Reptile & Amphibian Forums

So the new subs. of the Chondropython genus you described (C.v.SHIREENAE)is the Australian "form" of green tree python; well, is the same that Richard Wells called as "Chondropython covacevichae" (totally,a full new species)in few lines he posted on the Taxonomy forum some weeks ago? Or will you describe later a new species of that genus?

Thank you for your time and interest

best regards

Stefano

The subspecies described in the paper is the only one I have named and at this stage intend naming.
I know of no others in Australia, but others may.
I think Wells may have been confused as to what I intended calling the snake.
By the way, I will be travelling looking at herps for much of the next month so may not be able to respond to posts by you (Steno?) or others.
ALL THE BEST

.

Ray,
Confused?? You told me that you intended naming the Australian population as Chondropython covacevichae last year! Quite frankly Ray, it is you that must be "confused", but others may forgive me for thinking that you are a little too liberal with the truth in this matter. When I told you that I intended naming this population as new nearly two years ago now, I willingly acceded to your request that I refrain from doing so, because you had stated that you had already described it, and your paper was "in press". That you have classified this population as merely a new subspecies only reinforces my belief that you know nothing at all about the taxon, and that you merely bluffed me out of the way so that you could fix a name on it. If you were so desperate for new species to describe, all you had to do was ask Ray, and I would have been happy to give you scores of new taxa to name. You are pathetic, just pathetic.

Richard Wells

Didn't you do the same thing to a bunch of other systematists just a few years back? Mind you, I agree with your assessment of Mr. Hoser...

Patrick Alexander

Hi Patrick,
No I didn't actually. What most others apparently don't realise is that I had my life's work in herpetology stolen from me by a process of academic theft. When I dared to publish MY RESEARCH RESULTS we were initially accused of creating a practical joke to "get back at" the Australian Museum or some such other nonsense. When it was slowly realized that we were correct in our taxonomic arrangements, their tack changed to the smear of stealing the mysterious, nameless "others" work. What a joke that was. I would have no sooner put Cogger's or anyone else's thoughts on Australian reptile systematics into my head, than put cyanide into my stomach - and the same goes for that unscientific gang of imbeciles that did the bidding of the suppressionists as well. At every opportunity, our work has been appropriated by others either totally without even a fragment of credit, or by some circuitous methods that amount to no less than scientific theft or even fraud. Not a single article in the last 20 years has bothered to give unqualified recognition to us for our originality - not for ANYTHING. At every opportunity our concepts of new species and genera have been ever so quietly placed in the literature usually without any mention that we were the first to offer such a proposition. Credit were credit is due doesn't apply in this case it seems. Both Ross Wellington and I were treated apallingly by the "establishment" in herpetology because we dared to challenge the "accepted" classification of the day. The taste police in Australian herpetology effectively censored our "Classification" paper from even being indexed in the Zoological Record, and subscibers of the Australian Journal of Herpetology were actively lobbied to cancel their descriptions to effectively "kill" the publication. I was hounded out of employment at every opportunity by academics contacting my employers demanding they dismiss me as I was a threat to the scientific stability of the nation! Without money, I was virtually driven into poverty and as a consequence forced to live in the back of my car for over two years. I was forced to work as a builder's labourer breaking up concrete with a sledge hammer to earn what pathetic money I could. My character was defamed and smeared in publications and the media to the point where both my parents died believing that their eldest son had disgraced them, for they like most Australians grew up in a world where the opinion of an Academic was deserving of great respect. As for trying to continue my research in herpetology, well, that was really fun. My wildlife permits were revoked, cancelled or not processed to prevent further research on the recommendation of the suppressionists. I was denied the right to examine specimens in museums in Australia, even though I had personally donated thousands of specimens. No one sent me reprints that I requested, even though I had once loaned over 20,000 reprints to one of these people to help in their research! My published articles were systematically removed from academic libraries to the point that they became virtually unknown works other than from the irrational criticisms that were published in their wake. Even recently, when I visited the Queensland Museum just as a member of the public this year, I even had to experience the indignity of being shadowed by their security staff when they learnt of my presence in the building. What a sick little place my country has become. In any other country in the world I would have been made at the very least an Honorary Associate of a major museum or a university for my efforts in herpetology. But not here in Australia. Here herpetology was controlled by a gaggle of petty parochial, self-serving, unproductive incompetents that spent most of their careers bludging on public funds as they parasitized outsiders for any scintilla of original thought they may have had. I was told that's par for the course for even broader zoology in Australia, and I should have just played the game. But I just couldn't, because unlike the fat controllers, I actually loved herpetology - indeed I loved science. It may surprise you to also know that as we were about to submit the "Synopsis" to press in 1983, I remarked to Ross Wellington that it could effectively destroy any career in herpetology that we might have. But we proceeded because we truly believed that the need was there for such a reassessment and so the personal risk was considered worth it. The ensuring orchestrated campaign of lies and bastardization that followed in the subsequent years - even to this day - has made me realise what a waste of my life it all was. And you know Patrick, as much as I found the actions of my detractors distressful, it was the silence of my so-called friends and colleagues that really hurt me the most. Those who really knew me at the time and were familiar with the originality of my herp research interests and efforts, knew full well the true story, yet cowardly remained silent. But who could blame them really? And sure, we had to accept some blame I suppose, for we didn't ask their permission to speak our minds did we? Of course this is not really the time, place or space to deal with this issue, so it is best that I leave this matter for later. But as for Ray Hoser, well he can publish what, and where he likes as far as I am concerned. One should not make the mistake of thinking that Hoser and I are alike in any way shape or form - because we are most decidely not! Like everyone else, his taxonomic arrangements are on his shoulders though. My disagreement with him is over his apparent duplicity, and misinformation that he has provided me on the issue - that's all. I could of course help him learn from my most bitter experiences, but as most would already know, Ray is not one to take advice from others. I suspect he shall regret his foray into taxonomy...

Richard Wells

Richard:
Read your post to Patrick and can see some parallels that exist in the U.S. Of course, I do not know the other side of the 'story' you relate but nevertheless, it brings to mind a couple of situations.

I am a amateur but like yourself, just love science and the discovery process. In 1997, I became aware that my state's wildlife agency was listing non-game species in various categories of concern with little or no hard evidence. One of those species listed in both the 'sensitive' and 'protected' categories was the Sharp-tailed Snake (Contia tenuis). Since there never had been a study of the species in Oregon, I knew that such listings were not science-based. When I read Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife's official status account of the species in which they claimed it was "rare" and "declining" in part of its distribution, may no longer be found in counties in which it had been documented and similar falsified information, I was so mad that I decided to initiate a study of the species.

As I have dug into this issue, it is now clear that not only the Oregon Dept. of F & W but many, if not the majority of state wildlife agencies are doing the same thing, listing non-game species in various categories of concern via junk science, that is, the use of anecdotal information and processes. As a graduate in Wildlife Science (Ore. St. U., 1955) I know that this
behavior is not only unprofessional and unethical but dishonest as well. But because of the culture in wildlife agencies with some support from certain members of the academic community, no one dares rock the boat. To do so would amount to career suicide. I am retired so can speak up. I am trying to do something about this situation in Oregon but have gotten virtually no where so far after almost a year and a half trying to work with my state's wildlife agency to change the situation.

Earlier this year, I conferred with two well respected scientist at OSU, one in Zoology and one in Fisheries and Wildlife. They both confirmed that it is still unacceptable to use anecdotal information as if such were fact in scientific endeavors.

The second episode revolved around my Contia study the field portion beginning with my first capture on March 6, 1998. By chance, in July 1998 I found a different looking Sharp-tailed Snake. After a year of gathering information, it was clear that this specimen and other like her represented a heretofore overlooked species in the genus Contia. I then set about writing a manuscript describing the discovery along with supporting data. If there ever was a slam dunk case in taxonomy in which a new species existed, this was such a case. If one knows what to look for, you can identify adults of the two species of Contia by visual means without even taking measurements.

As mentioned, it took me exactly one year to gather the information that overwhelmingly supported the separate species hypothesis. It then took me over two years and two review processes to have two versions of the paper reviewed by seven provessionals. To his credit, the editor (not a herpetologist) though skeptical, reserved his comments to questions and editorial suggestions. But two associate editors, both herpetologists, rejected the new species scenario outright with one of them being downright nasty with his comments. Three additional professionals essentially rejected the new species thesis. But with luck, there was one reasoned voice during the second peer review process. That individual made commments and suggestions that were virtually counter to all others. On that basis along with my letters providing added insight, the editor ,with a few minor revisions, eventually accepted the paper.

From this experience, I have taken away a number of
'messages'. Snobery has no bounds. Secondly, instead of assisting and fostering publication of original research, the process does just the opposite. And third and most clear to me, there is gross incompetenence amongst the professional ranks. The same data that all but one of the peer reviewers (all professional herpetologists) rejected were abundantly clear to herpetologists here at OSU that help me with the statistical treatment of the data, etc. and to the one reviewer.

So in the U.S., you have a little bit of company but certainly not to the severe degree you have described.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Richard--

I remember you mentioning this a while ago, but I've forgotten what, exactly, the situation was. So I'm wondering: what's your evidence that there are two separate species involved? What were the objections the reviewers gave? And where's the paper (going to be? a quick check didn't turn in up in the Biological Abstracts search engine) published?

Also, while checking for your paper, I came across this, which should be interesting on the off chance you're not already aware of it:

`Title: Mitochondrial variation in sharp-tailed snakes (Contia tenuis): Evidence of a cryptic species.
Author, Editor, Inventor: Feldman-Chris-R {a}; Spicer-Greg-S
Author Address: {a} Department of Biology, Utah State University, 5305 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322, USA; E-Mail: elgaria@biology.usu.edu, USA
Source: Journal-of-Herpetology. [print] December 2002 2002; 36 (4): 648-655.
Publication Year: 2002
Document Type: Article-
ISSN (International Standard Serial Number): 0022-1511
Language: English
Abstract: We examined genetic variation and structure in mitochondrial DNA sequences of sharp-tailed snakes (Contia tenuis) from California and southern Oregon. Maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses distinguish two mitochondrial lineages: a north coast clade restricted to cool evergreen forest along the Pacific Coast; and an interior/south clade widespread throughout California. The southern limit of the north coast clade is congruent with that of several other vertebrate taxa, a historical pattern consistent with a long-term marine embayment. We interpret additional phylogeographic pattern as resulting from either gene flow or incomplete lineage sorting. Genetic, distributional, ecological, and morphological data suggest that north coast and interior/south mitochondrial lineages of C. tenuis are distinct at the species level.'

Patrick Alexander

Patrick:
Richard F. Hoyer 'Discovery of a Probable New Species in the Genus Contia' Northwestern Naturalist Winter 2001, 82:116-122

I have all reviewer's comments but it isn't worth the effort going back and reviewing that frustating period of time. The new species is not truly cryptic but what I would term as pseudo-cryptic as adults of the two species can be segregated one from the other by visual means. This major visual differentiation is by relative tail length. I originally called Contia tenuis as the short-tailed Contia and the new species as the long-tailed Contia.

There are two distinct morphological features in which at this point in time, there is no overlap between the species. Those two features are relative tail length (tail length divided by total length) and number of caudals. A third trait that is different between the species in a significant way, but where there is overlap, is the number of ventrals.

As mentioned, I found the first specimen of the new species in July, 1998 (still have her). By the fall of 1998, I had uncovered some anecdotal information from 3 biologists that along with other observations, began to suggest the new species scenario rather than simply clinal variation or subspecies level distinction. I had only examined C. tenuis in Oregon and contacted Chris Feldman in late 1998 trying to find some localities I might find Contia in Calif. It was at that point he told me of the peculiar results he had obtained when he ran mtDNA tests on 11 Calif. Contia. Two of the 11 samples indicated a divergence in the 6-7% range whereas the other 9 samples were within 1- 2% or thereabouts. His outgroup of the Ringneck snake diverged by 11% if my memory serves me correctly.

Immediately this strenghtened my suspicions that a new species was at hand. By July, 1999 I had all the data to support the new species scenario. At the urging of Drs. Robert Mason, here at OSU, and Dr. Robert Stebbins of Kensington, Calif. (now Walnut Creek, CA), I incorporated the Contia from the CAS collection in order to increase both sample size and geographical representation of both forms of Contia.

In the meantime, Chris had turned over, or was about to turn over, his samples and results to a researcher here at OSU. In a Sept. 1999 meeting with Chris and one of his advisors (Dr. Ted Papenfuss) in the MVZ collection at U.C. Berkeley, I urged that he take credit for his unique discovery with Dr. Papenfuss agreeing. At that meeting, I asked Chris to get the jar of Contia from Mendocino County, Calif. as I knew both species occurred in that county. Before even taking the lid off the jar, I pointed out that both species could be veiwed side by side in the jar. Although I had long before mentioned the tail length difference to Chris, I am pretty sure both gentlemen were quite surprised that it was that easy to distinguish between the two species.

Chris and I are to write a formal description of the new species. I got started with recording the data on one of Dr. Mason computers at OSU here in Corvallis but have been sidetrack some with my interests in the Rubber Boa. In the meantime, Chris first moved to St. Louis, Mo. and Wash. U., then got married and moved to Maryland, and more recently they moved to Logan, Utah where he will be pursuing his PhD. Once our hot spell passes here in W. Oregon and our second collecting season kicks in, I will be going afield to find a few S. All. Lizards for Chris and his thesis project.

Richard F. Hoyer

P.S. Have gobs or reprints.

`Richard F. Hoyer 'Discovery of a Probable New Species in the Genus Contia' Northwestern Naturalist Winter 2001, 82:116-122'

Odd.. I guess that journal isn't in the database I was using for some reason.

`I have all reviewer's comments but it isn't worth the effort going back and reviewing that frustating period of time. The new species is not truly cryptic but what I would term as pseudo-cryptic as adults of the two species can be segregated one from the other by visual means. This major visual differentiation is by relative tail length. I originally called Contia tenuis as the short-tailed Contia and the new species as the long-tailed Contia.'

Have you figured out what scientific name you intend to use for the new species, yet?

In reference to the rest--it seems that if you've got the mitochondrial data and multiple non-overlapping morphological differences that there's not much question these are separate species... odd that the reviewers would've been so negative. I was thinking that maybe it was just a pro-molecular bias, but I guess that isn't the case. Too bad they don't let you know who reviewers are, as that might've made clear what political BS might be influencing the situation.

And I'd love a reprint, if you don't mind. Local biology library doesn't carry Northwestern Naturalist (though they do have Southwestern Naturalist--I guess the southwest is just more interesting ; ) ). I'll email you my address...

Patrick Alexander

Patrick:
I have known for a very long time that I am not a writer, but a field person with limitations. I fully expected that the editor, associate editor, and reviewers would have a field day with my writing style. But the situation was so cut and dry, the evidence so strong, that it never crossed my mind that the sparate species scenario would be discounted let alone ridiculed as was the case by the first associated editor.

My first draft had been a shorter communication. When that was panned by the associate editor and one reviewer (the other reviewer just rejected my thesis and did not provide a review), I wrote the editor a lengthy letter providing more insight into the situation. He came back and suggested I convert the paper into a full length article and he would send it to a different assoc. ed. That is the reason for two separate peer review processes.

The second associate ed. and one reviewer both indicated that at best, I had discovered some variant of C. tenuis. In addition, I had purposely written the paper in a semi-narative format as I considered that the process in which the new species was discovered in itself was worth describing. The assoc. ed. wanted me to discard the real manner in which the species was discovered and in its place, indicated that after treating my sample of Contia statistically, I had teased-out the new form of Contia from the raw data. In other words, he openly urged me to be dishonest by describing a discovery process that never occurred.

Both the asso. ed. and one reviewer indicated I needed greater statistical treatment of the data. The third reviewer indicated I should discard the statistical treatment since statistics are not warranted when there is no overlap in defining characters. I had mention this very thing to Dr. Robert Mason here at OSU. Why is it necessary to prove a statistical difference between black and white. Bob's response was that such statistics are essentially expected these days. As it turned out, I incorporated every suggestion and comment by that one reviewer except his suggestion to remove the statistics. I think it was the contrast between this one reviewer's comments and the other 5 reviewers that was one of the major reasons the editor rejected his assoc. ed. recommendations and accepted the paper.

As mentioned, I am a field person and not a writer. I probably have sufficient information on Contia for 2-3 additional papers. And just laying fallow are a score of projects either completed or near completion on C. bottae that could be organized and drafts written. At this point, it just isn't worth the hastle so until such time I get back in the mood, all of this 'good' stuff will lay fallow.

Actually, this past late winter, I did get the urge and started a draft of a paper that describes a discovery every bit as 'exciting' (to me) as the new species, the occurrance of two reasonably distinct size morphs in the Rubber Boa. But here again, the writing ceased in April once the new field season began. I am far better off if I can have someone else to join forces much as I did with Dr. Glenn Stewart in our project involving the Southern Rubber Boa. He has partly retired and no longer wishes to take part in these types of endeavors.

By all means, send me your address and I will get off a reprint.

Richard F. Hoyer

Thanks for the more in-depth explanation!

`The second associate ed. and one reviewer both indicated that at best, I had discovered some variant of C. tenuis. In addition, I had purposely written the paper in a semi-narative format as I considered that the process in which the new species was discovered in itself was worth describing. The assoc. ed. wanted me to discard the real manner in which the species was discovered and in its place, indicated that after treating my sample of Contia statistically, I had teased-out the new form of Contia from the raw data. In other words, he openly urged me to be dishonest by describing a discovery process that never occurred.'

This is pretty amusing to me, as it's something that I learned History and Philosophy of Science people get aggravated by--they have a hard time figuring out what and why scientists are doing things. I'd figured they just meant the tendency in introductions to tell readers why they should be interested in a topic, while presenting it as your reason for conducting the research (when, of course, the real reason is probably pretty uninteresting: `I like snakes,' `My advisor wouldn't let me work on the system I wanted to,' and the like), but this is something else again...

`Both the asso. ed. and one reviewer indicated I needed greater statistical treatment of the data. The third reviewer indicated I should discard the statistical treatment since statistics are not warranted when there is no overlap in defining characters. I had mention this very thing to Dr. Robert Mason here at OSU. Why is it necessary to prove a statistical difference between black and white. Bob's response was that such statistics are essentially expected these days. As it turned out, I incorporated every suggestion and comment by that one reviewer except his suggestion to remove the statistics.'

I've noticed the pressure to use statistics, too. I don't really get it, but for some reason people seem to think the data aren't real unless you've got chi-squared tests and pretty graphs and things. It's gotten to the point where lab-meetings where I work were pretty much just examinations of whether or not the ideal statistical methods were used...

`As mentioned, I am a field person and not a writer. I probably have sufficient information on Contia for 2-3 additional papers. And just laying fallow are a score of projects either completed or near completion on C. bottae that could be organized and drafts written. At this point, it just isn't worth the hastle so until such time I get back in the mood, all of this 'good' stuff will lay fallow.'

That's too bad... if I had any experience whatsoever in writing scientific papers I'd offer to help, but, still being a lowly undergrad, I don't...

Patrick Alexander

Patrick:
Forgot to answer your initial question.

Early on I had a scientific name for the new form of Contia. Had it in my draft but Dr. Stevan Arnold, herpetolgist and Chair of OSU's Zoology Dept., advised I remove it for the time being as there are certain conventions that should be followed. If for some reason, my name did not meet certain criteria, it could potentially become usable at the time a formal descriptions was made of the new species. That is why I only provided a common name (Forest Sharp-tailed Snake), in my paper for the new form of Contia.

Richard F. Hoyer

np

Hi, I have a few questions on the new species of Contia

1. Are the two species sympatric or allopatric in distribution?

2. I presume from the common name of the new species that they differ in habitat preference. How much of a difference is there?

3. Since they are distinct species and since they do not overlap in tail length, what may be the mechanism of reproductive isolation? Behavioral? Post-mating? Habitat preference/allopatry? Have you tried pairing the two species in captivity to see if they will mate?

4. What may be the adaptive value of the differences in tail length of the two forms? Any theories?

5. Which species do you believe is ancestral to the other?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Perhaps the roadblocks you encountered in the submission of your paper for publication is part of the reason some people have so much faith, even approaching blind faith, in this process. Some people seem to think that taxonomic proposals that have made it past the spigot at the end of the peer review process must have merit and should be blindly followed. After reviewing some of the taxonomic papers published on the ratsnakes, the rubber boa and the sagebrush lizard, I can definitely say that nothing can be further from the truth. Each published proposal must be individually scrutinized before it is accepted. Conversely, many of the papers that are rejected (often for reasons other than scienfitic merit) may in fact be informative. I submit that those people who follow the lead of those who automatically endorse new taxonomic proposals because these papers have survived the peer review process are excellent examples of the blind following the blind.

RS Newton:
I concur with your assessment 100% . 'Climbing on the band-wagon' is my way of viewing how so many individuals in biological circles fail to examine issues critically but blindly accept what appears to be authoritative sources.

In my view, one clear example of this is how many have adopted the notion that road mortality results in serious, negative impacts on snake populations. This does not make sense from my understanding of population biology, from some anecdotal and doucmented evidence, and from personal field experience. I finally obtained a reprint of a published account (Rosen and Lowe) that had been cited a by others as proof. Although it was a very nice study, the data (and absence of certain data) not only didn't confirm the author's main thesis of serious, negative impact, but suggested just the opposite. I am just an amateur herpetologist with a BS degree in Wildlife Science and I ask myself how so many others cannot see the obvious????

Richard F. Hoyer

Well, I was going by what I've heard, which could, of course, be incorrect. What little I've seen of them suggests, though, that your descriptions of new species were pretty weak, and, whatever your intentions may have been, this does have the result of allowing you to name large numbers of species, while leaving the work of validating them to others. That, of itself, is a pretty big mistake and also the biggest problem with Hoser's work, IMO.

I'm curious, though, as to why you might have been motivated to revenge yourself against the Australian Museum, and why there would be this much rancor against you.

Patrick Alexander

Well Patrick,
As I said, this is not the time, place or space to deal with this matter properly, but just quickly:
1. Agreed, some of our species descriptions were “pretty weak”, to use your parlance - but they are still valid under the Rules of the ICZN whether you or anyone else likes it or not. However, most of our descriptions were on par with those accepted descriptions of some of the practicing taxonomists of the day such as two of the then most productive – Dr Glen Storr of the Western Australian Museum and Dr Glenn Ingram of the Queensland Museum. Where is your criticism of THEIR brief, “pretty weak” descriptions? If you don’t know what species and genera I am referring to, I suggest you go out and get the original type descriptions erected by some of my critics and undertake a bit of time travel.
2. As for the merits of minimalist taxonomy, in retrospect, I now feel this was a sort of mistake as you imply, particularly in light of the fact that I could have easily bombarded the community with data on most of those that we described so briefly. In saying this though, it should not be taken to mean that I think such minimalism is invalid - it may be undesirable, but from our experience it was just not appreciated for its true value by the larger herp community at the time. I still hold the view that we did the right thing to offer a rapid alternative schema to Cogger, Cameron and Cogger (1983), but circumstances indicate that we may as well not bothered challenging the absurdity of the arrangement in the Zoological Catalogue for all the good it did us. Looking back, I can’t help noticing that our brevity was used more as an excuse to destroy us as contributors than it was to justify the testing of our numerous hypotheses. The elegant simplicity of our contributions were perceived or promoted merely as monstrosities of complexity to discourage any attempt at trying to test our hypotheses or recognize our originality.
But as we had to bear the cost of publication ourselves, time and space were a continuum to the poor house for us at the time. In the big world of the public museum researcher, why…money is no object it seems. They can spend as much time as they like on a project, make it as complicated or open-ended as they like, and if they don’t finish it, there is always another excuse they can use to get more grant money or publication space. And…Praise the Lord, if someone like Wells or Wellington comes along they have the perfect excuse to finally justify achieving nothing!
But I do appreciate and understand the value of detailed study more than you probably realise. It is just that I believe that this is not the only way to fry a goose. It should be clearly understood that I see a clear line between the morphologist and the taxonomist – biology and all its branches is not an intellectual continuum towards a nirvana of ultimate knowledge for the chosen few. I recognized then, and still do that one of the biggest impediments to applying a legal taxonomic framework for the publication of a new name or nomenclatural act is the quick-sand of morphology. It is just so easy to get confused by the roles of morphologist and that of the taxonomist. We have the absurd situation where researchers are incapable of drawing the line for the erection of a new name, unless they have virtually discovered the origin of life first! Repeatedly, vast amounts of specimens are collected, killed and examined to justify the formal fixing of a name, that could just as easily be achieved by a single type specimen being examined then formally named. As much as this may cause rancour amongst the perfectionist morphologists out there, the fact is that virtually every species that we described has been confirmed following the so-called “detailed and careful” work of others and this clearly demonstrates that we in fact knew exactly what we were doing. The oft-used criticism that it was only through this superior work of others, that our species and genera have been validated is not only insulting, it is perhaps the weakest excuse for intellectual theft that biology has ever dredged up. And to say that it was only possible to clarify some of our new species by genetics as they are supposedly so morphologically conservative that they should be regarded as “cryptic species” is also absolutely ludicrous. As far as these so-called cryptic Australian reptile species are concerned they are quite distinct to an experienced eye. My experience with the species concerned allowed me to be familiar enough with the taxa to quite confidently fix a name to them on the basis of a single type specimen if that was all I had available at the time. That others needed to obtain thousands of dollars of public money first before they would even bother to begin work on a taxon is not my fault. My research was founded on my own natural curiosity, not on other people’s money, or on any desire for prestige or to maintain power over others in the field. I didn’t have to pulp the species’ body parts in a centrifuge, examine its DNA or go out and kill numerous examples by drowning them in formalin first, before I had the belief that it was a distinct entity deserving of recognition by fixing a name on it.
The insistence of my critics that taxonomy should only be for professionals employed in reputable institutions has a rather hollow ring to it when I see how little they produce from the scale of their available resources. To be sure, such works when they are undertaken and successfully completed are wondrous to behold, but can we really afford the cost of such a perfectionist approach to taxonomy given the imperatives at hand. I don’t think so. To say that some of the species described by us were only clearly identified after detailed and meticulous studies over many years by such methodical professionals is more a reflection of the inexperience of my peers, than it is a mark of my inadequacy in taxonomy.
Finally, you hinted at knowledge of matters relating to the Australian Museum’s role in this saga. I can’t really speak much at all about that Institution. The last time I was in the building was 17 May 1982, and I left in disgust, vowing never to return unless I was given a written apology for the way I had been treated by the so-called technical staff. Of course I have never received an apology, so I have never set foot in the place again, nor do I even drive on the road that is attached to the block of land that it is built on. I would no sooner enter that place than walk into Chenobyl. That said, I would respectfully like to suggest that you don’t buy into that one further, lest you precipitate a debate that will likely result in damage to the reputation of an otherwise great institution. I should only like to add that were it not for the arrival of the great American herpetologist Dr Allen E. Greer, the Australian Museum’s reptile and amphibian collections would likely have rotted away from neglect and incompetence long ago. His involvement at that Museum was one of the few highlights in my long interest in herpetology. He is a totally dedicated scientist and an honourable person – a rare combination indeed, and the Australian Museum has been the richer for it.

Richard Wells

`1. Agreed, some of our species descriptions were “pretty weak”, to use your parlance - but they are still valid under the Rules of the ICZN whether you or anyone else likes it or not.'

OTOH, I don't think validity under the ICZN rules was at issue.

`However, most of our descriptions were on par with those accepted descriptions of some of the practicing taxonomists of the day such as two of the then most productive – Dr Glen Storr of the Western Australian Museum and Dr Glenn Ingram of the Queensland Museum. Where is your criticism of THEIR brief, “pretty weak” descriptions? If you don’t know what species and genera I am referring to, I suggest you go out and get the original type descriptions erected by some of my critics and undertake a bit of time travel.'

To be honest, I'm not familiar with their work, and hadn't been attempting to criticize all taxonomists who might be deserving of criticism, so probably wouldn't have mentioned them in any case.

`2. As for the merits of minimalist taxonomy, in retrospect, I now feel this was a sort of mistake as you imply, particularly in light of the fact that I could have easily bombarded the community with data on most of those that we described so briefly. In saying this though, it should not be taken to mean that I think such minimalism is invalid - it may be undesirable, but from our experience it was just not appreciated for its true value by the larger herp community at the time. I still hold the view that we did the right thing to offer a rapid alternative schema to Cogger, Cameron and Cogger (1983), but circumstances indicate that we may as well not bothered challenging the absurdity of the arrangement in the Zoological Catalogue for all the good it did us. Looking back, I can’t help noticing that our brevity was used more as an excuse to destroy us as contributors than it was to justify the testing of our numerous hypotheses. The elegant simplicity of our contributions were perceived or promoted merely as monstrosities of complexity to discourage any attempt at trying to test our hypotheses or recognize our originality.'

Of course, it could be that the brevity was criticized simply because it was a flaw. Your attitude here does seem to clarify why you might've been viewed as `getting back' at people and the like, though.

`But I do appreciate and understand the value of detailed study more than you probably realise. It is just that I believe that this is not the only way to fry a goose. It should be clearly understood that I see a clear line between the morphologist and the taxonomist – biology and all its branches is not an intellectual continuum towards a nirvana of ultimate knowledge for the chosen few. I recognized then, and still do that one of the biggest impediments to applying a legal taxonomic framework for the publication of a new name or nomenclatural act is the quick-sand of morphology. It is just so easy to get confused by the roles of morphologist and that of the taxonomist. We have the absurd situation where researchers are incapable of drawing the line for the erection of a new name, unless they have virtually discovered the origin of life first! Repeatedly, vast amounts of specimens are collected, killed and examined to justify the formal fixing of a name, that could just as easily be achieved by a single type specimen being examined then formally named.'

I disagree. When species are erected on morphological grounds, the basic criterion is the existence of morphological disjuntion between proposed species--this is inherently impossible to establish from a single specimen.

`As much as this may cause rancour amongst the perfectionist morphologists out there, the fact is that virtually every species that we described has been confirmed following the so-called “detailed and careful” work of others and this clearly demonstrates that we in fact knew exactly what we were doing.'

Then you were lucky. So what? Part of describing new species is demonstrating to others that they should be recognized. If people are still in doubt and feel that they need to conduct their own studies to verify your species, it doesn't matter if you happen to be right, your description didn't succeed.

And, though I don't know Australian taxonomy well, what I know of the taxonomy of American reptiles and plants suggests that the use by early taxonomists of small samples and poor descriptions resulted in a morass of useless names that applied to clinal variation, referred to previously-described species, or were simply too vague for accurate identification. It's not just `perfectionism' that argues for restraint and thorough investigation.

`The oft-used criticism that it was only through this superior work of others, that our species and genera have been validated is not only insulting, it is perhaps the weakest excuse for intellectual theft that biology has ever dredged up. And to say that it was only possible to clarify some of our new species by genetics as they are supposedly so morphologically conservative that they should be regarded as “cryptic species” is also absolutely ludicrous. As far as these so-called cryptic Australian reptile species are concerned they are quite distinct to an experienced eye. My experience with the species concerned allowed me to be familiar enough with the taxa to quite confidently fix a name to them on the basis of a single type specimen if that was all I had available at the time.'

But, still, this is irrelevant if you can't demonstrate the distinctness to others. Taxonomy isn't (supposed to be, anyways) based on argument from authority, so no matter how much experience you have, you've still got to do the work rather than telling just people to trust that you're experienced enough to take shortcuts.

`Finally, you hinted at knowledge of matters relating to the Australian Museum’s role in this saga.'

Because you mentioned it, rather than because I had previous knowledge of it...

`I can’t really speak much at all about that Institution. The last time I was in the building was 17 May 1982, and I left in disgust, vowing never to return unless I was given a written apology for the way I had been treated by the so-called technical staff. Of course I have never received an apology, so I have never set foot in the place again, nor do I even drive on the road that is attached to the block of land that it is built on. I would no sooner enter that place than walk into Chenobyl.'

So I'm guessing the idea that you might've published papers in order to `get back' at them isn't entirely unreasonable...

Patrick Alexander

Richard,

I was born in 1980...so you were writing papers before I was a twinkle In my old mans eye so to speak while you were collating the data enclosed in the later articles.

I had tried for years to get a copy of both of these journals (i got them both in 2000). Many people That I know in herp circles have not seen them let alone own them due to the fact that these days its like trying to find a lone bronzeback on the northern Border of South Australia.

I read with great enthusiasim your works...to see the papers that have been in just about every major Australian herpetological works reference list since its publication.

You have a go at Ray...fine...not really my business just out of curiosity though who else has used the name saxacola instead of stimsoni? or lancasteri for that matter?

Are you writing/ have written another synopsis...if so when and more importantly where is going to be published so i can a copy?

Regards

Scott Eipper

To Scott Eipper

Hi Scott,

Firstly, Ray's acceptance of saxacola over stimsoni, and of course lancasteri over praelongus for that particular population does not justify his attitude on other matters, nor protect him from justifiable criticism wherever appropriate. The same is true for me or anyone else for that matter. My vast acceptance of most of Cogger's reptile and amphibian classification in our publications, similarly hasn't protected me from being burned in oil at every opportunity by his systematically blind followers in herpetology, and nor would I expect it to. As you of course would realise, I do have a lot of respect for some of what Ray Hoser has done. The sheer enormity of his efforts in researching, writing and publishing his various contributions can only truly be appreciated by someone that has done the same thing. But as an aside, I would only mention that his "acceptance" of the above has also included that particular brand of obtuse criticism that more or less let's him establish a position that allows him to have it both ways - support Wells and Wellington's names where it is convenient or expedient to do so, but at the same time lay the ground work for doubt to support his own position later. While this is fair enough, it can generate some irritation through the ingratiate odour of it all.
As for the “next” Synopsis, well I have a number of papers about to be published that will form the basis for another larger Catalogue later. You can rest assured Scott, that I would be happy to send you copies, and I do appreciate your past interest in our alternative views, although I think that you shouldn’t regard your relative youth as anything inferior when it comes to following an interest in natural history. There is a place for us all in the big scheme I think.

Regards

Richard Wells

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/