Talk:Dahong palay

Snake

No one actually knows what species of snake "dahong palay" really is. It could possibly originate from the Philippine Pit Viper (Trimeresurus flavomaculatus) which also has green specimens but they are far from being slender or even remotely leaf-like.

The originally linked snake species, Ahaetulla prasina, is actually only mildly venomous and is very unlikely to be the same species as that of the legend. But then again, every small green snake here is automatically called Dahong palay and assumed to be extremely dangerous. The snake itself may actually be purely legendary even though it is accepted as fact by almost everyone in rural areas. Even supposedly 'scientific' statistical surveys by the government (DENR) list the Dahong Palay among snakes but do not provide the actual scientific name. See Compendium of ENR Information and Statistics, CY 2006 - 2006 --A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Alternativity:Alright, wait, if you're going to take off the species name, let's take away the word legendary. It gives the impression this isn't a real snake. It is. You KNOW when your neighbor does of a bite.

My reasons:

• No snake that I know of secretes poison through its skin.
• I do not know of any extant slender green snakes that are dangerous to humans in the Philippines. As already mentioned, the closest is the Philippine Pit Viper, which can sometimes be green, but it has a recognizable shape and yellow spots on it as well and it is never called 'dahong palay' AFAIK.
• In most cases when I hear of people killing a dahong palay, the snake turns out to be a rather harmless rat or vine snake. Ahaetulla prasina itself is a perfect example of this. Its venom is not considered dangerous to humans. In one memorable instance, I also personally witnessed the killing of four Paradise Flying Snakes (Chrysopelea paradisi ) which they identified as being dahong palay and "highly dangerous" (they're not).
• Virtually all snakes are killed in the provinces. Even harmless ones. Even constrictors are treated as if they are extremely poisonous here.

You are already familiar with most folk beliefs in the provinces I believe? The King Cobra for instance is said to have the ability to crow like a rooster and immobilize people by its gaze. Another is the very widespread belief that snake eyes can record the last moments of their life, leading people to always crush a snake's head even after death to prevent 'revenge'. The former legend probably started from the symptoms of envenomation by cobras. The latter probably because encounters with some snakes near people's homes happen during the mating season, and people assume that the second or third snake they encounter of the same species after killing the first one are there to 'take vengeance'.

So yes, I believe they are purely legendary. However, as a precaution, I'm posing the question as well to WP:AAR--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And as for a personal experience, my brother got bitten by a small green snake when we were kids. He was taken to a doctor and to a tandok (yes, my parents are painfully superstitious). The snake was killed and again was identified as a dahong palay. It was slender, bright green with a red tail. I now know it's actually a relatively harmless red-tailed racer (Gonyosoma oxycephalum).--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits by User:Alternativity. For the discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Dahong Palay. --A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My main objection was also to the term 'legendary', which would imply to many readers that 1. that the snake has a mythic significance and 2. that there isn't actually a physical reference, that it's a wisp of the imagination. In fact, given your objections, I would prefer that specific species not be listed at all. Something along the lines of "named after a broad local term for green snakes, which according to folk belief are particularly venomous. (The term is associated with a number of species, not all of which are actually venomous.)" Although I'm still not happy with what I feel is the undue length of that phrasing, and I'd like to run a grammar check before I actually paste that onto the article. Or maybe that's just because it's in the paragraph. I've half a mind to remove it and create an etymology section where we can work on the phrasing of the etymological roots (almost) to our hearts' content, and a reader interested more in the technical specifications of the sword rather than the details of its etymology and the legend of its namesake will be able to simply skip over that section. Sound reasonable to you? Hm. Also, a Dahong Palay (snake) article specifically identifying it as a cryptid would perhaps be useful, yes? The point I am making in saying that the snake is real is not that it is a single identifiable species. It is real in the sense that there is an actual physical reference - in this case, several, except that it does not conform to present taxonomies. I'm extremely busy at the moment but would like to take action on this eventually. But if you agree with any of my ideas and want to execute them yourself, feel free. :D If not and you'd prefer to keep disagreeing, then by all means let's continue this discussion. I'm afraid I am not always able to update myself on wiki nowadays, though. You're doing great work, by the way. Thank you. Not being much of a snake person, I simply took one of my sources and took its species identification at face value. Now I know. -- Alternativity (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I actually have no objections to not identifying a specific snake species. My main problem with the previous version was that the article claims that the name dahong palay refers to an extremely poisonous snake while at the same time identifying (and giving a dab hatnote) to a harmless snake Ahaetulla prasina.

Don't forget I'm also Filipino and am familiar with its reputation, even if I realize now that it's all mostly unjustifiable. Because honestly, there is no venomous snake matching its description in the Philippines. The description I grew up to was bright green with a red tail (which matches the description of Gonyosoma oxycephalum perfectly, which, as I mentioned, is only a mildly venomous snake that preys on rodents (thus quite common in rice fields)). Us probinsyanos tend to go a tiny bit crazy when it comes to snakes, LOL, in the 'SNAKE!!! KILL IT!!' kind of way. I distinctly remember someone misidentifying udto-udto as well when I was a kid.

But then again, people have been killed by dahong palay. So I suspect it is the Philippine pit viper and is real, as it is the only snake even remotely fitting the description of green and extremely dangerous. At the same time, I'm also acknowledging the numerous cases of misidentification by farmers, particularly with vine snakes and rat snakes. The reputation of dahong palay itself is already so convoluted no one can actually say it is this or that snake species with any degree of certainty. I am not an expert on herpetology as well, but I do have a background in biology.

And hrm... agreed. It sounds a bit awkward. And the article on the sword is no place to extrapolate on the snake, my own edit on it is already too long. An etymology section would do, but it won't help if other articles require clarifications on the dahong palay as well (like perhaps a future article on Arturo Rotor's short story Dahong Palay). I recommend creating a separate article and then just link the mention here to there. Perhaps Dahong Palay (snake)? Even a stub would do nicely, though they'd need a dab then.

I'm currently a preoccupied with cleaning up Banana-related articles though, so can't do it myself ;d Juggling several articles at the moment and I can't leave them halfway done. LOL So yeah, go ahead, and take your time. Thanks in advance. :)--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dahong palay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310230801/http://www.csc.edu.ph/news/032010/pisog_awardees.htm to http://www.csc.edu.ph/news/032010/pisog_awardees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)