Talk:Inland taipan

Untitled

• About it's range, the first two specimens ever found were much further south, in the Murray basin, in the 19th century. None has ever been seen there since and the species was thought extinct. It was identified again in QLD circa 1950. It had in fact been quite well known to locals who called it a "brown snake" even though it looks nothing like the Australian brown snake. The range found on the map is suspect. I'm pretty sure it is also found further south, into the south-western part of the state.

• I have moved the following: Image:Fiercerange.jpg and have replaced it with a newer image of the distribution (range) of the Fierce Snake. The newer image (Image:Fierce Snake Range.jpg) is far more accurate than the previous one (from books), despite the previous one coming from a more reliable source. --Taipan198 09:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any scientific, as opposed to popular source, references to this snake being the most venomous snake on land. Such claims, once distributed, just run around and suddenly everybody seems to 'know' something that is not actually true.

Well, here's one listing of the most venomous snakes. And here's a page for venomous snakes LD50 values – subcutaneous LD50 value (the lower the value the more potent the venom) seems to be the one that the "most venomous" rankings are based upon. --Anshelm '77 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Europeans introduced rodents less than 250 years ago and Australian snakes have been having a ball ever since. But what did they evolve to eat?

Europeans introduced certain species of rat and mouse. There are several species of rat and mouse that are native to Australia, such as the Pseudomys genus of mouse, to name one. Peter1968 06:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Girth/Diameter

Just because this snake most distinguishing feature is its toxicity it doesn't means this data ain't appropiate... Can anyone turn it up?Undead Herle King (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Venom

I altered the statement that said "The average venom for this fierce snake" because it was potentially misleading. It isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article that the Taipan is a Fierce Snake, and the lack of capitalization makes it seem as if these snakes themselves are "fierce", i.e., "aggressive". --Walkeraj 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fangs

I've removed the statement that: "The Fierce Snake delivers its extremely neurotoxic venom, through a pair of proteroglyphous or hollow fangs that pivot and rest on the buccal floor in the top of the mouth when not in use." That would make it unique among the Elapids, though Vipers (of which Australia has none) have pivoting fangs. I believe this was an error. - AG, Stockport, UK.

Comment. It is not possible to die from an intravenous injection of venom in 2 seconds. To die from intravenous injection the venom has to pass through the circulation to the differnet organs. It takes about 10-20 second for at medical drug to reach from a hand/foot vein to the heart/brain. Then the drug has to penetrate in to the organ. It takes 30-45 second for a muscle relaxant to paralyse a patient in anaesthesia. When totally paralysed there stil is an oxygen reserve that can last up to minutes. So even with momentarial paralysis life is sustained for at least 2 minutes.

Lars Bitsch-Larsen chief aneasthetist Kalundborg Denmark

Question

The article states that "In the case of an intravenous bite, the victim dies in less than two seconds." but later says "there have been no documented human fatalities from the Fierce Snake." So who exactly would the victim be? mice? humans? If no humans have been killed by a bite, how would they know that it takes two seconds to kill you? This seems dubious at best, and needs to clarified and referenced.--168.156.92.92 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"2 Seconds Until Death" claim removed.

Although I'm not a snake expert, I know enough to know the intravenous bite = 2 seconds until death claim was wrong, and since two other people here agree, I decided to remove it. As I understand it, the fastest anyone has died from a venomous snakebite is from a black mamba in about 10 minutes. I would guess that a fierce snake could subdue someone in about that time, but certainly not in 2 seconds. As someone astutely pointed out, the blood travel time back to the heart would be more quite a bit more than that, and if I'm not mistaken, death occurs due to the cessation of breathing. And since there are no recorded human deaths, there's no empirical evidence for how long it takes one to die from a fierce snake bite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.21.235 (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Proper name?

I note that the taipan article refers to this snake as the inland taipan, yet this article uses the capitalized form. Is there a reason to leave it at Inland Taipan, or should it be moved to the non-capitalized spelling? —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 1. Looks like it's the project standard to use all caps to avoid collisions between descriptions and names (e.g. brown snake v. Brown Snake). —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What does "NE" mean in the infobox?

It says "Conservation status: NE", but the conservation status article doesn't mention an "NE" classification anywhere. Is it a typo for EN (endangered)? 81.158.2.229 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

NE = "Not evaluated". Two sources confirm this status. [1] [2] Per taxobox instructions, I am blanking this field instead of specifying NE. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said they were timid.

I have been chased by Oxyuranus microlepidotus near Cooper Creek and I can tell you, timid is not a word I would use the describe it. In the daytime they don't show their heads because its too hot but come evening or in the morning keeping a good lookout is a good idea. Euc (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research, the policy is to use published, verifiable information, and not personal experiences. Australia Zoo says they are "very shy and secretive, only willing to bite if threatened"[3], the one that chased you has been misidentified? XLerate (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words you could have been chased, bitten and died, and it would be original research unless someone published about it. 137.111.47.29 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Centralized discussion started on mouse study disclaimer

I've started a discussion—at the WikiProject level, since the issue involves multiple articles—about the disclaimer text that keeps getting added about mouse studies not necessarily applying to venom toxicity in humans. It's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Snakes, relative venom strength, and LD50. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Credible References?

I believe some sources used as references here aren't scientific enough to support those claims of the time between death and evenomation, and the capability of killing 100 full-grown men in a single bite. Many of them are simple news reports only. This animal was exaggerated.

Mice aren't humans and how do we know that we react with the venom in the same way as mice do? The statement about killing 100 men itself isn't scientific. Yes it does be supported by two simple news articles but there're also lots of such websites claiming that 50% mortality rate was caused by krait bites even with anti-venom while no specific species or original medical literature is cited there.

No documented fatality has been caused by this species so how do we know that time between 30-45 minutes is the fastest span between death and envenomation? Yes, it can be estimated from some severely envenomated clinical patients but all in all this is just estimation not real occurrence, unlike those snakebites caused by, say, the black mamba which truly posed rapid fatalities on record. To be a more responsible editor, statements like "it is estimated that..." should be put ahead that span.

By the way, I'm not sure whether the lead of the page should be that long because it's just the introduction and details are there on the corresponding sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.71.181 (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The " 100 full-grown men " is a correct statement and not exaggerated. it is a standard calculation of the known LD50 in mice. 1 bite has the amount and power of venom to kill 218,000 mice. which is equivalent to 100 men. It has 3 WP:RS references citing this, (one of them even mentioning that this is how it's calculated). not news papers.

The "30-45 minutes" can happen in a severe envomation especially if bitten in a bad place. It has 2 very good sources: one from the University of California and the other from the International Programme on Chemical Safety. the two other newpaper references are citing experts in their article that say this. again totally in accordance with WP:RS policy.

On wikipedia the lead should sum up the article for readers. the snake is most notable to the public because of it's number 1 venom power, and many people usually are searching "what is the most venomous snake?" and get incorrect answers (sea snakes, kill you in 5 minutes etc.). the second paragraph makes it clear that even though the Inand taipan venom is outrageously toxic, it is quite a shy snake (though it will try to tag you if you provoke it and not let it escape , see the steve irwin reference with the video) and is not considered the most deadly snake .

This kind of articles will always bring some heated voices, but the mass of legitimate references support everything that's written in the article. 79.183.16.197 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(Same editor as above) - Nevertheless, on second thought i added "It is estimated that" before that line. 79.182.170.31 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article's Lead

It seems an editor keeps coming back to cut a massive amount of the lead for some unknown reason. The lead has been written in accordance to WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.".

The article Lead is summarizing everything from the article with an emphasis on the snakes number 1 outrageous toxic venom among snakes, which is ofc most notable, and Googled by the public 79.183.28.92 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Some unknown reason which I've stated explicitly: one page ought not to contain two copies of the same passage (unless it's very brief). Neither "concise overview" nor "summarize" is a synonym for repeat in every detail.

The comparison to sea snakes is not necessary to establish context or notability.

The inland taipan's mammal specialization is not necessary to establish context or notability.

That its bite can kill 100 full grown men (WOW!!!) is not necessary to establish context or notability.

The speed of lethality is not necessary to establish context or notability.

—Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lead can stand alone as a source of information to the reader as per WP:LEAD . The lead lines are taken from all over the article. emphasis is naturally on it's unusual venom power. 5 lines are taken from the Venom Section's intro. Someone reading the whole article - the venom section is quite in the back so it is repeated for context. it's common practice.

Most importantly : Wikipedia's lead is not an academic journal. it's popular science and should be presented to get the reader interested in the article.WP:LEAD "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article". And it should tackle notable misconceptions and common errors in the public mind (sea snakes {Belcher's}/ 5 min killing time) WP:LEAD "and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies".

٭The comparison to sea snakes is very necessary. Many People think erroneously that sea snakes (Often it's Belcher's sea snake cited) are more toxic than the inland taipan. You can even see a person trying to push this in an edit 5 days ago https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Inland_taipan&diff=580815759&oldid=580814224 the dude even tried to shamelessly counterfeit an existing scientific reference. (probably another common teen who just uploaded his erroneous "deadly snake" list to Youtube). This is backed by the Twice cited expert (Fry) reference [17] about this misconception.

٭The mammal specialization is quite unique and not something common among snakes. 2 references. and it's in context to the line following it.

٭The "100 men" is part of describing it's venom power to the layperson.

٭Speed of lethality - if you do a little web search you find erroneous quotes of "kill you in 5 minutes" etc. And also same as above. emphasis of the snake's most notable attribute - it's powerful venom.79.181.172.47 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)