That rattlesnake theory is a little too rational for my taste -
animal behaviour is often logical but reasoning doesn't enter into it.
We have a Pit Viper, the Death Adder (corruption of deaf adder) which
is very venomous but small fanged so it doesn't feature much in
statistics. The Browns and Tigers are a problem because they are
bold, even aggressive at times - people claim that they'll actually
chase you though I'm dubious. But they are territorial and inhabit
dry grasslands close to housing.
The Taipan and relatives are seen as most dangerous because they can
reach two meters and will savage a victim - they wrap round and bite
several times, putting a large volume of venom into you. That's a big
and scary critter.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 11/01/2009, at 12:01 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I don't know what the stats are in Oz but, in the US, about 50% of
> venomous snake bites are dry (no venom injected). But the stats are
> different by species. The overall average for coral snakes, water
> moccasins and copperheads is about 40% envenomation. The average for
> rattlesnakes is about 60% envenomation. The theory is that a venomous
> snake is dependent on that venom for the next meal and it takes some
> time to replenish it once it's used. Since we're obviously too big to
> eat, better save the venom for when you really need it if you can just
> scare this giant away. Biologist Archie Carr (U. of Florida) further
> theorized that rattlesnakes had a higher rate of envenomation
> since, if
> you got close enough to be bitten, you had obviously been ignoring the
> warning rattle but kept coming anyhow. You must mean that snake some
> harm so you're more likely to get hit.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|