The "Hoser review" of the genus Thamnophis...

[thesnakeman]

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

a7.jpg

[Stefan-A]

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]

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

[thamneil]

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-]

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]

I have! Best. Book. Ever!

[chris-uk]

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]

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

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


Daniel J. D. Natusch ^{A B} and Jessica A. Lyons <sup>A

A</sup> 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
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 [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 |

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.

[chris-uk]

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

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-]

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.