of us who are not professional herpetologists or biologists can understand the distinction?

 

[desertanimal]

I'm quite aware that the OED doesn't always reflect usage by specialists, and I believe I offered an adequate qualification on this point in the first sentence of my post: "This may or may not correspond to the currently accepted conventions of American herpetologists and biologists . . . ."

Fair enough.

Could you cite some explanations from specialists, or definitions from the relevant herpetological lexica so those of us who are not professional herpetologists or biologists can understand the distinction?

If you're interested in knowing the difference, Wikipedia does a nice job explaining it.

It is important to note the difference between organisms that are "venomous" and "poisonous", two commonly confused terms with regards to plant and animal life. Venomous, as stated above, refers to animals that inject venom into their prey or as a self-defence mechanism. Poisonous, on the other hand, describes plants or animals that are harmful when consumed or touched. One species of bird, the hooded pitohui, although not venomous, is poisonous, secreting a neurotoxin on to its skin and feathers. The slow loris, a primate, blurs the boundary between poisonous and venomous; it has poison secreting patches on the inside of its elbows which it is believed to smear on its young to prevent them from being eaten. However, it will also lick these patches, giving it a venomous bite.

If you're interested in reading it in the primary literature, I suspect your lit-searching skills are up to the task of finding the appropriate references.

If you're interested in seeing me back up my assertions by citing some primary or secondary literature, I can go digging, but it will have to wait until next week sometime when I have the time--I need to get a bunch of data entered this weekend. It will take me a while, as it's one of those "everybody knows" kind of things that might end up being harder to dig up than are more specific research issues. And I have no herp books handy because I'm not a herpetologist.

 

[Snakespeare]

I guess it makes sense that biologists would want to distinguish animals that inject toxins from animals that are generally toxic--but making the distinction hinge upon the difference between "venomous" and "poisonous" seems somewhat arbitrary (etymologically they both mean "full of poison"). Why didn't they make up a new word? Note that the Wikipedia entry for venom even notes (in an earlier section) that the distinction is "subjective." And then there's the slow loris (sounds fascinating).

What's important for me is not that you back up your assertions--please don't trouble yourself with this on my account if you have other things to do. I asked the question because I was genuinely curious (and I suspected that others were as well). And I still am. I'm not quite curious enough to spend a lot of time on this myself, but as someone interested in language, I'm interested in how words are used in specialized as well as non-specialized contexts. I'm also sensitive to the fact that specialists quite often disagree about their own jargon, and that jargon changes over time. I suspect that there's an interesting history about how the venomous/poisonous distinction evolved, and I suspect that the distinction is not entirely orthodox (though of course I could be wrong).

There's also something to be said for abandoning jargon when speaking with non-specialists, or at least for politely explaining why a distinction is being made before it is made (the late Stephen Jay Gould is a fine example of this approach). Sometimes specialists avoid problems by creating new words, and sometimes they take old words and insist on new meanings that are at odds with historical and conventional usage. Ours is clearly the latter case, and I think it raises the following question: To what extent does an online forum on corn snakes that provides information mainly to people who are not professional herpetologists need to police its use of herpetological jargon, especially when that jargon is at odds with common usage? If there's a specialized word for something, and no alternative, it should be used, of course. But insisting that non-specialists adopt the jargon of specialists when asking simple, easily-understood questions ("has anyone ever been bit by something poisonous") just sounds painfully--er, pedantic--to me. If I felt the need to correct everyone who uses bad grammar and spelling on this forum my head would explode.

So I guess my points are twofold: (1) As a simple matter of intellectual curiosity, it would be interesting (perhaps to me alone) to know how the venomous/poisonous distinction evolved among biologists, and if it is still evolving, and (2) Unless a forum member is using ideas or words so incorrectly that they create confusion, we would all do well to hold the pedantry in check. And if there's a need for correction, we should do so politely, clearly, and logically. In other words, don't jump on people because they're not using language the way herpetologists use it--instead please explain why herpetologists use language the way they do, especially if their specialized usage makes a significant difference in the matter at hand.

 

[tyflier]

...So I guess my points are twofold: (1) As a simple matter of intellectual curiosity, it would be interesting (perhaps to me alone) to know how the venomous/poisonous distinction evolved among biologists, and if it is still evolving, and (2) Unless a forum member is using ideas or words so incorrectly that they create confusion, we would all do well to hold the pedantry in check. And if there's a need for correction, we should do so politely, clearly, and logically. In other words, don't jump on people because they're not using language the way herpetologists use it--instead please explain why herpetologists use language the way they do, especially if their specialized usage makes a significant difference in the matter at hand.

Fantastic. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While I understand the difference between ingesting a poison and being envenomated, I find it a bit...how shall I say it...?arrogant?, to go around correcting people when the meaning is undestood, and the difference is so subjective that proper modern dictionaries make little, if any, distinction, and even the qualified specialists cannot completely agree on one term over another for every scenario.

The fact is, most of us are not professional herpetologists and/or biologists, and therefor, the differentiation between venomous and poisonous is merely a matter of semantics. To be so bold as to correct individuals for "improper usage" of a term, when that term can clearly be shown as being appropriate by modern English dictionaries, is more than a little arrogant. It even goes beyond "pedantic"(I needed to look it up, too ). It's downright picky to the point of being purely argumentative at times.

The English language is neither dormant nor static. It is constantly changing and evolving to accomodate our ever-growing base of knowledge, and need for definitive speech. I remember a time when "ain't" wasn't a word, however, that, too, has evolved and changed, like most other "jargon".

And FWIW...I hate Wikipedia. It is certainly not the be-all-end-all of information, and makes it's fair share of errors, assumptions, and wrong conclusions. I prefer the use of Webster's or the Oxford English Dictionaries over Wikipedia, any day of the week. Especially when dealing with something of this nature. Wikipedia is too arrogant for it's own good, often enough. Not everything that can be read on the internet is true...

 

[desertanimal]

I guess it makes sense that biologists would want to distinguish animals that inject toxins from animals that are generally toxic--but making the distinction hinge upon the difference between "venomous" and "poisonous" seems somewhat arbitrary (etymologically they both mean "full of poison"). Why didn't they make up a new word? Note that the Wikipedia entry for venom even notes (in an earlier section) that the distinction is "subjective." And then there's the slow loris (sounds fascinating).

I think these points are all interesting and valid. It seems to me that languge, itself, is at the intersection of arbitrary and not arbitrary. It's symbolic, but it has rules, but then the rules get broken, words mean something definite, but at the same time they change. What are your thoughts on that? I've never thought about it before. And I can tell you that slow lorises ARE fascinating. I could go on for quite a long time about slow lorises, but I'll save that for another time.

What's important for me is not that you back up your assertions--please don't trouble yourself with this on my account if you have other things to do. I asked the question because I was genuinely curious (and I suspected that others were as well). And I still am. I'm not quite curious enough to spend a lot of time on this myself, but as someone interested in language, I'm interested in how words are used in specialized as well as non-specialized contexts. I'm also sensitive to the fact that specialists quite often disagree about their own jargon, and that jargon changes over time. I suspect that there's an interesting history about how the venomous/poisonous distinction evolved, and I suspect that the distinction is not entirely orthodox (though of course I could be wrong).

I think this is probably true of most jargon. Words are messy--they are never static. At some point in a word's lifespan, if it lives long enough, its meaning will be in flux. This is a difficulty when one is trying to communicate concrete, clearly delimited concepts with words that have had histories that do not lend themselves well to that endeavor.

There's also something to be said for abandoning jargon when speaking with non-specialists, or at least for politely explaining why a distinction is being made before it is made (the late Stephen Jay Gould is a fine example of this approach). Sometimes specialists avoid problems by creating new words, and sometimes they take old words and insist on new meanings that are at odds with historical and conventional usage. Ours is clearly the latter case, and I think it raises the following question: To what extent does an online forum on corn snakes that provides information mainly to people who are not professional herpetologists need to police its use of herpetological jargon, especially when that jargon is at odds with common usage? If there's a specialized word for something, and no alternative, it should be used, of course. But insisting that non-specialists adopt the jargon of specialists when asking simple, easily-understood questions ("has anyone ever been bit by something poisonous") just sounds painfully--er, pedantic--to me. If I felt the need to correct everyone who uses bad grammar and spelling on this forum my head would explode.

I agree. I have never corrected anyone on this point, rudely or otherwise. In THIS thread, I think it was Lefty who did the correcting, and I don't think he was being rude. I think he assumed (perhaps erroneously) that the reader knew the distinction, and was giving the reader a good-natured hard time. But these types of corrections aren't always made good-naturedly, and I agree that there's no point in telling someone he or she is using a word incorrectly without telling him or her how to rectify the problem.

I do think, though, that we should all learn something here (philosophical opinion, I realize), and I also recognize that specialists have pet peeves about jargon, and they like it to be used and used properly. So since we're here, we may as well educate people on these points when we have the chance. This will allow every 14-year old who becomes an 18-year old to impress his or her lab TAs and professors by knowing the difference between venomous and poisonous when the subject arises. And also, if it really doesn't matter to me which word I use, because I'm really not all that picky, why not be nice to the people who get knots in their stomachs over it and use the jargon?

Also, I would greatly enjoy it if you would do a little correcting of grammar around here. Please, do it to me anytime. I have gotten lazy with my grammar and vocabulary in my old age, mostly as a consequence of constantly being surrounded by others who are either lazy or who simply do not know how to use proper grammar.

So I guess my points are twofold: (1) As a simple matter of intellectual curiosity, it would be interesting (perhaps to me alone) to know how the venomous/poisonous distinction evolved among biologists, and if it is still evolving, and (2) Unless a forum member is using ideas or words so incorrectly that they create confusion, we would all do well to hold the pedantry in check. And if there's a need for correction, we should do so politely, clearly, and logically. In other words, don't jump on people because they're not using language the way herpetologists use it--instead please explain why herpetologists use language the way they do, especially if their specialized usage makes a significant difference in the matter at hand.

My impression is that it isn't evolving, because I always learned it as if it were gospel, but I don't know this for a fact. I can tell you boatloads about the state of evolution (and by that I do NOT mean the unfurling from an envelope) of the distiction between "hominid" and "hominin." If you would find that interesting, let me know and I will regale you with the story sometime in the next couple of weeks.

 

[desertanimal]

And FWIW...I hate Wikipedia. It is certainly not the be-all-end-all of information, and makes it's fair share of errors, assumptions, and wrong conclusions. I prefer the use of Webster's or the Oxford English Dictionaries over Wikipedia, any day of the week. Especially when dealing with something of this nature. Wikipedia is too arrogant for it's own good, often enough. Not everything that can be read on the internet is true...

I'm fully aware that not everything that can be read on the internet is true. Neither does that mean that everything on the internet is incorrect, and in this particular instance it was a lot easier to copy and paste a section that explained exactly the point I wanted to than it was to write it out myself. Wikipedia has been created by soliciting academics to write little blurbs about things. Our department was solicited to write the stuff for "Lucy," and Australopithecus afarenisis, etc. I could've signed up to do it and written "Lucy is the wife of Ricky . . ." but I didn't, and no one else did either. It's not always right, and there's dissent about some issues in most fields, and that won't necessarily be reflected in Wikipedia. But it's not terrible. They do make an effort to get the stuff written by people who should know all of the ins-and-outs and issues and disagreements.

The fact is, some jargon is meaningful to some people, and jargon often isn't in the dictionary. We're not having a discussion about whether the words are the same in common usage, but whether they are the same in the fields of herpetology, entymology, and icthyology. This is a question that cannot be answered by the dictionary, which, as you point out, is itself a reflection of common usage (e.g., "ain't."). We are also discussing whether anyone here should be expected to care about the jargon, another question not answered by the dictionary.

 

[tyflier]

I think there is an incredible difference between the way lefty mussolini pointed out the difference in THIS topic, and the way that it has been pointed out in other topics.

In this topic, I agree that it seemed more "good natured", and came across as such, at least in my humble opinion. However, in other topics, even recent ones, it definately comes across as more arrogance than is necessary...again...just my humble opinion.

I would also tend to agree that if the difference is pointed out in a respectful and educational manner, it is a good thing to know. For some, the difference between venomous and poisonous comes as "second nature". Others, quite obviously, have no idea that there is even a difference, no matter how subjective it may be. But a "reminder" is always better recieved than a "correction", IMO.

 

[desertanimal]

I think there is an incredible difference between the way lefty mussolini pointed out the difference in THIS topic, and the way that it has been pointed out in other topics.

In this topic, I agree that it seemed more "good natured", and came across as such, at least in my humble opinion. However, in other topics, even recent ones, it definately comes across as more arrogance than is necessary...again...just my humble opinion.

I would also tend to agree that if the difference is pointed out in a respectful and educational manner, it is a good thing to know. For some, the difference between venomous and poisonous comes as "second nature". Others, quite obviously, have no idea that there is even a difference, no matter how subjective it may be. But a "reminder" is always better recieved than a "correction", IMO.

We are agreed on every point.

 

[Snakespeare]

. . . because I always learned it as if it were gospel, but I don't know this for a fact.

I think this goes to the heart of my concern. In science (and most other serious intellectual endeavors), things shouldn't be learned (or taught) as gospel. Science succeeds because of logic, analysis, and evidence--not dogma. And the venomous/poisonous distinction was starting to sound a bit dogmatic to me. I was also beginning to feel that people were insisting on the distinction without really knowing why there was a distinction--though I may well be wrong about this.

I don't question the tone or the motives of the other contributers to this thread. I was confused, however, by the fact that no one was offering an simple explanation of the venomous/poisonous distinction. From a linguistic standpoint, I felt it was a silly distinction to make, and I had no competing explanation to grapple with. And now that I do have a competing explanation, I still don't find it to be entirely satisfactory (but that's my problem).

As for the general question about the arbitrary nature of language--yes, language is complicated and arbitrary, and it often doesn't do a great job of representing what it's meant to represent. But that's all the more reason to avoid jargon in these forums, mainly because jargon tends to adopt terms that replace thinking. If the thought is clear, that is what we should focus on.

As for educating the youth--I think young people need to learn to think before they learn how to toss jargon around. As a college professor, I'm far more impressed by students who know how to think clearly and express themselves coherently than I am by students who have memorized a list of esoteric literary terms. It is important to correct people who make mistakes (and there are many ways of doing this gently), but the magnitude of the mistake merits attention. And when it comes to language, one had better be prepared. The college professor who scolds his students for using "data" as a singular noun obviously hasn't looked the word up in an English dictionary in the last twenty or thirty years. If you happen to be speaking Latin in class--well, that's another matter altogether.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy to the venomous/poisonous question. Is it a bit like the use of "gun" in the military? For anyone not in the military, the term refers to any kind of firearm. In the military, it refers only to big guns--on tanks, ships, etc. But a rifle isn't a gun--it's either a rifle or a weapon. Sounds silly to me. But I've never been in the military, and haven't had to deal with the consequences of referring to a rifle as a gun.

I sure wish I had a clever anecdote about a venomous bite to share.

 

[desertanimal]

I think this goes to the heart of my concern. In science (and most other serious intellectual endeavors), things shouldn't be learned (or taught) as gospel. Science succeeds because of logic, analysis, and evidence--not dogma. And the venomous/poisonous distinction was starting to sound a bit dogmatic to me. I was also beginning to feel that people were insisting on the distinction without really knowing why there was a distinction--though I may well be wrong about this.

I see your point, but I don't really think we need to think hard about the etymology of the words involved to understand that there is a biological difference between venomous and poisonous. To me it seems that the difference being described is quite real, regardless of whether the words that have been chosen to represent it were historically different or not. Millipedes exude a poison if you try to chew on them, centipedes bite you and inject one. Two fundamentally different things. It's kind of ironic that some of the people who are insisting that there's no reason to bother with being particular about usage because the words are not different are relying on the dictionary to back up their argument (which includes present and historical considerations). In 10 years, because of the distinction that is made in the biological sciences, the dictionary may well include these new definitions. It doesn't really matter why biological scientists agreed on these terms. The way I've seen it happen, someone publishes a small paper demonstrating the need to call two different things two different things, and makes a choice. If everyone agrees, people start using the words that way. I can't recall my particular example, but I'm sure it was something in primatology. I don't think we know why those particular words were chosen to represent this particular set of phenomena, but I think those of us who use those particular words carefully understand the differences between the two biological phenomena in question.

I don't question the tone or the motives of the other contributers to this thread. I was confused, however, by the fact that no one was offering an simple explanation of the venomous/poisonous distinction. From a linguistic standpoint, I felt it was a silly distinction to make, and I had no competing explanation to grapple with. And now that I do have a competing explanation, I still don't find it to be entirely satisfactory (but that's my problem).

I truly think that this was because we all (I know I did) assumed that everyone here knew the explanation already and people were just expressing an opinion on whether they agreed with the nomenclature.

As for the general question about the arbitrary nature of language--yes, language is complicated and arbitrary, and it often doesn't do a great job of representing what it's meant to represent. But that's all the more reason to avoid jargon in these forums, mainly because jargon tends to adopt terms that replace thinking. If the thought is clear, that is what we should focus on.

On the other side of the coin, that's what jargon is for--to be more specific about what is being talked about. For example in psychology, at least among those who work on non-human primates, temperament is just your nature, but personality is the sum of your nature, your nurture, and the interaction between the two. It may be an arbitrary choice, which represents which, but once people have decided on it, then you only need one word to represent all the stuff that goes into your personality, and as long as everyone uses the two in the same way, they communicate clear thought.

As for educating the youth--I think young people need to learn to think before they learn how to toss jargon around. As a college professor, I'm far more impressed by students who know how to think clearly and express themselves coherently than I am by students who have memorized a list of esoteric literary terms. It is important to correct people who make mistakes (and there are many ways of doing this gently), but the magnitude of the mistake merits attention. And when it comes to language, one had better be prepared. The college professor who scolds his students for using "data" as a singular noun obviously hasn't looked the word up in an English dictionary in the last twenty or thirty years. If you happen to be speaking Latin in class--well, that's another matter altogether.

I, too, think thinking is the most important thing. If you use poisonous and venomous willy nilly, you are not giving any thought to being clear about the biological process to which you are referring. If you use one in one situation and one in another, you have had to think about what's actually going on in the organism, and choose the correct word for communicating about it. But then, I still use data as a plural noun, and so do all my profs.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy to the venomous/poisonous question. Is it a bit like the use of "gun" in the military? For anyone not in the military, the term refers to any kind of firearm. In the military, it refers only to big guns--on tanks, ships, etc. But a rifle isn't a gun--it's either a rifle or a weapon. Sounds silly to me. But I've never been in the military, and haven't had to deal with the consequences of referring to a rifle as a gun.

I didn't know about gun/weapon distinction. But it doesn't seem silly to me. It's an arbitrary distinction that seems very pertinent in certain situations--those in which a person needs to communicate effectively about weaponry. I don't come upon that situation often, but I'm almost always in situations in which I need to communicate effectively about biological processes. Therefore, I tend to use biological jargon. It's all the same as snow. I have only one word for ice and one for snow, the Inuit have many, and I believe they are very particular about how those many words are used.

 

[Snakespeare]

I agree to the biological distinction--my curiosity is about how and why scientists chose the language they chose, because the words are synonymous in common usage (much more so than temperament and personality). I can understand how a scientist might not be interested in this, but I'm not a scientist.

As for jargon--it's only specific in a very specialized context, and needs to be explained to general audiences before being used, at the very least, and I didn't see that happening here. I also think that even those who use the jargon of their specializations should constantly scrutinize the language they use, just as they scrutinize every other aspect of their research. This is where new ideas come from. Also, sometimes professors are wrong--and good professors expect to be challenged by their students.

Again, if we were talking about a situation where the vocabulary made a substantive difference in the matter at hand, I'd be the first one to say that we need to be precise about language. I just don't think this is a situation like that. Most of the people reading this thread would probably prefer reading right now an account of a fly fisherman being set upon by slithering packs of hungry copperheads who have mistaken his woolly bugger for a small rodent.

For those who insist on such distinctions, a brief explanation would be helpful for everyone. This is the general chit-chat forum, after all.

 

[desertanimal]

I think you've wrapped up the whole discussion quite nicely.

 

[Jrgh17]

I agree to the biological distinction--my curiosity is about how and why scientists chose the language they chose, because the words are synonymous in common usage (much more so than temperament and personality). I can understand how a scientist might not be interested in this, but I'm not a scientist.

In all honesty, the scientific usage and the exact definition was probably there before the common language usage. Consider for instance how people misuse the word "ironic." (I blame Alanis Morrisette, by the way.) As anyone who knows latin will tell you, meanings of words are constantly changing in slight ways, often to become more "muddied" if you will. Another example is "growth" and "development" which people often use interchangeably. In biology, "growth" refers specifically to the one-way change in the mass of an organism (i.e. physical size). "Development" is the summation of the growth of the organism and the differentiation of it's cells to produce functioning tissues and organs.

In short, common usage tends to be a bit loose, and has a habit of changing.

 

[Snakespeare]

In all honesty, the scientific usage and the exact definition was probably there before the common language usage.

A glance at the OED suggests that the words venom and poison are about as old as words can be in English (ca. thirteenth century)--they are both in common usage hundreds of years before the rise of modern science (and its vocabularies) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. "Venom" is frequently associated with snakes, of course--but the OED entry for poison also includes numerous mentions of snakes, including examples from early scientific literature. The OED shows "venom" as a substitute for "poison" (i.e., poison that doesn't involve snakes or other venomous animals) as recently as 1910 (and many instances earlier).

Biologists probably chose venomous=biteandstingpoison because of the association with snakes, but it's not clear to me how poisonous=donteatthefrog is a logical category for contrast, since venom is a kind of poison, by definition.