Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just had a very quick look through these forums after a long absence, actually because I caught sight of a new ssp. of Chondropython.

What I have just spent the best part of the afternoon has astounded me. I think my first question has to be "is R.Hoser for real?" The "paper" on python taxonomy has left be baffled. This is actually published? All this drivvle about DNA analysis...or lack thereof....would anyone put their names to this?? Has ANYONE accepted any of this work? I must admit I found the tracyae scrub etymology a little crass but this hardly scrapes the surface when we take a look at the honours to the Hoser family!

I am honestly lost for words. New species, ssp., genera.....often on no more than size and colour? I had a dilemma with a gecko I found in the Colombian Amazon several years back, that I was certain was a new species. Time went on, work load increased and it has fallen to the backburner somewhat. However, having just read this paper I think I might spend half an hour writing a paper (uh-hum) to describe it. I mean it looks like a similar species from Southeastern Peru / Boloivia but it's not in it's known distribution range and it's a slighlty different colour, so it must be a new species right?....And I've done some DNA analysis (OK, I haven't but what the hell) that proves it's different!

Anyway, I think if anything it's best to take these things with a pinch of salt. However, I appreciate the concerns of Wuster et al. who must have grave fears that these names actually enter common usage!

Time for a cup of tea and some meditation!

If you want a good laugh this evening, just take the time reading this thread:

http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,520074

It's even better than the "Chondropython" paper ...btw. you should read Rawlings et al. (2003), Phylogeographic analysis of the green python, Morelia viridis, reveals cryptic diversity, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27 (2003) 36–44 after you read Hoser's paper

Cheers,
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site -
http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -

>>I am honestly lost for words.

A common feeling in this context

>>Anyway, I think if anything it's best to take these things with a pinch of salt. However, I appreciate the concerns of Wuster et al. who must have grave fears that these names actually enter common usage!

Some may have to be used if the names do indeed turn out to be the oldest available names for a valid species or genus - this will very probably be the case for at least some of these taxa. Hoser has been pretty careful to adhere to the rather minimalist requirements of the Code, and most of his names are available.

On the plus side, in an age of rampant splitting of genera (1 phylogeny - 3 new genera seems to be the rule), I suspect Hoser's work will promote a lot of lumping among pythons - I can't imagine anyone will want to split the python in a manner that would force recognition of jewels such as Lenhoserus or Broghammerus, and might be tempted to doa bit of lumping to avoid that.

In any case, my personal view is that if one of the taxa described by Hoser turns out to be a valid biological entity, then the credit goes to the person who actually provided the evidence - the fact that someone already gave it a name in an evidence-free study does not detract from that. For instance, as far as I am concerned, Acanthophis wellsi was identified and described by Aplin & Donnellan - Hoser named it (because he knew from Aplin & Donnelkan that it was being described), but the credit clearly goes to A&D. Appropriate use of citations in subsequent papers can highlight where the credit really belongs.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home