poisonous or venomous or both?

[Pociemon]

+1!
I'll also add that if members can't deal with the amount of sarcasm in Bill's posts in this thread, they are probably at the wrong forum!

Sarcasm is good as long it is done with respect. Many in here are fighting to be right, instead of discussing the actual subject in the post. I fail to see what they get out of it!

I just followed this thread from the sideline, and learn from it, i simply dont know enough to participate. If every thread was like this has started, it would benefit the hobby a lot.

 

[Bill S]

Yes, I do get a little sarcastic at times. I try to keep it down to a reasonable level (unless someone is especially obnoxious). I have been glad to see this discussion stay on a pretty even keel - there was another thread recently that touched on the same topic and one "venom-is-not-poison" advocate resorted to insults and name-calling when she couldn't support her side of the debate with reason. That hasn't happened here, and I hope it remains that way. As someone else said - if the topic or the thread doesn't interest you, move to another thread. Politely. There are lots of threads on the board and you probably don't have time for all of them.

I remember back a while someone commented on the lack of scientists and such on this site, and they blamed it on the idea that some of us disagree with each other. That's not the cause at all, in my opinion. It's that so many of the people who try to debate an interesting point end up in childish bickering. (Well, that and the fact that so many of the posts have nothing to do with science.) Let's see if we can keep this thread intelligent and civil. There's certainly room to challenge and disagree, but do it like an educated adult.

 

[JC]

a lot of the scientific authors use the terms all but interchangeably. rather, they use poison to indicate the substances injected into prey or predators

i just read "For Love Of Insects" and the author definitely used poisonous when talking about spider bites and what not

+1

They do a lot actually.

 

[cacoseraph]

Whenever people ask me if my tarantulas are "poisonous," I respond with "All spiders are venomous, so--yes. If by 'poisonous' you mean 'medically significant,' then, no, not really. Some of them might definently ruin your day, or month, though!" I figure they're really asking, "will it kill/seriously harm you" and just being imprecise about it, as people often are.

that connotation definitely seems to be true a lot of the time when i am doing a bug informational display for the public. especially when they take a little pause and look you in the eyes when they say "poisonous" heh

i always try to make that distinction for ppl... that virtually all spiders, scorpions, and centipedes *do* possess venom and the means to deliver it, but that in southern CA (where i do all the events) almost none are "dangerously venomous". i then go on to deliver the short list of known super toxics and the possible encroaching species





*ahem* *self pained pedantry expression* technically not ALL spiders can deliver venom. some or all species of the primitive er, suborder(i think) that contains the family Liphistiidae either lack venom glands, ducts, or both and some or all of the true spiders of the family Uloboridae lack venom glands.

so i just say "virtually all spiders have venom" and then explain if they ask about the qualifier

 

[Bill S]

i always try to make that distinction for ppl... that virtually all spiders, scorpions, and centipedes *do* possess venom and the means to deliver it, but that in southern CA (where i do all the events) almost none are "dangerously venomous". i then go on to deliver the short list of known super toxics and the possible encroaching species

We recently did a talk on poisonous creatures of this region for one of the national parks. People are usually amazed at just how many animals around here have some type of toxin that they can protect themselves with. We usually start such talks with a series of pictures that show the diversity of animals involved, followed up with statistics as to which are the most dangerous. The common honey bee is by far the deadliest, in terms of how many deaths and hospitalizations it causes every year. Once you establish a perspective like this, snakes and spiders don't seem so bad after all.

 

[Londoner]

/wrist lets discuss this for another 3 pages

I think that wouldn't be a bad idea myself. I find this thread to be one of the more interesting ones posted recently.

 

[cacoseraph]

We recently did a talk on poisonous creatures of this region for one of the national parks. People are usually amazed at just how many animals around here have some type of toxin that they can protect themselves with. We usually start such talks with a series of pictures that show the diversity of animals involved, followed up with statistics as to which are the most dangerous. The common honey bee is by far the deadliest, in terms of how many deaths and hospitalizations it causes every year. Once you establish a perspective like this, snakes and spiders don't seem so bad after all.

nice! i do like comparing deaths to bees, but i always feel obligated to point out it is an allergic reaction that kills ppl, but that ultimately dead is dead

i love essentially being in range of vinegaroons. very cool acid mixture defense

we have a little informational that we made and printed up for our display boards
Things with Stings
Click to see full size image




p.s. the original question has been more or less "answered" so i am just kind of free ranging now =P

 

[kripp_keeper]

nice! i do like comparing deaths to bees, but i always feel obligated to point out it is an allergic reaction that kills ppl, but that ultimately dead is dead





p.s. the original question has been more or less "answered" so i am just kind of free ranging now =P

Comparing deaths from bees is fine as long it is still explained that others are still dangerous regardless of death count. Children can often take things in a literal sense that was not intended. People should be taught that all animals with venom are to be given respect when dealing with them. I am constantly explaining that my tarantulas are not deadly, but I almost always explain that I still wouldn't want to get bit. both of my children have aspergers syndrome with the oldest being a little more autistic then the younger. If he was to be told that bees wee deadly then snakes he very well might develop a irrational fear of bees while losing fear of snakes.

 

[Bill S]

nice! i do like comparing deaths to bees, but i always feel obligated to point out it is an allergic reaction that kills ppl, but that ultimately dead is dead

While gathering info for that last talk I stumbled across a paper that discussed the mechanisms involved in bee-caused deaths, and allergy counted for less than I had expected. There are other medical effects of the venom that also contributed. If I find that article again I'll try to post it here.

 

[neubii18]

A poison can be administered topically or ingested. A venom is injected.

my $.02

+1 to that!

 

[Bill S]

Originally Posted by venomous.com
A poison can be administered topically or ingested. A venom is injected.

my $.02

+1 to that!

I guess there's a reason the Flat Earth Society still exists.

 

[venomous.com]

I guess there's a reason the Flat Earth Society still exists.

No need to be snarky to those who disagree with you. My wife, for instance, is a biologist working on her masters in toxicology. In her opinion, a toxin is a naturally produced poison from biological or chemical reaction and venom is specifically an injected toxin.

Is it correct to call venom a poison? Yes and no, because venom is only effective when delivered in a certain manner (primarily injected) whereas a poison can be delivered via ingestion, inhalation, topically or injected.

 

[kripp_keeper]

No need to be snarky to those who disagree with you. My wife, for instance, is a biologist working on her masters in toxicology. In her opinion, a toxin is a naturally produced poison from biological or chemical reaction and venom is specifically an injected toxin.

Is it correct to call venom a poison? Yes and no, because venom is only effective when delivered in a certain manner (primarily injected) whereas a poison can be delivered via ingestion, inhalation, topically or injected.

Venom is a form of poison, and not all venom have to me injected to cause damage.

 

[Bill S]

No need to be snarky to those who disagree with you.

There are times when it fits. I laugh at people when I feel they deserve it, and no doubt there are those who laugh at me. I won't spend my life walking on eggshells and being overly understanding of those who make no effort to understand.

My wife, for instance, is a biologist working on her masters in toxicology. In her opinion, a toxin is a naturally produced poison from biological or chemical reaction and venom is specifically an injected toxin.

She is correct. Up to a point. Toxins do not have to be naturally produced. People have learned to synthesize some pretty nasty toxins. For example, most of the poison gasses used in WWI and in the death camps in WWII were manufactured. Venoms, as she says, are injected toxins (= injected poisons).

Is it correct to call venom a poison? Yes and no, because venom is only effective when delivered in a certain manner (primarily injected) whereas a poison can be delivered via ingestion, inhalation, topically or injected.

Again, partially correct. If it is delivered in a way different than injection, it wasn't a venom in the strict sense of the word. The same chemical that is effective by injection, though, may be effective in other ways as well. There are many toxins that are very effective in a wide variety of delivery methods. Arsenic, for example, can be eaten, absorbed through the skin, inhaled or injected, all with similar results. Some classic venoms that may typically be administered by injection can also have toxic effects in other ways, such as through contact with mucosal membranes and absorption through other membranes and sometimes through skin. And although I've never heard of anyone inhaling ("snorting") dried cobra venom, it would surely be highly toxic if you did so. I've already mentioned the venoms of the spitting cobra and the green lynx spider as examples of classic animal venoms that have alternative delivery methods that produce toxic reactions. "Venoms" are much more diverse than people often realize when they think of them in a single context, such as snake venoms. While snake venoms are usually proteolytic enzymes, when you start looking at insects you see things like formic acid being delivered in ant bites. Because of its delivery system, it qualifies as a venom - but can have toxic effects in other ways as well.

 

[kripp_keeper]

In the definition it does not state it has to be injected. It does state that it is a "poison" created by an "animal". Any poison made by an animal would be a venom regardless of its delivery method. Venom is still a poison in the same way tarantulas are still spiders.

 

[venomous.com]

There are times when it fits. I laugh at people when I feel they deserve it, and no doubt there are those who laugh at me. I won't spend my life walking on eggshells and being overly understanding of those who make no effort to understand.

Ridiculing someone who doesn't agree with you seems a strange way to achieve knowledge but ok. :?

She is correct. Up to a point. Toxins do not have to be naturally produced.

Incorrect, a poison can be manufactured OR be naturally occuring. Toxins, by definition, only occur naturally. Semantics, remember?

Again, partially correct. If it is delivered in a way different than injection, it wasn't a venom in the strict sense of the word. The same chemical that is effective by injection, though, may be effective in other ways as well. There are many toxins that are very effective in a wide variety of delivery methods. Arsenic, for example, can be eaten, absorbed through the skin, inhaled or injected, all with similar results.

That's exactly what I already said, poisons, ie arsenic, can be delivered in a multitude of ways. It's only considered venom if it's injected. Can venom absorption happen other ways? Sure, in a couple cases, ie cobra spitting or access through an open wound, but that's pretty well it. You can have it splash on you (no absorption possible unless open wound), drink it with no ill effects (unless open wound) so it obviously it isn't your standard 'poison'

You can come up with a couple of random scenarios where a venom may act as a different agent but 99.9% of the time, there is only one specific way for a venom to affect you.

 

[kripp_keeper]

Ridiculing someone who doesn't agree with you seems a strange way to achieve knowledge but ok. :?



Incorrect, a poison can be manufactured OR be naturally occuring. Toxins, by definition, only occur naturally. Semantics, remember?



That's exactly what I already said, poisons, ie arsenic, can be delivered in a multitude of ways. It's only considered venom if it's injected. Can venom absorption happen other ways? Sure, in a couple cases, ie cobra spitting or access through an open wound, but that's pretty well it. You can have it splash on you (no absorption possible unless open wound), drink it with no ill effects (unless open wound) so it obviously it isn't your standard 'poison'

You can come up with a couple of random scenarios where a venom may act as a different agent but 99.9% of the time, there is only one specific way for a venom to affect you.

Venom does not have to be injected to be venom. You are basing that venom has to be injected by definition, but by definition the only reason venom is its own class if because it is created by animals.



Edit. I'm just wandering Venom.com can you provide a source to anything you just said.

 

[venomous.com]

Venom does not have to be injected to be venom. You are basing that venom has to be injected by definition, but by definition the only reason venom is its own class if because it is created by animals.

By definition, -toxins- are only produced by living organisms

Edit. I'm just wandering Venom.com can you provide a source to anything you just said.

Which part?

p.s. You got me reading around a little bit and I found this great passage;

"If you call a snake poisonous, you are actually implying that the snake has a toxic substance on his body and poisoning will occur if the snake is handled"

Here is a source for you, from somewhere called the California Academy of Sciences

LINK

Poison vs. Venom

"These terms are often used interchangeably, but they actually have very different meanings. It is the delivery method that distinguishes one from the other. Poison is absorbed or ingested; a poisonous animal can only deliver toxic chemicals if another animal touches or eats it. Venom, on the other hand, is always injected. Every venomous animal has a mechanism to inject toxins directly into another animal. Stab with tails. Slash with spines. Pierce with fangs. Spike with spurs. Shoot with harpoons. Chew with teeth."

 

[kripp_keeper]

By definition, -toxins- are only produced by living organisms



Which part?

p.s. You got me reading around a little bit and I found this great passage;

"If you call a snake poisonous, you are actually implying that the snake has a toxic substance on his body and poisoning will occur if the snake is handled"

Here is a source for you, from somewhere called the California Academy of Sciences

LINK

Poison vs. Venom

"These terms are often used interchangeably, but they actually have very different meanings. It is the delivery method that distinguishes one from the other. Poison is absorbed or ingested; a poisonous animal can only deliver toxic chemicals if another animal touches or eats it. Venom, on the other hand, is always injected. Every venomous animal has a mechanism to inject toxins directly into another animal. Stab with tails. Slash with spines. Pierce with fangs. Spike with spurs. Shoot with harpoons. Chew with teeth."

I love the fact that you used the term "somewhere called" as if it isn't a credible source. Maybe that is because of the made up definition of poison and venom the author used. The actual definition of poison says nowhere it has to be ingested or absorbed actual definition-"a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.". I have a direct link to the actual definition of venom in my original post feel free to read it.



You seem to refuse to grasp the concept that venom is a form of poison by definition. Semantics, remember?

 

[venomous.com]

The actual definition of poison says nowhere it has to be ingested or absorbed actual definition-"a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health." You seem to refuse to grasp the concept that venom is a form of poison by definition. Semantics, remember?

Remember where I said a poison could be man made or natural? Everything is a possible poison; the sun, the bleach under the counter, aspirin, caster beans

Poison - man made or natural
Toxin - By definition, only produced by living organisms
Venom - A class of toxins

Is venom a poison? Yes, it is. However, poison != venom, so saying poisonous and venomous are the same thing is completely incorrect.

Fun discussion