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

AJH-Issues-13-15-2.jpg