The "Hoser review" of the genus Thamnophis... [Archive]

Thamnophis

05-30-2012, 11:24 PM

As some of you already know Raymond Hoser has "reviewed" the genus Thamnophis.
In this topic I'd like to show what his results are.

Of course we can all ignore this guy, but we can also look critically at his work.
Personally I think the last thing is the best. I like to stay informed about these matters, even though I attach little value.
“I like to know my enemy”.

Mr. Hoser is a controversial person who is criticized a lot. Not only he revises lots of genera etc. in a way that is not the way other herpetologists think is acceptable, he also gets lots of criticism in other matters.
Think about the venemoids he creates. A venomoid is a venomous snake that has undergone a surgical procedure to remove or inhibit the production of venom. This is, in my opinion, a serious case of animal cruelty!
This venemoid matter has nothing to do with his revisions, but does not make him credible being a serious herpetologist.

Want to know more about him and his working methods, you can take a look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Hoser) and when you want even more info and criticism about his work, Google his name.

The revision of the genus Thamnophis can be found in issue 12, 2012 of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI12.pdf)
Because this is a very big PDF and takes some time to download, I copied the Thamnophis part and made an other, much smaller PDF of it.

A review of the North American Garter Snakes Genus Thamnophis (http://www.thamnophis.eu/A%20review%20of%20the%20North%20American%20Garter% 20Snakes%20by%20Hoser.PDF)

Let’s try to keep the discussion civilized!

See how the snakes of the genus Thamnophis are going to be classified according to Mr. Hoser.

Content of Thamnophis Fitzinger, 1843

Thamnophis sauritus (Linnaeus, 1766)
Thamnophis sirtalis (Linnaeus, 1758)
Thamnophis proximus (Say, 1823)

Content of Genus Chilopoma Cope, 1875

Chilopoma rufipunctatum Cope, 1875 (Type species)
Chilopoma angustirostris (Kennicott, 1860)
Chilopoma copei (Dugès, 1879)
Chilopoma bogerti (Rossman and Burbink, 2005)
Chilopoma conanti (Rossman and Burbink, 2005)
Chilopoma exsul (Rossman, 1969)
Chilopoma foxi (Rossman and Blaney, 1968)
Chilopoma godmani (Günther, 1894)
Chilopoma lineri (Rossman and Burbink, 2005)
Chilopoma melanogaster (Weigmann, 1830)
Chilopoma mendax (Walker, 1955)
Chilopoma scalaris (Cope, 1861)
Chilopoma scaliger (Jan, 1863)
Chilopoma sumichrasti (Cope, 1866)
Chilopoma valida (Kennicott, 1860)

Content of subgenus Adelophis Dugès, 1879

Chilopoma (Adelophis) copei (Dugès, 1879)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) bogerti (Rossman and Burbink, 2005)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) conanti (Rossman and Burbink, 2005)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) exsul (Rossman, 1969)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) foxi (Rossman and Blaney, 1968)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) godmani (Günther, 1894)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) lineri (Rossman and Burbink, 2005)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) melanogaster (Weigmann, 1830)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) mendax (Walker, 1955)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) scalaris (Cope, 1861)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) scaliger (Jan, 1863)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) sumichrasti (Cope, 1866)
Chilopoma (Adelophis) valida (Kennicott, 1860)

Content of Genus Brucerogersus gen. nov.

Brucerogersus chrysocephalus (Cope, 1885)
Brucerogersus fulvus (Bocourt, 1893)

Content of Genus Gregswedoshus gen. nov.

Gregswedoshus elegans (Baird and Girard, 1853) (Type species)
Gregswedoshus atratus (Kennicott, 1860)
Gregswedoshus brachystoma (Cope, 1892)
Gregswedoshus butleri (Cope, 1889)
Gregswedoshus couchii (Kennicott, 1859)
Gregswedoshus cyrtopsis (Kennicott, 1860)
Gregswedoshus eques (Reuss, 1834)
Gregswedoshus gigas (Fitch, 1940)
Gregswedoshus hammondii (Kennicott, 1860)
Gregswedoshus marcianus (Baird and Girard, 1853)
Gregswedoshus nigronuchalis (Thompson, 1957)
Gregswedoshus ordinoides (Baird and Girard, 1852)
Gregswedoshus postremus (Smith, 1942)
Gregswedoshus rossmani (Conant, 2000)
Gregswedoshus pulchrilatus (Cope, 1885)
Gregswedoshus radix (Baird and Girard, 1853)

Content of Subgenus Whybrowus subgen. nov.

Gregswedoshus (Whybrowus) cyrtopsis (Kennicott, 1860) (Monotypic for the type species)

Content of subgenus Neilsonnemanus subgen. nov.

Gregswedoshus (Neilsonnemanus) eques (Reuss, 1834) (Type
species)
Gregswedoshus (Neilsonnemanus) marcianus (Baird and
Girard, 1853)
Gregswedoshus (Neilsonnemanus) postremus (Smith, 1942)
Gregswedoshus (Neilsonnemanus) pulchrilatus (Cope, 1885)
Gregswedoshus (Neilsonnemanus) rossmani (Conant, 2000)

chris-uk

05-31-2012, 01:59 AM

I responded to his post on RFUK and used Nerodia as an example of how he's not provided any credible argument for reclassification. As the Thamnophis piece (I can't bring myself to call it an article when it's "published" in a vanity journal with questionable peer-review) is now available I shall have a read of it.
I suspect the main arguments I had against the Nerodia piece will apply here as well -
- He promises new genetic evidence, but doesn't produce any.
- He makes continuous statements that articles he reference provide "strong evidence" to justify reclassification, but doesn't describe those arguments.
- His work isn't properly peer-reviewed, and his "journal" contains articles written only by himself, where he is the author, editor and publisher. Even if they are peer reviewed nobody could really consider his articles to be published in a credible scientific journal. If it were credible there would be copies in the British Library and the US Library of Congress.

I expect Hoser will stop by and argue his case, he did post a thread about a month ago which I thought was a late April Fools joke. There's a good chance that this thread will remain more objective than the one on RFUK, where the contributions were generally just calling Hoser an <insert derogatory term or expletive>.

Stefan-A

05-31-2012, 06:44 AM

Hoser:

"Phylogentic studies by Pyron et. a. (2011) confirmed the obviously paraphyletic
nature of Thamnophis as generally defined at the time, leading the authors to
specifically note the paraphyletic nature of the genus."

Pyron et al. (2011):

"Our phylogeny also suggests paraphyly of many genera
(e.g., Crotalus, Enhydris, Nerodia, Rhadinophis, Stenophis, Thamnophis,
Vipera, Zamenis, etc.), though we refrain from addressing generic-
level taxonomy, pending more complete sampling."

Also, looking at the phylogenetic tree in the Pyron et al. article, it includes a species (Adelophis foxi) not currently classified as Thamnophis. That seems to be why it's possibly paraphyletic.

chris-uk

05-31-2012, 07:08 AM

Nice observation Stefan. I had previously described Hoser's work as a literary review with no new primary research. What you've pointed out there is that it is a literary review with significant "reinterpretation" of the original authors conclusions. If Pyron et al couldn't address the taxonomy without further work the only way Hoser could use their work as "evidence" is to misrepresent the results and hope nobody went back to the referenced paper.

Now the useful bits of the discussion on RFUK pointed out that Hoser is attempting to use the "rules of classification" with a shotgun approach, using the principle that if a new classification (genus, species, etc.) is accepted then it is the first published name that should be used for to name it. He's hoping that someone with greater skill and intellect will come to the same conclusion as him about dividing at least one snake genus, and when the division is accepted by the herp community he can step in and claim a right to name it because he "published" first.

I also thought I'd check my facts, as I'd assumed that the British Library didn't carry Hoser's journal. According to their online catalogue I assumed correctly.

Thamnophis

06-01-2012, 02:14 AM

So if I understand correctly Hoser just searches in papers of others for information and interprets it in his own way.
And for example in the case of Thamnophis, he probably never had a garter snake "in his hands"?

What motivates someone to keep doing this while everyone thinks he is crazy? Would his ego be to big for his brain? Or he licked too many Cane toads Down Under?

Stefan-A

06-01-2012, 04:57 AM

There are a lot of nutters out there who do things like this, he's not even close to being the worst.

What motivates people to do things like this? Narcissism, delusions of grandeur, faith.

Edit:

2 hours after this post, I noticed the following post in the moderation queue:

Dear all, I'll post the recent divisions and phylogeny up for you to see.
I am sure it will draw a few howls of protest and indignation, but the division was
inevitable...
For those who don't want change, you can be happy that it usually takes up to 20 years for new names to
move into general usage...5418

All the best

thesnakeman

06-01-2012, 04:35 PM

Dear all,
I see the inevitable howls of protests, false claims and derogatory remarks in terms of the recent reclassifications.
However so far not one person has produced a post to say “Hoser is wrong because Thamnophis is monophyletic and here is the evidence....”.
Besides the fact that some persons posting here may think I have never set hands on a snake in my life, they are upset that their local library hasn’t got a hard copy of AJH (tell them to order one!) and others think that venomoiding snakes is cruel (none being relevant in any way in terms of the taxonomy) no one has addressed the central issue at hand – namely the dissection of a paraphyletic genus.
Now I should also point out that my basis for posting the details of AJH was not to seek endorsement of it’s contents, so much as to merely make it known to persons interested which is a recommendation of the ICZN rules (but not strict requirement) that I have complied with.
Besides the usual troll comments, I am sure the main reaction will be one of general indifference from people who really don’t care what the name of garter snakes is or is not ... they just like the snakes!
In terms of the hateful comments, it strikes me more of an ego factor involved in that the posters hate the idea that some of their snakes may have the word “Hoser” tacked on the end of the their scientific names.
Now I will be dead in a few short years and everyone else here will follow suit sooner or later.
In 100 years from now, people will only be concerned that the snakes are properly named, not who named them.
For those 150 years old, you will recall the howls of protest when the late Mr Cope took the taxonomists axe to more than 900 reptiles and frogs!
Me naming a few dozen pales into insignificance by comparison!
Which brings me to the rules of zoology. To publish a taxonomic paper does not require the results of original research. It can merely involve revisiting that of others. I revisited that of Pyron et. al. and others and decided to differ in my opinion in that I thought a dissection of Thamnophis was overdue. I set out my reasons in the paper and acted accordingly.
As I said before, if someone has evidence that the genus is monophyletic rather than paraphyletic and the evidence can be corroborated, (heard of mtDNA?) then it is unlikely the two genera I have assigned will ever get widely used.
If not, then you know what to expect.
All the best
Snakeman
54245425

Stefan-A

06-03-2012, 12:42 AM

However so far not one person has produced a post to say “Hoser is wrong because Thamnophis is monophyletic and here is the evidence....”.
Do you know why? Because that's not the issue. Nobody cares if Thamnophis is monophyletic. The consequences for us, if the change is deemed valid, is learning a couple of new names.

no one has addressed the central issue at hand – namely the dissection of a paraphyletic genus.
Because nobody cares. Nobody is emotionally invested in the current makeup of the genus Thamnophis. Most of us already knew that the genus wasn't set in stone.

Besides the usual troll comments, I am sure the main reaction will be one of general indifference from people who really don’t care what the name of garter snakes is or is not ... they just like the snakes!
Ding ding ding! Maybe you should talk to some actual scientists, not random hobbyists on the internet.

In terms of the hateful comments, it strikes me more of an ego factor involved in that the posters hate the idea that some of their snakes may have the word “Hoser” tacked on the end of the their scientific names.
What makes you think that anyone else cares about the name tacked on the end of scientific names?

In 100 years from now, people will only be concerned that the snakes are properly named, not who named them.
100 years from now? No, that's today.

For those 150 years old, you will recall the howls of protest when the late Mr Cope took the taxonomists axe to more than 900 reptiles and frogs!
You're not Cope and this isn't the 1800's.

Which brings me to the rules of zoology. To publish a taxonomic paper does not require the results of original research. It can merely involve revisiting that of others. I revisited that of Pyron et. al. and others and decided to differ in my opinion in that I thought a dissection of Thamnophis was overdue. I set out my reasons in the paper and acted accordingly.
Suppose nobody's buying your stated reasons?

As I said before, if someone has evidence that the genus is monophyletic rather than paraphyletic and the evidence can be corroborated, (heard of mtDNA?) then it is unlikely the two genera I have assigned will ever get widely used.
It's still not the issue here.

If not, then you know what to expect.
A damp squib?

thesnakeman

06-04-2012, 06:30 AM

Stefan-A

06-04-2012, 07:19 AM

Dear Stefan-A, I am sorry you seem so emotional over a few new names...
Did I just not explain to you that the names mean absolutely nothing? I could have sworn that I did.

"Do you know why? Because that's not the issue. Nobody cares if Thamnophis is monophyletic. The consequences for us, if the change is deemed valid, is learning a couple of new names." - Me.
"Because nobody cares. Nobody is emotionally invested in the current makeup of the genus Thamnophis. Most of us already knew that the genus wasn't set in stone." - Me.
"Ding ding ding! Maybe you should talk to some actual scientists, not random hobbyists on the internet." - Me.
"What makes you think that anyone else cares about the name tacked on the end of scientific names?" - Me.
"100 years from now? No, that's today." - Me.

Yup. That's five instances of me explaining in no uncertain terms that you are barking up the wrong tree with the whole "emotional over a few names" garbage, and why that is the case.

I am sorry to correct you, but THIS IS the issue!
It's not the issue. It's not even close to being the issue. Remember who your audience is. We are not the ICZN, most of us have little or no relevant scientific training (do you?), we do not presume to call ourselves herpetologists just because we've kept and handled snakes in one context or another. We're not in a position to evaluate original research, but we most certainly are in a position to evaluate how it's applied by laymen and the credibility of those narcissistic individuals who would leech off the work of others attempting to gain some personal glory while actually contributing nothing. Why do you care about naming rights? Why do you care whether some of our snakes may have the word “Hoser” tacked on the end of the their scientific names?

chris-uk

06-04-2012, 07:22 AM

Dear Stefan-A, I am sorry you seem so emotional over a few new names...

You wrote in reply to me:

"As I said before, if someone has evidence that the genus is monophyletic rather than paraphyletic and the evidence can be corroborated, (heard of mtDNA?) then it is unlikely the two genera I have assigned will ever get widely used.

It's still not the issue here."

I am sorry to correct you, but THIS IS the issue!

All the best

Hoser - one of my issues with what you've written is that you reference a whole load of scientist's work, and make statements about the "evidence" that supports a paraphyletic classification, and in the case of Pyron et al you make a statement that disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the authors.... And yet in your writings you don't actually say how the papers you reference support your statements. With a degree in medical genetics, yes I'm quite familiar with mitochondrial DNA, and I'd be interested to read more about the evidence that supports your statements. However, I suspect that your understanding of the research conducted by Pyron et al is insufficient for you to be able to make a credible reinterpretation of their work.
The onus is not on anyone else to prove that Thamnophis is monophyletic to refute you, as far as I'm concerned you've not provided any evidence that it is paraphyletic, you've merely made a statement that you have then failed to backup. Where's the scientific method in that?

Another issue is the lack of peer review of your writings. You (as the editor of the AJH) make statements about refereeing articles, but conveniently reserve the right not to publish any information about who has refereed an "article". You'd gain greater respect and credibility if the scientific and hobbyist community knew that your work was peer reviewed by credible scientists. If these articles have been peer reviewed and the conclusions you've come to are in fact supported by scientific evidence then what you are suggesting is one of the most significant reclassifications of species in recent times. And in that case I'd encourage you to make a submission to a recognised journal (I'd love to read about this in Nature or New Scientist).

So, the objections I have to your reclassification is not based on a personal dislike of you, a hate of your name, or because I'm attached to how my snakes are classified and named. It's because you seem to have a complete disregard for scientific method, and you seem to think that making vague statements without justifying what you are writing. To then claim a right to name anything shows a lack of respect for the real scientists who have conducted the research that you are piggybacking on.

Stefan-A

06-04-2012, 08:38 AM

The onus is not on anyone else to prove that Thamnophis is monophyletic to refute you, as far as I'm concerned you've not provided any evidence that it is paraphyletic, you've merely made a statement that you have then failed to backup. Where's the scientific method in that?
There is some evidence that Thamnophis is paraphyletic in the Pyron et al. paper. What's the implications are, is a different matter and I see no reason to jump the gun.

chris-uk

06-04-2012, 08:55 AM

There is some evidence that Thamnophis is paraphyletic in the Pyron et al. paper. What's the implications are, is a different matter and I see no reason to jump the gun.

Hence I'd question what Hoser will evidence Hoser has that that justifies a different interpretation of Pyron et al. If the authors weren't comfortable dividing Thamnophis based on the results of their research, Hoser needs to be more specific about why he can justify a different interpretation of the research - presumably, given Pyron et al were actually performing the research they have the knowledge and understanding to draw conclusions.
I also think it would be fair to say that Hoser has had no success convincing the scientific community, which is why he's trying to influence the hobbyist community.

Not everyone that reads his posts on forums will be in a position to interpret what he writes and say "Um, yes. That's bollocks", which means those that do should ensure that our friends aren't taken in thinking that there is real science behind all this.

If I read Hoser's ramblings in a credible journal, or if he is openly endorsed by reputable scientists, I'll have a read and pass the news on.

EasternGirl

06-04-2012, 10:35 AM

"However so far not one person has produced a post to say “Hoser is wrong because Thamnophis is monophyletic and here is the evidence....”."

Okay...well how about I just say that Hoser is wrong because he is nuts and none of his findings have actually been validated by anyone in the field that actually matters. I may not be a herptologist, but I am trained in evaluating scientific research. As it has been stated by other members, I do not find the claims being made to be supported by valid research. I also am trained as a psychologist...and I would have to agree with narcissistic personality disorder accompanied by delusions of grandeur.

Tomorrow, I think I will write a "scientific article" on the correlation between the mating habits of hippos and hot dogs. My theory will be that hippos only mate when they smell hot dogs. I have absolutely no scientific knowledge of hippos, nor do I have any empirical proof that hot dogs affect the mating habits of hippos. However, I am going to call myself a zoologist and present some findings. I do hope that all of you will consider my contribution to the field of Zoology.

chris-uk

06-04-2012, 02:35 PM

Tomorrow, I think I will write a "scientific article" on the correlation between the mating habits of hippos and hot dogs. My theory will be that hippos only mate when they smell hot dogs. I have absolutely no scientific knowledge of hippos, nor do I have any empirical proof that hot dogs affect the mating habits of hippos. However, I am going to call myself a zoologist and present some findings. I do hope that all of you will consider my contribution to the field of Zoology.

You write it, I'll peer review it. I was thinking about creating a new website, we could even print some paper copies and publish a few papers through a vanity publisher. If I go down to London I could slip a few copies onto the shelves at the British Library, then it would have one up on a lot of little journals that aren't available from our national archive.

thesnakeman

06-04-2012, 08:58 PM

kibakiba

06-04-2012, 09:59 PM

You're egotistical seeming, that's why no one wants anything to do with you. You're acting like you're the god of snakes and you can just name them whatever you please. Hey, how about you call thamnophis ordinoides "flyingrainbowmonkey fluffybunny" It'd make a whole lot of sense, just like the names you thought they should change to. That's just my opinion though.

chris-uk

06-05-2012, 02:04 AM

To the previous poster who said he has "no relevant scientific training ".

That's fine.

As to why I posted the details of the paper here, I have said before, it was not seeking approval or otherwise, but merely to inform.

So-called amateurs complain about being left out of the loop in terms of professional herpetologists, studies, name changes and the like and I seek to bridge the gap.

Professionals get access to these papers via RSS feeds, Zoological Record and the like, which amateurs don't.

Stefan, if you'd prefer to stay in the dark that's fine, but I am sure others here may be interested.

Also your flames here would discourage other professionally employed herpetologists from frequenting such forums and offering any input, advice or whatever.

All the best

Can I postulate that one of the reasons you seek to inform amateurs is because the professionals who do have access to your work find review your writings and dismiss them in a more professional manner than us amateurs?

In your responses to this thread you are quick to dismiss negative comments as personal attacks, but consistently fail to explain why the science of your statements is correct. I've been negative, but in all seriousness, I'm eager to hear what it is that you know about the genetic studies that allows you to make your statements, and which confers the right to reclassify so many snakes.

I'd also be pleased to read more about the glowing enforcement that professional biologists, herpetologists, and molecular geneticists have poured onto your work. I can't find anything (but I'm just an amateur) perhaps you could supply some links to some reviews of your work (anywhere other than the AJH)?

ConcinusMan

06-05-2012, 02:07 AM

I have said before, it was not seeking approval or otherwise, but merely to inform.

I'm no psych major but I get the distinct impression that your true intention / motivation is something other than what you say it is. Not calling you a liar. It's not a lie if you have convinced yourself that what you are saying is the truth.

As for the "central issue at hand – namely the dissection of a paraphyletic genus"

I just took a dump and I can describe the color to everyone here, but like the "information" you feel so compelled to share, nobody here cares. If ever there is a day that all of us here can open any book about reptiles and we all see that your changes have been applied, or that the Northwestern garter snake is actually called "flyingrainbowmonkey fluffybunny" then we'll care. Maybe. But I wouldn't count on it.

Stefan-A

06-05-2012, 02:13 AM

As to why I posted the details of the paper here, I have said before, it was not seeking approval or otherwise, but merely to inform.
Inform of what, exactly?

Also your flames here would discourage other professionally employed herpetologists from frequenting such forums and offering any input, advice or whatever.
Look, I drew a house. I guess that makes me a freelance architect.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/thamnoph/photos/garbage/hoserism.jpg

Let's leave science to the scientists, shall we?

chris-uk

06-05-2012, 02:42 AM

Look, I drew a house. I guess that makes me a freelance architect.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/thamnoph/photos/garbage/hoserism.jpg

Let's leave science to the scientists, shall we?

Stefan, do you take commissions? I'd like to build a house and have every confidence that with your architecture skills it wouldn't fall down. You'd have to be willing to work with my neighbour, she fancies trying a new career in house building (she works as an educational administration manager at the moment, but must have some transferable skills).

gregmonsta

06-05-2012, 05:56 AM

I want a 'love' button for this thread :rolleyes:.

I've read many papers on Thamnophis. Some represent great summary work with inclusive referencing and direct exemplification of evidence.
Classification does suffer from 'too many cooks spoil the broth' idiomatic syndrome. Until we do actually know, I think well should be left alone instead of just re-classifying for the sheer Hell of it!

thesnakeman

06-05-2012, 06:10 AM

Dear all, at age 50 with a science background and over 40 years verifiable expertise with snakes, I have some qualifications to publish on snakes.
As for claims I named too many species, well I have done a few dozen, versus for example 900 odd by the late Mr Cope, or over 500 by Mr Boulenger and similar numbers to these by the likes of Wells, Gray, Fitzinger and Gunther.
And for what it's worth, besides those genera inspected in the latest issues of AJH Issues 13 and 14, I can say there are at least 30 more I have not dissected which are clearly paraphyletic and will be broken up by someone else in the not too distant future based on already existing molecular and morphological data.
Anyway, one of the previous posters here wrote:
"Hoser has that that justifies a different interpretation of Pyron et al. If the authors weren't comfortable dividing Thamnophis based on the results of their research, Hoser needs to be more specific about why he can justify a different interpretation of the research"
is in error.
Pyron et. al. stated point blank that Thamnophis, Crotalus and other genera were paraphyletic, in those exact words.
They were not looking at busting up genera or what pre-existing names were available for such (if any), which is a different and time consuming exercise as compared to what they were doing.
That's what I did!
Instead they (Pyron and co) were more concerned with higher family level taxonomy.
Anyway I've uploaded a recent phylogeny in relation to another new genus, Rentonus, due to the fact that they are commonly sold as Garter snakes.
All the best
5472

gregmonsta

06-05-2012, 07:21 AM

That's what I did!
Instead they (Pyron and co) were more concerned with higher family level taxonomy.
Anyway I've uploaded a recent phylogeny in relation to another new genus, Rentonus, due to the fact that they are commonly sold as Garter snakes.
All the best
5472

These are asian 'garter snakes' only sold as such by ignorant shop keepers and has nothing at all to do with Thamnophis in the first place. This use of the mistaken 'common name' of the 'Keelbacks' does nothing for your argument on the subject of Thamnophis.

Stefan-A

06-05-2012, 07:54 AM

Dear all, at age 50 with a science background and over 40 years verifiable expertise with snakes, I have some qualifications to publish on snakes.
And I have an engineering background, doesn't mean I'm qualified to publish on every aspect of engineering, either.

Anyway, one of the previous posters here wrote:
"Hoser has that that justifies a different interpretation of Pyron et al. If the authors weren't comfortable dividing Thamnophis based on the results of their research, Hoser needs to be more specific about why he can justify a different interpretation of the research"
is in error.
Pyron et. al. stated point blank that Thamnophis, Crotalus and other genera were paraphyletic, in those exact words.
I quoted them earlier.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/thamnoph/photos/snakes2012/pyron-et-al.jpg

Anyway I've uploaded a recent phylogeny in relation to another new genus, Rentonus, due to the fact that they are commonly sold as Garter snakes.
All the best
5472
And I just drew another house.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/thamnoph/photos/garbage/hoserism2.jpg

chris-uk

06-05-2012, 08:25 AM

<snipped out some garbage to get straight to the big hole Hoser is digging himself>
Pyron et. al. stated point blank that Thamnophis, Crotalus and other genera were paraphyletic, in those exact words.
They were not looking at busting up genera or what pre-existing names were available for such (if any), which is a different and time consuming exercise as compared to what they were doing.
That's what I did!
Instead they (Pyron and co) were more concerned with higher family level taxonomy.

Just taking your statement above (the bit in bold)... That shows your inability to objectively interpret other scientists' work. And your ego is writing cheques that your intellect cannot deliver. Driven by a need to find some justification of your agenda you've twisted Pyron et al to your own needs. Stefan post above shows what Pyron et al actually wrote... That their work "suggested" paraphyletic genera (that falls well short of the point blank statement you've just claimed), and not that they weren't interested in reclassification, but actually they were holding back because their data was incomplete.

Once again, if you have some good science behind your claims to reclassify species, please publish the evidence and stop just writing about an unfounded hypothesis that is yet to be proven.

You also ignored my question asking you to point out some (any...) links to pages where credible scientists have endorsed your work. Failing that, could you just name the people who refereed your articles prior to publication in the AJH?

thesnakeman

06-06-2012, 04:44 AM

Stefan/Chris, had you read my Thamnophis paper before launching into a series of rants, you'd be aware that Pyron's piece was not the only evidence I relied upon.
Alfaro 2001 found the same paraphyly as have others and so I took the composite of results as a basis for what I did.
Now neither of you have produced a shred of evidence in the last week or two of howling protest and hurling insults contrary to what we've published and so I take heart in this, and while one of you claimed not to care about the names, you obviously are concerned enough to post constantly here.

And as I mentioned elsewhere I am honoured to have been able to name snakes after well-deserving individuals.

All the best

Stefan-A

06-06-2012, 05:49 AM

Stefan/Chris, had you read my Thamnophis paper before launching into a series of rants, you'd be aware that Pyron's piece was not the only evidence I relied upon.
In the paragraph I quoted in the beginning, you referenced Pyron et al. specifically, essentially putting words in their mouths. Now you've just intentionally misquoted them a second time. If you're going to go down the "had you read" road, I might as well do the same and state that maybe you should have read what Pyron et al. actually said, before referencing them. I know it would be unfair to say it, but I'll do it anyway.

Now neither of you have produced a shred of evidence in the last week or two
How many times do I need to tell you that the paraphyletic nature of Thamnophis is not the issue here? It's not what we are commenting on, therefore we have NO obligation to produce evidence one way or the other in regards to that question.

contrary to what we've published
Who's "we"? Are you using the majestic plural there?

and so I take heart in this, and while one of you claimed not to care about the names, you obviously are concerned enough to post constantly here.
It's not about the names.

And as I mentioned elsewhere I am honoured to have been able to name snakes after well-deserving individuals.
Do they feel honored? Or should I perhaps ask them?

gregmonsta

06-06-2012, 06:36 AM

Mr. Hoser, your papers show the following - giant gaps in your referenced reading/evidence. No new evidence, no presentation of figures to back up your claim. A heavy emphasis on supposed evidence - sadly, again, lacking examples.
You show the following - refusal to show claimed evidence, on several forums. An overly defensive attitude and posturing in order to 'back up' your statements. A complete lack of support from any credible scientific corner.

... Please give up and leave taxonomy to people who actually know and study the animals that are being 're-classified'.

On another note - I'd also rather you had some fun with Greek or Latin instead of creating laughable scientific names. I'm sure my students will ask me in future if I keep 'Gregswedoshus marcianus' because my name is Greg ...

chris-uk

06-06-2012, 07:50 AM

Stefan/Chris, had you read my Thamnophis paper before launching into a series of rants, you'd be aware that Pyron's piece was not the only evidence I relied upon.

Come on, seriously? Is the only reason that we would disagree with you is because we haven't read your articles?

I'm well aware that you referenced an awful lot of other work... referencing other people's work is just about all you do in any of your articles. It's probably fair to say that you have probably referenced almost every academic paper that mentions Thamnophis. Pyron et al came into this thread because you specifically mentioned that work, and it's a good example of how you have misrepresented the conclusions drawn by the authors.
If you've done it once it's not an unreasonable assumption that you have come to a dubious interpretation of other referenced work.

Alfaro 2001 found the same paraphyly as have others and so I took the composite of results as a basis for what I did.

Maybe they did. I've not read their paper.

Now neither of you have produced a shred of evidence in the last week or two of howling protest and hurling insults contrary to what we've published and so I take heart in this,

I'm pretty sure that we've already pointed out that paraphyletic nature isn't the issue, it's the lack of science in your writings. Simply quoting someone else's work and saying "they discovered this, so I'm going to name it" is simply tosh. At least try to justify your right to name whichever species you are currently working on by giving some narrative in your writings - "Pyron said this, Bloggs said that, here are the combined mDNA results tabulated, and this is why I am suggesting the following division of Thamnophis". But you don't do this, you just reference a paper and state that it provides evidence.

When you said that "we've published" I thought it would be a great opportunity for you to tell us about the people who refereed your writings, or to provide some links to the glowing endorsements that the scientific community has rained down on your work.

and while one of you claimed not to care about the names, you obviously are concerned enough to post constantly here.

The names are secondary (although I personally find the names you suggest to be ridiculous in their own right). The issue for me is that you have firstly done nothing credible to earn a right to do what you're doing. Frankly, I see you're articles in your own little journal to be a parasite on the back of work of serious scientists.

And as I mentioned elsewhere I am honoured to have been able to name snakes after well-deserving individuals.

All the best

I'm sure they are all over the moon.

thesnakeman

06-08-2012, 06:28 AM

Thanks Stefan-A for your post. You have introduced me to the new concept of evidence free criticism.

All the best

chris-uk

06-08-2012, 07:16 AM

Thanks Stefan-A for your post. You have introduced me to the new concept of evidence free criticism.

All the best

Thank you Mr Hoser. You've introduced us all to the concept of evidence-free, non peer-reviewed, scientific papers.

gregmonsta

06-08-2012, 07:57 AM

:rolleyes: ... Mr. Hoser, I would love a copy of your stand up DVD ... you really crack me up!!! :D

Shunned by numerous forums and the scientific community across the globe.
Really ... you are following the same idiotic pattern as I have seen on at least 3 other forums. The 'burden of truth' lies with YOU, not US. Show us your evidence in a standardised, cohesive manner. Show us how these things correlate. Assure us that the scientific method was the same for each of the phylogenic sequences you reference (As your papers even fail to address possible gaps/improvements in methodology between studies).

If you want to be taken seriously - start again and do things properly :p

thesnakeman

06-09-2012, 03:30 AM

Didymus20X6

06-09-2012, 06:40 AM

A classic example of the Outer Space Teapot analogy.

"There's a teapot orbiting Mars."
"Really? Do you have any evidence?"
"I don't need evidence. You have to prove it isn't!"

I may not agree with Bertrand Russell's worldview, but here, I think his analogy is applicable. You can't just assert X and then demand that your critics must prove that X is false. You have to start by presenting your own evidence first. You can't just make claims, present tenuous evidence at best, and then demand that your critics prove that you are wrong.

chris-uk

06-09-2012, 09:44 AM

Thanks for the insults.
Fortunately insults do not constitute scientific evidence.
Now it is an interesting concept that you find a little mtDNA and morphology as "evidence free".
I still await ANY evidence in rebuttal (PS Insults don't count).
All the best

We're not saying that there isn't DNA evidence, what I am consistently saying is that you haven't presented the evidence. Simply referencing 30 papers and saying that they provide evidence of your teapot orbiting Mars isn't good enough, you need to reference the relevant papers and tell us why those papers support your argument. That means a hell of a lot more detail than you have gone into in the AJH articles I've read.

Present your evidence in an unarguable way and you may find that there is more productive criticism.

-MARWOLAETH-

06-09-2012, 05:16 PM

Why doesn't he get a felt tipped pen and write "hoseri" on the end of scientific names in his reptile books so he can pretend he's a proper scientist.

kibakiba

06-09-2012, 07:11 PM

He's probably like to write thesnakemani hoseri on all of the species he researches.

d_virginiana

06-09-2012, 09:45 PM

Wow, how have I not seen this thread until now?

At 21 years old, and with over 12 years of verifiable snake-handling and keeping experience, I'm... still not a herpetologist, and I still don't care what is tacked onto the end of my snakes' scientific names.

As a biologist... I'm just kind of shaking my head and laughing sadly.

Stefan-A

06-10-2012, 08:07 AM

Thanks Stefan-A for your post. You have introduced me to the new concept of evidence free criticism.
You're not terribly bright, are you? Tell me, what have I criticized, except for your reading comprehension, which appears to be severely lacking? By the way, do you know what a "red herring" is?

Thanks for the insults.
You're VERY welcome.

aSnakeLovinBabe

06-14-2012, 10:55 AM

Lol..... the day I start calling a blacknecked garter snake "Gregswedoshus (Whybrowus) cyrtopsis" will be a cold day in hell.

By the way.... hi guys :)

Steveo

06-14-2012, 11:27 AM

Let's be real, guys: no self-respecting scientist would take to a hobbyist forum to defend their work. Anyone who has had legit work published should only concern themselves with how it is received by their peers.

But where do I start with this paper? Firstly, it is poorly written. No legit journal would publish a paper like that based on the grammar and formatting alone.

Secondly, the abstract mentions phylogenetic evidence but the text does not provide any. The evidence provided is primarily a statement of morphological differences.

Thirdly, this is not original research. This is a research paper based solely on past work by other parties.

Stefan-A

06-14-2012, 12:39 PM

By the way.... hi guys :)
Hi, there. How are things?

aSnakeLovinBabe

06-14-2012, 11:10 PM

Well actually they're a mixture of bad and good. Very bad on the snake keeping side. I'll explain, possibly tomorrow in a new thread.

Hi, there. How are things?

Stefan-A

06-14-2012, 11:53 PM

Well actually they're a mixture of bad and good. Very bad on the snake keeping side. I'll explain, possibly tomorrow in a new thread.
Yeah, I saw the facebook posts. Very tragic.

aSnakeLovinBabe

06-16-2012, 07:40 PM

Yeah, I saw the facebook posts. Very tragic.

I haven't forgotten to come back and write up a post! I'm just busy this weekend with field herping and the baby :) I'm hoping to have some in the field tham pics for my post.

thesnakeman

07-17-2012, 03:02 AM

Dear all, Australasian Journal of Herpetology Issues 13-15 complete the current global review of snakes at the genus level and has now for the first time treated all extant snakes consistently, for the first time.
Between them, issues 13 and 15 name about another 50 genera, at least 20 tribes and lesser numbers of subgenera, species and subspecies of mainly primitive snakes.
One of the highlights is the naming of a new monotypic genus in honor of the recently deceased snake handler, Luke Yeomans.
Details at:
Australasian Journal of Herpetology (http://www.herp.net)
While I cop criticism from some quarters for adopting the standard practice of naming taxa after people, I have no regrets at all, and especially when the people I choose are so deserving of recognition.5985
All the best

kibakiba

07-17-2012, 03:11 AM

I hope this thread gets deleted. Nobody wants your stupid book.

Stefan-A

07-17-2012, 03:23 AM

I got tired of my career as an architect. Now I'm a fireman.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/thamnoph/photos/garbage/hoserism3.jpg

kibakiba

07-17-2012, 03:31 AM

Hey Stefan... I'm bored of my job as a gamer... Can I get a job being a fireman assistant? I don't know exactly what I'd do but I'm bored.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-17-2012, 03:32 AM

I bet the book's written in crayon.

kibakiba

07-17-2012, 03:35 AM

Nah, maybe in those big crayola markers. To simulate ink, so he can have a big boys book. Not a little kids book. He wants to act like he's older so that mommy will be more proud of his book with lots of made up names and professionalism.

chris-uk

07-17-2012, 04:57 AM

Some of the world's great scientists were persecuted and denounced by their peers during their lives - I hope that Hoser doesn't see the criticism he receives as being some kind of prelude to everyone coming around in future centuries and saying, "you know what, that Hoser guy was right, isn't it a shame he wasn't accepted when he posted online".

I still find it incredible that he claims that his work has been peer-reviewed, and yet none of those peers who have reviewed and accepted his work as correct are willing to be named. What does that tell me? Either these peer-reviewers don't exist, or they don't actually agree with what has been "published" in the AJH.

Stefan-A

07-17-2012, 05:33 AM

Some of the world's great scientists were persecuted and denounced by their peers during their lives
Yeah. It's worth remembering that so are the worst.

thesnakeman

07-17-2012, 04:47 PM

Thanks for the posts people.
Simple question.
Have any of the flamers actually READ AJH Issues 13-15?
All the best

chris-uk

07-17-2012, 04:58 PM

Thanks for the posts people.
Simple question.
Have any of the flamers actually READ AJH Issues 13-15?
All the best

Does it matter whether we've read the AJH? The issues I have are about the credibility of said "journal" and the lack of verified peer review of the stuff you write. Get yourself published in a real peer reviewed journal (rather than one where you are the author, editor and publisher) and people may take note - I can't believe that Nature haven't come knocking on your door to get the low down on this huge animal classification story.

Invisible Snake

07-17-2012, 05:46 PM

Thanks for the posts people.
Simple question.
Have any of the flamers actually READ AJH Issues 13-15?
All the best

Hey I'm not that familiar with taxonomy and I don't really care to be, with that being said, can you put up some pics of your snake collection?

guidofatherof5

07-17-2012, 05:49 PM

Hey I'm not that familiar with taxonomy and I don't really care to be, with that being said, can you put up some pics of your snake collection?

The "Other Pets" thread would be the place for that. Please.

Stefan-A

07-17-2012, 06:14 PM

Have any of the flamers actually READ AJH Issues 13-15?

Nope. Not going to, either.

Maybe if someone with even a little credibility starts citing them, but we both know I might as well train my eyes to the sky in anticipation of a flying pig invasion.

thamneil

07-17-2012, 08:47 PM

Now that this has been reactivated, why not throw in my two cents? While my comment does not relate to your taxonomic work (which is ridiculous in its own right) I feel that it is an important one to bring up.

I am under the impression that you make extensive use of venomoids in both your demonstrations and in your videos. While this works for you, I feel that you are setting a poor example for others. Venomoids are not something to be taken lightly. While your snakes may be examples of the latest advances in venomoid surgeries, many snakes are not. I feel that other, less experienced people could take this the wrong way when handling a "venomoid" snake. Were the Acanthophis in your photo venomoid? I understand that many Australian keepers will free-handle unaltered death adders due to their calm demeanor, which is also a very bad example to newer keepers. Regardless, if someone wishes to have a snake that they can handle, they should not have to alter it to do so.

thesnakeman

07-18-2012, 12:11 AM

chris-uk - wrote: "Does it matter whether we've read the AJH?"
I answer - yes!

Re Neil's comments against venomoids I say the following - the claims against free handling venomous snakes sending "the wrong message" is based on the false assumption people know how to tell a venomous snake from a non-venomous one. Unfortunately this is not the case, meaning the argument is either false or must be applied in the context of handling any snake, including for example Gregswedoshus!

Secondly in our legal dominion it is illegal under S32 of the OH and S Act to display venomous snakes not surgically devenomized.

All the best

5989

Stefan-A

07-18-2012, 12:44 AM

chris-uk - wrote: "Does it matter whether we've read the AJH?"
I answer - yes!
To whom and why?

Re Neil's comments against venomoids I say the following - the claims against free handling venomous snakes sending "the wrong message" is based on the false assumption people know how to tell a venomous snake from a non-venomous one. Unfortunately this is not the case, meaning the argument is either false or must be applied in the context of handling any snake,
People who keep venomous snakes know they have venomous snakes and the people setting the bad example are more than happy to proclaim that they are handling venomous snakes. Those who can't tell a venomous snake from a non-venomous one, are a non-issue. You also know as well as anyone else that there are plenty of supposedly venomoid snakes out there that are far from being venomoid, for example due to botched surgery.

including for example Gregswedoshus!
Including for example WHAT? Oh, you mean Thamnophis.

kibakiba

07-18-2012, 01:19 AM

No one who has even half of a brain would call a gartersnake "Gregswedoshus". Thamnophis fits them. Stop being stupid.

thamneil

07-18-2012, 02:25 AM

I'm sorry but I completely fail to understand your logic.

A venomoid common brown is exactly the same thing as an unaltered common brown. They are both Pseudonaja textilis. (Perhaps under your system, they are Robbredlis bryanfryi, seeing as both of those individuals would be ever so deserving and worthy). Regardless, physically they are the same thing. Now let's say that "The Snakeman" free handles his brown snake in a show and perhaps he even gets bitten. Mr. Hoser now creates a sense of inspiration towards someone who is interested in venomous reptiles yet may be quite naive. If Mr. Hoser was able to free handle his brown snake and even endure a bite, what stops them from doing so? It is great to have people looking up to you. Just make sure you are giving them the right reason to look up.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-18-2012, 04:41 AM

If you don't want a venomous animal as a pet...get a sea cucumber!They have a loving nature and are so entertaining:)

"Have any of the flamers actually READ AJH Issues 13-15?"
No.Have you read A very hungry caterpillar?

kibakiba

07-18-2012, 05:33 AM

I have! Best. Book. Ever! :D

chris-uk

07-18-2012, 12:09 PM

chris-uk - wrote: "Does it matter whether we've read the AJH?"
I answer - yes

C

Still have to ask why? I've read your earlier articles in the AJH, and that's an hour of my life I won't get back. I can't see any reason to believe that the latest articles won't be more of the same bull.

If you're serious and not just trolling around the web why don't you answer the criticisms about the lack of peer review and provide some references of some respected scientists who actually support your 'research'?

thesnakeman

07-18-2012, 11:21 PM

Dear all, my humble response to the preceding posts:
Stefan-A wrote:
“You also know as well as anyone else that there are plenty of supposedly venomoid snakes out there that are far from being venomoid, for example due to botched surgery.”
– I’ve not seen one yet in over 40 years!
Kibakiba wrote:
No one who has even half of a brain would call a gartersnake "Gregswedoshus". Thamnophis fits them. Stop being stupid.

Critics said the same about evolution and Broghammerus!

Thamneil – well your comment was so garbled I was unable to offer a comment.
Chris-UK – I note from your bio you wrote for this site that you have been a snake enthusiast for one year. Congratulations!
It is a pity you have closed your mind to learning from someone with over 40 years experience with snakes. That is your loss, not mine.
PS AJH IS PEER REVIEWED!!!!

PPS one of about a million available references here:

CSIRO PUBLISHING - Australian Journal of Zoology (http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO12017)

Ecological attributes and trade of white-lipped pythons (Genus Leiopython) in Indonesian New Guinea

Daniel J. D. Natusch A B and Jessica A. Lyons A

A School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: d_natusch_14@hotmail.com

Australian Journal of Zoology 59(5) 339-343 CSIRO PUBLISHING - Australian Journal of Zoology (http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO12017)
Submitted: 10 February 2012 Accepted: 17 April 2012 Published: 16 May 2012

Abstract White-lipped pythons (WLP) (Genus Leiopython) have been collected from the wild in Indonesian New Guinea and exported for the pet trade since at least 1977. Despite the long duration of trade and recent taxonomic work recognising six different species, virtually nothing is known of the trade dynamics or ecology of these species. Surveys of wildlife traders in Indonesian New Guinea and measurement of 122 WLP provides the first information on trade and ecological attributes of the two most commonly traded species, L. albertisii and L. hoserae. Both species exhibit broadly similar ecological attributes; however, L. hoserae has a longer and wider head than L. albertisii. WLP prey mainly on mammals, although smaller snakes were found to feed on lizards. Reproduction appears to be seasonal with oviposition and hatching occurring in the summer months between December and March. Most trade was in L. albertisii and although traders differentiated between the two species on the basis of colour, both were traded under the name L. albertisii. Examination of CITES export data revealed that in 2004 Indonesia exceeded the government-allocated harvest quota of wild individuals. Although this quota was apparently not exceeded in other years, the results of this study suggest that the unmonitored domestic pet trade and the potential for misdeclaration of wild-caught individuals for export may account for many more snakes than are recorded.
Additional keywords: albertisii, harvest quota, hoserae, pet trade, snake.

References

Barker, D. G., and Barker, T. M. (1994). ‘Pythons of the World: Australia. Vol. 1. ’ (Advanced Vivarium Systems: Escondido, CA.)

Brongersma, L. D. (1953). Notes on New Guinea reptiles and amphibians II. Proceedings of the KoninklijkeNederlandscheAkademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam (C) 56, 317–325.

Brongersma, L. D. (1956). Notes on New Guinea reptiles and amphibians IV. Proceedings of the KoninklijkeNederlandscheAkademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam (C) 59, 599–610.

CITES (2011). CITES Asian Snake Trade Workshop. Guangzhou, China, 11–14 April.

CITES (2012). CITES Trade Database, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. CITES trade database (http://www.unep-wcmc-apps.org/citestrade/trade.cfm) [accessed January 2012].

Forsman, A., and Shine, R. (1997). Rejection of non-adaptive hypotheses for intraspecific variation in trophic morphology in gape-limited predators. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London 62, 209–223.
| CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01623.x) | http://www.thamnophis.com/media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif (http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/OpenURL_BaseURL?atitle=Rejection of non-adaptive hypotheses for intraspecific variation in trophic morphology in gape-limited predators.&title=Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London&date=1997&volume=62&spage=209&epage=223&sid=csiro&aulast=Forsman&aufirst=A.)

Groombridge, B., and Luxmoore, R. (1991). Pythons in Southeast Asia. A review of distribution, status and trade in three selected species. Report to CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Hoser, R. (2000). A revision of the Australasian pythons. Ophidia Review 1, 7–27. http://www.thamnophis.com/media/share/OpenURL_Image.gif (http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/OpenURL_BaseURL?atitle=A revision of the Australasian pythons.&title=Ophidia Review&date=2000&volume=1&spage=7&epage=27&sid=csiro&aulast=Hoser&aufirst=R.)

chris-uk

07-19-2012, 02:18 AM

Dear all, my humble response to the preceding posts:

<snip>

Chris-UK – I note from your bio you wrote for this site that you have been a snake enthusiast for one year. Congratulations!
It is a pity you have closed your mind to learning from someone with over 40 years experience with snakes. That is your loss, not mine.

There are snake keepers who have had snakes for decades, who have been doing the same thing wrong for years (let's take for example a respected and breeder of garters who had been keeping for 30-40 years, who started feeding his garters catfood because another long-term keeper said his snakes were happy eating it) - either through ignorance because they don't bother researching their animals, or blindly follow what they are read and are told by so people who have been keeping longer. Then there are those who develop an interest and research as much as they can from a wide range of sources and, using a good knowledge of biological sciences as a foundation, decide which of the information and advice is likely to be of most value.
So basically, there is a spectrum of snake keepers, and the time someone has been doing it isn't necessarily the best indicator as to whether they are likely to be correct.

PS AJH IS PEER REVIEWED!!!!

So, feel free to correct me (you probably know best how it works at the AJH, and your website is short on the detail), it works like this:
The author (that would be you) submits an article for publication.
The editor (that would be you) lines up some peer-reviewers.
The peer-reviewers (in the case of your articles in the AJH these are anonymous people who don't want to be named) feedback to the editor (you) about the author's (you) article and make recommendations for amendments (or indeed whether or not the article is bunkum) to the editor (you) to decide whether to publish the article in it's current form.
The editor (you) then decides whether to publish the article or make amendments.
If the author (you) has issues with the amendments they would first discuss with the editor (you) and then escalate to the editor-in-chief which the AJH doesn't have, so to the publisher (you) to arbitrate.

So can everyone else see why the vetting process for your articles might be less than impartial?

PPS one of about a million available references here:

I suspect that to be a rather childlike exaggeration. ;)

CSIRO PUBLISHING - Australian Journal of Zoology (http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO12017)

Ecological attributes and trade of white-lipped pythons (Genus Leiopython) in Indonesian New Guinea

So, you provide information about one of a million articles that reference your work, and the best you can do is one that doesn't directly comment on the science behind your work? From the abstract it's not possible to say anything other than the authors used your revised name, but at least that article was actually published in a journal with some credibility.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-19-2012, 04:15 AM

Is he seriously comparing the theory of evolution to wanting to call garter snakes stupid names just for the sake of it?Leave Science to the Scientists mate.

thesnakeman

07-19-2012, 04:37 AM

Dear all,
I’ll bypass the post about AJH peer review process above as our website does in fact detail this process in sufficient detail, including what the reviewers do and don’t do, so I won’t engage in similar dialogue here with a person who has demonstrated little regard for truth and facts.
Now in terms of the scientific names – people have complained about them long before I came along. Many are difficult to pronounce or understand and I suppose some of my names fit this bill.
Now who here knows the etymology of “Thamnophis” or who cares for that matter? (OK you’ll all google it and claim to have known all along).
Gregswedoshus is just another name that will inevitably be used by people a few generations from now and few people will care who Mr Swedosh was or wasn’t, a bit like your Boulengerina or Broghammerus.
It seems to me that the real issue by some of the posters is with “me” as opposed to either the science or the etymology of the names.
This sort of argy bargy went on in the 1850’s and later between the likes of Cope, Gray, Fitzinger and others, so I suppose nothing has changed.
I have posted a recent molecular phylogeny of the Garter snakes showing the four genera as recently defined and named by myself, noting that other authors such as Pyron et. al. also found them paraphyletic and note that in the two and a half months since publication of my reclassification of the garter snakes, no one anywhere has produced a shred of evidence to counter what I produced.
All the best

5993

Stefan-A

07-19-2012, 07:08 AM

Stefan-A

07-19-2012, 07:25 AM

It seems to me that the real issue by some of the posters is with “me” as opposed to either the science or the etymology of the names.
Oh, this is just too good to pass up.

Here's a quote of yours from your earlier drive-by:

You wrote in reply to me:

"As I said before, if someone has evidence that the genus is monophyletic rather than paraphyletic and the evidence can be corroborated, (heard of mtDNA?) then it is unlikely the two genera I have assigned will ever get widely used.

It's still not the issue here."

I am sorry to correct you, but THIS IS the issue!

And here's my reply to that little gem:

Did I just not explain to you that the names mean absolutely nothing? I could have sworn that I did.

"Do you know why? Because that's not the issue. Nobody cares if Thamnophis is monophyletic. The consequences for us, if the change is deemed valid, is learning a couple of new names." - Me.
"Because nobody cares. Nobody is emotionally invested in the current makeup of the genus Thamnophis. Most of us already knew that the genus wasn't set in stone." - Me.
"Ding ding ding! Maybe you should talk to some actual scientists, not random hobbyists on the internet." - Me.
"What makes you think that anyone else cares about the name tacked on the end of scientific names?" - Me.
"100 years from now? No, that's today." - Me.

Yup. That's five instances of me explaining in no uncertain terms that you are barking up the wrong tree with the whole "emotional over a few names" garbage, and why that is the case.

It's not the issue. It's not even close to being the issue. Remember who your audience is. We are not the ICZN, most of us have little or no relevant scientific training (do you?), we do not presume to call ourselves herpetologists just because we've kept and handled snakes in one context or another. We're not in a position to evaluate original research, but we most certainly are in a position to evaluate how it's applied by laymen and the credibility of those narcissistic individuals who would leech off the work of others attempting to gain some personal glory while actually contributing nothing. Why do you care about naming rights? Why do you care whether some of our snakes may have the word “Hoser” tacked on the end of the their scientific names?

So, Hoser, I actually spelled it out for you in several posts what the issue was and you kept flapping your gums in disagreement. Now, you've suddenly had a revelation and you completely disagree with Hoser-from-one-month-ago.

This sort of argy bargy went on in the 1850’s and later between the likes of Cope, Gray, Fitzinger and others, so I suppose nothing has changed.
Some things have changed. These aren't the 1850's, and you're not Cope, Gray, Fitzinger or "others".

I have posted a recent molecular phylogeny of the Garter snakes showing the four genera as recently defined and named by myself, noting that other authors such as Pyron et. al. also found them paraphyletic and note that in the two and a half months since publication of my reclassification of the garter snakes, no one anywhere has produced a shred of evidence to counter what I produced.

It's not the issue here.

EasternGirl

07-19-2012, 08:01 AM

I could list a thousand references on this post right now and that wouldn't mean that the research is valid or reliable. Heck, I could call myself a neurologist and write an article and post it on the internet and then use myself as a reference to prove a point. Hey you guys...I have become a snake...since I live on the east coast, I am officially changing the name of T.s.sirtalis to Thamnophis marnieus scottus. Please make a note of it.

Snakeman...when you call people "flamers"...are you using that as a derogatory term for homosexuals? That is really enlightened of you.

Stefan-A

07-19-2012, 08:08 AM

Snakeman...when you call people "flamers"...are you using that as a derogatory term for homosexuals? That is really enlightened of you.
In contemporary parlance, a flamer would be a hater. Not to be confused with "troll" (aka. flamebaiter). A flamer spews hate, a troll tries to get you to spew hate.

EasternGirl

07-19-2012, 08:10 AM

Oh...so we are haters of Snakeman? That works.

Stefan-A

07-19-2012, 08:14 AM

Oh...so we are haters of Snakeman? That works.
We have three of those. One snakeman, one snake man and one thesnakeman.

EasternGirl

07-19-2012, 08:16 AM

Okay...well, I'm talking about the guy in this thread. I actually don't hate anyone...hate is a strong word. But this whole changing the scientific names thing is ridiculous and I don't believe in indulging delusional narcissists.

chris-uk

07-19-2012, 10:10 AM

Shall I break this down? You so successfully undermine your own credibility...

Dear all,
I’ll bypass the post about AJH peer review process above

That's very convenient isn't it?

as our website does in fact detail this process in sufficient detail, including what the reviewers do and don’t do,

I don't believe that you do provide sufficient details on the AJH website, for example, you don't say how you avoid the conflict of interest that arises when the author, editor and publisher are the same person. It's not like there's an editor-in-chief or senior editor that has a final say on the author's work. So tell me what credibility is gained when you write something that you then edit yourself and publish yourself, and refuse to tell anyone which peers have reviewed the work?

So from the website of the AJH (http://www.smuggled.com/AJHAG1.htm):

Refereeing: All papers will be refereed (peer review). This is standard for Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Our refereeing guidelines have been formalized. The process should not be seen as a deterrent for prospective authors. The role of the referee is to correct obvious mistakes and potential ambiguities only and if they deem necessary. They may offer input as to potential improvements to the paper or article. Although the author is asked to incorporate all or most of the referees suggestions into the final draft of the article, this decision rests with the author. Referees have been asked to avoid being unnecessarily interventionist in their reviews of submitted work. They do not re-write papers.

Final decision to print any paper or article remains with the editor. Names of referees of papers and articles will not be printed with the article. Should an author wish a particular person/s not to referee their article or paper this should be indicated at time of first submission. No reason is sought or required to exclude a particular person as referee. The entire refereeing process has been made transparent to allow for improved accountability of the whole publishing process of Australasian Journal of Herpetology as it maintains it's position as one of the world's pre-eminent herpetological publications.

So...
Unlike standard journal referees your referee will only "correct obvious mistakes and potential ambiguities" and any concerns they have about the accuracy of the facts and science of the article aren't sought by the editor. Then the author makes the decision about the referees' suggestions (I suppose it makes no difference whether it's the author or the editor in this case, as they are both the same person).
And as if, as editor, you didn't already have the freedom to pick and choose a referee who will look favourably on what you've written the guidelines give you the right again - "Should an author wish a particular person/s not to referee their article or paper this should be indicated at time of first submission. No reason is sought or required to exclude a particular person as referee."
I'm not sure that this is really true - "The entire refereeing process has been made transparent to allow for improved accountability", especially when you seek to obfuscate the refereeing process and avoid answering any questions about it.

Of note for it's humorous value: "Australasian Journal of Herpetology as it maintains it's position as one of the world's pre-eminent herpetological publications".

so I won’t engage in similar dialogue here with a person who has demonstrated little regard for truth and facts.

I would argue that I have great regard for the truth and facts. You appear to be unable to enter into a dialogue with anyone who asks reasonable questions about the science and procedure behind your articles, however you have a knack for deflecting the arguments with the responses along the lines of:
a) "You haven't read the articles"
b) "Nobody has provided evidence against the articles"
c) "You've only been keeping snakes for a year, what would you know, listen to me I'm an expert"
d) "You don't object to the articles, you object to me."

So to sum up, the people reading the forum (I think Stefan pointed out that many don't have any scientific training) have a choice, they can welcome your snake reclassification with open arms and consider myself, Stefan and others who have contributed to be Luddites resisting scientific change. Or they can read what we've written and use it as a basis to question gaps in your scientific method and the credibility of your claims.

chris-uk

07-19-2012, 10:13 AM

I am officially changing the name of T.s.sirtalis to Thamnophis marnieus scottus.

In all seriousness, that name kind of rolls off the tongue better than most of Hoser's new names.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-19-2012, 12:45 PM

Are yu sure you passed crazy camp Marnie?lol jk;)

kibakiba

07-19-2012, 01:25 PM

She's definitely less crazy than this hoser guy. I think he should go to a crazy camp... Preferably at an asylum.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-19-2012, 01:49 PM

I think he's licked one to many Cane toads.

thesnakeman

07-19-2012, 11:19 PM

Dear all, if ability to make "noise" counts, then I have lost the argument.

All the best

Snakeman

PS Still await contradictory evidence to this (below),

6001

Stefan-A

07-20-2012, 01:48 AM

Dear all, if ability to make "noise" counts, then I have lost the argument.

All the best

Snakeman

PS Still await contradictory evidence to this (below),

6001
I suggest you start answering the questions and criticisms. This is not your personal soapbox, this is not your personal blog, this is not your personal journal. This is a forum, not a place for monologues or soliloquies, but for interaction.

It's also not a place to deposit your scribblings. If you're going to pop in once a month to market your little pamphlet and then basically just run away, I'm going to start treating it as spamming.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-20-2012, 03:58 AM

Stefan-A

07-20-2012, 04:52 AM

Can't he see that our main problem with all this is that he isn't presenting the evidence that his 'journal' promises[which has been stated to him numerous times] yet he still feels we have the burden of proof.
The evidence that Thamnophis is paraphyletic is in one of the articles he cites, but his actions are silly and premature. He's done no research and he's not a scientist, so it's pointless to argue over the science with him. He probably just doesn't understand it. What is open for criticism, is his own actions (from jumping the gun, to splitting the clade, to the details of the names), his professionalism and his motives.

chris-uk

07-20-2012, 05:49 AM

His actions are that of a parasite on the scientists who have actually done some primary research. By "publishing" a literature review that references everyone else's work and draws conclusions that are not expanded or supported in his own writing, he is taking a shotgun approach. Afterall, with the pure volume of articles Hoser has published at least a few of the reclassifications must be correct, and he's been clever enough not to be too specific, so it would be difficult to say in the future that he was correct in his conclusion but for completely wrong reasons.

I think it's time that we put this topic to bed. Hoser isn't going to explain why he's reclassified Thamnophis, the best we can hope for is him posting another picture of his reclassification and him repeating that "nobody has disproved it". It's a "flying spaghetti monster", we don't have to disprove it.

kibakiba

07-20-2012, 06:00 AM

You should have banned him for advertising his book in the first place. I don't know about you guys, but I consider that to be spam.

Didymus20X6

07-20-2012, 11:30 AM

It's Russell's Teapot, basically. Someone making extraordinary claims has the responsibility to present evidence for those claims and to defend those claims against criticism. In Russell's Teapot analogy, an extraordinary claim is made: that there is a teapot orbiting Mars. When the claim is disputed by those requiring proof, the claimant then simply says, "You can't prove it isn't." It's essentially an attempt to argue that the lack of evidence is actually evidence; it's the same type of circular reasoning behind most conspiracy theories. That might have worked in Arkham City, but it doesn't work in real science.

And the whole "I'm a scientist and you're not!" line of reasoning is what we call an argument from authority: it's essentially saying, "I'm right purely based on who I am." It goes hand-in-hand with ad hominem, which is essentially, "You're wrong purely based on who you are." And neither argument - authority or ad hominem - carries any real weight in any kind of discussion, except perhaps political (and even there it shouldn't). But honestly, if what a bunch of non-experts think doesn't really matter, then doesn't that in and of itself make this entire discussion irrelevant? Hoser should be arguing with his fellow scientists, not with a bunch of reptile keepers.

And given that this isn't primarily a scientific forum, but a hobbyist forum, I can't help but think that the discussion isn't even relevant here. We're arguing over how certain species of garter snake should be scientifically classified, what names they should be called? You might as well be arguing over whether a bratwurst should be called a sausage.

The bottom line: when the consensus of the scientific community agrees with Mr. Hoser, then we can take him seriously. Until then, he might as well be blowing steam out his butt for all it matters.

thesnakeman

07-20-2012, 04:31 PM

Marwoleath and others above. One of a number of robust phylogenies is posted by myself above to refute false claims by some here that I had "no evidence" to support the splitting of "Thamnophis". Now that some evidence is presented I get claims of intellectual theft and the like.
In terms of this new allegation, I suggest you take a read of the Rules of the ICZN.
Now I know it is hard for people to admit that they are in the wrong, but surely one of you here can admit that you don't have a shred of evidence to refute what I have presented or published in terms of the phylogenies for Thamnophis is recognised pre-2012.
All the best

guidofatherof5

07-20-2012, 04:47 PM

I for one will be awaiting any changes the ICZN deem appropriate. They are the final word in this matter(at this point) and all those wishing to make changes to any taxonomy can submit their work to them and await their decision.

chris-uk

07-20-2012, 05:28 PM

Jeeze... You just don't get it do you? Showing us a picture of a phylogeny isn't "evidence". Evidence is showing us the phylogeny and actually telling us why it is correct. I refer you back to Stefan's pictures of houses, I've seen them but I don't for one minute believe that Stefan is an architect.
You come onto a Thamnophis forum with your claims but can't be bothered to explain to the laymen here why you are right. Now we've already covered the lack of credibility of the place you published, if you aren't willing to tell us more about your evidence I'd suggest that you redirect your time and attention to an audience that is more receptive.

Didymus20X6

07-20-2012, 07:11 PM

OR to an audience that has some authority within the scientific community to dictate the changes you propose instead of to a bunch of hobbyists. If you honestly believe you are correct, then address other scientists and see if you can shift the consensus. As I said before, once the consensus of the scientific community has weighed in on your evidence, then we'll be in a position to take your claims seriously.

But if you treat them the same way you've treated us - by presenting your little teapot theory without adequate evidence and demanding we prove you wrong - then I suspect they'll just laugh you off stage.

thesnakeman

07-21-2012, 05:23 AM

Chris-UK, with one year's expertise with reptiles, your comments attacking me are treated with the weight they deserve.
I posted the details of the papers here not to seek your approval. If that had been my intent, I'd have done this BEFORE publishing the results of the audit, not after.
As noted, the papers have all been peer reviewed and due the quality of evidence supporting the taxonomy, the reviewers all agreed with my position.
I therefore posted the details of these papers on this forum as I expected people here to be interested in names they are likely to see in circulation in coming years, also to show which snakes are included in each group and as part of a bridge between the professional and amateur herpetologist, viz also a common division between taxonomist and keeper.
I skate between all communities and try to get all to work togeather, although clearly some posting here seem to take an adversial position to everything.
Now the (relevant) professional herpetologists will in the fullness of time either accept my taxonomy or reject it, and they are made aware of the relevant paper/s via the various database and RSS feeds they have access to, such as Zoological Record and the like.
Most are hidden behind so-called "paywalls" and are therefore inaccessible to most "plebs" and people on this forum, which is further reason why I thought I'd post details of the papers here.
Sorry to the noisy few who seem to be bent on trolling rather than much else.
Now here's some advice to all here.
I post here an image or two of one of the wonderful snakes we have here and I ask you to all look at this and then if you have any snakes in your posession to take one out of it's cage and spend a full five minutes handling it and admiring it's magnificent natural beauty.
All the best

6006600760086009

-MARWOLAETH-

07-22-2012, 12:17 AM

Chris-UK, with one year's expertise with reptiles, your comments attacking me are treated with the weight they deserve.

6006600760086009So you are dismissing his valid questions because he only has a years experience with reptiles?

http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBhAQEA8PDw8QDw8QEA8QDw8PDQ8NDg8PFBAVFBUQEh QXHCYeFxkjGRISHy8gIycpLCwsFR4xNTAqNSYrLCkBCQoKDgwO Fw8PFywcHBwpKSk1LCwpKSwsLCkpLCksLCkpNSkpLCktLCwsLS wsLCwpKiwpKSkpKS0sKSwpKSksKf/AABEIAOEA4QMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAUGBwj/xAA9EAACAQMBBQQGBwcFAQAAAAAAAQIDBBEhBRIxQVEGYXGBEx QiMpGhBxVCUrHB0SNDYpKy4fA0cnOCwjP/xAAaAQACAwEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAUG/8QALBEAAgICAQMDAwIHAAAAAAAAAAECEQMEEiExUQUiQRNhcTL BM5GhsdHh8P/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A+1thkWAwQGPI94jgBgS3gyRHkAHkMiAAJ ZDJHIAA8hkjkAsB5DJHIZEA94e8QDIWBPeDJDIZCwJZDJHICsd Esi3iOQCwolkMkQAB5FkQZEMeQyRDIWBLICALAsAGBIiAAAAMQ BgAAADIAABkQADFkbEIAAAAYAAAACYMAAAAAAAAAAGIGIQDEMQ hgAAAxiAAEWsAAmRAAwAAAxMAAAYxMAEMTKL253IN/a4RXeQyZI44ucuyJJOTpFd3tKFPR6vonjHizk1u0c3pGMV36y+ Rjrvnhyfyz1Mk4Tlxe6ui4nlcnqWbI+j4r7f9Z2MWpjS93U6UO 09VPDhCXclKLN1HtJB6VIuD6r24/qedclFYXDx4mOtcoli386f6r/JZLTxy+KPoNvcQqR3oSUk+nXo1yLD5rR2xKlLfhJxfc9GujXM9 XsPtbTuGqc/2dV8NfYn4dH3Hb192OXpJUznZtWWPquqO8wGI3mMAAAAAABAJg AgGABgBAGQEPAAACwAwLgDAEiIBgAAAHkQAAxM8Xe/SMozkqVKM4RbW9KpKLljmtOZfZfSVazX7SFWlLmsRqryaefkUr PjfybHo50r4M9TcVlCLk+S4de485d3Tm8t/oczbnbdVPYt44p6uVWp7OXy3Ycfjg59pt2NRbufaXHv70cL1Wc 8tKH6V/f8A0b9XSnCPOapnbdTOiKL1SjFyfBLPgup4ntl2xr23o6VtiE5 5nKq4xm1FaKMFJYTzq34FfZPtbdXFO49Zl6T0e6oVHFRlKUk/YeMbz4MWv6bCWH6s33Iz2HHLwiju3G0O85te+KJTZRMphiSNzk Od0yhXEk8ptPjpoEitmlJFL6n1DsR2q9Yh6CtLNeCbUn+8prnn 7y5/HqepPh2zb6VCrTrQ96nNSXf3PuayvM+2WdzGrThVg8xqRjKPPR rgdbWy8o0+6OTsYuErXZlwCGajKBEkIQAgATYDAQxCAYgAQDAQ DAvExgTIiAAyAAKccpxfBpp+Y2AAfD9q2To1atNvDhKUH914ej +H4nI33Fv/ABH0Tt96Gu5RpR/b02oyqbyjGSX2WuLa6nzqpFpuMlj5nKkkpNLqevwSlPGpNUy1X T4FlCu4yUk9TE1jvRdTnwxqQcUaIyfZnZvqNK4ilVjGSTyk3hx fPD0aI0KdOKUKe6lHhGPBdTLCtpgy16+JJrinkoUHXG3XgqnrQ ty+TryRTNF8ZZSfVJlUyhGNmeRWy2aK8FqKmJH0/wCjm8c7WUH+6qNR/wBslvfjk+YpHvvowl/qly/Yvz9pGrWdZEZdpXjZ7oBiZ1jkgRJCEMBMAEAgAAAAQYGhALADA ALgyAiwiAhiAAbABgB4rtR2DnWqTr21TE5vM6U5bsG+covk30Z 4a/7KXdLPpKFSKX2t3fh/NHKPtwGeWvGTvsdHD6hlxpRfVI/PtS0nHl+hnlT7sH2btN2TpV4TqU4KFdLeTjop45NcM45ny66sZ LjF/Aw5E8UqfydvX2YbEbXRo5Gv+M0Wtq6kkuS1b6Iuhs2cn7uF1eh 1be1VOOFx5vqUZMqiunculNJDccaLkUzRfJlUjKjGzPKJXul8k R3SxMg0VKJ9D+jW3xTuJ/enCC/6xb/9Hhre2lOUYxi5Sk1GMVxcm8JH1zYWy1bW9Ol9pLem1zqPWT/LyNupFufL4Rh25JQ4+Tecu+27Gm3GK3mtG84iW7XvdyGIv2pfJ dTxG1rrCwmV7u7KM/pYn1+X+xDU1Vk90+x6i27V03JRqpQT4STbin/F0Xed1M+KXd7LOMnvPo9246tOVvUk3Ol7VNvnSf2fJ/iXameb9uR39xbWvGHugevDAxM6RzxCGAhiAAEAxDEMC8BCJkRg AgAYmAxAJDABgGT5ntSko1JJcMvHgfRL65UIN83lL9Twm3YcJe RwPVM0XkhjXdX/AFqjrenJq35OJMpkXNlUjEjqMpkymTLZlEi5FbE2W2dpOrNU6c JTnLhGKy/7LvFa2zqTjBYTk8ZeiXVvuSye72XtO1soejpum54W/Uzmc5dW1wXRcianji6m6/CbKsjkl7FbNvZfshG2Ua1XE7jkk96FLP3esu/4Hcur2MF1lySf+aHnKna2MtFWhHw0K1dKWqkpeDyGb1NQhwwRa +7MS1JzlyyMd9cuTberZ57aNJvJ251Uc+8WTkY5O7fc6mONKjy F3Twzr9jbz0V5QfKUvRy/2z0/HHwMm0KPEp2bPdq0pdKkH8JI7GKfZ+CnLG00fbBNjZFnoDzwA2 ACGIAAQAAAAFogAmRHkBAAEgEgYAMy3F9GGnF9P1Znvr7jGPLi/wAjmTqHA3fVeDePD38/4NmHX5dZBd3Lm8t5OVtJJxaNdSpgw155TPPpuUuTdnYxQ41R52 ejaKpyL72OGzHJnUj1RcyM5FEpEpszzZoiitsKs9Hh4MirvJbN lW6XLoQsuhNmqhdTjrGTXmzLCJaiEkmOzvWe3M6T49TbO5TR5V GuheNaNmWeuu6Jqfk13eHk5sNGaatbJnhxLYKkQk7PtlKWYxfW MX8kNlVn/wDOn/xw/pRaeiT6HnX3AWQBgAZDIhCGSAQABaAMWSwiMWQyIAJFF5X3INr i9EWnL2xV1jHos/F/2MO/meHBKS79v5luGHOaRgqVDPVmKcjLUqnikrO7CA6tQzTmE6pnnU NEYmhKjFexOXNHVuZZRzqsTfifQjIyyKZo0yiVSiaUytmSaI4N EqfcVypLiWJkGhRZYmVqC8CSgDEWAiKyNCGWU8yeEThHVoqi8F 9tDLXe0viyIH2W2WKcF0hD+lFmRRjhY6JL5Ad74OAGRNjYgAWR gAAMAAAJjEBYRGIAABo4W2Ze2/Bfgd1HC25H289Un+Rx/WFeBflfua9P+IcmtPQxVKhfdSOfVmeaxxO9FdBVKhTOqQnMolM 1xiMdSoZpk5Mg0XxVEWVNEHSLsBKJZZGjNhlXPUveeJB4b0Jpk WU7qFjBOpDDI56kyIiSiLwDLACeEuJfZTXpISfuxnFtdyksmeM CxTSHFXJIjN1Fs+q0O1NtP95juksHQpXlOfuzi/NHx5VC2ndzj7s5LwbOymcRxPsIHzKz7TV4Y9ttd7yd6y7arRVF 5kiFHrsDMFptulUWkjbGonwYwJgGAARNgNkSYhgAAAHL27RzGM ujw/BnTbK61NSjKL4SWO/xM2zi+tilDyWYp8JqR4e7epgqnX2jauEnF8vn0aOZUpnkIri6f welg01aMM0VuJqlArcDQpDM0okXEvlEg4likKipRFJFmBTRKwo oaWpndPU1Y0KMYyWJkGiiTYSWSziyEoaliZEhjA8pf2JIW6hhQ LL7kZq1bMsLgvxJXd1urC97kuneYrdGnBDryMmxPpxOjTmaKaK aFM2U6Z0kc1jhEtUSdKi28JHpdkdm97DkiZWcG1nOLzHJ6/ZN9NpZydGhsKlH7KNdOyjHggER9MwNHo0AUIuZEkyJYIBsQMQC IskJogwOXt6gnSc8ZlDXvxzPLPElmLyj3Uo5TT1TPDdoNjyoTc 4ZUJaxkuX8LONu6nOXNdGdTTz8VwZmnAplEz/WMl70c98dH8CP1pB88PpL2TlvDkj3R1FOL+S2USqSG7lPmVyrI aTJA0RZF1St1SxJisJledGKdUqnW5FqRBseCJTO6iuLwUTvs+7 H46IuUGyDmka5NGOtfJaQ1fXkjPPelxflwRKnZtmiGHyZsmfwU JOT6t8WdK1tC63ssG+nQNsIUYJzshSomiMCUYE0i5FDZ09iUI7 ycj3FrOKisYPnlvcbr0OpbbYaxqSoie4UhnnrTbKfFnUo3qYWB tAp9ZQDsVGliJMiSEAxDYAREMCIEWVXFvGpFwmk4tYaZcRZBok jxG1uy9Sm3KC34cf4kefq20Xo4rzR9XwcraXZyjW13d2XWOnxM 0sPg0xzv5PmktnQ5ez4NorlYS5VJLxeT0e0ezFellxW/HuWvwONUjKLxJNPvTRW8flF6zeGYnaVV+8z4xRW7Wr99fyo2uo RcxfSXgl9eXkxOyqPjN+WF+Qvq/rKT82bHUFkmsa8EHmfkyKwiuQ/VV0NKiWQpligVPIzNC0XQ1U7ZIsjEsiWKJS5CjTLYxEhpk0iFk khiyLI0IYkwyJkkRLqVy0diw2pyZwCdKeOA6Cz2P1gB5v1liCg s+l4EyeBYJUIikA8CwIYhEsBgAIiwSwJoi0MjgeBhgVAQccmO6 2RSqe9BPyRvwLAuI7PK3XYek9YuUfmjlXHYeovdkn5Hv8AA8C4 D5M+Y1Oylwvs5KZbBrx4wZ9TcCMqKfIOI+R8qez5rjF/Aj6u1yZ9JudnJ8jh32zOOF8gFZ5JRGkb7ixafAz+rsdCsqQ0i9 WrJqxl0HQjMI1+oS6CdjLoMRmItmz1GXQasH0GIw4LaVI3U9nM 10dnMAMPoRHZ+rwAZ7dCYwJsRBiGAgEDAAGRAAEwBgACGACAAG CAAENgAABCZhuhAVvuSODemB8QAkIshyNVIQCGXBLmAARIMYAN ATgaaQAMC8AAAP/Zhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJzpboXGEibAKDgyQLa0gxJOZSz6sYI YzhAh7bCh4qLhqsufc13ghttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtuDOIg63yKrhKQnERptVzhU4QX3SUP Kafu1nGTUMeMyikM5Sc

Stefan-A

07-22-2012, 12:28 PM

Chris-UK, with one year's expertise with reptiles, your comments attacking me are treated with the weight they deserve.
Non sequitur, ad hominem.

I posted the details of the papers here not to seek your approval. If that had been my intent, I'd have done this BEFORE publishing the results of the audit, not after.
Tough noogies. The second you posted here, you set yourself up for approval or disapproval. Your comments are going to be treated with the weight they deserve, considering that your expertise here is completely unproven.

As noted, the papers have all been peer reviewed and due the quality of evidence supporting the taxonomy, the reviewers all agreed with my position.
Not interested. Did you know that there are peer reviewed "creation science" journals these days?

I therefore posted the details of these papers on this forum as I expected people here to be interested in names they are likely to see in circulation in coming years,
Not going to happen.

also to show which snakes are included in each group and as part of a bridge between the professional and amateur herpetologist, viz also a common division between taxonomist and keeper.
Architect-fireman.

I skate between all communities and try to get all to work togeather,
How's that working for ya?

although clearly some posting here seem to take an adversial position to everything.
Most of all, stupidity.

Now the (relevant) professional herpetologists will in the fullness of time either accept my taxonomy or reject it,
They sure will.

Sorry to the noisy few who seem to be bent on trolling rather than much else.
Glass houses, etc.

Now here's some advice to all here.
Oh, rapture!

I post here an image or two of one of the wonderful snakes we have here and I ask you to all look at this and then if you have any snakes in your posession to take one out of it's cage and spend a full five minutes handling it and admiring it's magnificent natural beauty.
So in other words, you want us to grab a snake for absolutely no reason and fiddle about with it for no benefit at all to the snake.

katach

07-22-2012, 01:43 PM

Can we just get rid of this blathering idiot? He obviously doesn't play well with others.

chris-uk

07-22-2012, 03:20 PM

You see fit to pick out my year of reptile keeping experience. You'll notice that my criticisms have been based on general scientific principles, nothing that requires a knowledge of snakes at all. I've judged your posts based on what you've given us to discuss, which is a lot of bluster and little science.
How about using your 20 years of expertise to explain why we will be using the new names rather than just giving us a list of ridiculous changes with nothing to back it up?
You also consistently refuse to discuss the peer review process and respond to my questions about your conflict of interest being author, editor and publisher. That leads me to believe that there isn't anyone seriously supporting your classifications, and therefore there is no reason for any hobbyist to pay heed to them.

thesnakeman

07-22-2012, 05:33 PM

Chris-UK wrote:
"Showing us a picture of a phylogeny isn't "evidence"."
Well I thought it was, so we shall have to disagree.
To the others and their venomous comments above, I'll let you have the last word as you seem to think that "noise" wins
an argument and in this case you may be right.
PS I won't direct you to the crocodile reclassification in issue 14 of AJH published last month!
All the best

6036

Didymus20X6

07-22-2012, 05:33 PM

It appears that Mr. Hoser can't tell the difference between a logical argument and a logical fallacy. He may be a scientist, but if he can't even understand basic logic, he can't possibly be a very good one.

Here are just a few of the fallacies this guy commits just about every time he posts:

Argument from Authority. He claims to be a scientist, and therefore whatever he has to say is right. Related to that, he claims that his "peer reviewed" journal is proof of his claims, when in reality there have been numerous instances in which the credibility of his "peer review" process has been challenged. But notice what he ISN'T doing: presenting real evidence to back up his claims.

Ad Hominem. More than once, I have seen him dismiss valid arguments against his claims based solely on his opponent's lack of experience. But in reality it doesn't matter how much experience his opponents have: if the arguments are valid, they are valid no matter who makes them, whether a newborn baby or a 100 year old expert. What matters isn't who says it - or the credentials of the person saying it - what matters is what is being said, and whether the points being made are valid.

Another example of ad hominem, or poisoning the well, is his use of the terms "trolls" and "flamers" to describe his opponents. Again, he doesn't seem to want to deal with the actual points themselves, but simply dismiss his opponents by using terms that imply that their opposition is meaningless.

The bottom line is, the burden of proof is on Mr. Hoser, both to present his evidence in full and to make his arguments based on sound logic. He has thus far not done so within this forum. Instead, he resorts to insisting that he is right for no other reason than that he is a scientist (never mind that other scientists disagree with him) and that his opponents are not (never mind that they raise valid criticisms and arguments). This has done little but prove to me that this Mr. Hoser is not a rational man, but is rather attempting to browbeat less astute hobbyists into supporting his position without adequate reason. This is not the hallmark of a good scientist, and in fact, in my mind, casts doubt on his expertise and his credibility.

Once again, I would urge Mr. Hoser to focus his efforts on discussing his "findings" with appropriate scientific authorities and let them make whatever decisions will be made. And until such a time comes - which I sincerely doubt - this is the THAMNOPHIS forum, a place for discussing the genus THAMNOPHIS, and not Gregswedoshus, because the latter genus does not even exist.

thamneil

07-22-2012, 05:43 PM

Perhaps if I post a picture of a child holding a reptile, I can be a scientist to.

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/425181_363624703668218_2012504417_n.jpg

It worked! Time to go reclassify Crotalus!

kibakiba

07-22-2012, 06:52 PM

I have 2 videos of some 2 year olds handling a fine specimine of thamnophis (big mama). Does that mean I can rename thamnophis ordinoides? I'm renaming thamnophis to unicornus... And all ordinoides shall be called pinkus. so I raise a whole lot of unicornus pinkus. :D

Stefan-A

07-22-2012, 11:18 PM

Can we just get rid of this blathering idiot? He obviously doesn't play well with others.
Yes, we can.

Stefan-A

07-22-2012, 11:26 PM

d_virginiana

07-22-2012, 11:56 PM

Now here's some advice to all here.
I post here an image or two of one of the wonderful snakes we have here and I ask you to all look at this and then if you have any snakes in your posession to take one out of it's cage and spend a full five minutes handling it and admiring it's magnificent natural beauty.
All the best

6006600760086009

Before he gets kicked off, I kind of want to point out to him that one of the 'one or two wonderful snakes' he has is actually a frog.:D

thesnakeman

07-23-2012, 12:30 AM

kibakiba

07-23-2012, 12:34 AM

I'd like to see it get locked... It'll take away the fun of replying, but I have a feeling you'll be gone completely too. That'll be a great thing.

thamneil

07-23-2012, 01:51 AM

Goodbye Mr. Hoser. It is a shame that you failed, yet again, to impress your crowd through an online forum.

chris-uk

07-23-2012, 02:13 AM

"Before he gets kicked off, I kind of want to point out to him that one of the 'one or two wonderful snakes' he has is actually a frog".

On that note it may be worthwhile to lock this thread as I don't see it going anywhere.

All the best

And it had so much potential, if only you'd been willing to enter into a discussion and explain the "evidence" and respond in a robust way to the critical response you received. Instead the place this thread has gone to a place where the credibility of Raymond Hoser (Herpetologist and Taxonomist) has been further undermined by Mr Hoser himself.

-MARWOLAETH-

07-23-2012, 03:39 AM

That moment when you've failed to impress the hobbyist and scientific community all at the same time...

EasternGirl

07-23-2012, 09:52 AM

kibakiba

07-23-2012, 10:18 AM

Since I know more than Mr. Hoser about ordinoides, that makes my name for Unicornus Pinkus official. No one has challenged that either.

Stefan-A

07-23-2012, 10:27 AM

Since I know more than Mr. Hoser about ordinoides, that makes my name for Unicornus Pinkus official. No one has challenged that either.
Unicornus is a synonym for Acanthina.

kibakiba

07-23-2012, 10:29 AM

Okay then. Unicornius pinkus. Anything conflicting with that?

Stefan-A

07-23-2012, 10:50 AM

Okay then. Unicornius pinkus. Anything conflicting with that?
Not to my knowledge.

Didymus20X6

07-23-2012, 10:55 AM

6046

Steveo

07-23-2012, 10:56 AM

Brony alert.

kibakiba

07-23-2012, 10:57 AM

Unicornius Pinkus is officially official. Anymore conflicting evidence doesn't matter at all, because I have a job as a professional gamer dancer. Everything is irrelevant.

Steveo

07-23-2012, 11:15 AM

I would just like to add that Mr. Hoser forgets that many of us on here are trained in evaluating valid and reliable research...so while he says that no one has debunked his theories...I believe that many of us did debunk his theories...and we are actually qualified to do so. Also, I want to say that no one has challenged my new name of Thamnophis marnieus scottus...therefore, by Mr. Hoser's rules, I suppose that is now an official name for eastern garters. Please make a note of this official change.

I challenge your name because you can't name something after yourself :P You can, however, name it for someone else.

Seriously though, we do have some real scientists here. I've done real work and had been published before I even finished my degree. The paper presented by Mr. Hoser would not earn a passing grade even in a 3rd year biology course without substantial revision and addition of the missing sections. How are we supposed to understand the results without knowing the methods? I also consider it a grave offense to cite your own previous work unless it was such a pioneering effort that nobody else has published on it; taxonomy certainly does not fit this description.

The paper gives nothing but morphological evidence, but that is already how most of the naming was done in the first place. The only realistic way to reclassify organisms in 2012 is with solid genetic analysis, of which none is present.

Stefan-A

07-23-2012, 11:19 AM

Unicornius Pinkus is officially official. Anymore conflicting evidence doesn't matter at all, because I have a job as a professional gamer dancer. Everything is irrelevant.
What evidence do you have supporting it? Also, since the scientific community is free to accept or reject all proposed names, even those made in accordance with conventions (eg. ICZN), I am going to propose that the clade consisting of Thamnophis and members of Adelophis (Pyron et al. 2011) be renamed Eutaenia, which is a defunct synonym for Thamnophis. The prefix eu- meaning "good" or "well" and "taenia" referring to bands or stripes.

Eight

07-23-2012, 04:40 PM

Was this guy serious? Or was he just trolling for the hell of it. Was he on a mad lust for fame.

On a serious note I love science, but have no clue about publishing papers and the way findings are accepted in the community. But let's say a wrote a book on a particular subject, let's say processed cheese, and all I did was take facts, references and paragraphs from other published books on processed cheese without adding my own work to the book. I would be sued or at least accused of plagiarism.
So surely if you publish a paper with no work of your own, whilst using others research it's a similar offence?

Like I said I have no idea on how it works.

Stefan-A

07-23-2012, 05:02 PM

Was this guy serious?
Yes.

Was he on a mad lust for fame.
Possibly that, too.

On a serious note I love science, but have no clue about publishing papers and the way findings are accepted in the community. But let's say a wrote a book on a particular subject, let's say processed cheese, and all I did was take facts, references and paragraphs from other published books on processed cheese without adding my own work to the book. I would be sued or at least accused of plagiarism.
So surely if you publish a paper with no work of your own, whilst using others research it's a similar offence?
Not as long as you cite sources and don't try to pass other people's work off as your own. You can compile information from dozens of books on processed cheese into a single book of your own, as long as you 1. Use the information in those books and not the text itself, and 2. Cite sources for every claim that's based on another person's work. You can take facts, but you can't take paragraphs, unless you present the paragraph as a quote and cite the source for that quote. You compile the information gathered by others, which, in itself, is a very valuable contribution. The Garter Snake bible is a prime example of a book that has been compiled in exactly this fashion (with 40 pages of source references and no original research).

Eight

07-23-2012, 05:14 PM

Thank you for that. I've learned something new and I'm sure I'll find that useful in the future.

I seriously can't understand why he just couldn't answer the questions posted to him in a professional manor, as opposed to side stepping them.

Still, it was a giggle to read

kibakiba

07-23-2012, 06:36 PM

Stefan, I do have evidence. I don't need to show it to you, though. It's there, but you just wouldn't understand it. I've had lots of people agree with me. And since I'm a professional gamer dancer, you cant challenge my knowledge.

ConcinusMan

07-23-2012, 08:31 PM

What was it that SCTV characters Bob & Doug McKenzie used to say? Yeah, that.

Didymus20X6

07-23-2012, 11:49 PM

6062

EasternGirl

07-24-2012, 09:55 AM

Okay...then I will change the scientific name of easterns to Thamnophis chantelus snakitus. Chantel, you change the name of northwesterns to Thamnophis marnieus scottus. No one can challenge us on that...since we are both now officially zoologists. I have willed it to be so. I will be posting a scientific paper on the internet about the mating habits of hippos later today...because I am an expert on hippos as of this moment. Btw...you can all call me Dr. Scott from now on....I have a Ph.D in zoology now. I swear I do....

chris-uk

07-24-2012, 11:42 AM

ConcinusMan

07-24-2012, 11:51 AM

but with only a year's experience keeping snakes what would I know about anything?]

So what? I'm sure many zoologists have never kept a snake.

Stefan-A

07-24-2012, 12:01 PM

I feel that I should defend Hoser, because however misguided and flawed his thinking was, he was the least attempting to follow some scientific process. He thinks he gained the right to rename species by splitting up the established classes, which would be correct if he had evidence to back it up. Now the posts are blatantly taking the Michael.

I would have considered posting a defence, but with only a year's experience keeping snakes what would I know about anything?
I know that feeling and on that note, what evidence would you require? Thamnophis is apparently paraphyletic (Pyron et al. 2011), and that warrants some measures to sort out the classification. At least one species of the genus Adelophis appears to actually be misplaced and belongs to the clade that currently consists exclusively of Thamnophis. Whether that justifies the splitting of Thamnophis, instead of simple reclassification of the misplaced species, or renaming the entire genus Thamnophis as Adelophis, is not something I'm 100% certain of.

Fortunately, it's just a matter of convention. Even the silliest name suggestions have a chance of sticking, if people choose to use them, but the chances are better if the suggestion is based on some widely accepted convention.

Invisible Snake

07-27-2012, 04:13 AM

chris-uk

07-27-2012, 06:33 AM

Hey Mr. Hoser check out this link..

Boffins big blue over little croc | News | NT News | Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia | ntnews.com.au (http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/07/26/312001_ntnews.html)

Great link. I love the blunt, Australian reporting style. Can't imagine it being written that way on the BBC.

kibakiba

07-27-2012, 06:41 AM

You should meet my Aussie friend, Chris... He's the bluntest of al blunt people. He's a cool friend to have too, cause he'll just say what he means.. No bull involved... Haha

-MARWOLAETH-

07-27-2012, 07:22 AM

I think Mr Webb pretty much sums it up:D

chris-uk

07-27-2012, 12:26 PM

I found another interesting article (it's fairly long, but many of the points that have come up in this thread are presented by professional, and they raise some points I'd not even considered):
http://pages.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/FWit/LittSerp.pdf

The sort of discussion we've seen here has been surrounding Hoser for many, many years.

Steveo

07-27-2012, 12:51 PM

Invisible Snake

12-22-2012, 04:12 PM

Sorry to bump this dead thread but I saw this being shared on FB lol

7699

gregmonsta

12-23-2012, 10:09 AM

Sorry to bump this dead thread but I saw this being shared on FB lol

7699

Ahem .... LOL

Greg'sGarters

12-23-2012, 01:23 PM

I honestly think that the genus should be left the way it is right now. And to add in my word, I think that removing a snake's venom glands is extremely cruel. People expect venomous snakes to eat without their venom, that's like if someone pulled out every single one of a humans teeth and wanted them to eat an apple.

ConcinusMan

12-27-2012, 09:32 PM

I don't think it's cruel necessarily. If the snake is fed already dead food and likes it, the venom isn't needed. But I don't think it's right either to permanently alter them.

snake man

12-27-2012, 09:53 PM

I believe that if the snake can kill you that easily then you should not be keeping it, and if you are keeping it then you take that risk and responsibility of the snake and its venom. Bottom line in my opion is that if you want a "hot" snake then yo can have it but don't take away it's venom.

d_virginiana

12-27-2012, 11:01 PM

I see no reason that anyone would need a 'safe' cobra and another ACTUALLY safe species wouldn't cut it. Makes me think of the people who refuse to own a snake smaller than they are because they want to look cool.

Greg'sGarters

12-29-2012, 03:10 PM

I don't think it's cruel necessarily. If the snake is fed already dead food and likes it, the venom isn't needed. But I don't think it's right either to permanently alter them.

But the venom isn't only used for killing the animal, a lot of times, it will also help break down skin and muscle tissue making the animal easier to digest - give it a head start in a way.

thamneil

12-30-2012, 02:21 AM

Venomoid snakes have been kept for many, many years on a diet of pre killed prey alone. There have been no digestive differences between the venomoids and their fully functional equivalents. The theory of digestive issues is moot. It was simply an idea that someone came up with to boycott venomoids.

chris-uk

03-21-2013, 03:29 PM

I spotted this on RFUK, and at the risk of dragging Hoser back to our peaceful forum I thought it was significant enough that quite a few of you would be interested to know that a group of respected herpetologists have responded to the Hoser debacle.

The block below is from Mark O'Shea's Facebook page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very important herpetological paper has just been published - read about it here first.

We have published a Point of View in Herpetological Review 44(1):8-23 in March 2013. It provides a reference which can be cited by persons who wish to avoid using names coined by Raymond Hoser or Richard Wells from Jan 1st 2000 to the present.

You can download a copy of the pdf from my website but pasting this link into your browser.

http://www.markoshea.info/downloads/...eer-Review.pdf

These Hoser and Wells names are considered invalid by the vast majority of herpetological taxonomists and paleontologists, a large number of whom have expressed their support for the Point of View (see Acknowledgements).

A number of the world's largest and most influential herpetological societies and the World Congress of Herpetology have also indicated their opposition to the taxonomic vandalism wrought by these two gentlemen by passing motions in support of this Point of View (see Censure of Taxonomic Vandals p.20).

The PoV also has the backing of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature. Authors of herpetological papers wishing to avoid the use of names by Hoser and Wells can cite this Point of View. A Table of preferred names for each of the several hundred Hoser and Wells coined names is also provided for clarity.

The Point of View is an open-access paper so please feel free to circulate this pdf on websites, forums and social network sites where other herpetologists may access and benefit from it.