Re: PPS

Posted by BGF on March 13, 2003 at 14:43:42:

In Reply to: Re: PPS posted by WW on March 13, 2003 at 10:38:41:

Hi mate,

Listing based off of clinical danger is pretty much was I was saying when having two definitions: technically venomous [ones that have venom glands, this is of course most colubrids] vs. practically venoms [ones that are likely to actually cause an envenomation, a much shorter list but no doubt one that is missing species]. Its a pretty tough area with no clear cut solutions.

At the end of the day, I think its inappropriate to consider H. gigas as 'venomous' with venomous meaning the same for it as well as an elapid. Thats a bit extreme. However, ones like Psammophis certainly should be considered venomous, with the same use of the word as for elapids.

What I'm concerned about is legislators taking a blanket approach where they ban venomous and anything that remotely falls under that definition is also banned. This is a very real possibility.

All the best
BGF

Follow Ups:

• Re: PPS WW 03/14/03 (2)
  • Re: PPS BGF 03/14/03 (0)
  • The problem with legislators . . . Trust 03/14/03 (0)

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ The Rear-Fanged Forum ]

KINGSNAKE.COM Enjoy all our content free of charge with a user account that gives you full access to every feature. For added visibility, paid options are available - post in our Classifieds, showcase your business with Banner Ads or a Directory listing, promote reptile events, and more. Quick Links Home Advertise Beta Classifieds Lost Password Your Account Community Blog Events Featured Articles Forums Photo Gallery Legal & Safety Terms of Service Classified TOS Age Verification Business Verification Vendor Complaint Support Banner Ad Help Classified Help Classified Tips Contact Us Forum Help Register for free ✓ Sign up! Kingsnake.com ® is a registered trademark © 1997-