Nopeland Discovery: the Blog

This is part 3 of an article that was so long it became a trilogy. You can click here for part one , about what "venomous" really means, and here for part two , about the term "medically significant", and how it differs from "venomous" and "dangerous". "Venomous" and "poisonous" don't mean what most people think they mean . What most people actually mean when they use these words generally is " medically significant ". Does it matter that much, though? Is it that important to use "medically significant" instead? If that's what everyone understands when we say "venomous" or "poisonous", why not simply use them that way in everyday conversations, and keep the fancy talk for expert discussions only? That would be a fair and valid point, if these words were not purposefully used in the wrong way by people who know exactly what they are doing, to scare and mislead their readers

This is part 2 of an article that was so long it became a trilogy. You can click here for part one , which explains what "venomous" really means, and here for part thre e, about why the distinction matters.   "-Is this spider venomous? -It's not medically significant." Unlike "venomous" or "venom", which zoologists try to define based on the  biology and evolution of these substances in the natural world, terms describing the relationship of animals with us, humans, such as "dangerous" or "deadly", are colloquial, so their definitions are not as strict and unified. One could argue, for instance, that any species which has ever killed at least one human being should be deemed "deadly", or that anything that represents any risk, even purely theoretical, to human life or health, could be classified as "dangerous". However, calling "deadly" animals whose bite is fatal in only about 1 in