User talk:Fearingpredators

508:

taxonomy part below) with the LD50 0.53 mg/kg and the right hand side is p.255 which is talking about the king cobra. with the LD50 of 0.34 mg/kg. There is no misleading as the values do show that king cobras are more venomous than the Chinese cobra based on this LD50 test in mice. You are able to see the whole list of reference, including the names of the experts and the institutes at the back of the section, if you have gone to library and read it. Different localities do be able to have a significance effect on the toxicity of the species, let alone the fact that venom toxicity on snakes mice and humans will be different. So claiming that the venom is “weak” is confused. Moreover, an Indian herpetologist is nearing the completion of a revision of the species throughout its entire range that will undoubtedly lead to it becoming several separate geographical species (venomous snakes of the world P.96 the first few sentences). I don’t think you have the right to decide whether it is a toxicology test and this is obviously insulting the authors and the experts of the book. Can I suspect your source stating that the king cobra has a LD50 1.91 mg/kg? Yes, I know that other tests showed that the king cobra possesses a high value compared with many other elapids. So, I’m going to state “Little is known about its venom. Many tests suggest that the LD50 value of the king cobra is 1.31 to 1.93 mg/kg. Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of Chinese-caught king cobra venom was found to be 0.34 mg/kg which is smaller (more venomous in mice) than that of several Naja species found in the same habitat, such as the Naja atra…” Traditional thought doesn’t provide that things can’t change. You are contradicted by your own source twice as at the beginning, you claimed that the black mamba possesses a LD50 which is among top 10 and is “virulently toxic”. Yet, the source ranks it as 23. Then, you believed that there is certainly no cobra species possesses more toxic venom than mambas, “especially the black mamba”. Again, your source backfired you since it lists that the N.atra has a smaller value than the black mamba… I have cited more than one sources supporting a single bite from the king cobra can cause death in 15 minutes while the average death time recorded is between 30-45 minutes after envenomation. Why did you remove it? This can be regarded as vandalism. 75% mortality rate source was cited by other users at a very early version and has been approved by many administrators and editors. I put the 50-60% rate in the article as well. You do

543:

passing statement without a source. Just because it's written in a book, it doesn't mean diddly. You are an amateur by the very definition of the word. If you don't make constructive edits to this article, like I have made, you will only be blocked again, or worse, banned this time. You better be very, very careful. Everything in the "Venom" section is sourced now. If you bring back the "75% mortality rate, 15 minute to death, and 30-45 minute average to die" crappolla without any scientific sources that verify exactly what you have stated, then I will be left with no choice but to report you. As of right now, everything in the "Venom" section is referenced and accurate. Any changes without scientific sources to verify your claims will be considered disruptive editing and I will report you. As to the black mamba, you know nothing about the snake. Many herpetologists, including Dr. Christensen have witnessed and written much of how quickly death occurs after a black mamba bite. He witnessed all of it in his field research and studies back in the 50's and 60's, so don't pretend to know more about this subject then me. You don't. You have a mythical view of the king cobra and you want your conjecture and myths to be layed out in an encyclopedia article as fact. That is not going to happen, not as long as I am editing here. You are already in a lot of hot water, so I suggest you really stop editing either article. You've already been found out to have been editing under an IP and a different username (Jasper put a sockpuppet investigation on you). So I'd be very careful in reverting or editing sourced work.

518:

cobra article as it is stated in the book Venomous snakes of the world (p.96 the third paragraph). Austin official website only states that the black mamba is the most feared snakes he thought and the B.asper is the most aggressive he met, so citing this reference to support the statement is confused. Many other herpetologists, including Austin himself (in his KING COBRA RESEARCH documentary) claimed that the king cobra is among the most dangerous list (Venomous snakes of the world p. 96 as well). Another thing is that the statement “in some extreme cases…died within minutes” in black mamba article is exaggerated as 20 minutes is the “extreme case” and the reference cited is the national geo. website which doesn’t claim that. In fact, the statement in this website “death usually occurs within 20 minutes” has been regarded as exaggeration in the talk page of the black mamba article (see the middle part). I’m going to type the above information. I have informed an administrator and waiting for his reply and judgment about the accuracy of these articles.

854:. That would mean that it is impossible for the lethal human dose to be "12 mg" as you suggested. Forgive me for speculating on what the lethal human dose is, but if a king cobra delivers 200 to 500 mg of venom per bite on average and most bites are "non-fatal", then I'd say that the lethal human dose is much, much higher than your "12 mg". The lethal human dose would in all likelihood be somewhere around 300-450 mg. It is my belief that you simply made up the number "12 mg" as the lethal human dose and then you put some bogus reference next to it. This further shows how little you care for the facts and how little you care about contributing to Knowledge in an honest and constructive manner. You have a great imagination, but your own views, opinions, and imaginations about the king cobra are not fact. On Knowledge, we report only the facts not the myths or our opinions and views. 850:- making it one of the most venomous elapids out there, which is completely untrue as we have repeatedly seen in one toxicology study after the other. Since we know that the king cobra delivers around 200-500 mg of venom per bite on average, then an untreated bite to a human would be lethal everytime, even if the bite delivered below average amounts of venom (say just 150 mg), if the lethal human dose was "12 mg" (so the mortality rate would be 100%). But we know that isn't true thanks to modern day technology and research studies. Mortality rate varies, with most bites being non-fatal and the highest reported mortality rate for this species is 50-60% according to research done at the 889:) venom is probably more toxic to humans than an Eastern brown snake's? We don't know. Based on toxicology studies on mice, no the Eastern Brown snake is far more venomous. But based on actual record of bites/fatality ratio, it would seem like yes the black mamba is more toxic to humans. However, we don't know for sure. We just know that without any kind of medical treatment (respiratory ventilation, antivenom, etc) all black mamba bites are fatal. The same is true of only one other snake and that snake is the Coastal taipan (species 26: 1161: 115: 398:

the same: Dr. John Haynes Brown, Dr. Latifi, Dr. Christensen (who dedicated his life researching and studying venomous African snakes, particularly Sub-Saharan species), Grant Chapman, and others. Dr. Christensen in particular witnessed how deadly the black mamba was during the 1950's and 1960's - he saw the 100% mortality rate. At the time when there wasn't

1178:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 690:. That is NOT a toxicology study. Do you know what a study is? Where is the data to that study? That is a point blank statement from a book. We don't even know the source of that statement and that value. It is NOT a toxicology study and as such I am going to take it out and put back the actual studies that I had put there. 650:, lol, who is he? The new guru on herpetology. That second one is NOT a scientific source, it is a news paper article written by some schmuck columnist who is as clueless as you seem to be. The University of San Diego's Terence Davidson says that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER 441:

value? Did they get this from a single specimen which they caught? It doesn't appear like they quoted any particular study or research paper. This is the problem with that value. It doesn't have back-up. All toxicological studies list the KC's venom toxicity at over 1.31 mg/kg (this is the most toxic

204:

as everything was fixed well with references but then deleted by two users (one deleted the information and one protected his versions). I made constructive edit and reported this to administrator’s intervention against vandalism but is now blocked due to edit warring. So I think it is unfair. Please

818:

I would really like to know where you got the idea that "12 mg" of king cobra venom is enough to kill a human? That is a completely unrealistic number based on what we know about this species, the components of its venom, and the overall toxicity of that venom. If the lethal human dose is "12 mg" as

542:

for the king cobra (a range of 1.6-1.93 mg/kg). This is a known fact. Even Terence Davidson clearly states that the king cobra has a very weak venom, so the passing statement from your 1990 book is just that: a statement without a source. Where did they come up with the 0.34 mg/kg value? It's just a

489:

Another thing, I was given permission to edit the article by the very same Administrator that blocked you, so for your sake, I'd be very careful about reverting it back. It's in your interest to first get involved in a discussion with me, instead of clearing your talk page and ignoring me every time

397:

article - it is a fine article. Well-written, well-sourced, and objective/factual. Austin Stevens has on numerous occasions claimed the black mamba to be the deadliest and most feared snake in the world. If you don't like Austin Stevens opinion, then I can refer you to other herpetologists who claim

868:

That's fine if you don't believe me. Just get that book and have a look on the page. I believe that you can easily get one in bookstore or library as it is quite prevalent.If you tell me that it is a children book again as what you did to the other books, I have nothing to say with you. By the way,

507:

This part appears in the “Chinese venomous snakes” section showing the details of numerous Chinese venomous snakes, so the king cobras were caught in China. As you can see in the two pages, the left hand side is p.253 which is talking about Naja atra (as you can see “Chinese cobra” is stated on the

534:

Your last statement should be directed towards yourself. I only report facts, not my own mythical views of a particular animal. I have cleaned up the "Venom" section. Bring me a source which claims your 75% mortality rate and I'll gladly put it up, but there is no such thing. The way I have it now

916:

study of 50-60%, which any herpetologist would tell you is very likely the very maximum for a king cobra. A 50-60% mortality rate for KC is probably associated with high volumes of venom (likely the higher end of their average of 500-600 mg). If I had to guess (based on the University of Adelaide

884:

studies done on mice are the best data we have on snake venom toxicity. It is a tool for us to use, so yes I'll be the first to admit that it's most definitely not perfect but it will do for now (as far as toxicity goes). That's why some of the most venomous snakes in the world (ie. Eastern brown

517:

deduced from LD50. Snake bite cases are studied by clinical research which they don’t mainly emphasize the exact lethal doses but the venom effects on humans. You typed the lethal human doses 10-15 mg and make it sounds a certain in the black mamba article. So, I’m going to type the 12 mg in king

512:

have the right to select which references should be stayed or eliminated. “many bites involved nonfatal amount” has the same meaning of the 50% rate but was contradicted by other reports, like the one which shows that 2/3 of the victims bitten by KC were severe envenomated while 1/3 was moderated

471:

article. It is now objective, factual, and grammatically correct. This is how an article should be. You reverting it back to what it was will only get you blocked again, or worse, banned. So before you edit anything I highly suggest you begin communication with me ASAP. The way I have the "Venom"

449:

of 0.34 mg/kg is simply a statement in a book - we don't know the source of this and it is definitely not a "toxicology study" as you claim - it is a statement in a book without a source. Plus, we have newer and more recent actual toxicology studies which lists it as 1.7-1.8 mg/kg. So it is that

794:

saw this, but chose to ignore it so that he doesn't have to revert it back despite the fact that you asked him to make the change or face another block. At the time you asked him to do this, he is usually always on - but what happened on this day? Consensus is swinging in my direction as

706: 746:. You may be able to avoid another block if you will immediately undo this change. Wait until the other editors on the talk page agree that your material is correct before making any more controversial changes. If you ignore this request, you may be blocked again. 579:

is. You can go and report this case. I really look forward to seeing administrators' response and I told you that I have informed an administrator who have checked these articles for a long time. Let's see what they think and the articles are

637:

Fearingpredators, okay I am going to dice and slice all your claims and your references right here once and for all. You didn't "do some references and added back information" - you reverted it back to what you had it before. Now you claim:

513:

envenomated but all of them were dire and life-threatening. Venomous snakes of the world states that 12 mg of the king cobra venom is estimated to be lethal to humans. Many experts do admit that these lethal human doses are

360:

of the Chinese cobra has absolutely no business being in the article of the King cobra, which is a totally unrelated species. So because that is clear and obvious mistake, I will be taking that out of the article. The

698:"The mortality rate from a bite can statistically be 75%" and your references are "Capula, Massimo; Behler (1989). Simon & Schuster's Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. 220:

Edit warring is still edit warring whether or not you believe you are in the right. In the future, please engage in discussions over your edits at the talk page rather than just revert other users again and again.

677:

So as you can see your "15 minutes to death" and your "30-45 minute average death time" are both debunked. I mean even the University of San Diego claims that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER

521:

By the way, you said this is an encyclopedia and you are professional in this aspect. Yet, what I see from your act is that you are trying to eliminate every "opponent" to make way for your "super black mamba".

1121:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 713:

So what now? Why did you destroy the "Venom" section of the article by taking out real studies and real references, not references that don't claim what the article claims? What gives? Why? What is your motive?

917:

study), king cobra's would achieve a mortality rate of 90% (+/- 2-4) if the species as a whole would deliver over 800-900 mg of venom on average per bite (so double what they average in reality).

682:. I know you hate this, but that is just too bad. I am sick of having BS and references that don't match up to the claims in the article. That's not all though, I am far from done. 885:

snake bite victims haved survived untreated bites; while untreated bites from the less venomous black mamba are known to be 100% fatal). So does that mean the black mamba (species

621:

and I don't think he has the right to eliminate or select references. By the way, I have done some adjustments and added back the information with related references to the article

912:

studies place the venom toxicity of the KC at around 1.7-1.9 mg/kg. Records from bites show that most bites are non-fatal, so very low mortality rate. The highest seen is the

604:

resume edit warring or you will be blocked again for a longer period. Just a note to both of you: To make other users understand you better, please keep your comments short.

535:

covers everything. It covers your "0.34 mg/kg" passing statement in an old 1990 book. I brought 3 other sources (actual toxicology studies) which all claim similar

155: 255:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

402:

or proper medical treatment (ventilation, symptomatic relief with the use of drugs, etc) no one survived a black mamba bite. If you were bitten, you died.

686:"Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of the Chinese-caught specimens was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" (this one has me in tears, seriously) and you reference 1081: 1048: 1015: 982: 949: 442:

value we know of). The MUCH more recent study which we have lists it at 1.7-1.8 mg/kg, which is consistent with what most studies list the value as. The

823:

give one straight number for this, they always give a range: ie. 10-15 mg for black mamba or 3-5 mg for saw-scaled viper, etc), then that would put the

893:). No other species of snake has a 100% mortality rate except those two. There are some that have very high mortality rates such as the members of the 1086: