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

[thesnakeman]

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

[Stefan-A]

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!

Really. I watched a video of one being successfully milked while I was typing that post.

• Critics said the same about evolution and Broghammerus!

So by your logic, being told that you're wrong, means that you're right.

Thamneil – well your comment was so garbled I was unable to offer a comment.

It absolutely was not garbled. If you have no intention of answering people, just be honest and simply ignore them.

Chris-UK – I note from your bio you wrote for this site that you have been a snake enthusiast for one year. Congratulations!

Way to ignore his points.

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.

Ooooh, over 40 years. Your appeals to authority do not lend your arguments any credence.

[Stefan-A]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Stefan-A]

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

We have three of those. One snakeman, one snake man and one thesnakeman.

[EasternGirl]

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]

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]

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.