Steve Bennett wrote:
Obviously I'm speculating a bit, but I noticed this sentence in a recent article in The Age, about a death from the Eastern Brown Snake, in Australia:
"It is possibly the second-most venomous land snake in the world after the inland taipan, which is also an Australian snake."
Our article on the snake has this sentence: "The Eastern Brown Snake is the second most venomous land snake in the world after the Inland Taipan.[1] "
I wonder if the principle here is that if you don't want to admit you're sourcing from Wikipedia, you just add "possibly" :) Even when, interestingly enough, we actually had a source for that sentence: Steve Irwin's website :)
What I would be inclined to question is what is meant by "most venomous". Even if the statement can be properly referenced we still need criteria for determining which of two snakes is the more venomous. I would at least be inclined to add the word "possibly" to the Wikipedia version.
Ec