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

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]