Reptile Forum, Reptile Classifieds - CaptiveBred Forum Index Reptile Forum, Reptile Classifieds - CaptiveBred
A site to share your Reptile experiances & ask questions
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Defining the term "rear fanged"

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Reptile Forum, Reptile Classifieds - CaptiveBred Forum Index -> Venomous & other DWAA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dan
Captivebred Communist


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 1306

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:28 pm    Post subject: Defining the term "rear fanged" Reply with quote

I know the title and possibly the subject of this may be obvious to most that read it initially, but, i would like to know what makes a snake "rear fanged"

Obviously enlarged teeth at the rear of the mouth which are used to transfer venom from the predator to the prey would be the usual answer.

However i keep a group of Psammodynastes pulverulentus (mock vipers) and while these are labelled as rear fanged i am somewhat bemused by the simplicity with which this term has been attached.

Please see the following photos of one of our females:

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


As you can see from the first 2 pictures there ARE enlarged teeth at the front of the mouth. You can also see from the pictures as a whole i am dealing with tiny animals here, but, i am convinced these teeth fold back in a hinged fashion.
Photo's 3, 4 and 5 show the position of these front "fangs" in relation to the rest of the mouth and the rear fangs (for which i would suspect these are labelled as rear fanged). You can also clearly see that the swelling of the gums and the overall size of the teeth both at the rear and forward positions are similar of size. I'm not sure if you can tell from the photo's but the front are actually larger in size (fractionally) than the rear.

Hopefully i have managed to get across the point i am getting at here. Yes these snakes are rear fanged, by a more typical description but they are actually equipped with larger front fangs.

So is a snake defined as rear fanged simply because of the equipment location of because of this factor combined with a low toxicity venom?

Apologies if you have read this elswhere.

I look forward to your replies.
_________________
TFA

The future is bright, the future is a net like pattern.................

I'm NOT an expert, so if you don't want to know my opinion don't ask!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mattie
Key Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 316
Location: middlesbrough

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is it that the front fangs are just enlarged teeth used too grip prey while the rear venom producing fangs chew into the food source too aid digestion and subdue prey? Dan are thease arboreal? in the wild do they prey on slippery food items perhaps amphibians? would certainly justify the need for gripping front teeth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan
Captivebred Communist


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 1306

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is something i have thought about. I have even tried feeding these on amphibians. The results were a resounding no. They refuse point blank to eat amphibians although they will eat geckos until they burst.
While not really arboreal they don't seem overly terrestrial either. They do spend the majority of their time raised slightly off the floor which would suggest that tree living isnt the choice but bush heights would certainly be preferred.
The chosen method of feeding is also fascinating. These actually leap at the food item opening the mouth only at the last minute!! We have had youngsters of no more than 3 or 4 inches jump a clear 12-14 inches. Remarkable to watch!!
_________________
TFA

The future is bright, the future is a net like pattern.................

I'm NOT an expert, so if you don't want to know my opinion don't ask!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JStroud
Site Moderator


Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 4095
Location: Bucks

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The term is more aimed at the venom delivery dentition. While this species does indeed have large front fangs I believe the Duvernoy's gland only supplies the 'rear fangs' hence the opisthoglyphous classification of this species. Great post though and certainly would be good to see more like this questioning systematics and physiology as there's still so much to work on! Cool
_________________
Regards James Stroud
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Captivebred Communist


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 1306

PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok so what if nothing is supplying the back fangs with venom? Ie is it a front fanged species with poor venom that has been labelled as rear fanged because of the the enlarged back teeth...
_________________
TFA

The future is bright, the future is a net like pattern.................

I'm NOT an expert, so if you don't want to know my opinion don't ask!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JStroud
Site Moderator


Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 4095
Location: Bucks

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If only the anterior teeth are being supplied with venom then I would assume it would not come under an opisthoglyphous classification, but a dissection of the head would be the only way to confirm this. If nothing visible is supplying the anterior nor the posterior fangs then some saliva swab or venom testing would need to be done, and tested for toxins.

If it is proved that the snake is only being directly supplied to the front fangs then further work on its dentition would need to be carried out to see if it should really be reclassified taxonimically and scientifically into a proteroglyphous family (judging by the pictures the front fangs do not look large enough to be classified as solenoglyphs even though the head structure may seem otherwise... Confused ). Again I don't know much about this species in particular but it does seem very interesting and definately open for further looking... Cool

edit: Have just seen Dr. Wuster has signed up, he'll be able to tell you much more hopefully and point out if I've been talking rubbish! Laughing
_________________
Regards James Stroud
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Captivebred Communist


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 1306

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The consensus is that as these are skink and gecko eaters the logic seems to be leaning towards the front teeth being purely for holding.

For no reason at all i'm not convinced of this. I mean there are other lizard eaters out there that do have enlarged front teeth (see i can do it without posh words so everyone understands) and those that don't so it could well fall into either category, i think.

All i can do is wait until one dies and have a good look with the magnifying glass. Being realistic i'm not going to be sending off samples to be tested.
I have read references to milking rear fanged snakes before though, perhaps i could try this to see if anything is produced in either location. Anyone know how to milk a rear fanged snake?
_________________
TFA

The future is bright, the future is a net like pattern.................

I'm NOT an expert, so if you don't want to know my opinion don't ask!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Reptile Forum, Reptile Classifieds - CaptiveBred Forum Index -> Venomous & other DWAA All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group