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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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