Talk:Inland taipan

Untitled

• About it's range, the first two specimens ever found were much further south, in the Murray basin, in the 19th century. None has ever been seen there since and the species was thought extinct. It was identified again in QLD circa 1950. It had in fact been quite well known to locals who called it a "brown snake" even though it looks nothing like the Australian brown snake. The range found on the map is suspect. I'm pretty sure it is also found further south, into the south-western part of the state.

• I have moved the following: Image:Fiercerange.jpg and have replaced it with a newer image of the distribution (range) of the Fierce Snake. The newer image (Image:Fierce Snake Range.jpg) is far more accurate than the previous one (from books), despite the previous one coming from a more reliable source. --Taipan198 09:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any scientific, as opposed to popular source, references to this snake being the most venomous snake on land. Such claims, once distributed, just run around and suddenly everybody seems to 'know' something that is not actually true.

Well, here's one listing of the most venomous snakes. And here's a page for venomous snakes LD50 values – subcutaneous LD50 value (the lower the value the more potent the venom) seems to be the one that the "most venomous" rankings are based upon. --Anshelm '77 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Europeans introduced rodents less than 250 years ago and Australian snakes have been having a ball ever since. But what did they evolve to eat?

Europeans introduced certain species of rat and mouse. There are several species of rat and mouse that are native to Australia, such as the Pseudomys genus of mouse, to name one. Peter1968 06:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Girth/Diameter

Just because this snake most distinguishing feature is its toxicity it doesn't means this data ain't appropiate... Can anyone turn it up?Undead Herle King (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Venom

I altered the statement that said "The average venom for this fierce snake" because it was potentially misleading. It isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article that the Taipan is a Fierce Snake, and the lack of capitalization makes it seem as if these snakes themselves are "fierce", i.e., "aggressive". --Walkeraj 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fangs

I've removed the statement that: "The Fierce Snake delivers its extremely neurotoxic venom, through a pair of proteroglyphous or hollow fangs that pivot and rest on the buccal floor in the top of the mouth when not in use." That would make it unique among the Elapids, though Vipers (of which Australia has none) have pivoting fangs. I believe this was an error. - AG, Stockport, UK.

Comment. It is not possible to die from an intravenous injection of venom in 2 seconds. To die from intravenous injection the venom has to pass through the circulation to the differnet organs. It takes about 10-20 second for at medical drug to reach from a hand/foot vein to the heart/brain. Then the drug has to penetrate in to the organ. It takes 30-45 second for a muscle relaxant to paralyse a patient in anaesthesia. When totally paralysed there stil is an oxygen reserve that can last up to minutes. So even with momentarial paralysis life is sustained for at least 2 minutes.

Lars Bitsch-Larsen chief aneasthetist Kalundborg Denmark

Question

The article states that "In the case of an intravenous bite, the victim dies in less than two seconds." but later says "there have been no documented human fatalities from the Fierce Snake." So who exactly would the victim be? mice? humans? If no humans have been killed by a bite, how would they know that it takes two seconds to kill you? This seems dubious at best, and needs to clarified and referenced.--168.156.92.92 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"2 Seconds Until Death" claim removed.

Although I'm not a snake expert, I know enough to know the intravenous bite = 2 seconds until death claim was wrong, and since two other people here agree, I decided to remove it. As I understand it, the fastest anyone has died from a venomous snakebite is from a black mamba in about 10 minutes. I would guess that a fierce snake could subdue someone in about that time, but certainly not in 2 seconds. As someone astutely pointed out, the blood travel time back to the heart would be more quite a bit more than that, and if I'm not mistaken, death occurs due to the cessation of breathing. And since there are no recorded human deaths, there's no empirical evidence for how long it takes one to die from a fierce snake bite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.21.235 (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Proper name?

I note that the taipan article refers to this snake as the inland taipan, yet this article uses the capitalized form. Is there a reason to leave it at Inland Taipan, or should it be moved to the non-capitalized spelling? —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Found the answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Archive 1. Looks like it's the project standard to use all caps to avoid collisions between descriptions and names (e.g. brown snake v. Brown Snake). —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What does "NE" mean in the infobox?

It says "Conservation status: NE", but the conservation status article doesn't mention an "NE" classification anywhere. Is it a typo for EN (endangered)? 81.158.2.229 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

NE = "Not evaluated". Two sources confirm this status. [1] [2] Per taxobox instructions, I am blanking this field instead of specifying NE. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said they were timid.

I have been chased by Oxyuranus microlepidotus near Cooper Creek and I can tell you, timid is not a word I would use the describe it. In the daytime they don't show their heads because its too hot but come evening or in the morning keeping a good lookout is a good idea. Euc (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research, the policy is to use published, verifiable information, and not personal experiences. Australia Zoo says they are "very shy and secretive, only willing to bite if threatened"[3], the one that chased you has been misidentified? XLerate (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words you could have been chased, bitten and died, and it would be original research unless someone published about it. 137.111.47.29 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Centralized discussion started on mouse study disclaimer

I've started a discussion—at the WikiProject level, since the issue involves multiple articles—about the disclaimer text that keeps getting added about mouse studies not necessarily applying to venom toxicity in humans. It's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Snakes, relative venom strength, and LD50. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Credible References?

I believe some sources used as references here aren't scientific enough to support those claims of the time between death and evenomation, and the capability of killing 100 full-grown men in a single bite. Many of them are simple news reports only. This animal was exaggerated.

Mice aren't humans and how do we know that we react with the venom in the same way as mice do? The statement about killing 100 men itself isn't scientific. Yes it does be supported by two simple news articles but there're also lots of such websites claiming that 50% mortality rate was caused by krait bites even with anti-venom while no specific species or original medical literature is cited there.

No documented fatality has been caused by this species so how do we know that time between 30-45 minutes is the fastest span between death and envenomation? Yes, it can be estimated from some severely envenomated clinical patients but all in all this is just estimation not real occurrence, unlike those snakebites caused by, say, the black mamba which truly posed rapid fatalities on record. To be a more responsible editor, statements like "it is estimated that..." should be put ahead that span.

By the way, I'm not sure whether the lead of the page should be that long because it's just the introduction and details are there on the corresponding sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.71.181 (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The " 100 full-grown men " is a correct statement and not exaggerated. it is a standard calculation of the known LD50 in mice. 1 bite has the amount and power of venom to kill 218,000 mice. which is equivalent to 100 men. It has 3 WP:RS references citing this, (one of them even mentioning that this is how it's calculated). not news papers.

The "30-45 minutes" can happen in a severe envomation especially if bitten in a bad place. It has 2 very good sources: one from the University of California and the other from the International Programme on Chemical Safety. the two other newpaper references are citing experts in their article that say this. again totally in accordance with WP:RS policy.

On wikipedia the lead should sum up the article for readers. the snake is most notable to the public because of it's number 1 venom power, and many people usually are searching "what is the most venomous snake?" and get incorrect answers (sea snakes, kill you in 5 minutes etc.). the second paragraph makes it clear that even though the Inand taipan venom is outrageously toxic, it is quite a shy snake (though it will try to tag you if you provoke it and not let it escape , see the steve irwin reference with the video) and is not considered the most deadly snake .

This kind of articles will always bring some heated voices, but the mass of legitimate references support everything that's written in the article. 79.183.16.197 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(Same editor as above) - Nevertheless, on second thought i added "It is estimated that" before that line. 79.182.170.31 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article's Lead

It seems an editor keeps coming back to cut a massive amount of the lead for some unknown reason. The lead has been written in accordance to WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.".

The article Lead is summarizing everything from the article with an emphasis on the snakes number 1 outrageous toxic venom among snakes, which is ofc most notable, and Googled by the public 79.183.28.92 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Some unknown reason which I've stated explicitly: one page ought not to contain two copies of the same passage (unless it's very brief). Neither "concise overview" nor "summarize" is a synonym for repeat in every detail.

The comparison to sea snakes is not necessary to establish context or notability.

The inland taipan's mammal specialization is not necessary to establish context or notability.

That its bite can kill 100 full grown men (WOW!!!) is not necessary to establish context or notability.

The speed of lethality is not necessary to establish context or notability.

—Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lead can stand alone as a source of information to the reader as per WP:LEAD . The lead lines are taken from all over the article. emphasis is naturally on it's unusual venom power. 5 lines are taken from the Venom Section's intro. Someone reading the whole article - the venom section is quite in the back so it is repeated for context. it's common practice.

Most importantly : Wikipedia's lead is not an academic journal. it's popular science and should be presented to get the reader interested in the article.WP:LEAD "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article". And it should tackle notable misconceptions and common errors in the public mind (sea snakes {Belcher's}/ 5 min killing time) WP:LEAD "and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies".

٭The comparison to sea snakes is very necessary. Many People think erroneously that sea snakes (Often it's Belcher's sea snake cited) are more toxic than the inland taipan. You can even see a person trying to push this in an edit 5 days ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inland_taipan&diff=580815759&oldid=580814224 the dude even tried to shamelessly counterfeit an existing scientific reference. (probably another common teen who just uploaded his erroneous "deadly snake" list to Youtube). This is backed by the Twice cited expert (Fry) reference [17] about this misconception.

٭The mammal specialization is quite unique and not something common among snakes. 2 references. and it's in context to the line following it.

٭The "100 men" is part of describing it's venom power to the layperson.

٭Speed of lethality - if you do a little web search you find erroneous quotes of "kill you in 5 minutes" etc. And also same as above. emphasis of the snake's most notable attribute - it's powerful venom.79.181.172.47 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "by far the most toxic of any snake in the world" suffices to describe its venom power to the layman; "100 men" doesn't add much to that, in my humble opinion.

You quoted: "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article." To me, that implies consideration to not disappointing that interest by repeating (verbatim!) what has already been read.

It is not the lead section's job to answer every common question or preëmpt every misconception. If readers find something in the lead that contradicts what they think they know, they will look to the relevant section for an explanation. If they don't find something in the lead that they want to know, they will look to the relevant section for further detail.

But maybe I've been thinking all wrong. Why have sections at all? Every sentence in the article is presumably information that somebody wants to know (else it shouldn't be there), so let's put it all in the lead to be safe! That way, readers who read only the lead will be sure of finding all the info they seek!

By the way, two citations to Fry are not stronger than one. —Tamfang (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I highly agree with the above user. The lead here is too long with many insignificant details that have already appeared on the corresponding sections (what's the use of those sections otherwise?). The introduction of an article is to tell the main ideas of the following parts so as to give readers a brief concept. Most other snake articles, including the black mamba and the coastal taipan, don't have their "killing span" or the "man-killing capacity" displayed at the first scene and I doubt that the "100 man killing" capability is a scientific statement since we aren't rodents and it's controversial (Venomous Snakes Of the World mentions a number of 46 men as estimated from its LD₅₀ only). —Biomedicinal (talk) 15:52, 2013-11-27 (UTC)

Completely agree with Tamfang and Biomedicinal, there is way too much emphasis on its "toxicity" - how many mentions of the inland taipan being the snake species which possesses the most lethal venom on laboratory mice? Too much emphasis on the hype, but in reality, not a single death has been attributed to this species. Also, where does the death time of 30-45 minutes come from? Black mambas, as a matter of fact, kill their victims the quickest and the most rapid death time attributed to a black mamba envenomation has been 20 minutes. A lot of 30-60 minute case studies, some up to 3-6 hours. As I mentioned before, black mambas kill mice in 4.5 minutes, the fastest time of any snake. Second is the coastal taipan at 7-8 minutes. So how can it be that an inland taipans kill people in 30-45 minutes? --DendroNaja (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Murine LD₅₀ issue and the "30-45 minutes" from bite to death

There is an IP user who is using 2 or 3 different IP addresses (User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.180.177.93, and User talk:109.65.137.240) to remove sourced material, violating 3RR, and avoiding discussion of the matter/issue here on the talk page. The fact is, the inland taipan has the most toxic snake venom at 0.025 mg/kg (Australian venom and toxin database) and (Brown, 1973) and 0.01 mg/kg (Ernst & Zug et al. 1996). These figures were obtained by testing the crude venom of the inland taipan on laboratory mice (via subcutaneous injection). According to Brown, 1973 (Brown, JH (1973). Toxicology and Pharmacology of Venoms from Poisonous Snakes. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. p. 184. ISBN 0-398-02808-7), when crude venom of the inland taipan was tested on primate subjects (Macaque monkeys), the snake did not produce the most toxic venom, like how it did when crude venom was tested on mice. Results of the subcutaneous injections given to adult Macaque monkeys showed that the black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) was the most toxic snake tested. The coastal taipan (Oxyuranus scutellatus scutellatus) and the many-banded krait (Bungarus multicinctus) produced second and third most toxic LD₅₀ results, respectively. The inland taipan's LD₅₀ on mice is 0.025 mg/kg, for the black mamba the LD₅₀ on mice is 0.05 mg/kg, for the many-banded krait it's 0.09 mg/kg, for the coastal taipan it's 0.099 mg/kg (Ernst & Zug et al. list coastal taipan at 0.106 mg/kg) - all by SC injection and all on mice. The venom of the inland taipan is deadlier to mice than the other snakes mentioned. Now let's go back to the Macaque monkeys - subcutaneous injections produced LD₅₀ values of 0.47 mg/kg for the inland taipan venom, 1.04 mg/kg for Indian cobra, 1.31 mg/kg for Monocled cobra, 0.28 mg/kg for many-banded krait, 0.24 mg/kg for coastal taipan, and 0.11 mg/kg for the black mamba (Brown, 1973). So it is imperative that we clearly state what the test subject(s) were that gave us the data we have on venom LD₅₀ values for all species, not just the inland taipan. Another issue is the statement that a bite from the inland snake kills in 30-45 minutes. Exactly what study or research paper discusses this "30-45 minutes" death time post-envenomation? Since we don't even have a record of a fatality caused by this species, how would anyone know how long it takes for a human to die after envenomation by the inland taipan? The snake species which kills laboratory mice the quickest is the black mamba. The venom of the black mamba can kill a lab mouse 4.5 minutes post-envenomation, the shortest time among all known venomous snakes Snake venom toxins. The second quickest time for a mouse to die by envenomation was between 7-8 minutes, by the coastal taipan. So, there is a lot more here than just the median lethal dose on mice. For example, venom toxicity and composition can vary tremendously, even among specimens from the same species, factors associated with health of the snake (fangs intact? when was venom apparatus used last? etc), psychological state and physical stature/age/health of person bitten, some venoms are more rapid-acting than others, and on and on and on. --DendroNaja (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor you're talking about. i have edited most of this article in the past few months (the article had just 8 references when i started). The question of "what snake is the most venomous? brings a lot of heated and subjective preferences, out of reptile fans. You seem to be a Black mamba lover - i get it. For that very reason, i have added no few than 12 major and authoritative references citing the inland taipan as "the most venomous snake in the world" period. Even the most authoritative figure Dr. Bryan Fry was asked ""Q: In retrospect to the LD50 charts, what do you personally feel is the hottest snake, in regards to potency, defensiveness, means of injection, etc.? A: It is the inland taipan (Oxyuranus microlepidotus). Not, as is popularised, any of the sea snakes." (reference 19). Wikipedia goes by scientific consensus which has been thoroughly established. Further more every other statement is backed by multiple reliable sources.109.65.137.240 (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You are also quoting mixed information : inland taipan LD50 SC is 0.025 mg/kg (in saline) and 0.01mg/kg (in bovine serum albumin). the 0.05mg/kg for the Black mamba cited is in bovine serum albumin. I also doubt Brown cited the inland taipan in his 1973 book, since the first live inland taipans were only captured in September 1972. would like to read that paragraph in his book109.65.137.240 (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a "fan" as you called yourself, I actually hold a two Bachelors of Science degrees - one in Biology and another in medical laboratory science (with specialities in toxinology, zoology and herpetology), with a minor in Psychology. I worked in a zoo hospital laboratory for five years. I worked with all sorts of snake species, both venomous and non-venomous. I've worked with most Crotalus species, all Naja species (except N. mandalayensis, N. ashei, N. sagittifera, N. christyi, and N. senegalensis), I've also done work on venom composition variations from countless species, and although I've never handled any taipans or mambas, I have worked with their venoms in a laboratory setting. And I am fond of the mambas in general, due to their agility, elegance, speed and the black mamba's "psychopathic personality disorder" (a joke amongst those who have to handle them). But I love all snakes. I am not some "fan", I'm a professional in the field. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you still have much to learn. Venom LD₅₀ data derived through subcutaneous injection of crude venom from various species seems to vary depending on what toxinological study being conducted by whom. It is generally agreed, and Brown, 1973 concurred, that the tests on the Macaque monkeys were of far more value than any research done on rodents. Due to various factors, including untreated fatality rate, speed of death time (lowest among all venomous snakes), and the rapid progression of severe systemic symptoms that is often seen in black mamba envenomation, I am of the opinion that Dendroaspis polylepis is likely the most lethal to humans. This is not just my opinion, but numerous esteemed herpetologists believe that the venom of the black mamba, which is both a pre-synaptic neurotoxin (dendrotoxins) and a post-synaptic neurotoxin (α, β, γ and δ) and add the fasciculins, cardiotoxins, and calciseptine, along with the very low molecular weight of the venom (both non-toxic and toxic components are low weight molecules), along with the disturbingly high activity in terms of hyaluronidases and combined with its toxicity, the black mamba is a unique snake that cannot be matched on these grounds. The closest to a match is the coastal taipan (Oxyuranus scutellatus). --DendroNaja (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually knowing what you are talking about is not an asset on wiki! "Most Venomous" "Most Deadly" are highly inflammatory topics. I have had the exact same debate years ago, perhaps on the wrong side. The fact that you have LD₅₀ data on monkeys changes the whole story. I was not aware that this had been done (ethics for monkeys being somewhat more difficult than for mice), and the conjecture in the previous argument that the taipan venom was specialised for rodents so not necessarily as potent on humans (or other mammals) could not be backed up. That would still be original research (unless a specific source could be found), but I completely agree that LD₅₀ for monkeys should outweigh that for mice every time. Assuming that the test has been performed across enough representative species for a comparison to be meaningful. The problem is that LD₅₀ for mice is easy to do and to find (much cheaper I would imagine), so if only a subset of snakes have been used to murder monkeys, then it's hard to use for comparison of toxicity. Still it is very interesting that it's not comparable between the species, and I have to agree that there is a likely "rodent" bias in snake venom (due to it being their primary food source), and so rodents are a particularly poor choice for an LD₅₀. Perhaps feral cats? This is Australia after all. Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, It sounds like DendroNaja is a bad man. Still I feel as though the LD₅₀ for mice vs other animals has not been resolved. If there exists a true reference to toxicity that is representative of the majority of snakes that is not rodent based, then surely this should have supremacy. Whether or not DendroNaja is a psychopathic manipulative pathological liar, I want to know the truth! Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article needs an overhaul. Too much information on venom, but very little on behavior, habitat, conservation, physiology, etc. A lot of the references are zoos, museums, blogs, newspaper articles, and not much peer-reviewed journalistic work. --DendroNaja (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation problems

The this article is in violating WP:CITEKILL. An IP user using more than one IP address is responsible for this mess. The IPs being used are User talk:79.179.166.212, User talk:79.180.177.93, and User talk:109.65.137.240. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is not violating anything. You are just very unhappy that the Scientific consensus does not go along your personal beliefs. Furthermore - your repeated spiteful edit on December 22 makes you a vandal. 79.179.166.212 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal beliefs? Are you a child or something? The article is clearly in violation of WP:CITEKILL. That is not vandalism, that is following Wikipedia policy regarding citations. Go read the Wikipedia policies regarding citations please. Be informed about Wiki policies and guidelines before you decide to destroy an article. There are copyright violations throughout the article as well. When I have more time, I will use the duplicate detector to find all it and point out all the copyright violations you have committed. I've already done a bit of looking into it, but I will do a thorough search to bring all of it to light. --DendroNaja (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

LD₅₀ measurements

According to this paper, the studies which Ernst & Zug (1996) conducted on the median lethal dose (LD50) of almost every single medically important species of snake is more accurate than what was reported by the Australian Venom and Toxin Database (AVTD). The utilisation of 0.1% bovine albumin has proven to produce consistent results over and over again. Saline used as a diluent produced vastly differing toxicity ratings in studies conducted not just by the Australian Venom and Toxin Database, but by Spawls & Branch, Shermin A. Minton, and even Brown. For example, Naja nivea has a 0.72 mg/kg via subcutis according to the AVTD, while Brown lists a value of 0.4 mg/kg subcutis. Brown administered doses of a multitude of venomous snakes in the same species of mice of the same weight - and guess what? He got such varying results that he couldn't list a single approximate LD50 value for any of the species he used as part of the study. He listed all the wildly varying values in his work. It is generally now accepted among the herpetological community at large that 0.1% bovine albumin is what should be used in such toxinology research as the results of the testing is consistent and not wildly ranging in its results. The N. nivea example is nothing compared to some of the other results obtained for a bunch of different species. And on a side note, the paper mentions one positive inland taipan envenomation in which the victim received absolutely no medical attention and road out the bite. This would be impossible in a case of a coastal taipan or black mamba envenomation. Heck, most of the krait species would have sent him to his grave. I think the inland taipan, for all the hype that comes with its murine LD50, produces a serious but often non-fatal bite. It isn't unheard of, the king cobra for all its size and quantity of venom it produces in a bite (up to 1000 mg) has a very low mortality rate, depending on what epidemiological study you look up. The same is true of the eastern brown snake. High toxicity does not equal high lethality. The facts is that the vast majority of venomous snakes do not cause a significant mortality rate aside from the black mamba, coastal taipan and many of the krait species. A couple of the Naja species, particularly the Caspian cobra (Naja oxiana) and the Forest cobra (Naja melanoleuca) do produce high mortality rates, however. The Inland taipan article has turned into a piece about how it is the most venomous snake species in the world - the entire article is hyper-focused on that one issue. In my opinion, it needs an overhaul and it needs to be much more broad in its coverage and far less biased. Many of the sources referenced are magazines, newspaper articles, etc. That's in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:POV), especially for an article that falls under the science and medicine umbrella. --DendroNaja (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The inland taipan article in the Venom section does list both Saline LD50 (0.025 mg/kg) and bovine albumin LD50 (0.01 mg/kg) results. what is the problem ?

"This would be impossible in a case of a... black mamba envenomation." really ? 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).

I understand you love the black mamba snake (i saw you edited a lot of it) but wanting to corrupt other articles just to elevate your favorite snake won't do here. The Inland taipan article has multiple Authoritative WP:RS sources and secondary sources citing experts all telling the same thing. The article is solid. 79.179.166.212 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but here is where you are wrong. I do very much like the genus Dendroaspis for their very unique nature among elapids in general - their speed, aggression and their morphology. They are the most advanced genus, and D. polylepis is considered to be the most advanced venomous species in the world due to the morphology of their maxilla, the positioning and length of their fangs, and due to their semi-movable fangs (unlike the rest of the elapids who have fixed fangs). They are so advanced, Dr. Alfred Romer split them into their own subfamily: Dendroaspinae. This was rejected later because the distinction of the maxilla, palatine and fang positioning was not sufficient phylogenetic evidence to warrant a subfamilial classification, so it remains under Elapinae till today. But this has nothing to do with mambas or me, and everything to do with the article of the Inland taipan. I, unlike you, am not some sort of fanatic who is "wanting to corrupt other articles just to elevate your favorite snake..." I am actually a graduate of university with a double major - Biology and Medical Laboratory Science. I focused my elective courses on zoology, palaeontology and ecology. In my Medical lab. science major, I focused on histology, pathology and toxicology. I have worked with snake species of all kinds, venomous and non-venomous. I've had training in handling them and I've around 140 different technical/highly scientific based books on all snakes, though probably three quarters of them are on venomous species. In addition, I have access to a multitude of journalistic work and publications, not just online, but in actual paper. I am a snake enthusiast, a medical laboratory technologist, and a naturalist. I look at the facts and I stick with them, I don't veer into the world of fantasy, but I'm human, I will have my own biases - however, that would never effect my editing on Wikipedia. The article is in violation of the following: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:POV, WP:SYN, WP:CITEKILL and plemty of WP:CV. If you can't see where you have violated these policies and guidelines, then you shouldn't even be editing on Wikipedia at all. I am not going to bother any longer, as you refuse to engage in discussion in an adult and appropriate fashion and you continue to revert all edits any other user makes to the article, even when referenced with a high-quality and verifiable source. You are also acting like you own this article, which is behaviour that comes with zero-tolerance amongst admins. For these reasons, I am not only going to request a lengthy time of protection for this article, but I am also going to report you. And as to the man who you point out survived a black mamba bite, well what was the level of severity of the bite? No details are given as to the nature of the bite and the bite wound (appearance, localized effects, etc). Fact is, without treatment with antivenom serum, you will die everytime if you are bitten by a black mamba. That is a fact that has been well known and documented in countless peer-reviewed articles in all sorts of journals. But this is not what I am trying to discuss here. I am trying to discuss the quality of this article, one which people across the globe can read. If someone sees one inaccurate thing on a Wikipedia article, they will assume that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. I strive for reliability, not nonsense. --DendroNaja (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Mark, is that the IP user we are dealing with is not well versed about the subject he's editing. In my opinion, we are dealing with nothing more than a younger individual who has a fixed imaginary/fantasy vision of what the Inland taipan should be, rather than focus on what it is by being unbiased and objective. His poor writing and his poor reading comprehension lead me to make use of duplicate detector and he is in violation of WP:CV. Numerous other Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been violated by this IP user over and over again. Warnings didn't stop him. When we try to edit to fix some of these problems he quickly reverts them. He is not willing to comply with anything nor is he willing to work with me (and other editors who have seemingly given up) in improving the article. He is an obsessed/fanatic. I and some of the other editors have degrees on the very subject matter - but he refuses to allow us to edit. In my opinion, he simply needs to be given an indefinite block. --DendroNaja (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it does seem like consensus is against the IP instead of an even content dispute as I first thought. I'd changed it to semi-protected for one month. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Major copyright violations made by IP user

• Duplicate detector
• Duplicate detector
• Duplicate detector
• Duplicator detector
• Duplicate detector

And that is after only a brief search, anyone else can find more copyright violations? This article is almost entirely plagiarized. --DendroNaja (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa I think you should consider taking another look at those reports. There is no actual indication that there was a single copyright violation. The duplicator reports match simple identical word patterns and these reports are flagging things like the snakes' scientific names (such as "inland taipan oxyuranus") and common and partial word phrases (like "land snake in the world"). These reports track common word combinations, and alarm bells should only really go off if those combinations are six words or more, or if the phrases are noticeably unique and non-technical. Copyright is serious, but there's no cited evidence anything was ever actually in violation here. I think contributions have been removed based on battlegrounding accusations with nothing of substance behind them. What do you think? My apologies. I see that the reports were comparing the pages with the updated page. My fault for not noticing that the reports weren't the same ones that you saw. Happy editing.... __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elaqueate. It's possible to still observe the comparison by plugging the url for an old revision into the duplication detector. For example, This source has sequences of 156 words, 64 words, 56 words, 31 words, 29 words, 23 words, 17 words, 16 words, 11 words, and smaller segments in common with revision 589067273 of the article (72 segments of varying length altogether). This article has 79 matches of varying length from 54 words down to 2 words. The other two sources I did not check as closely, as those first two alone are enough to justify rolling back the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I ended up doing, after I realized where I could have been incorrect. (I've seen these reports misused over three-word-similarities before and was oversensitive to the possibility they were again. But I'll certainly be more thoughtful about interpreting them myself, in the future.) Thanks for keeping an eye on it! __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole article was reverted Carte blanche, and a lot of information there does not violate copyright. I am starting to retrieve the parts that are legit according to policies mentioned above.. LarryTheShark (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I was a new editor and made the copyright violations in ignorance, and good faith, thinking that putting on wikipedia with references is ok (for the good of humankind etc). Now that i have been explained that this is in fact a copy-write violation I do not plan or want to repeat this error. The main editor that attacked me and has given me a false reputation of a 'vandal' and a 'disruptive editor', has been gaming the system and admins on this article (and elsewhere), but was finally exposed and dealt with, after i reported on him: Due to an ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor_in_Snake_articles., User:DendroNaja has been banned indefinitely (for the 5th time) he has a long history of misrepresentation and misinformation "for long-standing abuse of editing privileges, including insidious vandalism, misrepresentation of references, and abusing multiple accounts. " (quote from his original banned account talk page). There is not need to lock the Inland taipan article. Thank you 79.178.152.192 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Two fixes in the article

A wrong wiki hyperlink has occurred due to the creation of a new sub-page in the target article.

Before the last sentence in the lead ,(hyper link is in bold): "therefore it is not considered the most deadly snake in the world overall, especially in terms of disposition and human deaths per year.[27] "

Should be hyper linked to this article now : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dangerous_snakes ([List_of_dangerous_snakes|most deadly snake in the world])

It was just moved from the snakebite article (Sankebites#Cause) into this new subpage/article.

The description in the lead (second line), "is a highly venomous snake" should be "is an extremely venomous snake". It is the most venomous snake in the world, and other very venomous snakes, but still much less venomous than the inland taipan are described as "highly" e.g. black mamba. examples of WP:RS that describe its venom as "extreme" : "The Inland Taipan is extremely venomous," http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/infosheets/snakes-found-in-victoria/inland-taipan/

"this extremely venomous and dangerous snake" http://toxicology.ucsd.edu/Snakebite%20Protocols/Oxyura~1.htm

Thank you 79.180.52.85 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done , though the "extremely" change may be undone. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction needed

"Private ownership law

In Australia, owning an inland taipan requires a Class 2, Category 3 [R5] License (the highest possible).[59]"

Except the cited link is for NSW. Every state has their own laws regarding reptiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.140.154 (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Inland taipan. 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/20131022215756/http://science.org.au/scientists/interviews/f/fry.html to http://science.org.au/scientists/interviews/f/fry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017041923/http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1212&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=inland+taipan&start=0 to http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1212&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=inland+taipan&start=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015165718/http://www.connectedbypets.com/articles/BGF.html to http://www.connectedbypets.com/articles/BGF.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017041923/http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1212&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=inland+taipan&start=0 to http://www.venomdoc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1212&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=inland+taipan&start=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929220811/http://www.reptilepark.com.au/animals.asp?catID=16&ID=112 to http://www.reptilepark.com.au/animals.asp?catID=16&ID=112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929220811/http://www.reptilepark.com.au/animals.asp?catID=16&ID=112 to http://www.reptilepark.com.au/animals.asp?catID=16&ID=112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929220811/http://www.reptilepark.com.au/animals.asp?catID=16&ID=112 to http://www.reptilepark.com.au/animals.asp?catID=16&ID=112

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is "specimens" wiktionaried?

I understand that it's not the most common word, by any stretch, but it's far from obscure, and it doesn't seem to be used in any particularly niche manner that would warrant a link to its wiktionary page. I would have just un-linked it myself, but I didn't want that edit to be considered vandalism, and I also thought that there might be some reason the link was added that I missed.Crossark (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy out of date

The Taxonomy section is out of date. There are in fact 3 taipan species - not 2. The Central Ranges Taipan was discovered & described in 2007 & has its own Wiki article. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Snakebite Victims.

This section needs updating. There have been more recent victims. I am only going to paste the links, as I dont feel confident in doing an article update as I am not an expert on the subject.

Eli Campbell https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/boy-clings-to-life-after-snake-bite/news-story/7e4ea65cd074e490a3c50e61543f759d https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-03/central-queensland-boy-bitten-by-snake-fights-for-life/7898734 https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/snake-bite-boy-will-need-care-for-the-rest-of-his-life-20161010-gryoju.html

Ryan Cole https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/teen-boy-survives-snake-bit--twice-in-a-year/news-story/024e15aebd1ec17a7d46939c01fcb0d2 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1097938/Teenager-survives-brush-deadly-snake--thanks-quick-thinking-friends.html 2001:8003:E40F:9601:5CA6:A644:7B2D:B738 (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A man in Florence, SC was bitten in September 2024 by his pet Inland Taipan. He remains hospitalized and on a ventilator. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:6D34:2A84:EF0:D6BE (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)