nevermind
Some catfish have poisonous spines.
I do not accept general purpose dictionaries as authoritative sources of factual info. Their avowed purpose is to define words according to the most popular current usage. When you get into more technical subjects, therefore, such dictionaries frequently repeat popular misconceptions and errors. The ones from Merriam are especially flagrant offenders in this way, but others aren’t wholly innocent either.
But this is not one of those “vote for the most popular answer” [even if incorrect] sites. This is the Straight Dope, where we are supposed to be sticklers for technical accuracy. Every toxinologist I’ve known, defines venom and poison pretty much as I did above. General medical dictionaries are sometimes a little hazy on the subject of poison, but invariably define venom as an injected toxin.
Not that this is really very much to the point of the OP’s question. 
But it does help when we each understand just what the other is talking about.
Current usage? Shakespeare used venomous to refer to the toad over 400 years ago. That’s hardly current usage. It has been used consistently and constantly in that manner ever since. Ditto for references to poisonous snakes.
This usage is not in any conceivable way “current”. It is older than modern English itself.
The same goes for the claim of “popular”. I just entered the terms “poison” and snake" into ScienceDirect and it maxed out at >2000 papers published in the last 10 years, all but one of them, as far as I can see, refers to snake venom as a poison. Entering “poisonous” and “antivenom” returns >400 hits. The specific term “snake poison” returns >100 hits, including journals such as “Toxicon” and “Toxicology”. “Poisonous snake” returns >500 hits including, once again including “Toxicon” and “Toxicology” as well as “Analytical Biochemistry”.
So any claim that this is solely a popular usage his usage is not in any conceivable way “popular”. It is widely and regularly used by some of the premier scientific journals in the fields of toxicology and ecology.
Cite please.
Because such notable centres of toxicological excellence as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the CDC and the Harvard Medical School all refer to snakes as poisonous.
As you said, this is not one of those “vote for the most popular answer” sites. So can we please see your evidence to support your contention?
As I said above, it makes no sense. Snake venom is indisputably a poison, yet according to your definition the organism that produces that poison isn’t poisonous. It’s ridiculous.
Some do, some don’t.
Did you really not understand perfectly what the OP meant when he referred to a poisonous snake?
Cane Toads secrete a neurotoxin that can have ill effects from contact as well as ingestion (is it venom if the method is just contact absorption?)
Note to self: If ever in Australia stay as far away from nature as possible. Everything can kill you. :eek:
Even if it were true that there was a general technical distinction between poison and venom (and Blake’s evidence calls this into question), that does not mean that the popular, general purpose definition is wrong or a misconception. It merely shows that there is a restricted technical meaning in addition to the general one.
A good example of this is “bug.” Some pedants will insist that because entomologists have restricted the use of this word to the suborder Hemiptera, it is incorrect to use it for any small creeping arthropod - a usage that has been the general one since the 14th century. In general usage, it is perfectly correct to call an ant, a spider, or a millipede a bug, even if an entomologist would use it differently.
So there is nothing at all wrong in referring to a rattlesnake as a poisonous snake. This is not at all a “misconception,” it is an accurate description according to the general, rather than the technical, definition of the word.
They’re not native to Australia, so that’s one animal we can’t (really) blame on Australia, although it’s their fault for introducing it. Their fauna are so scary that they need to introduce scarier things to combat the wildlife.
Probably because those are the creatures most likely to inject you with venom in your part of the world.
What’s the difference between venmon and poison?
Shock? No, that’s the eel.
"Envenomated’???
I posted merely to acknowledge the existence of a heretofore unknown word…and apparently it’s unknown to my spellchecker, too. Although spellchecker is fine with “envenomed”.
Are those the ones that supposedly get you high?
Such as corydoras cats, which are a common freshwater aquarium fish. However, it’s only mildly irritating to humans. I’ve never had a reaction to them – after letting go, anyway.
I’ve often caught small fish out of an aquarium with my (clean) bare hands. Under certain circumstances this can be less stressful to the fish than trying to use a net. However, I make an exception for corydoras cats, because they are just too prickly. When threatened, they stiffen up and stick out their spiny fins. Whether poisonous or not, it doesn’t feel great to grab one!
Ever caught a Channel Catfish and had it get you? It’s more than mildly irritating - not a mistake I ever made twice.
O/T- There is a facebook group called “In America they call it Survivor”. In Australia we call it camping." Very tongue in cheek.
End of hijack.
How very odd. I have heard (and used) “Envenomated” far more often than “Envenomed”.
Unfortunately a Google poll can’t be done because “envenomed” is totally swamped by the title of an album, spells in Warcraft and similar. It seems to be one of the cool words of the moment. When the majority of those are removed envenomed returns about 200, 000 hits, over half of which are nonsense relating to spells and albums vs 30, 00 for envenomated, with all the envenomated hits being relevant.
I’m guessing that envenomated is actually the more common word in the real world.
Note also that the words are not synonyms. Something is envenomed if it carries venom. That may mean it has been poisoned with venom, but it may also refer, for example, to a syringe that has been filled with venom. Envenomated only refers to an organism that has been poisoned.
Suprised no-one has mentioned bees and wasps yet - probably the creatures that poison humans the most frequently.
What is true for language as used by a profession is not necessarily true for language as used by the general public. In fact, it is my distinct impression that zoologists have often taken words already in use and intentionally adopted different definitions for their scientific purposes. There’s nothing wrong with that; it may be entirely useful and valid in their field of study. But that does not invalidate the less precise definitions as used by the general public.
This is a very good example. I’d like to offer a few others:
“A chimpanzee is not a monkey.” – It depends on the context. In informal usage, a chimpanzee is most certainly a monkey.
“Koala bear is a misnomer because koalas aren’t bears.” – Again, in informal usage, “bear” does not have the precise definitions as are applied by scientists.
Should only be used in the expression, " How much can a koala bear? ".
If you think that is bad, try getting stuck by any one of several catfishes that really do have venomous spines, like the saltwater hardhead catfish or gaftopsail catfish, or even the freshwater madtoms. Far, far, worse sting. I have heard that the sting from a channel catfish does not really have venom, but that it is just a reaction to bacteria in the spine. I don’t believe it, though - the pain is too quick for any kind of infective agent, although usually not immediate. Get stuck bad in the hand by a hardhead though, and you are usually not going to be using that arm much for a few hours. You won’t be able to - it is extremely painful, and for some reason the arm just loses most of its strength. I wish I knew the means by which that effect takes place.