Response to 'Replies to Fry et al. (Toxicon 2012, 60/4, 434-448). Part B. Analyses of squamate reptile oral glands and their products: A call for caution in formal assignment of terminology designating biological function'

摘要

The discussion presented by Kardong in which he stresses that “properties” are not equal to “biological roles” is accurate, but we are unsure how relevant it is to the ongoing discussion of what constitutes a “venomous” reptile. In our recent review (Fry et al., 2012), at no point was it claimed that properties and biological roles, particularly not on the crude level (e.g., “toxic” = “venomous”) suggested by Kardong, are one and the same. Rather, we identified specific properties (e.g., sodium-channel blockage) and their likely biological roles (e.g., paralysis of potential prey) as one piece of evidence amongst many, in support of the “venomous” classification of certain reptiles. As stated in our response to Weinstein et al. (see our response to “Part A”), we feel that reference to the toxicity of human saliva as support for the assertion that certain reptiles are not venomous is a complete and utter non sequitur.