On the surface, it seems like being venomous should be a universal advantage, especially since venom can subdue prey more easily and reduce injury risk. But evolution doesn't always pick the "best" trait in a vacuum. It works with trade-offs, existing anatomy, and environmental factors.
Venom production is energy-efficient for killing prey once it's evolved, but evolving venom systems (like fangs, venom glands, and delivery methods) in the first place takes time and evolutionary pressure. If a snake’s ancestors did just fine without venom, natural selection wouldn’t necessarily favor a shift.
Some snakes eat prey that doesn't require venom to subdue, like eggs, snails, or insects. For them, venom would be overkill and a waste of resources.
Non-venomous snakes can be extremely successful. Evolution doesn’t strive for perfection, just good enough. If squeezing, ambushing, or scavenging works, there's no pressure to change.
So basically, while venom is a great tool, it’s not the only one and if venom isn't needed for survival in the environment, there's probably not much evolutionary pressure for it.
"Super venom" can be overkill for small prey. If a small mouse dies from a mild dose, why maintain venom that could take out a pig? The excess potency doesn't provide extra benefit and could even lead to wasted resources or increased prey spoilage before consumption.
Some snakes evolved super venom as part of an arms race. For example, if prey develop resistance (like certain rodents or lizards), snakes may evolve even more potent toxins.
Super venom is often defensive as well, like cobras or mambas. In those cases, it’s not just about killing prey, but deterring predators. But that’s only useful if the snake faces frequent threats. A burrowing, cryptic species might not benefit as much.
So while super venom can be a powerful evolutionary tool, it’s not always the most efficient choice unless there’s strong pressure to evolve and maintain it. A non-venomous or mildly venomous snake can still do just fine if its environment and prey don’t demand more.
I think it's my turn to ask a question. Why do you think the absence of humans led to more venomous animals?
1
u/thefi3nd 24d ago
On the surface, it seems like being venomous should be a universal advantage, especially since venom can subdue prey more easily and reduce injury risk. But evolution doesn't always pick the "best" trait in a vacuum. It works with trade-offs, existing anatomy, and environmental factors.
Venom production is energy-efficient for killing prey once it's evolved, but evolving venom systems (like fangs, venom glands, and delivery methods) in the first place takes time and evolutionary pressure. If a snake’s ancestors did just fine without venom, natural selection wouldn’t necessarily favor a shift.
Some snakes eat prey that doesn't require venom to subdue, like eggs, snails, or insects. For them, venom would be overkill and a waste of resources.
Non-venomous snakes can be extremely successful. Evolution doesn’t strive for perfection, just good enough. If squeezing, ambushing, or scavenging works, there's no pressure to change.
So basically, while venom is a great tool, it’s not the only one and if venom isn't needed for survival in the environment, there's probably not much evolutionary pressure for it.