Hello Ray,



"While I've got you (Richard) cornered..."



Old Chinese saying..."If you must hold a Tiger by the tail you should be sure you can let go without being torn to pieces"



"I sent ANOTHER original of the Pythons paper newsletter to Bill Bennett..."



Bill Bennett is not acting as my agent, mail service or adviser in any way shape or form. If you want to send me an ORIGINAL (which I still haven't received or even sighted) then you know my address.



"...the original newsletter was poor quality as you said in your e-mail and hence it was not deemed published until I got a copy of the master file for the newsletter and myself produced about 200 quality originals of which about 100 were sent out immediately and the rest are sitting in a pile on a shelf."



This gets more bizarre by the minute. So now you are saying that YOU are now the publisher of the issue of the Macarthur Herpetological Society Newsletter that contained your python descriptions? I need this to be confirmed by the Society, because they are the copyright owners and publishers under law. One just can't appropriate another's publication and reissue it without an owner's approval. I have contacted the President of the Macarthur Herpetological Society (Rob Gleeson) that was in charge of the Society when your article was published and he knows nothing about any permission to republish their Newsletter.



"The main libraries and institutions were sent copies and many if not most had already acknowledged receipt of them before your series of posts and e-mails claiming they hadn't beens sent them."



Please send me a list of the libraries, the names of the people who did the acknowledging of receipt, and the dates of alleged receipt.



"That also explains the difference in dates between Julia Carr's alleged publication (sic) date and the later date that I announced publication on Kingsnake and other places - it was only announced by me when publication under the ICZN rules was confirmed."



This really stinks of a contrivance to me Ray, because you are answering a contradiction that I wasn't even considering.



"The dissapointing (sic) part of the exercise from my view is that a smaller paper (the one in the newsletter) was published to specifically deflect your claims that I was monopolizing taxa and also to comply with the time limitations statements in the ICZN's rules - all of which is spelt out in the paper which is seems neither you or other (adverse) critics have actually read."



Don't you mean the Recommendations rather than the Rules Ray? And by the way, I HAVE read the paper describing Chondropython viridis shireenae, and I wait with trepidation for the "bigger" version to be eventually published by means only the Gods may know.



Richard Wells

[ Show Entire Thread ]