Talk:King cobra

Misc
30 feet? Really? D: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.17 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The one shown by Sunil menon is a fake image. Dont believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.179.142.7 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I could be wrong, so I won't edit yet, but isn't "mostest, bestest" incredibly bad grammar? Kswheels 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism. Be bold. -Dawson 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, a king cobra can deliver enough venom to kill a full-grown Asian Elephant in 3 hours." Poorly written sentence. It could imply that the king cobra's venom could kill an Asian elephant in 3 hours OR it could be saying that the king cobra has to latch onto an elephant for 3 hours before the venom kicks in.

Maybe if you're retarded. The intent of the sentence is pretty clear. 68.166.66.217 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking you in the eye...
Lfishel 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC) This is an excellent article, but the line about a full grown King being able to look a standing human in the eye is a common myth/misunderstanding. While smaller cobras and young Kings can raise 1/3 or more of their bodies off the ground, that proportion decreases as the snake grows larger. While I've never seen an 18 foot King Cobra in person, I've worked with 15 footers and they cannot rise more than 3 feet without bracing their bodies against something. I HAVE had a King look me in the eye, but it was inside a tall plastic trash can, bracing itself against the rim...

Austin Stevens had a snake look at him about only 2 feet or so, but that was a 14 footer. Frankyboy5 05:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you maybe reword that? I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Did you mean the snake stood up 2 feet high, that it was 2 feet away from him or maybe that it stood up 2 feet shorter than he was? If the latter, go watch the video again and pay close attention to the camera angle. The camera was behind the snake and very low. It's a common photographic trick to make something in the foreground look taller/larger than it is. Lfishel 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The NG link at the bottom states that it can stand from 3 to 6 feet. I don't doubt your credentials, but I've gotta stand with the NG page. 68.166.66.217 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because something has been published on the National Geographic website does not make it an accurate statement of fact; authors can be lazy too, you know. My impression is that in this case, Lfishel is someone who knows what he's talking about, so I would not be at all surprised if the NG article (which I've seen) is actually incorrect in this respect. On the other hand, as we all know, Wikipedia does not allow the publication of original research, and references are as important to me as anyone else here, but in light of the above I don't think we should not let the text stand as it is without additional research.
 * Personally, I don't have any really good books on (Asian) elapids, but I did find this quote in John M. Mehrtens' book, Living Snakes of the World (1987):
 * "... Two Philippine specimens personally observed, both in excess of seventeen feet, could only be described as 'dramatic' without exaggeration. These cobras reared to a height of over four feet when they felt threatened or were merely curious about some nearby activity. ..."
 * This would appear to corroborate Lfishel's comments. --Jwinius 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I was riding my mountain bike in Thailand a few months back, and rode past a King Cobra that was standing between 4-5 feet off the ground, That's not enough to look me in the eye, but it could for some folks. I didn't have my ruler, but the head was at least a foot above my handlebars.209.189.228.6 07:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, NG's web site seems to be run by the same people who run their TV channel which is well known for hyperbole, and not necessarily for the kind of accuracy and fact checking that the magazine strives for. (The last show they did about the King Cobra features a lovely 3D model of a kings head with ONE venom gland IN THE ROOF OF THE MOUTH). The above reference is probably as close as anyone will come to a source of a refutation, and I highly suspect that Mr. Mehrtens did not, in fact, take a tape measure to these snakes and probably was not within 20 feet of them and so it's likely still an exaggeration. I have access to several large kings, but as stated above, original research is not allowed, and no serious researcher will waste their time testing this because anyone they care to prove it to already knows it's obviously false. And since there are no shortage of (unverified) sources like the NG page repeating what they probably found on another web site... Lfishel 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In addition, I'd say this article is rather poorly written anyway: it's badly organized, much of the information in it belongs (or can be found) in articles on higher taxa, and all of its references point to other pages on the web. Unfortunately, a knowledgeable individual has yet to step forward and take responsibility for Wikipedia's collection of articles on elapid snakes. --Jwinius 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Smarter than other snakes?
We should add something that Kings are smarter than other snakes (that's why it avoids attacking, it is always cautious of its energy and Austin says that the way the snake looks at you is very different from others.) Frankyboy5 05:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is yet another "legend". I work with Kings and true cobras on a daily-weekly basis, and I see little difference. They stand up, have round pupils and in the case of the King, have scales above their eyes that give the appearance of a brow ridge. All of these things make them LOOK more "human" than most snakes and we naturally perceive animals that look closer to us as being more intelligent. I understand how Austin Stevens feels as that big King stands up and looks striaght at him, but it's an instinctual defensive behavior, not a soul searching stare. They look at their own shadow on the back of the cage or a stick waved in front of them the same way... Lfishel 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not that. The snake actually saw his hand about to touch its head and his head came down. He does get to touch the head, but often, cobras are fooled by concentrating on one of his hands, and he then places his hand on the back of the snake's head, while the snake doesn't notice it at all. Frankyboy5 09:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was referring to, but again, I actually work with them and sometimes they react to being touched on the back of the head and sometimes they don't. That is true of Kings and of other cobras. There is no noticable difference in this regard either. Lfishel 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Kings are not smarter than other snakes! Frankyboy5 11:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true. There's also no evidence that they don't come from outer space. That doesn't mean we should say in the article that they are from outer space until someone proves otherwise, does it? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to require evidence to SUPPORT any statement in the article. In case you did't notice, Austin Stevens is a TV personality. He says all kinds of crazy things to make the show more interesting to the average viewer. I like some of his shows too, but he's not a credible reference. Lfishel 09:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he has been accused (non verifiable sources) of animal abuse and staging his shows. Frankyboy5 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

He could be bit more gentle sometimes, but I've never seen him do anything I would call abuse. His shows are cetainly "staged" if you want to call it that, but that is true of most animal shows. Very few WILD animals will let a human anywhere near them. Lfishel 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Their not smarter than certain snakes per se, but there have been stories of King Cobras being just as tamed as a domestic cat or domestic dog. I was watching the discovery channel and it showed a Malaysian person holding a King Cobra without being bitten at all, I mean they were just straight up holding it. Then there was this one story about a woman who was living in India that had a King Cobra as a pet, and it just roamed around the house like a domestic dog, even "cuddling" up to her when she's sleeping. And I'm not bullshitting I think what she says is real, I haven't read this in months, (it was from her diary actually) but I would love to provide you with the link. So King Cobras are not smarter, but they can be "nice", despite the fact that they can kill you. LockDog387 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of intelligence would be allowed under the policies against speculation and original research. While there are plenty of stories of the King's intellect, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Sadly, there has been precisely 1 study on snake intelligence, which was not in a comparative context, so any claims have no grounding in science (though I would LOVE for someone to change this, alas my training is in biomechanics). I'll keep an eye out for new studies, but until then, this needs to remain confined to the talk page. Mokele (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientists have said king cobras are the smartest snakes, so let's just mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.206.109 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...It actually isn't speculation that kings are smarter than other snakes. Its generally agreed that the snake is very intelliegnt and able to build complex nests. I will merely add the word "intelligence" to the "hunting" section, that's it.

Here's a great mention of cobra intelligence:

"King cobras are one of the most intelligent snakes, and our king cobra recognizes different zookeepers. Starfire had a particular fondness for the reptile foreman and interacted well with her, However, the snake disliked one of the other keepers and made his job very difficult." Elasmosaurus (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the article about the King Cobra behaving like a domestic pet http://www.kriyayoga.com/angelsoflove/king_cobra.html. After reading that you might think it's fiction, I think it's real. LockDog387 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify - while I do think Kings are particularly intelligent (and that snakes in general are smarter than we give them credit for), there is a nearly complete absence of work on snake intelligence (one article on corn snakes), and "personal annecdotes" of animal intelligence tend to be highly biased and prone to major errors (such as "forgetting the misses and remembering the hits"). I have repeatedly and strongly come out against the use of 'annecdata', speculation, etc on WP, and this is no different - until there is an actual, scientific study, there should be no mention of it. Otherwise we open the doors to pet owners worldwide citing their pet poodles as proof that animals have highly advanced cognition. Some level of rigor needs to be maintained. Mokele (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hooded Image
If possible, could we get an image of a full-grown KC standing with its hood spread? That's obviously how people envision a King Cobra. 68.166.66.217 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, would love to see a picture of the back of the hood. People love the "eyes". Sushisource (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy Snakes!
How do you manage to get close to a king cobra and take a picture of one without getting attacked or having the snake flee? It must be hard! Love,                                                                                            Makala Sherman, March 12,2008 well, that's what EOS and that larger-than-my-arm zoom lenses are for. 125.163.84.202 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Weight
"...King Cobras usually do not exceed 44 lb (20 kg) in bodyweight."

In fact, they don't get even close. The Guinness weight record stands at 12.75 kg (28 lb 1¾ oz) for a 4.39 m (14 ft 5 in) specimen that died in the Bronx Zoo in 1973. The longest was a 5.72 m (18 ft 9 in) specimen that died in the London Zoo in 1939. The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake is the largest (=heaviest) venomous snake in the world at up to 15.4 kg (34 lb), although this specimen was only 2.36 m (7 ft 9 in) long.

--Anshelm &#39;77 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me!--Mike Searson (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

please look at this wild specimen captured in southern Thailand 23/2/2013. I'm checking size and weight of this snake. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=346156755500748&set=a.324025021047255.75979.322703554512735&type=1&theater Prayalone (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Wasin Intasarn

In Popular Culture
I don't feel quite up to starting this section now, but I think the cobra is such a classic image and symbol in movies, arts, and literature that a list of some of the most well-known uses would enhance the article.

"The Black mamba is almost as deadly as the Cobra, but the Cobra can kill people 5 times faster than the mamba" - This sentence seems highly dubious to me. It is inconsistent with the Black Mamba page and not supported by the citations that follow it, neither of which contains any direct comparison of cobra vs. mamba envenomation. Harmoneduc8 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead image
What do people think about substituting image 1 for the current lead image? This one does show more of the snake, although it doesn't have as much wow factor. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, neither one really "wows" me as a great exemplar image. If possible, the photo should convey the two most salient features - its hood, and its great size.  I have a friend with two adults, and I'll see if she'll give me permission to use photos. Mokele (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be great! Of course the permission has to be for release under a free licence, not just "use in Wikipedia". See Image use policy for more details. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Florida?
Is it really in "extreme Southern Florida" or is that vandalism? --98.196.19.143 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan?
The lead says its range includes Pakistan. The distribution map does not include Pakistan. Which is right? 69.204.67.42 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is found mostly in forested regions and even the "throughout India" is incorrect. This article needs more citations, and the map appears to be quite reliable in this case. Shyamal (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
Wouldn't putting the average size of the species be more informative than putting its maximum size? Isn't saying it can grow to up to 5.7 metres instead of reaches an average size of 3.6-4 metres the same as saying that humans can grow up to a a maximum size of 8'11" rather than an average size of 1.5 to 1.8 metres? I know both are true but I think that the second option would be more informative for the opening paragraph.

Why capitalise the common name?
Can anyone tell me why the common name is capitalised everywhere in this article? Is there any historical or proper use which causes the name to be written "King Cobra" instead of "king cobra"? According to the naming conventions, It looks to me like all the instances of capitalisation should be undone. Thoughts? Struhs (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why The NGO's are not Taking responsibilty of Resciung King Cobra
The NGOs Only rescue Cobra from Snake Charmer and they leave them in forest instead of any safe place like Santauary or any National Reserve so that they can have less interaction with humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.241.42 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Metric
Guys Wikipedia policy is to have metric first then imperial in brackets after for all subjects that do not pertain to cultural aspects of a country that still uses the imperial system e.g. the USA and Burma. So for example on the subject of venom "the snake's half-inch (1.25 cm) fangs" metric should come first then imperial in brackets or left out all together. Can someone fix this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawei san (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies
The King Cobra is currently described as being just one monotypic species. However, there have been studies suggesting there may be several distinct species. Should this be included in the article? One reputable source is Mark O'Shea's Venomous Snakes of the World. Frankyboy5 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For consistency, we use the ITIS database for taxonomy. On one hand, it means we may not always be up to date, but it avoids having to make a bunch of page moves every time someone publishes a new paper that'll just be overturned in 6 months. Mokele (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

King cobra can kill elephants
King cobras can kill elephants.. I have numerous accounts

Here http://wildlife1.wildlifeinformation.org/S/00dis/toxic/biotoxin/Snake_Bite_Ele.html

And here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526287/Elephants-show-compassion-in-face-of-death.html

And here

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/04/silhouetted-in-the-andaman-sea-an-elephant-takes-a-morning-dip-in-the-warm-waters-photo-cesare-naldirajan-a-60-year.html

SO do yourself a favor wikipedia... stop deleting stuff that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalfan10 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

they are like 18feet long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.148.194 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Auctor
Who is the auctor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonte93 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Myths, conjectures, and unverifiable sources
There were a lot of old myths, conjectures, and "references" that were unverifiable. For example, the idea that a king cobra bite can kill a human within 15 minutes is conjecture and myth. The idea that somehow the "Chinese king cobra is much more venomous than other KC's" is also conjecture and not based on fact and had a "reference" which couldn't be read and thus not verifiable. The "Chinese KC" is not separated by land or sea from other KC's in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, etc. so why would it be any different? They evolved together in one major land mass which was land locked (mainland Asia). However, the Philippines cobra, the Indian KC, and perhaps some of the Indonesian KC's diverged from the mainland KC, but that's it. Based on it's evolution, the KC never needed an extremely toxic venom like a lot of smaller snakes because it was so big that the venom injected was always enough to kill their prey - so they never needed a toxic venom. It makes very little sense. The KC has one of the least potent venom's among almost all elapids (in fact, I can't think of one elapid which is less toxic right now), but what makes it dangerous is the amount of venom that it can deliver in a bite. Even still, I have sources Snake mortality rates that have the KC morality rate at 33%. So I clean it up and left it with only verifiable references and facts. Sebastian80 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
Many reference cited around the encyclopedia are also books which the location and author name or ISBN are stated.Not all reference should be a website; mortality rate has various kinds and the one stated is the untreated one with the support of Dr.Davidson's research which the severity of the envenomation was classified as well.It makes sense that other reports from different localities may release different data but that doesn't mean the one here is not a fact.33% is the recent mortality rate (with treatment) as about one-third of the bitten victims die ;15 min. is not a myth and the case was received by Singapore U and is reported in the book as well.;"Chinese" KC here does not mean evolutionary relationship or other things.It is just because the specimens were caught in China.The section about Chinese venomous snakes in the book clearly states the LD50 of KC and Naja atra caught are 0.34mg/kg and 0.53 mg/kg respectively.The data 1.7 mg/kg compared with Naja naja's 0.565 mg/kg is the one which released in the late 20th century done by a group of Australian scientists and hence the article states "a recent toxicology study...". User:Fearingpredators (talk) 1:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, but your unverifiable edits just don't stand. It matters little that the books have the authors names and an ISBN number, but that is not enough. I can do the same with a book I find and state that the "...such and such scientist reported seeing a king cobra biting and killing an elephant" and then put the authors name and ISBN number and say "see, I got a reference". With all due respect, you're a laymen in this subject, while I and a couple of other posters have relevant degrees. I have a bachelors in laboratory technology and studied toxicology in depth. Your grammar is also terrible, that is another problem. The "Chinese KC" is no different from the ones found in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, or other mainland Asia KC's (besides perhaps the distant Indian KC, which is the KC most well studied). They all evolved together and as large venomous snakes that were able to inject massive amounts of venom and kill their prey by that means - so there never was a need for the KC to develop a highly potent neurotoxic venom like the ones that kraits, mambas, or tiger snakes have, just for example. So it does not make sense that some "caught Chinese KC had this immensely potent venom" on the scale of the aforementioned snakes. When something doesn't make sense, it's usually not true. I'm sorry, but your edits are disruptive and can even be considered vandalism since you are referencing books which people do not have access to and thus cannot verify. The material you are posting is also not based in fact and I've never heard of "super toxic Chinese KC's" and I'm sure no one else has. Chinese KC's having some super toxic venom is unbelievable because not only has nobody heard about it but you, but it goes against how the KC evolved. They evolved to be large venomous snakes that deliver massive quantities of venom to kill prey, thus eliminating the need to develop a very toxic venom. I am going to revert you edits back to the way it was until you bring me verifiable information and data. If it's true, it shouldn't be that hard for you. Bastian (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Many reference cited in this article (and other articles) are books as well(e.g. snakes of the world).ISBN,pages,author and location etc were all given.I don't think websites are the only reference allowed to be added.I respect your degree and profession but I don't think that the things you heard is certainly fact while the others are not.The value of N.atra in the LD50 menu given is even smaller than those of the cape cobra which was considered as the second toxic Naja after Philippines cobra and all the mambas...So? The sentences in the introduction is exactly from the reference.User:fearingpredators (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011


 * First of all, there is no naja species that has venom that's more toxic than any mamba, especially the black mamba. Second of all, there is no such thing as a "Chinese king cobra" the region is all one region and the king cobras are all one species/sub species. The Indian KC is a distant relative, but it still is a KC. Evolution of the KC never required it to produce a highly toxic venom, that is a fact. Not your unverifiable claims of myths and conjecture. When a snake has enough venom to kill it's prey, then it doesn't need to evolve to have a very toxic venom. Do you get that part? How do we know the "books" you are citing aren't children's books? There are a lot of "snake", "big cat", "elephants", etc childrens books which have basic facts and even sometimes references to myths and legends. Your claims are unverifiable and they go against what we know about the KC. Yes, books are cited on wikipedia, but often with links to these books and names of authors whom many know in the field. Yours are unverifiable. We don't even have a link to the so-called "books" which you are getting this information from. Bastian (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.markoshea.tv/products2/snakes-med-imp-640.jpg if this 676 pages book is a "children book", all the books in the world are probably children books;again,"Chinese" means that the specimens were caught in China and not stands for sub-species.Why all your thought must be correct?the sentence states "in a toxicology study" not "all toxicology studies" so there are not many websites which can be sited but the existence of the book with the reports based on National U is a fact;the LD50 menu you given lists N.atra 0.29mg/kg when the black mamba 0.32mg/kg(S.C.injection) Check it. Moreover, other relevant references are given and fixed.Stop removing.User:fearingpredators (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011


 * naja atra isn't the king cobra. It's not even remotely related to it besides being an elapid. Why would a KC have more toxic venom in China than one in Cambodia or Thailand? They are all one subspecies and all have the same ancestry. So why would one KC have such a toxic venom, while another one of the same subspecies not? It doesn't make sense. They inject enough venom to kill a prey or a human, so they never needed a very toxic venom. That's how they evolved - size/volum of venom per bite over venom toxicity. Do you not get it? This is like saying 1+1=11 (what you are saying). Evolution doesn't have mythical views of creatures, like you do of the KC. Bastian (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's make it clear.It is not stated by me but the book.Do you get it? The book and the report is a fact and you keep saying "that doesn't make sense... (for you)"; this is my first time hearing that toxicity (to mice) must be proportional-evolved according to a formula "size/venom yield"; in response to your sentence "First of all, there is no naja species that has venom that's more toxic than any mamba, especially the black mamba..." I stated that N.atra was listed having a lower value than all the mambas and cobras from what you gave(the LD50 menu - S.C. method).Check it;For me,the thing which doesn't make sense is the calculation of the fatal dose to humans simply based on LD50.Moreover, how do you know that the venom effect/toxicity must be the same to both snakes(their prey) mice and humans? It just likes what "Venomous snakes of the world" states (Page 20 - Snake venom and their actions) that species react in different ways to different venom and for example a venom that has a neurotoxic effect on mice does not necessarily have the same effect on humans.Lastly,I would like to tell you that making grammatical mistakes doesn't mean that a person is uneducated or ignorant. User:fearingpredators (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2011


 * So if what you claim is true then you can scan the relevant pages and prove that you are right. And don't worry, there are no copyright issues because you would still be referencing the book, author, publisher, etc - you're just verifying your "references". Very easy and it solves a lot of your problems if you do that. If you knew anything about herpetology, you'd know that herpetologists don't just calculate the lethal human dose based on, but it's based on a combination of the , record of human bite cases, and study on the venom itself - it's components, etc. Herpetologists have calculated the lethal dose of many snake venoms, including many rattlesnakes subspecies, puff adder, saw-scaled viper, and many elapids aswell. Is this something new to you? Bastian (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up
I cleaned up the "Venom" section of this article. It was much needed. However, the last part of the "Venom" section seems to be plagiarized from here and here :


 * "The haditoxin in the king cobra venom was discovered by Singaporean scientists to be structurally unique and can have unique pharmacological properties.[27] Biochemical studies confirmed that it existed as a non-covalent dimer species in solution. Its structural similarity to short-chain α-neurotoxins and κ-neurotoxins notwithstanding, haditoxin exhibited unique blockade of α7-nAChRs (IC50 180 nM), which is recognized by neither short-chain α-neurotoxins nor κ-neurotoxins."

I'm going to leave it for now, but the "Venom" section is finally all cleaned up and is now objective and factual, without conjecture and misleading information. Bastian (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

27 doesn't support nephrotoxicity of the venom (patients N:3, 1 with renal failure, which can also be a secondary effect due to cardiotoxicity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.0.109 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Modification
I added back some references which were deleted and did some adjustment. Some referenced information which were previously deleted were added as well. User:Fearingpredators (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree with your modifications and so does Jasper Deng. Fearingpredators, okay I am going to dice and slice all your claims and your references right here once and for all. You didn't "do some references and added back information" - you reverted it back to what you had it before. Now you claim:


 * A single bite from it can cause the death of an adult human in 15 minutes and your reference this, which doesn't claim such a thing at all and this NYTimes article written by Sean B Carroll, lol, who is he? The new guru on herpetology. That second one is NOT a scientific source, it is a news paper article written by some schmuck columnist who is as clueless as you seem to be. The University of San Diego's Terence Davidson says that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here.

On to the next now:


 * "though the average death time recorded is between 30–45 minutes after envenomation." (this statement just kills me, lol) and your references are here, which doesn't claim that at all and this: Freiberg, Dr. Marcos; Walls (1984). The World of Venomous Animals. New Jersey: TFH. ISBN 0876665679 (again, unverifiable and I highly doubt it claims such a bold claim unless of course it's a children's book).

So as you can see your "15 minutes to death" and your "30-45 minute average death time" are both debunked. I mean even the University of San Diego claims that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here. I know you hate this, but that is just too bad. I am sick of having BS and references that don't match up to the claims in the article. That's not all though, I am far from done.


 * "Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of the Chinese-caught specimens was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" (this one has me in tears, seriously) and you reference this. That is NOT a toxicology study. Do you know what a study is? Where is the data to that study? That is a point blank statement from a book. We don't even know the source of that statement and that value. It is NOT a toxicology study and as such I am going to take it out and put back the actual studies that I had put there.

Now on to your next ridiculous statement:


 * "The mortality rate from a bite can statistically be 75%" and your references are "Capula, Massimo; Behler (1989). Simon & Schuster's Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671690981."(again, unverifiable. BTW, which changed? how come you didn't list this as a source before? Can you scan this please?) and [ http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_emergency_medicine/volume_5_number_1_42/article_printable/snake_bite_envenomation_a_comprehensive_evaluation_of_severity_treatment_and_outcome_in_a_tertiary_care_south_indian_hospital.html this, which does NOT claim a 75% mortality rate AT ALL].

So what now? Why did you destroy the "Venom" section of the article by taking out real studies and real references, not references that don't claim what the article claims? What gives? Why? What is your motive? Bastian (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

An unsupported claim?
I think there exists an unsupported claim on this article.

There is a sentence claiming that severe bites from king cobras are exceptionally rare as most untreated victims in Asia live through their bites and two websites are given as references.

Yet, this source doesn't have such information. Instead, it mentions that bites form king cobras should be considered as true medical emergency.

Another website cited does mention that many bites from king cobras involve non-fatal dose of venom. However, this is just based on a single source.Bites involving non-fatal amounts of venom (to normal people) can also cause deaths since some victims could be allergic to the toxins and such bites may induce some other problems as well (like bacterial infection).

Here are two reports which show that bites from this species are often severe - this document which mentions that although bites from king cobras are rare, they're among snakes causing the most fatalities in Thailand (P.66) (but...I think this source has a problem regarding the scientific name of this species.It gives a name of Naja hannah which is wrong.) and [ http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-emergency-medicine/volume-5-number-1/snake-bite-envenomation-a-comprehensive-evaluation-of-severity-treatment-and-outcome-in-a-tertiary-care-south-indian-hospital.html this website] which is about the evaluation of snakebite severity and other medical information based on snakebite precedents received by South Indian Hospital (Table 3 reveals that two-thirds of the patients bitten by king cobras were classified as "severe" grade). I think this evaluation is good as it clearly and directly presents the statistics.

Anyway, I included both of the sources and mentioned that findings may vary from source to source.

Cheers! Toxic Walker (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This source is not great, and would be classed as a non-reliable source most likely. Review Medical Articles would be the best - this website is of a doctor, but snakes seems to be more of a hobby than vocation (??). [ http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-emergency-medicine/volume-5-number-1/snake-bite-envenomation-a-comprehensive-evaluation-of-severity-treatment-and-outcome-in-a-tertiary-care-south-indian-hospital.html this] is better but still a single study rather than a Review Article. Interesting question......I think we need some more sources, but I haven't yet looked at the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hannah?
Where does the species name Hannah come from? Did Theodore Cantor name it after his daughter or something? There's no mention of this in the article... VenomousConcept (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Superstition"?
"The charmer is usually tattooed with three pictograms, using an ink mixed with snake venom; superstition holds that it protects the charmer from the snake" -- is this superstition? It sounds a lot like mithridatism to me (see Snake venom). I haven't read the offline source quoted, but would it trouble anyone to change, say, "superstition" to "tradition"? Wnt (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I retried the search and found a source to support that position, so I made a larger change in this direction. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

snake
Black Mamba

Naja

Indian Cobra

Spitting Cobra

Inland taipan

Coral Snake

Egyptian Cobra

Boa constrictor

Mamba

Burmese Python

Snake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.255.106 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Significance
"In the Indian Subcontinent, the king cobra is believed to possess exceptional memory. According to a myth, the picture of the killer of a king cobra stays in the eyes of the snake, which is later picked up by the partner and is used to hunt down the killer for revenge. Because of this myth, whenever a cobra is killed, especially in India, the head is either crushed or burned to damage the eyes completely." Do you think it would be ok to omit 'especially in india'? It just seems to be somewhat redundant since it is said in the indian subcontinent. I know that of course it refers to the geographic area and not the country itself, but is there any way this could be reworded? Just seeking input, have a great day! Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on King cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seanthomas.net/oldsite/ld50tot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert
This revert is not clear. --Ant a n O 07:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You may refer the book "The Divine Codes: The untimely edition of Timely Matters" and local language book. There are myth and fact. --Ant a n O 07:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, please write a sentence to go under King_cobra describing this belief and provide the above source as an inline reference. I suppose that would be a suitable hook to hang an image on.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013049/http://www.cites.org/eng/com/aC/17/E17i-05Rev.doc to http://www.cites.org/eng/com/aC/17/E17i-05Rev.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claim
"In Thailand, a concoction of alcohol and the ground root of turmeric is ingested, which has been clinically shown to create a strong resilience against the venom of the king cobra, and other snakes with neurotoxic venom". This is referenced but appears very dubious. 117.204.92.31 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly enough, this seems legit. The current cite is a summary statement in a guidebook, which might be less solid, but the sources behind that (mostly E. Lattman's research) are quite definite. Apparently curcuma and relatives contain a number of effective anti-envenomation compounds. I added a journal cite to the statement to shore it up a bit. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

=
====================================================================

KING COBRAS IN POPULAR CULTURE

A Popular culture segment could be added to the article!!! and add that the Fu-Xi character in the kung fu panda tv show is a king cobra(Chinese king cobra)!! and that king cobras play important roles in asian culture; for exemple:

there is a kung fu style name after and based on king cobras!!!

Spelling
Is there any reason that a sub-section uses the idiosyncratic spelling of 'defense'? (See ) Unless there's a good reason for this perhaps someone with editing access could change it to 'defence'.

Largest king cobra
There is an inconsistency between the maximum length for the species provided in the lead (5.85 m) and the one stated in the body of the article (5.71 m). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I failed to find the claim of "2.18 mg/kg" from the source for its subcutaneous injection.

Sus number in venom section
"It can deliver up to 420 mg venom in dry weight (400-600 mg overall) per bite" This is not supported by the citation provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_cobra#Venom) and kinda sus. BIG   BIG   CHUNGUS  10:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The cited source actually says 350–500 mg per bite. Was there a second source that got deleted somewhere along the line? —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so many of the poisonous snake pages were edited in the past by and their many sockpuppets. Have a look at the sock list if you have spare time and then see which pages they've been involved with. It took a few of us a protracted period to clean up the various mamba species and am slowly making my way through more. They had a habit of exaggerating and misinterpreting sources and using verbose superlative language not consistent with the sources. Also complicated by the fact that alot of sourcing of snake information can be hard to track down. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please
I finally, found a reliable article about the fact that the king cobra is an apex predator. Here's the link - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1940082918818401 Of course check it out, and if you think it's reliable, then please edit the article about it, giving this link. And add the king cobra to the apex predator category. But if you think the article is unreliable, then tell me about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.0.188.228 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

alternate name
Why doesn't the article mention the alternative name "hamadryad," as some of the sources listed do? Admittedly, this name is probably little used today. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022
End of first paragraph, it states that lizards are "non-reptiles." That is obviously an error. 5.186.120.96 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not sure exactly what the body is trying to say, there's some point that has been lost I suspect. Given the gist being it mostly eats snakes, I have made the change. CMD (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevance
Found this information very clear and concise, considering I know nothing about King Cobra snakes. Nanalpr (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023
A very important piece of information is left away about the King Cobra.

His main meal is other snakes, aswell as cobra's and other venomous snakes. A crucial piece of information is not mentioned on Wikipedia about the King Cobra.

The King Cobra is resistant to all the Venom of other Venomous snakes.

Biologists gathered blood of the King Cobro to find out how this is possible, and they are searching for a possible antidote for Venomous snake bites, by researching the DNA of the King Cobra.

The King Cobra is immuun to all the Venom of Snakes.

Due to this the King Cobra is able to consume other snakes and venomous snakes. 109.37.131.196 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  15:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a review paper which mentions this hypothesis. It is suggested that no conclusion can be made since male king cobras from time to time do get killed by other fellows during battles for mates. It is not likely they are immune to the venom. RoyalRover (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2023
Change ”With an average length of 3.18 to 4 m (10.4 to 13.1 ft) and a maximum record of 5.85 m (19.2 ft),[2] it is the world's longest venomous snake with diversified colouration across habitats, from black with white stripes to unbroken brownish grey“ to “With an average length of 3.18 to 4 m (10.4 to 13.1 ft) and a maximum record of 5.85 m (19.2 ft),[2] it is the world's longest venomous snake. The species has diversified colouration across habitats, from black with white stripes to unbroken brownish grey.” 195.99.12.91 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pinchme123 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical correction
Current text: "A female king cobra is among few snakes guarding the nest to protect the eggs throughout the incubation period."

Improper grammar; proposing a change to the following: "A female king cobra is among the few snakes known to guard the nest and protect the eggs throughout the incubation period." MourningSilver (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Done with a source added. RoyalRover (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023
The Binomial name of the species should read Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor, 1836), with the parentheses per ICZN rule 51.3. , as the species was moved from the genus Hamadryas, in which it was originally described, to the genus Ophiophagus. Sparassus (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ans=yes Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)