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
quotes a post by Richard Wells on kingsnake.com, dated 1 August 2003. Unless you are gifted with clairvoyancy, that rather suggests that your paper was written AFTER said post by Richard Wells, i.e., ~4 months AFTER the Rawlings & Donnellan paper came out.