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

[thesnakeman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

A1.jpgA2.jpgA3.jpgA4.jpg

[-MARWOLAETH-]

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

A1.jpgA2.jpgA3.jpgA4.jpg

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

[Stefan-A]

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]

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

[chris-uk]

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]

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

PNG-Croc-3.jpg