W I N E TOXINS AND VENOMOUS AND POISONOUS MARINE ANIMALS
261
that its venom is twenty times less lethal to some arthropods than it is
to the mouse, while on the other hand is is also ten times more lethal
to certain other arthropods which have not adapted in the same manner.
Some sharks appear to be relatively immune to stingray venom while
others from completely different habitats are very sensitive to this
toxin. Some non-venomous reptiles are not only immune to the venom
of certain of the snakes of their area but actually feed upon these snakes.
These various studies indicate that care must be exercised in applying
data derived from studies in one group of animals to conclusions about
the biological effects of a toxin in another group of animals, or to data on
the design, use and adaptation of a toxin.
No comprehensive classification for toxins now exists. Our knowledge of the chemical and zootoxicological properties of these complex
substances is not broad enough or consistent enough, at the present
time, to permit the adoption of a single working classification. It would
seem, in the absence of a useful and reliable method for classifying
toxins that it might be wisest to develop a system based on the taxonomy of the animal. While such a classification would be somewhat
bulky, and would need to be altered periodically with changes in
taxonomy, it might serve our purpose during the interim in which we
attempt to organize our data on the chemical and biological properties
of these complex substances in a more thorough manner.
On the other hand, perhaps some consideration for classification
might be proposed on the basis of the use to which the animal puts
its toxin. In general, most venom delivered from the oral pole is
used by the animal during an offensive act, as in the gaining of food.
This is particularly evident in the snakes and only slightly less so in the
spiders. The venoms of these animals tend to have a higher enzymatic
content than those delivered from the aboral pole, as those of the
scorpions and bees. However, most of these animals use their toxins in
their offensive armament ; whereas the toxins of most venomous fishes
and the poisons of certain amphibians, which are usually derived from
dermal tissues, are used in the defensive armament. These latter toxins
contain little, few or no enzymatic constituents. However, a classification based on these premises at the present time would be dangerous,
since our knowledge on the use and adaptation of venoms is not yet
complete enough to permit accurate classification.
Until the fractions of marine toxins responsible for the deleterious
effects have been isolated and studied individually, and in combination,
we need to exercise extreme care in systematizing data which are based
partly on biological assay methods, partly on biochemical studies,
partly on clinical observations and partly on intuitive hunches.
261
that its venom is twenty times less lethal to some arthropods than it is
to the mouse, while on the other hand is is also ten times more lethal
to certain other arthropods which have not adapted in the same manner.
Some sharks appear to be relatively immune to stingray venom while
others from completely different habitats are very sensitive to this
toxin. Some non-venomous reptiles are not only immune to the venom
of certain of the snakes of their area but actually feed upon these snakes.
These various studies indicate that care must be exercised in applying
data derived from studies in one group of animals to conclusions about
the biological effects of a toxin in another group of animals, or to data on
the design, use and adaptation of a toxin.
No comprehensive classification for toxins now exists. Our knowledge of the chemical and zootoxicological properties of these complex
substances is not broad enough or consistent enough, at the present
time, to permit the adoption of a single working classification. It would
seem, in the absence of a useful and reliable method for classifying
toxins that it might be wisest to develop a system based on the taxonomy of the animal. While such a classification would be somewhat
bulky, and would need to be altered periodically with changes in
taxonomy, it might serve our purpose during the interim in which we
attempt to organize our data on the chemical and biological properties
of these complex substances in a more thorough manner.
On the other hand, perhaps some consideration for classification
might be proposed on the basis of the use to which the animal puts
its toxin. In general, most venom delivered from the oral pole is
used by the animal during an offensive act, as in the gaining of food.
This is particularly evident in the snakes and only slightly less so in the
spiders. The venoms of these animals tend to have a higher enzymatic
content than those delivered from the aboral pole, as those of the
scorpions and bees. However, most of these animals use their toxins in
their offensive armament ; whereas the toxins of most venomous fishes
and the poisons of certain amphibians, which are usually derived from
dermal tissues, are used in the defensive armament. These latter toxins
contain little, few or no enzymatic constituents. However, a classification based on these premises at the present time would be dangerous,
since our knowledge on the use and adaptation of venoms is not yet
complete enough to permit accurate classification.
Until the fractions of marine toxins responsible for the deleterious
effects have been isolated and studied individually, and in combination,
we need to exercise extreme care in systematizing data which are based
partly on biological assay methods, partly on biochemical studies,
partly on clinical observations and partly on intuitive hunches.