# How accurate is National Geographic?



## Venari (Sep 26, 2010)

Here they say the Black Widow is the most venomous spider in North America.

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video...in-north-america/7febackf?from=sharepermalink


----------



## JimM (Sep 26, 2010)

No.
L. mactans (Black Widow) nails you with a neurotixon. Nasty, but the Brown Recluse is armed with a necrotic toxin. What it can do to a finger or other appendage is horrible.

I'd rather take a widow bite.


----------



## Venari (Sep 26, 2010)

JimM said:


> No.
> L. mactans (Black Widow) nails you with a neurotixon. Nasty, but the Brown Recluse is armed with a necrotic toxin. What it can do to a finger or other appendage is horrible.
> 
> I'd rather take a widow bite.


Now, for the sake of Scientific Accuracy...is the Recluse a native to North America? I've really no idea.


----------



## Venom (Sep 26, 2010)

The various widow spiders ( and there are FIVE of them--the northern, southern, western, red, and brown widows ) in the USA are all quite toxic. 

Latrodectus variolus (northern widow) and L. hesperus ( western widow) probably have the highest likelihood of causing a fatality of any North American spider ( outside of Mexico ). 

That said, widow bites are highly treatable, and nobody has been killed by their venom in the United States since 1989 when antivenom was introduced. The recluse spiders have very --very-- little effective treatement, and often cause fairly unsightly tissue damage, and rarely, internal disruptions of the liver and kidneys, which can be fatal. 

Now, our native recluse spiders (L. reclusa, and the various, less-toxic recluses of the desert southwest) don't kill often--very rarely in fact. BUT, there is an introduced species from South America, the Chilean recluse ( Loxosceles laeta) which is HIGHLY toxic, and much more threatening than any recluse native to North America. It's bite carries a fatality rate of 3.7% from renal failure and other internal disruptions. Compare that to the 5% fatality rate (averaged across all age and health demographics) and it still kills less often. HOWEVER, there is no treatment for the bite of L. laeta, and people still continue to die, unlike with our black widows which haven't killed anybody in 30 years. 

L. laeta has been introduced to southern California, Florida, and some urban environments in Canada. It has also been found in a number of buildings at (I think) Harvard University.

So judge for yourself which is more dangerous--the spider that WILL cause tissue damage and might even endanger your life, which if it does, there is no treatment for; or the spider that causes no tissue damage and is more likely to endanger your life, but which can be easily cured if it does. 

Personally, I would take my chances with the black widow over the Chilean recluse. BUT, since the black widow is native to North America, and the Chilean recluse isn't, the black widow is technically the most venomous spider NATIVE to N.A. In my opinion, due to the disparity in treatment options, the Chilean recluse has a more dangerous bite, and since it is here, whether it is supposed to be or not, it doesn't much matter whether it is native or not.


----------



## H. laoticus (Sep 26, 2010)

All I know is I wouldn't trust everything they say and if something seems odd, it's better to leave it like that until further examination/research.  One big example is the Archaeoraptor incident.  Just because they're big and scientific doesn't mean they're always right.


----------



## blacktara (Sep 28, 2010)

I know that there are some old data showing 4-5% death from black widow bites.

However, given the fact that there hasnt been a documented widow bite fatality in the US in over 20 years ........

Not saying it couldnt still happen - but the death rate from widow bites in a country wih available antivenom doesnt even approach 5%


----------



## Venom (Sep 28, 2010)

Correct. 4-6 % is the fatality rate *without *any treament of any kind. And it gets even more ambiguous: 4-6% is an _averaged _percentage--it's the fatality rate for the ENTIRE population averaged together. That statistic was inclusive of 80-year-olds, 4-year-olds, people on pacemakers and inhalers, people with heart disease etc. In other words, 4-6% probably describes the risk of death to a vast MINORITY of the population. If you're between 15 and 60, without any major health problems, the risk of death is well below 4%. However, for children 0 - 14, and above 60, and anyone who has a respiratory, cardio-circulatory, neurological or muscular ailment, it is much much higher. You have to take into consideration each individual to estimate the risk to them. 

4% is the _average_ chance of fatality, and there are many people well above and well below that number.

But, 4-6% is useful in averaging large conglomerations of people.

( by the way, the 6% is L. tredecimguttatus....it's a curve-breaker  ).


----------



## ZergFront (Sep 28, 2010)

I'd take a black widow bite over a brown recluse or sand spider (Sicarius) anyday.


----------



## LeilaNami (Sep 29, 2010)

blacktara said:


> I know that there are some old data showing 4-5% death from black widow bites.
> 
> However, given the fact that there hasnt been a documented widow bite fatality in the US in over 20 years ........
> 
> Not saying it couldnt still happen - but the death rate from widow bites in a country wih available antivenom doesnt even approach 5%


Right, as Venom said, without any treatment.  Just because it is highly treatable, doesn't make the venom any less toxic.


----------



## Venom (Sep 29, 2010)

LeilaNami said:


> Just because it is highly treatable, doesn't make the venom any less toxic.


Well said, and spot on.  

Australia's funnelwebs haven't killed anyone in several decades either, due to great treatment there. But...heh, they're still bad bugs!


----------



## blacktara (Sep 29, 2010)

All true what you guys said

Now - from my perspective the worst native spider for a healthy adult to get bitten by in this country is L Reclusa. Why? Because there is that chance that even with prompt medical care, you will end up with a big problem and perhaps major disfigurement. With a widow bite, a healthy adult who gets to medical attention will have a bad few days, but wont be in real danger

Now - Re - funnel webs

An excellent link here

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/animal/atrax.htm

If you take into consideration the toxicity and potential lethality of the bite and factor in the likelihood of being somewhere where it would take a while to get to a supply of antivenom - the bugs for which there are confirmed human bites that I would least want to get bit by in their natural habitat are

H Formidibalis and H Infensa

i.e. - I know that A Robustus has the higher observed fatality rate, but if I am anywhere where an A Robustus can bite me in its natural habitat, I am probably less than an hour from antivenom

With the two Hadronyche species I listed, out in the sticks where they live, get bitten and you could be many many hours from antivenom


----------



## Michiel (Sep 29, 2010)

Remember that pure science and scientific language is very boring TV, so, to make it digestable for a bigger audience (even for couch potatoes with an IQ of 80), scientific facts are often brought in a more popular fashion. 

Science is also not static, so the most venomous spider of today, could be outdated the day after, because an even more venomous one is found.

I would say that these channels are fairly reliable, but don't think your knwoledge is up to date after watching TV.


----------



## KUJordan (Sep 29, 2010)

Man I can't stand this stuff.  This is like trying to decide which car is faster- a Mercedes McLaren SLR or a McLaren F1.  They both get well above 200mph, one has faster accel and the other has faster top speed, so what are we even talking about?

I would rather not be bitten by either, either can <screw> you up, and lets not forget that death is not always the worst outcome.  The difference is that if you actually made a recluse bite you once there is a strong chance you would not have any issues at all from the venom.  However, if you made a Latrodectus bite you once, there is a very slim chance you would have no ill-effects from the bite.  I haven't seen the most recent LD50 values for either of these spiders, which would give us the best answer as to which is the most venomous dose standardized.  

Avoid bites from both (not saying don't interact with them, just be vigilant when doing so...)


----------



## Moltar (Sep 29, 2010)

ZergFront said:


> I'd take a black widow bite over a brown recluse or sand spider (Sicarius) anyday.


Ha! I think I'd take a _hippopotamus_ bite over a Sicarius envenomation...


----------



## mitchnast (Dec 15, 2010)

Hippos kill plenty of people.


----------



## hupababy83 (Dec 15, 2010)

I think its a 50/50 between widow and recluse. I have never been bit by a widow, and I hope I never do; but I have  been bit by a recluse and it was not fun at all. Still have a $.25-$.50 piece scar from the little bas****!


----------



## What (Dec 17, 2010)

mitchnast said:


> Hippos kill plenty of people.


Nice completely pointless thread necromancy/fluff post that is completely irrelevant.


hupababy83 said:


> I think its a 50/50 between widow and recluse. I have never been bit by a widow, and I hope I never do; but I have  been bit by a recluse and it was not fun at all. Still have a $.25-$.50 piece scar from the little bas****!


How exactly did you determine the bite you received to be from a recluse? If I am wrong, forgive me, but assuming you live in California you did not get bitten by a wild recluse* in California.

* - A medically significant species, an isolated population of L. laeta exists but has not resulted in any documented or known bites.


----------



## loxoscelesfear (Dec 17, 2010)

9 out of 10 doctors couldn't ID a brown recluse, yet alone a brown recluse bite.  As for reclusa in CA, "_All occurences in CA have been linked to particular shipping introductions. Apart from these, THE BROWN RECLUSE IS UNKNOWN FROM CALIFORNIA!!_"  FROM  http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stevelew/soc.html   i think the  known range of reclusa is accurate and stowaway spiders show up here and there, albeit infrequently.   http://bugguide.net/node/view/33527


----------



## Moltar (Dec 17, 2010)

mitchnast said:


> Hippos kill plenty of people.


My point exactly.


----------



## buthus (Dec 18, 2010)

KUJordan said:


> Man I can't stand this stuff.  This is like trying to decide which car is faster- a Mercedes McLaren SLR or a McLaren F1.  They both get well above 200mph, one has faster accel and the other has faster top speed, so what are we even talking about?
> 
> I would rather not be bitten by either, either can <screw> you up, and lets not forget that death is not always the worst outcome.  The difference is that if you actually made a recluse bite you once there is a strong chance you would not have any issues at all from the venom.  However, if you made a Latrodectus bite you once, there is a very slim chance you would have no ill-effects from the bite.  I haven't seen the most recent LD50 values for either of these spiders, which would give us the best answer as to which is the most venomous dose standardized.
> 
> Avoid bites from both (not saying don't interact with them, just be vigilant when doing so...)


LOL..  yep :worship:
edit: 





> Hippos kill plenty of people.


----------



## Vespula (Dec 18, 2010)

I can't vouch for video accuracy, but I have to admit, The footage of her laying eggs was impressive!


----------



## hupababy83 (Dec 18, 2010)

This old argument. They brought in a  spider specialist, that was visiting HSU. He was in humboldt, at the university, investigating the "sitings" of brown recluse in the wild. He confirmed the  bite and the wild recluse. 



What said:


> Nice completely pointless thread necromancy/fluff post that is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> How exactly did you determine the bite you received to be from a recluse? If I am wrong, forgive me, but assuming you live in California you did not get bitten by a wild recluse* in California.
> ...


----------



## What (Dec 18, 2010)

hupababy83 said:


> This old argument. They brought in a  spider specialist, that was visiting HSU. He was in humboldt, at the university, investigating the "sitings" of brown recluse in the wild. He confirmed the  bite and the wild recluse.


What was the name of this "spider specialist" how did he manage to "confirm" the bite other than identifying the spider claimed to be responsible? 

Read this, please, I know it likely will have zero effect on your opinion, but whatever. This is worth a read as well, as is this, and perhaps this.


----------



## hupababy83 (Dec 19, 2010)

Sir, I only know what was told to me by my father and doctor. I was about 8-9 users old. I don't know name of "specialist"  that was many years ago. I remember brown recluse, because I was always warned about them constantly after  that. Now I am new here and don't want to cause argument, debate, or try to change anyone's mind. I was just giving my thoughts. 


Respectfully,
Betty Mae Scott


----------



## myrmecophile (Dec 19, 2010)

Odds are at best it was one of California's native _Loxoceles_ species, not _L. reclusa_.


----------

