![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
No one actually knows what species of snake "dahong palay" really is. It could possibly originate from the Philippine Pit Viper ( Trimeresurus flavomaculatus) which also has green specimens but they are far from being slender or even remotely leaf-like.
The originally linked snake species, Ahaetulla prasina, is actually only mildly venomous and is very unlikely to be the same species as that of the legend. But then again, every small green snake here is automatically called Dahong palay and assumed to be extremely dangerous. The snake itself may actually be purely legendary even though it is accepted as fact by almost everyone in rural areas. Even supposedly 'scientific' statistical surveys by the government ( DENR) list the Dahong Palay among snakes but do not provide the actual scientific name. See Compendium of ENR Information and Statistics, CY 2006 - 2006 -- A Step Into Oblivion ( talk) 05:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Alternativity:Alright, wait, if you're going to take off the species name, let's take away the word legendary. It gives the impression this isn't a real snake. It is. You KNOW when your neighbor does of a bite.
My reasons:
You are already familiar with most folk beliefs in the provinces I believe? The King Cobra for instance is said to have the ability to crow like a rooster and immobilize people by its gaze. Another is the very widespread belief that snake eyes can record the last moments of their life, leading people to always crush a snake's head even after death to prevent 'revenge'. The former legend probably started from the symptoms of envenomation by cobras. The latter probably because encounters with some snakes near people's homes happen during the mating season, and people assume that the second or third snake they encounter of the same species after killing the first one are there to 'take vengeance'.
So yes, I believe they are purely legendary. However, as a precaution, I'm posing the question as well to WP:AAR-- A Step Into Oblivion ( talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
My main objection was also to the term 'legendary', which would imply to many readers that 1. that the snake has a mythic significance and 2. that there isn't actually a physical reference, that it's a wisp of the imagination. In fact, given your objections, I would prefer that specific species not be listed at all. Something along the lines of "named after a broad local term for green snakes, which according to folk belief are particularly venomous. (The term is associated with a number of species, not all of which are actually venomous.)" Although I'm still not happy with what I feel is the undue length of that phrasing, and I'd like to run a grammar check before I actually paste that onto the article. Or maybe that's just because it's in the paragraph. I've half a mind to remove it and create an etymology section where we can work on the phrasing of the etymological roots (almost) to our hearts' content, and a reader interested more in the technical specifications of the sword rather than the details of its etymology and the legend of its namesake will be able to simply skip over that section. Sound reasonable to you? Hm. Also, a Dahong Palay (snake) article specifically identifying it as a cryptid would perhaps be useful, yes? The point I am making in saying that the snake is real is not that it is a single identifiable species. It is real in the sense that there is an actual physical reference - in this case, several, except that it does not conform to present taxonomies. I'm extremely busy at the moment but would like to take action on this eventually. But if you agree with any of my ideas and want to execute them yourself, feel free. :D If not and you'd prefer to keep disagreeing, then by all means let's continue this discussion. I'm afraid I am not always able to update myself on wiki nowadays, though. You're doing great work, by the way. Thank you. Not being much of a snake person, I simply took one of my sources and took its species identification at face value. Now I know. -- Alternativity ( talk) 09:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dahong palay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
No one actually knows what species of snake "dahong palay" really is. It could possibly originate from the Philippine Pit Viper ( Trimeresurus flavomaculatus) which also has green specimens but they are far from being slender or even remotely leaf-like.
The originally linked snake species, Ahaetulla prasina, is actually only mildly venomous and is very unlikely to be the same species as that of the legend. But then again, every small green snake here is automatically called Dahong palay and assumed to be extremely dangerous. The snake itself may actually be purely legendary even though it is accepted as fact by almost everyone in rural areas. Even supposedly 'scientific' statistical surveys by the government ( DENR) list the Dahong Palay among snakes but do not provide the actual scientific name. See Compendium of ENR Information and Statistics, CY 2006 - 2006 -- A Step Into Oblivion ( talk) 05:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Alternativity:Alright, wait, if you're going to take off the species name, let's take away the word legendary. It gives the impression this isn't a real snake. It is. You KNOW when your neighbor does of a bite.
My reasons:
You are already familiar with most folk beliefs in the provinces I believe? The King Cobra for instance is said to have the ability to crow like a rooster and immobilize people by its gaze. Another is the very widespread belief that snake eyes can record the last moments of their life, leading people to always crush a snake's head even after death to prevent 'revenge'. The former legend probably started from the symptoms of envenomation by cobras. The latter probably because encounters with some snakes near people's homes happen during the mating season, and people assume that the second or third snake they encounter of the same species after killing the first one are there to 'take vengeance'.
So yes, I believe they are purely legendary. However, as a precaution, I'm posing the question as well to WP:AAR-- A Step Into Oblivion ( talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
My main objection was also to the term 'legendary', which would imply to many readers that 1. that the snake has a mythic significance and 2. that there isn't actually a physical reference, that it's a wisp of the imagination. In fact, given your objections, I would prefer that specific species not be listed at all. Something along the lines of "named after a broad local term for green snakes, which according to folk belief are particularly venomous. (The term is associated with a number of species, not all of which are actually venomous.)" Although I'm still not happy with what I feel is the undue length of that phrasing, and I'd like to run a grammar check before I actually paste that onto the article. Or maybe that's just because it's in the paragraph. I've half a mind to remove it and create an etymology section where we can work on the phrasing of the etymological roots (almost) to our hearts' content, and a reader interested more in the technical specifications of the sword rather than the details of its etymology and the legend of its namesake will be able to simply skip over that section. Sound reasonable to you? Hm. Also, a Dahong Palay (snake) article specifically identifying it as a cryptid would perhaps be useful, yes? The point I am making in saying that the snake is real is not that it is a single identifiable species. It is real in the sense that there is an actual physical reference - in this case, several, except that it does not conform to present taxonomies. I'm extremely busy at the moment but would like to take action on this eventually. But if you agree with any of my ideas and want to execute them yourself, feel free. :D If not and you'd prefer to keep disagreeing, then by all means let's continue this discussion. I'm afraid I am not always able to update myself on wiki nowadays, though. You're doing great work, by the way. Thank you. Not being much of a snake person, I simply took one of my sources and took its species identification at face value. Now I know. -- Alternativity ( talk) 09:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dahong palay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)