Talk:Venom

Disambiguation page?

• I think the Disambiguation page should always be displayed for the root word (Venom, in this case), with choices for the user to follow. Unsigned comment by user:Reo On

In this case, I disagree. "Venom" means venom. "Venom (poison)" sounds wrong to me, & I don't think the page should have been moved there. "Venom (biology)" might be ok. Ventifax 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this page was improperly moved before, using cut & paste, so the Talk was in two places. I have cut & pasted it back. If you feel you must move it again, use the move function, & put it under "Venom (biology)," "Venom (toxin)," "Venom (biotoxin)," or the like; instead of "Venom (poison)," which is bizarre, considering the article itself draws a distinction between venom & poison, & does not regard venoms as a subset of poisons. Ventifax 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Venom can only take effect if its injected into your bloodstream. Poison most be digested for its effect. Why is the article called Venom (poison) anyways? It seems contradictory to me. (I didnt read the article for the record!) 65.34.72.52 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

re Merge Sting (biology)

Venom can come from snakes too, which do not "sting". I say, keep them seperate.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lewk and I would like to add, that in article about venom shall be more likely chemical (and biological) description of the phenomena, more about the poison, the toxins (chemical characteristics and its action). In article about sting - should be more likely the importance and function of this ogan in ekology and biosphere (the importance for that insect, animal, the ways it uses etc.), and simply sting and venom are not the same things, I think. That seems to me that´s quite different point of view, different subject of interest and different article.--Reo On 15:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

see discussion here David Ruben 14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Snake poison"

• Snake poison is rather too long to merge into venom, it should be summarized with a "see main" type link. The Venom page should be renamed to Venom (disambiguation) as the principal meaning of venom is the type of animal poison other meanings are derived from that. The Venom (poison) page should be moved to Venom. Zeimusu | Talk page 12:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "snake poison", unless you mean something that is designed to kill snakes, like "rat poison" is designed to kill rats. I will incorporate this page in 'snake venom', the correct term, after finishing the many corrections it needs, since it is based on an obsolete text that is nearly 100 years old. things have moved a long way since then. anyone more qualified to do so out there is welcome to assist or edit later. ```` harry wilson, PhD

venom - poison rather artificial distinction?

is the distinction between "poison" and "venom" not rather artificial? a spitting cobra spits poison on you, and injects venom when it bites you? --Soloturn99 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, but it still has to get in the eye to do harm. Spitting cobra venom in the mouth or nose (both also very common events, assuming you're wearing goggles and not a full face shield) is quite harmless.

There are two different distinctions which are correlated in nature and tend to divide toxins into two classes. In the producing creature, venoms are sequestered in specialized organs and delivered by specialized anatomy. The producing creature does not need a systemic immunity to its own venom. Poisons are spread throughout the producing creature's tissues, and it needs to be protected from its own poison. Poisons are also generally delivered as part of harm done to the poison producer.

The second distinction is route into the victim. Venoms are injected, while poisons are ingested.

The bumper-sticker simplification is "poison hurts if you bite it; venom hurts if it bites you." While there are a few things that straddle the gap, it's still a useful distinction. The existence of hermaphrodites, transsexuals, and XXY karyotypes does not completely destroy the descriptive power of the male/female dichotomy.

Snake antivenin description is codswallop

The allergic response is rarely generated by good pure antivenin, and not a bar to giving antivenin again; there will just be more troublesome side effects. And developing personal immunity isn't that easy, and often impossible. A human's blood volume, multiplied by the maximum achievable antibody density, is not enough to neutralize some large-volume venoms (e.g. Bitis, Ophiophagus).

Iguanas and Monitors?

I've never read anything whatsoever suggesting that iguanas or monitors of any species possess venom. It is true that Komodo Dragons (Varanus komodoensis) have a toxic culture of microbes in their mouth, but this is actually acquired and not a native trait to the lizard and does not qualify as venom.

Until this claim is verified by a reputable source, I'm removing it from the article as erroneous information. To my knowledge only the two species of heloderms possess venom among lizards. --Lvthn13 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your requested reputable source [here[1]]

That paper states that those lineages (igaunines and monitor lizards) have the venom genes, but they do not have a delivery system (e.g., fang, spine) for the injection of the venom. Additionally, the necessary work for proving that the venom DNA acutally gets transcribed and translated into an actual venom that is somewhere in their body remains untested.

---

The article states that centipedes inject their venom via "fangs". It's my understanding that the venom is injected via modified legs, and as the OED states that "fangs" are mouthparts, does the article need clarifying? 68.228.208.191 (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)