Why not rear-fanged colubrids?

are you referring to discussion on this part of the forum? i'm confused.

if so, it's because elapidae and viperidae are the two families of venomous snakes... rear fanged colubrids are just another colubrid. besides, it's proven that the salival secretions of the duvernoy's gland are the toxic part of the snake and in that case you could literally call a garter snake 'rear fanged venomous'.

rear fanged colubrids are just another colubrid ? i wouldnt compair a garter to boomslang though

but they are, physiologically speaking... that was the point i was trying to make. there's not a lot of difference between a garter and a boomslang when you get down to it. we just happen to be much more allergic to the saliva of the boomslang.

What he says is to some degree right. Take the hognose species for example. They are a rear fanged animals. Some have reported being bitenand haveing itching, burnining, and localized swelling. Others have been biten, and report no effects at all. They are much like a bee sting, some people have a higher sensitivity to them than others. IMO, if their "venom" is not considered medically relevant, then they should not be classified as venomous. If you go by the whole rear-fanged attribute, then ring necked snakes will soon be on the venomous list!

yea colubrids are a lot a like but if someone said i want a rear fanged snake it would be crazy to say get a boomslang cause they are colubrids like hognose and false water cobra, hognose i dont consider to be a snake that would get you ready for venomous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jparker1167

yea colubrids are a lot a like but if someone said i want a rear fanged snake it would be crazy to say get a boomslang cause they are colubrids like hognose and false water cobra, hognose i dont consider to be a snake that would get you ready for venomous.

---

Which is why I said, " if their "venom" is not considered medically relevant, then they should not be classified as venomous. " A Boomslang venom is very medically relevant!:snake:

i agree with not calling stuff like hognose venomous, but other people disagree. so i guess it doesnt really matter what we would say huh

I think that there really is just no understanding for the majority of the population. If rear fanged colubrids that may or may not produce a relatively minor, save for severe allergic reaction to very few cases, are considered venomous, then hornets, wasps, bees, etc are all venomous too, yet we dont see people calling out all the beekeepers.

exactly...

Many colubrids actually have very potent venom - the issue being that they have a very primitive delivery system. Once you combine the small fangs, the relatively low venom yield and the primitive delivery system - the medical threat to humans is greatly lessened.

That does not mean that they produce medically insignificant venom. The fact is that twig snakes, kukri snakes, mangrove snakes, tiger snakes, philodryas (baron's racer), brasilian smooth snakes, keelbacks, rufous beaked snakes, the false fer-de-lances, etc, etc. all have medically significant venom.

Many of these venoms are currently, or have recently been studied and researchers are finding out just how potent the venoms of many of these "non-venomous" snakes really are.

If you get bit by one of these animals, the reaction is based on the efficacy of the envenomation - not whether or not the recipient of the bite is allergic or not.

There are rear-fanged colubrids in addition to boomslangs that have caused human deaths via envenomation. Others, under the right circumstances, could be lethal. Not all rear fanged colubrids are incapable of getting those rear fangs into your hand or arm. The point being that several of these species deserve to be treated with caution.