Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hot on the heels of the debacle where WW claimed that Pailsus pailsi and P. rossignolli were merely underfed King Brown snakes, replete with "paper" by David Williams saying the same thing, with rubbery figures, I have now been advised of yet another hatchet job in the offing where WW et. al. seek to publish a paper on Acanthophis claiming all taxa named by Hoser in 1998 and 2002 to be mere variants of earlier described taxa.
This is curious as in an earlier paper by Fry, Wuster and others, they published venom data supporting and confirming the Hoser 1998 taxonomy, complete with diagram in support of the Hoser position.
WW et. al. are now ignoring their own data with a paper leaked to me with some bizarre claims and conclusions, including (I understand) new bizarre claims that A. woolfi from Mount Isa Queensland is the same taxa as A. rugosa from Irian Jaya, and that A. cummingi from the top-end is the same as A. woolfi and that A. bottomi/lancasteri is also A. rugosa.
Strange but true!
This makes about as much sense as BGF's misdiagnosis of A. woolfi as merely a variant of A. praelongus.
As I stare at an A. woolfi sitting in a cage next to this computer, I only wonder at this latest attempt to create more confusion in Acanthophis taxonomy after I spent so many years trying to fix it all up.
Perhaps WW and/or BGF may like to substantiate the basis of these radical claims on this list, particularly as it is evident that their latest "paper" was shopped to a journal and a naive editor before the recognised experts on Acanthophis were even given a chance to comment.CHEERS
Adder Taxonomy

I might well remember this wrong, but the "venom data" published by Fry, Wuster et al which you say supports and confirms your position; didn't they strongly disagree with your interpretation of their article? If so it's a bit strong to say they are ignoring their own data.

If you have indeed gotten a leaked paper in your hands I kind of hope they don't respond to this post by you before their work is finished and published. BTW, how ethical of you to shout their findings to the world before they are published, if indeed you have gotten your hands on a leaked paper. Why not write together a piece yourself which refutes their findings and publish it? Surely you can manage that?

/Sundberg

Ray,

You either

(A) haven't read the manuscript, or

(B) read it but totally failed to understand it.

Since the paper is not yet published, I will confine myself to saying that the core of the paper is based on extensive mtDNA sequence data (real sequence data, not wishful thinking data like in your various species descriptions). Like all scientific conclusions, ours are subject to challenge with new evidence. If you want to challenge our conclusions, then go out and get some REAL data - that would make a refreshing change.

Have a nice day,

WW
-----
WW Home

Scientific evidence is subject to challenge, not just by new evidence, but by all who evaluate the evidence presented. One can certainly challenge the accuracy and/or the adequacy of the data presented.

Further, even if one agrees that the evidence presented is adequate for the most part, one does not necessarily have to agree with the conclusion. For example, even if one has no problem with the mtDNA data of Burbrink, one does not necessarily have to agree with his conclusion that each of the mtDNA lineages of Elaphe guttata is a distinct species. As another example, one can agree that many nonvenomous snakes have toxic chemicals in their secretion, but one can certainly disagree with Fry et al.'s claim that these snakes are venomous.

Now here's an interesting point.
If WW was so confident in his data and conclusions, why then did he rush to print BEFORE his data was evaluated by other recognised experts in the said taxa and (so I've been told) actually tell the said editor NOT to have the paper reviewed by relevant experts prior to going to print?
Seems to me it's another case of making a square post fit a round hole like with WW's false claims about Pailsus pailsi.
For the anonymous Sundberg's benefit, a proper assessment of any paper challenging my previous Acanthophis taxonomy would be made following publication of the said paper, if deemed necessary and no matter how cherished a viewpoint I may have, if new evidence is produced that properly rebuts it, then the theory may have to be changed, modified or even junked.
But frankly this seems unlikely in the case of the said genus, just as WW failed to produce a shred of evidence to support his widely touted claim that Pailsus is merely an underfed Cannia australis.
Happy herping.
Current Death Adder Taxonomy

>>Now here's an interesting point.
>>If WW was so confident in his data and conclusions, why then did he rush to print BEFORE his data was evaluated by other recognised experts in the said taxa and (so I've been told) actually tell the said editor NOT to have the paper reviewed by relevant experts prior to going to print?

Ray, if I had the slightest worry about anyone taking you seriously, I would be talking to my lawyer about this. However, since there is no risk of that, I'll have a chuckle instead.

I'm always flattered at the power and influence you ascribes to me. Equally, I am always flabbergasted at your complete ignorance of how scientific publishing actually works (although I shouldn't be, since you have never published a serious scientific paper in your life).

For your information, the paper was reviewed by two RELEVANT EXPERTS (your words). The editors obviously considered you neither relevant nor an expert. Deal with it.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

Probably good friends of yours like David Williams and BGF.
I suppose it's in the of the beholder.
Cheers

>>Probably good friends of yours like David Williams and BGF.

Again, if you knew anything about scientific publishing, you would know that (i) it is not normal pratice for coauthors of a paper to be the reviewers, (ii) that the reviewers are chosen by the editor of the journal, not the author of the paper, and (iii) that peer review is most commonly anonymous, so I don't know who reviewed the paper.

Keep inventing new conspiracies, it's always a giggle.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

WW you seem to think that making immature remarks about myself will act as a defense for your own shonky practices.
The header above sums up what's needed.
Cheers

Ray,

Data wanted, not insults

...
The header above sums up what's needed.

*lol* well, if you start providing your papers with real data instead of just dreaming of mitochondrial DNA analysis and only providing very ill defined descriptions and diagnoses, someome might take you serious when you say that data is needed.
Anything else is more like a real big laugh to me.

Cheers,
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de ,
http://www.herpers-digest.com

>>WW you seem to think that making immature remarks about myself will act as a defense for your own shonky practices.

Thats beautiful coming from you. It truly is. I think we have a new epitome of hypocracy. Thank you Raymondo for brightening our days as always.

As for your book, yes I did like it ..... all the way up until I discovered what an absolute tool you are.

You and CKing make a lovely couple, you truly deserve each others company.

Ciao from Rome (I am off riding that gravy train... yes it truly does exist and its a wonderful existance)
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
Deputy Director
Australian Venom Research Unit
University of Melbourne

www.venomdoc.com

I provided lots of evidence to refute your claims that venom evolved early and that the last common ancestor of the Colubroid snakes is venomous. You (and/or WW) are attempting to refute Hoser's claim that the taxa he named are valid. There is therefore nothing that Hoser and I have in common. On the other hand, you treat your own hypotheses as irrefutable, objective truth. For example, you claim that I am a member of the flat earth society simply because I dispute your claims. That implies that you treat your own hypothesis as unchallengeable objective truth, since we all know that the earth is in fact round. What we do not know is exactly when venom first evolved. But of course you act as though you know. It is funny you should mention Rome in your latest insult, since it was the Roman Catholic Church which acted similarly to you when they think they know that the sun orbits the earth but not vice versa. Of course we now know that Galileo is right all along.

BGF/WW = Galileo here

CKing = the unenlightened dogmatic, stubborn Inquisition

BGF and Troy h do have a lot in common. They are both quite stubborn. WW is a little more reasonable. For example, he no longer insists that Elaphe is polyphyletic since I showed lots of evidence that it is paraphyletic, meaning that the species in this genus share a common ancestor after all. WW has generally stayed away from the arguments between BGF and I, probably because he has little say in most of the papers in which BGF is the senior author. The medical definition of venom that BGF, who has a background in medicine, is using may be his own, with little input from WW. BGF simply stubbornly refuses to accept the mountain of opposing evidence that argues against his theory that the last common ancestor of the colubroid snakes is venomous.

Of course troy h simply refuses to accept my theory, supported by scientific evidence, that Lampropeltis alterna evolved only recently, since the end of the last ice age, when the Chihuahuan Desert formed. Troy h is denying facts. He denies that L. alterna is adapted to the desert, that the Chihuahuan Desert is even a desert (since it averages more than ten inches of rainfall annually according to him). He is also ignoring the immunological data of Maxson and Dowling because he claims that immunological data is distance data. Being someone who adheres to cladistic dogma, he is perhaps supposed to reject distance data automatically regardless of merit. Well, distance data is nevertheless scientific data. It cannot be used to define taxa, but it definitely can inform us when a species last shared a common ancestor with another species. The close immunological distance between L. alterna and L. calligaster suggests that they last shared a common ancestor sometime in the mid to late Pleistocene. The lack of L. alterna characters (such as the silvery gray iris) in L. calligaster is strong evidence that the L. alterna-mexicana split occurred after the L. calligaster-L. alterna split. That means at the time L. calligaster evolved from an L. alterna-like ancestor, the defining characters of L. alterna has not evolved yet. It means L. alterna was still morphologically indistinguishable from L. mexicana at the time that L. calligaster budded off of it. L. alterna therefore must have evolved after the mid to late Pleistocene, which is the time frame of the L. alterna-calligaster split. Since it is adapted to the Chihuahuan Desert, it most likely evolved at the end of the Pleistocene.

Problem solved; debate continues for the dogmatic who refuse to admit they are wrong even in the face of opposing evidence. I submit that troy h's assertions and his belief are often independent of scientific evidence.

It would appear that WW's enemies, if he has any, were not the reviewers of his paper. Since WW toes the cladistic party line carefully, it will be doubtful that his papers will ever be rejected by the cladistic police.