The other way around

[Glizdka]

This comes from a YouTube video about radscorpions in the Fallout universe, a mutated version of the emperor scorpion that is much bigger and more venomous.

My question is about what the last part in bold means.

---

To help them hunt, they travel in packs and use a venomous stinger to strike their target, puncturing and filling them with deadly venom. Before the war, this sting would've been similar to a bee sting, painful but not at all deadly, except for those with allergic reactions. But now, this once contained creature has evolved to produce a highly potent venom capable of taking down the largest of wasteland creatures, which is really strange. More often than not, when a venomous creature grows, their venom is diluted, not the other way around.

---

I'm pretty sure the author means "When a venomous creature grows, their venom is more potent" by the other way around, but I'm not sure if this is the correct way to express that.

I'd normally interpret the other way around as a flipped around cause and effect relationship.
"When a venomous creature grows, their venom is diluted." → "When their venom is diluted, a venomous creature grows."
This doesn't make sense in this context, and it's unlikely that this is what the author means.

I'd use the opposite instead.
"More often than not, when a venomous creature grows, their venom is diluted, not the opposite."



Is the other way around correct here?
Is the opposite better?
Do the two mean essentially the same thing and I'm just being picky?

 

[Tarheel]

The two sentences do mean the same thing.

When a venomous creature grows its venom is diluted -- not the other way around.

Apparently, this one is different. Its venom got stronger instead of weaker.

 

[jutfrank]

Is the other way around correct here?

Not really, no.

Is the opposite better?

A bit, yes.

Do the two mean essentially the same thing and I'm just being picky?

In context, they do, yes, and yes, you're being a bit picky, but that's good.

I'm pretty sure the author means "When a venomous creature grows, their venom is more potent"

Much better.

When he says '"when a creature grows", is he talking about evolution of life in the real world or only in the game world?

 

[Glizdka]

When he says '"when a creature grows", is he talking about evolution of life in the real world or only in the game world?

He's talking about the general tendency in the real world. The biggest snakes, for example, like anacondas and pythons, aren't venomous. They don't need to be; their sheer size is enough to secure their position in the food chain.

In the Fallout universe, however, the creatures got both bigger and more venomous, seemingly contrary to what we observe happens in nature. The wasteland is filled with enormous bugs that are more aggressive, nasty, and deadly than anything we find in the real world.

The lore explains that when China dropped nuclear bombs on the United States in 2077, they directly hit the West Tek research facility that had been working on the Pan-Immunity Virion and the Forced Evolutionary Virus for the purpose of creating supersoldiers and to defend against potential chemical and biological attacks. These experimental viruses escaped into the environment when the facility was cracked open, mutating the wildlife into monsters.

 

[jutfrank]

I see. Well, I think it's a misconceived thought, and very badly expressed. Firstly, I doubt that there actually is a correlation between body size and venom strength. Secondly, an equally important factor in how venomous a creature is is venom yield, which is related to body size: bigger body, more venom. Thirdly, even if he's right that where over the course of evolution a species selects a bigger body size there's an inverse change in venom strength, the thought is still badly expressed. He could have better said something along the lines of: More often than not, the bigger the body size, the less venomous the creature.

(By the way, have you played Fallout 76? Is it any good?)

 

[Glizdka]

I have. There's even more and bigger bugs in it.

 

[jutfrank]

There's even more and bigger bugs in it.

More bugs, so more venom, but they're bigger, so less venom. I guess that means no overall change in venom.

 

[Tarheel]

It does seem that some of the smallest creatures have some of the most potent venom.