Two new subspecies of Pseudechis porphyriacus

(Details of the paper are in this long-winded post)

Richard, thanks for your earlier posts on the old kingsnake forum including that ID'd as:

http://forum.kingsnake.com/tax/messages/1663.html

The paper you referred to is published and can also be accessed online at:

http://www.smuggled.com/PsePor1.htm

It formally names two new subspecies of Pseudechis, including Eipperi subsp. Nov. and Rentoni subsp. Nov.

Four of the five papers you referred to are already published and the rest will be uploaded in due course (probably when I return from my next four-week trip to NSW).

Part of the problem at this end is that I cannot (for reasons unknown) convert MS Word files to html on my computer (as should be the case) and I must therefore do this on another computer.

However your earlier post does raise important issues and shows how no matter what a person does (in good faith) can result in him being damned, any which way.

In 1998, WW and David Williams were vocal in criticizing me for publishing my taxonomy papers (Pailsus and adders) in a journal over which I had full editorial and printing control.

My rationale that I had better control over the final product and that it hastened publication (so that I could not "monopolize" taxa as you put it), was rejected by the pair and (perhaps wrongly) as a result of this unpleasant criticism, I bowed to their (perhaps unreasonable) wishes and have since submitted my publications on taxonomy to journals over which I have no editorial control.

I assume that those, including the later Pailsus papers, were published on their merits by the relevant editors.

As you'd be aware, the flip side of this is that I lose control over the speed of publication and that's why these papers have been delayed for extended periods.

While this wouldn't have happened had I published them myself, the result is, as you point out, an extended delay in publishing time frame.

You see this as potentially "Monopolizing" species and as with the WW and David Williams jibes in the past, it is to an extent an unavoidable criticism if and when publication is delayed as has happened in this instance.

In this case the delays have been two to three years and in hindsight not what either myself or anyone else wanted.

However in terms of the allegation of "monopolizing" species, there is an important point worth noting.

My papers were not in preparation or anything of the sort, as in the case of people you have cited to me in the past, but in this case were literally in press and hence it was not a case of monopolizing taxa for some indeterminate time frame.

What's the solution?

Frankly I don't know, but maybe yourself, WW and David Williams may wish to thrash this one out amongst yourselves.

The question therefore is:

When publishing taxonomy papers naming new taxa, should the paper be self published in relative haste so that the name immediately becomes available for use, as you yourself have done and I more-or-less did in the earlier papers, or should the papers be sent to a publication over which you have no editorial or printing control, even though this may delay publication by months or even years, thereby delaying formal naming of taxa?

I have no strong views one way or other, but if yourself, WW and David Williams (and anyone else) can form a consensus one way or other and it appears half reasonable, I'll certainly look to it as a guideline in future.

Yours in herpetology, Raymond Hoser.


New subspecies of RBB's

[ Show Entire Thread ]