Anyone else hear about this?

[Lindze]

I was in a chat and someone told me about this. Another kick in the butt for herpers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/chi-0501120293jan12,1,6455762.story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[Dr. Bryan Fry]

Can you post the text here? The site requires registration and I loath registering.

Fangs ;-)
Bryan

[BoidKeeper]

Here you go Dr. Fry,
State bags poisonous snake seller, officials say

By Lolly Bowean
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 12, 2005


Caught in a sting, a Lake Zurich man was arrested last month after he tried to sell two poisonous copperhead snakes and a puff adder for $300 to undercover authorities in the parking lot of the Gurnee Mills mall, authorities said Tuesday.

Authorities found nine more poisonous snakes in the home of Kenneth R. Jaros, 23, who was charged with possession of dangerous animals, said Sgt. Scott Siddens of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Jaros also was charged with commercialization of state resources, in this case the unauthorized sale of the reptiles, authorities said. Both charges are misdemeanors.

"There are people throughout the country who are enthusiasts of reptiles," Siddens said. "Some people steer off into the venomous snakes. If they do, there are laws they have to comply with."

Authorities learned about Jaros through an Internet site, where he was trying to sell poisonous snakes, Siddens said.

Department of Natural Resources officials posed as buyers and arrested Jaros on Dec. 16 after he turned over the snakes in the parking lot, Siddens said. Gurnee police helped with the arrest.

It is illegal to own or sell a poisonous snake in Illinois without a U.S. Department of Agriculture permit, Siddens said. Snakes also are regulated under the Illinois Dangerous Animals Act.

A copperhead can be up to 3 feet long, is reddish or copper in color and isn't considered aggressive, officials said. A puff adder, common in Africa, can be yellow, gray and brown and up to 6 feet long. Both snakes possess a deadly venom.

Authorities don't know where Jaros got the reptiles, Siddens said.

"He had them in cages," Siddens said. "The gentleman was very cooperative in turning them over so we could get them to the appropriate people's hands to care for them."

In his home, authorities found two rhino vipers, two West African gaboon vipers and five eyelash vipers, Siddens said.

Jaros couldn't be reached for comment.

In recent years, the Natural Resources Department has arrested several people for illegally owning poisonous snakes, Siddens said.

"We don't make a dozen arrests a year based on these things," he said. "But there is a market out there, albeit an underground market, for people who collect venomous snakes."

The confiscated snakes were turned over to an agency that Siddens declined to identify.

Jaros, released on a signature bond, could face up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine if convicted. He is scheduled to return to court March 2.


Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

PS
I loved the episods of Snake Wranglers with you and the wife in them. Very exiciting stuff.
Cheers,
Trevor

[ChurleR]

"But there is a market out there, albeit an underground market, for people who collect venomous snakes."

...........

This article is basicly insulting throughout of people who tend to "veer towards" hots. Responsible keepers usually aren't people who carry the "OmG VENOm R k00l!" mentality... they're either in love, bent on scientific study, or a mixture of the two.

[SerpentLust]

*smirk* I've never heard of a 'poisonous' copperhead before. Are they more or less deadly than the regular venomous ones? Ok sorry bad joke.

Anyways, at least they didn't completely bash the reptile enthusiasts. I've seen much worse...but also much better too

Jenn

[marisa]

Poisonous and venemous are actually the same thing accourding to most dictionaries. R M Bolton was kind enough to point that out before. :D :D :D
5 entries found for poisonous.
poi·son·ous Audio pronunciation of "poisonous" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (poiz-ns)
adj.

1. Capable of harming or killing by or as if by poison; toxic or venomous.
2. Containing a poison.
3. Marked by apparent ill will: “poisonous hate... in his eyes” (Ernest Hemingway).

--------------------------------------------

:D :D

Marisa

[loveispretend]

SOunds like that particular herper needed a kick in the butt.

[Gregg M]

Poison needs to be injested or absorbed through the skin or mucus membranes......

Venom needs to be injected or put directly into the blood stream in order for it to be effective......

The delivery system and type of toxin, is what classifies an animal as venomous or poisonous......

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Gregg M
Poison needs to be injested or absorbed through the skin or mucus membranes......
Not true. A poison (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=poison) is simply a substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. The definition carries with it no connotations specifying mechanism of delivery.

Originally posted by Gregg M
Venom needs to be injected or put directly into the blood stream in order for it to be effective......
Not quite true. Venom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=venom) is simply a poisonous secretion of an animal, such as a snake, spider, or scorpion, usually transmitted by a bite or sting; a poison. Note the use of the words poisonous and poison in the definition of venom.

Originally posted by Gregg M
The delivery system and type of toxin, is what classifies an animal as venomous or poisonous......

It's all about semantics and there's too much overlap in the definitions for it to be as cut and dry as you've lain out. What you've stated is what most people believe to be the difference between the two words, when in reality there is no difference. A dart frog can be regarded as venomous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=venomous) (note the synonym poisonous, which is really all that needs to be said) because it is an animal that secretes and transmits a poison/venom (as per the definition) and a Gaboon viper can be regarded as poisonous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=poisonous) (note the use of the word venomous in the definition) because it contains a poison capable of harming or killing (as per the definition).

For all intents and purposes, venom/poison and venomous/poisonous are correctly interchangeable.
Ryan

[Gregg M]

You can not be evenomated by a poison dart frog...... They do not even produce their own toxins.... Like I said there is a differance and the two should not be interchanged..... If you go by the dictionary, the two are the same but when you talk about animals they are not...... To be envenomated, it has to enter the blood sream directly..... ie; sting, fang, grooved tooth. barb...... You will not be envenomated if you rub snake venom on your skin or ingest snake venom..... Unless ofcorse you have an open wound on your shin or in your digestive tract..... I feel that the dictionary should be revamped because the delivery system has everything to do with an animal being venomous or poisonous.....
Give me one example of where it is overlapping in any situation...... It is pretty cut and dry......

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Gregg M
You can not be evenomated by a poison dart frog......
I think you just made up another word.

[Gregg M]

LOL.... I do that from time to time.... Atleast I know you actually read what I write........ What I ment to write was envenomated

[Dr. Bryan Fry]

Hi RMBolton,

Actually, there is a very clear difference between poison and venom. It has to due with the mode of delivery. A poison is a toxin that exerts its effects through absorption or ingestion while a venom is a toxin that is delivered through the dermal layers via a specialised delivery mechanism. So examples of poisonous animals would be poison dart frogs (absorption) or pufferfish (ingestion). Examples of venomous would include scorpions (stinger), blue-ringed octopus (beak), stonefish (dorsal spines) and snakes (fangs).

Sometimes the same toxin may be used in a poison or a venom. Tetrodotoxin for example is one of the major toxins in poison dart frog and puffer fish poison but it is also the dominant toxin in blue-ringed octopus venom. So, a blue-ringed octopus could also be considered as a poisonous animal if someone barbequed it up and ate it. They would then have the same effects as happens to the clueless tourists here in Australia who routinely get stuck in the hospital after eating pufferfish. They should have known not to eat it simply because anything that looks that ugly can't be good for you! Natural selection at work ;-)

Cheers
Bryan

[Removed_2815]

oops

[Dr. Bryan Fry]

Venom and poison are not synonymous and dictionaries that make them such are over simplifying things and the dictionaries are incorrect in this case. The mode of natural delivery is of paramount importance. Linguists who argue otherwise obviously have little understanding of biology.

Out of curiousity, why would you state spiderlings are poisonous and adults being venomous? Spiderlings are venomous in that they have fully functioning venom glands and fangs and deliver the toxins via this apparatus.

Cheers
Bryan

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Dr. Bryan Fry
Linguists who argue otherwise obviously have little understanding of biology.

I think that was one of my main points in the post; but I wouldn't begin to claim my discipline to be superior, as words are supposed to be universal (within the particular language).

Originally posted by Dr. Bryan Fry
Out of curiousity, why would you state spiderlings are poisonous and adults being venomous? Spiderlings are venomous in that they have fully functioning venom glands and fangs and deliver the toxins via this apparatus.


The talk was not in a purely biological context, as I had members with many different backgrounds. This was for a study that I had done in undergrad, and my use of the words poisonous and venomous and the distinction between newly hatched spiderlings and adults was in relation to the danger to people. How spiderlings would more be considered poisonous to a person and adults would be considered venomous, as there is no danger with your definition of venomous when the spider has just hatched, however, ingesting a handful of them might better fit your definition of poisonous.

Cheers,
Ryan

[Dr. Bryan Fry]

>no danger with your definition of venomous when the spider has just hatched

Venomous has nothing to do with relative danger. A bite does not have to be lethal to be considered venomous. I certainly wouldn't want to be bit by an Australian funnel web spider of any size.

>ingesting a handful of them might better fit your definition of poisonous

Nope. The spider toxins are predominantly peptides, which would be digested quite readily by stomach enzymes and would have no toxic effect. This is part of the biochemical distinction between poison and venoms. The toxins in poisons are invariably small organic molecules while the toxins in venoms are almost always peptides and proteins (the blue-ringed octopus is one of the exceptions, it also doesn't produce the toxins itself, symbiotic bacteria do that for it).

Cheers
Bryan

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Dr. Bryan Fry

Venomous has nothing to do with relative danger. A bite does not have to be lethal to be considered venomous. I certainly wouldn't want to be bit by an Australian funnel web spider of any size.
I didn't state otherwise. I was under the impression that newly hatched Black Widows are incapable of delivering the toxin through the dermal layers of a human, has this been proven otherwise? I thought the sheer mechanics of it would make this an impossibility (length of fangs compared to dermal depth).

Originally posted by Dr. Bryan Fry
Nope. The spider toxins are predominantly peptides, which would be digested quite readily by stomach enzymes and would have no toxic effect.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to suggest that the spider's venom is dangerous if ingested, but rather a secondary metabolite that the spiderlings possess within their bodies.
I realize that the gastric environment of a human would denature these venom peptides in small enough quantities but again I was under the impression that animals (mammalian or otherwise) have become ill from ingesting Black Widow spiderlings and egg sacs. Unless I am very much mistaken I recall this being looked at with a bird species???

Anyway, I only jumped in on this discussion because Marisa had mentioned my name and I wanted to discuss the semantics a little bit, as these arguments are usually the most interesting - as this one has proven to be!

Cheers,
Ryan

[Dr. Bryan Fry]

Hi mate

Whether or not a hatchling spider is able to go through our skin is irrelevant as to whether or not its venomous (just ask the insect its feeding on). Most hatchlings of course would be of no danger to us.

I'm not aware of animals becoming ill after digesting spider egg sacs or hatchlings but there might be a reaction to the free amines or some of the organic molecules present. Not sure about this.

With the venom/poison distinction, its not really a matter of semantics but rather one of biochemistry. ;-)

Its an interesting thread indeed. Thanks for the contributions.

All the best
Bryan

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Dr. Bryan Fry
Most hatchlings of course would be of no danger to us.

This was why I'd made the distinction in my talk, in order to assuage any fears of me being "envenomated" (that one's for you Gregg ;)) during transfer of the spiderlings. I had remarked that to a human, it might not be entirely correct to say that the spiderling is capable of injecting a toxin through the dermal layer.
Anyway, like I'd mentioned, I am more careful when I make a distinction between the words - depending on if I'm in the company of fellow biologists or nitpicky linguistic people.
Take care Bryan...
Fangs for the discussion ;)

Ryan

[Gregg M]

Yeah well, there are not many nit picky linguist around here..... It is obvious that I am not one...... LOL..... Anyway, this is a great discussion indeed...... Ryan, what would you call someone that was envenomated if there is no such word????

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Gregg M
Ryan, what would you call someone that was envenomated if there is no such word????
See the edited post on page 1 (marked *edit:).

[Removed_2815]

Actually, some of the older literature refers to the word "envenom" as to taint or fill with poison, which might be applicable. However, the modern definition for "envenom" is to make poisonous or noxious, which doesn't really work.
See the edited post on page 1 (marked *edit:).
Ryan

[Andy_G]

I think I get the difference between the two but what if poison enters an open wound...would the individual be considered "poisoned" or "envenomated"?

[Dr. Bryan Fry]

"Envenomated" is a standard term used in toxinological literature so it counts as a 'real word'.

As for a poison entering an open wound, thats an artificial situation so the distinction is lost. The difference between the two has to do with the natural state use by the animal.

Cheers
Bryan

[marisa]

Ha! Sorry guys. :D I couldn't help myself. When RMBolton first brought it up as he mentioned, it was definitly interesting and stuck in my memory which is why I brought it up again, crediting him of course.

This has been a very interesting read though!

Marisa

[JimmyDavid]

In front of me, i have a little book right now, called VENOMOUS ANIMALS (by Edmund D. Brodie, Jr).
Let me quote : "In general terms, venom refers to a substance used by one animal to cause injury or death to another. More narrowly, venom refers to substances delivered either by biting or by stinging. These animals are referred to as actively venomous. Actively venomous animals have a venom apparatus-a means for dispensing their venom into other animals.
In contrast, passively venomous animals are those with secretions that affect other animals when eaten. These animals are usually referred to as poisonous."

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Dr. Bryan Fry
"Envenomated" is a standard term used in toxinological literature so it counts as a 'real word'.

Agreed, see the edited post on page 1 (marked *edit:).

[Gregg M]

Hey Jimmy,
How have you been bro???? Good to see you.....

[Gregg M]

Ryan, I would never mock a fellow snake keeper for an honest mistake..... Plus you have a bunch of usefull info I will most likely need one day....LOL..... Thanks for doing the research.....

[KLiK]

very interesting topic

[jtpRUGGER]

Of course I would find this thread when I've loaned out my most current medical dictionary. All the same, I will offer my $.02 for what it's worth.

I think the distinction Ryan was making deals with the way herpers and other zoologically inclined individuals adamantly correct lay people for using the words venomous and poisonous interchangably. I was guilty of this myself, getting into many arguments with biochemistry professors during my first year of medical school. As I have found, in the arena of human medicine, it is rare for any such distinction between the two words to be made. As with other dictionaries, medical dictionaries consider the words synonymous. I have found when discussing topics relating to venomous reptiles with veterinarians, they are much more likely to put emphasis on the distinction between the two terms than are human physicians.

While I am no lexicographer, I can understand the importance of making the distinction. However, I can also understand that there are circles, both academic and non-academic, that consider the words venomous and poisonous to be interchangable. After years of 'correcting' people when they ask if my snakes are 'poisonous', I have decided to take a different stance. I understand the working distinction between the two words, however, I have found it to be completely unnecessary to correct people on this. Dictionaries are updated regularly, and people rely on them for definitions. If someone wants to call a snake poisonous, they are still exerting the same functional idea of what that snake is capable of, based not only on common usage, but also based on a correct definition of the word from any number of dictionaries. If someone does not choose to make the distinction between the two words in every-day language, they may be incorrect, but at the same time that doesn't make them wrong, lol. It is merely an academic distinction.