Most venmous spider of North America.

[cacoseraph]

And <edit> "Toxic (poisonous)" so are they implying that if you eat a mouse spider or wolf spider it will be harmful?

this is mainly a hobby artifact (and one i supported until i actually started reading non-hobby lit). a lot of the actual invert literature i read uses poisonous and venomous interchangeably. i have reptile friends who tell me the more modern reptile lit does try to make a distinction, but as far as bugwork goes, i got to go with the experts i read...

 

[Ciphor]

this is mainly a hobby artifact (and one i supported until i actually started reading non-hobby lit). a lot of the actual invert literature i read uses poisonous and venomous interchangeably. i have reptile friends who tell me the more modern reptile lit does try to make a distinction, but as far as bugwork goes, i got to go with the experts i read...

Well, technically, a venom is a poison. However, in regards to zoology & more importantly the medical field, a distinct line has been drawn between venom & poison.

Since this board, and blogs about spiders being medically significant, are in the realm of medicine & zoology, calling a venom a poison would be miss-leading & considered by most, inaccurate.

Wikipedia has a pretty modern and accepted definition.

"In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. The fields of medicine (particularly veterinary) and zoology often distinguished a poison from a toxin, and from a venom. Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."

Goes into further detail if anyone is interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison

I think if you are taking about it in a broad general sense, it is fine "many organisms are poisonous such as frogs, snakes & spiders". However when you are discussing it in terms of medical significance, you should use the proper terms, "Atrax robustus is considered one of the most venomous spiders in Australia".

 

[The Snark]

For the sake of clarity

Venom: the poisonous fluid that some animals, as certain snakes and spiders, secrete and introduce into the bodies of their victims by biting, stinging, etc.

Poison: a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

Therefore, all venoms are poisons but not all poisons are venoms. Spiders possess venom with which they poison their victims.

The difference in this little morass of nomenclature can be found in the word 'envenomate'. To inject or otherwise deliver a poison. Spiders envenomate, a verb. They do not poison, verb, as envenom is a more accurate and defining terminology.

 

[cacoseraph]

no, i'll find some of the papers i've read. the actual workers in the field of arachnology use the terms all but interchangeably. generally, in science, you use the terms as used by the experts in that particular field

 

[The Snark]

Riddle me this: Spiders are generally termed as venomous but snakes are commonly referred to as poisonous. However, the extract of both, in a laboratory, is usually referred to as venom.

Then we have the common usage. "That is snake/spider poison" will normally be taken as a poison that kills snakes/spiders. But "that is snake/spider venom" can only be taken as the toxin from said animal.

 

[cacoseraph]

http://www.americanarachnology.org/gallery_araneae.html
lots of links to papers that call it poison
https://www.google.com/webhp?source....2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1333&bih=645


2010
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjb/v71n3/21.pdf

2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/52/20781.full.pdf <-- Paleontological arachnologists
http://www.zoosprint.org/ZoosPrintNewsLetter/Bugs_R_all_No16_July2008.pdf

2005
http://www.pdn.ac.lk/cjsbs/text/text34.7.pdf <-- awesome paper on Poecilotheria from Sri Lanka
p. 85

2003
http://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-2567/567.pdf disertation paper (?) from University of Dusseldorf, Germany

2001
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/nov102001/1170.pdf

2000
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/issues/zoo-01-25-3/zoo-25-3-10-0005-10.pdf
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/IN/IN31700.pdf University of Florida paper originally published in 2000

1996
pdf of slides for a presentation based on Foelix, R. F. 1996. Biology of Spiders, 2nd Ed
http://aces.nmsu.edu/academics/richmanresearch/documents/epws-4512sm.pdf


1992
http://www.sdu.edu.tr/dergi/fendergisi/english/cilt2(2)/cilt2_sayi2_126-135.pdf <-- citation to a 1992 paper that has poison in title

1991
http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol 34/Pages 241-281.pdf <-- Paleontological arachnologists
p. 247 (image pdf, not findable)

1986
http://www.sdu.edu.tr/dergi/fendergisi/english/cilt2(2)/cilt2_sayi2_126-135.pdf <-- citation to a paper from 1986 with poison in title

1975
p. 276 (can't find for it, i think it is an image pdf)
http://academics.holycross.edu/files/biology/Z_morph_Tiere_v81_p257.pdf

1967
Levi
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pi/pdf/9(2)-175.pdf


additional papers
http://www.sea-entomologia.org/Publicaciones/RevistaIbericaAracnologia/RIA10/R10-014-149.pdf

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/invertzool/lab/ex5spiders.pdf <-- paper from an Invertebrate Biology course at Davidson University in North Carolina

 

[Zoltan]

no, i'll find some of the papers i've read. the actual workers in the field of arachnology use the terms all but interchangeably. generally, in science, you use the terms as used by the experts in that particular field

I'd like to state that not everything published by experts is necessarily always correct, even in a peer-reviewed journal, and I don't mean hypotheses but terminology. For example, an article was published last year in a peer-reviewed journal about Brachypelma albopilosum. The specific name was incorrectly spelled "albopilosa" in the article, a person I know has e-mailed the author and told her what should be the correct spelling. The reply was that the term "albopilosa" corresponds to the plural of the term "albopilosum" in Latin, the author apparently lacking basic knowledge about scientific names. Don't you find it a bit scary that a biologist doesn't know that a name of a species doesn't have a plural form and apparently lacks very basic nomenclatural knowledge— and that this error has also gone unnoticed by the reviewers?

That being said, I am in agreement with you here regarding poisonous contra venomous. If I search Google Scholar for "spider poison", almost all of the hits on the first couple of pages are for "spider venom", also I remember I have seen venom used more times than I have seen poison. However, after a short search I have found sources which state regarding the etymology of the word venom that it actually means (or can mean) poison.


1. From the Online Dictionary of Invertebrate Zoology:

• venom n. [Latin venenum, poison] The secretion of the accessory venom, or poison gland. venomous a.

2. From dictionary.com:

• Origin: 1175–1225; variant of Middle English venim < Anglo-French; Old French venim, venin < Vulgar Latin *venīmen, for Latin venēnum magical herb or potion, poison < *wenes-nom, equivalent to *wenes- desire ( see venerate, Venus) + *-nom noun suffix

3. From Online Etymology Dictionary:

• venom early 13c., from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. venim, from V.L. *venimen (cf. It. veleno, Sp. veneno), from L. venenum "poison," earlier (pre-classical) "drug, potion," probably originally “love potion”

 

[cacoseraph]

most languages are always in flux (living languages). it could be that in 50 years venom vs poison vs toxin will be very clearly defined. but at this point, i don't think we can draw a clear and definitive line between them. to make bold claims to the contrary is not really supportable, imo. if it was only one author or only dated documents that used poison "instead" of venom that might be one thing... but it clearly is not the case here. i have probably seen venom used more often than poison, but that doesn't mean it is the only correct term.

my main point is that it is not a bulletproof claim that venom means something other than poison. if anything, i think the strongest case can be made that venom is a subset of poison, which means poison is the broader and most often correct term, but that venom is more descriptive

 

[MrCrackerpants]

Sorry for resurrecting an older thread but does anyone have a U.S. distribution map for the species in the Latrodectus genus? Thanks in advance.

Nevermind. I just found this free journal article that answered my questions.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/~gillespie/Publications_files/GarbGonzGillMPE.pdf

Great read.

 

[Widowman10]

Sorry for resurrecting an older thread but does anyone have a U.S. distribution map for the species in the Latrodectus genus?

don't know if this is kind of what you were looking for, but here's a distribution map:
https://sites.google.com/site/widowman10/latrodectus-regions

 

[MrCrackerpants]

Yes, this will work. Thanks!!

 

[Venom]

There is also the state-by-state listing of known venomous spiders available here: (though it likely isn't up to date with the spreading L. geometricus).

http://www.venombyte.com/venom/spiders/venomous_spiders_by_state.asp

 

[MrCrackerpants]

There is also the state-by-state listing of known venomous spiders available here: (though it likely isn't up to date with the spreading L. geometricus).

http://www.venombyte.com/venom/spiders/venomous_spiders_by_state.asp

Thanks for this.

 

[Ciphor]

There is also the state-by-state listing of known venomous spiders available here: (though it likely isn't up to date with the spreading L. geometricus).

http://www.venombyte.com/venom/spiders/venomous_spiders_by_state.asp

"Hobo Spider or Aggressive House Spider - Tegenaria agrestis"

I have trouble trusting the creditability of a source that does not even know the meaning of a common latin word like agrestis (Of or pertaining to land, fields or the countryside not meaning aggressive)

I'd bet this person simply google/internet searched stuff and put it together. idk, not trying to knock what you posted, just hard to trust stuff like that.

 

[Venom]

AFAIK, the "aggressive house spider" nickname doesn't derive from "agrestis," but from alleged observations of its behavior. Supposedly it is more defensive than other Tegenaria sp. I've heard it called by that nickname frequently. The actual toxicity of T. agrestis is still debatable, of course, but this list, I think, is erring on the side of caution by including it.

 

[Ciphor]

AFAIK, the "aggressive house spider" nickname doesn't derive from "agrestis," but from alleged observations of its behavior. Supposedly it is more defensive than other Tegenaria sp. I've heard it called by that nickname frequently. The actual toxicity of T. agrestis is still debatable, of course, but this list, I think, is erring on the side of caution by including it.

Sorry, but your flat out wrong. I'll lean on the expert- Rod http://www.burkemuseum.org/spidermyth/myths/hobo.html

"Fact: Once upon a time, an entomologist who shall be nameless wanted to write about the spider Tegenaria agrestis. "Agrestis" is a Latin word meaning "rural." But this gentleman didn't know much Latin, so he coined the name "Aggressive House Spider" for the species. Arachnologists suspected that the name was intended to encourage irrational fear of spiders, for reasons it is better not to speculate on. In any case, everyone who knew anything about the species realized how inappropriate that name was."

Internet myths spun this unacceptable name out of control.

The debate about the hobos toxicity is over. It is simply a mater of time and medical review of all the research. They are not dangerous, the venom is not medically significant.

I challenge you to find a shred of evidence to support that claim Venom... I attached the most creditable research proving the venom is harmless to vertebrates. View attachment Hobo toxicology (1).pdf

 

[The Snark]

Says it all

From Ciphor's link (http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/attachment.php?attachmentid=105144)
"Hobo Spider Venom Hemolysis Assay.
A simple test that can help determine whether or not a spider may cause medically significant bites is a hemolysis assay. Compared with the known hemolytic activity (>37%) associated with Loxosceles reclusa Gertsch and Mulaik VGH, the potential of T. agrestis VGH to cause hemolysis was negligible at 0.62 and 0.93% for male (n=5) and female (n=7) spiders, respectively."

Okay. It is harmless. Period, paragraph. My kitten was far more aggressive and the Pastuerella Multoceda it most likely carried a far greater a biohazard.

So really, the debate is now one of correct terminologies. If those involved in this discussion will please review the rules for giving an animal a proper scientific name, I believe it clearly states the name shall not be ambiguous or cause confusion. Obviously, the word Agresti, while quite scientifically proper, has caused just that.

Let us all remember, the world of science's greatest enemy is homo stultus. If there is any possible way of screwing something up, humans will do it. Or as a rather brilliant professor once remarked, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.