Putting a Failed Analogy to Rest - Karl Schmidt and Dispholidus Typus

[Skiploder]

When discussing opistoglyphous snakes with other people, you will eventually have someone drop the dreaded "Karl Schmidt" analogy on you.

The analogy attempts to draw a parallel between the risk a contemporary keeper runs in getting bitten by a false water cobra, western hognose or baron's racer to what happened to Dr. Karl P. Schmidt. It attempts to romanticize the minimal risk that most of today's rear fanged snake keepers face.

The Schmidt Analogy will be used on you at some point when discussing why commonly kept rear fangers probably will never cause a human fatality. Here is an example of how The Analogy may be thrown in your face....

"Poo poo my assertion that you CAN die of a boiga dendrophilia bite all you want, but I don't want to be the next...(insert dramatic pause here).....KARL SCHMIDT!"

Or, another classic example.....

"So you don't think that a false water cobra can kill you? Well KARL SCHMIDT thought that boomslangs were harmless and look what happened to HIM!"

There are several problems with these statements, and "The Analogy" in general.

However before we breakdown the logical fallacy of this analogy, we should probably discuss who Dr. Karl Schmidt was and exactly what happened to him.

Dr. Karl P. Schmidt was an American herpetologist - arguably one of the most influential and important of the first half of the 20th century. During his career he authored over 200 books and articles, served as the president of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and was the curator of amphibians and reptiles at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. He was a leading expert on micurus - having described several subspecies of dumerilii, dissoleucus, elegans, hemprichii, lemniscatus, nigroncinctus, etc.

In other words, he was no dummy. He had an intimate knowledge of the animals he worked with - and was no stranger to venomous snakes.

On September 25, 1957 Dr. Schmidt was, along with Dr. Robert Inger; working with a young boomslang at the Field Museum. In his own words, he described the bite that ultimately resulted in his death.

"I took it [the boomslang] from Dr. Robert Inger without thinking of any precaution, and it promptly bit me on the fleshy lateral aspect of the first joint of the left thumb. The mouth was widely opened and the bite was made with the rear fangs only, only the right fang entering to its full length of about 3 mm."

The next day at 3 PM, Dr. Schmidt was dead of respiratory paralysis. An autopsy report showed hemorrhaging in his lungs, renal pelvis and small intestine - all effects of the hemotoxic venom of the dispholidus typus that bit him.

Schmidt was noted as being a meticulous note taker and documented his reaction to the bite up until his death. These are now generally referred to as his "death notes". These were later published by Clifford H. Pope, another famed herpetologist.

"9:00 PM-12:20 AM Slept well. No blood in urine before going to sleep, but very small amount of urine. Urination at 12:20 AM mostly blood, but small in amount. Mouth had bled steadily as shown by dried blood at both angles of mouth.”

Pay attention, users of the Schmidt Analogy - in 1957, the toxicity of dispholidus typus venom was well established. Dr. Schmidt was not dealing with an unknown factor here - for in 1940 Grasset and Schaafsma had documented the toxicity of boomslang venom.

In other words, Dr. Schmidt was well aware that he had been bitten by a highly venomous snake. Any argument regarding a lack of knowledge as to the toxicity of the boomslang is therefore totally and completely invalid.

The problem was that Dr. Schmidt had incorrectly assumed that due to the age and temperament of the snake, and the characteristics of the bite, that he was not at risk.

Pope, in his comments that accompanied Schmidt's published notes states.

That Dr. Schmidt’s optimism was extremely unfortunate is proved by his death, but it must be admitted that there was some justification: The boomslang was very young and only one fang penetrated deeply. However, almost two decades ago careful experimentation by Grasset and Schaafsma (South African Med. Jour., 1940, 14: 236-41) showed that boomslang venom has an extraordinarily high toxicity, even higher than those of such notorious snakes as cobras, kraits, and mambas. This fact alone dictates extreme caution in handling boomslangs of all sizes, even though they be among the most mild tempered of venomous snakes.

This is where the logic of the Schmidt Analogy fails. Karl Schmidt was not dealing with an unknown snake of unknown toxicity. The venom of the boomslang and it's effects had been documented at least 17 years prior to his death.

The Schmidt Analogy relies on the ASSumption that Karl Schmidt was unaware of the potential lethality of a boomslang bite.

The Schmidt Analogy ASSumes that in 1957, the toxicity of boomslang venom was unknown.

The Schmidt Analogy is based on a lack of knowledge - specifically a lack of knowledge concerning the details of Dr. Schmidt's death and a lack of knowledge as to what the herpetological world knew regarding the toxicity of dispholidus typus venom.

The Schmidt Analogy is an insult to Dr. Schmidt and is an example of internet pap run amok. It is a prime exemplar of mindless parroting and how such parroting can eventually eclipse facts.

[rlditmars]

Thank you for this thread. While I have little to add regarding the analogy, I would like to say that my very first snake book was "Living Reptiles of the World" by Schmidt and Inger. I could sit there and look at the color photographs for hours on end. Also had books from Pope and Ditmars among others. It just takes me back to a simpler time when Reptiles brought me a true sense of wonder and amazement. I still love them but it is different now.