Is the Coral Snake an evolutionary mistake? I ask this because the discovery channel had a special (venom something or ruther) the other day and mentioned something that I found odd.
Apparantly the Coral Snake has bad, bad, venom. The wierd thing about it is that it doesn’t take effect until up to 12 hours after the bite.
Is this an evolutionary mistake? I mean what the hell good is the venom if it takes that long?? By the time the creature is dying it would have either; gotten safely away, or pounded the snake to death.
Bottom line: coral snakes are still with us, and I presume thriving (and if not thriving, not because of any inefficiencies of their venom). So the package of abilities they bring to nature’s table works, how can it be faulted? Discussion of the venom alone is moot, in terms of evolution.
Yes they are still with us, but so are our wisdom teeth (maybe a faulty analogy). They may not need their venom to survive-so evolutionarily it is not a mistake. My question is basically, is the venom useful for the snake?
Maybe evolution wasn’t the word, perhaps this would be better; is the venom of the snake a useless mutation?
Squink-I suppose it’s incentive to not mess with them in the future, but they could’ve been eaten in that time period, or if they were looking for a meal, their meal could’ve easily gotten away by then.
Evolutionary mistake: no such thing or everything is anyway.
Everything in evolution is a ‘mistake’ more or less. Somethings actually have ‘neutral’ impact, so that having the trait doesn’t mean you are less likely to survive, and some things are just slightly better than nuetral…like delayed venom: it ain’t bad, so it doesn’t get selected out, but it might be slightly beneficial, so it could give some better chance of survival.
While my explanation is a little oversimplified, if you take the wisdom tooth example: exactly how would wisdom teeth prevent anyone from surviving? Remember that wisdom teeth are a post reproductive issue, so having them doesn’t prevent anyone from reproducing. Wisdom teeth might have evolved as part of other developments in the human mouth/teeth, and those other things ulitmately proved beneficial. Who knows…but who cares, since issues after adult reproduction aren’t issues.
I’m thinking that the period of time where humans have been able to pass along the information to each other that coral snakes are Bad News has been too short to have an evolutionary effect.
My guess is that the bite itself is probably painful enough to beat back any threats. The slowish poison is to ensure that even if the attacker is too dumb to learn that attacking that particular snake is painful, it will still not have a chance to re-attack. So it’s still an advantage,
BTW, some creatures have NO defenses against ANY of their predators - they are full-time flat-out helpless prey. So, what kind of ‘mistake’ is it to be a full time victim with zero defenses?
Well, think of the ability to hang around long enough to reproduce as the ultimate defense.
If you are interested in evolutionary “mistakes”, I recommend researching the Panda’s “thumb”, and the rabbit’s digestive system - it must eat it’s own shit because it secretes an enzyme too far near the end of its digestive track.
I don’t know anything about coral snakes, but is it possible that the venom only affects humans after 8 hours, but is effective on other animals (i.e. the coral snake’s prey and/or predators) at a more effective time scale?
But you are making the classic mistake of putting the individual above the species. If say, a wolf ate a coral snake he might kill the snake before he felt the venom, but he would never kill another one. The distintive markings of the coral snake further this type of defense. The snake does not use camouflage. Instead, it makes itself as conspicuous as possible. This way, would be predators can mark it easier and make the mistake only once instead of killing several snakes before they figure out it isn’t a good idea.
The Monarch Butterfly has a similar defense - birds that eat it will get sick. The butterfly has to die for the birds to learn that, but it’s brothers reap the benefits. Being poisonaous and easy to spot may be useless to a single individual, but it acts to reduce overall predation on the species. If a predator has had a bad experience with one, he’s not going to go back for seconds.
IIRC, the venom of snakes originally evolved as an aid to digestion. Because a snake has to eat its food in one piece and can’t chew or tear it to pieces, the digestive juices have to work through the unbroken skin of the prey. This can take so long that the prey can start to rot from the inside before it’s digested. Apparantly venom started as a way to inject digestive enzymes into the prey to speed up the digestive process, then later was modified to help immobolize the prey more quickly. In some snakes such as the rattlesnake, the main effect of the venom is still to break down tissue in the immediate area of the bite. I don’t know offhand how the Coral Snake’s venom works, but I’d suspect that it’s a similar digestive-enzyme derived type. So the Coral Snake would be not so much an evolutionary mistake as an example of the first primitive stages of venomous snakes - the benefit of the venom doesn’t come into play until the prey has already been swallowed.
It really all depends on what the purpose of the venom is: offensive or defensive. If defensive, then it doesn’t do much good to kill whatever is attacking you, since it rather defeats the learning process – you want others to fear you, but they can’t pass on the knowledge that you are bad news if they are dead. The venom of a coral snake is a neurotoxin; it may not get you immediately, but it will get you, even if you have already devoured the snake. The trick is the long run. As Bebblebrox points out, it may not save a given individual now, but as more animals learn to stay away from the coral snake, it becomes quite a deterrent (with the coloration necessary to advertise the fact that you are, indeed, venomous). This is why mimicry works, of course; an animal may itself not be venomous, it only has to look venomous. Or rather, look like a similar, venomous version. Mimicers capitalize on the fact that over time, other animals have learned (and are generally taught) not to mess with certain other animals.
Also, keep in mind that most learning, as is expected, takes place during adolescence. During such times, an animal is more likely to “attack” a coral snake out of curiosity than looking for a meal. So, all the snake has to do is issue a quick bite (which will quickly dampen the inquisitiveness of the youngster), and flee. The subsequent effects of the venom will more than suffice to provide a a sufficent lesson to the curious: leave coral snakes alone! And, while we’re at it, king snakes too! (Unlike humans, most animals will probably not bother to learn the difference between the two.)
The notion of an animal poison taking 12 hours to be effective seems completely wrong, agreeing with the OP.
Here’s a site saying that the poison rapidly kills the coral snake’s favorite prey: snakes, lizards, and militant Islamics who barely know how to read, write or reason.
Ok, I made the last part up. It only kills militant Islamics who don’t know their asp from a hole in the ground.
Note that while coral snake venom is deadly (indeed, among the deadliest, in terms of potency), less venom is actually injected per bite. According to this site
The site also notes that, as per the OP, the onset of envenomation symptoms may indeed be delayed by up to 10-12 hours. Note, however, that this applies to humans. As previously noted in this thread, the venom is probably much more lethal, and takes effect much more rapidly, in actual prey animals.
The problem with this beeblebrox is that by the time the wolf is showing symptoms it, or fellow wolves, probably wouldn’t make the connection that the snake is the thing that killed it.
I do think the “but he would never kill another one” has a lot of merit though.
Ah, so I was TOTALLY wrong in my assumption. I don’t know why I actually thought that Coral snakes would’ve evolved to specifically attack humans.
Incidently about the rabbit/turd thing: My Bio teacher said that the reason they have to feast on their own droppings is because they went from meateaters to vegans, and their stomach hasn’t completely adapted yet.
None that I’m aware of. Lagomorphs (rabbits, hares and pikas) share a common ancestor with rodents (some of which are omnivorous), but there is nothing about rabbit anatomy to indicate that their immediate ancestors were ever capable of eating meat. Rabbits, in their choice of diet, are very similar to ungulates (the big, hooved mammals and their kin). Lacking the size to develop more complex digestion (as found in, say, ruminants), they’ve evolved…alternate methods. It seems to work, since their digestive efficiency approaches that of ruminants (and, really, the only difference between the rabbit’s method and the cow’s is where the food comes from before being re-digested).
