Advertisement

Diversity and Distribution of Medically Important Snakes of India

  • Romulus Whitaker
  • Gerard Martin
Reference work entry
Part of the Toxinology book series (TOXI, volume 2)

Abstract

Of the 285 species of snakes found in India, only four are thought to be responsible for the majority of life-threatening bites, spectacled cobra (Naja naja), Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii), common krait (Bungarus caeruleus), and saw-scaled viper (Echis carinatus), the so-called Big Four . The only available antivenom in India targets the bites of these four species. While it is true that these four species are the most medically important Indian snakes, the challenge of saving lives from snakebite is much more complex.

India has four species of cobras, eight species of kraits, and two subspecies of saw-scaled vipers, all of which must be considered medically important. Additionally, several other species like king cobra, some sea snakes, and at least two pit viper species can be classed as medically important based on clinical records of (sometimes single) fatalities from their bites. Further studies are required to determine if there are other species of Indian snakes that can be so classified. It is not known whether the existing Big Four antivenom is effective against the venom of these other or related species, a neglected research area that urgently needs addressing. The venom of Russell’s viper is reported to vary significantly in its clinical effects in different parts of its range which has implications for the production of regionally specific antivenom (Jayanthi and Gowda 1988).

To compound the problem, the distribution of most of these less well-known species is still poorly known. Further, in a country as vast as India, there are different assemblages of venomous snakes in different parts of the country. For example, there are no true vipers in the northeast, and in Eastern India, the spectacled cobra is largely replaced by the monocled cobra. Local anecdotal accounts (particularly in the northeast where large pit vipers occur) suggest several pit viper species that may cause significant morbidity and occasional mortality. The kraits are all known to possess very toxic venoms, but so far, antivenom is only made for the widely distributed common krait, Bungarus caeruleus.

Keywords

Venomous Snake Nicobar Island Coral Snake Naja Naja King Cobra 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahmed MF, Das A, Dutta SK. Amphibians and reptiles of Northeast India. A photographic guide. Guwahati: Aaranyak; 2009. p. 170.Google Scholar
  2. Ariaratnam CA, Thuraisingam V, Kularatne SAM, Sheriff MHR, Theakston RDG, de Silva A, Warrell DA. Frequent and potentially fatal envenoming by hump-nosed pit vipers (Hypnale hypnale and H. nepa) in Sri Lanka: lack of effective antivenom. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102:1120–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandna T. A case of snakebite – possibly by the Himalayan White-lipped Pit Viper (Cryptelytrops septentrionalis).‘Here be Dragons’, MCBT Blogspot; 4 July 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Faiz A, et al. The greater black krait (Bungarus niger), a newly recognized cause of neuro-myotoxic snakebite envenoming in Bangladesh. Brain. 2010;133(11):3181–93. doi:10.1093/brain/awq265. Epub. 2010 Sep 20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gowda CDR, Nataraju A, Rajesh R, Dhananjaya BL, Sharath BK, Vishwanath BS. Differential action of proteases from Trimeresurus malabaricus, Naja naja and Daboia russellii venoms on hemostasis. Comp Biochem Physiol C. 2006a;143:295–302.Google Scholar
  6. Gowda CD, Rajesh R, Nataraju A, Dhananjaya BL, Raghupathi AR, Gowda TV, Sharath BK, Vishwanath BS. Strong myotoxic activity of Trimeresurus malabaricus venom: role of metalloproteases. Mol Cell Biochem. 2006b;282(1–2):147–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jayanthi JP, Gowda TV. Geographical variation in India in the composition and lethal potency of Russell’s viper (Vipera russelii) venom. Toxicon 1988;26:257–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joseph JK, Simpson ID, Menon NC, Jose MP, Kulkarni KJ, Raghavendra GB, et al. First authenticated cases of life-threatening envenoming by the hump-nosed pit viper (Hypnale hypnale) in India. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007;101:85–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mohapatra B et al. Snakebite mortality in India: a nationally representative mortality survey of 1.1 million homes; for the Million Death Study Collaborators. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010; http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001018
  10. Prasad BN, Uma B, Bhatt SKG, Gowda TV. Comparative characterisation of Russell’s viper (Daboia/Vipera russelli) venoms from different regions of the Indian peninsula. Biochem Biophys Acta. 1999;1428:121–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Warrell DA, Gutierrez JM, Calvete JJ, Williams D. New approaches and technologies of venomics to meet the challenge of human envenoming by snakebites in India. Indian J Med Res. 2013;138:38–59.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Whitaker R. Pit viper (Trimeresurus macrolepis) bites at a south Indian tea estate. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1973;70(1):207–208.Google Scholar
  13. Whitaker R. Suspected case of death by pit viper bite. Hamadryad. 1991; 16:1–2.Google Scholar
  14. Whitaker R, Advani R. Preliminary field study on snakes as agents of management of rodent populations. Indian Forester. 1983;109(6):417–419.Google Scholar
  15. Whitaker R, Captain A. Snakes of India-the field guide. Chennai: Draco Books; 2004. p. 481.Google Scholar
  16. Whitaker R, Whitaker S. Venom, antivenom production and the medically important snakes of India. Curr Sci. 2012;103(6):635–643.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Snakebite InitiativeCentre for Herpetology/Madras Crocodile BankMamallapuramIndia
  2. 2.Global Snakebite InitiativeBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations