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

[chris-uk]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

[kibakiba]

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]

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]

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]

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.





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