# buthacus arenicola toxicity ???



## AlainL (Jul 31, 2006)

Hi!

Can anyone tell me the the toxicity of the B.arenicola on a scale of 5.

Can't find info on him

Thanks!


----------



## Thiscordia (Jul 31, 2006)

I think it's 4 correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## fusion121 (Jul 31, 2006)

3 or 4? The 5 scale is really completely meaningless since in most cases people have no idea of the clinical effects of stings from specific species of scorpion.


----------



## Michael (Aug 1, 2006)

there are several sting reports on Arachnoboard...


----------



## AlainL (Aug 1, 2006)

Michael said:
			
		

> there are several sting reports on Arachnoboard...


yaaa, I know that, doesn't give me the toxicity level thought


----------



## Michiel (Aug 1, 2006)

I would say 3 to 4 on a scale of 5. They are pretty venomous......so watch out...

And you don't need to have an idea of the clinical effects of the sting of a certain scorpion, to understand that 3,4,5 out of 5 means danger! Because a lot of people aren't familiair with clinical effects, this scale can prove very usefull, because the message is simple......so I definitely do not agree with you, Oliver, that the scale is "really completely meaningless", it is or can be a guideline for most people....


----------



## fusion121 (Aug 1, 2006)

So we know what 1 is: Pandinus/Hadogenes type species etc. and we know that 5 are Leiurus/Androctonus type species.  However the 2 reference points are not good enough for making a meaningful scale. Everything that falls into the 2-4 range is totally subjective, people base it on a variety of things from LD50 to size and aggressiveness to ease of care etc. (all of which are again highly subjective) the scale is never really well defined at all. I mean what essentially is the difference between a 3 and 4 scorpion?…I’ve never been able to spot one.

So personally I think it is pretty useless and if anything overcomplicates things. I would rather simplify things more by having only 2 categories of scorpion. Non-buthids and buthids, for inexperienced/experienced keepers respectively.


----------



## Venom (Aug 1, 2006)

No, I think there is some validity to the 1-5 scale, if you attach a description of the seriousness to each of the five levels, taking venom potency, venom yield, typical symptoms, and worst case scenario into consideration. Here's what I came up with:

Level 1: Usually insignificant. Usually involves some swelling and pain, both of which are of short duration. No systemic effects.

Level 2: Worth caution. Sting usually very painful, swelling may be significant. Few to no systemic symptoms, which are mild and non-threatening if they occur at all.

Level 3: Medically significant. This is where it gets serious. Sting is excruciating and may cause intense swelling, with pain radiating out from the sting site, and local stiffness/ paralysis occuring on the local level. Systemic symptoms are a concern, and may include dizziness, nausea, slight muscle fasciculations. Breathing may be somewhat affected, but death is very rare.

Level 4: Dangerous, may be considered a threat to life ( i.e., deadly ). Sting causes intense local suffering as listed above, but systemic symptoms are much worse, and may involve convulsions, unconsciousness, disturbances of the cardiac and respiratory systems as well as of the skeletal muscles. Suffering is severe, and death, though still unlikely and uncommon, is possible. 

Level 5: Downright deadly. Local symptoms similar to above, but systemic neuromuscular effects may be profound. Serious disruption of the cardiac rythm and breathing function are possible, as well as partial or total muscular paralysis. Death is not guaranteed by any means, but is definitely a strong possibility.

What do you think of that definition/ description of the 5 points? D'ya think it works?


----------



## Venom (Aug 1, 2006)

And getting back on topic, on the above scale I ( though not by any means a scorpion expert ) would rate B.arenicola about a low 3.


----------



## fusion121 (Aug 1, 2006)

Venom said:
			
		

> No, I think there is some validity to the 1-5 scale, if you attach a description of the seriousness to each of the five levels, taking venom potency, venom yield, typical symptoms, and worst case scenario into consideration. Here's what I came up with:
> 
> Level 1: Usually insignificant. Usually involves some swelling and pain, both of which are of short duration. No systemic effects....
> 
> What do you think of that definition/ description of the 5 points? D'ya think it works?


Hi 
All the criteria you mention are clinical effects, for 99% of species these are unknown. E.g. As far as I know there are no investigations into the clinical effects of any Buthacus spp. or Hottentotta spp. How can you rate a scorpion a 4 if you have no idea about the actual effects of its venom? (you could try LD50 but that’s riddled with its own problems and again the research is limited to less then 1% of species) And of course there’s the fact that scorpion venom rarely has lethal consequences. In general the effects of a sting from Leiurus spp. are as likely to be as severe as those from a Hottentotta spp. (in terms of any meaningful statistical comparison), both presenting wide spread discomfort but no long term effects. It’s very hard to compare the lethality of scorpions when lethality (or even severe symptoms) is so extremely uncommon. 

The maximum number of discreet levels I can personally agree with on a scale would be 3, even then the difference between those rated 2 and 3 is hard one to justify, beacuse deaths are extremely uncommon.


All non-buthids

All buthid genera where deaths from envenomations have not been reported

All buthid genera known to have caused deaths (+Hemiscorpius spp.)


----------



## Prymal (Aug 1, 2006)

@Venom,

I like the numeric categories and their descriptives but as Oliver aptly states above, too little is known for the inclusion of the majority of the world's scorpion fauna. 

@Oliver,

Again, I like this concise and practical numeric categorization and the descriptives.

Personally, I think that too many variables and unknowns exist for any "valid" listing and the best that any system will offer is sets of narrow to nebulous generalizations. 

However, if I had to choose one system to use, that presented by Oliver above presents what I feel to be the most "accurate" based on what is known and unknown at this time.  
Of course, any such system will have its own set of problems such as the non-buthid category 1. It is possible that some non-buthids may cause moderate to severe systemic effects such as reports of H. swammerdami and N. hierichonticus.
Categories 2 and 3 are the most problematic considering that we know very little in regards to the venom toxicity of many buthid genera and species. We merely "assume" based on one or more examples of occurrences that all envenomations by Mesobuthus species are non-medically significant or that all Androctonus are medically significant. FACT is: no one really knows if such generalizations are actual facts - we only assume!
It's good to state that A. australis has the lowest LD50 level of all Androctonus species. However, based on LD50 levels alone, A. mauritanicus can easily vie with A. australis for this honor!
Just my own opinion.


----------



## azatrox (Aug 1, 2006)

*Great topic!*

I love what this topic has turned into! I'll agree with both Prymal and Oliver in that scorpion lethality is extraordinarily hard to quantify on an individual basis...Different individuals may (and probably will) react differently to the sting of the same scorpion....

That being said, the "1-5 scale" does give the novice/layperson at least a rudimentary sense of just how "hot" a particular species is (or is purported to be). However, even this can get very gray very quickly, as specimens from the same species are likely to vary in terms of toxicity...(i.e. L. quinquestriatus from Egypt vs. L. quinquestriatus from say....Jordan). If venom evolution in scorpions is at all analogous to venom evolution in snakes, then it is quite likely that certain populations of a given species can (and probably are) quite a bit more virulent than other populations of the same species. For example, some populations of Crotalus scutulatus (Mojave rattlesnake) produce venoms with INCREDIBLY low LD50s (thanks in large part to the presence of the infamous "Mojave toxin") while other populations lack this "Mojave toxin" entirely and are quite a bit less virulent.

Just goes to show that animal venoms are incredibly interesting and further in depth research regarding them (particularly in regards to medically significant scorpions) is needed.

In response to the original question, I would not risk a sting from B. arenicola. While no one can definitively tell you exactly how "hot" this creature is, it being a buthid should enough to use a great deal of caution when dealing with it.

-AzAtrox


----------



## pandinus (Aug 1, 2006)

better yet, if we all keep our mits from getting stung, it wont be an issue. and so there wont be a need for this. although i do have to say that i agree with oliver's scale.

John


----------



## Deolok (Aug 1, 2006)

LOL well I love the scale! I think it could be narrowed down to 1-3 though... Considering the symptoms they just vary, thats all.


----------



## Prymal (Aug 1, 2006)

Azatrox,

I agree. Similar to the variance in toxicity of different geographic populations of C. atrox. Of course, venomous snakes and various populations have been more extensively studied (L. M. Klauber, etc.) than the various potentially dangerous buthid scorpions. 
In a recent paper by Ozcan Ozkan (2006), he determines that there does exist differences in LD50 values for different populations of A. crassicauda. Based on the data within the above paper, it would seem probable that this variance in toxicity levels exists in other species as well. He also discusses the relationship between telson size and toxicity levels.
Too many variables and too many unknowns!


----------



## Venom (Aug 2, 2006)

Oooohh, come on guys. I think you're being a bit nit-picky and hyper scientific about this. We do have clinical data on several Androctonus species, because of hospitalizations in the middle east. We also have medical data for Centruroides, Parabuthus, and I believe Tityus as well. Certainly there are buthids out there we know nothing about, because they cause few to no stings in the wild, and aren't in the hobby either. But certainly we can make up at least some rough indication of the range of effects possible with the species we _do_ have data for! We have, among others, a number of sting reports from Parabuthus species, Hadrurus species, Babycurus species, a number from Centruroides, as well as medically garnered data from hospitalizations. For intstance, just last year, Fausta was kind enough to show us what a P. leisoma sting can do ( thx Fausta    ). Barring the little monsters of Hemiscorpius, Scorpion venoms are all essentially neurotoxic, and basically cause parrallel, homologous syndromes in the human body, essentially varying only in the extent and severity. I would even say that, if sufficient sting reports are not avaible, there is enough similarity in the symptomatology of scorpion envenomations to make an estimation ( an _estimation _mind you ) of a newly discovered species' 1-5 threat level based solely on the LD50 and average ( or perhaps maximum ) venom yield. 

I like the 1-5 scale. I think it makes a world of sense, and is based on good solid observation and estimation.


----------



## fusion121 (Aug 2, 2006)

Venom said:
			
		

> Oooohh, come on guys. I think you're being a bit nit-picky and hyper scientific about this. We do have clinical data on several Androctonus species, because of hospitalizations in the middle east. We also have medical data for Centruroides, Parabuthus, and I believe Tityus as well. Certainly there are buthids out there we know nothing about, because they cause few to no stings in the wild, and aren't in the hobby either. But certainly we can make up at least some rough indication of the range of effects possible with the species we _do_ have data for!


I’ll reiterate, in the literature there is medical information concerned with the envenomations from at most (and I’m rounding up) 1.5% of all known scorpion species that is not enough to extrapolate an accurate 5 point scale to all scorpions. That’s not being hyperscientific, that’s just stating the obvious.  

Furthermore as interesting as individual sting reports from hobbyists may be, they are totally meaningless as a way of comparing the “danger” of scorpion species (if you got a few hundred you might be onto something). One person may be stung by a Parabuthus spp. and report mild discomfort that goes away quickly. Another may report incredible pain, multiple heart failure, uncontrollable bowel movement etc.…individual reports tell you nothing except an individuals reaction to the scorpion. 



> I would even say that, if sufficient sting reports are not avaible, there is enough similarity in the symptomatology of scorpion envenomations to make an estimation ( an _estimation _mind you ) of a newly discovered species' 1-5 threat level based solely on the LD50 and average ( or perhaps maximum ) venom yield.


And where do you plan to get LD50 value or venom yield values...the 1-5 is a poor scale, based on extremely limited information and unsubstantiated estimation…which is why I tend to ignore it


----------



## Prymal (Aug 2, 2006)

Oliver,

My sentiments exactly. I, too, tend to ignore the venom scale and personally find it of little true value.


----------



## Venom (Aug 3, 2006)

fusion121 said:
			
		

> I’ll reiterate, in the literature there is medical information concerned with the envenomations from at most (and I’m rounding up) 1.5% of all known scorpion species that is not enough to extrapolate an accurate 5 point scale to all scorpions. That’s not being hyperscientific, that’s just stating the obvious.


All right, let's say that we only have data on 1.5% of all scorpion species.  Given that we have data on pretty much the full range of potencies ( data from scorps ranging from Pandinus potency to Hadrurus to Centruroides to Parabuthus to Androctonus potency levels) there is still enough information to draft an estimation of what each level of potency can do to a person. What you call "a fraction of all scorpion species" I call *statistically speaking * a representative sample. As I said before, barring Hemiscorpius, all scorpion venoms are essentially neurotoxic, and therefore elicit basically the same palette of effects, only to varying levels of severity. Therefore, if we have a reliable selection of data points from each approximate level of potency, then we can estimate how other scorpions matching that potency + venom yield bracket would affect an envenomated human. And we _do _have reliable data. Yes, different people can have varying experiences from the same scorpion sting, but as a nerve toxin, it can only cause so many symptoms, anything outside of which should be distinguishable as an allergic response. Again, this is a representative sample of the range of symptoms a species is capable of producing. In fact, in the case of Fausta's P.leisoma report, the severity of his non-allergenic sting is itself enough to place the scorpion on teh 1-5 scale, since it shows the scorpion's full potential.



> Furthermore as interesting as individual sting reports from hobbyists may be, they are totally meaningless as a way of comparing the “danger” of scorpion species (if you got a few hundred you might be onto something).



Hobbyist bite/ sting reports are not irrelevant and meaningless. How can you say they are useless for estimating a danger level? If someone nearly dies from a non-allergenic sting, that is a pretty good indication of the species' potential!!





> One person may be stung by a Parabuthus spp. and report mild discomfort that goes away quickly. Another may report incredible pain, multiple heart failure, uncontrollable bowel movement etc.…individual reports tell you nothing except an individuals reaction to the scorpion.


Which is why we should have several sting reports, and then also consider the LD50 rating of the species. Yes, if we only had one sting report by a ..say Parabuthus capensis, and it was a mild sting, we could not assume that this sting is typically mild, and would have to write it off as a fluke, evidence that dry / nearly dry stings are possible. If we don't know the LD50, we will have to wait for more stings before assigning a 1-5 level to the scorp. However, if we know the LD50, we can compare it to scorps whose envenomations we _are _familiar with ( P.trans for instance ), and make an educated guess as to what a hobbyist should expect from capensis' sting.

Basically, what I'm saying is, scorpion venoms ( and therefore stings ) only have a certain range of possible symptoms. We have a good selection of well-understood species from multiple points on that continuum of sting severity, by which we can characterize the usual effects resulting from the stings of scorpions of each level. Therefore, if we have LD50 and venom yield data for a new/ unknown scorpion, we can compare that new species to the list of species whose stings are well understood, and thereby determine the probable 1-5 level of the new species. 

If we do not have LD50 and venom yield data for the new species, nor for any of its close relatives ( within same genus ), then we will have to accrue a few sting reports which either 1) concur that the species is of a low 1-5 level, in which case we must tentatively call the species a low level, pending LD50 data or a severe sting,  2) exhibit a wide disparity/ variety of possible results, from which we conclude that it is highly variable and unpredictable, and therefore wait for more stings to reveal a core group of symptoms that characterize a typical envenomation, or 3) we get a severe sting right away, from which we must conclude that it is of a high 1-5 level.





> the 1-5 is a poor scale, based on extremely limited information and unsubstantiated estimation…which is why I tend to ignore it



Again, the information is not "limited," it is "representative." The estimation therefore is not unsubstantiated, but rather, _educated _estimation, founded in the precedents of past stings and the principle of limited possible symptomatology.


----------



## azatrox (Aug 4, 2006)

*Interestingly enough....*

I believe it was Arietans that posted an account of a young girl in Africa getting stung by a P. transvaalicus, and this sting resulting in substantial necrosis....certainly NOT a neurotoxic symptom....


----------



## Michiel (Aug 4, 2006)

First of all,

any lawstudent can tell you that facts are not facts. There is only room for scientific discussion. What is the boiling temperature of water? Everyone agrees that this is 100 degrees Celsius, because Mr. Celsius (I am not shure!)did this experiment and he saw the water boiling and he measured the heat. 
Important here is, that this experiment was conducted on the ground on sea level. If you would boil the water on lets say 2000 feet, then it doesn't boil at 100 degrees but less. What does this mean? Was Celsius incorrect? Was the other guy incorrect? 

Any scale would be subjective (there a just to many variables and/ or parameters) , but there is always room for improvement. The thing is, that people can use any sort of scale to assess how dangerous or harmless the scorpion is. There should be more research on this subject.
"Scorpions of medical importance" by H.L. Keegan is a nice book, however the nomenclature is old and some of the views, but it gives you an idea of the scorps venom and the clinical effects. 

Indeed an interesting discussion, I learned a lot from this....


----------



## Arietans (Aug 4, 2006)

> I believe it was Arietans that posted an account of a young girl in Africa getting stung by a P. transvaalicus, and this sting resulting in substantial necrosis....certainly NOT a neurotoxic symptom....



Yes, it was me. A friend of mine was treating her.


----------

