# The worlds most venomous spider?  End-all-be-all-topic.



## Shelob

So I did some searching on the site and found a couple topics (with many pages of replies) where the question of which spider has the most toxic venom was asked.  I read through these topics, but with so much arguing and scientific names I have to admit I came out a little confused.  So I figured I would ask several questions and hopefully we can all get a little bit of knowledge.

1. Which spider has the most toxic *drop for drop* venom?

2. Which spider posseses the best combination of highest amount of drop-for-drop toxicity and amount of venom injected (like if the answer to #1 was the Blah Spider, but it hardly injected any venom at all when it bit, which spider has the best of both worlds)?

3. Which spider kills the most people every year?

4. Which spider has the most potent hemotoxin (i.e. the Brown Recluse, the Crab Spider, etc.)?

If you want, to keep replies organized you could say the question number before your answer that way people know which one you are talking about.  Thanks and hopefully we can shed some light on this hazy subject.


----------



## Crotalus

Shelob said:
			
		

> So I did some searching on the site and found a couple topics (with many pages of replies) where the question of which spider has the most toxic venom was asked.  I read through these topics, but with so much arguing and scientific names I have to admit I came out a little confused.  So I figured I would ask several questions and hopefully we can all get a little bit of knowledge.
> 
> 1. Which spider has the most toxic *drop for drop* venom?
> 
> 2. Which spider posseses the best combination of highest amount of drop-for-drop toxicity and amount of venom injected (like if the answer to #1 was the Blah Spider, but it hardly injected any venom at all when it bit, which spider has the best of both worlds)?
> 
> 3. Which spider kills the most people every year?
> 
> 4. Which spider has the most potent hemotoxin (i.e. the Brown Recluse, the Crab Spider, etc.)?


1. Should be Latrodectus mactans

2. Most likely Hadronyche infensa or H. formidabilis. Possibly Phoneutria fera or P. nigriventer.

3. Phoneutria ssp. I would say. And very few per year.

4. Not sure, maybe Loxoscelus ssp.

However, you must consider the nature of the spider, closeness to humans, willing to bite, venom potency and venom yield per bite. 

/Lelle


----------



## Shelob

Just to confirm the scientific names and to translate, in your opinion -

1.  Southern Black Widow

2.  Most likely a species of Funnel Web.  Could also be the armed spider (that was the only common name for it I could find, is it a wandering spider?) or wandering spider a.k.a. banana spider.

3.  Species of spider in the same genus as that of the wandering spider.

4.  Brown recluse or its sub-species.

Let me know if I did that right.


----------



## Crotalus

Shelob said:
			
		

> Just to confirm the scientific names and to translate, in your opinion -
> 
> 1.  Southern Black Widow
> 
> 2.  Most likely a species of Funnel Web.  Could also be the armed spider (that was the only common name for it I could find, is it a wandering spider?) or wandering spider a.k.a. banana spider.
> 
> 3.  Species of spider in the same genus as that of the wandering spider.
> 
> 4.  Brown recluse or its sub-species.
> 
> Let me know if I did that right.


1. Yes.

2. Hadronyche is australian (and one species on Papua New Guinea) funnel web spiders. Phoneutria ssp. is wandering spiders.

3. More specific nigriventer (due to closeness to populated areas).

4. L. reclusa and laeta is the ones who are most potent AFAIK.

Common names are changing and not reliable, use the scientific names so no misunderstandings occur. Thats even more important if been bitten by one of the above mentioned species.

/Lelle


----------



## Steven

a bit off-topic :8o or maybe not,.... 
but anyone knows anything about the venom of Macrothele gigas ?


----------



## oblivion56

dont forget trechona venosa,another dangerous spider from south america


----------



## MUNG!!!

Furthermore... what is the most potentially dangerous T... i have heard bad things about Java Yellowknees. :?


----------



## JJJoshua

That question should be posted in the T section, but I've heard alot of bad things about pokie bites, but in the mygalomorph department, the Sydney funnel web has the most dangerous bite.


----------



## blacktara

*Some general notes on venom and bites*

I am a physician in Georgia USA and have some experience with spider bite cases, so here's some general info

Widow bites - can produce severe muscle cramping and flu like symptoms. The severe abdominal pain/cramping has been known to lead to a misdiagnosis of acute abdomen in cases that are really widow boite, with the result being that the patient ends up with an unneeded exploratory surgery to try and find a source of the pain in the belly that isnt there. Calcium salts can help with the cramping. In general, nothing more than pain medicine and/or calcium for the pain is needed along with some supportive care. In the cases I have had, the patients have described the experience as feeling like the worst case of the flu they ever had, and they usually feel like dirt for several days, but without any real life threatening issues. Small children, or the frail elderly can do worse, with death a possibility, especially in cases of multiple bites.
      The cases I have seen were a trucker who leaned up against a tree and thereby accidentally against a widow (which he brought with him to the ER in a jar!) The ER staff had quite a time gawking at it. Unfortunately for spidey, she lost a leg and ended up faring far worse out of the encounter than the bite victim, who was discharged after overnight observation in the hospital. The second cases was a moron who went poking around blind in his garden without gloves on despite having seen several widows in that location a few days before. DUH!

Recluse - bites do happen, but, in contrast to widow bites which are underdiagnosed, they are overdiagnosed. It has become the trend to attribute any necrotic appearing ulcerative wound without a clear source to "spider bite", even in locales that are recluse-free.In fact, drug resistant Staph infections produce wounds that look a lot like recluse bite. In the only case of proven recluse bite that I have seen, (where the spider was brought in and id'd) the wound did take over a year to heal, and required plastic surgery to excise all the necrotic area and finally get to a point where it didnt just keep eroding more and more. Not all bites are that bad, but they can be a bear. The bite itself isnt life threatening, but the wound can be disfiguring, and if it gets infected, there can be problems

The whole issue of "most venomous" is, in a way, sort of silly. There are several factors, including the LD-50 and the amount of venom injected (which can vary greatly amongst bites from the same species) Also, note that venom that is toxic to one species may not be to another. To wit, humans, other primates, and insects are equisitely sensitive to one component of Atrax venom, but cats and dogs arent, so to them, the bite isnt life threatening

Tho bite of some old world tarantulas can be nasty, as evidenced by the diaries posted by some Pokie bite victims. That said, most lay people who are spider junkies refer to any big hairy eight-legged thing as a tarantula, so some of the horror stories are probably in fact referring to Phoneutria bites.

Any spider with large enough fangs can inflict a nasty deep bite that hurts and that runs the risk of getting infected

Whether daddy long legs venom is actually nasty I dont know, but its irrelevent, because their bite cant penetrate the skin

Hobo spiders arent found naturally in these parts, so I have no experience there.

The problem I see with keeping the non-native nasties is that if a bite does occur (and even the most experienced keepers/handlers will inevitably have a screw up someday that might or might not lead to a bite) - if the bite occurs, antivenom would be nigh impossible to get a hold of. This is the same problem with herpers who are into keeping hot snakes Plus, tho there are some that are experienced and mature enough to handle these critters, the fact remains that the lure of keeping a venomous "pet" is often the machismo aspect. Along these lines, the only rattlesnakes bites I have seen have inevitably been where some dork (usually drunk) starting messing with a snake to try and show off to his buddies or a lady friend

As far as pain, crotalid bites are right up there. I had a fella who got tagged in the knuckle by a copperhead - grown man tough guy who was about in tears for days even when pumped full of opiates. The pain was mostly from some ghastly swelling

Anyway, if anyone has experience with Atrax of Phoneutria bites, I'd love to hear an account 

Cheers

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Crotalus

blacktara said:
			
		

> Tho bite of some old world tarantulas can be nasty, as evidenced by the diaries posted by some Pokie bite victims. That said, most lay people who are spider junkies refer to any big hairy eight-legged thing as a tarantula, so some of the horror stories are probably in fact referring to Phoneutria bites.


Since Phoneutria is a wellknown spider in the countries where this genus can be found I dont think they mistake a tarantula for a Phoneutria. What do you base this on? Its more a misunderstanding that once thought the european wolf spider, Lycosa tarentula, is supposed to be dangerous that created the myth that theraphosids are dangerous to humans.




			
				blacktara said:
			
		

> The problem I see with keeping the non-native nasties is that if a bite does occur (and even the most experienced keepers/handlers will inevitably have a screw up someday that might or might not lead to a bite) - if the bite occurs, antivenom would be nigh impossible to get a hold of. This is the same problem with herpers who are into keeping hot snakes Plus, tho there are some that are experienced and mature enough to handle these critters, the fact remains that the lure of keeping a venomous "pet" is often the machismo aspect. Along these lines, the only rattlesnakes bites I have seen have inevitably been where some dork (usually drunk) starting messing with a snake to try and show off to his buddies or a lady friend


Antivenom might be impossible to obtain where you live but that doesnt mean that its impossible to find everywhere does it? I can easily get serum for most species here.
You put "experienced and mature keepers" in the same sentence as "machismo"" - I can only conclude you are against keeping certain species of animals but that doesnt make you the right to judge alot of serious keepers to have a machocomplex. Please see the difference between serious keepers and drunk people that play with a rattler.

/Lelle


----------



## Wade

blacktara said:
			
		

> Whether daddy long legs venom is actually nasty I dont know, but its irrelevent, because their bite cant penetrate the skin


If you're talking about harvestmen (Opiliones), they are not spiders, they have no venom at all. In the US, these are very common in and around buildings and are often see walking around on walls. They do not build webs, have long skinny legs, and appear to have only one body section (abdomen and cephlathorax appear fused). I think these are what most in the US are talking about when they say "daddy long legs"

The other arachnid known as "daddy long legs" are cellar spiders (Pholcidae). They also have long thin legs, but have two distict body sections and are almost always seen in webs. They have venom, but as far as I know there are no reports on their venom being dangerous. Don't know know if their fangs can penetrate skin or not, but they are quite a bit bigger than recluse spiders and at least as big as widows (although they may not get as heavy).

Recluse bites are known to cause problems without actually penatrating the skin, so penetration isn't really a requisute for potential medical problems.

Wade


----------



## MilkmanWes

Crotalus said:
			
		

> However, you must consider the nature of the spider, closeness to humans, willing to bite, venom potency and venom yield per bite.
> 
> /Lelle



And if we have even discovered it yet. Plenty of bugs out there we have never examined, cataloged, and named yet. Who is to say the deadliest spider in the world has even been found yet?


----------



## mimic58

Wade said:
			
		

> The other arachnid known as "daddy long legs" are cellar spiders (Pholcidae). They also have long thin legs, but have two distict body sections and are almost always seen in webs. They have venom, but as far as I know there are no reports on their venom being dangerous. Wade


funny enoug i red up on this as i was considerng feeding them to my slings , we get alot of the here ,anyway what i discovered "apparently?" that "dady long legs" actualy posses one of most potent venoms known in the spider world ,The only reason there are not many fatalitys is due to there fangs being unable to penitrate our skin.

Daddy long legs being the small Pholcidae spiders with say a 3.5" leg span ,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Pholcidae/pholcus_phalangoides.jpg


----------



## Crotalus

MilkmanWes said:
			
		

> And if we have even discovered it yet. Plenty of bugs out there we have never examined, cataloged, and named yet. Who is to say the deadliest spider in the world has even been found yet?



Well i was talking about spiders we have discovered and have some sort of knowledge about when it comes to bites on humans.
But yes, offcourse there might be a species with a even more potent venom then those we have done research on.
There might also be a gigantic one lurking about in the rainforest somewhere, but we dont consider that to be the largest before we found it right? ;-)

/Lelle


----------



## Wade

mimic58 said:
			
		

> funny enoug i red up on this as i was considerng feeding them to my slings , we get alot of the here ,anyway what i discovered is that "dady long legs" actualy posses one of most potent venoms known in the spider world ,The only reason there are not many fatalitys is due to there fangs being unable to penitrate our skin.



Which "daddy long legs" are you talking about? Where did you find this information? Harvestmen-no venom. Cellar spiders? Fatalities?

I'd be hesitant to feen any other spider to slings. If not eaten right away, they can easily turn the tables. Using predators as feeders may not be a great idea!

Wade


----------



## Sheri

Crotalus said:
			
		

> There might also be a gigantic one lurking about in the rainforest somewhere, but we dont consider that to be the largest before we found it right? ;-)
> 
> /Lelle



AND they're blue to boot. Terrestrial, and no urticating hairs.
Parahybana sized clutches, OBT resistance to poor conditions.

Good point Lelle.


----------



## mimic58

Im refering to these http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Pholcidae/pholcus_phalangoides.jpg

I found the reference plastered over google when i was trying to find out if it was safe for the T there seems to be alot of debait on this so I opted not to use them as feed lol


----------



## Crotalus

mimic58 said:
			
		

> Im refering to these http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Pholcidae/pholcus_phalangoides.jpg
> 
> I found the reference plastered over google when i was trying to find out if it was safe for the T there seems to be alot of debait on this so I opted not to use them as feed lol


Internet is sometimes misleading.

http://www.snopes2.com/critters/wild/longlegs.htm
And I can give you alot of sites that states this is a myth. But even if it was true, the venom yield wouldnt be high enough to cause serious harm.

/Lelle


----------



## mimic58

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Internet is sometimes misleading.
> 
> http://www.snopes2.com/critters/wild/longlegs.htm
> And I can give you alot of sites that states this is a myth. But even if it was true, the venom yield wouldnt be high enough to cause serious harm.
> 
> /Lelle


Perhaps not as i said there is alot of debait onit... The link you posted states this.
>
If these spiders were indeed deadly poisonous but couldn't bite humans, then the only way we would know that they are poisonous is by milking them and injecting the venom into humans. For a variety of reasons including Amnesty International and a humanitarian code of ethics, this research has never been done
>
If you read it fully you will see there is no evidence to support the claim OR disprove it iver......


----------



## MilkmanWes

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Well i was talking about spiders we have discovered .......


Was really poking at the thread title which says 'end-all-be-all'. In an area that admitedly has a lot of discovery left that seems rather premature.


----------



## Crotalus

mimic58 said:
			
		

> Perhaps not as i said there is alot of debait onit... The link you posted states this.
> >
> If these spiders were indeed deadly poisonous but couldn't bite humans, then the only way we would know that they are poisonous is by milking them and injecting the venom into humans. For a variety of reasons including Amnesty International and a humanitarian code of ethics, this research has never been done
> >
> If you read it fully you will see there is no evidence to support the claim OR disprove it iver......



And if you continue to read on that page:
"Furthermore, there are no toxicological studies testing the lethality of pholcid venom on any mammalian system (this is usually done with mice). Therefore, no information is available on the likely toxic effects of their venom in humans, so the part of the myth about their being especially poisonous is just that: a myth. There is no scientific basis for the supposition that they are deadly poisonous and there is no reason to assume that it is true. "

Theres no reason to believe these species possess a potent venom, theres no facts supporting this and its just a urban myth. A die hard one i might add...
BTW, a venoms toxicity can be measured fairly good without human sacrifices. But since the spider provide no threat to humans why would any laboratory start doing a research in the first place. They hardly do that to kill a myth - even if I for one would be glad to see that.

/Lelle


----------



## Crotalus

MilkmanWes said:
			
		

> Was really poking at the thread title which says 'end-all-be-all'. In an area that admitedly has a lot of discovery left that seems rather premature.


I thought that meant something like "once and for all" type of thing...

I think the chances are of finding a even more toxic species is far less then not finding them. So I prefer to discuss species and venoms that are in research.

/Lelle


----------



## mimic58

Crotalus said:
			
		

> There is no scientific basis for the supposition that they are deadly poisonous and there is no reason to assume that it is true. "
> /Lelle


So what scientific evidence have they provided to assume it is false ??


----------



## Crotalus

mimic58 said:
			
		

> So what scientific evidence have they provided to assume it is false ??


No tests that i know of have been done but thats for good reason.
For a spider this size with no extralarge venomglands to be able to kill a human it has to be equipped with extraordinary lethal venom since the venom yield would be very small. Why would Pholcus possess that? All venom types evolved by choice of prey or/and as defense against much larger predators. 
There are no documented cases of envenomation from this spider on humans. 
So, why would anyone spend thousands of dollars to see wheather this tiny nonthreatening spider possess a strong venom?  No one. 
I know your answer will be something like "but no one can know"  - maybe so, but add all these factors together and youll have the answer right there.
Then if you choose to ignore that and still think they have the "worst" venom of all - thats your choice.

Adding: What else then a myth do you have to support it has this venom of nuclearish proportions?

/Lelle


----------



## JJJoshua

From what I heard there had been tests done on rats testing the pholcidae venom, and it turned out to be extremely neurotoxic. I don't remember where I heard it so I can't support it so lets just say I'm wrong. I was watching discovery channel and that show mythbusters had them taking about 20 or 30 pholcidae putting them in a tube and the one guy stuck his arm in and got bite about 5 times. Nothing happened to him. Pholcidae can bite, their venom may be very dangerous to smaller mammals and insects, it might just take more to bring down a human, who knows until its actually tested? I say the sydney funnel web and black widow get my vote for being equally dangerous.


----------



## Spider-man 2

mimic58 said:
			
		

> funny enoug i red up on this as i was considerng feeding them to my slings , we get alot of the here ,anyway what i discovered "apparently?" that "dady long legs" actualy posses one of most potent venoms known in the spider world ,The only reason there are not many fatalitys is due to there fangs being unable to penitrate our skin.
> 
> Daddy long legs being the small Pholcidae spiders with say a 3.5" leg span ,
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Pholcidae/pholcus_phalangoides.jpg


I will put this myth to end. Read the link below.

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/daddyvenom.html


----------



## mimic58

I thought it was an interesting subject I was not decided iver way as to its venom being Powerfull or Weak I honestly didnt know so i thought id post the info i had...

As for most dangerous spider that does definatly pose danger to humans the brown recluse spider or a posibly yet undiscovered more nasty species.


----------



## Elizabeth

Here's a link to another AB thread on the brown recluse:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=20987&highlight=brown+recluse+danger


Where do you get your ideas about spiders?


----------



## JJJoshua

Brown recluse deadly?? Not very. 
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/10729-1.asp

"Deaths from brown recluse have only been reported in children under 7 years of age."


http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic548.htm

"Sydney funnel web spider (Atrax robustus) is the only species known to have caused death in humans; however, bites from other funnel web spiders have caused serious envenomation and clearly have the potential to cause death."

The black widow and sydney funnel web are far more dangerous than the brown recluse.


----------



## Tony

Crotalus said:
			
		

> No tests that i know of have been done but thats for good reason.
> For a spider this size with no extralarge venomglands to be able to kill a human it has to be equipped with extraordinary lethal venom since the venom yield would be very small. Why would Pholcus possess that? All venom types evolved by choice of prey or/and as defense against much larger predators.
> There are no documented cases of envenomation from this spider on humans.
> So, why would anyone spend thousands of dollars to see wheather this tiny nonthreatening spider possess a strong venom?  No one.
> I know your answer will be something like "but no one can know"  - maybe so, but add all these factors together and youll have the answer right there.
> Then if you choose to ignore that and still think they have the "worst" venom of all - thats your choice.
> 
> Adding: What else then a myth do you have to support it has this venom of nuclearish proportions?
> 
> /Lelle


IS that ALL you've got? I've got a rock here that has poison glands and fangs you can't see. But I have yet to be bitten by it, so who can say IT isn't the deadliest rock in the world eh?
 ;P


----------



## mimic58

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Why would Pholcus possess that? All venom types evolved by choice of prey or/and as defense against much larger predators


Lol i just had a crazy thought!! This is a common house spider There always found in homes with people so now lets just supose its evolving a defence against us?.....

Before i get slaughtered i dont seriously think this its just an idea.


----------



## Elizabeth

I think you have a career waiting for you in Hollywood as a writer: tv, films, William Shatner vehicles....   :}


----------



## Crotalus

monantony said:
			
		

> IS that ALL you've got? I've got a rock here that has poison glands and fangs you can't see. But I have yet to be bitten by it, so who can say IT isn't the deadliest rock in the world eh?
> ;P


LOL!
Be very careful with that rock Tony! 

/Lelle


----------



## Crotalus

mimic58 said:
			
		

> Lol i just had a crazy thought!! This is a common house spider There always found in homes with people so now lets just supose its evolving a defence against us?.....
> 
> Before i get slaughtered i dont seriously think this its just an idea.


Or we might be the next prey items ;-)

/Lelle


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

MY oppinion without a doubt in my mind atrax robustus a.ka. the sydney blue mountains funnel web its way worse than a black widow jeeeeez man i thought everybody new this stuff


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

Its definetly not latrodectus mactans there venom isnt much in comparison to australias atrax robustus. There is also a tree funnel web closely related to atrax robustus over here in australia that scientists beleive is even more venomous than atrax robustus but they havent fully proven it yet


----------



## Crotalus

kyle_de_aussie said:
			
		

> Its definetly not latrodectus mactans there venom isnt much in comparison to australias atrax robustus. There is also a tree funnel web closely related to atrax robustus over here in australia that scientists beleive is even more venomous than atrax robustus but they havent fully proven it yet


Acctually there are two species of funnel webs that are even more toxic then Atrax robustus;
Hadronyche infensa, and the one you mention - Hadronyche formidabilis.

However the closeness to human settlements as in the suburbs of Sydney  perhaps make Atrax the more dangerous one of the top three.

Venom strength is one thing, but if the species never, or rarely, gets in contact with humans then it wont matter much. Compare it to the snake considered to possess the strongest venom of all snakes, Oxyuranus microlepitotus (think I got that right), which hasnt killed anyone (documented anyway).

/Lelle


----------



## becca81

Wait a sec - I thought _A. robustus_ was definitely the MOST venomous funnel web, with the males being more venomous than the females.

http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/venoms/html/deadly.html#sfws

BTW - make sure we're referring as most venomous to WHO (humans, etc.).


----------



## Crotalus

becca81 said:
			
		

> Wait a sec - I thought _A. robustus_ was definitely the MOST venomous funnel web, with the males being more venomous than the females.
> 
> http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/venoms/html/deadly.html#sfws
> 
> BTW - make sure we're referring as most venomous to WHO (humans, etc.).


Well the males are more potent then the females and A. robustus was once considered the most venomous of the funnel webs but its been shown Hadronyche infensa and H. formidabilis got a even more potent venom - and in this genus its the females who are more potent then the males. 

/Lelle


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Acctually there are two species of funnel webs that are even more toxic then Atrax robustus;
> Hadronyche infensa, and the one you mention - Hadronyche formidabilis.
> 
> However the closeness to human settlements as in the suburbs of Sydney  perhaps make Atrax the more dangerous one of the top three.
> 
> Venom strength is one thing, but if the species never, or rarely, gets in contact with humans then it wont matter much. Compare it to the snake considered to possess the strongest venom of all snakes, Oxyuranus microlepitotus (think I got that right), which hasnt killed anyone (documented anyway).
> 
> /Lelle


I dont know where u got that information from mate but i live in australia and its common knowledge that atrax robustus is the most venomous no offence dude but maybe you should go check that info again Hadronyche infensa and Hadronyche formidabilis arent as venomous as atrax robustus thats a fact


----------



## Haplopelmatic

Crotalus said:
			
		

> 1. Should be Latrodectus mactans
> 
> 2. Most likely Hadronyche infensa or H. formidabilis. Possibly Phoneutria fera or P. nigriventer.
> 
> 3. Phoneutria ssp. I would say. And very few per year.
> 
> 4. Not sure, maybe Loxoscelus ssp.
> 
> However, you must consider the nature of the spider, closeness to humans, willing to bite, venom potency and venom yield per bite.
> 
> /Lelle


I agree on all of the above statements, except the first. As far as I am informed, the spider with the most potent venom is L. geometricus. The IV LD-50 dose for L. geometricus is  0,31-0,51 ug/g in mice. Whereas the potency of L. mactans is around 1,50-2,50 ug/g using same test subjects and method of administration. 
As I see it, LD-50 tables are the most scientific and only way of determining the toxicity of a creature. As long as we're talking drop-for-drop potency that is. 

Great topic by the way! 

/Cheers!


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one ive researched a lot one these guys and they are marked down everywhere as THE MOST VENOMOUS SPIDER THERE IS IN THE WORLD
 :razz:  :razz:  :razz:   
PEACE OUT 
KYLE


----------



## Sheri

kyle_de_aussie said:
			
		

> I dont know where u got that information from mate but i live in australia and its common knowledge that atrax robustus is the most venomous no offence dude but maybe you should go check that info again Hadronyche infensa and Hadronyche formidabilis arent as venomous as atrax robustus thats a fact



On this site it clearly says that Atrax formidabilis is more potent, both male and females, than Atrax robustus, male. Additionally, it still doesn't claim that A. formidabilis is the most potent, but asserts that it is "near to the most dangerous in the world."

I think you might be getting confused with the difference between actual drop for drop venom toxicity, and the human fatality rates, which are entirely different and depend on proximity rather than the chemical makeup of a venom.

Statistically, A. robustus may post a greater threat, but that has little to do with venom potency.


----------



## Crotalus

kyle_de_aussie said:
			
		

> I dont know where u got that information from mate but i live in australia and its common knowledge that atrax robustus is the most venomous no offence dude but maybe you should go check that info again Hadronyche infensa and Hadronyche formidabilis arent as venomous as atrax robustus thats a fact


Well you need to get updated then. I got the information from the australian Steve Nunn, who got it from Dr. Robert Raven - I assume those two are familar to you.
No offence taken.

/Lelle


----------



## Crotalus

Sheri said:
			
		

> clearly says that Atrax formidabilis is more potent, both male and females, than Atrax robustus, male. Additionally, it still doesn't claim that A. formidabilis is the most potent, but asserts that it is "near to the most dangerous in the world."


Formidabilis is transfered to Hadronyche. The only species in the genus Atrax is A. robustus.

/Lelle


----------



## El Johano

kyle_de_aussie said:
			
		

> I dont know where u got that information from mate but i live in australia and its common knowledge that atrax robustus is the most venomous no offence dude but maybe you should go check that info again Hadronyche infensa and Hadronyche formidabilis arent as venomous as atrax robustus thats a fact


"Common knowledge" is not always the same as the truth. Lelle is right about H. formidabilis being more venomous than A. robustus. Because bites from A. robustus is far more common than from other funnelwebs the public perception may be that it is the most venomous.

It is also "common knowledge" in Australia that the white tailed spiders (Lampona murina and others) cause necrotising arachnidism similar to brown recluse bites. However it has been shown in a recent study of 130 bites that such symptoms are not associated with bites from white tailed spiders.


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

El Johano said:
			
		

> "Common knowledge" is not always the same as the truth. Lelle is right about H. formidabilis being more venomous than A. robustus. Because bites from A. robustus is far more common than from other funnelwebs the public perception may be that it is the most venomous.
> 
> It is also "common knowledge" in Australia that the white tailed spiders (Lampona murina and others) cause necrotising arachnidism similar to brown recluse bites. However it has been shown in a recent study of 130 bites that such symptoms are not associated with bites from white tailed spiders.


Well if its so untrue then the books ive read and the sites that say there the most venomous are wrong sorry dudes i beg to differ. show me proof and il check it out but as far as what ive read seen on sites and learnt about i still think atrax robustus is the most venomous of all spiders and i beleive im right prove me wrong give me a link to the place where the information is and il retract all what ive said if im wrong


----------



## Sheri

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Formidabilis is transfered to Hadronyche. The only species in the genus Atrax is A. robustus.
> 
> /Lelle


Yeah, I kinda figured that out as I went along.


----------



## Sheri

kyle_de_aussie said:
			
		

> Well if its so untrue then the books ive read and the sites that say there the most venomous are wrong sorry dudes i beg to differ. show me proof and il check it out but as far as what ive read seen on sites and learnt about i still think atrax robustus is the most venomous of all spiders and i beleive im right prove me wrong give me a link to the place where the information is and il retract all what ive said if im wrong



Did you not check the link I gave you?

Wow dude. You know, I've never seen the earth from space, but I'm still pretty sure I'll go with the current data that says its not flat.  :wall:


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

Hi people i did a bit of checking around not in books on the web and sorry about that sherri i missed that link you posted the first time but i did go to it and a lot of other sites with recent info on this subject and it seems you guys are right sorry for doubting people i really thought that spider was the most venomous theres a lot of sites that still say it is to and books  but i expect they need to be updated after reading what i have on the site sherry posted the link for and a few other sites sorry bout that people


----------



## kyle_de_aussie

Sheri said:
			
		

> Did you not check the link I gave you?
> 
> Wow dude. You know, I've never seen the earth from space, but I'm still pretty sure I'll go with the current data that says its not flat.  :wall:


UM alright then


----------



## JJJoshua

Has anyone mention Sicarius, the six eyed sand spider? From what I've read it's venom is pretty dangerous as well. 

Now with venom, are we talking how deadly it is, in terms of how many death a year it causes, or potency of the venom.

I would say A. robustus is one of the most deadly, while other species may possess more potent venom, their proximity to humans makes them less deadly.

I agree with Haplopelmatic, in that we should only compare venom potency through the LD-50 tables.

And world's most venomous spider? Does this mean the spider that injects the most venom??

ven·om·ous   
adj.
         1. Secreting and transmitting venom: a venomous snake.
         2. Full of or containing venom.

All spiders are venomous, so the one that secretes or transmits the most venom, would be the most venomous?

Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## El Johano

JJJoshua said:
			
		

> I agree with Haplopelmatic, in that we should only compare venom potency through the LD-50 tables.


The problem with LD-50 is that it is based on rats or mice, not humans. The Australian funnelwebs for example are very dangerous to primates and arthropods but not deadly to most other mammals. Therefore they have a rather high LD50 despite being very venomous.


----------



## orcrist

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Since Phoneutria is a wellknown spider in the countries where this genus can be found I dont think they mistake a tarantula for a Phoneutria. What do you base this on? Its more a misunderstanding that once thought the european wolf spider, Lycosa tarentula, is supposed to be dangerous that created the myth that theraphosids are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /Lelle


My grandpa told me a story about his brother, who worked on a ship that carried all sorts of goods from S. America. One time, they were unloading some tropical fruits, and a large brown spider scurried out and bit a S. American hand on the hand. the man immediately crushed the spider and then quickly chopped his own hand off with a large knife that was nearby. My Grandpa's brother had to cauterize the wound. The guy WAS from the phoneutria area, so he knew what kind of spider it was, and he called it a tarantula. The majority of people in that area are not concerned with learning the difference between a phoneutria and a tarantula, but they do know that the world calls pretty much any big spider a tarantula.


----------



## Venom

I don't know if this has been brought up before or not, but could someone tell me what in the world "drop for drop" potency is supposed to mean? 

Doesn't that just mean which venom has the highest toxic effect in the same volume of venom ( i.e. lower LD50 numbers ), and in that case, wouldn't a Hadronyche sp. have the most toxic venom "drop for drop," instead of a Latrodectus?? This term just confuses me.


----------



## DR zuum

According to the Guinness Book of Records the world’s most venomous spider is the Brazilian wandering spider (Phoneutria nigriventer). 

This spider is believed to have the most active neurotoxic venom of any living spider. Its venom is so potent that only 0.006mg (0.00000021oz) is sufficient to kill a mouse. 

Would Guinness be incorrect in this?If they are known for anything its being tops at validation before putting it in one of thier books.I watched a program on the wandering spiders and australian funnel webs on tv once,it too gave the title to the Brazilian wandering spider.So who volunteers for a test Crotalus?


----------



## bugsnstuff

DR zuum said:
			
		

> This spider is believed to have the most active neurotoxic venom of any living spider. Its venom is so potent that only 0.006mg (0.00000021oz) is sufficient to kill a mouse.
> 
> Would Guinness be incorrect in this?If they are known for anything its being tops at validation before putting it in one of thier books.I watched a program on the wandering spiders and australian funnel webs on tv once,it too gave the title to the Brazilian wandering spider.So who volunteers for a test Crotalus?


But the LD50 of Latrodectus mactans is 0.0009mg, so going on LD50 figures it has the more potent venom


----------



## El Johano

DR zuum said:
			
		

> This spider is believed to have the most active neurotoxic venom of any living spider. Its venom is so potent that only 0.006mg (0.00000021oz) is sufficient to kill a mouse.


Then that is not LD50. LD50 is the amount of venom injected when half of the animals in the experiment dies.




			
				bugsnstuff said:
			
		

> But the LD50 of Latrodectus mactans is 0.0009mg, so going on LD50 figures it has the more potent venom


Is that intravenous, subcutaneous, intraperitoneal? Is it per kilo, gram or some other measurement? What kind of experiment animals where used, mice, flies or maybe humans? 
As I've already pointed out this is the problem with LD50, it only gives a value that is comparable with other LD50 values where the same type of administration and animals has been used.


----------



## Crotalus

DR zuum said:
			
		

> Would Guinness be incorrect in this?If they are known for anything its being tops at validation before putting it in one of thier books.


Guinness is not always so correct no. I wouldnt use that book for reference unless its for checking up the tallest man maybe ;-)

/Lelle


----------



## DR zuum

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Guinness is not always so correct no. I wouldnt use that book for reference unless its for checking up the tallest man maybe ;-)
> 
> /Lelle


Thats why i had a question mark behind it.But they've called it,and since they are the world accepted record book it's now up to someone to dispute it,go for it.The program i watched,i believe it was on discovery,not that they are perfect no one is, but its been a long while so i may be wrong on where i saw it,also gave the title to the wandering spider.





			
				El Johano said:
			
		

> Then that is not LD50. LD50 is the amount of venom injected when half of the animals in the experiment dies.


Really ?  




			
				bugsnstuff said:
			
		

> But the LD50 of Latrodectus mactans is 0.0009mg, so going on LD50 figures it has the more potent venom


I dont just take LDL'S as accepted and written in stone,was every sample taken from a specimen the same in toxicity?Were multiple tests run or just one on one group to establish the LDL?We were running tests here on LDL involving certain mushroom toxins using mice,we didnt run just one test group we ran multiple test groups guess what?

The LDL varied wildly from group to group using the same dosage and delivery method in multiple tests on mice.So before i'll accept that LDL, i'd be wanting to see that info,just as you posed the question on delivery and test subjects El Johano,were multiple tests run and test subjects run? Or did they just use 2 mice or 10 mice and proudly proclaim EUREKA !! :worship:  Crotalus you have specimens of a wandering spider species,the very one cited i believe.Get a 100 gal tank, 2 male mice 25 females,you'll soon have all the test subjects you need,for a conclusive study post your LDL findings see if they match.

Somebody else with Latrodectus mactans specimens and Atrax robustus specimens, do the same,if you really want the question answered,if there really is a clear cut answer?There may not be one.But as it stands accurate or inaccurate the wandering spider holds the title,disprove it gentlemen. :clap:

http://www.directory.co.uk/Most_Venomous_Spiders.htm

For some reason the guinness link wont work,a search on guinness book of records most poisonous spider should take you to the links it took me to.


----------



## Elizabeth

Guinness Book of World Records is just selling a book.  Perhaps they research some things well, but I always thought they were right up there with Readers Digest: entertaining enough in some ways, but basically a low-brow publication whose main goal is to titillate the masses so they can sell more books to people who want to feel like they have "the answer".   

There's absolutely no reason to feel Guinness claims stand supreme until disproven.  It was junk, it is junk, it will be junk.  This book is not about serious science.  That's like giving fashion guru status to the "what's hot, what's not" from the tabloids!


----------



## Crotalus

DR zuum said:
			
		

> TCrotalus you have specimens of a wandering spider species,the very one cited i believe.Get a 100 gal tank, 2 male mice 25 females,you'll soon have all the test subjects you need,for a conclusive study post your LDL findings see if they match.


I know P. nigriventer have a highly effective neurotoxin. I dont need to laborate with my mice to know that.
However, according to a german article P. nigriventer have a intravenous LD50 of 0,3 while Atrax robustus have 10-17,5... So you see LD50 is quite a worthless tool for some types of venoms, if they did those tests on primates the numbers would look very different.
Similar misleading results can be seen in some snake species venom, the common european viper have a i.v. LD50 of 0,55 - while a Bothrops asper 1,244 or king cobra 1,31. Very misleading indeed.
LD50 is to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Look at my signature, I think that goes for spiders aswell.

/Lelle

/Lelle


----------



## becca81

Wait a sec, maybe I'm missing something entirely, and I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert on this spider, but the website that Sheri gave seems to support the claim that the Sydney Funnel Web (A. robustus) is indeed the most venomous.

"The Sydney Funnel-web Spider is believed to be limited to an area of about 160 kilometres from the centre of Sydney. Other species of Funnel-Web Spider are found in Eastern Australia, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. *They are probably the most venomous aggressive spider in the world*, all funnel web species are lethal to humans, not just the Sydney or Northern tree dweller. If they bite you it is usually a pretty deep injection but even a small grazing bite means get to hospital immediately."

When referring to the Northern Funnel Web, it states that it is the most dangerous of the species, but not of the genus _Atrax_, right?  Someone said that the only species in the genus _Atrax_ is _robustus_.  I don't see any conclusive evidence on this page that says the Northern Funnel Web is more venomous than the Sydney Funnel Web.  I'm not just trying to argue semantics, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this supports the claim that the Sydney Funnel Web _A. robustus_ is the most venomous.  A site that I posted earlier also supports this claim.

"The Northern or Tree-dwelling Funnel-web Spider is the most dangerous member of this species *(which species are they referring to?)* and near to the most dangerous in the world.They are found from northern New South Wales to southern Queensland, usually in heavily timbered areas which are rarely entered by man. A female may make her nest in a hole as high as 18 metres from the base of a tree. The venom from both males and females has shown to be more toxic than the male Sydney Funnel-web. The antivenom developed for the Sydney Funnel-web may be used effectively against the Northern Funnel-web."


----------



## Sheri

becca81 said:
			
		

> Wait a sec, maybe I'm missing something entirely, and I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert on this spider, but the website that Sheri gave seems to support the claim that the Sydney Funnel Web (A. robustus) is indeed the most venomous.
> 
> "The Sydney Funnel-web Spider is believed to be limited to an area of about 160 kilometres from the centre of Sydney. Other species of Funnel-Web Spider are found in Eastern Australia, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. *They are probably the most venomous aggressive spider in the world*, all funnel web species are lethal to humans, not just the Sydney or Northern tree dweller. If they bite you it is usually a pretty deep injection but even a small grazing bite means get to hospital immediately."
> 
> When referring to the Northern Funnel Web, it states that it is the most dangerous of the species, but not of the genus _Atrax_, right?  Someone said that the only species in the genus _Atrax_ is _robustus_.  I don't see any conclusive evidence on this page that says the Northern Funnel Web is more venomous than the Sydney Funnel Web.  I'm not just trying to argue semantics, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this supports the claim that the Sydney Funnel Web _A. robustus_ is the most venomous.  A site that I posted earlier also supports this claim.
> 
> "The Northern or Tree-dwelling Funnel-web Spider is the most dangerous member of this species *(which species are they referring to?)* and near to the most dangerous in the world.They are found from northern New South Wales to southern Queensland, usually in heavily timbered areas which are rarely entered by man. A female may make her nest in a hole as high as 18 metres from the base of a tree. The venom from both males and females has shown to be more toxic than the male Sydney Funnel-web. The antivenom developed for the Sydney Funnel-web may be used effectively against the Northern Funnel-web."


Ok, first, as Lelle earlier said... Formidabilis was reclassified as Hadronyche. The only species in the genus Atrax is A. robustus. 
The site also states that;
The venom from both males and females (of Hadronyche formidablis) has shown to be more toxic than the male Sydney Funnel-web.  So, right there, the site has stated that the spider formerly known as Atrax formidablis (now Hadronyche) is _more_ venomous than the male Atrax robustus. A. robustus poses more of a threat because they are in such large numbers near Sydney, a densely populated area of both this species, and humans. 

Did I get that right Lelle?


----------



## hamfoto

you also have to realize that the Sydney funnel web venom has been shown to be specifically damaging to humans and our genetics, but not as bad to other animals and insects...
so, that's another question...most venomous to us?  or to everything?


----------



## Crotalus

Sheri said:
			
		

> Ok, first, as Lelle earlier said... Formidabilis was reclassified as Hadronyche. The only species in the genus Atrax is A. robustus.
> The site also states that;
> The venom from both males and females (of Hadronyche formidablis) has shown to be more toxic than the male Sydney Funnel-web.  So, right there, the site has stated that the spider formerly known as Atrax (now Hadronyche) is _more_ venomous than the male Atrax robustus. A. robustus poses more of a threat because they are in such large numbers near Sydney, a densely populated area of both this species, and humans.
> 
> Did I get that right Lelle?


Yes thats right Sheri.

And becca, not all websites updates new findings when it comes to venom research. Your websites where Atrax robustus is labeled as the most toxic funnel web was certainly right at the time it was written or the site just dont have all facts straight. 

""The Northern or Tree-dwelling Funnel-web Spider is the most dangerous member of this species (which species are they referring to?) and near to the most dangerous in the world.They are found from northern New South Wales to southern Queensland, usually in heavily timbered areas which are rarely entered by man. "

They refer to Hadronyche formidabilis. However, since this was written an even more toxic species have been discovered - Hadronyche infensa.

So, number 1 H. infensa. 2. H. formidabilis 3. A. robustus and 4. H. versuta

Numer 1 & 2 is found in remote areas, while number 3 is right in suburbs of Sydney, so its the more dangerous of them.

/Lelle


----------



## DR zuum

Crotalus said:
			
		

> I know P. nigriventer have a highly effective neurotoxin. I dont need to laborate with my mice to know that.
> However, according to a german article P. nigriventer have a intravenous LD50 of 0,3 while Atrax robustus have 10-17,5... So you see LD50 is quite a worthless tool for some types of venoms, if they did those tests on primates the numbers would look very different.
> Similar misleading results can be seen in some snake species venom, the common european viper have a i.v. LD50 of 0,55 - while a Bothrops asper 1,244 or king cobra 1,31. Very misleading indeed.
> LD50 is to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
> Look at my signature, I think that goes for spiders aswell.
> 
> /Lelle
> 
> /Lelle


Which is exactly what im saying about LDL'S,due to my own experience in establishing them.It may be that there is no definite most venomous spider but a shared title,depending on what animal the LDL is established with,which is what i believe you're saying.So perhaps the best we can get is the top 3.But the record or title according to guinness is now bestowed on the Brazilian Huntsman/wandering spider not the Australian funnel web accurate or not.I think for Australians its the same as Texans and things from Texas,so mates get on it.




			
				Crotalus said:
			
		

> Look at my signature, I think that goes for spiders aswell.


No doubt,dead is dead. I dont think this question will be accurately solved for a long while to come,at least until exhaustive tests are done on various species/test specimens to see which spider venom packs the deadliest punch across a swath of animal species,to truly bestow the title of deadliest spider in the world  on any one of them with no dispute. But i dont think anyone is going to spend money on that unless theres something to gain from it.


----------



## Tony

Still going, though I think I lose the "100 posts" bet  
Fork, my kingdom for a fork..
T ;P


----------



## becca81

Thanks, Lelle, for clearing that up.

I think I was thinking that the "most dangerous" must also be the "most venomous."  I wasn't taking into consideration the natural habitats of either spider.


----------



## Crotalus

DR zuum said:
			
		

> But the record or title according to guinness is now bestowed on the Brazilian Huntsman/wandering spider not the Australian funnel web accurate or not.


Guinness also says that snakebites in Sri Lanka are treated with a locally produced serum that are smeared around the bite or taken orally...
They also says Phoneutria fera getting into houses and bites ferociously all around them...
The book also claim that pirahas attack all creatures regardless of size...
They also states that Theraphosinae is a tropical family of birdcatching spiders...

This was found in 10 minutes of reading.
So you see the book is full of...crap.

/Lelle


----------



## El Johano

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Guinness also says that snakebites in Sri Lanka are treated with a locally produced serum that are smeared around the bite or taken orally...


Maybe that's how snakebites are treated in Sri Lanka? Doesn't mean it's working though


----------



## Crotalus

El Johano said:
			
		

> Maybe that's how snakebites are treated in Sri Lanka? Doesn't mean it's working though


Thats like stating in USA they rely on god to heal them from snakebites just because some nuts up in the mountains do that..

/Lelle


----------



## El Johano

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Thats like stating in USA they rely on god to heal them from snakebites just because some nuts up in the mountains do that..
> 
> /Lelle


We all know that doesn't work, electric shocks on the other hand....


----------



## Wade

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Thats like stating in USA they rely on god to heal them from snakebites just because some nuts up in the mountains do that..
> 
> /Lelle



Yeah, everybody knows we use jumper cables and a high voltage truck battery.

I don't think Guiness has updated huge sections of the book for years. Mainly they worry about athletic achievements and wacky group stunts like "worlds biggest pie". They treat the natural history stuff as if it were written in stone.

Wade


----------



## sbear

I'm not gonna argue about which spider has the most venom, However being in the pest control business I've been bitten by a Brown Recluse(even though at the time I wasn't working) and to be honest it didn't hurt that bad. I knew what it was and took it to the hospital and received treatment. Simple as that I had a black spot in that area for over a year but it really didn't hurt.  I got bit by a Hobo spider which hurt more than a recluse but it just left a rash for about 3 weeks (wasn't pretty).  The spider bite that hurt the most was from a Yellow Sac, which has about the same venom amount as a Recluse maybe a little less.  Talk about some pain.  Not talking about most venom, just what hurt more.


----------



## Steve Nunn

Hi,
Maybe I should have read all this thread, but here goes.

LD50 tests are known to be a waste of time (true, we aren't mice ), but in some countries that's as good as it gets.

The Guiness book is wrong, plain and simple. Lelle is 100% correct with his posts.

Cheers,
Steve


----------



## blacktara

*"Tarantula" as a word for any big hairy spider*



			
				Crotalus said:
			
		

> Since Phoneutria is a wellknown spider in the countries where this genus can be found I dont think they mistake a tarantula for a Phoneutria. What do you base this on? Its more a misunderstanding that once thought the european wolf spider, Lycosa tarentula, is supposed to be dangerous that created the myth that theraphosids are dangerous to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet a lot of the local yokels "know" it as the highly venomous tarantula


----------



## blacktara

Antivenom might be impossible to obtain where you live but that doesnt mean that its impossible to find everywhere does it? I can easily get serum for most species here.
You put "experienced and mature keepers" in the same sentence as "machismo"" - I can only conclude you are against keeping certain species of animals but that doesnt make you the right to judge alot of serious keepers to have a machocomplex. Please see the difference between serious keepers and drunk people that play with a rattler.

/Lelle[/QUOTE]


I bet snake antivenom can be found and accessed by folks who live within a reasonable distance from any major zoo that keeps hot snakes. But how many zoos have a major collection of non-native venomous arachnids? <P>

As for experienced keepers vs drunk idiots - of course there is a difference. But that said, explain to me , when there are plenty of beautiful and fascinating arachnid species that can be kept with little risk of serious trouble, then why opt to keep the super hot like Atrax or Phoneutria? What do you get out of this that you wouldnt get from owning a less dangerous species instead? If your answer doesnt admit that part of it is proving to yourself that you can handle it (in other words, feeding the machismo), you're lying to yourself <P>

Look, my personal experience with pet spiders is limited to keeping a black widow that I found in my mailbox around in a terrarium for a couple of months before releasing her back into the wild. I have a brain, I wasnt going to screw with the thing, and I have the medical training to deal with things if something were to have gone wrong. That widow was a fascinating creature to watch - but I freely admit that part of the reason I kept her was that it was "cool" to show my friends a venomous animal <P>

I am not "for" or "against" anyone else keeping any particular animal as such. I


----------



## blacktara

Wade said:
			
		

> Recluse bites are known to cause problems without actually penatrating the skin, so penetration isn't really a requisute for potential medical problems. <P>
> 
> If the spider bite doesnt penetrate, but the venom gets thru the skin barrier in some other way - maybe entering a cut or a blister - ok, I can see that. But recluse venom causing a problem when skin hasnt been broken either by the spider or by some other event? Show me the reputable medical reference for that one please


----------



## Crotalus

blacktara said:
			
		

> I bet snake antivenom can be found and accessed by folks who live within a reasonable distance from any major zoo that keeps hot snakes. But how many zoos have a major collection of non-native venomous arachnids?


I know our local zoo do just that. And I would think most larger zoo do the same.



			
				blacktara said:
			
		

> As for experienced keepers vs drunk idiots - of course there is a difference. But that said, explain to me , when there are plenty of beautiful and fascinating arachnid species that can be kept with little risk of serious trouble, then why opt to keep the super hot like Atrax or Phoneutria? What do you get out of this that you wouldnt get from owning a less dangerous species instead? If your answer doesnt admit that part of it is proving to yourself that you can handle it (in other words, feeding the machismo), you're lying to yourself


I keep both tarantulas and more potent species, and both interests me and fascinates me. I dont get a kick from moving these spiders. I dont handle any spiders at all, I dont keep spiders as a substitute for a cat. If you mean handle as in moving etc I cant say Atrax is a bigger problem then a asian tarantula when it comes to moving, very  problemfree really. And Phoneutria, well I dont get kicks from moving them. Im happy to watch them in their terrariums. Just because you choose not to keep these species, doesnt mean everyone else who keeps them is a daredevil.



			
				blacktara said:
			
		

> Look, my personal experience with pet spiders is limited to keeping a black widow that I found in my mailbox around in a terrarium for a couple of months before releasing her back into the wild. I have a brain, I wasnt going to screw with the thing, and I have the medical training to deal with things if something were to have gone wrong. That widow was a fascinating creature to watch - but I freely admit that part of the reason I kept her was that it was "cool" to show my friends a venomous animal
> 
> I am not "for" or "against" anyone else keeping any particular animal as such. I


So you have a brain, but no one else? You judge others from yourself. Not all hobbyists are keeping animals to show off, like yourself. 

/Lelle


----------



## Wade

I didn't say it didn't break the skin at all, I said it didn't PENETRATE the skin, meaning it doesn't go all the way through. If there's a better way to put that medically, fill me in. I make this distiction beacuse many people think that a spider with small fangs can't bite, but depending on the type of venom, the fangs may only need to scratch the surface. Recluse spiders are small to begin with and have tiny chelicerae, yet when pressed into the can still deliver a "bite" (I'm not sure if a spider passively being pressed into a persons skin qualifies as a bite, but anyway). Many people who are bitten by recluses are unaware they were bitten at all, and are only become aware later when when symptoms develop. The fangs are so tiny that the person never even feels the inital bite.  As you know, the skin isn't just a non living covering, its an organ with it's own blood vessels. Recluse venom only needs to get into the skin itself to have the negative effect, it doesn't have to get into the tissue beneath.

My main point was that the myth about the daddylonglegs being very venomous but with fangs too small to penetrate the skin is false on many levels. Harvestmen have no venom at all, and cellar spiders have never been studied in this way. Some cellar spiders are quite large, much larger than a recluse, and I seriously doubt they are less capable of delivering a bite than a recluse. If a recluse is capable of giving a medically signifcant bite, than surely a cellar spider would be able to as well if it actually had the potent venom.

Wade


----------



## looseyfur

I'd have to say I would agree with Wade on his feelings about Pholcus phalangioides... I just saved one from the shower fed it a fruit fly and sent it on its way. It was HUGE, and large enough for me with a mag glass to have a real good look at it. Theres no sence to the idea that wouldnt be able to penetrate your skin, and as far as its venom goes I thought it was mostly understood its potency was a myth.

boggle-
loosey


----------



## mimic58

El Johano said:
			
		

> Maybe that's how snakebites are treated in Sri Lanka? Doesn't mean it's working though


Anyone ever seen that bloke who got bit by a deadly viper in the midle of the jungle , You know the one i mean right?, the guy who hacked of his own arm with a machete!


----------



## galeogirl

Link to a site about Tegeneria species and Tegenarism (I hate that the word "poison" is in the url; accuracy, people, accuracy!):

http://hobospider.org/poison.html

No, I'm not claiming that they're the most dangerous, just an interesting related link.


----------



## Spiderfoot

*Daddy Long Legs*

There is an accual spider called Daddy Long Leggs not a harvestman.  I dont know any thing about it but I have a book from the professor at A&M, College Station that has the Daddy Long Legs in it.


----------



## Tony

Spiderfoot said:
			
		

> There is an accual spider called Daddy Long Leggs not a harvestman.  I dont know any thing about it but I have a book from the professor at A&M, College Station that has the Daddy Long Legs in it.


They are pholicds, commonly referred to as daddy long legs, as least by some. Please reference post 21 of this thread
T


----------



## mimic58

*Brown recluse bite*

I found this picture on google ,this women was biten by a Brown recluse ,It kinda looks like it Hurts a bit........


----------



## Tony

Wow, Brazil is using US common names for a completely different family of spiders......  

Still thats a nasty infection, though is the thinking now that those ulcers are caused by bacteria rather than venom?
T


----------



## Spider-man 2

Ummmm....yea.....the Brazilian wandering spider is NOT the Brown recluse.

This is the Loxosceles reclusa (Brown recluse)






This is the Phoneutria fera (Brazlian Wandering spider)


----------



## mimic58

Sorry i mis red it , It was indead the brown recluse not the wandering spider


----------



## Spider-man 2

mimic58 said:
			
		

> Sorry i mis red it , It was indead the brown recluse not the wandering spider


It's cool, just trying to be informative.


----------



## Crotalus

Spider-man 2 said:
			
		

> This is the Phoneutria fera (Brazlian Wandering spider)


And how can you tell...

/Lelle


----------



## Spider-man 2

Crotalus said:
			
		

> And how can you tell...
> 
> /Lelle


I can't really, but I trust the photo since it from a caresheet that had Rick West's name on it.  I do know that a Brown Recluse and a Brazilian Wandering Spider are not the same spider...


----------



## Shelob

Hehe been a while sense I checked my thread, when I last looked it was on post 10 or so lol.

Thanks for all the replies guys, I just read all 7 pages and was interested the whole way through.  Crotalus, your information was very helpful and informative, I would love to see pictures of your _P. fera_ if you have any!  

Another question though: on the Brown Widow _Latrodectus geometricus_ does anyone have a link to a site showing those (however useless) LD50 tables or a link regarding their toxicity compared to _mactans_?   Just curious because I would like to know if this 3-10 times the potentcy statement made earlier was correct.  Thanks again all!


----------



## wild4reps

*member posting..:most venomous*

It is said that the Black Widow(Lactrodectus mactans) Some say the brown Recluse  or the Katipo spider from countries, down under ie.Austr/NewZealand  or the Brazilian Spider (phoneutria nigriventer a Brazilian wandering spider....gets confusing guess its the scientific perspective....


----------



## Crotalus

Maybe time to lock this thread?
I think the debate is finished here...

/Lelle


----------



## Elizabeth

Shelob, take a look at the Widow Misinformation? thread for a bit of discussion re: brown widows, toxicity, bite risk...


Link: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=39443


----------



## Jeffh

*Venom strength*



			
				Crotalus said:
			
		

> Acctually there are two species of funnel webs that are even more toxic then Atrax robustus;
> Hadronyche infensa, and the one you mention - Hadronyche formidabilis.
> 
> However the closeness to human settlements as in the suburbs of Sydney  perhaps make Atrax the more dangerous one of the top three.
> 
> Venom strength is one thing, but if the species never, or rarely, gets in contact with humans then it wont matter much. Compare it to the snake considered to possess the strongest venom of all snakes, Oxyuranus microlepitotus (think I got that right), which hasnt killed anyone (documented anyway).
> 
> /Lelle




I really don't which has the more potent venom between the Hadronyche infensa or the Brazilian Wandering spider.I do think the H. infensa is the deadliest funnel web spider.I would like to see proof, other than I was told by a doctor.Lets see the statement with test to back it up.I could be mistaken and always liked the funnel webs more but I've never seen in print(other than the posters here) that stated the  H. infensa was the worlds most venomous spider.I do know the arachnid guru, Martin Nicholas vote goes to the Phoneutria. Here are a few statements he makes about the spiders venom and also compares the spider to the Syndey funnel web;

"Eagle River, Alaska: The Brazilian wandering spider is a beautiful looking spider, also quite toxic as I understand it. You said it was about 15-20 times more toxic than the black widow and Loxosceles reclusa, correct? Does the venom affect the central nervous system, or does it cause necrosis like the brown recluse?

Martin Nicholas: Phoneutria venom is a neurotoxin and goes for the central nervous system like black widow."

"Riverside, Calif.: Isn't the Australian funnel web spider more dangerous than the Brazilian wandering spider?

Martin Nicholas: No, Atrax, the Sydney funnel web male is is very dangerous but the venom toxicity is not as potent,it does not have the wide distribution and is not as active and aggressive. Still very nasty though."

"South Carolina: Firstly, I want to thank you for you TV show... I am thoroughly enjoying it... My question to you is..

you said the wandering spider is the deadliest... is that the deadliest in the world or just south America... is it's venom worse than that of the Sydney funnel web spider of Australia, also, is the trap door spider dangerous?

Thanking you,

Deb

Martin Nicholas: Wandering spider is more venomous, more widespread and faster and aggressive than the funnel web and therefore qualifies as "worlds most dangerous" but the title is quite subjective."


He could be wrong...I do know the Guinness World book of records use to list the Black Widow as the most venomous until the early 1980's.I also know that the Funnel web OR Wandering spiders  bites aren't that bad and DON't require antivenom in most cases.Maybe most are "dry" bites,I don't know.

Here are some recorded bites with the H. infensa;

Summary of confirmed funnel-web spider bites presenting to Nambour Hospital, 1992-1998

Case/Age Sex Bite location Bite site Activity Symptoms/signs 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1/34 Female- Maleny- Finger Gardening Painful bite, perioral paraesthesiae, neck and jaw muscle spasm, blurred vision, tongue fasciculation 
2/62 Male- Maleny- Finger Gardening Painful bite diaphoresis, mild neck muscle spasm 
3/68 Male -Fraser Island- Finger Gardening Painful bite, dizziness  
4/8 months Male -Maleny- Finger Sleeping in cot Vomiting, tachycardia, muscle fasciculation, myoclonic jerks, sweating, salivation, altered conscious state 
5/56 Male -Mapleton -Finger On bath towel in house Painful bite, perioral paraesthesiae 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case/Age Sex Pressure-immobilisation/splint Antivenom ampoules administered Recovery Spider identification 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1/34 Female -Yes -2 Rapid- Male H. infensa (QMS 20633) 
2/62 Male - - Within 8 hours -Female H. infensa (QMS 21549) 
3/68 Male- Yes - Within 12 hours- Female H. infensa (QMS 30184) 
4/8 months Male -Yes -1 Rapid- Male H. infensa (QMS 42731) 
5/56 Male Yes - Within 8 hours- Male H. infensa (QMS 42860) 

Patient 4 probably would have died without antivenom.

Here is an interesting article about the LD50  for the Phoneutria nigriventer .

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992003000200004


----------



## Crotalus

Jeffh said:
			
		

> Martin Nicholas: No, Atrax, the Sydney funnel web male is is very dangerous but the venom toxicity is not as potent,it does not have the wide distribution and is not as active and aggressive. Still very nasty though."
> 
> He could be wrong...I do know the Guinness World book of records use to list the Black Widow as the most venomous until the early 1980's.I also know that the Funnel web OR Wandering spiders  bites aren't that bad and DON't require antivenom in most cases.Maybe most are "dry" bites,I don't know.


Comparing two spiders to each other is like comparing apples with pears. If you get bitten and die it doesnt matter which is "more dangerous" then the other. 

The first statement by Nicholas is true if you look on LD50 - but LD50 is only a indicator on the toxicity on mice. Not humans. If you get a full envenomation of a Atrax male and do not get serum, the risc are high that you die. This is not the case with Phoneutria venom.

Guinness Book of records is not a good reference source. Its full of crap.

You need serum if bitten by a funnel web. Since they developed the Atrax serum in the 1980's there have been no deaths due to a bite.

You might need serum after a Phoneutria bite but most survive the ordeal without.

You dont, in most cases, need widow serum after a bite of a Latrodectus. Most likely due to a small venom yield.

A good site that deals with Atrax venom and effects of bites:

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


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Comparing two spiders to each other is like comparing apples with pears. If you get bitten and die it doesnt matter which is "more dangerous" then the other.
> 
> The first statement by Nicholas is true if you look on LD50 - but LD50 is only a indicator on the toxicity on mice. Not humans. If you get a full envenomation of a Atrax male and do not get serum, the risc are high that you die. This is not the case with Phoneutria venom.
> 
> Guinness Book of records is not a good reference source. Its full of crap.
> 
> You need serum if bitten by a funnel web. Since they developed the Atrax serum in the 1980's there have been no deaths due to a bite.
> 
> You might need serum after a Phoneutria bite but most survive the ordeal without.
> 
> You dont, in most cases, need widow serum after a bite of a Latrodectus. Most likely due to a small venom yield.
> 
> A good site that deals with Atrax venom and effects of bites:
> 
> http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/animal/atrax.htm





Thats not what I"ve read about the Atrax...Most of the material I've read states only 10% of Altrax bites are severe enough to require antivenom.I've read that on several sites that I probably could find again if I needed too.The problem is the internet is more "full of crap" than Guiness book of records.Its hard to distinguish between fact and fiction on the internet.I would prefer the funnel web to have the record but I've seen no facts to back it up.All I've seen is poster's stating opinions or finding websites that back up their opinions which may or may not be accurate.I can find just as many resources that state the Brazilian wandering spider is the most venomous.I have emailed some "experts" that should be able to answer the question.


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Comparing two spiders to each other is like comparing apples with pears. If you get bitten and die it doesnt matter which is "more dangerous" then the other.
> 
> The first statement by Nicholas is true if you look on LD50 - but LD50 is only a indicator on the toxicity on mice. Not humans. If you get a full envenomation of a Atrax male and do not get serum, the risc are high that you die. This is not the case with Phoneutria venom.
> 
> Guinness Book of records is not a good reference source. Its full of crap.
> 
> You need serum if bitten by a funnel web. Since they developed the Atrax serum in the 1980's there have been no deaths due to a bite.
> 
> You might need serum after a Phoneutria bite but most survive the ordeal without.
> 
> You dont, in most cases, need widow serum after a bite of a Latrodectus. Most likely due to a small venom yield.
> 
> A good site that deals with Atrax venom and effects of bites:
> 
> http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/animal/atrax.htm



I realize that the Atrax venom isn't nearly as toxic to mice as it is to humans.I don't think  the LD50 is what Nicholas is basing his opinion on.You state that if you get full envenomation from a male Atrax that there is a high risk of death...Before antivenom in 1980, there were only  13 recorded deaths.I would think, alot of the victims got the "full envenomation", but still only 13 deaths.I'm not downplaying the loss of 13 lives but that's not a high ratio.My numbers could be slightly off,I going off memory,but they are close.I don't think there has been but a handful of wandering spiders deaths either.

I've always had a certain fascination with the Syndey funnel web that I've never had with the Brazilian wandering spider.I would prefer that the funnel web had the honor but I would like hard facts not just opinions or third party information.If anyone has that evidence, I would love to see it.

To see how you have to shift through the BS on the internet, look at all the supposed brown recluse bite photo's where the victims affected limb is about to fall off.


----------



## Crotalus

Jeffh said:
			
		

> I realize that the Atrax venom isn't nearly as toxic to mice as it is to humans.I don't think  the LD50 is what Nicholas is basing his opinion on.You state that if you get full envenomation from a male Atrax that there is a high risk of death...Before antivenom in 1980, there was only  13 recorded deaths.I would think alot of victims got the "full envenomation", but still only 13 deaths.I'm not downplaying the loss of 13 lives but that's not a high ratio.My numbers could be slightly off,I going off memory,but they are close.I don't think there has been but a handful of wandering spiders deaths either.
> 
> I've always had a certain fascination with the Syndey funnel web that I've never had with the Brazilian wandering spider.I would prefer that the funnel web had the honor but I would like hard facts not just opinions or third party information.If anyone has that evidence, I would love to see it.
> 
> To see how you have to shift through the BS on the internet, look at all the supposed ,brown recluse bite photo's where the victims affected limb is about to fall off.


Here are the statistics of Phoneutria nigriventer bites and fatalities (information provided by Rogerio Bertani, Butantan Inst.):

· State Sao Paulo ………….773 bites per yea r/ 1 fatality on 2320 bites
· State Parana ……………..150 bites per year / 2 fatality on 602 bites
· State Santa Catarina ………86 bites per year / no fatality
· State Rio Grande do Sul …218 bites per year / no fatality

Serum was used in 3,3% of the cases.

Offcourse I should have written "often provided serum".

Yes. Internet is full of crap. Guinness is full of good data too - if you wanna know the weight of the fattest man. For venom etc I rely on certain websites more then Guinness. Its good to drink though.

/Lelle


----------



## Jmadson13

I think many spiders could share this title depending on the light they're looked at in. IE frequency of medically significant bites, drop for drop potency and Most deaths. 

Even though there is only two recorded bites I'd have to vote for Sicarius spp. or the South African Assassin Spiders. Probably mentioned previous to my post.

Jamison


----------



## Jmadson13

Oh BTW thanks for the Phoneutria figures Lelle, they are indeed very helpful.


----------



## Steve Nunn

Hi,
LOL, It's _H.infensa_, the most venomous spider on the planet, the female. The only question is how many of you choose to accept this as truth. Trust me, with everything I have ever done with spiders, of this I am 100% positive.

The wandering spiders do not compare to the funnel-webs of Australia, apples and oranges. Give me a wandeing spider bite anyday over a funnel-web. I could not name one arachnologist with knowledge of the funnel-web that would say otherwise.

Instead of seeking out hobbyists for this answer, go to the source and ask. Check with the museums around the areas these spiders are found, get true stats, not false ones.

Steve


----------



## Crotalus

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi,
> LOL, It's _H.infensa_, the most venomous spider on the planet, the female. The only question is how many of you choose to accept this as truth. Trust me, with everything I have ever done with spiders, of this I am 100% positive.
> 
> The wandering spiders do not compare to the funnel-webs of Australia, apples and oranges. Give me a wandeing spider bite anyday over a funnel-web. I could not name one arachnologist with knowledge of the funnel-web that would say otherwise.
> 
> Instead of seeking out hobbyists for this answer, go to the source and ask. Check with the museums around the areas these spiders are found, get true stats, not false ones.
> 
> Steve


I wouldnt choose either way. Its like comparing a bite from a lancehead or rattlesnake - both will mess you up.


----------



## Steve Nunn

Hi Lelle,
Yes, both can have the potential to mess you up, I do not dispute that at all. But, I'd take my chances with the wanderer anyday  I know the percentages and based on those stats alone, give me the wanderer!!

With the extremely high number of known bites from the wanderer and subsequent lack of entivenine in many localities, compared to the number of known and documented bites from funnel-webs, the chances are so much higher of a fatality with the funnel-webs following an even ratio, there is no question of this.

The reality is funnel-webs are now virtually harmless, given the ready supply of anitvenine in known localities, bites are no longer lethal. With the wanderer however, lethal bites still occur (albeit rarely) because of the lack of medical assistance in remote areas. Obviously, the wanderer is more dangerous now.

I cannot believe for one minute though that the venom from a wandering spider is more dangerous to a human then that of the funnel-web. Not a chance. That goes for at least ten of the 14 known species too, the reality is that probably all of them apply.

Steve


----------



## Crotalus

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi Lelle,
> Yes, both can have the potential to mess you up, I do not dispute that at all. But, I'd take my chances with the wanderer anyday  I know the percentages and based on those stats alone, give me the wanderer!!
> 
> With the extremely high number of known bites from the wanderer and subsequent lack of entivenine in many localities, compared to the number of known and documented bites from funnel-webs, the chances are so much higher of a fatality with the funnel-webs following an even ratio, there is no question of this.
> 
> The reality is funnel-webs are now virtually harmless, given the ready supply of anitvenine in known localities, bites are no longer lethal. With the wanderer however, lethal bites still occur (albeit rarely) because of the lack of medical assistance in remote areas. Obviously, the wanderer is more dangerous now.
> 
> I cannot believe for one minute though that the venom from a wandering spider is more dangerous to a human then that of the funnel-web. Not a chance. That goes for at least ten of the 14 known species too, the reality is that probably all of them apply.
> 
> Steve



Yep, its one thing to get bitten close to a hospital which stores serum, another thing to get bitten out in the field. That offcourse goes for all potent venomous/poisonous animals. 
The most dangerous about the wanderers are the cheer numbers, they are extremely common in some areas and often found inside houses. They are fast and climbs on anything, that is another reason why people get bitten so often. Plus they got a high venom yield. All these factors are just as important as the venom itself. It really doesnt matter if the venom are less potent if you have a higher yield. Or if you dont come in contact with people regularely.
Same with the taipans, the inland havent killed anyone (documented atleast) while a southern pacific rattlesnake kills people each year which (academically) less potent venom compared to the inland taipan.
So, its really a meaningless debate. Dead is dead.

/Lelle


----------



## Steve Nunn

Agree totally 

Steve


----------



## Jeffh

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi,
> LOL, It's _H.infensa_, the most venomous spider on the planet, the female. The only question is how many of you choose to accept this as truth. Trust me, with everything I have ever done with spiders, of this I am 100% positive.
> 
> The wandering spiders do not compare to the funnel-webs of Australia, apples and oranges. Give me a wandeing spider bite anyday over a funnel-web. I could not name one arachnologist with knowledge of the funnel-web that would say otherwise.
> 
> Instead of seeking out hobbyists for this answer, go to the source and ask. Check with the museums around the areas these spiders are found, get true stats, not false ones.
> 
> Steve



I would like facts not opinions or someone saying trust me.Lets see proof.You might be right but "trust me" is kind of weak.


----------



## Crotalus

Jeffh said:
			
		

> I would like facts not opinions or someone saying trust me.Lets see proof.You might be right but "trust me" is kind of weak.


Did you even bother checking the link up? Dont think so. Its not info written by some dude on a forum, example someone like you that cant provide any facts with your statements. 
Yeez.... why even bother.


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Did you even bother checking the link up? Dont think so. Its not info written by some dude on a forum, example someone like you that cant provide any facts with your statements.
> Yeez.... why even bother.



I read that link LONG before you posted it...Its good information BUT doesn't compare funnel web poision to other spiders(ie.wandering spiders).I've seen more places that stated wandering spider poision was more toxic than funnel web's, but all you have to say about that is they are wrong.Thats not proof.Yeah, more people may have severe reactions from funnel web bites but I've read alot of times wandering spiders inject very little if any venom when biting.Thats means wandering spiders may have more potent venom but not as dangerous.My question was the most potent venom not the most dangerous.

"The Brazilian Wandering Spider  are very fast, highly venomous, and extremely aggressive and is thought to be among the most venomous spiders known.  Recent studies however have found that it only injects venom in about one-third of its bites and may only inject a small amount in another third. Therefore the effects of the bites from this spider can range from only a couple of pin pricks to a full dose of its poison.  In South America, these spiders are often encountered in peoples' homes, hiding in  shoes, hats, and other clothes. It wanders the forest floor, which is how it got its name. The Brazilian Wandering Spider also is called the Banana Spider because there have been cases where these spiders have appeared on banana boats heading for the United States."


----------



## Elizabeth

I think your question has been answered as far as pure potency, LD50, goes, but it's on MICE and you aren't going to get an LD50 answer based on PEOPLE.  

You seem to be asking for the impossible, almost like you can't assimilate an answer that is a bit more complex.  There is no simple most potent/dangerous/all-around this is THE one spider venom.  Even Martin Nicholas gets that, as I believe his quotes evidence.   You need to expand your mind to fully get what is being said and what the data says and doesn't say.  

And you are going to have to accept that there won't be any LD50 on humans!


----------



## Jeffh

Elizabeth said:
			
		

> I think your question has been answered as far as pure potency, LD50, goes, but it's on MICE and you aren't going to get an LD50 answer based on PEOPLE.
> 
> You seem to be asking for the impossible, almost like you can't assimilate an answer that is a bit more complex.  There is no simple most potent/dangerous/all-around this is THE one spider venom.  Even Martin Nicholas gets that, as I believe his quotes evidence.   You need to expand your mind to fully get what is being said and what the data says and doesn't say.
> 
> And you are going to have to accept that there won't be any LD50 on humans!



I can agree with you on that and I think its somewhat subjective.There are posters saying, without a shadow of a doubt, its the funnel web.I've seen no proof.Most funnel web or wandering bites don't require antivenom.You probably can make a case for both spiders but I'm not saying without any doubt its one or the other.The posters claiming one or the other can't seem to provide any real evidence.


----------



## blacktara

If you look at all known bites and classify the reults into mild, moderate, and serious envenomations for each species, based on severity of symptoms and need for antivenom, there are a few of the Hadronyche species that are WAY out in front of the pack, ahead of any other funnel webs and any other known species resulting in serious envenomation in upwards of 30 percent of cases. That's WAY ahead of ARobustus which I believe was 15-20% (one sixth to one fifth of cases). 

  The number of WELL DOCUMENTED cases of bites by certain of the funnel web species is small, so caution should be used in interpreting the data

  Me personally, as a physician but not an arachnologist or a venom expert, I'd rather take a tag from a wanderer twice over than be bitten by one of the tree dwelling or island hadronyche, especially if I am far from medical care

  If anyone is interested I can dig up the reference to the case series on funnel web bite


----------



## Sheri

Of course I'm interested.


----------



## Jeffh

blacktara said:
			
		

> If you look at all known bites and classify the reults into mild, moderate, and serious envenomations for each species, based on severity of symptoms and need for antivenom, there are a few of the Hadronyche species that are WAY out in front of the pack, ahead of any other funnel webs and any other known species resulting in serious envenomation in upwards of 30 percent of cases. That's WAY ahead of ARobustus which I believe was 15-20% (one sixth to one fifth of cases).
> 
> The number of WELL DOCUMENTED cases of bites by certain of the funnel web species is small, so caution should be used in interpreting the data
> 
> Me personally, as a physician but not an arachnologist or a venom expert, I'd rather take a tag from a wanderer twice over than be bitten by one of the tree dwelling or island hadronyche, especially if I am far from medical care
> 
> If anyone is interested I can dig up the reference to the case series on funnel web bite



That sounds interesting.I would love to see the cases if its not to much trouble.


----------



## Jeffh

blacktara said:
			
		

> If you look at all known bites and classify the reults into mild, moderate, and serious envenomations for each species, based on severity of symptoms and need for antivenom, there are a few of the Hadronyche species that are WAY out in front of the pack, ahead of any other funnel webs and any other known species resulting in serious envenomation in upwards of 30 percent of cases. That's WAY ahead of ARobustus which I believe was 15-20% (one sixth to one fifth of cases).
> 
> The number of WELL DOCUMENTED cases of bites by certain of the funnel web species is small, so caution should be used in interpreting the data
> 
> Me personally, as a physician but not an arachnologist or a venom expert, I'd rather take a tag from a wanderer twice over than be bitten by one of the tree dwelling or island hadronyche, especially if I am far from medical care
> 
> If anyone is interested I can dig up the reference to the case series on funnel web bite


You were correct...I find the info;

2 Rate of severe envenoming for the six most medically important species of funnel-web spider


 Common name
 No. of bites*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Severe envenoming rate (95% CI)

Species
 Severe 
 Total


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. cerberea
 Southern tree
 3
 4
 75% (19%–99%)

H. formidabilis
 Northern tree
 5
 8
 63% (24%–91%)

Atrax robustus
 Sydney
 4
 23
 17% (5%–39%)

Hadronyche sp. 14
 Port Macquarie
 1
 6
 17% (0–64%)

H. infensa
 Toowoomba
 2
 14
 14% (2%–43%)

H. versuta
 Blue Mountains
 1
 9
 11% (0–48%)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Venom

If memory serves...

     To answer the age-old question: "what is the most venomous spider in the world?" is obtuse and ambiguous, you first need to define "venomous"--it isn't as straightforward as you think...really. The fact is that Phoneutria has the most toxic venom _component _of any spider--its main toxin is faster acting/ more powerful than anything in the funnelwebs. However, this compound is not as concentrated in the Phoneutria's venom as it could be, making it the most potent spider toxin, but not the most potent venom ( venom isn't pure toxin--it is a cocktail of toxin + matrix--like suger dissolved in water ). Funnelweb venom, on the other hand, has more than one toxic component: it contains about 14 different toxic compounds, none of which are as potent individually as the Phoneutria's toxin, but which together add up to a venom which as a whole is more potent than Phoneutria venom. To put it in rifle terms, it's like one 30mm gun vs. fourteen .50 cals---the barrage of .50 cals is much more dangerous than the single 30mm, even though the 30mm is more powerful individually than any of the individual .50 cals. So what you end up with is that Phoneutria _toxin _ is more potent, but its venom as a whole is less potent than the Atrax/ Hadronyche venoms.

Now, as for "which is more _dangerous_?"--this isn't the same as "which is more venomous." Danger level takes into account the spider's other characteristics as well as its degree of "venomousness." For instance, a diamond-back rattlesnake is much more dangerous than a sea krait, because although the rattler's venom is MUCH less potent, sea kraits almost never bite: you can pick them up, dangle them freely around your neck, and never once be bitten. Diamondbacks, however, will bite readily, and although their bite is less likely to kill than the sea krait's, it is much more likely that you will _receive _ a bite from a rattler than a sea krait. Thus, you are in more danger from a diamond-back than from a sea-krait: the degree of damage is off-set by the likeliness of its occurring. 

The likeliness of a bite occurring once the spider is encountered is determined by such factors as the spider's temperament, its speed, agility, and defensive behaviour. For instance, will the spider strike a defensive position and stay put ( like the f-webs do ), or will/ can it move toward you by running /jumping ( like a wanderer )? Is the spider fast moving or slow? Is it agile or clumsy? Does it have an effective striking/ biting system? How much of a disturbance/ threat is necessary to cause it to bite? These, along with the venom potency, amount of venom injected, and frequency of "wet" and "dry" bites are what determine how dangerous a spider is. The amount, potency and frequency of venom comprise the degree of damage/ lethality of the bite, and the behaviours/ abilities of the spider determine how likely it is that you will be bitten. 

Based on the comparative features of f-webs and Phoneutria, I have to say that the f-webs are more "dangerous," all things considered. As far as temperament/ willingness to bite, both are highly defensive and bite readily ( although Phoneutria may have a slight edge on this aspect). Regarding speed and agility, no contest: Phoneutria win hands down. In defensive behaviour, Phoneutria jump and run, whereas F-webs are less able to: they are heavier, slower, and primarily non-arboreal. However, when they do bite, they don't give the quick injections of a Phoneutria, but hold on like bulldogs and continue to inject more and more venom. This is another area where they are radically different. Although they are large, and CAN inject large doses, Phoneutria simply don't; they may bite readily, and perhaps repeatedly, but ( in a defensive bite, not a feeding bite ) they don't inject much venom--only a very tiny amount!! Thus, they may be better able/ more likely to bite you, but their bite simply doesn't have the weight of the f-webs'. It's like asking whether you prefer a 70% chance of a fist to the head, or a 40% chance of a baseball bat to the head: the chance of incurring some harm is greater with the fist, but your total risk is still lower than with the baseball bat!

Now, this is a pet peeve, but I'd like to rant for a second. 

Distribution of a species is not part of how dangerous it is!!! Whether a spider occurs in a populated or unpopulated region does not influence the dangerousness of _the spider itself_, only how much ( how often ) of a problem it is. In measuring the danger level of a spider once it has been encountered by a human, you can only consider the characteristics of the _spider_. Where a species occurs only influences how likely you are to be exposed to the species, NOT what will happen once you are. Otherwise, if dsitrubution is a factor, you'd have to go around saying that western diamondbacks are more dangerous than King cobras, because the rattlers live in more populated areas and have much more contact with humans than the cobras, which live in the boonies and are rarely encountered. 


As for "evidence" and "sources"...

Jeffh, what you fail to realize is that Lelle ( Crotalus ), actually _keeps _ Phoneutria sp. and has provided them for filming on National Geographic; and SteveNunn _keeps_ ( or has kept ) Atrax sp. and is _Steve Irwin's_ funnelweb provider. These guys are experts, their word _is_ a reliable "source," and is as much evidence as you should need. They know as much about these species as any of the scientific writers whose "sources" you crave. And what do you want in these papers but an authoritative voice? Well, they _are _an authoritative voice! So get over yourself and believe them! ( and BTW, though I'm not as advanced as they, you can believe me too    ).


----------



## Shelob

Thanks for clearing up some things Venom, mainly the toxin vs venom issue.  Haven't checked this forum for a while and was pretty suprised to find my thread still on the first page.  Got a lot of reading to catch up on!


----------



## Jeffh

Venom said:
			
		

> If memory serves...
> 
> To answer the age-old question: "what is the most venomous spider in the world?" is obtuse and ambiguous, you first need to define "venomous"--it isn't as straightforward as you think...really. The fact is that Phoneutria has the most toxic venom _component _of any spider--its main toxin is faster acting/ more powerful than anything in the funnelwebs. However, this compound is not as concentrated in the Phoneutria's venom as it could be, making it the most potent spider toxin, but not the most potent venom ( venom isn't pure toxin--it is a cocktail of toxin + matrix--like suger dissolved in water ). Funnelweb venom, on the other hand, has more than one toxic component: it contains about 14 different toxic compounds, none of which are as potent individually as the Phoneutria's toxin, but which together add up to a venom which as a whole is more potent than Phoneutria venom. To put it in rifle terms, it's like one 30mm gun vs. fourteen .50 cals---the barrage of .50 cals is much more dangerous than the single 30mm, even though the 30mm is more powerful individually than any of the individual .50 cals. So what you end up with is that Phoneutria _toxin _ is more potent, but its venom as a whole is less potent than the Atrax/ Hadronyche venoms.
> 
> Now, as for "which is more _dangerous_?"--this isn't the same as "which is more venomous." Danger level takes into account the spider's other characteristics as well as its degree of "venomousness." For instance, a diamond-back rattlesnake is much more dangerous than a sea krait, because although the rattler's venom is MUCH less potent, sea kraits almost never bite: you can pick them up, dangle them freely around your neck, and never once be bitten. Diamondbacks, however, will bite readily, and although their bite is less likely to kill than the sea krait's, it is much more likely that you will _receive _ a bite from a rattler than a sea krait. Thus, you are in more danger from a diamond-back than from a sea-krait: the degree of damage is off-set by the likeliness of its occurring.
> 
> The likeliness of a bite occurring once the spider is encountered is determined by such factors as the spider's temperament, its speed, agility, and defensive behaviour. For instance, will the spider strike a defensive position and stay put ( like the f-webs do ), or will/ can it move toward you by running /jumping ( like a wanderer )? Is the spider fast moving or slow? Is it agile or clumsy? Does it have an effective striking/ biting system? How much of a disturbance/ threat is necessary to cause it to bite? These, along with the venom potency, amount of venom injected, and frequency of "wet" and "dry" bites are what determine how dangerous a spider is. The amount, potency and frequency of venom comprise the degree of damage/ lethality of the bite, and the behaviours/ abilities of the spider determine how likely it is that you will be bitten.
> 
> Based on the comparative features of f-webs and Phoneutria, I have to say that the f-webs are more "dangerous," all things considered. As far as temperament/ willingness to bite, both are highly defensive and bite readily ( although Phoneutria may have a slight edge on this aspect). Regarding speed and agility, no contest: Phoneutria win hands down. In defensive behaviour, Phoneutria jump and run, whereas F-webs are less able to: they are heavier, slower, and primarily non-arboreal. However, when they do bite, they don't give the quick injections of a Phoneutria, but hold on like bulldogs and continue to inject more and more venom. This is another area where they are radically different. Although they are large, and CAN inject large doses, Phoneutria simply don't; they may bite readily, and perhaps repeatedly, but ( in a defensive bite, not a feeding bite ) they don't inject much venom--only a very tiny amount!! Thus, they may be better able/ more likely to bite you, but their bite simply doesn't have the weight of the f-webs'. It's like asking whether you prefer a 70% chance of a fist to the head, or a 40% chance of a baseball bat to the head: the chance of incurring some harm is greater with the fist, but your total risk is still lower than with the baseball bat!
> 
> Now, this is a pet peeve, but I'd like to rant for a second.
> 
> Distribution of a species is not part of how dangerous it is!!! Whether a spider occurs in a populated or unpopulated region does not influence the dangerousness of _the spider itself_, only how much ( how often ) of a problem it is. In measuring the danger level of a spider once it has been encountered by a human, you can only consider the characteristics of the _spider_. Where a species occurs only influences how likely you are to be exposed to the species, NOT what will happen once you are. Otherwise, if dsitrubution is a factor, you'd have to go around saying that western diamondbacks are more dangerous than King cobras, because the rattlers live in more populated areas and have much more contact with humans than the cobras, which live in the boonies and are rarely encountered.
> 
> 
> As for "evidence" and "sources"...
> 
> Jeffh, what you fail to realize is that Lelle ( Crotalus ), actually _keeps _ Phoneutria sp. and has provided them for filming on National Geographic; and SteveNunn _keeps_ ( or has kept ) Atrax sp. and is _Steve Irwin's_ funnelweb provider. These guys are experts, their word _is_ a reliable "source," and is as much evidence as you should need. They know as much about these species as any of the scientific writers whose "sources" you crave. And what do you want in these papers but an authoritative voice? Well, they _are _an authoritative voice! So get over yourself and believe them! ( and BTW, though I'm not as advanced as they, you can believe me too    ).



Thanks, you have answered some questions.As far as get over myself, its not like Lelle and Steve Nunn are housewhole names and besides just because someone keeps cetain spiders doesn't make them  experts .  I've had black widows and brown recluse's.Am I an expert??????NO....They may know  what they are talking about but when I wanted proof they provided NONE.


----------



## Crotalus

Jeffh said:
			
		

> Thanks, you have answered some questions.As far as get over myself, its not like Lelle and Steve Nunn are housewhole names and besides just because someone keeps cetain spiders doesn't make them  experts .  I've had black widows and brown recluse's.Am I an expert??????NO....They may know  what they are talking about but when I wanted proof they provided NONE.


Maybe you should read ALL the posts instead of the last one posted.
You simply dont understand why its a question that are either not possible to give a definite answer to or its just a meaningless question.

/Lelle


----------



## Crotalus

Venom said:
			
		

> This is another area where they are radically different. Although they are large, and CAN inject large doses, Phoneutria simply don't; they may bite readily, and perhaps repeatedly, but ( in a defensive bite, not a feeding bite ) they don't inject much venom--only a very tiny amount!!
> 
> Jeffh, what you fail to realize is that Lelle ( Crotalus ), actually _keeps _ Phoneutria sp. and has provided them for filming on National Geographic; and SteveNunn _keeps_ ( or has kept ) Atrax sp. and is _Steve Irwin's_ funnelweb provider. These guys are experts, their word _is_ a reliable "source," and is as much evidence as you should need. They know as much about these species as any of the scientific writers whose "sources" you crave. And what do you want in these papers but an authoritative voice? Well, they _are _an authoritative voice! So get over yourself and believe them! ( and BTW, though I'm not as advanced as they, you can believe me too    ).


Not correct, Phoneutria have among the largest venom yield of true spiders.

BTW, Im no expert. Far from it.


----------



## Crotalus

Venom said:
			
		

> Distribution of a species is not part of how dangerous it is!!! Whether a spider occurs in a populated or unpopulated region does not influence the dangerousness of _the spider itself_, only how much ( how often ) of a problem it is. In measuring the danger level of a spider once it has been encountered by a human, you can only consider the characteristics of the _spider_. Where a species occurs only influences how likely you are to be exposed to the species, NOT what will happen once you are. Otherwise, if dsitrubution is a factor, you'd have to go around saying that western diamondbacks are more dangerous than King cobras, because the rattlers live in more populated areas and have much more contact with humans than the cobras, which live in the boonies and are rarely encountered.


I dont agree here. If a species come in close contact on a regular basis with humans Id say its more dangerous then a species that do not come in such contact with people. The species that lives close by humans are always on top of fatality lists.


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Not correct, Phoneutria have among the largest venom yield of true spiders.
> 
> BTW, Im no expert. Far from it.



Again, thats not what I read;

"Recent studies however have found that it only injects venom in about one-third of its bites and may only inject a small amount in another third."

This is the second time I posted that...Have you read all my post???I will say this again ,even if you and Steve are so-called "experts" , I still would like to see some kind of evidence to  which none has been given.I'm not trying to disrespect anybody but why believe you or Steve over, say ,Martin Nicholas?


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> I dont agree here. If a species come in close contact on a regular basis with humans Id say its more dangerous then a species that do not come in such contact with people. The species that lives close by humans are always on top of fatality lists.



I totally agree with you on that.


----------



## danread

Jeffh said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to disrespect anybody but why believe you or Steve over, say ,Martin Nicholas?


What makes you think that Martin Nicholas is an expert? Is it because he has been on TV?

I'm not knocking the guy, he seems very nice, but even by his own admission he is not an expert or a professional in the field of arachnology....


----------



## Jeffh

danread said:
			
		

> What makes you think that Martin Nicholas is an expert? Is it because he has been on TV?
> 
> I'm not knocking the guy, he seems very nice, but even by his own admission he is not an expert or a professional in the field of arachnology....



I'm not necessarily saying he is but I don't know if any poster on this forum qualifies as one either.


----------



## Sheri

Jeffh said:
			
		

> Again, thats not what I read;
> 
> "Recent studies however have found that it only injects venom in about one-third of its bites and may only inject a small amount in another third."
> 
> This is the second time I posted that...Have you read all my post???I will say this again ,even if you and Steve are so-called "experts" , I still would like to see some kind of evidence to  which none has been given.I'm not trying to disrespect anybody but why believe you or Steve over, say ,Martin Nicholas?


How often they envenomate and how much has _nothing_ to do with *yield*, which is the amount produced and available if the spider does choose to envenomate with its full physiological capacity.

It is claimed that between 20-25% of rattlesnake bites are dry, but that does not make the yield of Crotalus adamanteus any less.

Lelle has never claimed to be an expert, but has had a long and deep interest in venom for decades and has therefore researched and read much of the material that you are seeking out now.

Black widow venom is extremely toxic, but because of the low yield is of little threat to humans..


----------



## Crotalus

Jeffh said:
			
		

> Again, thats not what I read;
> 
> "Recent studies however have found that it only injects venom in about one-third of its bites and may only inject a small amount in another third."
> 
> This is the second time I posted that...Have you read all my post???I will say this again ,even if you and Steve are so-called "experts" , I still would like to see some kind of evidence to  which none has been given.I'm not trying to disrespect anybody but why believe you or Steve over, say ,Martin Nicholas?


The fact that many venomous animals with a capability to inject venom delivers dry bites isnt news. Snakes do this and if Phoneutria do this its no surprise. 
But, this have nothing to do with the venom yield of a full bite.

And i will say this again for the last time: im no expert.


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> The fact that many venomous animals with a capability to inject venom delivers dry bites isnt news. Snakes do this and if Phoneutria do this its no surprise.
> But, this have nothing to do with the venom yield of a full bite.
> 
> And i will say this again for the last time: im no expert.




Fair enough, you're no expert.I never thought you were, I was only responding to what other people said.When I first started this thread,I thought there was  true scientific evidence on which spider was the most venomous.I thought scientific data could back it up ,but I guess I'm wrong.I know the Brazilian spider is superior in the LD50 but  the funnel web isn't that toxic to MICE.I also know more PEOPLE seem to have  severe reactions to the funnel web bites but the Phoneutria doesn't seem to inject venom or only a small amount in 78% of cases.I guess there is NO easy answer to the question.When posters said funnel web spiders were more venomous, I wanted documented facts not opinions.I guess those facts doesn't exist.I never intented to offend anyone and I'm sorry if I did.I always had a certain fascination with the funnel web spider and wanted to prove in MY MIND that they were the most venomous.Unfortunately for me, that didn't happen.

I will say this...I would rather get bitten from a wandering spider than a funnel web!!!!How's that for an ending.


----------



## Crotalus

Jeffh said:
			
		

> Fair enough, you're no expert.I never thought you were, I was only responding to what other people said.When I first started this thread,I thought there was  true scientific evidence on which spider was the most venomous.I thought scientific data could back it up ,but I guess I'm wrong.I know the Brazilian spider is superior in the LD50 but  the funnel web isn't that toxic to MICE.I also know more PEOPLE seem to have  severe reactions to the funnel web bites but the Phoneutria doesn't seem to inject venom or only a small amount in 78% of cases.I guess there is NO easy answer to the question.When posters said funnel web spiders were more venomous, I wanted documented facts not opinions.I guess those facts doesn't exist.I never intented to offend anyone and I'm sorry if I did.I always had a certain fascination with the funnel web spider and wanted to prove in MY MIND that they were the most venomous.Unfortunately for me, that didn't happen.
> 
> I will say this...I would rather get bitten from a wandering spider than a funnel web!!!!How's that for an ending.


That didnt make lots of sence. Sorry. 
Why refering to me as a expert if you never thought so? Why you think funnels are the most venomous if you never got any facts to prove it? I smell a troll here.


----------



## Jeffh

Crotalus said:
			
		

> That didnt make lots of sence. Sorry.
> Why refering to me as a expert if you never thought so? Why you think funnels are the most venomous if you never got any facts to prove it? I smell a troll here.



I don't know what you mean by a "troll."I've never heard of you or anyone on this forum!!!!!!I asked a question, you responsed with a website(that I knew about) that didn't answer my question, and some other poster said I should just take your WORD FOR IT...No thanks, thats not how I've learned and accepted things in the past.I gave you an apology, you should have accepted it.I can assure you I'm no "troll" whatever that means.I just wanted answers and got NONE.


----------



## Venom

> I dont agree here. If a species come in close contact on a regular basis with humans Id say its more dangerous then a species that do not come in such contact with people. The species that lives close by humans are always on top of fatality lists.


But that isn't describing how dangerous the creature _itself _is! How many people a species is near does not in any way change its own characteristics: a nuke is just as effective and deadly if it is in the desert as if it were in the city, because its physical attributes have not changed. It is, however, less of a problem, because if it goes off, no-one will get vaporized-- but that is NOT saying that the nuke is any less dangerous, because for anyone who may happen to be in the desert when it goes off it would be just as deadly, just as effective. Do you see the difference here? A description/ assessment of a species' dangerousness MUST be limited to evaluating the species attributes, NOT how many people will be exposed to those attributes. Otherwise, you would have to say that Sicarius is not a dangerous species, because nobody comes into contact with it--even though tests indicate it has an absolutely _hideous _cytotoxin. Inland taipans are the most lethal snake in the world, but they live in the boonies and there is no record of any human fatalities from it. Are they less dangerous than rattlesnakes? Of course not! They are simply _less of a problem_ than rattlesnakes.

If you define the dangerousness of a disease by where it strikes, the fault in your view becomes even more evident. For instance, if you have ebola in the desert, and pneumonia in the city, which is more dangerous? The pneumonia would be more of a problem--it would kill more people, but its physical characteristics would not make it a more dangerous _infection_ than ebola. It is more of a danger, but, in and of itself, it is not more danger*ous*. Do you see what I'm saying now?


----------



## Crotalus

Venom said:
			
		

> But that isn't describing how dangerous the creature _itself _is! How many people a species is near does not in any way change its own characteristics: a nuke is just as effective and deadly if it is in the desert as if it were in the city, because its physical attributes have not changed. It is, however, less of a problem, because if it goes off, no-one will get vaporized-- but that is NOT saying that the nuke is any less dangerous, because for anyone who may happen to be in the desert when it goes off it would be just as deadly, just as effective. Do you see the difference here? A description/ assessment of a species' dangerousness MUST be limited to evaluating the species attributes, NOT how many people will be exposed to those attributes. Otherwise, you would have to say that Sicarius is not a dangerous species, because nobody comes into contact with it--even though tests indicate it has an absolutely _hideous _cytotoxin. Inland taipans are the most lethal snake in the world, but they live in the boonies and there is no record of any human fatalities from it. Are they less dangerous than rattlesnakes? Of course not! They are simply _less of a problem_ than rattlesnakes.
> 
> If you define the dangerousness of a disease by where it strikes, the fault in your view becomes even more evident. For instance, if you have ebola in the desert, and pneumonia in the city, which is more dangerous? The pneumonia would be more of a problem--it would kill more people, but its physical characteristics would not make it a more dangerous _infection_ than ebola. It is more of a danger, but, in and of itself, it is not more danger*ous*. Do you see what I'm saying now?


Yes it does because its encounters with humans that makes them dangerous. They are not dangerous until someone come across them.
but this is only one part of what makes a snake dangerous
Ebola is not dangerous until someone get infected. The chance of that are slim and few do get infected, so a common disease that kills thousands are offcourse more dangerous to humans.


----------



## Venom

> Yes it does because its encounters with humans that makes them dangerous. They are not dangerous until someone come across them.
> but this is only one part of what makes a snake dangerous
> Ebola is not dangerous until someone get infected. The chance of that are slim and few do get infected, so a common disease that kills thousands are offcourse more dangerous to humans.


No, encounters don't _make _a disease or a spider dangerous, they are dangerous _already _before anyone encounters them. Otherwise, why are these things a danger to the people who encounter them? If these things are not dangerous until encountered, why are they a danger at all? What makes them dangerous? Their capacity for harm is what makes them dangerous, and that capacity ( which is determined by behaviour, venom strength, and the other factors I mentioned ) remains unchanged whether the creature is encountered or not! A landmine is a landmine is a landmine. Whether it is laid in a populated area or an unpopulated area, its ability to harm people--its explosive charge--remains unchanged, and so its potential danger to _*a*_ human ( as in one, uno, one single human at a time )  remains unchanged. 



> Ebola is not dangerous until someone get infected. The chance of that are slim and few do get infected, so a common disease that kills thousands are offcourse more dangerous to humans


Ludicrous! Ebola is dangerous because of what it can do to a human. The fact that it doesn't infect many people doesn't make it any less dangerous to the people it does infect. A common disease, like pneumonia, that kills many people, but which isn't nearly as virulent as ebola is more dangerous to _humanity as a whole_, but _not _to the individual human.  This is the distinction I am trying to make. On an individual level, ebola is more dangerous to a human than pneumonia is, and the same principle goes for spiders: the degree of danger that a spider poses to *a*--single--human is determined by the spider's capacity to cause harm to that individual human. This is what I'm meaning when I discuss how "dangerous" a species is: how dangerous it is to a single human being in a one human to one spider encounter. I'm not talking about how dangerous the species is to humanity as a whole, or a population group as a whole, but how dangerous it is to an individual human. I'm also not talking about the likelihood of an encounter happening to an individual human, but only how much danger is posed to that human once the encounter has occured. I admit, the location of a species does influence how dangerous it is to a population group, and how much of a problem it is for the whole of humanity. But on an individual level, when someone has a run-in with a given species, the danger level is determined by the characteristics of the spider itself. Phew, does that make sense?


----------



## Crotalus

A landmine is just a piece of metal and explosives. Until a human or vehicle sets it off.
I dont think we get any further on this. Im talking about how dangerous a certain snake or spider is to humans, with that comes a number of factors to be considered such as venom toxicity, venom yield, aggressive natur, serum issues and closeness to humans. If you cant see that well nothing i can do to change your mind about it. to me andmost i talk to regularly, even scientists, would agree with me on this: snakes that bites alot of people and kills alot of people should be considered more dangerous then a snake that never or very rarley come in contact with humans.
In your point of view one might think you consider the snake with the lowest LD50 to be the most dangerous one. Compare a taipan bite with a Daboia russelli. the first is the most lethal one, the other is a viper that even serum sometimes dont help you if you get tagged. And they occur close to humans. Who do you think should be considered the more dangerous of them?

/Lelle


----------



## Venom

> A landmine is just a piece of metal and explosives. Until a human or vehicle sets it off.
> I dont think we get any further on this. Im talking about how dangerous a certain snake or spider is to humans, with that comes a number of factors to be considered such as venom toxicity, venom yield, aggressive natur, serum issues and closeness to humans. If you cant see that well nothing i can do to change your mind about it. to me andmost i talk to regularly, even scientists, would agree with me on this: snakes that bites alot of people and kills alot of people should be considered more dangerous then a snake that never or very rarley come in contact with humans.
> In your point of view one might think you consider the snake with the lowest LD50 to be the most dangerous one. Compare a taipan bite with a Daboia russelli. the first is the most lethal one, the other is a viper that even serum sometimes dont help you if you get tagged. And they occur close to humans. Who do you think should be considered the more dangerous of them?



The thing that I'm trying to say here is that in assessing how dangerous a species is, you have to determine to whom the danger applies: who is indangered by the species? Is it a person, a people, or _all _people? That is: does the danger apply on an individual, regional, or global level? For instance, I would say that based on issues such as "venom toxicity, venom yield, aggressive natur, serum issues," that the taipan is more dangerous on the individual level, because it is more dangerous to an individual than the D. russelli. However, as the taipan kills no-one, and the Daboia kills loads of people in the region of South Asia, I would say the Daboia is more dangerous on the regional level: it indangers an entire population group, whereas the taipan does not. Thus, Daboia is more of a problem for humanity in India, because it is a serious local problem there, and for humanity in general because of its high death and injury toll, but the taipan is still more "dangerous" on an individual level. Distribution/ contact with humans relates to a species' danger to a population _group_, whereas the animal's features make it dangerous to individuals.

However, in a different sense, I can't say that Daboia is dangerous on the global level, because it is not a problem the world over. Obviously, the global danger level is very uncommon for animals, which usually have a limited distribution. I would normall reserve this scale for diseases. For instance, malaria would be dangerous on the global level, whereas something like African sleeping sickness would be dangerous on the regional level.

Anyway, I think we are making progress here.


----------



## Crotalus

So if you get bitten outside India (or Sri Lanka since its the srilankese russelli that are the most dangerous of russelli) of a russelli or a taipan the taipan bite is more serious because its venom are lower on a LD50 scale? I dont think so. The russelli venom works just as effective outside its region. The serum for taipan is very effective, for srilankese russelli it doesnt work good at all (infact for srilankese there are no serum, they use indian serum and its no good for srilankese russells).
Global level isnt something to consider here since neither of the species is found globally but russelli do occur in a large portion of South East Asia, and effects alot more people then a taipan does. And they are, as I stated before, found close to humans.
Drop for drop comparison of the venom is a poor way to determine a snakes level of danger to humans, all aspects must be considered.

/Lelle


----------



## Venom

> So if you get bitten outside India (or Sri Lanka since its the srilankese russelli that are the most dangerous of russelli) of a russelli or a taipan the taipan bite is more serious because its venom are lower on a LD50 scale? I dont think so. The russelli venom works just as effective outside its region. The serum for taipan is very effective, for srilankese russelli it doesnt work good at all (infact for srilankese there are no serum, they use indian serum and its no good for srilankese russells).
> Global level isnt something to consider here since neither of the species is found globally but russelli do occur in a large portion of South East Asia, and effects alot more people then a taipan does. And they are, as I stated before, found close to humans.
> Drop for drop comparison of the venom is a poor way to determine a snakes level of danger to humans, all aspects must be considered.





> Drop for drop comparison of the venom is a poor way to determine a snakes level of danger to humans, all aspects must be considered.


You keep saying "humans." I am separating danger to human ( singular ) from danger to humans/humanity ( plural  ). Ok, so the taipan vs. ruselli was a bad illustration, too many complications, ( serums of different effectiveness ) and they are too close in deadliness. A better explanation of what I'm meaning would be f-webs versus widows. If funnelwebs lived totally apart from humans and never encountered anyone, and latros lived in close proximity to humans and encountered numerous people, the funnelweb would still be a more dangerous spider than the widow. However, it would be less of a problem than the widow, less of a danger to humanity ( plural ), even though in a one-person-to-one-spider encounter, the funnelweb poses much more danger to the potential victim than does any widow spider. 

I am using a rigid definition of "dangerous"--it does not change based on where the spider _lives_, because it only takes into account what the spider _is_. If a species is more aggressive, more potent, less treatable, and easier to be bitten by, then it is the more dangerous species. If this same spider encounters fewer people than a less aggressive, less venomous species that does encounter many people, then it is the less worrisome, the less problematic, less significant, and less bothersome species.

If you have a nuke on Mars, and a handgun in a city, would you say that "nukes are less dangerous than handguns, because handguns encounter more people"? Of course not! You would acknowledge that nukes are much more deadly, but that they aren't a problem and don't really matter because they never affect anyone.


----------



## Crotalus

Im not separating humans from humanity since humans do belong to humanity...
There are allways a number of things to consider, nothing is all black and white. The russelli vs taipan was therefor a very good example of what im talking about.

There are 30 somewhat species of funnelwebs in Australia, most of them never or rarley come in contact with people. Such as H. infensa, it regarded as the most toxic of all, but never killed anyone.
Atrax on the other hand is found in Sydney and have killed atleast 13 before serum was developed. So theres another perfect example that closeness to humans are very important.

A nuke on Mars is preferable to a 9mm aimed to my face. What do you really think possess the most danger?

/Lelle


----------



## Venom

> A nuke on Mars is preferable to a 9mm aimed to my face. What do you really think possess the most danger?


This is where we are talking at cross purposes. You are defining danger  situationally, and I am doing so objectively ( i.e. -- in _absolute _terms): if you have a pistol pointed in your face, and the nuke is on Mars, the nuke is still the more powerful weapon. If you have a black widow crawling on your neck, and the funnelweb is 1000 miles away, the funnelweb is still a more dangerous spider. That is what I mean when I say how  "dangerous" an object or animal is: how dangerous an animal is in and of itself, based purely on its physical characteristics, and not what situation it happens to be in relative to people. With the widow on your neck, you are _in more situational danger from _the widow than you are from the f-web, but the f-web is still a more dangerous spider than a widow.


----------



## Galapoheros

I only read part of this page (page 10).  I looked at the original question for a while and I think I realized where the ambiguity is coming from.  There are no degrees of an animal being venomous.  It either is or isn't.  That has left the question open to interpretation.  So you are going to have different answers because people are going to interpret the question in different ways.  So the opinions are from different questions!  There are degrees of venom toxicity.  I think that would be easily done in a lab.  But then you have to consider how each reacts to the venom.  Then you can ask the question considering which is most dangerous.  Then you have to consider venom dosage, defensive disposition, contact with human population, etc.  Degrees of toxicity would be simple.  Take an equal dose of each venomous spider.  Which would make more humans sick or even kill them?  Even then, is the question asking which spider bite would make people very sick or would be likely to kill them.  I believe some spider bites would make you wish you were dead but not kill you.   Which spider is most dangerous to human life would be easy... I think.  You would just have to look at statistics.  Even then, there are different concentrations of people living together all over the world.  And that can change too.  But you would find the most deadly spider with statistics.  I think the original question needs to be more specific.  But then you wouldn't get people fired up! Hahahaha!  Sorry if my opinion is already in the thread.  I've been getting really lazy lately.


----------



## Crotalus

Venom said:
			
		

> This is where we are talking at cross purposes. You are defining danger  situationally, and I am doing so objectively ( i.e. -- in _absolute _terms): if you have a pistol pointed in your face, and the nuke is on Mars, the nuke is still the more powerful weapon. If you have a black widow crawling on your neck, and the funnelweb is 1000 miles away, the funnelweb is still a more dangerous spider. That is what I mean when I say how  "dangerous" an object or animal is: how dangerous an animal is in and of itself, based purely on its physical characteristics, and not what situation it happens to be in relative to people. With the widow on your neck, you are _in more situational danger from _the widow than you are from the f-web, but the f-web is still a more dangerous spider than a widow.


Its a danger situation (confrontation with a human)  that we must consider when even trying to evaluate the danger these animals possess. Othervise its even more pointless.


----------



## Jack_F

Replying to the original question...

1. L. mactans

2. Hadronyche cerberea. Hadronyche infensa has the most toxic venom of funnelwebs but injects very little of it. Hadronyche infensa has a severe envenomation rate of 14%. IMO Hadronyche cerberea has the best of both worlds. It produces an extremely toxic venom and enough of it to cause a lot of trouble. It's severe envenomation rate is an amazing 75%!!!

3. Some sp. of wandering spider.

4. Brown recluse.

Jack


----------



## Nich

Im not fluent w/ species....but i remember hearing that the venom of the sydney funnel web (and maybe others) is targeted towards affecting primates.


----------



## Stylopidae

Apparrently, it's harmless to dogs and rabbits.


----------

