This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance Eastern copperhead is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It's really neat how this page has come together so quickly and well! :-) -- Marj 01:50 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes: I love it when that happens. Trouble is .... now we need to do all the other species to match up with it. :( Tannin

I'm not sure about the validity of the differences between the subspecies in appearance. Snakes of any one species generally vary in color pattern. All the subspecies have the same markings and color patterns. -- Surreal 11:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

According to a doctor in Dallas, small/young copperheads deliver more venom per strike than adult copperheads. Adults are smart enough to reserve venom for another strike while young snakes deliver all in first strike. I am new to Wikpedia and am not sure if this information is good enough to put in the main article.

They're listed as endangered in IA and MA, and as a "species of concern" in NY and NJ. In the majority of their range they're lower concern though. - Dawson 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

What about Oklahoma?? USer:Mitternacht90

The three subspecies of copperhead that range into OK hold no particular conservation status there. - Dawson 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks. :) Mitternacht90

Conservation status? What is it? Lower Risk? I heard they're endangered in Iowa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitternacht90 ( talk • contribs).

This species doesn't have an overall Conservation Status -- at least not according to the IUCN (that's what that indicator in the taxobox is supposed to reflect). -- Jwinius 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Not sure where the information came from under geographical range of the subspecies, but there are no copperheads in Michigan.

As with a lot of animals, the color can vary greatly. We have one in the creek below our condo in Charlotte NC that is definitely a Copperhead, but is rather brown in color. Its almost coppery, but seems to be adapted to this area. Using a zoom lens, we see it has the correct eyes.
I heard back in the 1980s something about Copperheads and Blacksnakes mating...and something about how the male/female parent snake determined whether the hybrid offspring are poisonous...Anybody know anything about that? 71.68.62.103 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Engr105th 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Copperheads and black snakes mating? That sounds like folklore to me. On the contrary, according to Campbell & Lamar (2004), black snakes, specificly Coluber constrictor, are known to eat members of the genus Agkistrodon. Beyond that, I've often heard of interspecies hybrids, but never of an intergeneric hybrid... at least not with snakes. This would even be an interfamily hybrid. -- Jwinius 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have never heard this specific version before, but similar stories have been circulating since circa the beginning of time. Usually about hybrids between rattlesnakes and various harmless snakes. No doubt many are started by people who see a black racer or a gopher snake rattling it's tail in the leaves and don't realize that's a normal defensive behavior in most snakes. Among other things, copperheads are live-bearers and blacksnakes (racers or rats) are egg-layers. Not much chance of that working. Lfishel 06:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Southern Black Racers (Coluber constrictor priapus, especially juveniles) and Cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus) can easily be mistaken for one another at a distance (go see the photos), because of the similar dark body colors and the white marking around a juvenile black racer's mouth vs. the cottonmouth's name-giving white mouth-interior. That could be a short and easy step from imagining the two to be related... just as folk myth, not as science. –  _•Raven   ^.talk 06:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Am I the only one that thinks the photo at the top of the page (with the taxonomic info) should be a typical-looking copperhead and not one with a strange (though beautiful) pattern morph? This is the sort of resource non-snake people might use to try and identify a snake they saw in their yard. If the first photo they see doesn't look like it they will just move on and not see the gallery at the bottom. Lfishel 06:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I can find no reference to the common name being Death Adder (dab) other than the mention here, it doesn't seem very common. I realise there is a reference in a 1956 book, but is there any other reference to it being known by this name. cygnis insignis 17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Not that I know of. Wright and Wright (1957) is the publication that is most commonly used as a reference for the wide range of common names that have been used for snake species in the Unites States. -- Jwinius ( talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Commonly used on wikipedia? cygnis insignis 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course not. Only herpetologists and serious amateurs are likely to have a copy of this publication. I'm probably the only one here who regularly uses it as a source. However, this does not change the fact that it is still heavily cited in modern publications on snakes in the Unites States, often being referred to for its exhaustive lists of common names. -- Jwinius ( talk) 23:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

My concern arises from my google searches on these names, a crude method of determining how the informal name is commonly used. The results from various reliable sources indicate that Death adder refers to Acanthophis, Brittanica for example, but a search on the informal name with Agkistrodon contortrix produces results that mirror or cite this article. The disambiguation page should be based on terms that are likely to be searched on, not an exhaustive list of informal names, which would seem to be the Australian genus and a comic book. I don't see a problem with mentioning the informal name in this article. cygnis insignis 03:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Although I'm not completely sure yet, I suspect that what you want is A) not to maintain exhaustive lists of common names in any articles, B) to instead list only those common names for each species that are apparently the most popular according to Google, and C) that the Death adder disambiguation page be turned into a redirect for Acanthophis. If so, I would not agree. My method of research has never been to rely on Google for finding the facts and I've always considered that maintaining exhaustive lists of common names is an excellent way to prevent petty squabbles regarding common names. Yes, "death adder" is used far more often for Acanthopis than it is for Agkistrodon or Heterodon, but what about rock viper, copperhead, black snake and countless others -- are you ready to make the same kind of decision in each one of these cases? That's a recipe for endless petty squabbles. I say things are fine the way they are now. After all, if you Google for "death adder" the first WP hit that turns up is the Acanthophis, page, so what's the matter? -- Jwinius ( talk) 04:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Please don't give responses based on assumptions or suspicions, it is unproductive. A) No.I don't see a problem with mentioning the informal name in this article. B) No. ... a crude method of determining how the informal name is commonly used. The results from various reliable sources indicate ... C) Perhaps. The WP:Disambiguation page should be based on terms that are likely to be searched on, not an exhaustive list of informal names, which would seem to be the Australian genus and a comic book. My original query was ... is there any other reference to it being known by this name? cygnis insignis 05:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the unwarranted assumption. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have another reference for you, a major publication in fact: Campbell JA, Lamar WW. 2004. The Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere. See page 268 under the section "Local names," where it is stated that more local names can be found in Wright (1950), Wright and Wright (1957) and Rafinesque (1818). -- Jwinius ( talk) 09:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I would love to have a copy of Campbell's book. Tell me, does it state that Death Adder is a common name for Agkistrodon contortrix? cygnis insignis 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it just lists it under local names. -- Jwinius ( talk) 06:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Not that it matters, but I will play along. Campbell's book mentions Wright or Death Adder?

Both. -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Cygnis, I'm sorry that I had to revert your recent edit to the Death adder disambiguation page, but considering our recent conversation on subject I think you knew that was going to happen. Why be so confrontational? There's no need for that. If you really want to improve things, why not start with the Acanthophis article itself? Judging from the looks of it, there's still plenty to be done there. -- Jwinius ( talk) 09:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I made the change in accordance w/ WP:Disambiguation, the purpose of which is to direct the reader as quickly as possible, avoiding information they do not need to know. That information (not data) is in the articles, or above it in your edits. Anyone likely to own the books that mention a variant name will have no problem finding this species. Drawing from extensive lists of every informal name would be redundant and confusing for the reader. As you said: Yes, "death adder" is used far more often for Acanthopis than it is for Agkistrodon or Heterodon...,. You have not given a ref that states this is a well known common, or informal, name. It is very likely that someone entering Death Adder in the search box will find what they are looking for, the same goes for any editor linking it. On what basis have you reverted me? cygnis insignis 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Really, this is the last kind of argument that I want to get involved in. Arguing about common names is like arguing about taste: it's totally pointless and such a waste of time and effort. It doesn't matter if death adder is used more often as a common name for Acanthophis species than it is for certain North American species. What we should do is try to remain neutral and objective about such names, which is reflected in the disambiguation page. Confuse people with the facts? Hey, if you're an American and you're not a snake hobbyist, then you won't know about Acanthophis. But, even if I were to go along with your arguments, there would still be a reason to keep "Death adder" as a disambiguation page because of the comic book. -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

How frequently your give your personal preferences, avoiding straight forward reference to policies or requests for citations to your edits. If this 'argument' of well known and reliably sourced informal names is beneath you, why did respond or, indeed, create the data dump hat note and sections. It suggests a point making response to your own well announced POV, your bad faith responses do nothing to encourage others to assist in the improvement of your articles. You have not been shy in opinions, including those regarding my contributions, here are mine. I think they are justified by your tendentious approach. cygnis insignis 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

And now a personal attack. Cygnis, I'm disappointed in you because I thought we had moved beyond this nastiness. I'm sorry if I haven't always just gone with the flow and instead followed some ideas of my own. I like a thorough and systematic approach and you've known that for some time now, but for some reason you've decided to pick up the hatchet again. Why? As for my criticism of your contributions, that's perfectly acceptable behavior at Wikipedia. It was never anything personal that I had against you, but if you don't want other people to criticize your contributions mercilessly, then you simply have to do a better job -- it's the same for everyone here. -- Jwinius ( talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Not to revive the above unfortunate debate, but perhaps to bury it a few inches deeper: it should be entirely unsurprising that English-language common names for animals can refer to entirely different species in England and in America; what should be expected when any language (with its animal-common-name vocabulary) is imported onto a new continent with a different set of natural* wildlife? The names get reapplied to the local species. Take for example the ordinary familiar red-breasted bird called a " robin" -- in England, saying that refers to Erithacus rubecula, but in America, it means Turdus migratorius -- actually a species of thrush. The page Robin disambiguates accordingly (and names many other species whose common names include "robin"). –  _•Raven   ^.talk 07:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
* Meaning in this case "non-imported," unlike, say, the once-infamous teeming hordes of Australian rabbit. –  _•Raven   ^.talk 09:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I've noticed that this article, along with quite a few other articles on different species of snake, is using the binomial name for the snake as the title. What's the deal with that? As far as I know, this goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions for animals. And when you consider the fact that there are other snake-related articles on here have a similar issue, that kind of shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the individuals who edit and monitor these particular articles for failing to follow the Wikipedia naming conventions as directed. – Nahald ( talk) 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The present article, like others with a binomial title (e.g. Coluber constrictor), covers a single specific species of snake. There are also trinomial-titled articles for some subspecies (e.g. Coluber constrictor priapus).

The situation with snake names is that the Latin binomial is often the only unambiguous species name. An English common-name may refer to more than one species of snake, depending on what's local to the speaker, just as (noted one section up) which species a speaker means by "red-breasted robin" may depend on whether the speaker is in England or America.

In such cases the English common-name needs to be either a disambiguation page (see Copperhead, Cottonmouth, Black snake, and the above-argued Death adder) or else a discussion of all the different species, genera, or possibly even families the common-name may denote (see Rattlesnake, Coral snake) -- not of the single species covered by one binomial.

Otherwise Wikipedia would be misleading the reader to believe the common-name refers to only one species (a falsehood). IMO the present scheme seems the "least evil." –  _•Raven   ^.talk 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I removed the link next to the Sig Sauer Copperhead reference because it just redirected to their homepage. Attys ( talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Presumably they expired the product page because that was a limited edition and no more items remained to be sold. I found an archived copy at archive.org and gave that as the replacement reference. May I suggest doing the same when you find expired/nonworking links, rather than simply deleting the links? –  _•Raven   ^.talk 07:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I changed the final sentence in the article from: The symptoms of a moderate envenomation would include swelling of the hand, vomiting, mild bleeding, ecchymosis, diaphoretic, sinus tachycardia, and hypotensia, while the most likely circumstance is that of a person bitten collecting rocks. To the following: The symptoms of a moderate envenomation would include swelling of the hand, vomiting, mild bleeding, ecchymosis, diaphoresis, sinus tachycardia, and hypotensia; while the most likely circumstance for envenomation is that of a person bitten collecting rocks. this is a minor edit to help with the flow of this sentence. regards. Ruraltexas ( talk) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

What nonsense! Certainly there is NO citation needed to prove that humans are not rodents. Thank you for using your intelligence when editing articles.

-- 188.23.66.91 ( talk) 22:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

One suspects there might have been a trace of humor in that demand for a citation... or perhaps too clear a memory of certain politicians.... –  _•Raven   ^.talk 08:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Something missing is whether and how they are used by people. Are they eaten? Do people use their skins? Bill ( talk) 20:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agkistrodon contortrix. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823183247/http://open2it.com/videos/62-animal-behavior/160-caudal-luring-in-the-copperhead.html to http://www.open2it.com/videos/62-animal-behavior/160-caudal-luring-in-the-copperhead.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

"The pygmy copperhead is viviparous, commonly giving live birth to 7 in each litter,[14] with an average maximum of 20 young in a single litter."

What the heck is an "average maximum"? By definition, a maximum is a single number, meaning there is no way to average it.

I don't have access to the source (my university library doesn't have it) to check what the original says. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 13:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The Copperhead has distinctive, dark brown, hourglass-shaped markings, overlayed on a light brown or gray background. The body type is heavy, rather than slender. Neonates are born with green or yellow tail tips, which progress to a darker brown or black within one year. Copperheads reach an adult length of approximately 3 feet long. ^{[1] [2]}

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Copperhead snake and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Copperhead snake until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply