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

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri May 24 07:35:11 CDT 2013


It seems evident to me that the disputations between Hoser and others over
the validity or this or that taxonomic/nomenclatural choice will be a
matter for the herpetological community in Australia to sort out, or not,
according to their individual preferences.

John Grehan


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters
Reptile Parties <viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>
> Jason, I note your comments here.
>
>
> I do point out the following:
>
>
> The description of L. hoserae was written 15 years ago,
> with numerous constraints I won’t begin to explain here and published 13
> years
> ago.  Both myself and the science of
> herpetology have moved on quite a lot since the last century.  You state
> this yourself and yet you are
> applying 21 century standards to a 20 century paper!
>
>
> Criticism by you is therefore out of context and
> therefore rejected for this and other reasons.
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> “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).”
>
>
> This is not a case of my word against his as
> you assert here and I am stunned that you would make such a ridiculous
> comment.
>
>
> The charge of plagiarisation is easily
> sustained by cross referencing my earlier paper/s with Scchleip’s later
> paper/s
> and the corresponding lack of attribution.
> Easily done!
>
>
> Jason, science relies on evidence.
>
>
> Scientists look for evidence!
>
>
> As it happens, Schleip, Wuster and O’Shea are
> all serial offenders in terms of this morally repugnant act called
> plagiarisation.
>
>
> Examples of just a fraction of Wuster’s
> repeated cases of plagiarisation, easily confirmed by looking at the said
> papers below are given here.
>
>
> These
> acts include include:
>
>
> ·
> Hoser
> 1998a/2002b Acanthophis taxonomy
> (confirmed by Aplin and Donnellan 1999, Wells 2002d), (also see support
> from
> Starkey 2008 dating back many years), then plagiarized by Fry et al. 2002
> (including Wüster) and
> Wüster et al. (2005):
>
>
> ·
> Hoser
> 2000b/2003e/2004a Python Taxonomy (confirmed by Rawlings and Donnellan
> 2003 (“Chondropython”), confirmed by Wells 2005
> (“Morelia” Carpet Pythons), Rawlings,
> et al. 2008 (“Broghammerus” and other genera)); then plagiarized by O’Shea
> 2007 (“Leiopython”); also then plagiarized by Schleip
> 2008 (“Leiopython hoserae” and other):
>
>
> ·
> Hoser
> 1998b/2000b/2001 “Pseudechis” group
> taxonomy (confirmed by Kuch et al. 2005),
> then plagiarized by Wüster et. al. (2005):
>
>
> ·
> Hoser 2002a Oxyuranus
> taxonomy, plagiarized
> by Wüster et. al. (2005):
>
>
> ·
> Hoser
> 2003a Pseudonaja taxonomy, plagiarized
> by David Williams et al. (including Wüster and O’Shea) (2008).
>
>
>
>
>
> The context of all this in 2013 is
> that Wüster and the others, are well aware of the validity of most, if not
> all
> the Hoser described taxa in the post 2000 period (to end 2012) and their
> current actions can be put in perspective with their past. Clearly they
> dishonestly seek to steal any kudos, Hoser may get from the earlier
> taxonomic
> papers.
>
>
> The bibliographic references cited
> here are listed here:
>
>
> http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI18.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason, what game are you playing?
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> “*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)*”
>
>
>
>
>
> And yet as already
> confirmed by Schleip himself, NONE are for his alleged new taxa!
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> “If I am in Helsinki with
> a snake in a pot the collective experience of the
>
> PNG locals is not going to help me.”
>
>
>
>
>
> My advice, buy a plane
> ticket and spend some time in the field!
>
>
>
>
>
> “I am not arguing the
> merit of your species, simply how you need to
>
> improve your game.”
>
>
>
>
>
> While I reject your
> argument, I do accept your right to make and promote it.
>
>
> I do not believe however
> that the claim you make is unique to myself (as espoused by Mr Yanega
> here) or
> makes my descriptions fundamentally flawed and likewise do not believe
> that the
> alleged defects in my descriptions warrant a total destruction of the
> rules of
> Zoological nomenclature and the anarchy that would follow by renaming
> widely
> known, recognized species with a valid name in widespread usage.
>
>
>
>
>
> Speaking of lousy
> descriptions of taxa, and to add relevance to those here outside of
> herpetology, if you had any idea of the quality of descriptions of taxa I
> resurrected from synonymy in the last two years, you would be appalled.
>  Many were evidence free and clearly done for
> the purposes of taking a punt on the efforts of later workers like myself
> and
> were valid names in collections of many hundreds of almost randomly coined
> synonyms.
>
>
> I have not acted
> unethically and renamed those species or genera.
>
>
> By contrast I have put the
> rules of the code first and used the available names, no matter how much I
> disliked the basis on which they were formed, by whom or the sometimes
> horrible
> people after whom some taxa were named as for example in the valid species
> Cannia weigeli!
>
>
> I am sure others on this
> list who have done wide-ranging taxonomic revisions would have found
> themselves
> in a similar position.
>
>
>
> 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: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:59:08 +0200
> > From: aphodiinaemate at gmail.com
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wuster's taxonomic and nomenclatural misconduct -
> Schleip's non-taxa descriptions
> >
> > *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.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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