Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
ascend low-lying bushes, shrubs, trees, and occasionally man-made structures in search
of prey. Juvenile
A. portoricensis
utilize caudal luring as a foraging strategy, but this
behavior has not been confirmed in adults (Leal and Thomas, 1994). Although mostly
terrestrial,
A. portoricensis
has been observed in water (Barun et al., 2007).
There are only a few documented cases of bites by
Alsophis
spp., and almost all
of these are by
A. portoricensis
(
Table 4.1
). The signs/symptoms consisted of local
pain, edema (in a few cases this has been progressive, and reportedly involved the
entire affected upper extremity), mild ecchymoses, and occasionally minor blister-
ing (
Tables 4.1 and 4.4
). It is noteworthy that one pediatric victim exhibited progres-
sive edema significant enough to prompt a surgical consultation (
Table 4.1
), although
as noted previously, local effects of snakebites may be notoriously misinterpreted.
The “impaired coagulation” reported anecdotally by Rodriguez-Robles and Thomas
(1992) requires clinical confirmation by appropriate formal medical review, and
laboratory investigations [prothrombin time, international normalized ratio (PT/
INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), see Section 4.6]. Until and if
proven otherwise, this must be considered a misinterpretation of brisk bleeding from
puncture wounds. Such descriptions smack of the pitfalls discussed in Section 4.5.
To date, there is absolutely no evidence of systemic effects from bites of any
Alsophis
spp.
A communicated case (Kevel Lindsay, written communication with SAW, February
2011) occurred on Mosquito Island, British Virgin Islands (September 2007). An
870 mm (total body length), 51.7 g female
A. portoricensis
was encountered in the
vicinity of an abandoned building, and grabbed by the victim. The snake bit the vic-
tim on the distal and proximal phalanges, second digit of the left hand. The snake
“
…
moved its head
…
” in a “slow side-ways”
…
and “downward motion” for a few
seconds, and “bit down” twice. The snake remained attached for about 1 min, and the
bite was not immediately painful. The victim indicated that he did not immediately
remove the snake due to his concerns of damaging it as well as wishing to prevent its
escape. Within minutes, the victim noted “tingling” and “numbness” at the wound site
as well as minor swelling. In less than 1 h (Plate 4.4), the bitten finger and immedi-
ate metacarpal region were swollen, tingling, with increased “numbness” as well as
mild “stiffness.” Several hours later, noted were: progressive edema reaching the upper
forearm, accompanied by “throbbing”; increased “numbness” at the wound site; and mild
ecchymoses. The bitten finger was mildly-to-moderately painful. By morning, the victim
noted pain, edema, and throbbing involving the entire forearm, and mild ecchymoses of
the hand. The victim was eventually examined by a physician (within 36 h of the bite)
and was prescribed two different medications (specifics are unavailable; probably an anti-
histamine and an antibiotic). The edema almost fully resolved within 48 h, and the victim
noted a dull ache that lasted for about 2 days. The victim also reported occasional “tin-
gling” and an episodic rash on the left shoulder and arm. The only significant sequelae
(2 weeks duration postbite) consisted of soreness in the joints, including the left elbow
and shoulder. The victim was fully recovered 2 weeks after the bite. It is noteworthy that
the victim had been bitten previously by a
A. portoricensis
, but the bite was negligible
(K. Lindsay, personal written communication with SAW, February 2011).
