Venom said:If memory serves...
To answer the age-old question: "what is the most venomous spider in the world?" is obtuse and ambiguous, you first need to define "venomous"--it isn't as straightforward as you think...really. The fact is that Phoneutria has the most toxic venom component of any spider--its main toxin is faster acting/ more powerful than anything in the funnelwebs. However, this compound is not as concentrated in the Phoneutria's venom as it could be, making it the most potent spider toxin, but not the most potent venom ( venom isn't pure toxin--it is a cocktail of toxin + matrix--like suger dissolved in water ). Funnelweb venom, on the other hand, has more than one toxic component: it contains about 14 different toxic compounds, none of which are as potent individually as the Phoneutria's toxin, but which together add up to a venom which as a whole is more potent than Phoneutria venom. To put it in rifle terms, it's like one 30mm gun vs. fourteen .50 cals---the barrage of .50 cals is much more dangerous than the single 30mm, even though the 30mm is more powerful individually than any of the individual .50 cals. So what you end up with is that Phoneutria toxin is more potent, but its venom as a whole is less potent than the Atrax/ Hadronyche venoms.
Now, as for "which is more dangerous?"--this isn't the same as "which is more venomous." Danger level takes into account the spider's other characteristics as well as its degree of "venomousness." For instance, a diamond-back rattlesnake is much more dangerous than a sea krait, because although the rattler's venom is MUCH less potent, sea kraits almost never bite: you can pick them up, dangle them freely around your neck, and never once be bitten. Diamondbacks, however, will bite readily, and although their bite is less likely to kill than the sea krait's, it is much more likely that you will receive a bite from a rattler than a sea krait. Thus, you are in more danger from a diamond-back than from a sea-krait: the degree of damage is off-set by the likeliness of its occurring.
The likeliness of a bite occurring once the spider is encountered is determined by such factors as the spider's temperament, its speed, agility, and defensive behaviour. For instance, will the spider strike a defensive position and stay put ( like the f-webs do ), or will/ can it move toward you by running /jumping ( like a wanderer )? Is the spider fast moving or slow? Is it agile or clumsy? Does it have an effective striking/ biting system? How much of a disturbance/ threat is necessary to cause it to bite? These, along with the venom potency, amount of venom injected, and frequency of "wet" and "dry" bites are what determine how dangerous a spider is. The amount, potency and frequency of venom comprise the degree of damage/ lethality of the bite, and the behaviours/ abilities of the spider determine how likely it is that you will be bitten.
Based on the comparative features of f-webs and Phoneutria, I have to say that the f-webs are more "dangerous," all things considered. As far as temperament/ willingness to bite, both are highly defensive and bite readily ( although Phoneutria may have a slight edge on this aspect). Regarding speed and agility, no contest: Phoneutria win hands down. In defensive behaviour, Phoneutria jump and run, whereas F-webs are less able to: they are heavier, slower, and primarily non-arboreal. However, when they do bite, they don't give the quick injections of a Phoneutria, but hold on like bulldogs and continue to inject more and more venom. This is another area where they are radically different. Although they are large, and CAN inject large doses, Phoneutria simply don't; they may bite readily, and perhaps repeatedly, but ( in a defensive bite, not a feeding bite ) they don't inject much venom--only a very tiny amount!! Thus, they may be better able/ more likely to bite you, but their bite simply doesn't have the weight of the f-webs'. It's like asking whether you prefer a 70% chance of a fist to the head, or a 40% chance of a baseball bat to the head: the chance of incurring some harm is greater with the fist, but your total risk is still lower than with the baseball bat!
Now, this is a pet peeve, but I'd like to rant for a second.
Distribution of a species is not part of how dangerous it is!!! Whether a spider occurs in a populated or unpopulated region does not influence the dangerousness of the spider itself, only how much ( how often ) of a problem it is. In measuring the danger level of a spider once it has been encountered by a human, you can only consider the characteristics of the spider. Where a species occurs only influences how likely you are to be exposed to the species, NOT what will happen once you are. Otherwise, if dsitrubution is a factor, you'd have to go around saying that western diamondbacks are more dangerous than King cobras, because the rattlers live in more populated areas and have much more contact with humans than the cobras, which live in the boonies and are rarely encountered.
As for "evidence" and "sources"...
Jeffh, what you fail to realize is that Lelle ( Crotalus ), actually keeps Phoneutria sp. and has provided them for filming on National Geographic; and SteveNunn keeps ( or has kept ) Atrax sp. and is Steve Irwin's funnelweb provider. These guys are experts, their word is a reliable "source," and is as much evidence as you should need. They know as much about these species as any of the scientific writers whose "sources" you crave. And what do you want in these papers but an authoritative voice? Well, they are an authoritative voice! So get over yourself and believe them! ( and BTW, though I'm not as advanced as they, you can believe me too).
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:
