Ö÷²¥´óÐã

How about humans?

At last, Alberth has come out with it. The most deadly species in Britain, to all living things, including itself, is Homo sapiens (and that's surely a scientific joke).

I can only presume that humans will take the award on Sunday...it's a great teaching possibility for combatting the pernicious notion that people are not animals. I really think that misperception is more damaging to progress than evolution-denial, which really is just a subset of this anachronistic mindset.

Humans are hideously dangerous - but we are NOT at the top of the food chain. There's a book called "Parasite Rex" that will give a glimpse into the lives of creatures that not only make a meal of man but which have changed to course of history over the millennia. As special as humans feel, we are just food, housing, a means of replication, and collateral damage to a host of things around us.

Really?! I know it is a kids tv show but I am deeply ashamed that the Ö÷²¥´óÐã has finally sunk to the levels of Discovery and Nat Geo. I am sick and tired of the appalling quality of 'nature documentaries' these days, the constant cry of the 'deadliest', 'most dangerous' etc. It's absolute tabloid ROT. I had always held the Ö÷²¥´óÐã in higher esteem, they seemed to be the only ones still making quality, informative, 'sensitive' programs. But now this - and frankly if we are sinking to this depth with the kids what hope do we have. No more Attenboroughs or Carwardines - instead we will just start churning out Irwins and Marvins (literally .
I grew up watching Attenborough, who inspired respect for wildlife and the natural world. Now we are churning out generations of people who cannot appreciate wildlife in it's natural state - after working in eco-tourism with sharks, whales, turtles, orcas and a host of other species I am sorry to say that my observations of peoples behaviour towards and around these animals is far from respectful and caring.
Most dangerous British species ever? How about a fisherman!

Deadliest? Discounting mankind - the mosquito.

The news artical at says "For many so-called deadly animals it is not the sting that kills people, but an allergic reaction to the toxins injected by the sting." Surely having an 'alergy' to something is just a measure of the body's immune system response, for example we all get a swelling from a wasp sting because that is something our body does to counter the toxin, but for some that swelling is extreme and may be life threatening. Just because somebody's reaction is extreme does not mean it caused by anything other than the toxin received.

Yes, last time I checked we are animals - and so may be contenders for "UK's deadliest", at least in terms of human deaths in the UK (~3000 road accident fatalities each year; ~700 murders; ~10,000 other fatal accidents).

Most of the organisms in "Parasite Rex" are unfortunately not animals, though I agree with the view of Cassandra's post. And neither is Plasmodium that causes malaria, LarryRizzo (and how many malaria cases are there in the UK?).

Incidentally, since when where shrews "veracious" (=truthful), as it says in the article above (or did originally, if they now correct it)? I think the word is "voracious"! I agree with Himantura - standards are clearly slipping (and here we have yet another "top ten programme" - because that's what kids like, innit? Or is that format actually patronising to them - has anyone bothered to ask?).