Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Sorry Richard, but that's the facts.
This by any reasonable interpretation of the code means that your papers are not validly published under the ICZN's code.
You should in my view try again and re-read the code first.
Until then, the names in those papers are probably nomen nudem.
While I've got you (Richard) cornered, by the way, I sent ANOTHER original of the Pythons paper newsletter to Bill Bennett after his suggestion last week and I assume it is now sitting at his house. Contact him direct on that and if he hasn't got it, allow another few days.
For your further information, 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.
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.
That also explains the difference in dates between Julia Carr's alleged publiction 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.
A similar situation actually happened with one of the Monitor Magazines I produced, in that case delaying delivery by a week or two, and so far, no grievances have been raised in terms of that publication.
The dissapointing 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 whichis spelt out in the paper which is seems neither you or other (adverse) critics have actually read.
ALL THE BEST

Five New Australian Pythons Formally Named

>>For your further information, the original newsletter was poor quality

What? Not absorbent enough? Lacking in perforations? Staples caused scratches?

Just curious...

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

Nah ... more likely the printed data is so rubbery that the s@#t bounces off ...

Dave

All that hilarity aside - I would have thought that the unless Ray has formally assumed the publishers role for the newsletter, and is printing the entire newsletter again, it still fails to meet the ICZN's requirements for publication...??

>>>>For your further information, the original newsletter was poor quality
>>
>>What? Not absorbent enough? Lacking in perforations? Staples caused scratches?
>>
>>Just curious...
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>WW
>>-----
>> WW Home
-----
David Williams
PNG Snake Venom Research Project
PO Box 168
Port Moresby, NCD, PNG.

Send Email

Next thing you will be asking about his *analysis*.....

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

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

I recall is this nomen nudem crap from David Oxyuranus Williams, Richard Wells and Wuster when I published the adder paper in 1998.
Keep it up gents and we'll let the more expert people see otherwise.
Meanwhile, I'll just keep naming undescribed taxa.
PS Got a book today that again uses Hoser (nomen nudem?????) names.
Maybe you guys should scream louder to shut up the opposition!!!
Happy herping!

Gee Ray,

Is that really the best you can do when the pressure to come up with answers to legitimate questions is really turned up???

You really are laughable.

Infact it makes me think that the clownfaced moron with the pet taipan in his mouth really approximates the REAL Ray Hoser after all, rather than just being a fine example of what young herpetologists should NOT aspire to.

Have a nice meltdown.

David

>>I recall is this nomen nudem crap from David Oxyuranus Williams, Richard Wells and Wuster when I published the adder paper in 1998.
>>Keep it up gents and we'll let the more expert people see otherwise.
>>Meanwhile, I'll just keep naming undescribed taxa.
>>PS Got a book today that again uses Hoser (nomen nudem?????) names.
>>Maybe you guys should scream louder to shut up the opposition!!!
>>Happy herping!
-----
David Williams
PNG Snake Venom Research Project
PO Box 168
Port Moresby, NCD, PNG.

Send Email

`PS Got a book today that again uses Hoser (nomen nudem?????) names.'

Were you the `publisher', by any chance? LOL!

Patrick Alexander

>>I recall is this nomen nudem crap from David Oxyuranus Williams, Richard Wells and Wuster when I published the adder paper in 1998.
>>Keep it up gents and we'll let the more expert people see otherwise.
>>Meanwhile, I'll just keep naming undescribed taxa.
>>PS Got a book today that again uses Hoser (nomen nudem?????) names.
>>Maybe you guys should scream louder to shut up the opposition!!!
>>Happy herping!
-----
WW Home