ribbon snake

[Skiploder]

they're not venomous.

You sure about that?

[Neal]

You sure about that?

I'm sure they're not lol. I just made a typo, and happens a lot because I type too fast.

[Skiploder]

I'm sure they're not lol. I just made a typo, and happens a lot because I type too fast.

I think you were right the first time.........

[DutchHerp]

Oh, come on, let's not get into that discussion.

Sure, some people have had bad reactions to Thamnophis bites. I don't think they're venomous... I think those people just happen to be allergic to some saliva. We all know saliva has enzymes in it, and that doesn't make a snake venomous.

[Neal]

Well if you want to consider that, I know about that but i mean actually considered venomous. They're not considered venomous, like dutch said, an allergic reaction to some saliva.

[Skiploder]

Oh, come on, let's not get into that discussion.

Sure, some people have had bad reactions to Thamnophis bites. I don't think they're venomous... I think those people just happen to be allergic to some saliva. We all know saliva has enzymes in it, and that doesn't make a snake venomous.

Thamnophis are venomous. When it comes to venom, I read Fry's work. If Fry says they are venomous and posts the research to back it up (which he does and has) - I go with him. Beats getting my info from Wikipedia. Or shopping for opinions on the forums.................

http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewt...ophis&start=10

Oh noes! Even Wikipedia has their facts straight! Extra! Extra! Thamnophis now considered venomous! Wikipedia says so!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake

The yield may be small and their teeth ill-designed to effect medically significant results on a human - but the fact remains, they produce venom.

As to the myth that people can be spontaneously allergic to a venom they've never been exposed to:

http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewt...ght=thamnophis

So Neal, your first statement was correct. They not only are considered venomous, but studies have been done that prove that they are.

[Neal]

Interesting. I knew they produced something like that, but I wasn't aware that they're now considered venomous. That's like my little rufous, he doesn't bite or hasn't ever attempted to and i've yet to find any cases of them biting, but he is rear-fanged consider venomous, even though I do not consider him it.

[Skiploder]

Interesting. I knew they produced something like that, but I wasn't aware that they're now considered venomous. That's like my little rufous, he doesn't bite or hasn't ever attempted to and i've yet to find any cases of them biting, but he is rear-fanged consider venomous, even though I do not consider him it.

When you have the time, I cannot recommend enough reading through Fry's website.

The main page has links to his publications and even though it's dry reading, his papers on colubrid venom are interesting.

His forum also has several long and informative threads regarding colubrids, how he rates them in terms of potency and how many specvies we consider non-venomous, actually are.

[Skiploder]

Interesting. I knew they produced something like that, but I wasn't aware that they're now considered venomous. That's like my little rufous, he doesn't bite or hasn't ever attempted to and i've yet to find any cases of them biting, but he is rear-fanged consider venomous, even though I do not consider him it.

I've got a couple papers on my hard drive regarding studies done on Rufoxin - which is the neurotoxin in rhamphiophis venom..........the conclusions are far from earth-shattering, but they may interest you.

Fry does a nice job of ranking the different colubrids in terms of potential risk on a couple of his threads. The difference between rhamphiophis and thamnophis is that rufous snakes are a marginally better equipped to actually get some juice into you.

I don't have the link handy, but Fry's studies pretty much concluded that with the exception of pantherophis, elaphe, lampropeltis and pituophis - all colubrids are technically venomous.