Is the JP Dilophosaurus poisonous or venomous?

[stargatedalek]

Some toads can squirt poison, but it's rarely used, and typically isn't done deliberately. For venom the only sprayers I know of are spitting cobras which use specialized fangs, and ants which use their stingers on their tails.

No example comes to mind, but I bet I've been to a zoo or animal section at a theme park and had the tour guides or signage mistakenly use poison and venom interchangeably, and I could swear I've seen tarantula hairs described as being poisonous (they are allergy inducing instead, similar to poison oak).

It's not unreasonable, even from an in-universe perspective, for the recorded tour program to get facts like these wrong. The people writing scripts for tour guides or signage like these are not always given more than a cursory blurb about the animals to base their scripts on and will sometimes opt for the most dramatic options.

Acidid mucus, acidic vomit, acidic saliva, swap acidic with blinding for any of those, all work fine as descriptors.

[DinoToyForum]

Some toads can squirt poison, but it's rarely used, and typically isn't done deliberately. For venom the only sprayers I know of are spitting cobras which use specialized fangs, and ants which use their stingers on their tails.

No example comes to mind, but I bet I've been to a zoo or animal section at a theme park and had the tour guides or signage mistakenly use poison and venom interchangeably, and I could swear I've seen tarantula hairs described as being poisonous (they are allergy inducing instead, similar to poison oak).

It's not unreasonable, even from an in-universe perspective, for the recorded tour program to get facts like these wrong. The people writing scripts for tour guides or signage like these are not always given more than a cursory blurb about the animals to base their scripts on and will sometimes opt for the most dramatic options.

Acidid mucus, acidic vomit, acidic saliva, swap acidic with blinding for any of those, all work fine as descriptors.

Surely "acidic" is an assumption and "toxic" would be better? Could you put your suggestion into a sentence describing the dinosaur (as opposed to describing the fluid), like the Richard Kiley one?

E.g. "...We now know that Dilophosaurus is actually toxic, spitting its' toxic spit at its' prey, causing blindness and eventually paralysis." Just doesn't sound right to me. Is there a better way to phrase it without completely rewriting the original sentence?

By the way, this isn't just an exercise, I actually do need an accurate description of the fictional dinosaur for a paper I'm writing. Personally, I'm tempted to go with "poisonous" as per the Jurassic Park script, even if there are caveats...

[Gwangi]

Toxic bile perhaps?

I think it's important to note that at one time there was no real distinction between using poison and venom interchangeably. I have many old reptile books for example, by renowned experts of their time, that refer to venomous snakes as being "poisonous snakes". And if I'm not mistaken they don't even have separate terms for the two in some languages.

[stargatedalek]

Surely "acidic" is an assumption and "toxic" would be better? Could you put your suggestion into a sentence describing the dinosaur (as opposed to describing the fluid), like the Richard Kiley one?

E.g. "...We now know that Dilophosaurus is actually toxic, spitting its' toxic spit at its' prey, causing blindness and eventually paralysis." Just doesn't sound right to me. Is there a better way to phrase it without completely rewriting the original sentence?

By the way, this isn't just an exercise, I actually do need an accurate description of the fictional dinosaur for a paper I'm writing. Personally, I'm tempted to go with "poisonous" as per the Jurassic Park script, even if there are caveats...

I am fairly certain that toxic is inherently referencing poison and venom, "acidic" is just in reference to PH. Birds that do this use their stomach acid, and snakes use partially digested food coated in stomach acid. If it's strong enough to sting when it gets in Nedry's eyes without also burning his skin (as a strong base presumably would), it's almost certainly acidic.

To use it in that sentence; "we now know that Dilophosaurus is capable of spitting acidic vomit at its' prey, causing blindness and eventually paralysis, allowing the carnivore to eat at its' leisure."

[Papi-Anon]

Some toads can squirt poison, but it's rarely used, and typically isn't done deliberately. For venom the only sprayers I know of are spitting cobras which use specialized fangs, and ants which use their stingers on their tails.

More of an burning, foul-smelling chemical-reaction, but the bombardier beetle also comes to mind for 'spraying'. The chemical reaction of its two secretions produces temperatures nearly at the boiling point of water.

[DinoToyForum]

Surely "acidic" is an assumption and "toxic" would be better? Could you put your suggestion into a sentence describing the dinosaur (as opposed to describing the fluid), like the Richard Kiley one?

E.g. "...We now know that Dilophosaurus is actually toxic, spitting its' toxic spit at its' prey, causing blindness and eventually paralysis." Just doesn't sound right to me. Is there a better way to phrase it without completely rewriting the original sentence?

By the way, this isn't just an exercise, I actually do need an accurate description of the fictional dinosaur for a paper I'm writing. Personally, I'm tempted to go with "poisonous" as per the Jurassic Park script, even if there are caveats...

I am fairly certain that toxic is inherently referencing poison and venom, "acidic" is just in reference to PH. Birds that do this use their stomach acid, and snakes use partially digested food coated in stomach acid. If it's strong enough to sting when it gets in Nedry's eyes without also burning his skin (as a strong base presumably would), it's almost certainly acidic.

To use it in that sentence; "we now know that Dilophosaurus is capable of spitting acidic vomit at its' prey, causing blindness and eventually paralysis, allowing the carnivore to eat at its' leisure."

I thought that 'toxic' was used more broadly than that e.g. asbestos is physically toxic (but it isn't poison or venom). 'Toxin' might be the word you are thinking of? I've done a little digging and the language is a minefield. As @Gwangi already pointed out, terminologies have changed with time. Your assertion that cobras don't spit, they spray, is similarly semantic.

Anyway, I understand how you've come to the conclusion that the JP Dilophosaurus spits acidic vomit, and I like your interpretation, I just don't think that is certain. That conclusion rests on assumptions and contradicts the Jurassic Park (movie) tour script.

To help come to my own conclusion I've also mined Crichton's Jurassic Park novel for relevant quotes:

"Even though the workmen were separated from the river by the fence, the dilos could spit right through it, delivering their blinding poison."
---
""Aren't those the ones that are poison?"
"Yes," Grant said. "Dilophosaurus.""
---
"And even then nobody suspected the dilophosaurs could spit until one of the handlers was almost blinded by spitting venom.
After that, Hammond had agreed to study dilophosaur venom, which was found to contain seven different toxic enzymes. It was also discovered that the dilophosaurs could spit a distance of fifty feet. Since this raised the possibility that a guest in a car might be blinded, management decided to remove the poison sacs. The vets had tried twice, on two different animals, without success, No one knew where the poison was being secreted."
---
"But the skin of his neck was already starting to tingle and burn. And his hand was tingling, too. It was almost like he had been touched with acid."
---
""That's dilo saliva," Muldoon said. "Spit from the dilophosaurs. You see the damage on the
corneas, all that redness. In the eyes it's painful but not fatal. You've got about two hours to wash it out with the antivenin; we keep it all around the park, just in case."

From these quotes it seems obvious to me that Crichton was using "poison" and "venom" interchangeably. His meaning is clear though: Dilophosaurus spits a poison substance. The mention of toxic enzymes discounts the idea that the the spit is simply acidic.

Thanks for trying to fix that sentence, anyway. I tried to imagine it read out in Richard Kiley's voice and it sounded jarringly specific to me.

I'm concluding that the JP Dilophosaurus spits poison saliva and can therefore be regarded as poisonous. The delivery method is absorption (the victim's skin or eyes absorb the poison spit), which also fits the technical definition of poisonous animal. The JP Dilophosaurus doesn't inject the poisonous spit and so can't be described as a venomous animal.

[stargatedalek]

That was my bad, I forgot that toxic was a different word from toxen. It's the e that denotes it's reference specifically to something produced by an organism, whereas toxic and toxin are more broad and also include things like heavy metals etc.

Spitting cobras not spitting is not semantic. Spitting is the ejecting of liquid using one's mouth or throat, spitting cobra venom is never in their mouth or throat, it is released directly from openings in their fangs after they are extended and the mouth is open. They are no more spitting venom than any other snake is when it injects venom. If you were to argue hognose snakes spit venom into the wound after biting, I would be forced to concur, but it's still a far cry from using it as a projectile.

What the book describes sounds more like Gila monsters, aforementioned hognose snakes, or monitor lizards than anything else, especially with the venoms point of origin apparently being hard to locate. It's clear the delivery mechanism is still spitting, but perhaps this is saliva and not digestive fluid, which would indicate it could in-fact be venomous.

The difference between poison and venom is more than just the method of application. Rather, each requires a different method of application. If you swallow venom or get it on your skin it won't do anything unless you have an open wound, but poison would have its full effect.

Even still venom is likely going to sting and hurt if it gets in your eyes, and to be fair it seems this is all the spit itself really does to Nedry, as he is otherwise fine and even able to see after he clears his eyes.

[DinoToyForum]

Spitting cobras not spitting is not semantic. Spitting is the ejecting of liquid using one's mouth or throat, spitting cobra venom is never in their mouth or throat, it is released directly from openings in their fangs after they are extended and the mouth is open. They are no more spitting venom than any other snake is when it injects venom. If you were to argue hognose snakes spit venom into the wound after biting, I would be forced to concur, but it's still a far cry from using it as a projectile.

I know you weren't intending to be ironic, but it is called a spitting cobra, so it is absolutely semantic. There's no point in arguing semantics as we both agree on the method of delivery in the spitting cobra. The point is that we don't know with certainty how the JP Dilophosaurus projects liquid from its mouth. As I said above, maybe it sprays like a spitting cobra. It could just be described as spitting because that word is used for extant reptiles that spray. If you see what I mean.

What the book describes sounds more like Gila monsters, aforementioned hognose snakes, or monitor lizards than anything else, especially with the venoms point of origin apparently being hard to locate. It's clear the delivery mechanism is still spitting, but perhaps this is saliva and not digestive fluid, which would indicate it could in-fact be venomous.

The difference between poison and venom is more than just the method of application. Rather, each requires a different method of application. If you swallow venom or get it on your skin it won't do anything unless you have an open wound, but poison would have its full effect.

Even still venom is likely going to sting and hurt if it gets in your eyes, and to be fair it seems this is all the spit itself really does to Nedry, as he is otherwise fine and even able to see after he clears his eyes.

I felt like we were back at the beginning! I've been going in circles myself, which is why I posted my question here in the first place. But, after some more investigation, some good news...

I found this useful statement (from discover magazine here) that tought me something new: "And then there's even a third subcategory of toxins, for those who appreciate being as accurate as possible: toxungens. Outlined very succinctly by David Nelsen and his colleagues in their 2014 paper, toxungens are poisons that are aggressively wielded, like the squirting of poison by cane toads or spitting of venom by certain cobra species. Since no wound is inflicted when the toxins are sprayed, they aren't considered "venoms" in context, but the animals aren't exactly waiting to be harassed, either. Because the toxic species is actively involved in the delivery of its noxious chemicals, but they aren't making wounds, we give them a special category all to themselves."

I think the author made a mistake though, as it should be "...toxungens are poisons biological toxins that are aggressively wielded...

Nevertheless, by this definition, we can confidently conclude that the JP Dilophosaurus spits a toxungen. The animal is therefore neither poisonous or venomous, it is toxungenous!

So, we finally have a (technical) answer. Thank you Nelson et al (2014)! I must find and read the paper properly, the abstract sounds fascinating. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257532436_Poisons_toxungens_and_venoms_Redefining_and_classifying_toxic_biological_secretions_and_the_organisms_that_employ_them

However, it still doesn't quite solve my predicament. I can't use a word that nobody will understand in my paper without explaining it, and it would be rather inappropriate to do so in the context I'm using it. So, I'll have to mull over whether I would prefer to be accurate or understood!