Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have just this day received an email from the person responsible for putting together that particular issue of the Newsletter of the Macarthur Herpetological Society that included the description of the new Chondopython and she has kindly provided the information I asked for. I have included her response at the end of my post due to its scientific importance.
As to whether such a "publication" conforms to the Code - i.e. A COMPUTER PRINTOUT !!! – well, it might be a matter of some debate should someone decide on the invocation of the Plenary Powers in the event of a dispute over the name's Availability.
Based on the information that I have been provided with, my position is that the name Chondropython viridis shireenae Hoser 2003 is nomen nudum as the name has not been validly published by my interpretation of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Better luck next time Raymondo,

Richard Wells

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:58:37 1000
From: "Julia Carr" oz_python@msn.com
Subject: Re: newsletter
To: richardwells@austarnet.com.au

Hi Richard,

Yes I did. I was trying to answer your questions.....so lets try again.

If you could be so kind, I would like to know a bit
about the Macarthur Herpetological Society Newsletter
that contained Raymond's paper describing the 5 new
pythons:

1. How was this Newsletter actually produced?

This was the last n/l I wrote due to my resigning over a problem created by an outside party.

I either write the articles or use stuff i have downloaded or had submitted. I wrote/compiled the n/l and saved it to disc. Gave the disc to Robert Gleeson (our then President) Rob printed it out on the fire station computer.

2. How many copies were published?

This one = forty

3 What was the exact date of publication?

August 14 2003

4. Can I obtain an original copy (not a photocopy)
and if so, how much money do I need to send you?

I have it on disc & can print it off for you. The original run of prints wasn't very good as the fire station printer was either running out of ink or playing up. The pages had blotchy bits in the middle of them.

If this is any help , there is no charge. I was always happy to sent copies to interested parties who asked.

Hope this is the info you wanted.

Julia

No doubt Richard, Wolfgang will shout from the hilltops in unison with you, and reading the spam posts preceding on the aust herps list was some good entertainment after three days
in court fighting for the right to publish truth ...
Anyway I avoided jail - this week ... and log on to find Richard Wells
having kittens over a snake paper.
Calm down please.
Anyway, rest assured that so long as five or more copies of the
newsletter exist - it's a valid description and as far as I know the Mac
herp soc sent out about 40 originals (see earlier e-mail this list) and
I added another 100 to the total.
Bearing in mind that the publication printed came from a computer disk
is not in itself relevant as so too did every issue of "Monitor" I
published and I assume most other journals and hence that does not in
itself invalidate publication, provided that the publication at time of
publication is in printed form and numerous copies made available and
distributed at the time.
Richard, you can interpret the code as you like as can Ken Aplin who in
turn reckons that everything you name is nomen nudem.
I (mainly) back you in that bunfight and you are entitled to dissent
here - but worth noting is the rapid acceptance of names I've used
versus that of yours. I think that is mainly due to the detail of the
descriptions as opposed to the journal of printing.
Anyway, in terms of definition of publication under the current code, to
save further bickering, I'll reproduce it here for all to read and let
them make up their minds.
It reads as follows:
XXXArticle 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded
as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies
with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the
provisions of Article 9.
8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
8.1. 1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and
permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by
purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing
simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous
identical and durable copies.XXX
Elsewhere the code relies on the minum number of copies being "five" and
so 140 is over the line here - hence the name is available and the only
question becomes as follows: Is the taxa named distinct at either
subspecies level or higher?
If that is so, the name is used, if not, it becomes a junior synonym of
C. viridis or whatever species it is.
Note there are now three known subspecies of C. viridis that carry
names.
ALL THE BEST

G'day Ray,

I had a wonderful visit to Melbourne last, but was somewhat disappointed that there were no herp meetings worth attending while I was there. Oh well, maybe we will have an opportunity to cross swords one of these days...

>>No doubt Richard, Wolfgang will shout from the hilltops in unison with you, and reading the spam posts preceding on the aust herps list was some good entertainment after three days
>>in court fighting for the right to publish truth ...
>>Anyway I avoided jail - this week ...

Great to hear, will you be publishing the transcripts on smuggled.com???

A good laugh never goes astray.

>>Anyway, in terms of definition of publication under the current code, to
>>save further bickering, I'll reproduce it here for all to read and let
>>them make up their minds.
>>It reads as follows:
>>XXXArticle 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded
>>as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies
>>with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the
>>provisions of Article 9.
>>8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
>>8.1. 1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and
>>permanent scientific record,

Hmmmm since when is a small amateur herp society newsletter issued for the "purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record" ???

Oh and I don't suppose you know the "publications" ISDN do you by any chance?

And as for the "scientific" merit of you work ... well we just won't even go there.

>>8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by
>>purchase, and
>>8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing
>>simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous
>>identical and durable copies.

I doubt very much that printing off copies from a PC/MAC as and when needed in a purely adhoc manner constitutes assurance of "identical and durable copies" especially given the admissions of the publisher concerning the less than durable print quality...

XXX
>>Elsewhere the code relies on the minum number of copies being "five" and
>>so 140 is over the line here - hence the name is available and the only
>>question becomes as follows: Is the taxa named distinct at either
>>subspecies level or higher?
>>If that is so, the name is used, if not, it becomes a junior synonym of
>>C. viridis or whatever species it is.
>>Note there are now three known subspecies of C. viridis that carry
>>names.
>>ALL THE BEST

Lets cut to the chase Ray:

Submit your next "taxonomic" masterpiece in a mainstream referred scientific journal (Journal of Herpetology, Copeia etc), and if it is accepted and published then I will be the very first to scream your praises from the top of the Sydney Harbour bridge ...

Otherwise just keep producing crap in successively obscure newsletters and get used to copping just as much crap in return from WW, myself and naturally all of our various "alter egos" as you describe them (gee I can't wait for the day you suggest that either Richard or one of us is an alter ego of the other... hahaha).

Take care Ray (and keep up the medication...)

David Williams

nt