Talk:Venomoid surgery

	Venomoid surgery is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Davenport artcile

Is this really a good reference? It mentions venomoids, but doesn't really address the subject in any depth, and is more of a "come together for the common good of the herp community" message, rather than an in-depth exploration of any of the controversial topics. Nothing against Clay (I've interacted with him directly before, at least online), but it just doesn't seem to actually contain anything this article needs to reference. Mokele (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

It is worth pointing out that a full removal of the venom glands and a full removal of the venom ducts will render a venomous snake non-venomous; therefore, a snake that can inject and/or produce venom is not a venomoid. "The venom gland of vipers and elapid snakes is an encapsulated organ that cannot grow back once removed. If devenomization surgery is done improperly, and the entire venom apparatus is not removed, it may be possible for a snake to produce venom again.".<ref>Dr. Sabatini [http://venomoidinc.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=28 Can the venom gland regenerate?] Venomoid, Inc August 9, 2006</ref>

I moved the above to this page for further discussion. A primary source is inadequate, if the information at venomoidinc.com is verifiable there is an opportunity for expansion. cygnis insignis 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine if it were attributed to the author and their affiliation described in the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not accurate - the gland itself has no particularly thick fascia, but rather is wrapped in the temporalis muscle. Technically, removing the temporalis *would* remove enough to prevent regeneration, but would also cripple the snake and prevent it from ever eating again. Frankly, "Dr" Sabatini has no clue what he's doing. Mokele (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be inaccurate, but the person did say it. In controversial subjects you can avoid problems with biased sources by using them to support that statement that an opinion exists, and attributing this clearly as an opinion of a named individual. We could use this source to support a statement about what proponents of the procedure believe. (Is he an employees of a company who sells such snakes? If so needs to be noted). Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the webpage, he seems to be the sole owner and proprietor of a business that makes venomoids, ergo he has a clear conflict of interest. Given that there is clear evidence that venomoids can and do regrow glands (which may be due to botched surgery, but may also be due to inherent regenerative ability), and that his anatomy is clearly wrong, there's no point in including. Besides, we could litter the page with quotes attributed to people on each side, and all it would do is make the page an unreadable mess. Mokele (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find good sources for most of this stuff, but the items posted on noticeboards and blogs seem to indicate that only snakes from amateur surgeons and fraudsters are capable of envenomation. Where are the reliable sources on regrowth, or any other aspect of the topic? There is good cause to be skeptical of Dr. Sabatini's claim, but neither can we reference editors bold assertions. Claim and counter-claims from primary sources lead to someone having to synthesize the content, if it doesn't help to explain the topic it should be left out. The article is currently unbalanced, it still needs improvements for NPOV. By the way, I was only able to access the abstract of: Boyer TH (May 2006). "Common procedures with venomous reptiles" (ref#7) - does it support the sentence? cygnis insignis 18:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a short section on venomoids at the end of the review. If you e-mail me through my userpage I'll send you the Pdf from work next week. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refferences

Aren't refferences [3] and [4] the same paper by Hoser, "Surgical removal of Venom glands in Australian Elapids-The creation of Venomoids", first reffered to the original publish by The Herptile and second to the reprint on the web site for Hoser's Snakebusters? If so, I think there should only be the refference to the original paper, with a link to the actual paper on the journal (the link right now just directs to the Google search engine). Miqnp (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I merged them into one reference and did some housekeeping on the citation (see this edit). Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the journal's issues online, so Hoser's website is the only source for this. -- WrenFalcon (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]