[Taxacom] Wuster's attack on the Zoological rules - Schleip's bogus python taxa

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu May 23 09:32:28 CDT 2013


Yours was the most recent and also you sent the most such examples (in my
recollection), but yes what I said would apply to your opponents also when
using the same style.

John Grehan


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters
Reptile Parties <viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

> John, may I respectfully ask, why is it OK for my opponents to be allowed
> to make non-stop personal attacks on myself and yet when I turn the
> blowtorch of ethics in their direction, you censure me?
>
>
> 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: Thu, 23 May 2013 06:00:16 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wuster's attack on the Zoological rules - Schleip's
> bogus python taxa
> From: calabar.john at gmail.com
> To: viper007 at live.com.au
> CC: aphodiinaemate at gmail.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
> Out of all the confusing postings on these matters the one thing that does
> stand out is the readiness with with Hoser denigrates those he disagrees
> with. Maybe Hoser is correct about such disagreements,and maybe not. But
> that is where such disagreements are sorted out in a list forum - by going
> back and forth on the issue itself, not on resorting to adjectives about
> the motive or perspectives and merits of respective participants. Many on
> this list disagree very strongly on a number of issues, but they have
> mostly not found the need to belittle each other in expressing those
> disagreements.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM, 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 - Australia's best reptilesâ
>
> The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the animalsâ.
>
> Reptile partiesâ, 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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