Talk:Daboia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Daboia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
Daboia is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

According to ITIS [1] the right binomial name is Daboia russelii. Isfisk 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, i hope. Shyamal 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image

Feel free to use image. Shyamal 07:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I've added them both. I've also created a small article for all of the Daboia images over at Wikimedia Commons: Daboia. --Jwinius 11:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venom

Where are you getting your ld-50s for snake venom toxicity from? None of the published research I have found support the claims regarding venom toxicity I’ve seen on several wiki pages concerning venomous snakes.

Hello, nameless one! I say where I get my information from at the end of every sentence or paragraph. That's what those little numbers are: they are footnote tags that correspond to the same little numbers in the "Cited references" section near the bottom of the page. In this case, I got that information from Mallow et al., (2003). --Jwinius 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the name thing as I'm new here. My question to you however is, since subcutaneous bites are almost always the route of envenomation; and as you state in your very well written artical, it takes 40-70 mg to effect a fatallity, how is d.russulli more toxic than d.polylepis, which takes only 10 mg. to cause the same fatallity? I don't wish to appear combative but I'm also fairly certain that b.caeruleus (one of the big four) is even more toxic than the previously described species. While I agree that d.russelli is extremly toxic on itravenous envenomations, such envenomations are exceedingly rare and highly unlikely. todg

Hey, you're not even new here unless you first make an account for yourself! :-) Good question, though. In the same book, it says that for Echis, the human lethal dose is estimated at 3-5 mg (the book does not cover elapids). Surely, that means this venom is more toxic than that of Daboia. Tell you what: I'll write Dr. Mallow and put this to him... see what he says. If it turns out to be a mistake, I'll remove that part of the statement from the article. I'll let you know when I get an answer.--Jwinius 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the Big Four (Indian snakes) reference

Hi Jaap, removing the factoid that Daboia venom is more toxic than Big Four(Indian snakes) reference since Daniel gives the following lethal doses for a man -

AshLin 12:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed the other references as well, that said that it was also more toxic than Bothrops or Dendroaspis venom. From now on, I'm going to try to avoid these kind of comparisons. --Jwinius 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some good advice about needing to avoid Daboia bites

Jaap winius (jwinius writes ...

...Perhaps I need to expand the venom section of the D. russelii article a bit. You don't seem to appreciate how dangerous this snake is; it's one of the last species I would ever want to see someone suffer a bite from. Some victims say it's as if a hot coal is suddenly placed on your hand or foot -- and you can't shake it off! There's antivenin, sure, but even if you're bitten inside a hospital, you can bet that there will be plenty of pain suffering between the moment you're bitten and your supposedly quick recovery. And what happens if you're allergic to the venom, or the antivenin? Then you're in seriously deep trouble. Remember, it's for this same reason that more people die of bee stings every year than snake bites. In other words, it's better not to get bitten in the first place. And don't forget that D. russelii is notoriously difficult to handle -- ask anyone who milks them for a living. They often continue to struggle vigorously even after being grasped firmly behind the head....

AshLin 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of DRVVT

I am confused why the reference to the use of the Russell Viper Venom as a significant in vitro diagnostic test was removed. Could you please explain you concerns? Remember 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because I don't the reference is good enough. Actually, I mentioned the dRVVT test in my earlier version of this article (back in May of this year), but I later removed it myself for the same reason. The point is, I'm still not 100% sure that venom from D. russelii is actually used to test for lupus anticoagulant -- maybe it's just a name. I haven't found anything yet that explains how this test was developed and how it works; only references to its availability at certain medical labs. I've asked a pathologist friend of mine about it, but so far he hasn't been able to help me either. Attempting to achieve a high level of accuracy in researching these articles is sometimes very frustrating. --Jwinius 13:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have first-hand knowledge that these kits due depend upon Russell Viper Venom. But I should probably back up my first-hand knowledge with some actual citations. So how about this [2] as a source? Or how about this [3]? Or this [4] - "Russel viper (Vipera russellii), a snake native to India and Southeast Asia, produces a venom that causes massive thrombosis and is the basis of the dRVVT. The coagulant directly activates factor X, which activates prothrombin to thrombin in the presence of factor V and phospholipid. The venom is diluted to give a clotting time of 23 to 27 seconds and the phospholipid is reduced to make the assay exquisitively sensitive to phospholipid. Rabbit brain as a source of phospholipid has greater sensitivity than pure lipids or freeze/thawed platelets. dRVVT is more sensitive than aPTT for the detection of LA because it is not influenced by deficiencies in factors VIII, IX or XI." Let me know what you think. Remember 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, those links are quite satisfactory -- thanks very much! I'll put the dRVVT info back and include all of these references. I may seem like a reference-nazi to some, but as far as I'm concerned this is the only way to write any Wikipedia article. After all, as opposed to the scholarly author of an academic paper who might be forgiven for not being so precise with references, we have no such reputation to rest on. Readers have absolutely no reason to believe us in the first place, so we can't afford to leave anything unreferenced. To put it another way, if we don't take our articles seriously, why should anyone else? --Jwinius 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that practically everything in wikipedia shoud have reliable sources and I don't think you're being a "reference-nazi." Thanks for adding the information. Cheers. Remember 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA?

So when is this ready for GA? AshLin 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably last year already. I usually find writing more important than seeking the approval of people who don't really have anything to do with these articles. However, recently I worked off-line for a week on a total revision of the sea snake article and felt so happy with the results that I immediately sought GA approval for it -- how's that for vanity! I was rewarded within mere hours, but only after I made a number of proposed structural changes to the article that I'm still not all that happy with. Ho-hum. The other GA-rated viper articles -- Bitis gabonica, Bitis arietans and Vipera berus -- were all nominated without my knowledge. Actually, I find it mildly amusing that they were approved despite their titles and deviant intro format, although I would not want to change that even if it was the only thing keeping them from becoming Featured. IMO, Wikipedia's attitude and policy towards common names will have to change first. I believe that's happening, but it's slow. --Jwinius 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe we should nominate it. After a conversation I had with someone else recently, I think that if we can get GA status this article and others of its kind, it will likely become easier in the future for this lead section style to gain official approval as a valid alternative. --Jwinius 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

The article is complete, well-referenced, well-sourced, and the pictures are excellent (although I have to say that whoever took them is a very brave soul ;-) ... I made a few minor grammatical changes. The only two that are semi-major are combining the geographical range and habitat sections, which are related, and moving the 'common names' sentence from the very beginning to immediately after the main intro paragraph (it looked very funny and awkward at the very top). Other than that, the article easily passes the GA criteria and has been promoted. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I sort of expected to continue to oppose the 'common names' thing here, but I kind of like the indentation of it now. It seems to make it look a little bit better and more professional. Good work!

I did rv back to the removal of the 'accessed' dates in the external links section. This mainly makes the section look very crowded and is totally unnecessary. It's only necessary to include such dates if those are used inline citations, and not in the external links section. No other article on wikipedia does this.

Also, for the 'other references' section, if those references are used by the text, they need to be used as inline citations, specifically associated with the material that they are citing. Having two separate references sections is confusing, unnecessary, and redundant. Dr. Cash 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat irritating. I started doing that after someone else began doing it for me, telling me that that was the thing to do. I've since applied it to some 200-300 snake articles, so in my view this article is suddenly non-standard. Okay, perhaps this practice isn't mainstream after all, but I don't see that it's wrong either. Plus, I find it useful to know how long it's been since an external link was last accessed, as they often go stale after a while -- if you see that it's new, then you don't have to check. --Jwinius 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)