Subject:

Re: [OzHerpLaw] Australian Green Pythons and the Rules of Evidence

Date:

Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:10:17 -0700

From:

Raymond Hoser

To:

OzHerpLaw@yahoogroups.com

References:

1





1/ Thanks for your long post - below.

2/ Your comments about the courts of law in Australia would according

to a judgement of His Honour Geoffrey Eames would probably consititute a

gross contempt of court as he has ruled that it is illegal to infer

doubt on the ability of Australian courts to find truth. I have put

everything I own on the line and that decision is being appealed next

month (6 Oct). Unfortunately I have been advised that the result has

been predetermined in favor of Eames.

3/ The type locality of Green Pythons is Aru Islands, which while

forming part of Indonesia is in fact located between New Guinea and

northern Australia.

4/ While I've got your (Richard's) attention, perhaps I can make some

passing remarks in relation to some of your other posts.

- Your claim that I have failed to give unqualified support for your

papers is in fact partially correct. There are several reasons for

this, but most importantly in that most of the taxonomic moves made by

yourself in your two big papers have not been looked at closely by

myself and hence I cannot give unqualified support for what I have not

inspected, as would be expected to be the case (in terms of anyone

else's taxonomy, even if used by myhself at one time or other).

Notwithstanding that, history has shown that by and large I have given

your taxonomic positions MORE support than any other extant

herpetologists in Australia, including for example my rearguard action

to save your name Varanus keithhornei from the piracy of the latter

name V. teriae Sprackland. My submissions to the ICZN as published by

them were instrumental in that case being won and the name keithornei

being directed as the correct one.

I thought you'd be grateful for this time consuming action by myself,

which incidentally predated my papers on taxonomy, but that wasn't to be

so - instead I got barbs from you. That I suppose is your perogative.

Likewise after I gave your papers recognition in later publications and

including naming high-profile snake taxa after you and co-author Rross

Wellington (2 taxa).

Finally, no matter what barbs are thrown my way, I will accept without

reservation the reality that most of the taxonomic moves made in your

two major papers are eminently sensible and in many cases obvious (in

hindsight) and hence will tend to support your positions in that

direction, even if I think your choices of names like "hawkei" were not

sensible choices.

Doing so will put me offside in some quarters, but as you know, I

believe getting things right is more important that staying friends with

those who get it wrong.

I may not be perfect and hence may get things wrong, but as least I try

to be.

All the best in herp to you Richard and the others who read this.

ALL THE BEST

Richard W. Wells wrote:

>

> Hello Everyone,

>

> Well, although I do agree that the Australian population of

> Chondropython is taxonomically distinct from viridis sensu stricto,

> this is based purely on features of external morphology, and

> differences in behaviour and reproductive biology that I have

> observed. Ray Hoser's description of Chondropython viridis

> shireenae - from a purely descriptive point of view of course –

> obviously conforms to the requirements of the Code, but I am still

> trying to get an issue of the original publication of the Type

> Description which reportedly appeared in the Macarthur

> Herpetological Society Newsletter.

> As for the description as it appears on Ray Hoser's Web Site, well

> even for me it is a bit weak to take it on face value. I am sure

> that others would have really liked to see at least some testable

> meristics for this taxon's main differences from other populations

> of viridis, but who am I to complain about brevity of Type

> Descriptions anyway! However, to compensate for the omission of hard

> morphological data, by the inclusion of his old DNA smoke screen

> again is not just unnecessary - it is really quite unacceptable in a

> formal taxonomic description. Generally speaking, I think it is wise

> to be sceptical of the value of blind acceptance of DNA power-

> arguments from non-geneticists. As usual, Ray provided no direct DNA

> evidence to support his assertions in his original description of

> Chondropython viridis shireenae. But I guess we just have to trust

> him, because all will be revealed if we somehow manage to get access

> to a copy of his book "Smuggled 2". In a subsequent post to

> Kingsnake's Taxonomy Forum, Ray guides us to this secret stash of

> DNA data – the Queensland Government! Now, thanks to Ray, one may

> have to resort to that new friend of the taxonomist the Queensland

> Supreme Court Record to identify an Australian snake. Hoser's type

> description has now made "Queen Vs Buckley and attached documents"

> essential reading for anyone interested in testing his hypothesis.

> This saga seems to get more bizarre by the minute. That Ray would so

> confidently use results from the uncited proceedings of a Court of

> Law to support a taxonomic hypothesis, merely casts a shadow over

> his description, because the paucity of hard data is underscored by

> this act. Legal records should not be relied upon as scientific

> records. They often contain information that may be highly

> subjective, and prone to manipulation because of the adversarial

> nature of our legal system. Putative conclusions or results of some

> legal prosecutions, even those purportedly based upon scientific

> evidence, may be open to differing interpretations, and as Ray

> himself has found on other occasions, they may not represent a true

> and accurate record or interpretation of a matter at hand.

> Well, is there reliable DNA evidence in existence - published or

> otherwise - that could be used to support Hoser's erection of his

> new taxon? I don't know of any such DNA data…other than what Ray has

> claimed, and we have to accept his assurance that this data is

> reliable. Well, I would be rather surprised if the DNA data that Ray

> infers he has used is of a standard that could unequivocally

> demonstrate population differences between the populations in

> question. I say this because this particular DNA investigation by

> the Queensland Government may have had a design and methodology that

> may have made a subsequent use of the data as a taxonomic tool an

> unwarranted extrapolation of the results. I can't help saying that I

> would be rather surprised if there actually were any significant DNA

> differences between the Australian population and that from eastern

> PNG anyway. A comparison between Indonesian material and that from

> Australian might be more revealing though.

> If we must go through this so-called evidence of DNA differences, I

> would be interested in knowing the precise details of this original

> DNA investigation, and this would of course necessitate inquiries to

> others well beyond the simple legal citation of "Queen vs Buckley".

> Questions have to be now answered before we can rely on Hoser's use

> of this DNA "evidence". A few that spring to mind are: Who carried

> out the testing? Where was this investigation undertaken? When was

> this investigation undertaken? What techniques were used in this

> investigation? How were the samples collected? Were the specimens

> retained for re-testing or independent validation? And of course,

> perhaps the most relevant question of all - What control population

> was used as the comparison or baseline population to assess the

> significance (if any) of the Australian population? One would

> presume that any DNA investigation of the genetic variation in

> Chondropython viridis would of course utilize samples derived from

> all known populations of the species, including of course topotypic

> Chondropython viridis (from Indonesia) as the primary control.

> Anything less would be inadequate, inconclusive, and consequently

> invalid. I think I see a great PhD project for someone who doesn't

> mind the usual reduced life span from parasitic infections that come

> with field work in tropical Australasia. Any takers?

>

> Best Regards

>

> Richard Wells

>

> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->

> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark

> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511

> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/APOolB/TM

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> OzHerpLaw-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ Show Entire Thread ]