Subscription Center
May 18, 2009 05:15 PM | 31
Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) can't chomp as hard as crocodiles and aren't as massive as grizzly bears, so how do they kill huge deer and even humans?
It's all in the bite and a dose of venom—not bacteria, as some previous research had suggested. The dragons, native to a handful of central Indonesian islands, use serrated teeth to "grip and rip" prey, creating a deep wound. Then they add their own special blend of venom, according to study results that were just published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"The dragon is truly poisonous," Stephen Wroe, a biological research fellow at University of New South Wales in Australia and study author, said in a statement.
Biologists have long assumed that the big lizards, which measure about 6.5 to 9.8 feet (2 to 3 meters) and weigh about 150 to 220 pounds (68 to 100 kilograms), kill prey by infecting it with pathogenic bacteria. But the new study shows that dragons carried different pathogens in the their mouths. Most of the bugs weren't terribly unusual.
Instead, the researchers found that the lizards actually have the most complex venom-delivery system known in reptiles, which had been overlooked because the animal's teeth are so different than those of most venomous creatures.
The dragons produce toxic proteins—not unlike those of gila monsters and some snakes—that cause a drop in blood pressure and decreased clotting. Specialized ducts move the venom from five separate small compartments to openings between serrated teeth. After venom enters a substantial wound, victims can go into shock and bleed to death.
The discovery of the Komodo's venom system leads the researchers to believe that its extinct relative, the Megalania (Varanus prisca), which, at as much as 4,400 pounds (2,000 kilograms), could have been the biggest venomous animal ever to stalk the earth.
Image of a Komodo dragon and prey on Komodo Island courtesy of Chris Kegelman
Tags:
lizards
More News Blog:
Next: Hubble released from space shuttle's grasp
Previous: Spacewalkers complete Hubble's final tune-up
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
31 Comments
Add CommentThere are the dragons of myth and fancy... like the gods and demons of religions... and the real deal. This evolutionarily scaled-down reptilian "dragon" kills because ... that's it niche as a predator extradinaire, much like the stealthy-strong crocodile. It's kills because it must... and it can. Venom is just it's way of saying: once bitten... there's no "twice" needed. Personally, I'd give this dude a very wide berth, and a great deal of respect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for clearing things up. I always assumed that it was the bacteria as was wrongfully determined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing. Will the marvels of God's creation never cease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice... Lata, Ruin your comment by chucking out the "God". Why are you even reading SA? No doubt to throw the G O D. Well good job! NOW I believe, I am off to the nearest church to convert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProadventurer, I am shocked at the lack of tolerance and respect for others' views that I see on this site - your post being a prime example. Just as you have the right to disbelieve and not be ridiculed for it, so Lata and others have the right to believe and not be ridiculed for it. I had expected better from those professing intellectualism and a true desire for knowledge. I guess I was wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is amazing. I always wondered how the "germ" could be so fast acting, but never have been isolated. And no, the marvels of God's creation will never cease, but maybe those who are truly educated will realize that their "faith" that all this just happened is a competitive belief to other's faith that it just didn't. Makes you wonder who they are really mad at, doesn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, good informative article on new scientific knowlage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find that people that go ballistic at the word "GOD" have been educated beyond their intelligence, and need to show it off.
You have me wondering what kind of coconuts it preyed on, before the fall, that required venom to dispatch them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing. Will the marvels of Zeus's creation never cease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh grow up you religion-haters. Move to Soviet Russia all of you! Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I worship yellow-coloured plants! It's my choice. Your lack of tolerance is just as horrible as medieval witch hunting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh... I see the usual inane comments by the theistically indoctrinated, which is to say "it's all god's plan"... which is to actually say nothing at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese type of vacuous and entirely predictable regurgitations will usually trigger an appropriate, though unnecessary rebuff from those still able to think critically, casting their lot in the real world, whose currency is reason.
However, it does seem a bit harsh to point out the rather glaring deficiencies of the faith-based on a site like Scientific Americian. Iit is analgous to publically pointing out the morbidly obese woman in tights and yelling: "How are those cheese whoppers workin' for ya"?
One does wonder what those engaged in massive cognitive dissonance (fighting sceintific facts with supernatural musings in dogmatized brains) are actually doing on this site... other than to proselytize, which of course, is rather obnoxious... and possibly offensive.
Anyway, their "god" musings fall flat... adding nothing substantive. The silence in the real world of the bible-god-in-their-brains .... is deafening.
Deus sive Natura.
Spin-oza, you have got to be one of the most closed-minded, intolerant intellectuals I've ever met.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one's telling you what to believe, so shut up and leave us alone!
I recently got a chance to see these Komodo Dragons up close and personal on Rinca island (just next to Komodo) - http://www.randomrambler.com/travel/komodo-dragons-rinca
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrust me, you don't want to mess around with them...
From the country of Spinoza: funny, how God left Europe and went to the feelings of people in Mexico and Brazil and to the thinking of people in the USA. HE appears in all (?) discussions on SA topics--but you will hardly find HIM back in Western European fora. God and science: "bien etonne de se trouver ensemble".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaw, the wonders of gods creations will never cease, as neither will the wonders of man's creations, which include the gods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaw, the wonders of gods creations will never cease, as neither will the wonders of man's creations, which include the gods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscHere is a little "science" for you. Post a response quoting your admiration for the work of Mickey Mouse, Nancy Drew, Sherlock Holmes, etc. and watch the total lack of concern that developes. The self appointed "intellectual" critics know that these characters do not exist. Then add a comment about the teachings of Buddah, a few Zen stories, and a few comments about what nature "intended" when "she" developed this species or that feature of some sub-species. Still we found very little interest. As soon as we posted anything about "God" or His Son (boy, I'm really playing with something dangerous there), then those who claim to not care or believe such "fictions" are forced by their own belief system to reply. There is no Mickey Mouse! Oh, sorry. I guess it's only God they want the right to get so upset about while allowing all manner of fiction in their lives, including the right to claim some "absolute" correctness to their beliefs. Science started in the Church. There have been few conflicts that are greatly overstated. Science is leading us closer to having to admit that something much beyound us must exist. I choose to call that something God. I find it interesting that my belief causes a few on the fringe of "science" such a special reaction. If you truly do not beleive, why not just go on YOUR way? Maybe such a way really needs the likes of us for there to be any interest or even the slightest hint of meaning. Prove me wrong. Don't reply to this. We'll see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said, Father Richard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFather R:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlmost a straw man argument make here you do.
Nobody comments on Mickey mouse or Nancy Drew because no one seriously believes they exist - and if someone seriously did they existed then they do not warrant the effort involved in countering that belief.
The problem with people believing in the gods, is that they do not keep that belief to themselves, secure in what they know to be true alone - rather they insist that everyone else believe it too, and when others do not then they react in some incivil way.
The Brights' response to such mythologies is a prophylaxis to the compelled tropism trying infect others with the God(s) meme.
Unfortunately it is not just all an intellectual game, as some of those infected have a particularly bad response, and exhibit symptoms of prejudice, terrorism and murder in response to the infection.
I knew it could not be left alone. At least gary makes some sense. The "straw man" arguments have been around for some time. Take the way "creationism", "intelligent design", "the fall", "prejudice", "terrorism", "murder", etc. are attributed to those who believe in God. Talk about PREJUDICE. The fact that no one else beleives that Mickey Mouse is a real person is not the point you allowed yourself to ignore. The point is You claim to not believe in God or the existence of any being guiding any part of life. Your response is based on your reaction to what OTHERS believe, on that we agree. But what we disagree on (maybe not if you reread the responses) is that the "incivil" reactions have not come from those who have a different faith than you. The lack of basic respect for others has come from those moved to "correct" those who express the simple faith that there is a God, almost in passing. I see no lecturing from the post representing belief in God (except maybe "leave us alone"). "Some of those infected"? Who is the small minded bigot here? Of course some of those who claim to be inlightened look down their noses at you. There are small minds in every beleif system calling those who don't agree with them such things as "infected". I can't argue that there have been those who allowed themselves to commit terrorism and murder in the name of their faith, but that includes the Nazi scientists and revolutionaries around the world who have been very anti organized religion. What god did Stalin say told him to kill his own people many times the number of Jews killed in WWII? It was faith that caused the Jews to be killed, not be the killers. Please don't insult yourself by trying to make the Nazis religious. Look at how high an honor they gave to "Science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth is people are people. At this time and place in history, you do not have to pretend that you are protecting anyone from any "evil" of religion. You are reacting to your own strong emotions which may be in place because of hurt caused to you by someone claiming authority of "proper" beleif. If so, I am sorry for their actions. Please look at the possibility that you are now being the self righteous one trying to hurt those who will not agree that you own the correct path. We are all still travelling and the only absolute that belongs to man will come at the end. We will have no disagreements then, which ever one of the many voices in this discussion is the closest to right. There is no excuse not to "play nice" with the other children along the way. Be well.
I can only think that it boils down to this: if you all want to have a scientific discussion or debate, them you all have to leave god completely out of the picture since there is NO science in god belief systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if I might comment on those who insist on their right to bring up their belief in god, I say: as in science and as in most everything else, if someone espouses an incorrect belief, then it is to be expected that they should be prepared to be corrected. If Scientific American can print an article that says that the previous belief that Komodo Dragons kill with bacteria in their saliva is wrong, then that correction to the previous belief is just and proper. So too is any attempt to correct (or otherwise not tolerate) the grossly erroneous belief in the mythology of most if not all religions. Science simply has no need whatsoever of a god or gods. Foolish, erroneous, irrational, illogical beliefs about all things science are not tolerated in the scientific world without debate and challenges. So,... yeah, keep your childish, wrong, and absurd beilefs in and comments about god to yourself - the rest of us would greatly appreciate it!
Well, well, well. No room in science for whay YOU say is myth, wrong, and just plain not science. I knew that someone out there could not let someone else have a belief that convicted them of their behavior. Yes, behavior. Science started in the church. I'll try to be nice to you in spite of your ignorance of the Science behind many of the beleifs of people of faith. Taking your statement about your "right" to "correct" others mistaken beleifs, that would be the basis for ALL the relegious people who have to push their beleifs on you. You obviously have been offended by such people, so you....... become one yourself. The "science" in your logic is nonexistent and the "religion" in your attitude would make any ignorant self righteous hater proud to call you 'brother'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a little science for you. Many very well known scientist and researchers beleive that their findings CONFIRM a greater being than man. It is a real jump to say what greater being [His name etc.(if "He" is a he)] but there have been many battles by materialist science vs. "beleiver" science that the materialist definately lost.
One such battle was over the "big bang". The materialist scientist stated that such could not be admitted because it IS evidence of a greater being. That battle was fought. Materialist lost. Materialist did what they always do. They just said, "well, that doesn't prove anything." In fact they now try to contort their own logic and history to say that the Big Bang somehow disproves a greater being. This is just one example of many. I have been watching this circus for years and people with opinions like yours aren't new. Get used to dealing with those of us with faith in science. There are more all the time, and you "ain't" seen nothing yet.
If you ever figure out what exactly your mad about (or at) maybe you would discover it's not us. I wish you well and clear mind.
Well, well, well,. . . Wrong, science did NOT start in the church! How absurd. The ancient Greeks and other peoples had well developed scientific inquiries well before christianity was even thought of. But maybe you're talking about the church of Zeus, eh? Try learning some history, particularly religious history. But then, even if science did start in somebody's church, that certainly doesn't validate that church in any way. Some scientists were Nazis - does that validate the Nazis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy logic is unassailable and has been tried by numerous religious leaders quite unsuccessfully.
Perhaps you could list those "Many very well known scientists and researchers [that] beleive that their findings CONFIRM a greater being than man" Key word: Believe. Science is not based on any beliefs - there are theories (not beliefs), evidence (not beliefs), observations (not beliefs), etc. There are also hypothesis - propositions for an explanation that has yet to be proven or backed by evidence. And, even if ALL scientists believed in a god or gods, that would not make them right! A belief is simply a contention one holds without (or in the face) of evidence. Sounds like you really need to study up on exactly what science is.
Believer science? Are you kidding?? Once again, you are confused as to what religion is vs. what science is. Science performed by a "believer" may indeed be valid. But the "believer" part is certainly not.
If you actually knew anything significant about the Big Bang theory, you could not possibly believe that it engenders any greater being in any way. That would not be science, pure and simple. In all of science, there is simply no need whatsoever to postulate any god or being greater than man. Those who believe otherwise are, well, basing their position on BELIEF not science! And beliefs do not belong in science, period. No scientist that is true to what science really is would attempt to pass off his/her belief as science.
I have to agree with you that this has all been quite the circus for years and years - at least 2000 years by my reckoning. But it is way past due for people to drop the mythology of god beliefs and stop clowning around trying to interject a belief system or god belief into science and science discussions like this.
The only contortion of logic is that which you have made so typically of folks who simply do not wish to take the time to learn what science is and what belief is.
I wish you well and hope you are able to clear your mind of false beliefs.
It is amusing that you believe that belief is not part of science or that a large majority of what you call science is but a front for self fooling beliefs that strongly resemble a "religion". If you knew anything about the "big bang" (but then again I have to wonder how old you were when it was proposed) you would know that a VERY large number of "scientist" opposed it BECAUSE it appeared to be proof of what those of you in the religion you call science like to snidely call "superstitution".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven you admitted that there has to be UNPROVEN theories to test in science. There is a real and obvious pattern to what theories are acceptable to test and what ones are not (at least to people like you). That proves bias and therefore pre-existing beliefs. That makes it a relegion. Good luck with calling that true science.
Science in its current form (not what you are pretending to represent) but true science did start in the Church. The books were written by monks, even the ones that latter made some Pope or another mad. I suggest that you study the new books on the history of science to see the birth of modern science... in the Church (especially the Jesuits). But then I'm sure you don't even know what the "Jesuit Science" is or why they were called on to work on it.
The last time I checked, there were 6 basic theories about time. 4 of them called for some type of eternal or infinite time line, at least back in time. Taking Darwin at his word; in an infinite amount of time, an infinite being would "evolve". I don't mind you pointing out where it's obvious that infinite being is not me, but the evidence is screaming that it is not you either. If one of these theories is true (time is infinte, past), and an infinte being did "evolve", I guess you would imagine yourself to be the judge of whether or not He (She, It) existed and foolishly think man's mind (in particular yours) would be able to understand enough of His creation to judge whether or not HE existed.
Unfortunately, there are many who also think they know all about God and try to present their belief in an offensive way. This seems to cause many (like you) to be offended that others (as "smart" as you, some maybe more) have had personel experiences that have led them to a different conclusion. It is a shame we can't be about the true business of science and just let everyone have their own set of opinions about what the proof means. But then, that would be too much like science.
Father R, you ongoing illogical straw-man arguments really do you, nor your cause, any favours. Actually - on that basis - keep 'em coming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing. Will the marvels of Odin's creations never cease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am also a "religion hater" as religion poisons everything and people kill other people in the name of their silly beliefs being correct and others silly beliefs being wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean Hera! lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was studying for my MS in biology at the University of Guam, I was working with the Micronesian mangrove monitors (Varanus indicus)--but part of my research involved studying up on the other Varanids, including the Komodo dragons, the Australian goannas, the Thai water monitors, and Philippine bayawak. I've never had the experience of seeing Komodo dragons in the wild (but have seen them in captivity), but I've seen a lot of the other monitors. This article here presents interesting information (also because I've been bitten by a small mangrove monitor -- it took a long time for the wound to heal, even after sterilizing it and applying antibacterial sauve). That the monitors may have venom similar to Gila monsters (Heloderma suspectum) will have an impact on further ecological studies--particularly those studies that involve their feeding behavior. I've done up some Squidoo websites on Varanus_indicus and Heloderma_suspectum ... The hardest thing to do is to get decent pictures of these creatures in the wild. (I'm working on that.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI Recently came across your blog through Google and found it to be informative and interesting article, Really it's a fantastic blog. Good job keep it up.....
oh ya.. I have similiar blog like you about <a href="http://komododragons.net/komodo-dragon/">Komodo Dragon</a> , I hope the article on my blog will be usefull for you… and we can share each other. thank you… :-)
Keep up the great work!!!!!
very grateful for the progress of the research, now if anyone bitten <a href="http://www.komodo.co.id">komodo</a> can be saved in a hospital in Bali Indonesia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this