Current status of Pseudechis weigeli
- Thread starter Stefan
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
The reference is:
Keogh, J.S., I.A.W. Scott & C. Hayes (2005) Rapid and repeated origin of insular gigantism and dwarfism in Australian tiger snakes. Evolution 59(1): 226-233.
Basically, all Notechis share a very recent common ancestor, and the major differences in size, pattern etc. have arisen in a few thousand or tens of thousands of years, so the subspecies and ater/scutatus division really didn't tell us anything useful. The deepest split was between the WA populations and all others.
Stefan
Active Member
Yes I know... I am sorry, but English isn't my foreign laguage so sometimes I need to ask again to look I have understand correctly...
@ Cassaica: Thanks, I will try to find the full paper!
Stefan
Active Member
Found it... Realy REALY interesting!
People,
Firstly there is no ruling body in terms of recognition of species or the like, the ultimate position is reached on evidence and consensus developed over time.
The ICZN rule against availability of names, but only in rare cases and usually over issues of priority and the like, in terms of first person to identify a species usually gets naming rights.
The history of the dwarf “Pseudechis” or “Pailsus” group is interesting both in terms of the snakes, the politics in Australian herpetology and our current understanding of the group.
In 1983-5, Wells and Wellington (W and W) published their now famous (or notorious depending on your view) papers on Australian reptiles, naming hundreds of new species and genera.
The opposition by almost all publishing herpetologists was violent and resulted in a petition to the ICZN to suppress the lot.
Ultimately it failed, but with Hal Cogger, the supremo behind the push to stop the W and W names, the suppression continued to the present day, but as his influence has declined, others have revisited the Wells and Wellington works and found they actually got a lot of things right.
Notably among this group was Raymond Hoser, whose current works tend to be violently opposed in many quarters in much the same way.
Wells described “Cannia weigeli” in 1985 from a single dead specimen in an obscure self published publication of minimal print run, and the description was shortly after “sunk” by Glen Shea, a taxonomist of the highest standing, when he declared it a variant of “Pseudechis australis” in a paper in Herpetofauna the same year.
The weigeli taxon disappeared into oblivion until 1998, when Hoser, 1998 described a new taxon in 1998, calling it Pailsus pailsei.
(W and W’s from WA and Hoser’s from Qld).
While both Hoser’s and W and W’s taxonomy is often accused of being “evidence free” and the like, a perusal of both original description papers shows both to be very long and detailed (including by their own standards), with clear diagnoses of each species and are by all accounts among the better descriptions of all authors.
Hoser’s paper of 1998 not only confirmed a new species, but raised the issue as to whether or not Weigeli and Pailsi were the same species or not.
As with the Wells description of Pailsi, David Williams (as senior author) rushed out a paper in 1998, declaring Hoser’s Pailsus pailsi to be a synonym of “Pseudechis australis”.
That paper in three drafts and the Hoser one are on the web and worth reading for a historical perspective on the species.
Williams, adversely named in Hoser’s 1996 “Smuggled-2” book had as a result of those disclosures been fined a year later (1997) $7500 for smuggling and cruelty related matters and as a result was in 1998 opposed strongly to all things “Hoser”.
Notably, Cogger 2000 did not include any Hoser taxa.
In 2000, Hoser described another taxon “rossignollii” and as for the previous descriptions, Hoser’s adversaries were quick to publish papers “sinking” the Hoser names, most notably the Wuster et. al. paper about Hoser’s “amateur” taxonomy, still widely posted on the web.
Hoser’s most detailed appraisal and study of the entire “Pseudechis australis” group appeared in print in 2001, see link at:
http://www.smuggled.com/boycan2.htm
and included an Australia-wide revision of the group, where he resurrected several taxa from synonymy with “australis” at the subspecies level, described three more subspecies, upheld all of Weigeli, rossignolli and pailsi as valid species in their own rights and sunk several (previously sunk) synonyms of “australis”.
The Hoser paper of 2001, remains the benchmark publication for all those seeking to know the current status of the group, based on known facts and examination of hundreds of museum specimens across Australia and overseas.
Hoser’s paper was criticized at the time for it’s total lack of DNA data on the said snakes, but in 2004, Kuch, et. al. published their own findings online at:
http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/Scott/PDF%20Files/39.2005.KuchEtAl.Nat%20copy.pdf
including based on material supplied by Hoser that completely upheld the Hoser position with relation to P. australis and the other “dwarf Mulga” snakes.
P. 124 of the Kuch paper identifies four clades (groups of snakes) conforming with:
P. Australis (clade 2),
P. weigeli (clade 3),
P. pailsi (clade 4) and
P. rossignollii (Clade 1).
Nothing in that paper indicates any undescribed taxa at the species level.
The NT “Pseudechis australis” claimed on this forum to be an undescribed taxa, have in fact been described by Hoser in 2001 as “burgessi”, holotype from Groote Eylandt NT, but he regarded them only worthy of subspecies status (to “P. australis”), which is a position upheld by the data of Kuch et. al. 2004.
At the present time there is no evidence in any form of an undescribed species level taxon in the NT in the “Pseudechis australis” group, but noting how three other taxa (weigeli, pailsi, rossignollii) and others such as (Pseudonaja elliotti and Oxyuranus temporalis, both recently discovered and named) escaped attention for the best part of 200 years almost anything is possible with regards to “Pseudechis/Cannia/Pailsus” taxonomy in Australia’s future.
Now getting to the Tiger Snakes, Hoser, Donnellan and others have regarded all as of a single species level taxon for some time and all have published papers stating the same in recent years.
However, Cogger 2000, the book used by fauna authorities as their taxonomic benchmark, recognize two species level taxa, however it is my guess that in due course the genus Notechis will become recognized as a single species level taxon, and for those who continue to recognize subspecies, the regional forms will retain their trinomial names.
Usually, reference books run an average of 10 years behind the times in terms of nomenclature, even when taxonomic updates are not in dispute (see for example Broghammerus).
For disputed taxonomy as seen with the “pailsus” group (most other “Hoser” taxonomy and a lot of the W and W stuff, general acceptance may not be seen in a lifetime or even longer, especially when the personality politics gets in the way of dispassionate research!
Firstly there is no ruling body in terms of recognition of species or the like, the ultimate position is reached on evidence and consensus developed over time.
The ICZN rule against availability of names, but only in rare cases and usually over issues of priority and the like, in terms of first person to identify a species usually gets naming rights.
The history of the dwarf “Pseudechis” or “Pailsus” group is interesting both in terms of the snakes, the politics in Australian herpetology and our current understanding of the group.
In 1983-5, Wells and Wellington (W and W) published their now famous (or notorious depending on your view) papers on Australian reptiles, naming hundreds of new species and genera.
The opposition by almost all publishing herpetologists was violent and resulted in a petition to the ICZN to suppress the lot.
Ultimately it failed, but with Hal Cogger, the supremo behind the push to stop the W and W names, the suppression continued to the present day, but as his influence has declined, others have revisited the Wells and Wellington works and found they actually got a lot of things right.
Notably among this group was Raymond Hoser, whose current works tend to be violently opposed in many quarters in much the same way.
Wells described “Cannia weigeli” in 1985 from a single dead specimen in an obscure self published publication of minimal print run, and the description was shortly after “sunk” by Glen Shea, a taxonomist of the highest standing, when he declared it a variant of “Pseudechis australis” in a paper in Herpetofauna the same year.
The weigeli taxon disappeared into oblivion until 1998, when Hoser, 1998 described a new taxon in 1998, calling it Pailsus pailsei.
(W and W’s from WA and Hoser’s from Qld).
While both Hoser’s and W and W’s taxonomy is often accused of being “evidence free” and the like, a perusal of both original description papers shows both to be very long and detailed (including by their own standards), with clear diagnoses of each species and are by all accounts among the better descriptions of all authors.
Hoser’s paper of 1998 not only confirmed a new species, but raised the issue as to whether or not Weigeli and Pailsi were the same species or not.
As with the Wells description of Pailsi, David Williams (as senior author) rushed out a paper in 1998, declaring Hoser’s Pailsus pailsi to be a synonym of “Pseudechis australis”.
That paper in three drafts and the Hoser one are on the web and worth reading for a historical perspective on the species.
Williams, adversely named in Hoser’s 1996 “Smuggled-2” book had as a result of those disclosures been fined a year later (1997) $7500 for smuggling and cruelty related matters and as a result was in 1998 opposed strongly to all things “Hoser”.
Notably, Cogger 2000 did not include any Hoser taxa.
In 2000, Hoser described another taxon “rossignollii” and as for the previous descriptions, Hoser’s adversaries were quick to publish papers “sinking” the Hoser names, most notably the Wuster et. al. paper about Hoser’s “amateur” taxonomy, still widely posted on the web.
Hoser’s most detailed appraisal and study of the entire “Pseudechis australis” group appeared in print in 2001, see link at:
http://www.smuggled.com/boycan2.htm
and included an Australia-wide revision of the group, where he resurrected several taxa from synonymy with “australis” at the subspecies level, described three more subspecies, upheld all of Weigeli, rossignolli and pailsi as valid species in their own rights and sunk several (previously sunk) synonyms of “australis”.
The Hoser paper of 2001, remains the benchmark publication for all those seeking to know the current status of the group, based on known facts and examination of hundreds of museum specimens across Australia and overseas.
Hoser’s paper was criticized at the time for it’s total lack of DNA data on the said snakes, but in 2004, Kuch, et. al. published their own findings online at:
http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/Scott/PDF%20Files/39.2005.KuchEtAl.Nat%20copy.pdf
including based on material supplied by Hoser that completely upheld the Hoser position with relation to P. australis and the other “dwarf Mulga” snakes.
P. 124 of the Kuch paper identifies four clades (groups of snakes) conforming with:
P. Australis (clade 2),
P. weigeli (clade 3),
P. pailsi (clade 4) and
P. rossignollii (Clade 1).
Nothing in that paper indicates any undescribed taxa at the species level.
The NT “Pseudechis australis” claimed on this forum to be an undescribed taxa, have in fact been described by Hoser in 2001 as “burgessi”, holotype from Groote Eylandt NT, but he regarded them only worthy of subspecies status (to “P. australis”), which is a position upheld by the data of Kuch et. al. 2004.
At the present time there is no evidence in any form of an undescribed species level taxon in the NT in the “Pseudechis australis” group, but noting how three other taxa (weigeli, pailsi, rossignollii) and others such as (Pseudonaja elliotti and Oxyuranus temporalis, both recently discovered and named) escaped attention for the best part of 200 years almost anything is possible with regards to “Pseudechis/Cannia/Pailsus” taxonomy in Australia’s future.
Now getting to the Tiger Snakes, Hoser, Donnellan and others have regarded all as of a single species level taxon for some time and all have published papers stating the same in recent years.
However, Cogger 2000, the book used by fauna authorities as their taxonomic benchmark, recognize two species level taxa, however it is my guess that in due course the genus Notechis will become recognized as a single species level taxon, and for those who continue to recognize subspecies, the regional forms will retain their trinomial names.
Usually, reference books run an average of 10 years behind the times in terms of nomenclature, even when taxonomic updates are not in dispute (see for example Broghammerus).
For disputed taxonomy as seen with the “pailsus” group (most other “Hoser” taxonomy and a lot of the W and W stuff, general acceptance may not be seen in a lifetime or even longer, especially when the personality politics gets in the way of dispassionate research!
Jonno from ERD
Very Well-Known Member
G'day Ray 
Jonno from ERD
Very Well-Known Member
G'day,
Ray has mates?
Ray has mates?
Stefan
Active Member
:lol:
- Status
Similar threads
