Recent Komodo postings of Dr. Bryan Fry

[smy_749]

This is just a thought. But why does complexity / advanced level of something have to be associated with efficiency? Could it not just refer to the amount of evolutionary changes which were required to reach that end result? Could it not just be the way that the venom/bacteria/toxin works, not how quickly it kills?

I'm sure he knew what he was saying when he said it, I think we just don't understand what he meant by it.

[formica]

Originally Posted by murrindindi

I think you`ve missed something; the fact the largest prey may not die within minutes (adult buffalo, horse, etc), doesn`t mean the venom isn`t efficient or important, it certainly IS, as BGF states, "it`s another weapon in their arsenal".
Just because they may need to wait a few days/even weeks for a large prey animal to become immobile/die is of little importance when we consider the amount of energy it will supply!
It could be expected that the venom would have a greater (faster) effect on smaller prey.

I'm not saying it isnt important - just disputing the claim that it is more effeciant than other reptiles, killing prey quickly is a vital aspect of the behaviour of a predator, for the reasons i said above - obviously the Komodo has found a way around this, because it happily sits and waits for its prey to die for days at a time

[smy_749]

Originally Posted by formica

the artical and publication that I read, by Dr Fry, said ''most complex'', not most advanced - either way, i'm not sure how a gland which secretes venom between the teeth, essentially in the same way that a saliva gland secretes saliva, is more advanced or complex, than a pair of hinged, hollow fangs or a cobras jet stream, tbh

I'm referring to this. Not whether it is more efficient, as I stated more advanced or complex, doesn't have to be more efficient necessarily. I don't think there is any argument over weather a death adder or Komodo dragon venom is more lethal.

[murrindindi]

Originally Posted by smy_749

Its not a snide remark. You are doubting his research, saying you don't see how it could be advanced or complex either way. And I'm just saying, you don't understand as much as Dr. Fry does so if he says its advanced or complex, than it probably is.

I didn`t see your reply as disrespectful at all.
Too many "armchair experts" offer opinions ("know" things), that are not based on knowledge or experience and in so doing confuse the issues even more.
That remark is not directed at anyone in particular, I`m generalising, and it`s the truth!
I`ve had a number of discussions with Bryan, he`s convinced me that the research he and others have completed is valid in regards to Varanids and venom (and it`s usefulness).

[formica]

Originally Posted by smy_749

This is just a thought. But why does complexity / advanced level of something have to be associated with efficiency? Could it not just refer to the amount of evolutionary changes which were required to reach that end result? Could it not just be the way that the venom/bacteria/toxin works, not how quickly it kills?

I'm sure he knew what he was saying when he said it, I think we just don't understand what he meant by it.

yes for sure - evolution doesnt have much concern for efficiency in the way we understand, whatever works best will become part of a species make up

Its not Dr Fry that said it was more advanced or efficiant, it was only posts on this thread which said that - Dr Fry used the word Complex - which I think is an important distinction to make

[murrindindi]

Originally Posted by formica

l - and the fact that animals do not die within minutes of being bitten by a Komodo, indiciates that their Venom is not effeciant, or even massivly useful

Yes, you did clearly state it wasn`t efficient and not "massively useful" (important)!

[formica]

Originally Posted by murrindindi

Yes, you did clearly state it wasn`t efficient and not "massively useful" (important)!

I stand by my assertion that its not effeciant, and because of the time scales involved I dont see how it can be massivly useful - whether its important or not, I dont know, do we even know what the venom is doing?

Do we know for sure, that the animals which are coming to the pools, are not already dying? its just very strange, for an animal to accept being bitten by a predetor, and then just sits there to die for days on end - do we know how many animals that are bitten, then die and are eaten by the Komodo? or the number of animals which attempt to flee or fight back, if they dont, then why not? could this be a special property of the venom or is something else going on? there are too many unanswered questions for this riddle to be solved yet imo

[MDT]

Originally Posted by formica

I dont doubt the research, I am questioning the conclusions, there is a difference
- you dont have to be a biochemist to ask these questions

So Dr Fry's conclusions are in error? Good to know.

[murrindindi]

Originally Posted by formica

yes for sure - evolution doesnt have much concern for efficiency in the way we understand, whatever works best will become part of a species make up

Surely if something "works best" it`s more efficient (it benefits the animal)? That`s how evolution works and animals either survive or disappear, they become more efficient in whatever way!

[murrindindi]

Originally Posted by MDT

So Dr Fry's conclusions are in error? Good to know.

Shhhhh, we don`t want Bryan to know there are people who disagree with his findings.....

[formica]

Originally Posted by murrindindi

Surely if something "works best" it`s more efficient (it benefits the animal)? That`s how evolution works and animals either survive or disappear, they become more efficient in whatever way!

its relative isnt it, just because it works best for the Komodo, doesnt make it more (edit: advanced) than all other reptiles, which is what was stated earlier in the thread

[murrindindi]

[QUOTE=formica;850167][QUOTE=murrindindi;850164][QUOTE=formica;850114]l - and the fact that animals do not die within minutes of being bitten by a Komodo, indiciates that their Venom is not effeciant, or even massivly useful


I stand by my assertion that its not effeciant, and because of the time scales involved I dont see how it can be massivly useful - whether its important or not, I dont know, do we even know what the venom is doing?

Yes, we do know what effect the venom has, it`s all clearly stated in the articles BGF and co. have completed. For one thing it contains an anticoagulant, to suggest that would not have a detrimental effect on a prey animal is rather naïve (massive bleeding, shock). You and any other "doubters" really need to contact Bryan, I`m almost sure he would be happy to offer more details (or admit they were wrong and you are right).

[Zoo Nanny]

The larger prey that are able to get away are also introduced species to the area. The argument regarding the buffalo and waiting for their death shouldn't be a factor. Normal prey for the dragons would be smaller. According to the paper the venom would "induce immobilizing hypotension." and also states "Such a fall in blood pressure would be debilitating in conjunction with blood loss and would render the envenomed prey unable to escape."
A central role for venom in predation by Varanus komodoensis (Komodo Dragon) and the extinct giant Varanus (Megalania) priscus

[murrindindi]

Originally Posted by Zoo Nanny

The larger prey that are able to get away are also introduced species to the area. The argument regarding the buffalo and waiting for their death shouldn't be a factor. Normal prey for the dragons would be smaller. According to the paper the venom would "induce immobilizing hypotension." and also states "Such a fall in blood pressure would be debilitating in conjunction with blood loss and would render the envenomed prey unable to escape."

Thanks for that link, though I`m sure the "doubters" will find something/many things/everything?) to dismiss!

[formica]

Originally Posted by Zoo Nanny

The larger prey that are able to get away are also introduced species to the area.

thats the kind of info I'm after, thanks, still havnt finished reading that publication