Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

Hello to all my friends and Raymond Hoser

richardwells Aug 18, 2004 01:31 AM

Hi everyone !

Just a quick note to let you all know that I shall be back on line soon. The crash (hack attack) earlier in the year wrecked my computer and I have been recuperating by reading BOOKS - (Yes, I went back to paper copy!) Well, otherwise all is well, the snakes are fine and my library continues to grow. Until I get a new email address, I am just relying on snail mail -

P.O. Box 424, COWRA, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA 2794.

Oh, and just when I decided to turn on the internet after all these months - there was RAY HOSER'S revelations on Python (sensu lato!). I am almost sick with laughter...

Wulf, it was really good to see you still out there, calmly trying to help him...you are obviously a very compassionate human being...

Best Wishes

Richard Wells

Replies (16)

wulf Aug 18, 2004 02:59 PM

Dear Richard,

good to see you back again!

Wulf, it was really good to see you still out there, calmly trying to help him...you are obviously a very compassionate human being...

Well, I must admit that I get sick of Ray's taxonomic papers and of his names! More than one species or genus is named after his wife. Guess that must be real love
Anyway, I guess Ray's intension is to see his name in the synonymy list of every single python species or so.

After all, his last paper is quite a laugh, as he missed to cite relevant literature and synonymy lists and again pretending to have done mtDNA analysis, but as always he didn't publish the evidence nor does he provide the sequences to the gen bank.
So, I assume they never have taken place and it's just a fraud.

Someone should open up a case and have the papers supressed by the ICZN.

Ray will sure feel offended by this posting again, but he should take it like a man!

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

rayhoser Aug 18, 2004 05:36 PM

Also, does the above post/s mean you want to suppress
Acanthophis wellsi as well?

Jan Grathwohl Aug 19, 2004 09:15 AM

Hi Ray

Could you please stick to the subject and provide the DNA analysis? If your names should have any effect and you want these to be integrated into the EMBL database or other sources you should at least provide the data you claim to have. Were are these datas and could you please send them to me?
-----
Regards

Jan Grathwohl

HERPBREEDER.com - The Herpetological database
HERPBREEDER.dk - My private collection

Wulf Aug 20, 2004 01:20 AM

Hi Jan,

well Bryan has already answered the question (see below).
But besides that, EMBL or any taxonomic list like that is not relevant for the availability of his names. If his papers are valid under the rules of the code, his names will be available unless his papers will be supressed.
And that's the problem! Others do the work and he get the credits for the names. It all just fraud!

That's what makes most taxonomists all over the world run mad.

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

Jan Grathwohl Aug 20, 2004 04:04 AM

Hi Wulf

I know that of course, but i would still like to see the data Raymond claim to have on his new taxa.
-----
Regards

Jan Grathwohl

HERPBREEDER.com - The Herpetological database
HERPBREEDER.dk - My private collection

Wulf Aug 20, 2004 04:32 AM

Hi Jan,

forget it!
Ray obviously has never made any mtDNA analysis that would support his arrangements. Otherwise he would be stupid not to provide them in his paper, wouldn't he

At least most of his proposals concerning python taxonomy are primarily taken from McDowell's (1975) assumptions. McDowell knew why he didn't write a taxonomic paper introducing the proposed (sub-)species. He didn't have enough evidence and it would have been plenty of work to get the evidence!
But Ray doesn't care about evidence anyway. He's a splitter not a lumper and he uses some of the written proposals as evidence for his taxonomic arrangements.

He writes his papers in a way that they fit to the ICZN rules at a minimum and leaves the work for subsequent workers that do proper work, such as descriptions and diagnosis.

No one would really separate species by saying the one is more aggressiv than the other and often reaches larger average size

To me it's just a sort of craving for recognition by Ray, renaming almost every python species. At least his name pops up in the synonymy list of the specimens. And if by chance he was right in splitting something, the subsequent work(s) will have to use Ray's names for their findings. They did the work, Ray gets the credits...

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

Jan Grathwohl Aug 20, 2004 08:22 AM

Yeah, seems your right Wulf, quite anoying for the people doing the real work on the species.

Well, maybe someday we will be pleased with Ray making studies on other species he have seen different colorvarieties of in a book Do you think the colorvariety in e.g. Vipera berus in a small country like Denmark would make him call it a dozen different names in the honor of some aussie friend? :D
-----
Regards

Jan Grathwohl

HERPBREEDER.com - The Herpetological database
HERPBREEDER.dk - My private collection

WW Aug 20, 2004 12:44 PM

>>To me it's just a sort of craving for recognition by Ray, renaming almost every python species. At least his name pops up in the synonymy list of the specimens.

The nearest equivalent I can think of is a teenage graffiti vandal, who spray-paints some garbage onto a wall, and gets his kick out of watching others scrubbing it away - "look, I can make other people pay this much attention to what I have done".

Pretty sad for someone in his 40s, really.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

Hoplocephalus Aug 29, 2004 10:49 PM

Ray,
I have a few concerns regarding your recent taxonomic papers that I hope you can clear up. First of all I would also like to see the mtDNA studies you continuously refer to!!

With respect to morphological characters, you have failed to include your sample sizes (perhaps important when refering to scale anomolies & colour and pattern as distinguishing characters)- re: Morelia mippughae & M. macburniei. Could you please supply the data. These extremely vague descriptions do not help the reptile keeping community easily distinguish like specimens for the purposes of captive breeding. Maybe if the species names had some descriptive quality about them the papers would be more "user friendly"
Regards,
Chris Hay.

Wulf Aug 30, 2004 02:24 AM

G'day Chris,

I guess you can wait for mtDNA analysis and results until Tanami desert freezes
I strongly beleave that Ray has never made or seen any mtDNA data (other than perhaps the ones from he Gen bank, if any available) for the specific species.

And as you have already seen in Ray's papers from the past, descriptions and diagnoses are always poor and most of them inadequate for people to distinguish the proposed species.

This new paper though has a lot of errors in it (see postings above) and so you might simply ingore it.

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

Hoplocephalus Aug 30, 2004 06:06 AM

Hey Wulf,
Thanks for your response regarding Ray's elusive mtDNA data. After reading the previous responses, I will take your advice and ignore the papers.
Thanks again,
All the Best,
Chris Hay.

oldherper Sep 10, 2004 02:28 AM

Here we have someone, for whatever reason, continuously proposing changes in taxonomy and even reclassifications of entire genera based on obviously (even to the casual observer) flawed and incomplete "studies" and "research" and referring to mysteriously missing or nonexistent data, as well as naming species after his wife and other friends (bad form, to say the least). We have reclassifications proposed based on "generally smaller size" without a citation as to study group size, locale data or anything else relevant. We have still others based on something as ludicrous as propensity to bite. We have seen proposals based on DNA analysis that is mysteriously unavailable (read nonexistent). We have photos of said "Taxonomist" holding a fist full of Pythons like he's "Outback Jack" or somebody...I guess that lends some credence....he's at least seen a Python. I'm not sure of the exact purpose of the photo. It seems sort of carnivalish (word Nov) to me.

Somehow, this gets enough attention to cause bone-fide Herpetologists, Taxonomists, Toxicologists and Researchers to spend (waste) their time trying to refute the proposals to ensure that erroneous, frivolous, or fraudulent changes aren't somehow generally accepted. Bryan, Wulf, Wolfgang...please rest assured that these proposals aren't taken seriously by anyone I know. They do sort of serve as a source of entertainment, though.

Now for my proposal...I want to propose a change in Taxonomy for the Eastern Indigo Snake from Drymarchon couperi to Coolsnakeus oldherperi. Whaddya think? I don't have any supporting data, but apparently that's not a prerequisite anyway.
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Wulf Sep 10, 2004 06:47 AM

Hi oldherper,

Perhaps your right. It is ridiculous, but on the other hand serious working herpers and taxonomists still have to do the work and get no credits on the name... I guess this sort of abuse is not what the ICZN thought of when publishing the code.

Now for my proposal...I want to propose a change in Taxonomy for the Eastern Indigo Snake from Drymarchon couperi to Coolsnakeus oldherperi. Whaddya think? I don't have any supporting data, but apparently that's not a prerequisite anyway.

Ok, you try and publish your proposals and we give you a laugh

Cheers from Germany *smile*
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de ,
http://www.herpers-digest.com

oldherper Sep 10, 2004 07:15 AM

>>Hi oldherper,
>>
>>Perhaps your right. It is ridiculous, but on the other hand serious working herpers and taxonomists still have to do the work and get no credits on the name... I guess this sort of abuse is not what the ICZN thought of when publishing the code.
>>
>>

Now for my proposal...I want to propose a change in Taxonomy for the Eastern Indigo Snake from Drymarchon couperi to Coolsnakeus oldherperi. Whaddya think? I don't have any supporting data, but apparently that's not a prerequisite anyway.
>>

>>
>>Ok, you try and publish your proposals and we give you a laugh
>>
>>Cheers from Germany *smile*
>>Wulf
>>-----
>>http://www.leiopython.de ,
>>http://www.herpers-digest.com

Wulf,
That's exactly my point. Serious researchers have not only put time and effort into these things and done whatever work has been done, but also have to spend their time refuting Mr. Hoser's claims. It's ridiculous. It seems like something could be done to stop this. You guys put your time, effort, knowledge and expertise into researching these Taxonaomic relationships and then some yahoo latches on to your coattail and tries to claim it and rename in such a fashion as to get their (and some friend's) name into the records for credit. It's obvious. If you look at a valid proposal then compare it to one of these, there's no comparison. It's then a relatively easy matter to research further and find previous studies by others that were never proposed, but put forth some of the same underlying ideas that Mr. Hoser claims as his own "original" work. Then his defense is to refer to a valid change that involved one of the people that are challenging him and say "Does this mean you're changing your mind about this?" What?!?!?! Where's the correlation? His real defense would be to provide the supporting data that he's been repeatedly asked to provide. The very fact that he fails to respond to those requests at all is proof positive that the supporting data does not exist, or that he doesn't have access to it (or can't provide it) because it belongs to someone else.

It's pathetic, really. It's hard to believe that someone would be that desperate for attention and recognition. I don't think he even realizes how embarrassed he should be.

You guys that do the actual work and then have to put up with this sort of plagerism certainly have my sympathy.

I wasn't trying to imply that it is ridiculous that you spend your time defending against this, only that it's ridiculous that you have to in the first place. He's making a mockery of the science of Taxonomy.

Anyway...thanks for the vote of confidence on my proposed Taxonomy change.

O.H.

-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

CKing Oct 12, 2004 12:54 AM

Wulf wrote:

"Perhaps your right. It is ridiculous, but on the other hand serious working herpers and taxonomists still have to do the work and get no credits on the name... I guess this sort of abuse is not what the ICZN thought of when publishing the code."

Perhaps all of the names Ray Hoser propose amounts to nothing more than junior synonyms. On the other hand, if some of his names do become valid, then at least he guessed right! The history of science is filled with cases in which scientists who did the hard work did not receive credit. The ICZN does NOT seek to give priority to names proposed by scientists who do the real work; it has decided instead to reward the first person who gave the new name to a species. The rough skinned newt is a good example. Taricha granulosa, for example, is the older name for Triturus similans, a cryptic species discovered by Victor Twitty. Twitty performed the hard work and noticed the differences between Taricha torosa and T. granulosa but ultimately he was not rewarded with the right to name the new species.

Ray Hoser is simply taking advantage of the ICZN's rules. The ICZN, as much as you might have liked it to, nevertheless does not prevent abuses like those by Ray Hoser.

One sobering thought is that most of the splits proposed by Hoser are probably invalid because of a lack of evidence. As such, his names would have little, if any, impact on taxonomy and taxonomic stability. So, perhaps the acrimony over his proposals really is much ado about nothing.

CKing Oct 10, 2004 12:45 PM

oldherper wrote:

"Here we have someone, for whatever reason, continuously proposing changes in taxonomy and even reclassifications of entire genera based on obviously (even to the casual observer) flawed and incomplete "studies" and "research" and referring to mysteriously missing or nonexistent data, as well as naming species after his wife and other friends (bad form, to say the least). We have reclassifications proposed based on "generally smaller size" without a citation as to study group size, locale data or anything else relevant. We have still others based on something as ludicrous as propensity to bite. We have seen proposals based on DNA analysis that is mysteriously unavailable
(read nonexistent)."

Unnecessary taxonomic changes do indeed impede scientific progress because scientists need a stable taxonomy to communicate with other scientists, to retrieve information, and to further biological thought. That said, Ray Hoser is not the only one around who is proposing unnecessary taxnomic changes. The journal Herpetological Review have documented several debates over unnecessary taxonomic changes such as those proposed by Frost and Etheridge and Collins. Frost and Etheridge's proposal to reclassify the iguanian lizards have come full circle. The latest taxonomic proposal is to completely undo Frost and Etheridge's controversial arrangement and to return to the traditional 3 family arrangement (Iguanidae, Agamidae and Chamaeleonidae), on the basis of DNA data, which was not available to Frost and Etheridge when they proposed their changes.

Yes, DNA data is very informative of phylogenies, but one must be careful when interpreting DNA data, so as not to equate lineages with species or lineages with any higher taxonomic category.

I do not know if oldherper is aware of Collins' proposal to elevate a large number of subspecies to species status or not, but it is a proposal that was opposed by a large number of herpetologists because Collins presented no evidence to support his proposed changes. Collins' proposal therefore is not very different from Ray Hoser's proposals in their dearth of data.

Curiously, Collins also proposed the eastern Indigo snake be considered a full species: Drymarchon couperi, instead of a subspecies of the wide ranging Drymarchon corais. Oldherper may have been unaware that Collins' proposal was unsupported by data. So when oldherper joked about changing "Drymarchon couperi" to "Coolsnakeus oldherperi", he/she is has unwittingly accepted Collins' unnecessary taxnomic proposal. This is quite an irony for someone to accept one specific unncessary taxonomic proposal while criticizing such proposals in general.

Site Tools