A couple of questions re some venomous snakes

[giveuptheghost]

Been doing a bit of research and am having trouble finding a verifiable source explaining a couple things and wanted to know if anyone here could answer.

1) Is the black mamba is the only snake with a black mouth interior? Do all other species have white/pinkish interiors?

2) I know the inland taipan has, drop for drop, the most potent venom. Yet I keep seeing the mortality rate for untreated bites around 80% yet the rate for untreated black mamba is 100%*. Can someone explain why taipan isn't 100% fatal since it's more potent? Is it just accounting for the possibility of dry bites that adjusts it down since black mambas seem to be regarded as never giving dry bites? In which case, is inland taipan actually 100% fatal if untreated and envenomation occurs, and just drops to 80% because you might get bit and not envenomated?


*100% more or less, always recognizing that there could be an outlying case where someone miraculously can survive it.


Thanks!

[Bogertophis]

1. Black mamba's are the only ones I know of with a black mouth interior, but I won't guarantee there aren't any others.

2. Your explanation seems reasonable to me, & either way, I'd prefer to stay far away from either Inland Taipans or Black Mambas. Of course, there are also wide variations among those who get bitten, & I'm also thinking of someone like the late Bill Haast, who went "over & above" to give himself some immunity to bites in his line of work by self-injecting & building up a tolerance to venoms.

[giveuptheghost]

2. Your explanation seems reasonable to me, & either way, I'd prefer to stay far away from either Inland Taipans or Black Mambas.

lol I won't ever be adding either species to my collection, that's for sure! But I do find them fascinating!

[Bogertophis]

...But I do find them fascinating!

Especially from a distance!

[Cheesenugget]

Been doing a bit of research and am having trouble finding a verifiable source explaining a couple things and wanted to know if anyone here could answer.

1) Is the black mamba is the only snake with a black mouth interior? Do all other species have white/pinkish interiors?

2) I know the inland taipan has, drop for drop, the most potent venom. Yet I keep seeing the mortality rate for untreated bites around 80% yet the rate for untreated black mamba is 100%*. Can someone explain why taipan isn't 100% fatal since it's more potent? Is it just accounting for the possibility of dry bites that adjusts it down since black mambas seem to be regarded as never giving dry bites? In which case, is inland taipan actually 100% fatal if untreated and envenomation occurs, and just drops to 80% because you might get bit and not envenomated?


*100% more or less, always recognizing that there could be an outlying case where someone miraculously can survive it.


Thanks!

I'm not a hot keeper. No way do I have the courage to want to be one, lol.

But regarding your #2 question, your explanation makes sense. Also consider in factors like access and distance to the nearest medical center with available antivenin; mambas have a reputation to "bite first ask questions later maybe not" snake but the taipan has a good reason to be feared too; amount of exposure to the species, usually villagers and farmers; any protective gear used including boots, if at all, education for prevention and/or access to a snake catcher who can remove the snake safely before some unfortunate resident does; culturally or by tradition, are the snakes being sought out and hunted for food/medicine; how much antivenin is available at any time and is it affordable to those at risk; and how high of a population of the snake is found within human residence.

Access to antivenin and education on how to avoid encounters help reduce the risks. While a lot of nonprofits and other organizations try to help, if they don't have the community and government support, it will be challenge.

[giveuptheghost]

I'm not a hot keeper. No way do I have the courage to want to be one, lol.

But regarding your #2 question, your explanation makes sense. Also consider in factors like access and distance to the nearest medical center with available antivenin; mambas have a reputation to "bite first ask questions later maybe not" snake but the taipan has a good reason to be feared too; amount of exposure to the species, usually villagers and farmers; any protective gear used including boots, if at all, education for prevention and/or access to a snake catcher who can remove the snake safely before some unfortunate resident does; culturally or by tradition, are the snakes being sought out and hunted for food/medicine; how much antivenin is available at any time and is it affordable to those at risk; and how high of a population of the snake is found within human residence.

Access to antivenin and education on how to avoid encounters help reduce the risks. While a lot of nonprofits and other organizations try to help, if they don't have the community and government support, it will be challenge.

Most of the above factors you mention address why the inland taipan is often not considered the most dangerous in spite of having the most potent venom-- where it lives it seldom comes into contact with people and it has a more docile nature than a mamba. But that's all more general than understanding why the mortality rate for untreated bites is lower in taipans than mambas even with the stronger venom. My question assumes 1) a bite has occurred and 2) will not be treated, regardless of whether or not treatment is available. I don't understand how the taipan venom isn't 100% fatal in those cases, unless the 20% who survive just did so because it was a dry bite to begin with.

[Bogertophis]

Most of the above factors you mention address why the inland taipan is often not considered the most dangerous in spite of having the most potent venom-- where it lives it seldom comes into contact with people and it has a more docile nature than a mamba. But that's all more general than understanding why the mortality rate for untreated bites is lower in taipans than mambas even with the stronger venom. My question assumes 1) a bite has occurred and 2) will not be treated, regardless of whether or not treatment is available. I don't understand how the taipan venom isn't 100% fatal in those cases, unless the 20% who survive just did so because it was a dry bite to begin with.

So many variables with bites- don't forget that the location of the bite on one's body figures in too, so where & how a snake is encountered when a bite happens can also influence the severity. Personally I wouldn't waste my time splitting hairs over which venom is worse...avoid ALL venomous bites. Realize that any of them might kill you.