Talk:Adder

	Adder was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 14, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept August 7, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance Adder is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland

This version of this page is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of that source. The citationis in: "British snakes". date unknown. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This web page states that the venom of Vipera berus is more toxic than that of the Saw-scaled viper,Common mamba and the Eastern coral snake,[[1]],so this information can be included in the article.

Sorry, but that is not what you call a reliable source. Anybody can post material on the web, but that doesn't mean it's true. What qualifies Rob Nelson to make such statements and where does he get his LD₅₀ information from? Also, he doesn't say what kind of LD₅₀ tests he's talking about: IV, IP or SC. He could be using IV for one and SC for the next, which is like comparing apples and oranges. I would say that sources currently cited in the article are quite a bit more reliable and authoritative than Rob Nelson's information. However, in this matter you can also use your common sense. For example, there have been very few documented fatalities for V. berus, but many more for the other species you mention. --Jwinius 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been more fatalities from Vipera berus than from the Eastern coral snake!

Well, perhaps you're right about that. Only two documented fatalites were attributed to M. fulvius in the 1950s and none have been reported since Wyeth antivenin became available for it in the 1960s. Also, M. fulvius does not account for many cases of snakebite in the US because of its secretive nature and general reluctance to bite (its venomous potential was still being debated in the 1880s). In addition, it is estimated that envenomation occurs in only 40% of all bites. Historically, however, the mortality rate was estimated to be about 10-20%, with death occurring in as little as 1-2 hours, or as much as 26 hours post bite. This is not that surprising, since the LD₁₀₀ for humans is estimated to be 4-5 mg or dried venom, while the average venom yield is 2-6 mg with a maximum of more than 12 mg. This is probably why it is currently standard hospital procedure in the US to start with antivenin therapy for coral snake bites even if there are no symptoms yet (since there may not be any noticeable localized symptoms) (Campbell & Lamar, 2004). Compare that to this statistic for V berus: in 1967, Gitter & de Vries reported that there were an estimated 1300 bites annually in Sweden, but that only 12% required hospitalization (Mallow et al., 2004). Since V. berus also has a higher average venom yield than M. fulvius, that sounds a lot less toxic/dangerous to me. --Jwinius 17:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However,in most reports the estimated percent in a Coral snake envenomotion in a bite is no more than 30% and death resultes (if not given antivenin) in less than 10 percent and absolutely not 20.[[2]][[3]] The mortality percent in a coral snake bite is even a bit smaller than the one of the Vipera berus. The Adders in Sweden have a much less powerful venom compared to the Adders from South-eastern Europe,especialy the subspecies Vipera berus bosniensis whose venom is primarily a powerful neurotoxin rather the hemotoxin primarily found in the norhen subspecies. There are other web sites arguing thart the venom of the Adder is more potent than that of the coral snake. [[4]]

Do you get all your information from the web? Those are not exactly scientific papers your citing. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that you're right and that M. fulvius does only have a 10% fatality rate in untreated envenomation cases, and not 10-20% as mentioned by Campbell & Lamar (2004). That still doesn't help you in your main objective, which is to offer credible evidence that V. berus venom is actually more toxic than the current WP article suggests. A mortality rate of over 10% for V. berus? Where? That's what I call an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. However, all you've come up with are a couple of identical and bogus LD₅₀ lists on the web, and nothing at all to support your claims regarding the properties and toxicity of V. b. bosniensis venom compared to that of V. b. berus. --Jwinius 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite of the Vipera berus venom : "...its venom is potent, stronger than the Sandviper´s(especially in its subspecies Vipera berus bosniensis)..." This is yust one argument from the Natural history museum of Rijeka in Croatia. I will find other sources regarding the information about the mortality percent in a bite and cite it here.

You're going to have to do better than that. An article on the subject from a peer-reviewed journal, for instance, would be more like it. Otherwise, your claims remain firmly in the folklore category. You could ask the museum where they got their information from, but you'll have to be critical of their evidence, because it sounds like they may not have been. --Jwinius 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to recognise the difference between different types of injection, as well as the difference between southeastern berus and northern berus venom, which differ a lot. According to some sources, berus has one of the strongest IV venoms known for snakes, but a moderately LD50/mice via SC injection. Sometimes different types of injection have been compared directly, but they are incomparable. In fact, the LD50 varies enormously for SC injections, from LD50 of 0.41 mg/kg for a Hungarian sample, to 2 mg/kg for a sample of unknown provenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.59.202.218 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In Britain there have been only 14 known fatalities since 1876; the last a 5-year-old child in 1975"

See: http://forums.forestresearch.gov.uk/forestry/Adder

"No one has died from adder bite in Britain for over 20 years"

If it was 1975 surely they would say over 30 years?

The site could be a good reference btw. 134.36.93.46 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some years we had a beautiful male who's basal colour was pale blue. I haven't seen him for a while though. Since I have no evidence I'm reluctant to add a mention but I'm happy to take advice. We feel quite privaleged to have a healthy population in our garden. We also have grass snakes, common lizards and slow worms. AncientBrit (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been only 14 known fatalities since 1876; the last a 5 year old child in 1975

Where? In Sweden? In Britain? There has been a fatality in Germany in 2004 according to the German Wikipedia.193.109.51.189 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. That statement comes from this article (Warrell, 2005) in the British Medical Journal, which in turn cites a paper by Reid (1976) titled "Adder bites in Britain" (also BMJ). It doesn't mention in what country the 5 year old child was bitten in 1975. As for that being the most recent fatality, I assume Prof. Warrell knew what he was talking about, although perhaps he was not aware of a possible case in Germany the year before he published this article. On the other hand, the German article does not cite its sources, so why take it seriously? --Jwinius 00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of sources is uncommon on the German Wikipedia, and no good reason for not performing a simple Google search that would have relieved this discussion of its speculative nature. Several news outlets reported the incident: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Essentially, an 82-year-old lady was bitten on the ring finger of the left hand by a melanic Vipera berus. She phoned her general practitioner, but did not say how the incident had occurred. However, the woman was small (1,50m) and had recently been released from hospital. The fact that she must have grabbed the snake to fling it into a nearby rain collection barrel (where the snake was later found, and moved to Stralsund Zoo) indicates that she may have received more than one bite (i.e. more than a dry bite), although the news sources do not report this. Two sources speculate that the death may have occurred due to shock rather than poison. None of the articles directly cite any medical conclusion, although there may have been no relevant investigation - the exact cause of her death would have hardly been of interest, given that the snake was unlikely to do further harm (having been moved to the zoo), and there were no suspicious circumstances. I know David Warrell, and wouldn't be surprised if the German incident had escaped his radar. Let's just say that if it had occurred anywhere in the Commonwealth, he would have known about it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tempting to include this information. However, because the only references are articles that appeared in the popular press (webpages even), and especially because it's not clear whether the woman actually died as a result of evenomation, I'd rather err on the side of caution and wait for an official medical report. On the other hand, if you could mention this to Prof. Warrell, perhaps something interesting will turn up. --Jwinius 20:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on the above discussion, I wrote to an email address I found on the website that you used as a reference for your recently added passage. I asked if anybody there now had more information about the case and received this message today:

Dear Mister Vinius,

The case reported on our website was only published in a newspaper but not by us. We did not follow up the case and we do not know the exact cause of death. We suppose, however, that the snake bite did not result in death alone but was the trigger in background of an underlying condition (for example coronary heart disease). But this is only speculative due to lack of further information.

Kind regards,

Michael Deters, MD

Poisons Information Centre

c/o HELIOS Klinikum GmbH

Nordhäuser Str. 74

99085 Erfurt

Germany

Tel +49361/730730

Fax +49361/7307317

In other words, although they can't be sure, it is their expert opinion that other factors likely weighed more heavily in this woman's death. That seems reasonable to me, since obviously many simple accidents can be fatal to sufficiently frail and weakened individuals. Therefore, if you share my opinion that the need to avoid misleading readers into thinking that this species has been the direct cause of death of any otherwise healthy individuals since 1975, outweighs the need to inform them of incidents that will probably remain shrouded in speculation -- a type of which there is never any shortage -- then you will agree that the passage in question should be removed from the article forthwith. --Jwinius 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, she died as a direct result of a snakebite, whether there was posion involved or not. That is pretty clear. This is documented, independent, verified info and should be included. Perhaps you should back off the ownership a bit. pschemp | talk 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you can't really claim that. The expert opinion here is that the venom was only the trigger and that death was likely the result of something else, such as a heart condition. In other words, if someone had told her that she had won the lottery, it could be that that would have killed her as well. But, newspapers have a habit of dramatizing the truth. Studies in snakebite statistics, however, have to be more careful when it comes to calculating the fatality ratio. To avoid making a species look more dangerous than it really is, such studies must maintain certain exclusion criteria, and this necessarily includes victims who are known to have had serious health problems in the first place. --Jwinius 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is taken full account of in the current phrasing of the article. Look at it this way - if we don't include the incident, people will dismiss the article because it didn't include information that is clearly relevant to the subject. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly relevant? I've think I've explained quite clearly why it's a false alarm. Look at at it this way - does Wikipedia have to respond to every misleading story carried by the popular press, just because such stories seem relevant superficially, and even though doing so may in itself be misleading? If so, should we also cite stories about people dying from bee and wasp stings, even though the victims more likely suffer allergic reactions? --Jwinius 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that this information is, indeed, included in the appropriate article, bee sting. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it is. That's because, by themselves, such incidents are not relevant when it comes to illustrating the general danger posed by a bee sting. For the same reason, it is not relevant to illustrate the general danger posed by a bite from this snake by mentioning the death of a frail little old woman. This brings me back to the former question: does Wikipedia have to respond to every misleading story carried by the popular press, just because such stories seem relevant superficially, and even though doing so may in itself be misleading? --Jwinius 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the story was misleading - I find that the press articles do a good job of making it clear that the venom may not of itself have killed the woman, and the way the article is phrased takes account of the fact that there may not have been any venom involved. Please also note that only two of the sources can be appropriately described as "popular press" - the others are a magazine for veterinarians, and the regional poison centre. The fact that the old woman had recently come out of hospital (btw, no exact date was given) makes her no less dead, and removes none of the strong temporal correlation between the bite and her death. I don't want snakes unnecessarily killed any more than you do, but you are not doing this article any favours by censoring this information, which three editors have now said they would like to see included. I believe that the way the information is included in the article takes full account of the circumstances, while also being satisfactorily brief. If you wish to give a fuller account of the case, please feel free to do so. Let me be clear on this: there is no problem here with undue weight or POV. Let me also be clear that you are not doing your own argument any favours by dismissively referring to the deceased as a "frail little old woman". Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are the only one on this page claiming it isn't relevant. The whole German wikipedia thinks its relevant too. Why do you so easily malign your brethren? pschemp | talk 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole German wikipedia"? Let's not exaggerate. At any rate, my problem is that in this case it seems my German "brethren" decided only to react, but not to think critically. Let's face it: many people are scared of snakes, mostly because of the venomous ones. Naturally, the media have long made use of this situation, giving snakes a bad rap in order to sell more copy. Therefore, we should endeavor to inform the public about the true nature of these animals and the danger they pose, and not to suggest in any way that there might be some truth to the exaggerated and misleading stories carried by the media. --Jwinius 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If dry ground is locally available, they will not avoid wetlands."

Should this be "If dry ground is locally _un_available, they will not avoid wetlands."? -- JanSöderback 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would different. I was paraphrasing Street (1979) which states "It does not avoid marshy, low lying areas provided there are sufficient dry banks." The idea is that, although they don't prefer moist habitats, they will venture into them (probably in search of food) if it's not too far from their usual, drier habitat. --Jwinius 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to "They will venture into wetlands if dry ground is available nearby.", which I find clearer -- 130.232.90.42 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [Forgot to log in - JanSöderback][reply]

Is it correct that this is the only snake found in the British Isles? Drutt 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. The smooth snake, Coronella austriaca austriaca occurs in south England, while the barred grass snake, Natrix natrix helvetica (a subsp. of Natrix natrix) is found throughout England and Wales, but not in Scotland. As opposed to V. berus, both of these are harmless. This is according to Steward (1971). According to this article, C. a. austriaca is "now thought to be confined to the South East of Dorset, South West Hampshire and a small area of East Hampshire and West Surrey." --Jwinius 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. That explains the confusion - it's the only poisonous snake. Drutt 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthony writes. My understanding was that the 'smooth snake' was actualy a leg-less lizard (atrophied legs, rather then guilty of excess imbibing [Legless is one of many English synonyms for DRUNK]); accordingly, here are two "snakes" in Great Britain - adder/viper; and the grass snake. Autochthony wrote. 2150z 28 March 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.188.132 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of the slow-worm (Anguis fragilis), which is a snake-like legless lizard (and of course not a worm...). It's the commonest reptile in much of Britain, and as it happens it's very much smoother than a smooth snake, which is indeed a true snake. So there are three snakes, and three native lizards, one of which looks like a snake, and no, none of them can hold their drink.

Incidentally "British Isles" is a bit misleading here. Ireland has only the common lizard (Zootoca vivipara), with no other lizards and no snakes at all. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a 108 cm (42½ in) specimen was killed and measured by Rolf Lindström in Ingskär, Dragsfjärd, Finland. There was an article about it, featuring a photograph, in the Finnish tabloid Ilta-Sanomat (official site) on July 9, 2007 (page 5). The previous Finnish record was 94 cm (37 in). Unfortunately I've been so far unable to find a web reference. --Anshelm '77 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. That will make a good addition to the article as soon as someone can manage to find a reliable reference it. What a pity, though, that it was killed; so often the outcome when man meets snake. --Jwinius 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the snake was ultimately identified as a Grass snake Natrix natrix by Docent Juhani Terhivuo of the Finnish Museum of Natural History. He too had originally thought it an adder, as the snake lacked a collar and had a adder-like zigzag stripe in its back, a very rare feature for this species. This was discussed (in Finnish) at the Helsinki City Library website. So the Finnish record remains at 94 cm, while the record for the grass snake stands at 134 cm (53¾ in). I remember Mr. Lindström apologizing for the killing of the snake, something he doesn't normally do; but at the time he was to have vistors – including children – at his cottage, and the place was swarming with snakes. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. At least this is an excellent example of why articles in newspapers and on websites should never be taken too seriously. --Jwinius (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it before reading the rationale (sorry about that); I too ultimately would feel more comfortable with all organisms at scientific names rather than common names (rather than just plants and fungi as is now), but more than one common name is a good reason to argue if someone else wants to push the point anyway.

Having the common name section under the lead facilitates them not being all mentioned in the lead.

I reorganised it to make the sections less stubby and give a layout which gives a hierarchy of headings (i.e. diet and reproduction as part of behaviour).

• I noticed...there is nothing which tells me what colour(s) the snake is, or the incidence of meanistic forms.

• Also, a line on when it gained its common name (by the erection of the genus Vipera would be good and complete the first section nicely.

• Making the subspecies into a prose section and explaining why/how they differ. Common Raven is a good example.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree with your edits, but I've worked very hard on applying a common format to the entire Viperidae series, as well as some 200 other snake articles. If you have a problem with the format, I can explain, but you'd have to come up with some pretty good reasons for making such dramatic changes to so many articles; that would mean weeks, if not months, of work. Anyway, this article already has a GA status, so why go to all that trouble? Yes, the color-pattern info should be expanded. --Jwinius (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the image to see the shape of the pupil. The shape of the pupil is not mentioned in the article as far as I can see. In the corresponding article in Norwegian it is stated that of the three Norwegian snakes, the two non-poisonous ones have round pupils, while this one (hoggorm/huggorm) has a slit-type pupil. This ought to be mentioned here. I know not much about snakes, so someone else should do it. - Hordaland (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the copyright status of this article was raised at the copyright problems board on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 October 31 and came current for admin closure today. At issue is whether this article infringed on [9]. A close comparison shows substantial similarity between this article and that work, but evaluation suggests the material evolved naturally on Wikipedia and that infringement may be reversed. I believe that that external source used the Wikipedia article as the basis for their own at some point after January 2007.

These September 2006 edits are those I've identified as introducing text that is also substantially present at the external source:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

There may be more. I stopped comparing after finding sufficient evidence to satisfy me that infringement was reversed.

While there is undeniable similarity between this article and that external site, there is also evidence that the material evolved naturally here on Wikipedia. For example:

• This edit introduces an alteration that is present in the external site: "Juveniles will eat nestling mammals, small lizards and frogs, as well as insects, worms and spiders. Once they reach about 30 cm in length, their diet begins to resemble an adult diet." → "Once they reach about 30 cm in length, their diet begins to resemble that of the adults."
• Another promising edit to support reverse infringement: "In this act, they confront each other, raise up the first part of the body vertically, make swaying movements and attempt to push each other to the ground" → "In this act, the males confront each other, raise up the front part of the body vertically, make swaying movements and attempt to push each other to the ground"; "This is repeated until one become exhausted and crawls off to find another mate" → "This is repeated until one of the two becomes exhausted and crawls off to find another mate". Both of these are altered to the form used in the suspected source.
• Finally (and the clincher for me): This edit, months later and by an IP contributor, alters "If dry ground is locally available, they will not avoid wetlands" → "They will venture into wetlands if dry ground is available nearby." The suspected source says, "Adders will venture into wetlands if dry ground is available nearby."

While certainly evaluation of these situations is very important, as we must ensure that our content is free, these kinds of signs of natural evolution argue strongly that we have the right to the text. Accordingly, I am restoring the text which was properly blanked for the investigation and marking this as a backwards copyright violation. If there is an additional evidence to support this conclusion or refute it, please feel free to add it here. Should strong additional evidence emerge to refute the conclusion, please blank the article with {{copyvio}} and relist it, with explanation, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Copyright concerns are important, and we appreciate all the help with them that we can get. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Vipera berus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.

   Lead expanded. Albeit smaller than usual, all the Viper articles have been crafted by Jwinius to have a minimalistic lead. Please indicate whether more expansion is required. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Looks better, but I'd recommend adding another paragraph (an article of this length should be at least two paragraphs). Make sure each of the sections are touched on and it shouldn't be too hard to add a few more lines (you can also split off some of the sentences from the first if necessary). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Is it okay now? AshLin (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. For the infobox, there is a long list of synonyms. I don't know if this is common practice for most animal articles, but if not, could it be reduced or maybe a hide/show feature be used?

   Standard format for all Viperidae articles. IMHO let this be changing the location synonyms will mean changing location of synonyms in more than a hundred articles. The uniformity of Viper articles IMHO being encyclopaediac, I'm letting this stand for the moment. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Works for me, just wanted to be sure. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Although it is not required by GA criteria (so it will not be a requirement for the review), it would be beneficial to add alt text to the images. See WP:ALT for assistance.

   Done. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. There are a few dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.

   Done. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. The "Common names" section just starts off listing names. An intro sentence would be beneficial, perhaps detailing the reason for the large number of names. In addition, the second paragraph of the section is unsourced.

   Opening sentence added. Refs added. Done. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Same thing for the "Geographic range" section, add an intro sentence detailing the range.

   Added opening sentence. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. The "Conservation status" and "Taxonomy" sections either need to be expanded by a few sentences (or more) or incorporated into another section. Any other paragraphs in the article with two or less sentences should also be expanded or merged.

   Combined subspecies & taxonomy. Added more facts & correct upto date refs to limit possible. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   There are still a few paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long. These should be expanded or merged. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   'Conservation status' done up. Don't have access to useful material which adds more details about the taxonomy or physical descriptions of the subspecies. AshLin (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. There are a few sentences throughout the article tagged with [by whom?] since August 2009. These need to be addressed.

   Done. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. "Once they reach about 30 cm..." This needs the measurement equivalent. Fix any other occurrences within the article.

   Sorry, I could not make out what you exactly want. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I apologize for not providing more details. The United States customary units should also be included (such as inches). Look at some of the measurements in the description section for examples. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Done some but if we convert the units in the venom section (mg/kg) then there will be a awful mess which I dont imagine will help clarity, readability or screen-reading. Please give directions whether these should be done.

10. "Interestingly, Appleby (1971) notes that he has never seen an intruder win one of these contests, as if the frustrated defender is so aroused by courtship that he refuses to lose his chance to mate." An inline citation should follow this.

    I'd recommend moving the citation to the end of the sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams, Jwinius is on a (permanent?) wikibreak. So I'll address some of the issues to the best of my abilities. --AshLin (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work addressing the issues. I went through and made some minor changes, please review my edits. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The average weight of these snakes is totally wrong in the article (1.5 to 1.8 kg). A 60cm specimen is likely to only weigh 60 - 70g... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.16.194 (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1.5 to 1.8 kg figure is reffed, but is indeed wildly too large. Yours is closer, but seems low – where did you get it? I've had trouble finding academic refs that are not locked, but I did find one or two. This paper on male adder mass loss during reproduction includes a chart (p 456) showing mass ranging from 50 to 120g; females would be a good bit more, as they are both longer and thicker in proportion. [(http)://biologie-oradea.xhost.ro/BihBiol/cont/v3n2/bb.031206.Strugariu.pdf This] paper gives measurements of two individual female adders, one of body length 61.6cm, mass 123.8g, the other 60cm, 163.4g. As the length of females can be much more than this the range must go up higher, so I think we can say "from 50g to about 180g". I've changed the article. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest making the synonymy in the taxobox collapsible, as seen in Loggerhead sea turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed two things, which you might want to repair (I don't know how to edit on Wikipedia):

• The link from references (note 20) refers to some other Berne Convention, the actual convention is here
• Vipera berus is obviously not included in any Appendix of Berne Convention or I couldn't find it there. Maybe it has been deleted from the Appendix?

--195.113.155.3 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that in the Appennines, specimens of 100 cm of length are quite common. I got under alcohol a specimen of 103±2 cm. 84.222.239.135 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wyre Forest's Adders have been the subject of a notable study by Sylvia Sheldon.([13];[14]) It would be good to include mention of this, if anyone has more academic references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariina added 1 minor change: Vipera berus berus (Linnaeus, 1758) also native in Estonia, but https://www.etis.ee/portaal/isikuCV.aspx?PersonVID=37427&lang=et http://www.surrey-arg.org.uk/cgi-bin/sarg2reptilespeciesdata.asp?species=adder

24. December 2012 5:35 Mariina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.33.48 (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on vipers mentioned that this species is even found within the Arctic Circle, citing: Mallow D, Ludwig D, Nilson G. 2003. True Vipers: Natural History and Toxinology of Old World Vipers. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar. 359 pp. ISBN 0-89464-877-2.

If this is true, is it worth specifically mentioning within this article? Pete unseth (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised there is nothing in the article about predators of this species (apart from humans). Is there anything published? I can only find anecdotal evidence of predators, such as hedgehogs. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some joke (?) names added at the top of the page without references on 24 April 2019. Please remove them! 82.42.70.116 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that it is illegal to kill adders in the UK, but I believe the source cited is mistaken. A close reading of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would seem to reveal that first, it doesn't extend to Northern Ireland (where they're not endemic; see section 74) and second, even in Great Britain it is, in fact, legal to kill adders and grass snakes because schedule 5, where they are listed, says they are only protected in respect of section 9(5), which forbids trade in protected species (presumably section 5A, which makes it illegal to allow such trade, also applies). Additionally, it is claimed that it is legal to capture an adder, but the same subsection that forbids killing or injuring a protected species also forbids taking it (s. 9(1)), so both cannot be true. Other protections that apply generally but not to snakes are possession (s. 9(2); as covered by "keeping", but also applies to remains) and interfering with its shelter (s. 9(4)).

My analysis is not supported by other secondary sources, for example Scottish Natural Heritage agrees that possession is legal but killing is not. I don't know what the basis for this analysis is (maybe some European case law relating to the 1992 Habitats Directive?), but the secondary source takes precedence over my original research. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory instrument 1991 No. 367 "The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedule) Order 1991" modifies Schedule 5. "The adder (Vipera berus) (which is already listed in Schedule 5 to the Act in respect of section 9(5) only) is hereby further listed in respect of section 9(1) so far as it relates to killing and injuring." GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why does the map of the adder's range only show Europe? the article says that the adder's range goes to East Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:DCC9:4A19:8E97:699C (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a caption attached: "Distribution of the European adder Vipera berus in Europe. In the east, its distribution ranges to the Pacific but is not known well enough to be mapped." 2001:14BA:A0F6:5F00:0:0:0:953 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since most Wikipedia pages use the species common name. Why can’t this one? Is the common name used somewhere else, if not should I move it? Quincy43425 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which common name? Species and subspecies and lower taxons all have multiple "common" names, however there is only one Scientific (Latin) name, which is recognized everywhere. Just because some Wiki pages uses common names instead of the correct Scientific name I don't think is justification for changing the name. I think it should be kept to this correct name. Bibby (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a move request at Talk:Adder#Requested_move_8_May_2023 which may be of interest to people here. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other species whose common name includes the word "adder"? If not, should we move this article to just plain "adder"? PatGallacher (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the GA criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are multiple uncited statements in the article: some indicated with "citation needed" tags, others with "page number" needed.
• There are a significant number of sources listed in the "Further reading" section, indicating that there might be information missing in the article. Can these sources be used as inline citations?

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]