Pure-Reptiles

Ray,

i'll make it short. I'm currently to busy and do not have time to read through your stuff as it is rubbish all over!
Your paper published in your own "Australasian Journal of Herpetology" starts with off-topics rants against other people on the first 12 pages. This is already a breach of the Code of Ethics, which is within the Code (ICZN) but not a mandatory part of it. It reads as follows (http://www.iczn.org, the Code online):

Zitat

5. Intemperate language should not be used in any discussion or writing which involves zoological nomenclature, and all debates should
be conducted in a courteous and friendly manner.

6. Editors and others responsible for the publication of zoological papers should avoid publishing any material which appears to them to
contain a breach of the above principles."

On the first 12 pages you (as author) breach 5. and as an editor and publisher you breach 6. of the CoE.


You claim that I had lied about the DNA evidence provided in my paper.

Well,
read my abstract where it clearly is said that the study was primarily based on morphological character and, where available, additional DNA sequences were
analyzed. So, I didn’t lie, but you simply can’t read correctly:

Zitat

…. Twenty external morphological characters were recorded from 90 preserved specimens from throughout most of the distribution of the genus. Thirteen characters were used with principal coordinate analysis to test the diversity of populations from different distributions. Additional evidence
for some species was obtained by maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences (cytochrome b gene) taken from GenBank.
Besides three conventional taxa, two new species from the mainland, and one new island species were recognized in accordance with the evolutionary species
concept. Additionally, a new locality record is provided.

You claim I had omitted morphological characters from my analysis in favor of creating new species. You state (p. 14, right column):


Hoser (p.14, right column):

Zitat

In terms of his morphological analysis, Schleip deliberately excluded a host of characters, such as temporals, parietals and postoculars on the alleged
basis that there was an allegedly “random distribution between different populations”.

However these scales are routinely used to split other python taxa including some from Australasia (see for example, Hoser 2000b, noting that the relevant diagnoses are in turn adopted from earlier authors and therefore not merely Hoser inventions). However it is clear that the exclusion of characters that give no statistical standing in favour of one population versus another have been excluded by Schleip solely so as to…

Schleip (p. 646-647): Check the Material and Methods section, Table 1, Fig. 2 and text.

Zitat

• “Number of prefrontals”
• “Number of postoculars“
• “ Number of parietal scale pairs”
• “Parietal scales that border the frontal in contact at the median line”

Schleip (p.649, section Morphological Analysis):

Zitat

Some characters (number of anterior and posterior temporals, parietal scales in contact with the postoculars) were excluded from the analysis because of little variation within the genus or because of random distribution throughout different populations.

Would you differentiate snake on the base of the presence of their tail or tongue as they all have them?


You claim I had used "ridiculously small sample sizes":

Hoser “…based on ridiculously small sample sizes) he seeks to rely upon to separate his newly created “species”.“


Well, at least I provided species examined and the number of them. True, from some localities, only were few animals are present. How many species of your
“L. albertisii barkeri” have you examined (oh, the curator of the ZMUC told me you had never requested data nor pictures nor the specimens). So you based your
subspecies on data provided by McDowell (1975) only. For lots of your taxa, you have never even examined animals but only taken data from literature (i.e. your reticulated python subspiecies).



Enough for people to recognize that you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about! Read my paper in full lenght and then we can talk on again!

However, people should make up their mind after reading both papers. You can find my Leiopython paper at:
http://leiopython.de/en/infos/2008Schlei…_Leiopython.pdf

and for those who want to read Hoser's stuff, look here: http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI2.pdf

Zitat

Refer also to your facebook posts claiming DNA evidence for your alleged
new species .... (Now let’s see you rush out and delete them all ...)

I woun't delete anything. Go ahead and post it here because I cannot remember writing that stuff! Provide evidence!

So, if you really have read my paper, why are you such an idiot claiming I had not used parietals and postoculars in my paper. It really is obvious from the images and from the text that I had used them.
I'm on facebook since 2010. The paper is from 2008.

Zitat

as a result of my hard evidence (something you lack),

You are an complete idiot! Where did you ever have hard evidence? Hard bullshit would fit better. Show us some of this hard evidence, please:

Your 2000 description of L. albertisii barkeri was (feel free to check the paper here ):

Zitat

LEIOPYTHON ALBERTlSII BARKERI SUBSP, NOV,

This is the subspecies of L. albertisii that is endemic to Mussau island in the Saint Matthias Group, Bismark Archipelago. It is separated from L. albertisii albertisii by the mutually exclusive distribution and by analysis of mitochondrial DNA.
Ventral counts for this species are near the lower limit for the range of New Guinea L. albertisii. The trait may be used as potenital indicator for the subspecies in the absense of other data. Other scalation counts are properties also overlap with those of the type species.

Hard evidence? You are a serial liar and you are trolling several forums! You never did mtDNA analysis (as I already stated. The curators of the only two available specimens did not receive any requests for data or tissue from you!) or never provided them in favour of your subspecies. Otherwise why wouldn't have have published it within the results of the paper? Furthermore, you are trying to blame me introducing allopatric species? "Mutual exclusive distribution" is the only thing here that would serve as "character" and this is exactly the "character" that the Code (ICZN) excludes as a character. So your name is still a nomen nudum. Creating nomen nuda does not serve the stability of the taxonomy.

Zitat

Now, I suggest you go to the rules and look up exactly what a nomen nudem actually is. You may be in for a rude shock!

Oh, that's easy:

From the glossary of the ICZN Code:

"nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda), n.A Latin term referring to a name that, if published before 1931, fails to conform to Article 12;
or, if published after 1930, fails to conform to Article 13. A nomen nudum is not an available name, and therefore the same name
may be made available later for the same or a different concept; in such a case it would take authorship and date [Arts. 50, 21] from
that act of establishment, not from any earlier publication as a nomen nudum." FULL STOP!

For your name "L. a. barkeri":

Article 13 states that "To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must

13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon..."

a) exclusive mutual distribution" does not constitute a character.
b) the proposed use of "mtDNA analysis" or simply mentioning mtDNA analysis (without providing any evidence/results) does not constitute a character.
c) Scale counts within the range of other taxa do not constitute characters that are able to differentiate the taxon from other such taxa.

Hence, your description of "L. a. barkeri" fails to conform Art. 13.1.1, hence, your subspecies name is a nomen nudum!

btw. Some of the recommendations you should perhaps follow:

Recommendation 13A. Intent to differentiate. When describing a new nominal taxon, an author should make clear his or her purpose to differentiate the taxon by including with it a diagnosis, that is to say, a summary of the characters that differentiate the new nominal taxon from related or similar taxa.

Recommendation 73B. Preference for specimens studied by author. An author should designate as holotype a specimen actually studied by him or her, not a specimen known to the author only from descriptions or illustrations in the literature.

Zitat

Now talking stability of taxonomy, it is fair to ask, what credentials do you have in this regard when you publish in your own self-edited journal “herp review”, bypassing proper peer review, to call for several hundred species to have junior synonyms created for them on the sole basis you don’t like the blokes who named them?

That's a good one, Ray! You made my day! I am a section editor for that journal for the section of herpetoculture. I am not the editor in chief, as you know and I am not responsible for any other sections or publications other than in the herpetoculture section. The Kaiser et al. paper was submitted to the editor in chief and he selected the reviewers. I do not have control over other sections or publications, and I'm not even an associate editor. So, your misleading people either because you do not have appropriate arguments against me or because you are really that stupid that you don't know the difference. However, since you simply through your claims and allegations into the forum, without any prove (e.g. citations, links) or real evidence, I shall stop answering your complete rubbish at this point.

Zitat

Let me guess do want to call retics Wustersaurus Schleip, 2013?

This even made me laugh harder!

As world's leading expert (the expert of the experts as you sometimes call yourself), you should have known better: The suffix -saurus is derived from the Greak sauros and means lizard. You will perhaps find no snake with that suffix either in the genus or species level name and I do not intend to name any retics without having studied them properly.