[Taxacom] Wulf Schleip – Plagiarisation - an example everyone here can check!

Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters Reptile Parties viper007 at live.com.au
Wed May 29 08:58:07 CDT 2013

Wulf Schleip
– Plagiarisation.


if you
want to have an idea of the kind of caper’s our good friend Wulf Schleip gets
up to, I suggest you all go to Wikipedia in a hurry and look at some of the
older “Leiopython” pages to see some of the rubbish he has put in his edited
versions, before he does what Wolfgang Wuster recently did and had some old Wikipedia
edits deleted!

Try for
example his edit of 10 November 2007.

he wrote:

“Leiopython is a monotypic genus
created for the nonvenomous

python species, L. albertisii,
found in New Guinea.

subspecies are currently recognized.[4]”

that is the first lie as he knew of the Hoser 2000 paper recognising two

the heading “Taxonomy” at the far bottom of the page he wrote:

“new species L. hoserae, and two new subspecies L. albertisii
barkeri and L. a. bennetti, are described in Hoser (2000).[11] [12] However, these descriptions are
considered vague and questionable.[13][14]”

These linked numbers were to peals of wisdom in the form
of two rants from his good mate and co-author of smear, Wolfgang Wuster!

Then fast foreward to 13 December 2008 where Schleip
vandalises the page again to write:

 “A new species L.
hoserae, and two new subspecies L.

albertisii barkeri and L. a. bennetti,
were described in Hoser

(2000),[10] [11] but these
descriptions are considered vague and

questionable.[12][13] In 2008, Schleip[3]
redescribed two of

Hoser's (2000) taxa, providing proper
desciptions and diagnoses for the taxa found valid. A third,

Leiopython albertisii
barkeri was
considered a nomen nudum due to Hoser not having provided a

description that includes characters
to differentiate this taxon from others[3]. Furthermore,

Leiopython albertisii
put back to specific rank, and additionally, three new species were


Yes the
linked “papers” were more smear from himself and Wuster and you may say it may
not be plagiarisation in it’s purest form, but it is certainly unethical
behaviour none the less.

terms of Wulf Schleip, the amateur snake keeper from Germany, he did after
spending 7 years knowingly denying a valid species that was properly described
by another person (that he had a hatred of), he then publishes a paper (in
December 2008) and then goes global on the web wherever he can get his grubby
hands and tries to steal the credit for doing an allegedly “proper description”
and then seeks to manufacture the alleged fact he did a “proper description” by
repeatedly posting on sites like Wikipedia to peddle the lie.


PS – If
Schleip deletes the Wikipedia entries, I have saved copies!


All the


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

More information about the Taxacom mailing list