Talk:Black mamba

The most "rapid-acting" venom on humans?

I feel very doubtful about this statement, although a book was cited as a reference.

Even though we can obtain data (the death time) from clinical precedents, it isn't a "fair comparison" as the quantity of venom injected was also taken into account.

Yes, we may use human cells to test but the cell types to be affected by the toxins may vary from case to case, depending upon the site of bite, and I can't find any large-scale investigation using such method that involves venom from a large variety of venomous snakes, unlike those of LD₅₀ done on mice. So, I'm afraid that it isn't scientific enough to draw such conclusion.

The snake's venom acts fast depending on where it bites you. A Black Mamba can bite you in the face, which is far more dangerous than an ankle bite. — P

Chippaux et al. stated that black mamba venom (which is predominantly made up of dendrotoxins), is the fastest acting snake venom known (dendrotoxins have a molecular weight of <7 Da; compare that to taipoxin, the main toxin in the coastal taipan venom that has a molecular weight of 35,000 Da). Mamba venom is also rich in hyaluronidases (more so than any other elapids). Hyaluronidases facilitate propagation of venom components throughout tissue (spreading the venom through the body). Besides hyaluronidases, there is Dendroaspin natriuretic peptide (DNP), which is unique to mambas, is a polypeptide analogous to the human atrial natriuretic peptide; it is responsible for causing diuresis through natriuresis and dilating the vessel bloodstream, which results in, among other things, acceleration of venom distribution in the body of the victim. This is why the black mamba has the shortest death time among venomous snakes, both in humans and animal models. The shortest recorded death of a mice that was subcutaneously injected with black mamba venom was 4.5 minutes. The next shortest time for a mice to die was 7-8 minutes, which was caused by the subcutaneous injection of coastal taipan venom. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated information in article

1. "The black mamba is the fourth most venomous snake species in the world.[10]"

Only according to one list. the consensus accepted top venomous snakes are listed on both lists.

2. "Many experts regard this as the world's most aggressive and dangerous snake."

This sentence was taken from the Snakebite article and improperly tinkered with. It authentically reads "Many snake experts have cited the black mamba and the coastal taipan as the world's most dangerous snakes (Hunter, 1998).[22][60][61]"

3. "Without rapid and vigorous antivenom therapy, a bite from a black mamba is rapidly fatal 100% of the time.[17][21][22][23]"

Not true. Danie Pienaar, head of South African National Parks Scientific Services survived the bite of a Black mamba without anti-venom. he was even featured on I'm Alive (TV series) (SE1EP8).

4. "Black mamba venom can kill a mouse after 4.5 minutes, the shortest time among all known venomous snakes. The second shortest time to kill a mouse on record was between 7–8 minutes via a coastal taipan envenomation.[20"

No mention of this in reference.

5. "Brown also conducted venom toxicity studies on monkeys, who were given subcutaneous injections of venom. The results indicated that black mamba venom was the most toxic to monkeys (LD50 0.11 mg/kg, ranking first among all snake venoms that were tested. It was more toxic than the Inland taipan (0.47 mg/kg), Eastern brown snake (0.49 mg/kg), and Coastal taipan (0.24 mg/kg). In the same study on monkeys (Macaque monkeys), the Coastal taipan (0.24 mg/kg) and Many-banded krait (0.28 mg/kg) were also elevated above both the Inland taipan and Eastern brown snake in the toxicity of their venoms, ranking second and third behind the black mamba, respectively.[85]"

No mention of this in reference. I also find it to be a highly dubious statement in general , because the first Inland taipans were only captured in September 1972. the cited book was published in 1973. 79.182.111.44 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, the anonymous IP user obsessed with (lethality of the fierce snake) who has no idea what he's talking about or how to interpret scientific data, is going to criticize the work here. Because of you, the Inland taipan is locked, and there is talk that you are going to be blocked for continual violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All the copyright violations are being investigated, the citations you had placed were not og high quality standards, most anyway. Now you come here, to try to find "unsubstantiated" information. As to the list, it is the most accurate list availble to due the use of albumin with chromatopography - it produces a precipate that is 98% pure. The other sources use saline (without chromatopgraphy) that produces varying ranges in results. That is why it is not used for lethality of venoms anymore (purity of venom cannot attain more than 60% in the process, which means lots of toxins are lost in the chemical process). In anycase, these lists are just a gauge, nothing anyone in the field takes too seriously. Venom varies based on a lot of factors. I bet, if I tested Inland taipan venom on birds, mamba or boomslang venom would be far more toxic because that is the prey their venom evolved to kill. Well, the difference between you and I is that I have been educated on the subject matter at a post-secondary institution. I am not obsessed with the black mamba, I am nominating and going to expand the many-banded krait article in the same manner. Same with several of the Naja articles. Brown listed two taipans, didn't mention the taipan - he just used the word "taipan". He claimed one was smaller than the other. But I have been debating taking that part of the article myself, due to that fact alone. And to the fact that I didn't add the other species that were subjected to lethality sutdies on the monkeys. However, field observation has shown that primates are particularly susceptible to mamba venom. It seems you don't understand the dendrotoxins at all. They are devastating in their nature in a way that is far more rapid and insidious than other elapid toxins. As to the 100% mortality, that is verified and true. It has been mentioned in scientific publications and technical books by many herpetologists, including Spawls, Branch, Broadley, Pitman, Hunter, FitzSimmons, Austin Stevens, Joe Wasilewski, and numerous others. The bite to the man you talk of could have had various factors attributed to it that lead to his survival, besides the medical attention which he got (mechanical ventilation, intubation, drug therapy, etc). That could save someone with a non-severe bite from a mamba, but it is not the rule. The fact is, and has been published in scientific literature, before antivenom nobody survived a bite. Whether you like that fact or not, is irrelevent. I have access to journals online, I have over 140 technical books on the subject matter and I have probably read more on these topics in my years in schooling than you have in a lifetime. So, please, I am not going to address your petty and vengeful attempts at trying to descredit a good article status page that went through a rigorous verification of information because you are upset that I got Inland taipan page locked and made them aware of all the violations that you were committing. --DendroNaja (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You're whole rant is irrelevant. and nothing but smoke and mirrors to evade the facts i have presented.

Point #1 the AVTD organization and list out weighs your opinion on wikipedia . you trying to kill the other list simply because it doesn't include your favorite snake. pure vandalism. shameful.

Point #2 - not addressed.

Point #3 - we have a documented high profile case of surviving without anti-venom. that sentence should be (as it was in the past) "Almost always 100% without Anti-venom" . and he should be added to the case studies as well.

Point #4 - not addressed

Point #5. - addressed. Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.49.102 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy section

This section is inappropriate, perpetuates quack science and should be deleted. Even if a justification is under "relationship to humans" or similar lines, it does not justify a section of the current length, and could be replaced along the lines of "Homeopaths have used Black Mamba Venom in their traditional cures [citations]." or at most a paragraph in length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoggy41 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, the sections about homeopathy should be deleted, they don't warrant even a sentence in this article. How has this article achieved GA status while still containing such rubbish? Something is wrong somewhere. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the section again as per the concerns above. Rather worryingly the article was reviewed for GA and just a few days later the nominator added this section. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just coming back to do that. The editor concerned has asked to be granted roll-back status. I'm not sure he should be allowed out with a pencil!! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've elaborated here. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was unaware of a debate here and chopped the entire section myself independently per WP:BOLD. That's a huge chunk (undue in length) of fringe twaddle — it implies, wrongly, that there is a way to create immunity to a black mamba bite through the dilution, and redilution, and redilution, ad infinitim until it's water of black mamba venom. Which is tin hat crazy. Every single allergen and toxin known to man could have a similar "historical trivia section" on the homeopathic "proving" of this or that. Which is entirely irrelevant to the various topics at hand, as is this section here. If the section is now gone it should stay gone and if it's not gone it should go. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As the GA reviewer, I too agree with the above. ~HueSatLum 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That section is utterly inappropriate and I commend the editors who have removed it. Can you imagine similar sections in hundreds of other articles about various things that homeopathy quacks use in their potions? I've got the article on my talk page now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR

There's so much that's wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start. I'll be starting a GAR in a few days if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Sasata (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. As a non-herpetologist I have just done a minor revert (having forgotten that I had expressed concern about the article in Jan 2014) and I was shaken by the cub-journalistic tone (allegedly backed up by citations that I have not assessed) along the lines of say:

• "the fourth-most-venomous snake species in the world"
• "probably the most-feared and respected snake species in the world"
• "According to wildlife biologist Dr. Joe Wasilewski, black mambas are the most-advanced of all the snake species in the world"
• "venom apparatus and method of delivering venom is also the most-effective and most-evolved among all venomous snakes"

and so on every few lines in the lede alone. I haven't checked the rest of the article, but I am willing to contribute some effort if our resident herpetologists would like a hand. If you would rather be left a clear field, no hard feelings. JonRichfield (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that the article is over-done. I'm leaving it to others to tone down the prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.53.143 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth--I'm not one of the resident herpetologists--I agree re: the writing; in fact that's why I initially checked the talkpage, to see how long it had been since the article had been listed. I do have experience in rescuing formerly decent articles that someone with much more enthusiasm than judgement decided to over-write, and this one has all the hallmarks. (I particularly like the assertion here that while mambas don't have predators, "snakes in general have many.") Shoebox2 talk 21:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As a herpetologist who wrote much of the black mamba article (along with the many-banded krait, Snakebite, Chinese cobra, Cape cobra, Pseudohaje goldii, Caspian cobra, Congo water cobra, Banded water cobra, Forest cobra, Eastern green mamba, Jameson's mamba, Western green mamba, Crotalus tigris and basically most other venomous snake articles, I can tell you that snake venom toxicity and composition can vary even within a single species based on numerous factors which can (diet, seasonal changes, age-dependent, etc). Before I start about the LD50 ratings, I would like to mention that I actually wrote the Snakebite article, so I didn't "steal" anything from there - it was my work to begin with. Second, the dentition of the black mamba, and the entire genus of Dendroaspis do have the most advanced venom delivery apparatus. Not only do they have the longest fangs of any elapid, but their fangs are considered semi-hinged (like viper fangs). Other elapids have fangs that are completely immovable.

Now to the toxicity/LD50 issue: the black mamba is the 4th most venomous snake species in the world based on the study by Ernst & Zug (1996). That is unquestionable. The toxicity ratings obtained from this study/experiment is considered to be the most important toxicity study on snake venom in the world. This is due to several factors: first, the data that was obtained was based on snake venom that was collected from hundreds of specimens from some species, while for other other species, venom was collected from thousands of specimens from all different regions of a species' geographic range (which was the case for the black mamba - 1,200+ specimens of wild caught black mambas from all localities had their venom extracted). Zug et al. also used Fraction V (bovine serum albumin). This method is known to produce the highest purity precipitate, usually in the range of 98-99%. This precipitate is the dried venom which is then used to determine toxicity. Basically, this means the most accurate toxicity rating is obtained due to the purity of the precipitate. The study conducted by Ernst & Zug was extensive, costly and the scientific methods used had been proven to produce toxicity ratings that were consistent and although variation was still observed (as expected, it was insignificant). They were meticulous and the study is considered to be nearly flawless within the herpetological community. All other methods of determining snake venom toxicity always result in wildly varying toxicities, which is/was never the case with the 1996 study. In addittion, venom is usually collected from only a handful of specimens from each species (usually such experiments will study the toxicity of a very limited number of snake species, unlike the 1996 study). Up until now, there has been no single study that has been as large in scale as the 1996 study. Another issue is that many LD50 ratings are very old - 1967 (Christian & Anderson). Christian & Anderson conducted venom toxicity experiments based on only a few specimens from different genera and species, methods used are outdated, and they simply were not as reliable. Latifi conducted some experiments, but he stuck to snakes from one region (Middle East/Central Asia), and Dr. Fry had a list that used outdated methods and the results varied wildly, even within a single species. The most reliable, concise and accurate ratings of snake venom toxicity is the study done by Ernst & Zug et al. Another decent study was done by Brown (1973), which gave the black mamba a toxicity rating of 0.12 mg/kg (SC), 0.06 mg/kg (SC), and 0.009 mg/kg (IV). This placed the black mamba above the coastal taipan, the many-banded krait and all other land snakes with the exception of the eastern brown snake and inland taipan. I would also appreciate it if things are first discussed here on the talk page before anything is changed within the article. As you have already mentioned, you are not a herpetologist - but I have studied herpetology (specifically ophiology) at a very high university level.--Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 00:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to revert the article back to the way it was until everything is discussed here. I am the "resident herpetologist" here, so I think it would be appropriate to discuss all issues before changing the article. I am not going to allow this article to fall into an edit war, especially not with an IP user who doesn't seem to know much about venomous snakes other than the basics that most people know. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 00:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And another thing, black mambas don't have any predators that regularly prey on them. Only humans are considered predators of the mamba. Juveniles are taken by birds of prey, honey badgers, other snakes, lizards, and older ones are occassionally taken by crocodiles. But even lions, leopards, and other large African predators stear clear. Fully grown adult black mambas (8 ft+) are not prey to anything. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 00:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is to shorten and bring the article to wikipedia standards. do not revert the changes made in this article.79.182.13.174 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If making bold edits, do it piece by piece (or by reasonable sections) at a time, so people can follow the changes and agree on the different parts. It may be reverted it for now, but you may reintroduce the same changes with different edits. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored some of the edits. The deleted section was already moved to snake venom and now has a wikilink. Refs were needlessly altered from shortcuts. The differences now (between the conflict of edits) are in the introduction. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sidelight, you are inventing a rule that is not in wikipedia guidelines the "piece by piece". This article is not a controversial article (iraq war etc), the edits were made after consensus has been explicitly repeated in the talk page. therefore it doesn't qualify as a WP:BB discussion. Further more these edits were in fact done in parts : part 1 edit to the lead and part 2 Venom section.79.182.13.174 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Then don't follow it, and continue to wonder why your edits get reverted wholesale. It doesn't have to be a controversial article for it to be a bold move. Consensus was made, but not for particular changes. Besides, I restored some of your edits, and left the intro to be discussed. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DendroNaja, the section Determining venom toxicity (LD50) was moved to snake venom, with a wikilink, because it seems to be referring to venomous snakes in general. The section here should be condensed and about black mambas. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the movement of that particular section to the snake venom article. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 03:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The conflict is mostly reduced to the introduction. To the IP editor when comes back, consider using inline tags for the questioned text, and work out agreement for each (set of) change(s). I followed the edits, but they seemed too drastic and raised alarm at first.- Sidelight12 ^Talk

From the above points.

• "the fourth-most-venomous snake species in the world" - either opinion or means its venom is the 4th most potent of snakes in the world
• "probably the most-feared and respected snake species in the world" - looks like opinion
• points 3 and 4 look like they can be combined.

I'll leave this. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Snake venom toxicity ratings vary from one experiement conducted by one herpetologist to the next experiment conducted by another herpetologist. The vast majority of LD₅₀ ratings of snake venoms are actually very old (Christian & Anderson, 1967; Brown, 1973; Latifi, 1984 and numerous others). Virtually all of these experiments, which at the time were used to try to get an idea of what snake venom might pose the the highest level of risk to humans, among other reasons. These "experiments", which were really nothing but small scale mini-experiments that were conducted in crude fashion using outdated science (by todays standards). The number of species' venoms that tested for toxicity ratings were limited to those species which frequenty came into conflict with humans, inflicting bites, and on occassion caused fatalities . These species were deemed medically important. Mice were almost always the animal model used in all these sorts of experiments, although on rare occassions rats, rabbits, chickens and even bats were also used as test subjects. These tests on snake venom toxicity were done on a very small scale. Venom was collected from only a handful of specimens from each species that was being subject to testing. The specimens from which the crude venom was extracted were all collected from the same locality. The methods used to determine the toxicity ratings are considered outdated and unpredictable. The toxicity levels obtained from these experiments were never ever stable. Results for a single species would often produce results that were drastically different from one another (ie. Naja naja venom extracted from specimens from the same locality produced values ranging from 0.31 mg/kg to 3.6 mg/kg - the venom of the snakes was very similar in toxicity, but the purification methodology was flawed). Venom of specimens collected from the same locality should never produce results that vary so drastically - even regional variations (ie. eastern to western specimens) do not show such extreme variation. This is why these older toxicity experiments are unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt, this also includes Dr. Fry's work aswell. Dr. Fry's study tested more species, but he also used only a handful of specimens from each group of species and used the same outdated 0.1% saline solution. The largest, most extensive and comprehensive toxicity rating study ever done was conducted by Ernst & Zug et al (1996). Nearly every venomous snake species was used and venom was collected from hundreds of specimens for some species, while more common species venom was extracted from over a thousand specimens per species. Fraction V or Bovine serum albumin was used in the study which is known to produce the highest purity albumin, up to 100% purity. The results of the 1996 study produced results which were highly stable and dramatic variations in results were non-existent. So based upon these facts, the study by Ernst & Zug are the most accurate and reliable list of toxicity of snake venoms. Based on that, the black mamba ranked 4th most venomous snake in the world with a subcutaneous toxcitity of 0.05 mg/kg. This is not even a matter for debate, which is why I am surprised as to why this would even come up as an issue. The herpetological community uses the the work of Ernst & Zug when it comes to matters of venom toxicity. It doesn't matter what "lists" you find on the internet or whom it was compiled by, none of those are used as a reference within the herpetological and zoological communities. So for the IP user to even bring this up for debate brings into question his/her understanding (or lack thereof) of this subject.

• That the black mamba is the most feared snake species in Africa and probably in the world is not simply a matter of opinion. It is technically an opinion, but it is the opinion of most snake experts and herpetologists. Scientists do not make statements, especially in their works through technical/acadenic books or peer-reviewed journalistic work if it was not backed either by solid irrefutable evidence (which in this case there is evidence - due to fear, black mambas are almost always killed on spot whenever physically possible throughout their entire geographical range within Africa; this specific type of behaviour by humans towards another a species has not been observed ever - at least not towards any other snake species; not only by Africans on other African snake species nor is it seen among any other people towards any toehr snake species int the world). In addition, consensus among experts in the field is that the black mamba is the snake which causes the highest levels of self-reported anxiety by most herpetologists when having to work with the species. The "respect" issue goes hand in hand with the fear issue here. This may be an opinion, but it is one that is shared by most experts and laymen alike. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This article is littered with trivia and off-topic anecdotes. It needs re-writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.229.4 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Clearly, the IP editor is not interested in discussion. He/she has disappeared since the page was protected and now it cannot be butchered by him/her. This is not an editor interested in solutions. This is the same editor which I proved to be a plagiarist (he/she had wrecked the Inland taipan article). I also proved this IP editor had absolutely no regard for ANY Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Admins at the time took all measures to try to minimize his participation in editing anything on Wikipedia, but they weren't able to block him/her due to the type of IP address he/she was using. This IP editor is not here to promote or make sure that WP policies and guidelines are being followed, he is here because he has an agenda with me for exposing his countless Wikipedia policy violations, plagiarism, and other problems he/she was causing. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 18:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed a legitimate critic to your editing which have been well accepted and are in the article:

1) Talk:Black_mamba#Unsubstantiated_information_in_article ✔

2) transfer of the excessive (7,467 word)‎ "‎Determining venom toxicity (LD50)" section, to the right article Snake venom ✔

3) My edit to the lead has been made after 3 editors have complained about your style of writing. not yet been resolved.

Speaking of "no regard to wikipedia guidelines": Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM. this whole "discussion" section should be erased.79.178.3.146 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user. Made one good edit, but disrupting the lead misrepresenting a claim of consensus. States and misrepresents policies, then ignores them when its his own actions. Misrepresents edit summaries. Territorial editing. I think the ip uses other ips from near the same geographical location and also has a username. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I am trying to be civil to this IP editor now, I know that he is a true troll and a vandal. He's an amateur on this subject and his knowledge and understanding of the concepts surrounding snake venom, toxicity, variation, and snakes in general is very, very limited and poor. I can't even believe he's being allowed to continue trying to "dispute resolve". --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 05:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Black mamba LD50 quote is incorrect

The following statement from the Black_mamba#Venom.2C_envenomation_and_antivenom (and subsequent lead) is incorrect:

Using 0.1% bovine serum albumin chromatography, the final precipitate (98% of the solidified crude venom) is 98% purified albumin, the median lethal dose results for the black mamba were 0.01 mg/kg IP, 0.02 mg/kg IV and 0.05 mg/kg SC. Due to the 98% purity of the dried crude venom produced in this process (compare to 40-60% purity of dried crude venom when 0.1 saline solution is used), the toxicity (LD50) values of the venom is nearly exactly accurate and represents the true lethality of the venom. The black mamba is the fourth-most-venomous snake in the world,[8]

The source cited is "Zug, GR. (1996). Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book."

• 0.01 mg/kg IP - is not from Zug but from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004101018890219X, which talks about Eastern green mamba and testing pure Dendrotoxin and not the venom as a whole.

• 0.02 mg/kg IV - have no clue where this is coming from . it's not from the book, and i couldn't find citation for it.

• 0.05 mg/kg SC - is in the book. 0.05 is quoted without saying if it's subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous or intraperitoneal. and if saline or bovine serum albumin.

I have been looking at the list in whole, that Ernst and Zug published in their book "Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book" from 1996. and it simply didn't make sense. These are not their own lab study results. there is no peer reviewed paper published by them. something Broad, Sutherland et al did in 1979.

This is the full list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3).

As you can see , this list is very strange. it is widely known and published that the inland taipan has the highest LD50 in mice. so what's with the Hook-nosed sea snake (Enhydrina schistosa) and even Russel's Viper (Vipera russelii) doing above it? with very high LD50? and other snakes don't belong there too. I was scratching my head about this.

I found the answer from Associate Professor Bryan Grieg Fry the venom expert. he answered somebody on his blog regarding that exact list in the book :

Question: " ...I was talking to another herpatolagist and he said the hook nosed sea snake was the most venomous of all" Fry Answers: "The hook nosed myth was due to a fundamental error in a book called 'Snakes in question'. In there, all the toxicity testing results were lumped in together, regardless of the mode of testing (e.g. subcutaneous vs. intramuscular vs intravenous vs intraperitoneal). As the mode can influence the relative number, venoms can only be compared within a mode. Otherwise, its apples and rocks."

I will give few examples you'll get the picture:

• Tiger rattlesnake (Crotalus tigris) , 'Snakes in question' quotes it LD50 of 0.06. if you go to a peer reviewed paper you see what they did : "This is based upon its venom’s high lethality, rated the highest of all rattlesnake venoms (LD50 value for mice is 0.07 mg/kg intraperitoneal, 0.056 mg/kg intravenous, and 0.21 mg/kg subcutaneous)7–9."

• Inland taipan (small scaled snake), 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.03. published peer review paper 0.01 (bovine serum albumin) and 0.025 (saline) both subcutaneous.

• Hook-nosed sea snake/Beaked sea snake (Enhydrina schistosa), 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.02. published peer review paper 0.173 (bovine serum albumin) 0.164 (saline) both subcutaneous. another peer review here is the same. Another scholarly paper 0.1.

The same with the Black mamba:

• Black mamba, 'Snakes in question' quotes it 0.05, every other published source quotes subcutaneous LD50 around the same level Dr. Brian Fry 0.32 subcutaneous, 0.25 intravenous, 0.941 intraperitoneal, Spawls & Branch and Minton & Minton both listed the SC 0.28 and so does reptile magazine 0.28,

I have no clue where they came with, with that 0.05.

The best place to see the difference quotes between subcutaneous/intramuscular/intravenous/intraperitoneal is Dr. Fry List put in categories http://web.archive.org/web/20120413182323/http://www.venomdoc.com/LD50/LD50men.html

The most accurate LD50 to 'real life' is when tested using bovine serum albumin. This peer reviewed paper indeed says this as well and gives a good list, mostly are australian snakes: http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu5/broad1979b.pdf

So unless it is possible to produce a peer reviewed article citing black mamba subcutaneous LD50 using bovine serum albumin, the closest will be SC in Saline which is 0.28/0.32 mg/kg, 0.25 intravenous and 0.941 intraperitoneal .

I have also added this notice regarding Zug list misconception in the Snakebite article talk page79.177.59.154 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is the LD50 of the black mamba venom in the article incorrect ?

Is the LD50 of the black mamba venom in the article based on unreliable data which is conflicting with all major WP:RS sources ? 79.176.152.55 (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The above talk page section goes into detail why the current data is incorrect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_mamba#Black_mamba_LD50_quote_is_incorrect 79.176.152.55 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I have listed all the most well known LD₅₀ ratings for the black mamba. It is right there in the article, anyone can see that I listed Ernst & Zug et all value of 0.05mg/kg, I listed Dr. Fry's value of 0.32mg/kg, Brown's 0.12mg/kg, and the 0.28mg/kg value which was reported by (Minton) amd Spawls & Branch. I've given a full range of median lethal dose values, which is part of the WP:NPOV policy - to be neutral. Why on earth would we cherry-pick one or two toxinology studies or toxicity values listed for this species and disregard and not mention any of the other well known lethality rates? That would be a violation of WP:NPOV, especially for a GA status article. You cannot simply pick and choose what you want, just because - I don't know this IP editors motives, but I suspect he's bitter and angry with me for figuring out that he had plagiarized nearly the entire Inland taipan article a few months back. So he has been after me over every little thing, very petty behavior and just plain immature. I will take out the statement "fourth-most-venomous snake" because it is unencyclopedic and venom toxicity/lethality varies tremendously even within a single species due to many factors including diet, geographical location, age-dependent, gender-dependent, and even weather. The list can go on and on. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 22:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't read your own citations, and have made a big mess:

• the only sources citing specifically Subcutaneous LD50 are : Spawls & Branch, Minton & Minton, Fry, reptile magazine. all around 0.30mg/kg. this is the standard comparative LD50 used in lists.
• the 0.12mg/kg is Subcutaneous but only for Purified toxin from the venom. in brown's book 0.12 talks about testing specific organ reaction "liver (0.12); spleen (0.16); diaphragm (0.12); heart (0.10); skeletal muscles (0.05); in testines (0.17); brain (0.92).". this is the only mention of "0.12" in the book.
• the 0.05 in Ernst & Zug doesn't say anything about if it is subcutaneous, Intravenous etc.. as explained in Black mamba LD50 quote is incorrect. they made a big error in the book mixing different testing methodologies. it is very evident with other snakes on their list (especially 1-3). that list is unreliable do to its ambiguity.
• You cite 0.01 mg/kg IP from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004101018890219X, but they talk about Eastern green mamba and testing pure Dendrotoxin and not the venom as a whole.
• i could not find your quote of 0.02 mg/kg IV.
• The only person listing clearly all modes of injection is Dr. Brian Fry : 0.32 subcutaneous, 0.25 intravenous, 0.941 intraperitoneal (he mentions that he averages all published data in each mode)

The black mamba is a very dangerous snake. perhaps the most. but it's LD50 in mice is 0.30mg/kg+- SC 79.180.57.209 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I hope I can be of some help here, I am an uninvolved editor who came via the RfC on the Africa topic page. I think I find both people's reasoning problematic. DendroNaja is wrong that including one or two scientific studies would be cherry picking and a violation of NPOV. Wikipedia should have the best information, not the average information. IP79 claims that a lot of the data is faulty and that he produces better sources. I find this also to be lacking. Fry seems legit, but Zug and Ernst numbers appear to be used in other RSs, so they are certainly quality. I appreciate the points made by IP79 and think that the editor is on the right track. He is certainly free to publish his criticism of Zug and Ernst and other authors and then come and edit the book. However, at this point, the decision made by DendroNaja is right for the page. Putting a range of LD50 with sources seems an appropriate response to this problem. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The work of Ernst & Zug is absolutely not an "amateur list" that was just made up out of thin air. The particular book, Snakes in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book is a piece of work that is cited and referenced in hundreds of other technnical/text-books and journalistic studies and research. The list compiled used the most effective method of extracting the venom in tact with all its componenets. It is a highly regarded piece of work and no matter how much you don't like it, it is just too bad for you. If it's good enough to be cited and referenced in scientific research, then it's good enough to be used as a source here. I also have to clue you in on a thing - Jean-Philippe Chippaux, Carl Ernst, and George R. Zug are the foremost experts on snake venom toxicity and variation. Venom, even within a single species, can vary and range tremendously depending on diet, geographical location, age-dependent, gender-dependent, weather, altitude and the list can go on and on. So these "lists of most venomous" are meaningless when it pertains to humans because how do you ascertain the amount of venom injected in a bite? Your psychological reaction, your resistence, and so many other factors play a role. I'd also like to remind you all that this is a GA status article. This means it has to be broad in its coverage and neutral in that it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. I also want to add something regarding mambas. The phylogenetic relationships of the genus Dendroaspis are still a bit of a mystery. First, members of the genus Dendroaspis have venom components which are synergistic, with absolutely no anti-complmentary components in the composition of mamba venoms. This is not the case in the majority of other elapids. The vast majority, or even all, have anti-complmentary components within the composition of their venoms that retard, to a certain degree, the more toxic components. Second, Mamba venom contains unique pre-synaptic dendrotoxins, which are not only the most rapid-acting snake venom toxins known, but they are virulent and devastating in their effects. Mambas are distinct from other elapids, like cobras (Naja spp, coral snakes, Australian elapids, kraits and all other elapids). The fangs of the members of the genus Dendroaspis are longer than any other elapid species and are positioned at the very front of the maxillary bone (which isn't the case for other elapids), add to that the fact that their fangs are semi-hinged (sort of like vipers and pit-vipers who have fully hinged fangs while all other elapids have very fixed immovable fangs), and along with their venom delivery apparatus, which is far more advanced than any venomous snake species and you get something quite deadly. Phylogentic studies done have shown preliminary evidence that they are most closely related to the genus Bungarus, genus Hemibungarus, and some studies suggest a close link to the genus Pseudohaje but nothing is conclusive. This is where the problem is, IP79 - you are evidently an amateur (and I do not mean that in a bad or patronizing way). Your knowledge on this subject matter and your understanding of the concepts are very, very limited and basic. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 05:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This sentence is simply not true and made up by the editor :

Using 0.1% bovine serum albumin chromatography, the final precipitate (98% of the solidified crude venom) is 98% purified albumin, the median lethal dose results for the black mamba was 0.05 mg/kg SC. Due to the 98% purity of the dried crude venom produced in this process (compare to 40-60% purity of dried crude venom when 0.1 saline solution is used), the toxicity (LD50) values of the venom is nearly exactly accurate and represents the true lethality of the venom. The black mamba is one of the most venomous snakes in the world,[52]

Ernst & Zug book simply lists 10 snakes without telling anything about what method of injection (huge difference) and if saline solution or 0.1 bovine serum albomin.

How can you quote it as Subcutaneous , when the Purified toxin from the venom has an LD50 of only 0.12mg/kg Subcutaneous ? total nonsense.

We have solid multiple sources all explicitly saying 0.30mg/kg+- SC79.180.57.209 (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Again and again, you are showing your very limited understanding of the concepts surrounding snake venom, snake venom composition, toxicity variation, methodologies used in determining LD₅₀ ratings, and venom variation. You seem to be completely out of your league here. First, in regards to the 0.12 mg/kg SC value is attributed to (Brown, 1973). The link you have is to some study on a component of a venom done by a Daniel J. Strydom. I will repeat: Ernst & Zug et al, 1996 is a highly regarded source and is cited in hundreds of peer-reviewed journalistic work. The fact that you don't like it, is not anyone's problem but yours. It stays in the article because one of the criteria for a GA status article is neutrality = represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Not only are you over your head with regard to the sunbject matter, but you don't even seem to care or want to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 06:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You keep on inventing stuff. not even 1 citation of this book in pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Snakes+in+Question%3A+The+Smithsonian+Answer+Book

Brown book lists 0.12mg/kg when testing on specific isolated organs. you have got to stop fabricating data 79.180.57.209 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)