[Taxacom] Dealing with the morally reprehensible act of plagiarisation

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Wed May 29 05:38:45 CDT 2013


If Schleip (2000) used Hoser's data without attribution that would not
necessarily be plagiarism unless Schleip purported that the data originated
from Schleip's own work. Failure to cite another source is certainly to be
avoided, but of itself does not constitute plagiarism.

If Schleip (2008) said that he described L. hoserae when in actual fact he
did not, that would constitute misrepresentation, but it would not appear
to constitute plagiarism.

The assertion "... for 8 years Schleip claimed L. hoserae was a melanaistic
L. albertisi (I've never heard such rot, noting the obvious physical
differences between the snakes) before he did and without apology, publish
that he had described L. hoserae on wikipedia - on the same page he'd
actively edited for 8 years to deny existence of the said species!" does
not appear to describe plagiarism. Hoser may disagree with Schleip over the
melanistic interpretation, but that has nothing to do with plagiarism. And
if Schleip later changed his mind that is ok too.

I agree with the recent postings regarding how one might respond, including
the recent suggestion about the plane ticket - or any approach towards
direct communication. As an academic exercise there is also nothing wrong
with writing a scholarly and informative article in a major periodical such
as the Australian Journal of Zoology where the editors might see merit in a
debate between different taxonomic authorities.

John Grehan


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters
Reptile Parties <viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

> " I'm wondering why you are accusing Schleip (2008) of plagiarism.  He
> even mentions your 2000 paper in the title:  "Revision of the Genus
> Leiopython Hubrecht 1879 (Serpentes: Pythonidae) with the Redescription of
> Taxa Recently Described by Hoser (2000) and the Description of New Species."
>
> In the title yes - in the body of the paper "no". in fact he attacks me
> first before using my data without attribution - as in he masquerades it as
> his own!
>
> Also check out the plagiarization he does in his "Leiopython" wikipedia
> page, including some versions where he says he "described" L. hoserae!
>
> Also of note is that for 8 years Schleip claimed L. hoserae was a
> melanaistic L. albertisi (I've never heard such rot, noting the obvious
> physical differences between the snakes) before he did and without apology,
> publish that he had described L. hoserae on wikipedia - on the same page
> he'd actively edited for 8 years to deny existence of the said species!
>
> All the best
>
>
> 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
>
>
> From: kinman at hotmail.com
> To: viper007 at live.com.au; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Dealing with the morally reprehensible act of
> plagiarisation
> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:59:34 +0000
>
>
>
>
> Hi Raymond,
>
>
>
>      I'm wondering why you are accusing Schleip (2008) of plagiarism.  He
> even mentions your 2000 paper in the title:  "Revision of the Genus
> Leiopython Hubrecht 1879 (Serpentes: Pythonidae) with the Redescription of
> Taxa Recently Described by Hoser (2000) and the Description of New Species."
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > From: viper007 at live.com.au
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 00:28:14 +1030
> > Subject: [Taxacom] Dealing with the morally reprehensible act of
> plagiarisation
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am sure I am not the only one here to have had their
> > work plagiarized by one or more others.(This being the act of using a
> person's work and not citing or correctly attributing the data).
> >
> > Examples in terms of my own work and papers include serial offences by
> the Wuster et al. (Kaiser et
> > al.) gang of thieves, a few of many examples of which I list below:
> >
> > ·
> > Hoser
> > 1998a/repeated in Hoser 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” - Hoser 2000), confirmed by Wells 2005
> > (“Morelia” Carpet Pythons), Rawlings,
> > et al. 2008 (“Broghammerus” and other genera - Hoser 2003/4)); then
> plagiarized by O’Shea 2007 (“Leiopython”); also then plagiarized by Schleip
> > 2008 (“Leiopython hoserae” and other from Hoser 2000):
> >
> > ·
> > 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).
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course others have plagiarized my work, particularly
> > many of my papers on breeding snakes from the 1980’s and 1990’s, but
> I’ll save
> > listing them as this would include dozens of entries and this is after
> all a
> > taxonomy/nomenclature forum.
> >
> > While plagiarization is a reprehensible and morally
> > repugnant act, what sort of actions do you suggest are best to combat
> this
> > scourge, both before and after the fact?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any ideas.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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