[Taxacom] Wulf Schleip – Plagiarisation - an example everyone here can check!
angelo.bolzern at arachnodet.com
Wed May 29 09:07:58 CDT 2013
As a postoc working on taxonomy, I can not understand how anyone can
waist so much time in blaming others and searching the internet for
"bad posts" when there is so much to do in our core field of work! So,
please follow the suggestions from others and stop posting this things
on that list. This is absolutely unprofessional and annoying.
Zitat von Raymond Hoser Snakeman Snakebusters Reptile Parties
<viper007 at live.com.au>:
> 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.”
> 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). 
> However, these descriptions are
> considered vague and questionable.”
> 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),  but these
> descriptions are considered vague and
> questionable. In 2008, Schleip
> 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. 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
> 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
> 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.
Dr. Angelo Bolzern
22 E 105th Street
New York, NY, 10029
More information about the Taxacom