• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Animal Planet documentary

Having venom glands is diffrent then having venom. A garder snake has the same type of glands. Has work been done to test it? If its not lethal for humans, why would it be used? And just because the glands are there does it mean they have venom in them? (Sorry if I don't make sense)
 
And again ................. since it seems that what I said isn't being believed.
If was 'venom' why don't the CAPTIVE dragons or monitors have it??? :shrug01:

In the skeletal structure yes scientists have believe what they found to be FORMER sockets where the glands MAY have been held. But no they do not have venom or venom glands.

So again I ask ................... if it's really venom and they really have venom gland why are these completely missing from captive komodos and other captive varanid species???
Why aren't all wild caught varanids being tested for this "venom"????

And that quack on Wild Recon didn't even catch a wild Varanus varius (aka Lace monitor). It was staged. A captive monitor!! And where is the scientific proof of the retrieved "venom"?

Folks, they have been trying to prove this since 2005!!!! So this is not new. So for five years there still has not been a single ounce of true proof of glands or real venom. As a matter of fact also the same European quack who started this back in 2005 has lately been trying to get more funding to prove something he hasn't been able to prove for five years. Wouldn't you think after five years something would be proven?????? And I'm talking solid - concrete scientific publications. NOT "one scientist found this" type article.

The facts are simply it's all TV drama hear say. It's NOT a scientific proven - publication. And again ALL varanids, including captive komodoensis, would have this if these venom glands and venom was real. But they simply do not.
 
Misleading, but not necessarily untrue...

I'm in agreement with you Tails, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I just pulled this from an article I read the other day. I haven't read through the other cited articles yet, but they're out there if people want to build an argument.
"Effects of the toxins from Varanus have usually been ascribed to bacterial infections caused by a virulent oral bacterial flora (Gillespie et al., 2002), but recent systematic and toxinological analyses have discovered the presence of venom glands and venom in Varanus (Vidal and Hedges, 2005; Fry et al., 2006). It should be borne in mind that only few Varanus species have been examined in this way (V. acanthurus, V. mitchelli, V. panoptes rubidus, and V. varius), but V. griseus, V. komodensis and V. scalaris bites on humans have also shown signs consistent with envenomation (Sopiev et al., 1987; Ballard and Antonio, 2001; Fry et al., 2006; Fry and Scheib, 2007)." (Arbuckle, 2009...AKA Your European Quack?, 2009)

Personally, I believe that's it's bacteria and think these shows like Wild Recon and Life use the term "venom" in a misleading way. They are not incorrect, but they use the general definition of venom: "material that is poisonous". It's very irresponsible of them to use it in this way, especially because television seems to be the main source of education for the majority of Americans (if not the world).
I don't believe that something like this can be proven in only five years. It takes awhile to obtain a varied population of animals to test, let alone performing the actual tests and compiling the data. You would need WC's, CB's, LTC's, etc...to cover every variable and then you would still have to monitor what they eat, what their prey eats, etc. Funding for studies like this is what the zoological community is all about. Without these "quacks" we wouldn't have 90% of the knowledge we have today.
 
What makes it untrue is that the full blown taxonomy studies have shown it to be bacterial infection when the substances taken from the animals was put into the lab and this is based easily over the last five years. Taken from dozens of species including not just what's been listed above but also v. albigularis and v. salvator. Nothing in those studies have proven to be venom or anything other then bacteria filled saliva. And when tested in captive animals it does not show even remotely the same amount of bacterium as what's in a wild monitor.

Also another thing sighted was a human's reaction to a bite. Not all humans reacted the same if they reacted at all. The most serious reactions were documented as causing swelling, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, pain, bruising, numbness and of course bleeding. Which are fully - 100% signs of one of two things. 1) anxiety attack 2) Nerve interruption /damage (excluding the bleeding, swelling, bruising at the bite site). This was documented not just from captive animals but also wild.

So again ............ if varanids had venom glands and truly venom wouldn't everyone who was bitten experience a reaction?????? And I'm not talking since 2005 when this really started hitting daylight but I'm talking the last 5 - 20 years.
 
Tails, captive varanids and beardies DO have venom. Because it is not injected, and they don't have grooved teeth, they would have to chew on you for a long time to work venom into the wound. When they did, the amount would be so small, you would probably only experience a bit of minor swelling.
Garter snake bites cause this too. Someone actually let a garter chew on him for a half hour to test it. His hand swelled up like a balloon.
 
Here's a good species to test the venom theory on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100406/sc_afp/sciencespeciesreptilephilippines_20100406161501

@Urban_Exotics: I don't know of anyone being bitten by one, but i remember reading years ago that Sharon Stone's husband was bitten by one at the LA zoo. Apparently he was wearing white tennis shoes when they took him into the exhibit and the dragon bit his foot through the shoe because it thought it was one of the big white rats they fed him. i know the bite happened, but am sure the details are a little bit off.
 
I liked the show snakeskin. I have already autotuned it on DVR. Not a real "proffesional" show, pretty much just a man and his wife that capture and release snakes from peoples houses. But I am definately hooked.
 
Back
Top