Talk:Vipera ammodytes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
Vipera ammodytes 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Venom and size

Many people who were bitten by this snake and did not recive proper medical help have died. This year a woman was bitten and even the 9 injections(wich she got in less than two houers after the bite) of antivenom could not save her. An estimated lethal human dose for humans is beetwen 25-40 mg and is for this reason more powerful than some cobras whose lethal dose is beetwen 40-50 mg.This information is from a museum.

There were many confermed reports of this species reaching more than one m. in length, especially in large and long mountains such as the Velebit mountain where thesse snakes have no real predators. One mountain peak was called Snake peak because of the many snakes laying one on top of the other,but the tourists were scared and that name was latter changed into Zavižan.

Okay, but then where are your references? I don't know if you've noticed, but this article has been carefully researched and written with references for everything -- just follow the footnote numbers at the end of every sentence and paragraph. As you can see in the Cited references section, I have a fair number of books on this subject and none of them suggest that bites are usually fatal if left untreated, or that this species regularly grows to over a meter in length. There is much misinformation and exaggeration in the world regarding venomous snakes and, not surprisingly, many people attempt to pass that off here as fact. So, if you're serious about contributing here, do your homework first and show us where you get your information from. Also, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to created an account for yourself. --Jwinius 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How can I cite a book if it is not on English? It states that this snake can (but very, very rarely)grow to a meter and even more on onely several places of its geographic range. I know several people that would moust likely have died if they didnt recive antivenom. Each year there are a number of serious invenomations that are reported in the news. Thank you for your edvice and I will find something.

I found something(most venomous snake of europe)-Dorling Kindersley Handbooks,Reptiles and Amphibians by Mark O´Shea and Tim Halliday,Text document 2001.

Fatal accidents are frequent[[1]]

It doesn't matter if your source is not in English; just make sure you include a complete description of the book (authors, year of publication, title, publisher, number of pages, ISBN number... see the article for examples) and translate accurately from the text. Never make up anything or write things that you've only heard of -- only quote from reputable sources and always include a reference! If you stick to this method, you'll start to really learn things... they call that science! :-)
By the way, in the Description section of the article there is already information from Strugariu (2006) that mentions "reports of specimens over 1 m in length." Nobody else mentions this, however, so I'm not sure how much truth there is to this claim, but I included it nevertheless. Remember that size exaggeration for venomous snakes is an age-old and a problem wherever they are found.
Regarding the introduction, your addition of the word venomous is quite redundant: that the species is venomous is already mentioned in the first sentence of the introduction, while venom toxicity is mentioned at the end of the sentence in question.
As for your last quote, "Fatal accidents are frequent," How frequent? That's a pretty vague statement, but then again, not surprising since Boulenger's "The Snake of Europe" was published in 1913. --Jwinius 00:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to show that there are many deaths reported in the time when antivenom was not common. This demonstrates that untreated bites were frequently fatal.

Well, it demonstrates that Boulenger mentioned in 1913 that bites were frequently fatal, but nothing else; not very much. Mallow et al. (2003) don't do much better: they fail to provide any mortality statistics, or any venom yield information for that matter (without which an estimated human lethal dose in not useful). However, I was able to track down some LD50 data in Brown (1973) and Mallow (2003) and found a slightly better statement regarding fatalities in Street (1979). I've included this information in the article. --Jwinius 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But it is also stated (in some books) that this snake is the most venomous and dangerous,not onely in the mainland but also the whole europe,but not the largest venomous snake in the continent.

You're arguing semantics here. "Most dangerous" is already mentioned twice in the article with two different sources (I could add a third, but what's the point?). "Most venomous" is a term more often used in the popular press than in serious literature. After all, a creature is either venomous or it is not -- it's not something that you measure. On the other hand, venom toxicity is something that you can measure; LD50 values are now mentioned in the text. With this information you could argue that V. aspis and V. berus have more toxic venom, but that these species are potentially less dangerous than V. ammodytes because they cannot deliver as much in a single bite. Finally, this article does not claim that V. ammodytes is the largest European venomous snake; I try to avoid making absolute statements like that, since they often turn out to be wrong anyway. --Jwinius 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UT

If the snake toxity is mesured by LD50 the results do not match the list of the most venomous snakes,where it is stated that by far the most venomous snake is the Inland Taipan [[2]].,but the LD50 mesurements do not compleately support this.It also states that the venom of Vipera berus is more toxic than that of the Saw-scaled viper,Common mamba and the Eastern coral snake.[[3]]And it also states in the LD50 that the venom oe the Indian cobra is more potent that that of the Death adder. But it is also stated in many other reliable sources that the Vipera ammodytes has the most toxic venom of any snake in Europe and therefore certanly more toxic venom than Vipera berus.It also states in the Article Vipera of Wikipedia that Vipera berus has less toxic venom than Vipera ammodytes.

It sounds like this is becoming little more than a "most venomous snake" argument, which is pointless because that really depends on where you get your information from. I see that one of your own links (explorebiodiversity.com) has V. berus ranked above V. ammodytes, while Brown (1973) includes LD50 info that also shows V. berus to be the more toxic (which I've now added to the V. berus article). Nevertheless, everyone agrees that V. ammodytes is potentially the most dangerous snake in Europe. The fact remains, however, that the venom toxicity and yield of any species can vary greatly depending on a myriad of factors, so you never get the same answers twice. This is why I am a proponent of listing the facts (LD50 info, yield, bite symptoms, mortality rates) and allowing the readers draw their own conclusions. --Jwinius 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Three years ago, an adult, healthy woman in her mid 30s was bitten by a newborn vipera ammodytes and she almost died, and her whole leg was compleately blue from the necrosis caused by the powerful venom! This is a information that demonstrates the danger yust from a baby, so a venomous bite from an adult snake would certanly be fatal. Not all important information is written in books and other sources, so it is important to listen to the news about the accidents with this snake and then conclude that almost all bitten people are in danger of dying. Thanks to the fact that I live in a country with a large population of nose-horned vipers and a large number of bites reported every year I see that this snake's bite is often fatal if left untreated.

Perhaps the woman was allergic reaction to the venom, which is not uncommon. However, we don't want to start including information from such sources in these articles, because it's usually not accurate. Historically, we've seen time and again that so much of what is said about venomous snakes in the media consists of assumption, exaggeration and just plain fiction. Crucial information is also regularly omitted. Reporters often do this because the truth isn't exciting enough for them, so they frequently take the liberty of embellishing it in order to increase the value of their stories. Therefore, information from such sources cannot be regarded as reliable.
Anyway, I'm sorry if you don't like the article the way it is, but I believe the current description -- "... likely the most dangerous snake to be found in mainland Europe" -- is quite clear and does not need to be exaggerated. --Jwinius 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The woman was not alergic to the venom, the doctors said in the news, and she was given antivenin that saved her. However, it would seem more likely to me that the media would thry to calm down the people that are scared of getting bitten, rather than exaggerating and creating panic. No one likes panic. If the same information is seen in about six different sources it is unlikely that it is not accurate. Even the bitten waman made the same report and there seems little reason for her and the doctors to exaggerate. And she was not the onely such victim. The article is god, but I think that it must be stated that the untreated bite of this snake is often fatal and nothing less severe than the one caused by the more famous snakebite killers such as the indian cobra.

"...it would seem more likely to me that the media would try to calm down the people..."? Maybe to you, but not to the rest of us. If the subject of a newspaper article is a venomous snake, it's always deadly; if it's a cobra, it's always a king cobra. Ever since the invention of gossip, the media has been full of such nonsense. Reporters are not experts. It's very well possible that the woman in the story almost died, but we will not be stating in this article that untreated bites are often fatal -- that is an exaggeration and is simply not the case. For example, V. ammodytes does not have a reputation anywhere near that of the Indian cobra. A claim like that would have to be backed up by statistics. Yes, bites are potentially dangerous (i.e. fatal), but nothing more than that. --Jwinius 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

V. ammodytes does not have a reputation anywhere near that of the Indian cobra.-that is true but it does not mean that it is not as dangerous. The reason for the fame of the cobra is because of the many people dying each year from its bite, but in fact, the mortality rate is small compared to the number of bites and the population of snakes, people and there contact. Many bites go untreated and people die, while in Europe(the land of the Vipera ammodytes)almost all people recive antivenin, and also a god one, one of the best antivenins in the world. And what do you mean with (i.e. fatal)"...that is an exaggeration and is simply not the case..."-I wonder where you got this information from. Bites rarely end in death but this is primarily because all bitten people recive medical asistence. In fact, about 50% of all indian cobra bites are dry ,while those made by V.a.are almost all venomous. Furthermore, for a dangerously venomous snake, the cobra's strikes are quite slow when compared to the almost literally "faster than the eye can see" strikes of such species as rattlesnakes and Vipers including Vipera ammodytes. Cobra bites are fatal in about 10% of human cases.[[4]]

What I'm saying is that it is better to stick to what is written in scientific journals and books authored by acknowledged experts, than to be influenced by what is reported in the news media. You and I are not trained herpetologists, but if we use for these articles only the findings and opinions of those who are, only than may we be sure that these articles are as accurate as possible. Show me a scientific publication with the statistics to back up your claims and I'll believe you. Otherwise, drop the issue. --Jwinius 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Vipera ammodytes more dangerous than Vipera xanthina?Egyptzo 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; there doesn't seem to be enough data available according to my sources. Mallow et al. (2003) state that many of the older studies of V. xanthina venom actually involved that of V. palaestinae, which used to be considered a subspecies of V. xanthina. V. palaestinae is certainly capable of delivering a fatal bite -- the fatality rate is (was) 5% (US Navy, 1991). The only thing I can say for sure about V. xanthina, is that it is significantly larger on average than V. ammodytes, so it is probably capable of injecting more venom. It's probably at least as capable of inflicting a fatal bite. Other factors that make a venomous species more dangerous include things like attraction to human habitation, population densities, whether the species is likely to stand its ground when approached, and if it is more inclined to bite when provoked. So far, my impression has been that V. ammodytes does not really fit any of these descriptions. The same may be true for V. xanthina, but I just can't say for sure. --Jwinius 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the reports about venom yealed per snake present a much larger dose of venom yealded in vipera ammodytes than vipera xanthina, although vipera xanthina is larger in boby size, so it is probable that vipera ammodytes can certanly deliver more venom per bite (because of his larger venom glands and head), so I think its bite is probably more dangerous. Egyptzo 10:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which reports are those? --Jwinius 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Theese reports about the venom, [5] and in the book Fauna europas (1981) it states that Vipera ammodytes is very common near human habitations and enters houses. Egyptzo 09:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't take sites like ExploreBiodiversity.com too seriously -- they tend to oversimplify the science for the sake of entertainment value and advertising. In actual fact, LD50 values depend on many factors and are often highly variable, even with individual specimens, so comparing them like this isn't worth much. Furthermore, Mallow et al. (2003) have this to say:

"Specific epidemiological data on V. ammodytes bites are not available. There are hundreds of cases of viper bites occurring annually over the area generally within the range of V. ammodytes. Although it is relatively rare and restricted in habitat, it may be assumed that V. ammodytes accounts for a portion of recorded bites (Gonzalez 1991)."

In other words, I wouldn't take that statement in Fauna europas (1981) too seriously either. --Jwinius 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)