@GBWhite. I optimistically thought we might be done here, hence my tardy reply.
…. I know them both personally an like most authors who publish similar books I'm also aware that most if not all have very little field experience with a lot of the species they provide ID's for….
Knowing Steve Wilson personally you’d be aware that he has been employed by the Qld Museum as an Information Officer since 1986, with part of his contract duties being to go through the existing reptile collection of 45,000 specimens and ensure they have been correctly identified - a task he completed only a few years back. While I have no knowledge of his field experience with Weasel Skinks, his re-cataloguing duties would doubtless have exposed him to a significant number of specimens of this common species.
….and basically duplicate information from previous publications. ...
There is a simple and sound reason why this occurs - but it is not the one you have suggested. If an existing species description is considered to be correct and adequate, why would you want to change it? The fact that many species descriptions remain the same in subsequent publications does NOT mean they have been mindlessly copied from one publication to the next. What it does mean is that when the description was scrutinised and evaluated`, it was judged to be fine just as is.
The acknowledgements page of Wilson & Swan provides a bit of an insight into what takes place in authoring a field guide – definitely worth a read.
Instead of being argumentative and casting aspersions on others of renown in the process, simply to give me a hard time, why not put that energy to constructive use? Use the fact that you know the authors personally to give
them the information you are voicing here, with added details of locations and frequency etc. plus any photos you may have. If your field experiences represent a significant occurrence, then the species should be earmarked for further investigation utilising the information you have provided.
Cheers,
Mike