Unfortunately, some taxonomists have categorically ignored taxonomic proposals made in so-called "amateur" journals. For example, considerable debate (sometimes acrimonious) has centered on David Spiteri's revision of the rosy boa, Lichanura trivirgata.

Crother, for example, wrote:

"The status of the three subspecies in the U.S. (and additional extralimital taxa) is unclear. Spiteri (1988, Southwest. Herpetol. Soc. Spec. Pub. 4: 113-130) reevaluated subspecies within Lichanura trivirgata using morphological data, resulting in an arrangement of subspecies different from that listed below. Spiteri's taxonomic arrangement has largely been ignored except in pet hobbyist literature and is not followed here."

Since no reason is given for Crother's rejection of Spiteri's taxonomic proposal, one can only infer from what is written that it is perhaps not being followed because it was made in a publication that is aimed at the "pet hobbyists."

Ignoring Spiteri's scientific evidence supporting his taxonomic proposal is a practice no different than Hoser and Collins' practices of not presenting scientific evidence in their taxonomic proposals. Therefore to categorically ignore taxonomic proposals made in "amateur" publications regardless of scientific merit is no different than making evidence-free taxonomic proposals, because in both practices, scientific evidence is ignored.
Crother's comment

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]