I’ll get this out of the way right at the onset: Facebook is not meant to be a forum. One can think of the now defunct and obsolete forums as a library where topics — the threads — are segregated neatly into categories. Members can add more information within these topics, and it is very easy to dig and find relevant topics if one clicks the Search icon.
In Facebook groups, especially those that cater to the “please ID” crowd, a new member can choose not to backread and instead start a post that has been tackled just days earlier. Consider how many members are added within the same week and how each of them has the same things in mind, and you end up with a repetitive and redundant group that fizzles out in just a couple of years as members get more and more fed up with the same tiresome posts.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
All the local herp groups in Facebook only have one overarching theme: to identify Reptiles and Amphibians. However, if one pays attention after joining these said groups, then one thing becomes obvious: a propensity for Snake posts, many of which have been killed.
The posts’ authors likewise have a common theme: Ask what Snake it is and if they’re venomous (many use the term ‘‘poisonous” which, of course, is incorrect). The latter concern eclipses the first; if one were really interested to know more, then it should be mentioned that there is no shortage of relevant information, both in print and from the web.
Since killing animals is generally frowned upon in social media and results in a hailstorm of criticism, a common alibi is employed: that it was the neighbors who killed the snake, or anyone from their relatives — anyone but him or her.
The admins or other group members chime in and give the Snake’s name, usually with the comforting and reassuring phrase “non-venomous and harmless”. This goes on for several posts within a week. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year.
One might start thinking that at a certain point, more and more people would already have been enlightened enough to not to kill Snakes and skilled enough to identify one. But it’s still the same endless line of queries. Which now begs the question: Are these Facebook herp groups really contributing anything?
A ROAD PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS
People who create Facebook groups dedicated to wildlife are unquestionably guided by good intentions, or at least some of them. I know of some who start their own groups primarily because, for some arcane reason, they see it as a badge of honor, however superficial.
Still, I believe it must also be said that good intentions are not enough if one does not really know how to execute well to achieve the desired results, such as educating the masses to this often-misunderstood group of vertebrates.
What I also seem to notice is that most of these group’s administrators and founding members limit their postings to shared posts, be it phylogeny papers or photos done by professional herpetologists or photographers. It’s very seldom that they post their own photos or share their own observations. In this regard, the knowledge of such administrators can only be understood to be limited to knowledge disseminated by other people from the academe or naturalist photographers. No actual discoveries of their own. What this translates to is that there is very little engagement going on in most of such shared posts, or at least there is little or no new knowledge that crops up from these discussions.
What should perhaps be realized here is that the ordinary Juans who joined such groups have no intention to be herpetologists. They just want to know if the Snake they killed could have killed them, and then they’re out. A golden opportunity to further educate people is lost. And educating people begins by poking their interest.
It is much easier to hook the attention of the everyday person by saying in a post or a comment that, “These Coral Snakes have fixed time schedules as if they possess clocks. They are active from about 8 AM to until noon, and then from around 4 PM until sundown,” than tell them that, “Recent phylogenetic studies place Hemibungarus close to Ophiophagus.” The former persuades would-be naturalists to verify it by making their own observations, and since Coral Snakes are infrequently found, they’ll end up observing and making notes on other animals as well. The next thing they know, they’re naturalists, too.
Sharing posts of technical papers from authors who are not even members of such groups is like being on a date with someone who only wants to talk about themself. They get ignored and it just gets nowhere.
Non-venomous 
Venomous
Once people are told that non-venomous equal harmless, then it automatically gives the impression that venomous equals harmful.
WHEN GOOD INTENTIONS BACKFIRE
This isn’t Australia. Most Philippine Snakes are non-venomous, and yet, most Filipinos are of the belief that these creatures are out to get them, and what better way to dispatch people than by using venom.
The admins have attempted to work around this by introducing classifications. Thus, a Lycodon capucinus (the common Wolf Snake known as “ahas-tulog” or “ahas-bahay”) is categorized as “non-venomous and harmless” in an effort to allay fears.
What these administrators don’t want to tell people is that Wolf Snakes will bite defensively, and bites, while mild, will result in welting, which certainly does not help to warm up to their new human acquaintances.
Another issue here is that most Snakes appear to have a Duvernoy’s gland. This is the gland responsible for the production of venom. Many snakes traditionally believed to be non-venomous have this, whether or not they have venom-conducting fangs or not. In fact, it would seem that in such Snakes, venom is delivered through the simple act of biting.
This is no different from how the Helodermatids — the Gila Monsters and the Beaded Lizards — effect their venom. In true venomous Snakes, the introduction of venom is made possible by the use of fangs: the proteroglyphic fangs of the Elapids (which includes the Coral Snakes, Cobras, Kraits, Mambas, and Sea Snakes) have a grooved canal running almost the entirety of their length where venom flows, while the more effective solenoglyphic fangs of Vipers are like hypodermic needles where the canal is inside the fangs.
The rear-fanged Snakes have opistoglyphic enlarged teeth at the posterior upper maxilla and are much less efficient in delivering venom compared to the true venomous Snakes. Bites from so-called non-venomous snakes often have a slight tingling, burning, or itching sensation, quickly followed by a reddish welt confined to the bite area.
While the effects are very mild and correct themselves in less than an hour, the classification that such Serpents are non-venomous is already clearly wrong. And the “harmless” categorization instantly becomes questionable when one is bitten by a six-foot, non-venomous Reticulated Python (Malayopython reticulatus).
Retics do not possess venom, but their teeth are teardrop-shaped in cross section — rounded at front and blade-like at the back. Hundreds of teeth sinking into human flesh coupled with the jagged power of a Snake quickly retracting their head after striking is more than just a trifling unpleasantry.
If truth be told, I would rather be bitten by a five-foot, moderately venomous Cat Snake (Boiga cynodon) than a three-foot Reticulated Python. Even the small and unassuming Calamaria bitorques, a Snake from higher elevations, can deliver a nasty bite that draws an awful lot of blood coupled with numbness. Categorized as “non-venomous”, I am of the suspicion that C. bitorques is at least weakly venomous, possibly with anti-coagulant properties.
Instead of telling people that non-venomous Snakes are harmless, why not instead ask them to steer clear of any Snake they find dubious?
