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

Mike Sadka M.Sadka at nhm.ac.uk
Wed May 29 09:06:02 CDT 2013

> Plagiarisation - an example everyone here can check!

Why would we want to?

And what would it achieve?

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters Reptile Parties
Sent: 29 May 2013 14:58
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Wulf Schleip – Plagiarisation - an example everyone here can check!

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 subspecies!

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
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

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