[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Dealing with taxonomic vandalism without the need to alter the zoological Code, this being relegation of bogus taxa to synonymy
webmaster at leiopython.de
Fri Jan 10 06:40:30 CST 2014
Dear list(s) *sorry for cross-posting, but I simply reply to all*,
For all those, who are unaware of the paper Mr. Hoser is talking about. Feel free to make up your mind on that paper:
Schleip, W.D. 2008. 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. Journal of Herpetology 12/2008; 42(4):645–667. It can be viewed in full from my researchgate.net profile:
email: webmaster at leiopython.de
On Fri 10/01/14 12:42 , Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Rafael wrote:
> “You may be interested in some statistic from the botanical world
> where this is much more common.
> Silba has since 1981 published 577 names of Conifers and currently
> 20 of those are accepted by taxonomists. Because of this similar calls
> have made in the botanical world to do something about homemade
> journals however I think by quietly synonymising his names (rather
> than ignoring them) and providing good taxonomic data to e.g. CoL
> (which feeds into Eol, GBIF...) and online in general this has not
> lead to competing taxonomies.
> As only 3% of his names need to be accepted it is very likely that
> Jackyhosernatrix or similar ones never need to be used.
> Well, I agree with you wholeheartedly Rafael. Lets get back to the
> science of taxonomy and stop trying to change the rules to allow
> unscientific thieves to steal the good taxonomic work of others by
> having them rename valid taxa on the back of someone else’s
> code-compliant work. My suggestion however in my case is that based on
> what I posted earlier, people will be pressed to find good scientific
> evidence to relegate my names to synonymy. Or as even noted by the
> poster here who accused me of ripping off all the unnamed clades in an
> alleged act of “scooping” others.
> Referring to what you said Rafael, and as a good example of what you
> (and I) mean, you need look no further than the taxonomic vandalism of
> Wuster friend Wulf Schleip. In 2008 he invented 3 new species of
> Leiopython and without a shred of evidence to do so.
> This he published in a PRINO journal in 2008 at a place he was also
> There was no need to step outside the code to deal with this
> reckless and unscientific conduct as proposed by the Wuster gang
> (including Schleip as co-author of Kaiser et al. 2013 himself).
> To deal with Schleip’s nomenclatural misconduct, I simply produced
> a paper in 2009 and using good hard scientific evidence (something
> alien to the Wuster gang) I relegated them all into synonymy with the
> long-established Leiopython albertisi. That I was correct in my
> science has been confirmed by comparative molecular data across the
> same geo-region and the perhaps more telling fact that no one in the
> snake pet trade (a money business) refers to the Schleip taxa in their
> trade as none can even be differentiated from the original L.
> albertisi types! In terms of the Brown Leiopythons, even the
> Indonesian government only issues permits for the original L.
> albertisi! This is notable in that even consistent morphs, based on a
> single mutation are differentiated by pet dealers in order to boost
> Oh, and even Wuster himself admitted on a chat forum that his mate
> Wulf Schleip had got it all wrong and that the species he claimed
> didn’t exist!
> Snakebustersâ  - Australia's best reptilesâ
> The only hands-on reptilesâ shows that lets people hold the
> Reptile partiesâ , events, courses
> Phones: 9812 3322
> 0412 777 211
>  http://www.snakebusters.com.au
>  http://www.reptileparties.com.au
More information about the Taxacom