I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with this comment. If you’re to point out that Slow Lorises aren’t venomous, then you’ve quoted the wrong part of

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with this comment. If you’re to point out that Slow Lorises aren’t venomous, then you’ve quoted the wrong part of that article. Your quote only setups the proposition and ends with “not quite” without actually explaining why they are “not quite” venomous. The section just after is the most interesting part. > Slow lorises have needle-like teeth called dental combs or tooth combs on their lower jaw. Paired with the constant licking of the brachial gland, it is not surprising that one would assume the dental comb plays a part in injecting brachial gland exudate into unsuspecting victims (Hagey et al., 2006). However, this is not the case. Used for grooming, dental combs might look menacing to some but their function is less sinister than one might conjure up. A bite from a slow loris is painful due to their sharp pointed teeth. Illustration of slow loris teeth from Loris Conservation. The dental comb is on the lower jaw, shape like a spade. Wilde (1972) reports that the victim of a slow loris bite immediately succumbs to anaphylactic shock (extreme allergic reaction) followed by hematuria. In spite of that, the victim fully recovered. There is no clinical evidence of toxic substances in slow loris saliva to support the notion that they are venomous (Wilde, 1972). But even then, the article is only looking at very old studies that examine Slow Lorises bites in humans for which there is very little data. Whereas the entire thrust of this article is that Slow Lorises bites are primarily used as a weapon again other Slow Lorises, rather than a defence against predication. In short I question the relevance of your comment and quote to the posted article. It’s obviously tangentially related, but it seems to be making a point about the least interesting part of the article.