3 Issues of Australiasian Journal of Herpetology recently published

[adder]

DEAR ALL,
AJH Issues 9-11 have recently been published and have articles naming new snake taxa at various levels, including WA species.
For those interested in getting a hard copy go to:

http://www.herp.net

All the best

Snakeman

[Snowman]

Suffice to say that these journals are a direct attack on herpetology as a science and a hobby.

[steve1]

Yet I still find myself wanting to read them Snowman. A bit like B grade schlock horrors, for some reason I find myself compelled.
Not compelled enough to fork out 70 bucks though.

[Snowman]

Haha I was just quoting a line from his other post. I know what you mean though. 

[adder]

YES Snowman
you make a fool of yourself by criticising a publication you haven't even read - I suggest you get a job in the Victorian judiciary - they habitually make false claims and the like in their judgement without appraising themselves of the facts!

Well Snowman, you can even call Pilbara Death Adders Acanthophis pyrrhus if you hate me that much !!

Now for the scientists among the people here, I hope you enjoy the papers.  They have been sent to major Libraries as part of Legal Deposit and the like for those unable to shell out the cash.
All the best
The snake man

[Snowman]

Well Snowman, you can even call Pilbara Death Adders Acanthophis pyrrhus if you hate me that much !!

Come on Ray. Where's your sense of humor? 

PS. Pilbara death adders were amended to A .wellsi by Aplin and Donnellan. So no credit to you there for what we call them today.

"It turns out that many of Hoser's names do indeed require emendation, as they were formed in a manner inconsistent with the Code. Thus, Acanthophis wellsei was emended to A. wellsi by Aplin & Donnellan (1999), as it was named after Richard Wells, not Wellse."

[Snowman]

Above quote taken from:
http://www.kingsnake.com/aho/pdf/menu2/littserp.pdf

[eipper]

Actually Aplin and Donnellan were not actually allowed to change the name of the species. Under the code if the name was repeated more than once in the original paper then it cannot be changed regardless if it has been incorrectly formed by the author of the original description. So therefore the correct name is Acanthophis wellsei not wellsi.

Cheers
Scott

[Snowman]

Actually Aplin and Donnellan were not actually allowed to change the name of the species. Under the code if the name was repeated more than once in the original paper then it cannot be changed regardless if it has been incorrectly formed by the author of the original description. So therefore the correct name is Acanthophis wellsei not wellsi.

Cheers
Scott

"The Code states that where there is evidence within the publication itself that a name was formed erroneously, then the name has to be emended (Article 32.5.1) - see Shea (1996)"

Whether they were allowed to or not the scientific community has taken on board Aplin and Donnellan's name. Everyone in WA refers to them as wellsi. So he is still wrong about insinuating we would use his name for the Pilb death adders. It seems like it's just not WA who refer to them as wellsi either, Rick Shine for one... Also Steve Wilson and Gerry Swan... Surely these great herpetologists cant be dismissed in their use of correct names. My only conclusion is that they dont take RH seriously.
I'm not a herpetologist, just a reptile pet keeper. So I dont really care. Good on him for having a crack, in spite of the few who take him seriously.

[eipper]

Snowman,

32.5.1 does not apply as it was not an error that was a single occurrence. It clearly states that erroneous/ improper formation/ latinisation does not constitute a name Change under this section of the code.

Hoser has also made an error with the formation of pailsei as well as wellsei but unless Hoser brings out a correction to amend the names then at present the correct spelling is wellsei and pailsei.

Cheers
Scott

[Snowman]

Cheers Scott. It's a shame then the professional herpotologists haven't taken the amateur herpetologist RH seriously. It just results in two conflicting similar names. I guess that was the point of the entire paper I quoted "Taxonomic contributions in the "amateur" literature: comments on recent descriptions of new genera and species by Raymond Hoser, by WOLFGANG WÜSTER, BRIAN BUSH, J. SCOTT KEOGH, MARK O'SHEA, & RICHARD SHINE"

[eipper]

Hi Snowman,

Like everything it pays to do some of your own checking. Taxonomy for the most part is basically opinion based on evidence. This because the lines of where species or genera begins and ends is somewhat arbitrary as different animals evolve at different rates.

The fundamental thinking across both amateur and professional herpetologists is that if a paper is properly peer reviewed it will usually be accepted. This is can be subjective on an authors prior experience in the field but ideally the best person to peer review any work is one that not only understands the processes but also how these relate to the specific taxa involved. This is where some people fall over in that their prior works already put a bias to the reader.

Both amateurs and professionals make errors and that is the whole point of having a subjective person do a peer review. This helps eliminate many errors. At the same time if the peer reviewer is biased or not suitable for the task, errors get through. I have seen cases in both professional and amateurs have had this come back bite them so to speak.

Cheers
Scott

[AndrewHenderson]

What actually differentiates an amateur from a professional herpetologist? A degree? a paycheck? what exactly?

[adder]

Snowman - you wrote:
"I'm not a herpetologist, just a reptile pet keeper."
Well you said it - not me.
I shall accord your idiot posts above with the weight they deserve!

PS The article by Wuster you quote was discredited as factually incorrect long ago, so it shows more of your improper motives than anything else.

Andrew Henderson asked the perfectly legit question as to what differentiates an amateur from a professional.

Here I shall point out the disgraceful behaviour of snowman, Wuster of course and others who seek to drive a divisive wedge between two groups of people who should be working togeather.

The end point is the so-called amateurs get regulated out of reptiles by government wildlife officers so that the remaining "professionals" get a very financially lucrative monopoly instead.


In actual fact the line between the two is sometimes blurred and I prefer to make no such distinction

[winny]

Just watching Judge Judy and was reminded of the following comment

I suggest you get a job in the Victorian judiciary - they habitually make false claims and the like in their judgement without appraising themselves of the facts!

I want to see a episode of Judge Judy V Hoser 

Sorry Hoser I dont know you but you have made it clear you feel mistreated by the Victorian Court and from what I have read about you, I just got the giggles and had to share it with others.