Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.

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

Discussion in 'Other Spiders & Arachnids' started by Shelob, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. Jeffh

    Jeffh Arachnopeon


    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.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2006
  2. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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.

  3. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

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

    BTW, Im no expert. Far from it.
  4. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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.
  5. Jeffh

    Jeffh Arachnopeon

    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?
  6. Jeffh

    Jeffh Arachnopeon

    I totally agree with you on that.
  7. danread

    danread Arachnoprince Old Timer

    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....
  8. Jeffh

    Jeffh Arachnopeon

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

    Sheri Arachnoking

    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..
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  10. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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.
  11. Jeffh

    Jeffh Arachnopeon

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  12. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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.
  13. Jeffh

    Jeffh Arachnopeon

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  14. Venom

    Venom Arachnoprince Old Timer

    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 dangerous. Do you see what I'm saying now?
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2006
  15. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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.
  16. Venom

    Venom Arachnoprince Old Timer

    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.

    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?
  17. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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?

  18. Venom

    Venom Arachnoprince Old Timer

    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.
  19. Crotalus

    Crotalus Arachnoking Old Timer

    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.

  20. Venom

    Venom Arachnoprince Old Timer

    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.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.