How many Species were to be Re-Classified or Re-Named since 2000?

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ShaunMorelia

Very Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
20
Location
NSW & ACT
Thought I would share some information that I have come across in my scientific paper research.
The below is an exerpt from "Best Practices: In the 21st Century, Taxonomic Decisions in Herpetology are Acceptable Only When Supported by a Body of Evidence and Published via Peer-Review" published in the Herpetological Review, 2013, 44(1), 8–23.

Link is here ---> PDF

Article said:
Raymond Hoser’s Private Taxonomy. — Between January 2000 and September 2012, Raymond Hoser named two superfamilies, one family, three subfamilies, 89 tribes and subtribes, 113 genera, 64 subgenera, 25 species, and 53 subspecies of reptiles, including Old and New World snakes, geckos, skinks, and crocodiles (Table 1). These names constitute 76% of genera and subgenera and 16% of species and subspecies newly proposed for snakes over that time period (Uetz 2012). Hoser’s invariably single-authored papers are characterized by a lack of scientific rigor and plagued by a variety of other problems, including: (1) naming of putatively allopatric populations without primary evidence, but listing the current distribution as the sole or primary distinguishing character (e.g., the diagnosis of Oxyuranus scutellatus barringeri—Hoser 2002a:47); (2) invention of evidence (e.g., body color of Oxyuranus scutellatus adelynhoserae Hoser 2009c, based on a holotype that is actually an isolated head: BMNH 1992.542); (3) repeated description of the same taxon as new (Leiopython albertisi barkeri Hoser 2000a = L. a. barkerorum Hoser 2009a = L. a. barkerorum Hoser 2012b; Oxyuranus scutellatus barringeri Hoser 2002a = O. s. andrewwilsoni Hoser 2009c); (4) descriptions of new species and subspecies based on morphological aberrations and vague differences in color pattern (e.g., Acanthophis barnetti Hoser 1998:24—diagnosed by the absence of raised supraoculars, which is merely an artifact of preservation [WW, pers. obs.], and “heavier dark pigmentation;” Pseudonaja textilis cliveevatti Hoser 2012i:38—diagnosed by stating that “each dorsal scale is darker brown tipped”); and (5) harvesting of clades from published phylogenetic studies for description as new genera or subgenera. For example, the division of Natrix into three monotypic genera (Natrix, Jackyhosernatrix, and Guystebbinsus) by Hoser (2012aa[1]) stems from the recognition of an unsupported branch in Pyron et al. (2011). Even though the use of patronyms in the naming of taxa is not a contravention of the Code, Hoser does not coin and assign names for the purpose of scientific need, taxonomic clarity, or improved characterization of biodiversity, but rather for personal reasons, as explained by the author in most of his etymology sections, as well as in several Internet blogs and social media environments. Hoser’s genus and species names are all patronyms, and many include the author’s surname (N = 43; Table 1) or the names of his relatives, employees, and even pets.


Without exception, Hoser’s taxonomic decisions have been published in outlets with evaluation processes that, if they exist, are not designed to safeguard scientific rigor. Most recently, Hoser (2009a–e, 2012a–ac) has published in the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH), a vehicle produced and mailed by Hoser himself, and primarily geared towards taxonomic articles of which he is the exclusive author and editor. Although the AJH masquerades as a scientific journal, it is perhaps better described as a printed “blog” because it lacks many of the hallmarks of formal scientific communication, and includes much irrelevant information (Ross et al. 2012). Examples of the latter include private email messages in their entirety, as well as polemics against taxonomic herpetologists (e.g., Hoser 2001:48–56; Hoser 2009a:3–21, 30; Hoser 2012a:1–34), taxonomic journals (Zootaxa; Hoser 2012a:15ff), wildlife officials (e.g., Hoser 2012f:12), and even judges in courts of law (e.g., Hoser 2012i:45). We maintain that AJH should not be considered a “public and permanent scientific record” and therefore fails a requirement of the Code (Art. 8.1.1; emphasis added) in both style and substance. The AJH is not a journal in the scientific sense. It is instead personally distributed by Hoser for unscientific purposes, and should therefore perhaps be best classified as advertising.

Table 1 which lists all the species that were to be re-classified or re-named can be found starting on page 4 of that pdf.
But it is quite amazing how many species this person wanted to re-classify or completely re-name over the last 13 years (most of which occurred in the last 4 years)...

I know it's the forums' stance to not talk about a certain someone, but I think this post is not breaking any of those rules as I am just sharing what has been published and not once have I personally mentioned one's name.
 
I was recently trying to get my head around the exact number of Morelia sub species.
After searching through the available Uni databases the interesting thing was i couldn't find peer reviews or citations of the said authors work.
This explains why you Dont find the reclassification s in taxa databases.




Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top