Scolopendra Venom

In a recent thread, many were warning about the seriousness and responsibility of keeping a large Scolopendra. I completely agree that they should be kept by mature, responsible, experienced adults in an escape proof (if there is such a thing when it comes to pedes) enclosure.

I cant stress this enough; they should be kept by mature, responsible, experienced adults in an escape proof enclosure.

They are formidable creatures that can make the bravest of people void their bowels.

People who live in their native habitats will often kill centipedes on site; that is how serious it is.

Their "bite" is significant and nothing to scoff at but one thing that perplexed me was the mention of "lethality". I am referring to human lethality in this case.

I know this has been discussed before but I thought it would be constructive to start another discussion on this topic.

As far as I am aware, the one or two reports of human death were due to secondary complications and not directly related to the actual centipede bite.

Although there are numerous reports that bites are extremely painful and traumatic, using the word "lethal" until more information is available is doing a disservice to the animal.

Many people outside of the hobby would look at a harmless G. Rosea in the same uneducated prejudice that we may be labeling centipedes with.

We have to be careful to avoid using certain negative connotations such as "lethal" until there is irrefutable scientific evidence.

I'm sure there are many lurkers and curious visitors outside of the hobby who read our threads and I don't want them to leave misinformed.

I completely agree that the lack of reports does not conclusively prove anything but in the misunderstood hobby of invert keeping an effort to dispel misinformation must be of utmost importance to everyone.

Have there been and confirmed reports of deaths directly related to Scolopendra venom? Have any new details emerged from previous reports?

Discuss.


Note: I just wanted to point out the bolded, red "we" in my post above as I've done the same.

Disclaimer: I am not speaking from authority on the subject but based on information I have gathered and personal opinion.

Well the first problem is where they live. In those regions not everything is jotted down. Secondly how rare they are seen. They avoid humanity with a pregidous. Like said in another post for the longest time many of today's deadliest snakes were considered to be non venomous. All because we dont have evidence doesn't mean they aren't deadly

Since we don't have enough information I'm sure death is possible from centipede venom. I believe certain kinds of people(children, elders, people with compromised immune systems) are definitely at risk. I completely agree that they can't be controlled and should only be handled by experienced people. I think sooner than we expect we will be able to find information on this, as more and more people are keeping centipedes in their homes as pets.

Thank you for your post cantthinkofone.

I don't think it is a matter of jotting things down as many of the most notoriously and well known lethal animals occur in remote areas yet word still gets around.

As well the notorious Subspinipes occurs in numerous regions including Hawaii from what I gather.

My understanding is that they are quite common in urban and rural areas and appear in homes and other places inhabited by people such as hotels, homes, and even peoples shoes.

I personally believe their is more to this but that's just me.

---------- Post added 07-23-2013 at 02:22 PM ----------

MelissaDBrown said:

Since we don't have enough information I'm sure death is possible from centipede venom. I believe certain kinds of people(children, elders, people with compromised immune systems) are definitely at risk. I completely agree that they can't be controlled and should only be handled by experienced people. I think sooner than we expect we will be able to find information on this, as more and more people are keeping centipedes in their homes as pets.

Click to expand...

I agree MelissaDBrown that we don't have enough information. I believe that same can be said about many things however in regards to children, elders, and people with compromised immune systems. There are always exceptions to the rules.

Although there are numerous reports that bites are extremely painful and traumatic, using the word "lethal" until more information is available is doing a disservice to the animal.

Many people outside of the hobby would look at a harmless G. Rosea in the same uneducated prejudice that we may be labeling centipedes with.


Note: I just wanted to point out the bolded, red "we" in my post above as I've done the same.

Disclaimer: I am not speaking from authority on the subject but based on information I have gathered and personal opinion.

Well word "spreads" because it's easier to see what bit you when it's a snake. Also if you don't know what got you, and you die, then you are marked for something other than centipede. Also I would say lethal because the majority of documented bites were adults. He who shall not be named is not an adult and so I wouldn't find it a good idea to tell him there was no risk. There is always a risk. I'm not an adult and so I have to embrace that risk when I feed and move my pedes.

cantthinkofone said:

Well word "spreads" because it's easier to see what bit you when it's a snake. Also if you don't know what got you, and you die, then you are marked for something other than centipede. Also I would say lethal because the majority of documented bites were adults. He who shall not be named is not an adult and so I wouldn't find it a good idea to tell him there was no risk. There is always a risk. I'm not an adult and so I have to embrace that risk when I feed and move my pedes.

Click to expand...

I agree with you canthinkofone that there is definitely significant risk and everybody in the hobby should look out for each other.

However, we have to be careful to avoid using certain negative connotations such as "lethal" until there is irrefutable scientific evidence.

I'm sure there are many lurkers and curious visitors outside of the hobby who read our threads and I don't want them to leave misinformed.

I see your point. But still it needs to be put that these have risks. They arent toys

cantthinkofone said:

I see your point. But still it needs to be put that these have risks. They arent toys

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you cantthinkofone as I stated in my previous post.

I commend you for warning them of the risks.

Has there been any new reports?

MrCrackerpants said:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1306096/pdf/westjmed00176-0111.pdf

Click to expand...

Interesting article. As a side note, I was not aware that S. heros occurred in Georgia and Alabama.
I believe that it would not be irresponsible to consider the large Scolopendra species as "potentially lethal". There is certainly enough evidence to support this theory. To avoid using the term "potentially lethal" just because there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to support that they are not definitely lethal would be irresponsible in my opinion. It would be a tragedy if someone became the first definitive case if they didn't take the potential seriously enough because we were afraid to use the "potentially fatal" term to avoid using the word "fatal". Just something to think about.
I also wonder if there have been any mistaken cases of tourists or locals fatally bitten by a giant centipede that were reported as a snakebite due to misidentification. A lot of people outside the hobby still are not aware of the existence of giant centipedes, and I can imagine that 40 or 50 years ago, this was even more the case. Most centipedes move in a serpentine motion, and someone with fear and adrenaline pumping through their veins could definitely "see" something different than what it actually was.

Thanks MrCrackerpants for the link.

lancej said:

Interesting article. As a side note, I was not aware that S. heros occurred in Georgia and Alabama.
I believe that it would not be irresponsible to consider the large Scolopendra species as "potentially lethal". There is certainly enough evidence to support this theory. To avoid using the term "potentially lethal" just because there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to support that they are not definitely lethal would be irresponsible in my opinion. It would be a tragedy if someone became the first definitive case if they didn't take the potential seriously enough because we were afraid to use the "potentially fatal" term to avoid using the word "fatal". Just something to think about.
I also wonder if there have been any mistaken cases of tourists or locals fatally bitten by a giant centipede that were reported as a snakebite due to misidentification. A lot of people outside the hobby still are not aware of the existence of giant centipedes, and I can imagine that 40 or 50 years ago, this was even more the case. Most centipedes move in a serpentine motion, and someone with fear and adrenaline pumping through their veins could definitely "see" something different than what it actually was.

Click to expand...

Hmm...I'm undecided on the topic. I believe that serious warnings are important and are in the best interest of the hobbyists and hobby.

Part of me agrees that there hasn't been any conclusive evidence and lack thereof does not place it beyond the realm of possibility but the other part of me doesn't believe that there is sufficient evidence to support this theory.

The article that MrCrackerpants linked threw me for a loop because it also seems to be undecided.

First it says "There are rare reports of human fatalities, but the adequacy of the documentation of the cases has
been questioned.11 Generally, the scolopendrids have been
described as relatively harmless to humans. 12. 5"

Then the article says "Physicians practicing in the areas in which the giant desert
centipede is found should be alert to the possible morbidity
and mortality that can result from envenomation, which heretofore has not been widely appreciated."

Secondary complications still seem to be the culprit in my opinion (which of course can be wrong).

Bah...I don't know what to think.

---------- Post added 07-29-2013 at 09:51 AM ----------

Just found this article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17320133

I'm not sure what this thread is trying to accomplish. Are they lethal? Water is lethal. Potentially lethal? Yes. As is walking. As for 'secondary complications', any potentially lethal toxin that doesn't directly cause cardiac or pulmonary arrest or neurological damage that causes either of those, falls into the category of causing secondary complications that can cause death. As a typical example, bee stings which cause several hundred deaths a year world wide, all from secondary complications.

The Snark said:

I'm not sure what this thread is trying to accomplish.

Click to expand...

Dispel misinformation in a misunderstood hobby through constructive discussion and debate.

lancej said:

Interesting article. As a side note, I was not aware that S. heros occurred in Georgia and Alabama.

Click to expand...

Right?

http://naturalsciences.org/sites/default/files/images/research-collections/S_heros.gif

I don't know what to think of the robust woman living in the heat of AZ...I don't recall hearing of a heros envenomation causing necrosis(but could be mistaken, of course). Coupled with the possibility for being a hydration/hyperthermia issue or even just an infection(treatment 3 days after "bite") there are a slew of other potential causes for renal failure. Who knows? Watch your fingers and use caution?

If I recall Mike Dame was took a nasty bite from heros in the last couple years...would be interesting to see what the doc's visit results were.

zonbonzovi said:

I don't know what to think of the robust woman living in the heat of AZ...I don't recall hearing of a heros envenomation causing necrosis(but could be mistaken, of course). Coupled with the possibility for being a hydration/hyperthermia issue or even just an infection(treatment 3 days after "bite") there are a slew of other potential causes for renal failure. Who knows? Watch your fingers and use caution?

Click to expand...

I agree zonbonzovi. There are too many unknowns in my opinion to come to any conclusion. It would be interesting to know Mike's experience.

Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility; it's best to error on the side of caution but not be too liberal with negatively labeling centipedes with the sparse reports that are available.

I do not believe a healthy adult human is at risk of dieing from a centipede bite. The only report I've come across of a human death was an infant. Of course bites can be painful, so don't touch.

burmish101 said:

I do not believe a healthy adult human is at risk of dieing from a centipede bite. The only report I've come across of a human death was an infant. Of course bites can be painful, so don't touch.

Click to expand...

I am of the same belief.

Interesting article which supports painful but not dangerous

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15083935/

Check out this link and the response from Dr. Rowland in regards to the subject of centipede bite lethality. He is an expert on myriapods.

http://bugguide.net/node/view/565413