>has venom potent enough to kill a herd of elephants>uses it to hunt micewhy do they do this
>>5161204mice taste better than elepjant
its hard to swallow an elephant
>>5161204>Thin strip of meat weaker than a cord of rope>Can very easily be merked by the rats and mice it eatsThey need a way to deal with it before it deals with them.
>>5161246Then why do most of these thin strips of meat not have any venom?
>>5161204Some snakes go MONTHS between meals, and their jaws aren't strong. just flexible. They get ONE shot at an attack, So it needs to land.
>>5161337Because they evolved to be inserted into anuses as a prank, not as a lethal attack.
>>5161337because they don't need it. food is abundant enough. it's not a coincidence that the most venomous snake in the world is from one of the most inhospitable places in the world. whatever scant amounts of prey it finds it NEEDS to kill or else it may die itself.
>>5161346That might be true for inland taipans but not for coastal taipans, coral snakes, brown snakes, etc
>>5161204I too hunt rabbits with a 50 CAL
>>5161204They're not built to chase after prey. They need the venom to be as potent and fast-acting as possible.
>>5161204some animals are just mean>>5161467It's still overkill by several orders of magnitude.
I imagine it's more straightforward to evolve the more potent type of venom. It also has the added benefit of all animals avoiding them like fire
>>5161204Because they need to kill shit quick before either their prey escapes or something else snatches it. Also pretty sure Taipans were around during Megalania's time, so the best defense for a snake that size against a big fuck you lizard would be having the deadliest venom.
>>5161204Reciprocal antagonistic convolution usuallyBasically red queen with toxins
>>5163056*coevolutionAutocorrect
>>5163056So basically what happened is snake evolves venom. Then prey evolves immunity to venom. So snake evolves stronger venom and then prey evolves stronger immunity.After millions of generations of this game you end up with absurdly venomous snakes and often some prey animal that's immune to the venom anyways. Unless the immune prey goes extinct then you just have an absurdly venomous snake
>>5163056beat me to it ):
>>5163135I waited a week to see if anyone knew before answering.
>>5163058The interesting thing about this isn't just that we have highly venomous snakes roaming around since their prey either went extinct or lost the immunity race.It also implies there are animals roaming around with immunity to toxins that no longer exist because their venomous predators or prey went extinct. And that's a fascinating thought that afaik has never been researched from the angle of finding orphaned immunity in extant animals
>>5163142E.g., there's published research on how opossums and honey badgers evolved immunity to paleovenoms, but those are examples of animals that are immune to modern snakes.There's no research that I know of looking for animals that are immune to venoms they never encounter in real life. Despite opposite cases such as the Sydney funnel web spider having a venom that strongly targets animals (primates) that it historically never would have encountered
>>5163143A molecular biologist or evo-devo or toxicologist or immunologist could probably make their entire career off finding a single example of an animal that's immune to extinct venom. And those animals undoubtedly exist. But afaik nobody has found one.
>>5163145In fact it's highly likely that all animals including humans have some level of immunity to environmental toxins that no longer exist. However this isn't a specific target of research that I know of.Orphaned venoms present a danger to humans while orphaned immunity would at best present a moderate advantage. We tend to study dangers a billion times more than advantages.
>>5163056>>5163058>>5163141This is mostly true for the relationship between snakes and their prey globally, but it doesn’t really explain specific examples of absurd overkill like OP’s species. Coastal taipans broadly overlap with the northern brown snake for example and both primarily eat the same few species of rodents. But the taipan’s venom is about 4 times as toxic and its venom yield is 20-60 times higher. Even if for some reason the prey only evolved resistance to one snake and not the other that’s still like using dynamite to open a pickle jar
>>5163253Many such casesRough skinned newts are toxic enough to kill humans in hours but garter snakes still eat them.Also it's possible that the venom of snakes evolved to kill other snakes. There's no particular law saying the arms race only serves predators or only prey. The largest danger to snakes is probably other snakes
>>5163255That’s true but again anything that preys on taipans would presumably also be preying on brown snakes. All we can really do is speculate without examining the specific toxicity of each species’ venom to all the relevant prey/predators which is never going to happen
>>5163145how would you even test for that? if its extinct by definition you can't get a sample of the venom, or consider its structure or mechanism
>>5163260You could maybe make an educated guess based on living relatives found elsewhere with venom similar to the extinct species
>>5163141This thread was more of a joke than a serious question desu
>>5163257Are they immune to their own venom? Then perhaps we already know what was preying on them. Humans are similar. We evolved in response to other humans>>5163260Other anon is correct. Immunology. Test venom on animals that don't normally interact with it>>5163267I have no sense of humor that I'm aware of
>>5163260Also scientists have recovered extinct venoms from fossils as well as immunological studies I think
>>5163271>Are they immune to their own venom? Then perhaps we already know what was preying on themMost snakes are immune to their own venom whether they’re cannibalistic or not. Taipans aren’t really snake eaters from my understanding, but that’s probably true for those that are
>>5163315True but venomous snakes often bite members of their own species whether they eat them or not.
>>5163142Kind of like how the keelback is resistant to cane toad poison since its ancestors would have developed immunity to poisonous amphibians in Asia
>>5163323Non cannibalistic venomous snakes hardly ever bite each other. Most even specifically avoid biting each other during male combat
>>5163058That has definitely happened with some snakes but the reason is probably simpler than that for most. Whether the snake’s venom is enough to kill its prey 5x over or 50x over doesn’t really matter as long as it works.Snake venoms usually consist of a few simple proteins, so a mutation or change in gene expression that changes one of those proteins can end up making the venom significantly more toxic in a single event. There’s also no pressure to evolve less potent venom because the metabolic cost doesn’t really changeFor example there are 2 forms of Mojave rattlesnakes. One form has the typical rattlesnake hemorrhagins, the other form has presynaptic neurotoxins that make it 10 times as toxic. They’re physically and behaviourally identical with the same prey, predators, etc. They even overlap in range and interbreed in some places. One group just got lucky with some random changes in a few genes that made it super toxic all of a sudden
The idea of a herpetologist haunting the thread is very funny
>>5163412Sure, drift could account for the change but if it truly confers no particular advantage I wouldn't expect it to persist. Also as I recall your specific example isn't the only rattled with neurotoxin, indicating a possible latent mechanisms in those lacking it rather than random additions that simply have no cost
>>5163454Pretty sure different rattler lineages have lost and regained neurotoxins multiple times independently
>>5163541YesThe gene was ancestral and was lost or disrupted in multiple lineagesDisagreeing with anon's just-so story regarding sudden accidental acquisition I think
>>5163541Also of course none of the existing lineages regained neurotoxins after losing them afaik
>>5163541The other explanation I'm finding is repetitions of the gene increasing toxicity, so my understanding is that some rattlers have stronger venoms of either or both types if they have more copies of the ancestral gene for that venom.So at least in rattlesnakes it would appear a single duplication could explain increases in toxicity, but without some selective advantage I would expect genetic drift would just as well remove the gene as add it.Particularly if the drifted population continues to breed with "normal" ones
>>5163568Anyway I guess I'm agreeing with everything anon said about Mojave rattlers, just the way he simplified it made it sound like a novel poison evolved at the drop of a hat rather than the more complex explanations that the neurotoxin was ancestral, was lost in multiple lineages, and increases in potency with a simple genetic duplication
>>5163569Though none of this explains why the neuro and hemorrhagic toxins evolved in the first place, and the only answer I'm finding is again reciprocal antagonistic coevolution.
>>5163570So basically I'm back to the beginningIf it doesn't cost anything to have stronger venom that could explain how it aroseBut if it also doesn't gain anything I would expect it to disappear via the same mechanism that produced it in the first place. Indicating adaptationism may be the correct approach. There should be a reason venom is much stronger than it would appear necessary
>>5163341Nice example. I didn't know that.>>5163353How many nonspecific bites do you suppose would be necessary to evolve and maintain immunity, assuming a snake without it dies?I expect they bite each other at least that often.
>>5163573*conspecificNeed a biology spellchecker
>>5161204They can swallow mice whole. Genociding elephants would be pointless especially since elephants are scared of mice anyway.
>>5163573>I expect they bite each other at least that oftenThey literally never bite each othert. cohabbed rattlesnakes for 3 years
>>5161204It's a snake, it won't last long against a predator. When it's attacked, it needs to kill the predator quickly.If an animal in its environment develops resistance to its venom, then it will get into an evolutionary arms race developing more and more potent venom.
>>5161204>has venom potent enough to kill a herd of elephants>still gets mogged by a fuzzy tube cathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z3IIvSJ-ug
