Recent Komodo postings of Dr. Bryan Fry

infernalis · 06-26-13, 05:28 AM

Bryan recently posted these to his facebook, worth sharing. enjoy.

UQ scientist Bryan Fry shows komodo dragon saliva not as toxic as believed | The Courier-Mail

Quote:

Our study to see if there was any sort of proliferation of bacteria in komodo dragon mouths (which there would have to be if they were using it as a weapon) was pure science. Just curiousity about something put forth as gospel, but with a conspicuous lack of supporting evidence. But wow did we open a political shitstorm. We had people actively trying to block it. Zoos that were not just uncooperative, but were ringing other zoos to tell them not to participate in the study. Guess they were really attached to the fairy tale!! Luckily a couple zoos were actually interested in evidence based science and were super agreeable about participating in the study. The vets and staff at the LA Zoo, Honolulu and Houston were awesome.

smy_749 · 06-26-13, 05:32 AM

Makes you wonder how many other interesting discoveries are prevented from being made public / never given a chance to be researched.. ridiculous

Chu'Wuti · 06-26-13, 06:38 AM

Where's the quote from, infernalis? I couldn't find it in the article you linked, and I wanted to send the whole thing to my local forum.

infernalis · 06-26-13, 06:52 AM

I copied it from my facebook timeline.

Here Be Dragons: The Mythic Bite of the Komodo : Science Sushi

formica · 06-26-13, 08:49 AM

I'm intrigued to read the findings, looks like the Journal is the only play i'll find them. The only films I've seen of Komodos doing what they do, did indeed see the animal take close to 3 days to die (David Attenbourgh program i think)

Is this the same Dr Fry that announced that all monitors carry venom which was also dismissed broadly?

Gatorhunter1231 · 06-26-13, 09:20 AM

I wouldn't say Dr. Frys findings were dismissed. There was a major conversation about it on kingsnake and which dr. fry even joined in on the discussion. There are enzymes and proteins in varanus salivia that are found in rattlesnake venom. Also the same enzymes he found in varanus were found in iguana and even corn snakes I believe. I believe it is used as a digestive aid and is incomplete to truely be called venom (my opinion).

It is a double edged sword which caused so much debate and why it was dismissed by so many. Findings are intriging but its a politcal world. What do you think will happen when a politicain that is not educated reads that monitors are venomous? We already have to fight with the government to keep the reptiles we enjoy. HR669 and other bans are real.

formica · 06-26-13, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorhunter1231

I wouldn't say Dr. Frys findings were dismissed. There was a major conversation about it on kingsnake and which dr. fry even joined in on the discussion. There are enzymes and proteins in varanus salivia that are found in rattlesnake venom. Also the same enzymes he found in varanus were found in iguana and even corn snakes I believe. I believe it is used as a digestive aid and is incomplete to truely be called venom (my opinion).

It is a double edged sword which caused so much debate and why it was dismissed by so many. Findings are intriging but its a politcal world. What do you think will happen when a politicain that is not educated reads that monitors are venomous? We already have to fight with the government to keep the reptiles we enjoy. HR669 and other bans are real.

Ah I see - i think its fair to say they are not venomous any more than humans are in that case, unless they have a method of delivery other than a simple bite, like hollow fangs, humans also have digestive enzymes in their saliva, but we certainly cant be considered venomous, unless you happen to be a starch molecule, in which case you are screwed

here in the UK, venom has to be of a certain potency, before a dangerous animals licence is required, its not about the venom itself

I think if the US government is unable to process scientific information without freaking out, then it shouldnt be governing...but then you probably already know that lol

Rob_H · 06-26-13, 09:37 AM

This paper only shows that bacteria communities in Komodo mouths depend on the environment.... but nobody ever suggested the bacteria spontaneously spawn from nothing in the Komodo's mouths by magic!

Where the bacteria come from is relatively unimportant: the bacteria have been found in the mouths of Komodo's in the natural scenario where these animals hunt. If these contain enough bacteria to kill large mammals through sepsis following a bite (still untested!) then nobody has been proved wrong.

I'm all for championing the venom and awesomely serrated teeth combo, but papers like these are not the best platform to continue the Auffenberg bashing!

Gatorhunter1231 · 06-26-13, 09:47 AM

"I think if the US government is unable to process scientific information without freaking out, then it shouldnt be governing...but then you probably already know that lol"

Thats hitting the nail on the head lol. They do have a sac sort of like the gila and beaded lizard in their bottom jaw where the enzymes/proteins are at. It comes through the saliva. Its is less complex then the gila and beaded lizards delievery which also chew their vemon into their prey. Im sure varanusmad or others are more up to date then I am. To bad Dave doesn't post much anymore, he knew all about it. All I know is I have been biten by baby savs, albigs, niles, crocs, and juvie crocs (teeth are to fear), savs, adult ackies, and tristis and Im still standing lol. Some have recorded swelling from bites which is worth noting.

nepoez · 06-26-13, 11:57 AM

If a person bites me I'd get swelling.

Zoo Nanny · 06-26-13, 12:19 PM

I wonder if any research has been conducted to determine if the bacteria found in the saliva of wild dragons is different than that found in captive. It would be interesting to know if there is possibly something in their environment that is causing the differences seen in the two studies. Mention was made of the stagnant water possibly contributing to the bacteria. Just as captive bred dart frogs do not produce the poisons in their glands because of change in diet/environment could the same thing be happening with the dragons?

formica · 06-26-13, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoo Nanny

I wonder if any research has been conducted to determine if the bacteria found in the saliva of wild dragons is different than that found in captive. It would be interesting to know if there is possibly something in their environment that is causing the differences seen in the two studies. Mention was made of the stagnant water possibly contributing to the bacteria. Just as captive bred dart frogs do not produce the poisons in their glands because of change in diet/environment could the same thing be happening with the dragons?

this would be interesting - although i've always understood that Komodos gained their bacterial power from their enviroment (as it was previously understood)

The same is true for Flamingos, they wont turn pink without specific planktons to feed on

interesting on the dart frogs - do we know what they are missing from their diet? never knew that...

Zoo Nanny · 06-26-13, 12:37 PM

There is a couple of different trains of thought on this. One is that the toxins are found in the insects eaten and the other that it is from plant material found on the insects. I don't believe any one has ever bothered to do any intensive research into the reason. Because of the lack of poison on the frogs and their intense colorations they have become popular in zoos.
Most of the animals eaten by the dragons are herbivores so I wonder if it is something that they are eating or is found on their skin.

Rob_H · 06-26-13, 12:53 PM

This is exactly what the debate is about. Captive Komodos (the ones this study is based on) do not have nasty pathogenic bacteria in their saliva. Studies done on wild Komodos have shown that they do however. Bryan Fry et al argue that Komodos get the nasty bacteria from drinking water that buffalos and pigs (which are introduced) have been wallowing and defecating in. But they argue that this is unimportant, and the sepsis that results from a bite is actually due to injured animals that go and wallow in putrid water, allowing the deep lacerations caused by the dragon's bite to come into contact with the bacteria in the water.

Hence my comment: I'm not sure what this study is trying to prove, beyond showing that Komodo's kept in captivity don't have bacteria in their mouths. The dart frog example is an excellent analogue: just because something is environmentally dependent doesn't mean it's not important for an animal's survival or evolution. Neither the bacteria, venom, or water-hole arguments have yet been shown in a natural environment.

Gatorhunter1231 · 06-26-13, 01:43 PM

Agreeing with Rob H. I think this has an underlying tone to promote his venom research. I thought I was common sense that the buffalos laying in nasty water after being bite would cause infection. Venom, bacteria, infection, or whatever- that would be the least of my problems if a 8-9ft Komodo attached its mouth to my leg.