[Taxacom] Wuster's taxonomic and nomenclatural misconduct - Schleip's non-taxa descriptions

JF Mate aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
Thu May 23 08:59:08 CDT 2013


*Raymond, colourful language is not the proper way to conduct yourself in
this forum. Doug, John and others are spending time explaining to you the
situation. Your boorish manner is not appreciated by me, and I suspect most
others in this forum. If you can´t contain your emotions there are other
avenues to express yourself. Now, in regards to your descriptions.**
*

*
*

*Pity you choose to ignore them to peddle rubbish on this forum.*


 *Others are not as dishonest in their practices as you Jason and that is
why the taxon has been widely recognized and the name now in general usage!*


 * Although the Leiopython species may have been well known forms, the
moment you decided to name them you became the source of their description.
If you used information from other sources it would have been a very easy
matter to collate the data into a proper description. Your paper is the
source and should have as much information as is possible.*

*By contrast, Schleip's alleged species were never so recognized including
by myself in spite of several detailed taxonomic studies (see Hoser 2000,
which you cut and pasted from as an example, of if you don’t like me, try
Barker and Barker 1994!). As Schleip provided no evidence for his alleged
taxa, the names are not in general usage as said by Natusch and Lyons,
(2012) who recently published a big paper on Leiopython, recognized Hoserae
and said that they and everyone else in herpetology were unable to split
the northern ones.*

*You are confusing a good description with a good species. I never said
Schleip´s species were good or bad, simply that his paper is better than
yours in form. His data may have been insufficient, but at least it is
there for others to check. If, as you claim, Natusch & Lyons, (2012) have
synonymised his species that proves my point. By the way, Wikispecies
doesn´t reflect this, maybe you could provide Stephen the necessary
information?*

*Schleip has not provided any evidence by way of references and the like to
support his claim, instead, he lies in his abstract and said he had DNA to
support his claim.*

*However when you read his paper he has none - epic fail on his part!*

*Details of a few variable scales scales on a holotype and hand-picked
small sample of a common species does not constitute evidence of a new
species by a long shot! Ditto for undefined statistical analysis of
selected characters, which even as hand-picked to fit a dodgy thesis don’t
define the alleged species, other than by “average” counts, which by many
people’s interpretation would sit outside the code of nomenclature as well.*

*I gave Schleip the benefit of the doubt and accept his names are available
and like everyone else, relegate them to the dead wood and wastage of
unnecessary synoymies to clog up databases for the next two centuries.*

*Therefore Jason, your statement “Can you see the difference? There is data
in Schliep´s paper. The*

*descriptions allow anybody to look at a specimen and have a fair stab.” Is
just plain wrong.*

*His descriptions simply lack evidence and besides the assignment of a
“holotype” for each, he gets nowhere!*

*Fact is, my taxon is well defined, Schleip’s is not. I do a detailed
dissection of the errors of Schleip’s description in this paper:*

*Once again Raymond, you are arguing what constitutes a good species,
whereas I am focusing on what, at a minimum, constitutes an adequate
description. Chalk and cheese. The only facts here are those that you can
write in your description, nothing else. It is for other researchers´
benefit, present and future, that you are encouraged to do so, so that they
can verify your species´ hypothesis. Schliep based his description on two
sets of data which may or may not be adequate to define these taxa. But his
ideas are falsifiable, and that is what matters.*

and don’t suggest you read it Jason as you are obviously set in your
deceptive ways. However others here with a genuine interest in Schleip’s
non-taxa and prior record of lies and deception should read the paper.

 *I read the descriptions not your reply to Schleip. Why should I? It is
your description that matters. What you say afterwards or others before is
of no consequence unless you bother to include it in your original
description. That may have been commonplace for 19th century taxonomists
but things have moved on. Maybe you should too.*


“I can´t understand, based on the paper, what you have against Schliep.”

Describing non-taxa is not a crime. Schleip was not the first to redescribe
L. hoserae – he bootlegged data from myself and masqueraded it as his
own.  This is known in science as the ethically repugnant practice of
plagiarisation!

Schleip and Wuster also spent the previous 8 years arguing that L. hoserae
was nothing more than a melanistic L. albertisi and that they repeatedly
said hybridized in the hills of New Guinea – both claims for which there
was never a shred of evidence.

 *A taxon can be redescribed in light of new species if the original
description is deemed to be too vague to be useful. This is the useful work
that taxonomists do. You claim that he plagiarised your work, and that is
indeed a serious transgression if it happened ( I have no way of checking
this other than your word against his). But that is besides the point. You
brought up the paper as an example and I am comparing his and your
descriptions, irrespective of the merits of the taxa in question.*


“But you provide no DNA
sequences of any kind to back this assertion. Curiously you claim the same
about Schliep but on the last page there are the Genbank accession codes.”

You are wrong again.  Schleip does not provide any Genbank accession codes
for his alleged taxa.  He lied in his abstract. Try re-reading his paper
that he incidentally published in a rag that he is editor of so as to
bypass any credible peer review process.

“I bothered checking them out and they are what they claim to be.”

Well Jason, save your lies for another place. Fact is and I repeat this,
Schleip did not provide DNA sequences for his taxa. He did so only for mine
... that is L. hoserae and L. albertisi terra typica!  Schleip has admitted
this under duress several times since on several other forums!

 *At the back of the paper there are the following Genbank codes in
Appendix 2:*

*AF241406, U69835, EU179542, U69836, EU183230, AF241399, AF241404 (Journal
of Herpetology, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 645–667, 2008)*


“although he may be ultimately wrong”.

Jason, let’s cut the chase. You and everyone else here knows Schleip has
engaged in serious taxonomic misconduct in his first taxonomy paper to
erect three non-species and create instability and confusion in the
process, the very act I have been wrongly accused of by Schelip himself and
his buddy Wuster.

 *Plagiarism is misconduct, making a wrong call isn´t. If Schleip´s
Leiopython species have been synonymised by subsequent research then his
original hypotheses may have been wrong. He could choose to gather
additional data. That is how science works. The point is that your ideas
are backed by data and falsifiable. Simple as that.*


“Getting other people´s work hot off the
press to push half-baked taxonomic changes, even if Code complaint, is at
best raiding.”

Now who are you kidding! Lets go back to the Leiopython hoserae description.

Fact is dozens of taxonomists had looked at the species in the decades
before I decided to audit them.  To assert I am trying to rush in and scoop
others is ludicrous.

*I didn´t say that you scooped others on Leiopython specifically, you
brought it up. It nevertheless exemplifies the chasm between your idea of
what a description should be and other people´s. And on a separate note, an
audit requires evidence to be laid out clearly and concisely for others to
interpret, in other words data. It is not good enough to claim that x form
is widely known and the locals in Port Moresby know it as something else.
If I am in Helsinki with a snake in a pot the collective experience of the
PNG locals is not going to help me.*


However, noting that there is the alternative claim by Wuster et al. from
2001 (two publications) and again since that everything I’ve named is a
non-taxa, I am happy to sit with your false claim this week in as much as
it shows that all my descriptions do in fact have a factual basis to them!

Thank you for confirming this to the people on this list.

 *I am not arguing the merit of your species, simply how you need to
improve your game.*


Now that we have established that my descriptions are for valid taxa, and I
shall ignore the childish name-calling at the end of your post, we can get
back to the serious and alarming issue created by your good friends Wuster,
Schleip and Kaiser, which is the reason they seek to rename hundreds of
validly named taxa and why it should not be allowed, including that they
are stepping outside the rules.  Jason, thanks again for settling the
taxonomy issue, so everyone here can now deal with the nomenclature!


 *I don´t know these people or for that matter anybody else in herpetology.
I am an entomologist and so can provide an outsiders view on the subject.
The Code has been explained to you over and over by Doug, Frank and others
more eruditely than I ever could, so there is no point in me commenting
about this except as an end user. What I can say is that your species
hypotheses (your descriptions) are not up to the standards expected from
taxonomists. If you wish to make a meaningful contribution to the field
then you should consider improving your work instead of denigrating those
who do not agree with your behaviour.*


 *Best*


 *Jason*


On 23 May 2013 00:36, Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters Reptile Parties <
viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

>
> Well done, Jason, you have cut and pasted a small part of a far larger
> description and quoted it out of context.******
>
> My species was well defined morphologically, genetically and
> geographically long before I came along and formalized it. In fact it was
> recognized as a full species for many years. I was simply the first to
> audit the genus and find no available name and so assigned one.****
>
> I cited these references in the full paper, which was the ethical thing to
> do.****
>
> Pity you choose to ignore them to peddle rubbish on this forum.****
>
> Others are not as dishonest in their practices as you Jason and that is
> why the taxon has been widely recognized and the name now in general usage!
> ****
>
> By contrast, Schleip's alleged species were never so recognized including
> by myself in spite of several detailed taxonomic studies (see Hoser 2000,
> which you cut and pasted from as an example, of if you don’t like me, try
> Barker and Barker 1994!).  As Schleip provided no evidence for his
> alleged taxa, the names are not in general usage as said by Natusch and
> Lyons, (2012) who recently published a big paper on Leiopython, recognized
> Hoserae and said that they and everyone else in herpetology were unable to
> split the northern ones.****
>
> Schleip has not provided any evidence by way of references and the like to
> support his claim, instead, he lies in his abstract and said he had DNA to
> support his claim.****
>
> However when you read his paper he has none - epic fail on his part!
> Details of a few variable scales scales on a holotype and hand-picked
> small sample of a common species does not constitute evidence of a new
> species by a long shot!  Ditto for undefined statistical analysis of
> selected characters, which even as hand-picked to fit a dodgy thesis don’t
> define the alleged species, other than by “average” counts, which by many
> people’s interpretation would sit outside the code of nomenclature as well.
> ****
>
> I gave Schleip the benefit of the doubt and accept his names are available
> and like everyone else, relegate them to the dead wood and wastage of
> unnecessary synoymies to clog up databases for the next two centuries.****
>
> Therefore Jason, your statement “Can you see the difference? There is data
> in Schliep´s paper. The
> descriptions allow anybody to look at a specimen and have a fair stab.” Is
> just plain wrong.****
>
> His descriptions simply lack evidence and besides the assignment of a
> “holotype” for each, he gets nowhere!****
>
> Fact is, my taxon is well defined, Schleip’s is not.  I do a detailed
> dissection of the errors of Schleip’s description in this paper:****
>
> CREATIONISM AND CONTRIVED SCIENCE: A REVIEW OF RECENT PYTHON SYSTEMATICS
> PAPERS AND THE RESOLUTION OF ISSUES OF TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE.****
>
> *Australasian Journal of Herpetology *2 (2009):1-34.****
>
> and don’t suggest you read it Jason as you are obviously set in your
> deceptive ways. However others here with a genuine interest in Schleip’s
> non-taxa and prior record of lies and deception should read the paper.****
>
> *“*I can´t understand, based on the paper, what you have against Schliep.”
> ****
>
> Describing non-taxa is not a crime. Schleip was not the first to
> redescribe L. hoserae – he bootlegged data from myself and masqueraded it
> as his own.  This is known in science as the ethically repugnant practice
> of plagiarisation!****
>
> Schleip and Wuster also spent the previous 8 years arguing that L. hoserae
> was nothing more than a melanistic L. albertisi and that they repeatedly
> said hybridized in the hills of New Guinea – both claims for which there
> was never a shred of evidence.****
>
> “But you provide no DNA
> sequences of any kind to back this assertion. Curiously you claim the same
> about Schliep but on the last page there are the Genbank accession codes.”
> ****
>
> You are wrong again.  Schleip does not provide any Genbank accession
> codes for his alleged taxa.  He lied in his abstract. Try re-reading his
> paper that he incidentally published in a rag that he is editor of so as to
> bypass any credible peer review process.****
>
> “I bothered checking them out and they are what they claim to be.” ****
>
> Well Jason, save your lies for another place. Fact is and I repeat this,
> Schleip did not provide DNA sequences for his taxa. He did so only for mine
> ... that is L. hoserae and L. albertisi terra typica!  Schleip has
> admitted this under duress several times since on several other forums!***
> *
>
> “although he may be ultimately wrong”.****
>
> Jason, let’s cut the chase. You and everyone else here knows Schleip has
> engaged in serious taxonomic misconduct in his first taxonomy paper to
> erect three non-species and create instability and confusion in the
> process, the very act I have been wrongly accused of by Schelip himself and
> his buddy Wuster.****
>
> “Getting other people´s work hot off the
> press to push half-baked taxonomic changes, even if Code complaint, is at
> best raiding.”****
>
> Now who are you kidding! Lets go back to the Leiopython hoserae
> description.****
>
> Fact is dozens of taxonomists had looked at the species in the decades
> before I decided to audit them.  To assert I am trying to rush in and
> scoop others is ludicrous.****
>
> However, noting that there is the alternative claim by Wuster et al. from
> 2001 (two publications) and again since that everything I’ve named is a
> non-taxa, I am happy to sit with your false claim this week in as much as
> it shows that all my descriptions do in fact have a factual basis to them!
> ****
>
> Thank you for confirming this to the people on this list.****
>
> Now that we have established that my descriptions are for valid taxa, and
> I shall ignore the childish name-calling at the end of your post, we can
> get back to the serious and alarming issue created by your good friends
> Wuster, Schleip and Kaiser, which is the reason they seek to rename
> hundreds of validly named taxa and why it should not be allowed, including
> that they are stepping outside the rules.  Jason, thanks again for
> settling the taxonomy issue, so everyone here can now deal with the
> nomenclature!****
>
>
>
> Snakebustersâ <http://www.snakebusters.com.au> - Australia's best reptiles
> â
> The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
> Reptile partiesâ <http://www.reptileparties.com.au>, events, courses
> Phones: 9812 3322
> 0412 777 211
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:37:58 +0200
> > From: aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paper on taxonomic standards in herpetology
> >
> > OK, there is no point doing a tit for tat. You earnestly believe that a
> > hunch, on its own, is science. So you observe a number of snakes
> belonging
> > to the same species (in this case L. albertisii) and you shrewdly notice
> > some differences. Congratulations, that is the first step. Now comes the
> > tedious, hard work of accumulating observations and analysing them to see
> > if they support your hunch or not. If they do, great, now you keep on
> > working to clean it up and write it for publication, with the never
> ending
> > iterations of re-editing, reviewers comments, etc. If they don´t you can
> > choose to gather more data or move on to the next hunch. What you don´t
> do
> > write up your hunches and send them out. I grant you some will be good or
> > maybe even many because you happen to have a good eye, but that is not
> > taxonomy, not by a long shot. As proof let me compare your original
> > description of L. hoserae with Schliep´s redescription. This is not an
> > endorsement on the latter as his data may be spurious, but at least there
> > is data to chew on:
> >
> >
> > *LEIOPYTHON HOSERAE sp. nov.*
> >
> > *HOLOTYPE: A large male specimen in the American Museum of Natural
> History
> > from Wipim (=Wipam), Western District, PNG, Lat: 8° 40’ Long: 142° 55’,
> > specimen number 107150. The snake has a body length of 6ft 10.5 inches
> and
> > a total length of 7ft 11 inches.*
> >
> > *DIAGNOSIS: This is the species formerly known as the black race of the
> > White-lipped Python.*
> >
> > *L. hoserae is separated from L. albertisii by the fact that its dorsal
> > body colour is usually a greyish metallic black in adults as opposed to a
> > golden brown colour. L. hoserae also attains a larger size, with this
> > author having photographed a specimen at Melbourne Zoo of about 2.5
> metres,
> > (also refer to the type specimen above). L. albertisii rarely if ever
> > attains this size. Live L. hoserae are shown in Hoser (1989), O’Shea
> (1996)
> > and Ross and Marzec (1990). The specimens depicted in Hoser (1989) are
> > derived from the Port Moresby area (Chris Banks, Melbourne Zoo, pers.
> comm).
> > *
> >
> > *There are numerous other characteristics that separate the two species
> of
> > Leiopython, including DNA properties. L. hoserae cannot be confused with
> > any other New Guinea snake. L. hoserae occurs in the southern areas of
> PNG,
> > south of the main central range, including the area around Port Moresby,
> > and adjacent parts of Irian Jaya around Merauke where it is understood to
> > be relatively uncommon and/or rarely collected. It is uncertain as to how
> > far west the distribution of this species extends. Nor is it certain if
> > this distribution is continuous or disjunct. However, notwithstanding the
> > previous statement about the species around Merauke, this species is like
> > L. albertisii in that it is usually common where it occurs. L. hoserae is
> > not as common in captivity as L. albertisii.*
> >
> > *The species is understood to also occur on Islands just south of New
> > Guinea in the Torres Strait area, that fall within Australian territory
> > (refer to Cogger 1996) and other sources. The species also occurs in the
> > Aru Islands to the south, where it is understood to be reasonably
> common.*
> >
> > Vs Schleip´s redescription
> >
> > *Leiopython hoserae Hoser 2000*
> >
> > *Figure 6C, D*
> >
> > *Holotype.—AMNH R-107150, a large male specimen from Wipim, Western
> > Province, PNG, 2.41 m in length, collected by F. Parker in August 1969.*
> >
> > *Paratype.—CAS 118910, an adult (sex unknown) specimen from the Laloki
> > River/Brown River Road, Central District, PNG, collected by F. Parker on
> 29
> > August 1967. Diagnosis.—Leiopython hoserae can be distinguished from
> > Leiopython fredparkeri, Leiopython albertisii, and Leiopython biakensis
> by
> > the presence of only one pair of parietals followed by a characteristic
> > scale pattern of two small scales separated from the median line by an
> > elongate scale that gets wider posteriorly (see Fig. 2B, 6C). It further
> > differs from the former species in a lower average number of dorsal
> midbody
> > rows (KW-test: x 2 1 5 5.68, P , 0.05), and from the latter two species
> by
> > the absence of the whitish postocular spot. Furthermore, Leiopython
> hoserae
> > exceeds Leiopython albertisii and Leiopython biakensis in adult and
> > hatchling body size and is darker in color (Parker, 1982; Barker and
> > Barker, 1994; O’Shea, 1996). Molecular evidence also supports the
> > separation of Leiopython hoserae from Leiopython albertisii (genetic
> > distance of up to 9.3%). It differs from Leiopython bennettorum in the
> > number of loreals and prefrontals as well as in lower midbody scale row
> > counts (KW-test: x 2 1 5 8.92, P , 0.01) and in the average number of
> > postoculars (KW-test: x 2 1 5 7.19, P , 0.01). Leiopython hoserae can be
> > distinguished from Leiopython huonensis by the absence of the whitish
> > postocular spot, the characteristic scale arrangement in the
> parietalregion
> > (Leiopython huonensis has one pair of parietals followed by small,
> > irregular scales)and in higher ventral scale counts (KW-test: x215 6.62,
> P
> > , 0.05). Leiopython hoserae also occurs in drier and hotter climate
> > conditions than other taxa of the genus (detailed below)."*
> >
> >
> > Can you see the difference? There is data in Schliep´s paper. The
> > descriptions allow anybody to look at a specimen and have a fair stab.
> Your
> > descriptions are just vague. It is not enough that you can tell the
> > difference, others have to be able to understand what your hypothesis
> (why
> > you think this group of specimens is ditinct from all others) is based
> on.
> >
> > "No one has to step outside the code to deal with Schleips acts of
> > taxonomic misconduct. Instead no one recognizes the taxa and the names
> are
> > not used ... end of story! – no threat to stability or the code!"
> >
> > I can´t understand, based on the paper, what you have against Schliep.
> Not
> > only does he redescribe your L. hoserae but does the same for your ssp
> > bennettii (raising it to full species status, bennettorum). He does
> > invalidate your ssp barkeri but your diagnosis consists of ...”*It is
> > separated from L. albertisii albertisii by the mutually exclusive
> > distribution and by analysis of mitochondrial DNA.” *But you provide no
> DNA
> > sequences of any kind to back this assertion. Curiously you claim the
> same
> > about Schliep but on the last page there are the Genbank accession
> codes. I
> > bothered checking them out and they are what they claim to be. I agree
> that
> > such few sequences are barely enough but his paper also has a set of
> > morphological characters that he bothers to analyze and, although he may
> be
> > ultimately wrong, he actually provides the data so others can repeat his
> > study on it if they are so inclined.
> >
> > "And worse still if you look at p.20 of the Wuster et al (Kaiser et al)
> > blog, he says the plan should be copied by others outside herpetology.
> The
> > potential chaos within herpetology will be dwarfed by that outside if the
> > Wuster et al scheme goes according to plan!
> >
> > Yes, lets spell out the Wuster plan being executed as we type ... I don’t
> > like you Jason, so I will tell people to boycott your science-based
> > taxonomy and code compliant names, then I shall rename them myself or
> get a
> > friend to do so. In ten years time when there is total confusion over
> > which name should be used and chaos, I shall apply to the ICZN to use
> their
> > currently rarely used plenary powers to create more confusion by ignoring
> > the rule of priority to reverse it, thereby encouraging more taxonomic
> > vandals like Wuster to try the same caper!
> >
> > The ICZN commissioners will be run off their feet hearing in the first
> > instance hundreds of applications annually (instead of the handful at
> > present), then potentially increasing to many thousands yearly within 20
> > years!
> >
> > “Kaiser et al” wasn’t published for mere “comment” – it is war plan
> against
> > the rules of zoology being executed by Wuster et al. as seen by his
> > relentless cross posting and self promotion here and elsewhere.
> >
> > This is EXACTLY why Wuster et al. must be censured and his war plan
> > stopped!"
> >
> > There has been plenty of rivalry in science and taxonomy is no exception.
> > The question is why doesn´t he like you.
> >
> > After reading issues 14 and 18 of your self-published soap box I plucked
> > these quotes to try and explain to you the problem with your modus
> operandi:
> >
> > “*...claim that I have engaged in: “harvesting of clades from published
> > phylogenetic studies for description as new genera or subgenera”. Hence
> the
> > central claims of Kaiser et al. that my publications are unscientific, a
> > term usually associated with such bogeys as “creationism” and
> “intelligent
> > design” is shown to be false on his own published evidence! “Harvesting
> of
> > clades” is itself at the minimum, a statement I have based my
> descriptions
> > on some kind of evidence from somewhere!”*
> >
> > “*...“Taxonomists are relegated to “redescribing” valid taxa that were
> > named prematurely in acts of mass naming or in deliberate acts of
> > intellectual kleptoparasitism” could be equally leveled at the likes of
> > Gray, Boulenger, Cope, Fitzinger, Peters and others who created hundreds
> of
> > new reptile species and genera, thereby depriving others of the right to
> > stick their names on given taxa when these same taxa were revisited at a
> > later date.”*
> >
> > *
> > *
> >
> > Taxonomic lego is not science. Getting other people´s work hot off the
> > press to push half-baked taxonomic changes, even if Code complaint, is at
> > best raiding. You are not even using it as the kernel for additional
> work,
> > you are literally republishing people´s work and slapping your names on
> top
> > ( did check other articles and there is no other way of describing them).
> > Mass naming is not science either. There are plenty of classical
> > mass-namers who left a mess for others to clean decades later. Gumming a
> > field of taxonomy in your nomenclatorial morass is not science. You might
> > have a misplaced feeling of accomplishment but you have effectively
> > highjacked the system for your benefit. And trust me, until a few days
> ago
> > I had no interest whatsoever in herpetology so you can´t accuse me of
> being
> > an insider. Many of Kaiser et al´s recommendations may be unworkable but
> > that doesn´t mean they don´t have reason to resent your
> > antisocial/unscientific behaviour. So if as a group they choose to ignore
> > your work and in the process some decent ideas of yours gets tossed to
> the
> > side I´m afraid you will be the one to blame.
> >
> >
> > Best
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On 22 May 2013 11:03, Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters Reptile
> Parties <
> > viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Excuse me Jason, but Wuster deserves to be heavily censured for his
> > > actions which are the greatest threat to the stability of zoological
> > > nomenclature ever seen in 200 years!
> > >
> > > We are not talking about ignoring bad taxonomy, which is something done
> > > daily and without threat to the code. If someone renames a given taxon,
> > > their name is a synonym. There are millions out there already and the
> > > world of zoology has not caved in as a result.
> > >
> > > At worst Hoser, Wells, etc have produced about 400 more in
> herpetological
> > > careers that combined span more than 100 years! More likely they have
> > > produced just one synonym!
> > >
> > > And speaking for Wells for a change, I can say his herpetological
> career
> > > has been a stellar one!
> > >
> > > Meanwhile Wuster’s best mate and co-author Wulf Schliep wastefully
> created
> > > three junior synonyms in 2008 when he INVENTED three Leiopython
> species (by
> > > creating junior synonyms of L. albertisi) without a shred of evidence
> in a
> > > journal he co-edits, bypassing peer review (again), although he falsely
> > > claimed DNA evidence (not produced), but again I note his mate O’Shea
> > > (another co-author of Wuster et al) spilt the beans earlier saying he
> had
> > > the DNA ... but of course it didn’t prove Schleip’s argument for three
> > > “new” species, so he scratched the DNA, not the hypothesis ... which is
> > > about as unscientific as you can get.
> > >
> > > No one has to step outside the code to deal with Schleips acts of
> > > taxonomic misconduct. Instead no one recognizes the taxa and the names
> > > are not used ... end of story! – no threat to stability or the code!
> > >
> > > As recently as this month, Wuster posted elsewhere on the web that he
> > > didn’t like “Hoser” and that the valid taxon group Broghammerus should
> be
> > > named by someone, anyone!, so that the “Hoser name” is not used.
> > >
> > > Of course if it were one or two names, the world of zoology would
> perhaps
> > > survive, but he has in fact published two very different lists
> (already)
> > > consisting many hundreds of names and from several authors, including
> many
> > > globally respected names (and I’ve excluded the ones alleged not to be
> > > here), of valid species he wants to be renamed.
> > >
> > > And worse still if you look at p.20 of the Wuster et al (Kaiser et al)
> > > blog, he says the plan should be copied by others outside herpetology.
> The
> > > potential chaos within herpetology will be dwarfed by that outside if
> the
> > > Wuster et al scheme goes according to plan!
> > >
> > > Yes, lets spell out the Wuster plan being executed as we type ... I
> don’t
> > > like you Jason, so I will tell people to boycott your science-based
> > > taxonomy and code compliant names, then I shall rename them myself or
> get a
> > > friend to do so. In ten years time when there is total confusion over
> > > which name should be used and chaos, I shall apply to the ICZN to use
> their
> > > currently rarely used plenary powers to create more confusion by
> ignoring
> > > the rule of priority to reverse it, thereby encouraging more taxonomic
> > > vandals like Wuster to try the same caper!
> > >
> > > The ICZN commissioners will be run off their feet hearing in the first
> > > instance hundreds of applications annually (instead of the handful at
> > > present), then potentially increasing to many thousands yearly within
> 20
> > > years!
> > >
> > > “Kaiser et al” wasn’t published for mere “comment” – it is war plan
> > > against the rules of zoology being executed by Wuster et al. as seen
> by his
> > > relentless cross posting and self promotion here and elsewhere.
> > >
> > > This is EXACTLY why Wuster et al. must be censured and his war plan
> > > stopped!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Snakebustersâ <http://www.snakebusters.com.au> - Australia's best
> reptiles
> > > â
> > > The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
> > > Reptile partiesâ <http://www.reptileparties.com.au>, events, courses
> > > Phones: 9812 3322
> > > 0412 777 211
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:31:59 +0200
> > > > From: aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
> > > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paper on taxonomic standards in herpetology
> > > >
> > > > Stephen, lay off Wolfgang for a bit. He is venting in this forum to
> see
> > > > what the general feelings are. You will agree that any changes that
> > > appear
> > > > in the Code, will be relatively far in the future and rather more
> > > tempered
> > > > than what the herp taxonomists´community may want. For Wolfgang et
> al the
> > > > Code cannot offer a solution at this point, and it will be limited
> in any
> > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > Doug has already offered several constructive comments on the topic.
> Some
> > > > of his suggestions are worthy of discussion as possible future
> changes to
> > > > the Code, which may or may not come to pass depending on feasibility
> of
> > > > implementation or even the desire of the rest to implement them. The
> Code
> > > > will evolve with the times and with the needs of its users and there
> is
> > > > nothing wrong with this. And based on the exchange going on for the
> last
> > > > week or so, it is safe to say that the democratic process is healthy
> and
> > > > "independents" (retired taxonomists, amateurs like me, etc) will not
> be
> > > > squeezed out.
> > > >
> > > > The idea of communal shunning as a faster/cheaper/retroactive option
> than
> > > > LANs has already been mentioned, and it is probably a better approach
> > > than
> > > > broad-stroke legislation (yes, I am backpedalling a bit). If they
> feel it
> > > > is appropriate for their work, then as long as it has general support
> > > from
> > > > their members I don´t see anything wrong with it. There is a balance
> > > > between freedom and conformism to a group´s rules.
> > > >
> > > > As a trivial comment I would like to point out that although you may
> be
> > > > correct in stating that ´..."There is no glory in naming ..."!´, I
> can´t
> > > > help but notice that in general, janitorial work does not get the
> same
> > > > recognition (or janitors for that matter) as the more "creative"
> work.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 22 May 2013 09:29, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [quote]taxonomic decisions in herpetology and their nomenclatural
> > > > > consequences are acceptable only when supported by a body of
> evidence
> > > > > published within the peer-review process[unquote]
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that taxonomic decisions in herpetology are acceptable only
> > > when
> > > > > supported by a body of published evidence. I'm not sure that peer
> > > review
> > > > > prior to publication adds anything? But more seriously, it is the
> > > > > "nomenclatural consequences" bit which is highly debatable! If new
> > > names
> > > > > are published in accordance with the Code, then they cannot be
> claimed
> > > to
> > > > > be "unacceptable", except that they may be treated as synonyms
> (i.e.
> > > > > invalid). This much is already an option. It is however evident
> that
> > > you,
> > > > > Wolfgang, are pushing for such names to be considered unavailable,
> and
> > > THAT
> > > > > is the contentious bit ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Wolfgang Wuster <w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk>
> > > > > To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:58 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Paper on taxonomic standards in herpetology
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Australian Society of Herpetologists AGM minutes containing the
> > > > > motion passed, together with a list of those present and the
> outcome of
> > > > > the vote, are available here :
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.australiansocietyofherpetologists.org/docs/ash-minutes-37th-AGM-Feb-2013.docx
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dr. Wolfgang Wüster - Senior Lecturer
> > > > > School of Biological Sciences Bangor University
> > > > > Environment Centre Wales
> > > > > Bangor LL57 2UW Wales, UK
> > > > > Tel: +44 1248 382301 Fax: +44 1248 382569
> > > > > E-mail: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk
> > > > > http://pages.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig / Registered Charity No. 1141565
> > > > >
> > > > > Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi,
> > > > > gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig
> > > > > gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn
> y
> > > > > neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar
> > > > > unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi,
> > > > > rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth
> a
> > > > > gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i
> > > > > hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn
> > > > > Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu
> > > > > bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau
> neu
> > > > > 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn
> > > > > nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio
> contract
> > > > > rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa
> > > > > Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > This email and any attachments may contain confidential material
> and
> > > > > is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have
> > > > > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately
> > > > > and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
> you
> > > > > must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this
> > > > > email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do
> > > > > not necessarily represent those of Bangor University.
> > > > > Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or
> > > > > any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless
> > > > > expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email
> is
> > > > > not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised
> > > > > signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance
> > > > > Office. www.bangor.ac.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > > >
> > > > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these
> > > > > methods:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) a Google search specified as: site:
> > > > > mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> > > > >
> > > > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > > >
> > > > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these
> > > > > methods:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) a Google search specified as: site:
> > > > > mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> > > > >
> > > > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > >
> > > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> > > methods:
> > > >
> > > > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > > >
> > > > (2) a Google search specified as: site:
> > > mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> > > >
> > > > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as: site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> >
> > Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list