“It’s not an “assertion;” it’s a hypothesis.
But the basis for the hypothesis is the “island effect” or “island rule” where, because of isoltion pre-existing genetic tendancies tend to get exageratted on close ecosystems.
To see in another context, see Shetland ponies or some islands where rodents become huge.
Biologically, because of its isolation (and large desert areas that also restrict migration even on Australia itself), Australia is essentially a genetic island.” TheThirdRuffian
Me again......
Do you NOT see something about size there? Also, I am NOT making the same assertion. I said that without any evidence that the relevant prey species were growing more resistant to venom, I could see no need for a particularly nasty venom (in case you are from Rio Linda, that would be me NOT supporting TTR’s assertion). I also said that I didn't see any published works linking “the Island effect” with venom (also me not supporting TTR’s assertion, especially his assertion that all one had to do was “goggle it”.).
Are you just naturally contrary? Looking for a squabble when there isn't one?
Yes, but he is using the island rule which is about size to justify his assumption about venom which was his original assertion.
I forgot. All I meant in my whole rant was for people to not come here and make assertions when they have nothing to back them up. I’m not trying to disagree with you, but when you say things like (to paraphrase) “I couldn’t find anything to support TTR, but I found such and such and he may be on to something”. When it has nothing to do with the point. It made me think that you were supporting his assertion.