Talk:Vipera berus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amphibians and Reptiles Portal
Vipera berus 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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Good article Vipera berus 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.
May 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] Venom

This web page states that the venom of Vipera berus is more toxic than that of the Saw-scaled viper,Common mamba and the Eastern coral snake,[[1]],so this information can be included in the article.

Sorry, but that is not what you call a reliable source. Anybody can post material on the web, but that doesn't mean it's true. What qualifies Rob Nelson to make such statements and where does he get his LD50 information from? Also, he doesn't say what kind of LD50 tests he's talking about: IV, IP or SC. He could be using IV for one and SC for the next, which is like comparing apples and oranges. I would say that sources currently cited in the article are quite a bit more reliable and authoritative than Rob Nelson's information. However, in this matter you can also use your common sense. For example, there have been very few documented fatalities for V. berus, but many more for the other species you mention. --Jwinius 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been more fatalities from Vipera berus than from the Eastern coral snake!

Well, perhaps you're right about that. Only two documented fatalites were attributed to M. fulvius in the 1950s and none have been reported since Wyeth antivenin became available for it in the 1960s. Also, M. fulvius does not account for many cases of snakebite in the US because of its secretive nature and general reluctance to bite (its venomous potential was still being debated in the 1880s). In addition, it is estimated that envenomation occurs in only 40% of all bites. Historically, however, the mortality rate was estimated to be about 10-20%, with death occurring in as little as 1-2 hours, or as much as 26 hours post bite. This is not that surprising, since the LD100 for humans is estimated to be 4-5 mg or dried venom, while the average venom yield is 2-6 mg with a maximum of more than 12 mg. This is probably why it is currently standard hospital procedure in the US to start with antivenin therapy for coral snake bites even if there are no symptoms yet (since there may not be any noticeable localized symptoms) (Campbell & Lamar, 2004). Compare that to this statistic for V berus: in 1967, Gitter & de Vries reported that there were an estimated 1300 bites annually in Sweden, but that only 12% required hospitalization (Mallow et al., 2004). Since V. berus also has a higher average venom yield than M. fulvius, that sounds a lot less toxic/dangerous to me. --Jwinius 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

However,in most reports the estimated percent in a Coral snake envenomotion in a bite is no more than 30% and death resultes (if not given antivenin) in less than 10 percent and absolutely not 20.[[2]][[3]] The mortality percent in a coral snake bite is even a bit smaller than the one of the Vipera berus. The Adders in Sweden have a much less powerful venom compared to the Adders from South-eastern Europe,especialy the subspecies Vipera berus bosniensis whose venom is primarily a powerful neurotoxin rather the hemotoxin primarily found in the norhen subspecies. There are other web sites arguing thart the venom of the Adder is more potent than that of the coral snake. [[4]]

Do you get all your information from the web? Those are not exactly scientific papers your citing. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that you're right and that M. fulvius does only have a 10% fatality rate in untreated envenomation cases, and not 10-20% as mentioned by Campbell & Lamar (2004). That still doesn't help you in your main objective, which is to offer credible evidence that V. berus venom is actually more toxic than the current WP article suggests. A mortality rate of over 10% for V. berus? Where? That's what I call an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. However, all you've come up with are a couple of identical and bogus LD50 lists on the web, and nothing at all to support your claims regarding the properties and toxicity of V. b. bosniensis venom compared to that of V. b. berus. --Jwinius 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite of the Vipera berus venom : "...its venom is potent, stronger than the Sandviper´s(especially in its subspecies Vipera berus bosniensis)..." This is yust one argument from the Natural history museum of Rijeka in Croatia. I will find other sources regarding the information about the mortality percent in a bite and cite it here.

You're going to have to do better than that. An article on the subject from a peer-reviewed journal, for instance, would be more like it. Otherwise, your claims remain firmly in the folklore category. You could ask the museum where they got their information from, but you'll have to be critical of their evidence, because it sounds like they may not have been. --Jwinius 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatalities

There have been only 14 known fatalities since 1876; the last a 5 year old child in 1975

Where? In Sweden? In Britain? There has been a fatality in Germany in 2004 according to the German Wikipedia.193.109.51.189 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. That statement comes from this article (Warrell, 2005) in the British Medical Journal, which in turn cites a paper by Reid (1976) titled "Adder bites in Britain" (also BMJ). It doesn't mention in what country the 5 year old child was bitten in 1975. As for that being the most recent fatality, I assume Prof. Warrell knew what he was talking about, although perhaps he was not aware of a possible case in Germany the year before he published this article. On the other hand, the German article does not cite its sources, so why take it seriously? --Jwinius 00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Citation of sources is uncommon on the German Wikipedia, and no good reason for not performing a simple Google search that would have relieved this discussion of its speculative nature. Several news outlets reported the incident: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Essentially, an 82-year-old lady was bitten on the ring finger of the left hand by a melanic Vipera berus. She phoned her general practitioner, but did not say how the incident had occurred. However, the woman was small (1,50m) and had recently been released from hospital. The fact that she must have grabbed the snake to fling it into a nearby rain collection barrel (where the snake was later found, and moved to Stralsund Zoo) indicates that she may have received more than one bite (i.e. more than a dry bite), although the news sources do not report this. Two sources speculate that the death may have occurred due to shock rather than poison. None of the articles directly cite any medical conclusion, although there may have been no relevant investigation - the exact cause of her death would have hardly been of interest, given that the snake was unlikely to do further harm (having been moved to the zoo), and there were no suspicious circumstances. I know David Warrell, and wouldn't be surprised if the German incident had escaped his radar. Let's just say that if it had occurred anywhere in the Commonwealth, he would have known about it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It's tempting to include this information. However, because the only references are articles that appeared in the popular press (webpages even), and especially because it's not clear whether the woman actually died as a result of evenomation, I'd rather err on the side of caution and wait for an official medical report. On the other hand, if you could mention this to Prof. Warrell, perhaps something interesting will turn up. --Jwinius 20:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
To follow up on the above discussion, I wrote to an email address I found on the website that you used as a reference for your recently added passage. I asked if anybody there now had more information about the case and received this message today:
Dear Mister Vinius,
The case reported on our website was only published in a newspaper but not by us. We did not follow up the case and we do not know the exact cause of death. We suppose, however, that the snake bite did not result in death alone but was the trigger in background of an underlying condition (for example coronary heart disease). But this is only speculative due to lack of further information.
Kind regards,
Michael Deters, MD
Poisons Information Centre
c/o HELIOS Klinikum GmbH
Nordhäuser Str. 74
99085 Erfurt
Germany
Tel +49361/730730
Fax +49361/7307317
In other words, although they can't be sure, it is their expert opinion that other factors likely weighed more heavily in this woman's death. That seems reasonable to me, since obviously many simple accidents can be fatal to sufficiently frail and weakened individuals. Therefore, if you share my opinion that the need to avoid misleading readers into thinking that this species has been the direct cause of death of any otherwise healthy individuals since 1975, outweighs the need to inform them of incidents that will probably remain shrouded in speculation -- a type of which there is never any shortage -- then you will agree that the passage in question should be removed from the article forthwith. --Jwinius 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, she died as a direct result of a snakebite, whether there was posion involved or not. That is pretty clear. This is documented, independent, verified info and should be included. Perhaps you should back off the ownership a bit. pschemp | talk 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you can't really claim that. The expert opinion here is that the venom was only the trigger and that death was likely the result of something else, such as a heart condition. In other words, if someone had told her that she had won the lottery, it could be that that would have killed her as well. But, newspapers have a habit of dramatizing the truth. Studies in snakebite statistics, however, have to be more careful when it comes to calculating the fatality ratio. To avoid making a species look more dangerous than it really is, such studies must maintain certain exclusion criteria, and this necessarily includes victims who are known to have had serious health problems in the first place. --Jwinius 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
All of that is taken full account of in the current phrasing of the article. Look at it this way - if we don't include the incident, people will dismiss the article because it didn't include information that is clearly relevant to the subject. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly relevant? I've think I've explained quite clearly why it's a false alarm. Look at at it this way - does Wikipedia have to respond to every misleading story carried by the popular press, just because such stories seem relevant superficially, and even though doing so may in itself be misleading? If so, should we also cite stories about people dying from bee and wasp stings, even though the victims more likely suffer allergic reactions? --Jwinius 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You will find that this information is, indeed, included in the appropriate article, bee sting. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course it is. That's because, by themselves, such incidents are not relevant when it comes to illustrating the general danger posed by a bee sting. For the same reason, it is not relevant to illustrate the general danger posed by a bite from this snake by mentioning the death of a frail little old woman. This brings me back to the former question: does Wikipedia have to respond to every misleading story carried by the popular press, just because such stories seem relevant superficially, and even though doing so may in itself be misleading? --Jwinius 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe the story was misleading - I find that the press articles do a good job of making it clear that the venom may not of itself have killed the woman, and the way the article is phrased takes account of the fact that there may not have been any venom involved. Please also note that only two of the sources can be appropriately described as "popular press" - the others are a magazine for veterinarians, and the regional poison centre. The fact that the old woman had recently come out of hospital (btw, no exact date was given) makes her no less dead, and removes none of the strong temporal correlation between the bite and her death. I don't want snakes unnecessarily killed any more than you do, but you are not doing this article any favours by censoring this information, which three editors have now said they would like to see included. I believe that the way the information is included in the article takes full account of the circumstances, while also being satisfactorily brief. If you wish to give a fuller account of the case, please feel free to do so. Let me be clear on this: there is no problem here with undue weight or POV. Let me also be clear that you are not doing your own argument any favours by dismissively referring to the deceased as a "frail little old woman". Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are the only one on this page claiming it isn't relevant. The whole German wikipedia thinks its relevant too. Why do you so easily malign your brethren? pschemp | talk 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"The whole German wikipedia"? Let's not exaggerate. At any rate, my problem is that in this case it seems my German "brethren" decided only to react, but not to think critically. Let's face it: many people are scared of snakes, mostly because of the venomous ones. Naturally, the media have long made use of this situation, giving snakes a bad rap in order to sell more copy. Therefore, we should endeavor to inform the public about the true nature of these animals and the danger they pose, and not to suggest in any way that there might be some truth to the exaggerated and misleading stories carried by the media. --Jwinius 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habitat

"If dry ground is locally available, they will not avoid wetlands."

Should this be "If dry ground is locally _un_available, they will not avoid wetlands."? -- JanSöderback 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that would different. I was paraphrasing Street (1979) which states "It does not avoid marshy, low lying areas provided there are sufficient dry banks." The idea is that, although they don't prefer moist habitats, they will venture into them (probably in search of food) if it's not too far from their usual, drier habitat. --Jwinius 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "They will venture into wetlands if dry ground is available nearby.", which I find clearer -- 130.232.90.42 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [Forgot to log in - JanSöderback]

Is it correct that this is the only snake found in the British Isles? Drutt 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not true. The smooth snake, Coronella austriaca austriaca occurs in south England, while the barred grass snake, Natrix natrix helvetica (a subsp. of Natrix natrix) is found throughout England and Wales, but not in Scotland. As opposed to V. berus, both of these are harmless. This is according to Steward (1971). According to this article, C. a. austriaca is "now thought to be confined to the South East of Dorset, South West Hampshire and a small area of East Hampshire and West Surrey." --Jwinius 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. That explains the confusion - it's the only poisonous snake. Drutt 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New world record specimen?

Recently a 108 cm (42½ in) specimen was killed and measured by Rolf Lindström in Ingskär, Dragsfjärd, Finland. There was an article about it, featuring a photograph, in the Finnish tabloid Ilta-Sanomat (official site) on July 9, 2007 (page 5). The previous Finnish record was 94 cm (37 in). Unfortunately I've been so far unable to find a web reference. --Anshelm '77 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. That will make a good addition to the article as soon as someone can manage to find a reliable reference it. What a pity, though, that it was killed; so often the outcome when man meets snake. --Jwinius 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the snake was ultimately identified as a Grass snake Natrix natrix by Docent Juhani Terhivuo of the Finnish Museum of Natural History. He too had originally thought it an adder, as the snake lacked a collar and had a adder-like zigzag stripe in its back, a very rare feature for this species. This was discussed (in Finnish) at the Helsinki City Library website. So the Finnish record remains at 94 cm, while the record for the grass snake stands at 134 cm (53¾ in). I remember Mr. Lindström apologizing for the killing of the snake, something he doesn't normally do; but at the time he was to have vistors – including children – at his cottage, and the place was swarming with snakes. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. At least this is an excellent example of why articles in newspapers and on websites should never be taken too seriously. --Jwinius (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearranging article

I went ahead and did it before reading the rationale (sorry about that); I too ultimately would feel more comfortable with all organisms at scientific names rather than common names (rather than just plants and fungi as is now), but more than one common name is a good reason to argue if someone else wants to push the point anyway.

Having the common name section under the lead facilitates them not being all mentioned in the lead.

I reorganised it to make the sections less stubby and give a layout which gives a hierarchy of headings (i.e. diet and reproduction as part of behaviour).

[edit] Bits which could help for a push to FAC

  • I noticed...there is nothing which tells me what colour(s) the snake is, or the incidence of meanistic forms.
  • Also, a line on when it gained its common name (by the erection of the genus Vipera would be good and complete the first section nicely.
  • Making the subspecies into a prose section and explaining why/how they differ. Common Raven is a good example.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with your edits, but I've worked very hard on applying a common format to the entire Viperidae series, as well as some 200 other snake articles. If you have a problem with the format, I can explain, but you'd have to come up with some pretty good reasons for making such dramatic changes to so many articles; that would mean weeks, if not months, of work. Anyway, this article already has a GA status, so why go to all that trouble? Yes, the color-pattern info should be expanded. --Jwinius (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)