Posted by:
Wulf
at Thu Jul 22 11:21:13 2004 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Wulf ]
Hello Ray,
well, some first comments on your new paper:
GENUS BROGHAMMERUS GEN. NOV. Hoser 2004
Your write:
Up until now, this genus has comprised just one known species, namely the Reticulated Python (Broghammerus reticulatus).
That is definitly wrong! There are already subspecies:
-Python reticulatus reticulatus (Schneider, 1801)
-Python reticulatus saputrai AULIYA et al. 2002
-Python reticulatus jampeanus AULIYA et al. 2002
You should have simply checked the EMBL database to get the information. You prehaps didn't even know about the work done as you do not mention it in the reference section of your paper!
Here the relevant papers:
--> Auliya, M. & F. Abel 2000
Zur Taxonomie, geographischen Verbreitung und
Nahrungsökologie des Netzpythons (Python reticulatus). Teil 1: Einleitung, Material und Methode, Taxonomie und geographische Verbreitung.
herpetofauna 22 (127): 5-18
Auliya, M. & F. Abel 2000
Zur Taxonomie, geographischen Verbreitung und
Nahrungsökologie des Netzpythons (Python reticulatus). Teil 2: Nahrungsökologie, Danksagung und Literatur.
Herpetofauna 22 (128): 19-28
Auliya, M.; Mausfeld, P.; Schmitz, A. & Böhme, W. 2002
Review of the reticulated python ( Python reticulatus Schneider, 1801) with the description of new subspecies from Indonesia.
Naturwissenschaften 89: 201-213
Ok, that's for that...As usual inadequate descriptions of type material...
BROGHAMMERUS RETICULATUS DALEGIBBONSI SUBSP. NOV.
In the diagnosis you write It appears that this is a generally smaller race of Broghammerus than the typical race from further west in South-east Asia. Size and colouration as a trend separate this form from the nominate race reticulatus.
So how many specimens have you seen and did you do the measurments? What is gernerally smaller?
This subspecies is best separated from all other Broghammerus by DNA analysis and/or accurate distribution information
Ray, we had this many times before! Why don't you provide your paper with DNA analysis results. I guess they have never taken place, wright?
BROGHAMMERUS RETICULATUS EUANEDWARDSI SUBSP. NOV.
In your diagnosis you write: This is a large race of Broghammerus reticulatus, with specimens known to exceed 6 metres. Although it is touted as a yellow-headed and docile variant, not all specimens of this subspecies have this trait. However as general trends, these factors separate this subspecies from the nominate race.
Again, how many specimens did you examine? How many of those were larger than 6 meters? And as you said yourself, not all...
So and you separate specimens from others by the fact of getting bitten or not? *lol*
BROGHAMMERUS RETICULATUS HAYDN MACPHIEI SUBSP. NOV.
In the diagnosis: As a generalization, larger average adult size can be used to separate this subspecies from "normal" reticulatus.
What if customers service or Fish & Wildlife service finds a smuggled semi adult animal? Should they keep it until it's reached it's average size and put you into jail, then? In my opinion the average size does not make a good character for separation, it doesn't even "purporte to differentiate the taxon..." (ICZN, 4th ed.)
you continue: The subspecies has been separated by some people from other Broghammerus by it’s iris colour, although this author has failed to find it to be a reliable indicator.
You have failed to find it th be a reliable indicator? *lol* What about most of your characters?
BROGHAMMERUS RETICULATUS NEILSONNEMANI SUBSP. NOV.
diagnosis:
It rarely has a head lighter than the body as in some other variants of Broghammerus, such as those from Bali or parts of Thailand, although light-headed specimens are known.
This subspecies is only definitively known from Mindanao and adjacent Philippine Islands this stage and is best separated from all other Broghammerus by comparative DNA analysis and/or accurate distribution information.
Where is the DNA analysis? You forgot to provide the results in your paper. Have they ever taken place?
I could continue this for quite a while until the end of your paper, Ray!
And again you worked very sloppy:
GENUS LEIOPYTHON HUBRECHT 1879
Leiopython albertisi (Gray 1842) (Eastern Irian Jaya)
Not Gray 1842! It was Peters & Doria 1878 and the specimens were found in West Irian Jaya and not in Eastern IJ. I actually told you this before write here on the forum!
But you tend to mess up authorships and dates, so we perhaps got used to it anyway.
And what about this: GENUS SHIREENHOSERUS GEN. NOV.
There was definitly no need to introduce a new genus for the Angola python, more so that you didn't also place the ball python (Python regius) into the same genus!
And as you mentioned my web site as a reference that I would support your names, I'd like to inform you that I never did so and actually the site was updated before you published and the specific parts were deleted from the care sheet. That's what can happen when using web sites as reference 
Cheers,
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de ,
http://www.herpers-digest.com
[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]
|
some comments on your paper, Ray (long!) - Wulf, Thu Jul 22 11:21:13 2004
