上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]Luminox 892ポイント893ポイント  (185子コメント)

Can anyone ELI5 why the hell Australia has so many killer/harmful creatures and plants?? Why don't other places produce so many harmful things?

[–]Vernes_Jewels 1472ポイント1473ポイント  (73子コメント)

It's a smaller isolated continent with a sort of evolutionary arms race going on.

[–]kyles24 70ポイント71ポイント  (23子コメント)

But then why not the same for New Zealand?

[–]nekonight 137ポイント138ポイント  (9子コメント)

My guess is there wasnt an evolutionary pressure driving species there to be more venomous. Were as in Australia perhaps a couple of species at the same time found an evolutionary advantage to be more venomous/toxic as a means of defense and hunting. And to attempt to outcompete others doing the same they became more venomous/toxic instead of arriving at a different solution.

[–]blazinblu 110ポイント111ポイント  (6子コメント)

Australia is also a lot more arid, so there's less food for more herbivorous creatures to survive. When your main food source is other animals, you have to stay on top. The hot environment is also great for snakes and reptiles which wouldn't survive in NZ climate.

[–]wheelhorn 20ポイント21ポイント  (5子コメント)

Additionally, prey animals of the venomous species have probably evolved to resist venom, which would make the venom of snakes and other species more potent to stay competitive.

[–]Beetle559 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

As far as I know (very little), biologists are baffled by just how venomous some creatures are. Some of these guys are effectively launching hydrogen bombs at prey that is living in a straw shack.

[–]--The_Minotaur-- 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

thats what I was thinking.

Main food:

frogs and lizards

Weapon:

enough poison to kill an elephant.

To me it seems impossible for the venom to just be about hunting, more about defense. Some of those kangaroos look scary as fuck, I'd want to make my first punch really count also if I was fighting Mike Tyson.

[–]the_cheese_was_good 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was watching something about Australia and its venomous/dangerous creatures the other day. I had no idea about the huge cane toad problem, and how because they are not an indigenous species (they were brought in by humans to control the grey-backed cane beetle population - which failed miserably) they are threatening animals that have been there for thousands if not millions of years.

Now, when certain animals - especially snakes - think they're attacking a normal toad and getting a tasty meal, they die from the highly toxic venom in the toad's skin. This is all relatively new, but I wonder if in a place like Australia, would these snakes evolve to be able to handle the venom in a quicker time period than other places in the world?

I realize you may not be an expert here, just thought it was an interesting theory and they never mentioned it on that show.

I should add that the show was very ... clickbaity (72 Dangerous Animals: Australia). The worst part was the American narrator constantly using "whilst." Hahaha. It was rather informative though.

[–]filibustermechanika 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Someone else explained that this was because new Zealand broke off Antarctica and not Australia. So they are vastly different ecosystems even though they're so close to each other today. Australia was an arid landmass that evolved species that can survive in more extreme climates while New Zealand was/is almost a paradise with pleasant climate conditions.

[–]factoid_ 33ポイント34ポイント  (5子コメント)

It actually doesn't have a higher percentage of venomous species than other places that is a myth.

Venomous species tend to be found in places without a lot of food. A lot of Australia is desert.

[–]SomeRandomMax 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

It actually doesn't have a higher percentage of venomous species than other places that is a myth.

Venomous species tend to be found in places without a lot of food. A lot of Australia is desert.

These two statements seem to be contradictory. Since such a larger area is desert, it would suggest that a proportionally large percentage of the animals would be venomous. But you seem to be saying that the opposite is true, the numbers are the same as we would see in a less hostile area.

Is that accurate, or is something missing in your comment? Not meaning to sound difficult, I am genuinely trying to understand the apparent contradiction.

[–]factoid_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair question. Australia probably has a higher population of venomous species, but it has a similar diversity to other places on earth, so percentage of venomous species to non-venomous ones isn't really different.

[–]CX316 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

On an evolutionary scale, that desert is pretty recent.

[–][deleted] 112ポイント113ポイント  (30子コメント)

these are just my assumptions:
1] the fact the climate is semi-tropical, particularly in the top half of the continent, leads to the proliferation of reptiles and spiders and such.
2] there are extremely few large mammalian predators. The biggest predator we have in that regard is an average sized dog and below that we have a few cat sized things. No bears or mountain lions or wolves or anything of that sort, and something has to fill the predator niche.
3] if you did an actual tally of dangerous animals, Australia probably wouldn't have all that many in comparison to other countries. it's just the TYPE of dangerous animal that is unusual [ie more poisonous reptiles than large carnivorous mammals]

[–]PomesByJesse 36ポイント37ポイント  (18子コメント)

Our biggest predator would probably be a shark or a croc.

[–][deleted] 110ポイント111ポイント  (12子コメント)

Yeah, and neither of those are mammals.

[–]HeyBayBeeUWanTSumFuk 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

2] there are extremely few large mammalian predators. The biggest predator we have in that regard is an average sized dog and below that we have a few cat sized things. No bears or mountain lions or wolves or anything of that sort, and something has to fill the predator niche.

Kangaroos are very dangerous predators capable to drowning their prey.

[–]CX316 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not predators. They're murderous sociopaths, but that's a result of the harsh environment. To be a predator you need to be actually hunting, not just picking fights like a strip club bouncer like a Red Kangaroo.

[–]DerLoladin 194ポイント195ポイント  (27子コメント)

Some time ago I read an article about the topic, it boils down to australia being very isolated (thus very little adaption to new species over time) and the climate limiting the size that animald can grow to. For example, it's way too hot for bears or other large predators. So the fauna had to adapt. And one of the best weapons AND defense mechanisms at the same time is...(drum roll)....venom!

[–]Searth 106ポイント107ポイント  (12子コメント)

It could be that the arid climate makes venom a more effective strategy than raw power, but it was not too hot for large predators and just like everywhere else, there were some huge beasts before humans arrived. Extinct megafauna in Australia includes huge venomless snakes, wombats heavier than bulls, large tapir-like marsupials, and the largest terrestial lizard ever (a nearly two ton heavy predator).

[–]jcunews1 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Extinct megafauna in Australia includes huge venomless snakes, wombats heavier than bulls, large tapir-like marsupials, and the largest terrestial lizard ever (a nearly two ton heavy predator).

Where can I know more about these animals? Where in Wikipedia, perhaps? Or a site that's about extinct Australian fauna?

[–]not_an_evil_overlord 25ポイント26ポイント  (11子コメント)

So why does New Zealand have very few venomous critters as compared to Australia?

[–]OliverTheWanderer 31ポイント32ポイント  (1子コメント)

New Zealand has almost no native animals beyond birds. The reason being is that it was quite small when it floated away and nothing lived on it. As time passed it gained more area, but it was too far away by that point for anything to make it over. There is evidence of an extinct native small mammal but that is about it. What you do get is gigantic flightless birds.

[–]shortglass 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What NZ had, anyway. The Moa was hunted to extinction once humans arrived and the Haast's Eagle lost their primary food source and died out too.

[–]metacarpel 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

NZ is generally a whole lot colder than Australia is. Spiders and snakes generally aren't too fond of the cold, so its not surprising that they didn't really flourish

[–]tso 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

And that is why I don't mind living somewhere that covered in snow half the year.

[–]NC-Lurker 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why not the best of both worlds though? Sunny islands where you never get cold, yet no dangerous crawling things out to kill you.

[–]BE20Driver 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then you generally get a high human population density. That might be even worse than the snakes.

[–]shviss_vatches 22ポイント23ポイント  (0子コメント)

Australia has a varying climate and is a huge island.

[–]james_bonged 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

another thing people have failed to mention; is that before the tectonic shifting and rearranging of continents as you now see, australia and new zealand were never conveniently connected, due to being part of two separate continental plates entirely. this is why flora, fauna and people are vastly different across the, seemingly, two similar island nations.

[–]_pulsar 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

In addition to what others have said, it's also because the two countries are nowhere near as close as they appear on world maps we're used to seeing.

[–]PantsFerret 19ポイント20ポイント  (4子コメント)

Some of it is one of evolution's random chances (the venomous snakes precursors were on the continent when the plates shifted). It's also due to the presence of megafauna. When you have a population of large animals, the smaller animals and plants in the ecosystem need to adapt to compete and protect themselves.

A good example is killer bees, which are almost identical to european bees, but are extremely aggressive as an adaptation to protect the hive against African megafauna, or the Australian bulldog ant.

[–]CantDriveCarOrSelf 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I thought killer bees were man-made (Africanized honey bees).

[–]PantsFerret 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ones in the americas were African bees cross bred with native honey bees. But the bees in Africa are morphologically similar but more aggressive.

[–]JebbeK 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hi there! I'm not capable of explaining it better, so im just leaving this great link about it. Hope it helps! https://youtu.be/myh94hpFmJY

[–]syllabeargrylls 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nice work, was hoping someone would link this. /u/luminox check that video out, Derek's awesome.

[–]maninjelly 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are many other good responses to this question, and I'll just add a quick one. Australia due to many factors is an extremely resource (energy) poor country. Because of this evolution favoured the path of defence or attack that does not use too much energy, i.e. venom rather than running.

[–]NeedsMoreTests 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you ask the same question of Google you'll get a lot of answers, including this thread in /r/askscience:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/111ji2/why_does_there_seem_to_be_such_a_high/

TLDR: There's a lot of theories as to why but there's no definitive answer. Harsh climate, isolation and our own perception have roles to play in it however.

[–]SasquatchRunningBack 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, as you know most critters like spiders and snakes can be found underneath rocks. Earth is basically just a big rock, and Australia is on the bottom of it. So just like if you looked underneath a rock and found a spider or scorpion, if you look under the Earth you find Australia.

[–]kopiluwak2015[S] 218ポイント219ポイント  (36子コメント)

Named the Kimberley death adder (Acanthophis cryptamydros), the snake is roughly 24 inches (60 cm) long and has a diamond-shaped head.

It is a ‘sit-and-wait’ predator, staying camouflaged until it can ambush any passing frogs, lizards or small mammals.

Journal reference: http://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4007.3.1

[–]ivnslva 147ポイント148ポイント  (23子コメント)

Of course it's named "Death Adder"

[–]Coos-Coos 34ポイント35ポイント  (11子コメント)

You know this is where the term originated right?

[–]Knight_of_Agatha 27ポイント28ポイント  (6子コメント)

i bet you're gonna tell us

[–]mordahl 74ポイント75ポイント  (3子コメント)

Death adders were originally called "deaf adders" by early settlers of Australia.[2] Unlike other snakes that tend to run away from human disturbance, the death adder's method of hunting by ambush inclines it to stay, leading to the notion that the death adder cannot hear. However, death adders, like other snakes, can hear and perceive ground vibrations.

[–]socsa 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

But I thought all Adders were Puffs...

[–]Blaze172 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Death adders are actually related to most other species of adder seen in other parts of the world. The adders that most of the world is familiar with are members of the family viperidae and death adders are members of elapidae. It's a case of convergent evolution!

[–]YourLocalWeatherMan 975ポイント976ポイント  (189子コメント)

I think it's amazing how were still discovering new species. I wonder what there is to find with so much of this earth not yet explored.

[–]ZeroBcool 189ポイント190ポイント  (9子コメント)

Maybe people have seen it before, got close to it and said: "What the hell is that?" Bitten. Died. Remains undiscovered.

[–]jcunews1 35ポイント36ポイント  (6子コメント)

Funny, but true. :)

The last snake that got discovered before end of the world, would be the most badass one. Or the most wuss.

[–]newpong 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

you're forgetting about the snake that caused the end of the world that was never discovered

[–]anomalis 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

Came to say basically this. Newly discovered because everyone who's previously seen one is dead.

[–]eddiejone 111ポイント112ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well often these are already-known creatures which were simply misclassified

[–]IronOreAgate 372ポイント373ポイント  (143子コメント)

It is also sad to think about how many species of plants and animals will go extinct, due to humans, before we ever discover them.

[–]YourLocalWeatherMan 112ポイント113ポイント  (125子コメント)

I read something like each day there's a species of plant or animal that goes extinct right under our noses. Very sad.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

[–]ThisIs_MyName 241ポイント242ポイント  (111子コメント)

meh species have been going extinct since life started on earth

It's really no big deal.

[–]2013RedditChampion 62ポイント63ポイント  (17子コメント)

This subreddit seems really dumb for a place called /r/science. Losing biodiversity means losing an incredibly important source for innovation, especially when it comes to medicine.

[–]Stand4Logic 8ポイント9ポイント  (10子コメント)

I agree. If there were one species I'd like to see become extinct it'd be mosquitoes. That said, (once eradicated) we'd likely find that we could have used them to spread vaccines. Wait, why isn't that a thing?

[–]occams--chainsaw 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

dude, if we used mosquotos to spread vaccines we'd end up with a world full of autistics

[–]stravant 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I always hear people say this... but I don't really understand it.

I have to imagine that most of the species that we have not discovered yet are either:

  • Very similar to existing ones, thus hard to notice

  • Small mostly uninteresting insects and the like

  • Very "alien" creatures in odd obscure habitats like in caves, which most people won't ever get to see anyways even if they are preserved.

Is it really that big of a loss? It doesn't affect my life in any way, and millions of species have come and gone over the Earth's history anyways, what's a few more?

[–]nul1ptr 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

And just think how many unknown species still live deep under the oceans where we have limited access and were not that well explored.

[–]dooogan 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

You might not expect it, but even though we've been able to describe about 1.7 million species, this is still only a fraction of what we think is out there, somewhere around 12-15 million species. In many cases this is due to our inability to access some of the places that are the most biodiverse e.g. huge chunks of the Amazon rainforest. This issue is officially called the Wallacean Shortfall in the field of conservation biology, and has many ramifications for conservation.

"Some habitats, such as the Amazon rain forest, are so vast so as to render systematic sampling an impossibility using the technology currently available. Indeed, it has been commented that we do not have accurate information on the goegraphical distribution of any plant species in the Amazon. (Riddle et al 2011)". The moral of the story is to take "field guide" distribution maps with a grain of salt, as they're often generalizations.

[–]Aleksandair 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot. For 60 years and despite knowing the general area where they lived, we couldn't find any panda and even thought the species to be extinct

[–]laciemn 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, but there are so many species! How can we find them all? Especially insects. 10,000 new species are discovered each year!

[–]meetajhu 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not earth. Just Australia.

[–]KillerJupe 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

My dad is an entomologist, one of the things he studies are Jerusalem crickets. They are the heaviest insect in North America and several inches long, so you would think they have been well studied... Not the case, he has discovered and is naming over 50 new species. They aren't even subtlety different. They have different colors, some have wings, while others hop...

Many of the new species are right in populated areas in the US very few are actually identified.

Less interesting/distinctive insects are certainly less well described and going extinct all the time. You've likely interacted with an undescribed insect at some point recently and never even known.

[–]thevisible 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, not to mention the ocean

[–]WTFlock 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just think about all the stuff we haven't discovered in the oceans yet!

[–]ksye 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's a no brainer, we do not invest that much into it. At least i think, someone could check some numbers, but Earth is big, and most living beings aren't made to be easily noticed.

[–]bluntmasterflash 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

If they just discovered it, how can they know it's habitat range?

[–]cupids_hitman 47ポイント48ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because it was actually discovered years ago, but it was just misidentified as another species.

[–]thenightisnotlight 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably just looked at the climate and terrain around where they found it and outlined an area with the same details. Mostly speculation. Kinda like saying, "this is where they could be based on where we have seen them and what we know about them."

[–]Ace-of-Spades88MS|Wildlife Biology|Conservation 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

Exciting!

I would love to land a biology gig exploring Australia.

Sigh

[–]dusty321 81ポイント82ポイント  (7子コメント)

Im pretty sure these snakes were identified as something else for a long time. Its only now that they got a new name. But Fox would make it breaking news in the interest of science.

[–]cdrchandlerBS|Biology|Cytogenetics 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Definitely possible. Mengden's brown snake (Pseudonaja mengdeni) used to be considered a color variant of the western brown snake (P. nuchalis) until genetic testing determined that they are actually separate species. Same with P. aspidorhyncha (couldn't find a common name).

Edit: P. aspidorhyncha is commonly called the shield-snouted brown snake.

[–]craftmacaro 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually, because they do not genetically resemble death adders, the family they are currently placed under, it could have big implications when you consider evolution. The venom work up could be really interesting as well.

[–]lun0tic 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's what I'm guessing as well.

[–]Billie_ 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

an unnamed island in Talbot Bay

This is the most surprising part of the article for me. How can there be an island that's unnamed?

[–]lightmanmac 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

If my guess is correct, they're not naming it to keep the snakes preserved for now.

Much like "the unnamed victim of the assault has yet to release a statement" in news.

Or I could be wrong and BRB gonna go buy and name an island filled with venomous snakes.

[–]saanity 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

How long have these snakes been there? Did they evolve yesterday? ELI5, how long and distant does a genetic branch have to be before it is classified as a new species?

[–]MiserereMeiDeus 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

How have they just discovered this new snake, and yet seem to know how far it's territory extends..?

[–]ALLthatMUSIC 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

From the picture, it looks like it's eyes are pointing completely forward. That's very interesting and eerily human-like.

[–]Clavo_PR 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Highly Venemous = Australia every time.

[–]Fredrickchopin 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow, that's actually pretty long for an adder.

[–]A40 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Makes sense it's eluded official notice so long: excellent camouflage, a 'sit and wait' hunting style, a small, rugged territory, and the first several people who 'discovered' it probably ran like the dickens before thinking, "Hey, what kinda snake was that..?"

[–]wp2000 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

ELI5: How does one recognize a new species? I imagine some species look very similar to each other.

[–]ohheyaubrie 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It looks like an octopus in snake form.

[–]zirtbow 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought they didn't allow Chris Brown in?

[–]Rsubs33 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course it's in Australia

[–]klawehtgod 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

highly venomous snake found in Australia

Least surprising news ever

[–]Gaius_Octavius_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Anyone know - is there a scientific reason why Australia has so many poisonous species? did the other continents have them before but they were hunted to extinction? is there something about being isolated geologically that increases toxics in species?

[–]mrducky78 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Its likely the isolation, its why we have so many marsupial variants (possum, kangaroo, wombat, koala, etc) as well as monotremes (platypus, echidna). We also until relatively recently (human migration by the indigenous australians ~50 000-65 000 years ago) had megafauna, Im talking about marsupials the size of Hippos wandering the land and predators to match them, both went extinct as the herbivores were killed and the predators starved having been specialized to hunt the large game and less adapted by chasing and eating smaller nimbler prey.

The isolation allows for niche animals to further fulfill the specific niche with less generalized organisms to compete against (there are a couple migratory birds, but the system is more or less enclosed). Why specifically poison? The evolutionary arms race idea is often put forward but I reckon a big factor is how desolate a large portion of Australia is. Its dry and barren which encourages less active chasing prey system and more reliant on specialized protein systems to make the kill (venom) where ambush predation is the least taxing on the animal.

[–]Gaius_Octavius_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks. That makes sense. I especially like about not wanting to chase prey across the desert. I never heard that but that totally explains why deserts seems to have more venomous species.