Dinosaurs and Komodo Dragons?

[Mirabilis]

Do you think it is possible, that dinosaurs (specifically carnivors) possesed some bacteria in their salivia that killed their prey no matter what, like the komodo dragon? And if they did, would it have any signifgant change in the study and understanding of them? Would it change the way scientist look at them?

Footage of Komodo dragons eating their prey after the lethal bite.

[durendal]

I don't think so. Based on the common physiology of organism in the planet, it is mostly the pint size animals that have poisons. Posion secretion are usually used for defense or sometimes a necessity for the animal to survive, sometimes used as an edge to even the playing field for their larger predators. Dinosaurs being humongous as they are, would not need the poison in order to survive.

[Mirabilis]

Well I thought it was bacteria in their salivia, not posion or venom. Perhaps I was told wrong? In anycase I think it is rather interesting to say the least.

[durendal]

Ah I see. I may have another theory in that. I think that organisms in the prehistoric era are somewhat strong, so a bacteria that may be harmless then might be fatal in todays environment. Since the Comodo Dragon is a possible descendant of the dinosaur, perhaps the bacteria in their saliva may have not changed from their prehistoric times, thus becoming fatal to todays standards.

But then, after reading the wiki for Komodo Dragons, it was stated that in a research conducted in Singapore at 2009, MRi scans shows the presence of venom glands in the skull of Komodo dragons, and found that it secreted venom containing toxic proteins.

[Salkafar]

I think I should be very surprised if there were no dinosaur species that were poisonous.

"Based on the common physiology of organism in the planet, it is mostly the pint size animals that have poisons... Dinosaurs being humongous as they are, would not need the poison in order to survive."

Komodo dragons are pretty humongous. Also, many dinosaurs were 'pint sized' or at the very least no larger than a komodo dragon. Poison can be a huge return on investment: Komodos just bite their prey once, then wait him out. No frantic battles, no possibility of getting injured, but you still get to eat delicious buffalo.

Michael Crichton made Compsognathus poisonous in his 'Jurassic Park' books.

[*BananaKing]

What about those spitting lizard dinosaurs from Jurassic Park? Aren't those not only real but those oily discharges they spit poisonous? I think since reptiles are decedents from dinosaurs we can say some dinosaurs were poisonous.

[Mirabilis]

You mean the Dyliophosuarus? (spelling?) Yeah, I knew about those dino's in JP (which is a book and movie), still I thought that some dino's might have something like the komodo's do. Maybe paralyse it's prey so it can't run away, or gradually kill it like the komodo's themselve etc.

[LordSpleach]

Dyliophosuarus: As far as I know about it, I heard the spitting poison was made up for the movie.

[*Jess♥]

before i read the topic fully, I had a quick skim through and did not see anybody mention the hippopotamus.

_{I have a meeting, i will read this fully later.}

[Salkafar]

1) Dilophosaurus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilophosaurus Nothing is known about it being poisonous; it's practically impossible to tell from a skeleton alone.

2) There are no modern reptiles that are descended from dinosaurs. Birds are descended from them, however.

3) How would the Hippopotamus figure into this?

[*Jess♥]

hippopotamus is a very large mammal with a nasty reputation for bad breath. if bad breath is due to nasty bacteria, i think it is feasible for a large animal like this to have the deadly type of bacteria that a komodo dragon does.

I don't think the toxicity of a bit from a hippo is in question though since these things can kill you far easier by other methods.

[*V Guyver]

It's an interesting idea, however it's incorrect. Though there are some species that try to use bacteria to wipe out prey, they are in fact not all that common nor practical when compared to poisons, Also, no way to know if or which dinosaurs had such features. Since small creatures tend to need poison and other things to threaten larger prey or hunters, hunters tend to instead rely on their own size and natural gifts such as strength to down their prey.

Exampled, all of the world's Cuttlefish except one are not poisonous, the poisonous one is the smallest one of them all. It's also flashier and unlike the other's it actually walks on the seabed.

[Tales]

Being an animal enthusiatist I would like to comment something on this subject?

The Komodo Dragon is an oddity. It evolved in isolation and it's just by luck that it still retain the venom of its ancestors. The Monitor lizard's venom glands are considered the precursors of snake venom glands. I think for the Komodo Dragon and dinosaurs. They are completely two different evolutionary stories.

[Mirabilis]

Well, I think that it is possible, that seeing as dino's were such massive creatures, they might of needed some sort of bacteria to break down the massive clumps of flesh they devoured. Think of the Rex for a moment, some scientist think it hunted its prey while others say it was scavenger. Personally I think it did both, but wouldnt it need some strong salivia to break down all those germs from the decomposing animal? I wouldn't be surprised if the larger animals, had some sort of bacteria that was used to break down the flesh that could be quite harmful in today's environment.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Mirabilis

[*Jess♥]

firstly, concerning massive clumps of flesh, consider the snake that swallows its prey whole.

they do not have deadly bacteria in their saliva like the komodo dragon.

secondly, there would be no sense in a scavenger having saliva that would cause deadly infection in a live creature. they eat dead creatures.

their bite may indirectly cause infection, but only about the same as any other creature.

[*V Guyver]

firstly, concerning massive clumps of flesh, consider the snake that swallows its prey whole.

they do not have deadly bacteria in their saliva like the komodo dragon.

secondly, there would be no sense in a scavenger having saliva that would cause deadly infection in a live creature. they eat dead creatures.

their bite may indirectly cause infection, but only about the same as any other creature.

I've seen some weird ways to hunt, and even eat animals, like how some scorpions digest the creature they kill via sending enzymes into the victims body to break it down from the inside out before sucking back in the digested material. Others I've seen have torn assunder creatures into little diced limbs before eating each body part one by one. Then of course there are the weird hunting style of the Alphaeidae which is a species that practically shoots a fireball like Ken and Ryu from street fighter.

Yet the Komodo is still unique that bacteria related bite is a step further then usual infections caused by hunters because the bacteria seem to have a simbiotic relationship with the Komodo. You can only wonder what the heck spawned that. Who knows, it may very well of been from a thick hide of prey it hunted or developed immunity to poison or some other ability, and one group of Komodo may of evolved into the current species via some factor related to these. For al lwe know, it may of been digestive aliva like Mirabilis suggest. Why not? 20% of the food we eat is already partially digested just by siliva and chewing which makes me wonder just what exactly promoted this feature in the Komodo.

[Mirabilis]

firstly, concerning massive clumps of flesh, consider the snake that swallows its prey whole.

they do not have deadly bacteria in their saliva like the komodo dragon.

Ohh, that's a good point, completely forgot about the snakes. Well to be more accurate I ment maybe the dino salivia would be indirectly harmful to us or our animals today, not the animals that walked the Earth with the dino's but I am sure you all already knew that.

It's interesting to me because it shows us how much we really don't know about them. I mean I could (and probably am) be dead wrong about this theory, and at the same time we can't entirely throw it out because we truely don't know. It's awesome to see all the laws and theories that support each side of this though. I love topics like this because it opens the door to widening my understanding on how or world works, and how awesome the animals are and the fuction they all use and such. I don't know why, it's always fascinated me.