The way I thought it worked is venom potency is judged by how much a single dose could do. One dose would be measured as the average venom released during one bite or sting in a lab setting. In practice however, it's very likely that they will get thrown off or bitten or something before they can get that full dosage into a target (predator or prey), so whatever tiny amount they do get into them needs to be lethal. Therefor, while a full dose may be able to kill something like 40 adult humans, in practice it would only get out maybe 1/10 of that in an actual attack.
Still powerful, but makes more sense than hyper excessive evolution.
You know I honestly never thought about that
`
Googling it lead to this:
"A common method of measuring the toxicity of a substance is LD50, expressed as the dose that kills half of the test animals the substance is used on. LD50 usually is represented by the amount of venom (or other chemical) given for every 100 grams or 1 kilogram of the test animal's body weight [source: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety]. The "LD" stands for "lethal dose," and "50" represents 50 percent of test subjects -- the lower the value, the more potent the chemical."
`
That article did also mention that they're phasing out the usage of median lethal testing as well, though
Another article also mentions:
"While the LD50 test (lethal dose 50% – the amount required to kill half of a test group) using mice is the primary means by which to assess venom toxicity, it is flawed.
`
"The mouse model enables standard data to be acquired," says Robert Harrison, head of the Alistair Reid Venom Research Unit at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK. "But mammals are not always the diet of preference, so toxicity in mammals is simply a standardised metric that probably has no bearing on toxicity to an amphibian, arthropod or bird.""
`
So basically it sounds like the entire system for even measuring venom potency is flawed
There are theories that, at least in part, what dictates venom potency has to do with the extreme cost on the animal venom production often takes. It's purportedly pretty taxing on their bodies. Not to mention hunting and fleeing take up a lot of energy and snakes are generally fairly fragile. It's in the best interests of Venemous species to have any predator/prey to drop quickly and, as you say, put up minimal fight
Still powerful, but makes more sense than hyper excessive evolution.
`
Googling it lead to this:
"A common method of measuring the toxicity of a substance is LD50, expressed as the dose that kills half of the test animals the substance is used on. LD50 usually is represented by the amount of venom (or other chemical) given for every 100 grams or 1 kilogram of the test animal's body weight [source: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety]. The "LD" stands for "lethal dose," and "50" represents 50 percent of test subjects -- the lower the value, the more potent the chemical."
`
That article did also mention that they're phasing out the usage of median lethal testing as well, though
"While the LD50 test (lethal dose 50% – the amount required to kill half of a test group) using mice is the primary means by which to assess venom toxicity, it is flawed.
`
"The mouse model enables standard data to be acquired," says Robert Harrison, head of the Alistair Reid Venom Research Unit at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK. "But mammals are not always the diet of preference, so toxicity in mammals is simply a standardised metric that probably has no bearing on toxicity to an amphibian, arthropod or bird.""
`
So basically it sounds like the entire system for even measuring venom potency is flawed