Everything I've read on rear-fanged snakes ( due to my hypersensitivity to more or less everything ) suggests they are all classed as mildly venomous - if you have some evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it and if you know of any rear-fanged that are proven to be not mildly venomous I'd probably be very interested in owning one .Originally Posted by John1982
This is the type of thing you see if you type in rear- fanged snakes ..... :- excuse the copy and paste ..
" The term “rear fanged” is applied to a variety of unrelated snakes that possess a venom-producing gland and 1-3 enlarged, grooved maxillary teeth in the rear of the mouth. We do not yet know how many species possess these venom-conducting teeth (“rear fangs”), but evidence indicates that snake venom evolved some 60 million years ago – before non-venomous snakes came into being. Therefore, all present day species may have evolved from venomous ancestors, and may possess at least the traces of venom glands - Quite often rear-fanged snakebites result in only mild reactions. Some rear-fanged species, however, have caused fatalities as there are at least two very “famous” fatalities ."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote