Australasian Journal of Herpetology
ISSUE 18, PUBLISHED 29 APRIL 2013
1
ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)
ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)
Australasian Journal of
Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
ethics, quality publications and strict compliance
with the rules of nomenclature.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Cover image: An unusual Aspidites melanocephalus. Photo: Raymond T. Hoser.
2
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Published 29 April 2013.
ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)
The science of herpetology is built on evidence,
ethics, quality publications and strict compliance
with the rules of nomenclature.
Raymond T. Hoser
Snakebusters: 488 Park Road, Park Orchards, Victoria, 3134, Australia.
Phone: +61 3 9812 3322 Fax: 9812 3355 E-mail: snakeman@snakeman.com.au
Received 17 April 2013, Accepted 24 April 2013, Published 29 April 2013.
Keywords: Hinrich Kaiser; Wulf Schleip; Wolfgang Wüster; Mark O’Shea; Peter Uetz; Raymond Hoser; Richard Wells;
Herpetological Review; Australasian Journal of Herpetology; Australian Biodiversity Record; Journal of Herpetology;
peer review; fraud; ethics; taxonomy; ICZN; rules; nomenclature; homonymy; priority; stability; synonym; boycott;
Leiopython; Laudakia; Adelynkimberlea; Spracklandus.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
ABSTRACT
This is a rebuttal of a dangerous and dishonest blog by Hinrich Kaiser and eight other renegades. These are
Mark O’Shea, Wolfgang Wüster, Wulf Schleip, Paulo Passos, Hidetoshi Ota, Luca Luiselli, Brian Crother and
Christopher Kelly. It was published in Herpetological Review (Kaiser et al. 2013). The journal is edited by one
of the authors (Schleip) and the “paper” evidently bypassed all standard peer review and editorial quality
control as outlined in the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) ethics statement
(Anonymous 2013a), the SSAR being publisher.
Kaiser et al. make numerous false and defamatory statements against this author (Raymond Hoser) as part
of an obsessive 15-year campaign.
The claims made without evidence against Hoser are in fact shown to be true for the accusers.
These include, “evidence free taxonomy”, fraud, “unscientific taxonomic publications”, “taxonomic terrorism”,
plagiarisation, “unscientific taxonomy”, “unscientific practices”, “unscientific incursions” and “deliberate acts of
intellectual kleptoparasitism”.
Kaiser et al. seek to break and destroy the rules of Zoological Nomenclature (Ride et al. 1999) including the
three critical rules of:
1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere),
2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere),
3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere),
as well as the ethics of the Code (Appendix A).
They seek to do this in the first instance by boycotting established nomenclature and the established rules in
a war plan that must by their own account run for decades (Kaiser et al. 2013, p. 20).
They then seek coin their own names for hundreds of taxa already properly named by others and attempting
to take credit for the research work of the earlier authors. This will create unprecedented taxonomic instability
and confusion.
Their actions will effectively:
1/ Freeze the progress of herpetological taxonomy and if copied, perhaps all of zoology;
2/ Put lives at risk;
3/ Increase the likelihood of extinctions of rarer taxa.
Their alleged loophole in the Zoological Code which they assert allows them to create hundreds invalid junior
synonyms to usurp the proper names, as quoted by them, does not in fact exist!
This is because Kaiser et al. misquoted the Zoological Rules in their badly written paper.
Furthermore the repeated claim by Kaiser et al. to have the official backing of the ICZN for their scheme is
also shown to be a lie.
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
SUMMARY
The following refutes the claims in a dangerous and
dishonest blog by Hinrich Kaiser and eight other
renegades. The others are Mark O’Shea, Wolfgang
Wüster, Wulf Schleip, Paulo Passos, Hidetoshi Ota, Luca
Luiselli, Brian Crother and Christopher Kelly.
The blog was published in Herpetological Review in
March 2013 (Kaiser et al. 2013). The journal is edited by
one of the authors (Schleip) and the “paper” clearly
avoided all standard peer review and editorial quality
control as outlined in the Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) ethics statement. The
SSAR are the publishers.
The first four listed authors have waged an obsessive
campaign against myself (Raymond Hoser) since at least
1998 (Hoser 2001). Their campaign has ruthlessly and
dishonestly attacked all the taxonomic and nomenclatural
changes proposed by myself for various reptile species,
genera and the like (Hoser 2009a). These individuals
have also unlawfully attacked my Australian reptile
education business, Snakebusters, including calling for
armed raids on and closure of, the lawful business
(Various authors 2011a). They have even launched
criminal attacks on my family via Facebook hate pages
including one they called “Ray Hoser, Melbourne’s
biggest Wanker”, shut down in July 2011.
Mark O’Shea, Wolfgang Wüster and Wulf Schleip have
in their obsessive campaign which I have previously
documented in a 64-page paper cited herein as Hoser
2012a, consistently advocated a general boycott of use
of names proposed by Hoser for previously unnamed
taxa. This means the general basis of, and stated aim
within Kaiser et al. 2013 is nothing new.
What is new is their false claim that they have backing of
the ICZN itself, when the opposite is in fact the case.
Likewise for their false claim to have found a loophole to
allow them to legally boycott use of valid scientific
names.
Many lies and misrepresentations by these
pseudoacademics in their Herpetological Review, “Point
of View” article, were previously rebutted by myself in a
paper titled, “Robust taxonomy and nomenclature based
on good science escapes harsh fact-based criticism, but
remains unable to escape an attack of lies and
deception”. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 14:37-64
(Hoser 2012as). This was based on a similar document
prepared by Kaiser et al. in 2012, circulated en masse by
Kaiser himself and published at the same time and place
(within Hoser 2012as).
As much of this matter is not revisited, that paper (Hoser
2012as) and Hoser (2012a) should be read in full before
reading what follows.
Herein I demonstrate that all the false claims levelled by
these individuals against me of undertaking “evidence
free taxonomy”, fraud, “unscientific taxonomic
publications”, “taxonomic terrorism”, plagiarisation,
“unscientific taxonomy”, “unscientific practices”,
“unscientific incursions”, “deliberate acts of intellectual
kleptoparasitism” and the like are without factual basis
and foolishly contradicted by themselves elsewhere in
their own documents.
3
This actually is most readily demonstrated by reference
to the original papers by myself cited herein.
More significantly I show herein by cross-referencing
their statements, that these individuals have repeatedly
engaged in the very acts the falsely accuse me of
including; “evidence free taxonomy”, fraud, “unscientific
taxonomic publications”, “taxonomic terrorism”,
plagiarisation, “unscientific taxonomy”, “unscientific
practices”, “unscientific incursions” and “deliberate acts
of intellectual kleptoparasitism” including in many cases
in the 2013 Kaiser et al. paper itself. These individuals
have repeatedly broken the rules of Zoological
Nomenclature (Ride et al. 1999). This particularly
includes the three critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy
(Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority
(Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability
(Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere) and the
ethics of the Code (Appendix A).
What I present here is just a fraction of the totality of the
fraud, lies and the like by this consortium of individuals
over the relevant period and in terms of the document
Kaiser et al. (2013).
This article is the ultimate call of their 15-year long
campaign to boycott all Hoser taxonomy and
nomenclature that has appropriately failed thus far. This
is nothing more than a desperate last ditch effort to
attack the very rules of Zoological Nomenclature that
underpin the science of taxonomy that has been
undertaken over the last 200 years.
I say their call should be rejected.
Their call to boycott any and all valid scientific names of
their choice and by any author of their choosing,
including those of myself and others for usurpment by
their own junior synonyms, a practice they have
unlawfully engaged in since 1998, should be resisted.
This is especially as their allegedly newly identified
loophole in the ICZN rules to enable this, as spelt out in
Kaiser et al. (2013) is defective and been shown as such
previously (Shea 2013a, ICZN 2991, ICZN 2001) when
others have attempted to exploit the same alleged
loophole (including Sprackland, Smith and Strimple
1997).
Such plans involving reversal of priority for modern
names have been condemned by the ICZN before (ICZN
2001) on the basis that if widely adopted, this would
ultimately put any and all established scientific names for
taxa at risk, thereby undermining the Code.
In their blog that is largely devoid of factual information or
evidence, Kaiser et al. 2013, proceed to list all species as
described by me (Hoser) and Richard Wells in the
arbitrary period between 2000 and 2012 as cited below
and numbering hundreds of valid names, to have the
proper names “boycotted” and then renamed by
themselves and others.
Their evidence-free actions are a direct attack on the
established rules of Zoological Nomenclature and would
if upheld create unprecedented instability. It is a scheme
that has already been derided by other taxonomists as
“clearly ridiculous and unworkable” (Shea 2013a),
confirmed by the earlier views of the ICZN on this topic
(ICZN 1991, ICZN 2001).
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
With Kaiser et al. (2013) (p. 20) reserving the right to add
further names and species to their suppression and
usurpation hit list, no taxon named by anyone is safe in
this unprecedented attack on the Code.
Furthermore, by effectively boycotting established
nomenclature and the established rules in a war plan that
must by their own account run as a controlled and
coordinated conspiracy for decades (Kaiser et al. 2013,
p. 20), Kaiser et al. threaten to create unprecedented
confusion among herpetologists and others.
Their plan, if allowed to execute, will effectively freeze
the progress of the science of herpetological taxonomy
and if copied, potentially all other branches of zoology.
Their plan if enacted will also put lives at risk.
The scheme of Kaiser et al. (2013) will increase the
likelihood of extinction for rarer and poorly known taxa
whose proper identities, Kaiser et al. might seek to
subsume elsewhere, if they actually knew these species
well enough to do so.
THE RULES OF NOMENCLATURE: PREAMBLE
It is trite to state the obvious.
But it makes sense that living things be classified
according to the evidence. That is the science of
taxonomy.
It also makes sense that scientists can use a single set of
rules to name what they have classified to enable others
to accurately identify the same organisms. That is the
aim of the rules of zoological nomenclature.
With these facts in mind, the Linnaean system of
nomenclature was developed in the 1700’s to deal with
the issues of taxonomy of the time.
So while taxonomy is the classification side of things and
nomenclature is the act of naming organisms and they
are separate but entwined entities/processes, in Zoology
they are often treated together.
The Linnaean system, amended slightly in the ensuing
centuries, in use by zoological taxonomists globally, has
worked well. It has allowed all living animals (including
the reptiles) to be classified in a consistent manner and
understood by scientists everywhere, the system being
used primarily to group species (the fundamental unit)
according to relationships to one another.
The fundamental rules of the system (known as “the
rules” or “the Code”) has for many years been written up
as a set of binding rules available to all practicing
zoologists, the latest 1999 edition (known as the 2000
Code), being in force since that date and herein cited as
Ride et al. (1999).
The Code includes three critical rules:
1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere),
2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere),
3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere).
The first states that no two different types of organism
(species) can have the same name. That is to avoid
obvious confusion in identification. Principal five of the
Code states:
“To avoid ambiguity, the use of the same name for
different taxa must not occur and is prohibited. This is the
Principle of Homonymy.”
The priority rule in Article 23 of the Code states:
“23.1. Statement of the Principle of Priority. The valid
name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to
it”
This means that the first name correctly assigned to a
given taxon, is the name to be used for all time. It means
that organism names remain stable and are not subject
to undue change by later authors wishing to merely
overstamp “their name” on an organism or over-riding a
properly assigned name due to reasons such as a
personal dislike of the original author.
These first two rules effectively encapsulate and support
the third. That is the rule of “stability”.
So important is the stability of zoological nomenclature,
that the global governing body, the International
Commission for Zoological Nomenclature, or ICZN, has
stability of names as a stated chief objective in its current
rules (Principal 3 of the Code).
Confirming the above at 23.2 the Code also explicitly
adds:
“Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability”.
No zoologist of credit or note would dare to challenge
these fundamental objectives as enshrined in article 23.2
of the Code.
However, Kaiser et. al. (2013) (p. 20) no doubt seeking
notoriety have boldly stated that they want to ignore 23.2
of the Code so they can also ignore and then rename
hundreds of validly described taxa and in the process
create instability of an unprecedented magnitude. More
on this shortly.
PUBLISHING THE SCIENCE OF ZOOLOGY
Of course for science to progress, inputs including
evidence, experimental results and the like must be
presented in an honest manner with strict adherence to
nomenclatural rules. That way other scientists can
duplicate inputs, get the same results and in an ideal
world make the same conclusions on the basis of the
same evidence.
In a less than ideal world, including the real one we live
in, scientists are allowed to arrive at different
conclusions, even when the evidence is not in dispute.
This occurs regularly in the science of taxonomy.
Provided the debate is honest and facts are accurately
stated and in context, science may progress.
Hypotheses can be tested and supported or refuted only
when every relevant input is known and quantified and
results properly published.
Repeated visitation to published scientific papers and
making reference to results, conclusions and the like by
third parties is not only desirable, but in fact essential so
that any potential errors can be identified or conclusions
reassessed and science as a whole can progress.
On the other hand if and when experimental data is
flawed or fraudulent, this may not be possible and so the
progress of science is slowed down, caused by an
inability to duplicate results. This includes the study of
taxonomy, where molecular and other results in more
recent times can be used to validate or refute findings
based on morphology, behavior, ecology and
zoogeographical evidence and the basis for earlier
species descriptions.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
4
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Hence honesty and integrity in science at all levels is of
paramount importance.
Fraudulently attacking sound scientific data and results
can create confusion and put scientific progress back
many years.
In taxonomy, false claims about the validity of a taxon
that is clearly distinct, can not only delay science, but
potentially put one or more species at risk of extinction as
has already happened at many times in the recent past.
The common saying “two heads are better than one” is
also very true in science. Research often benefits from
collaboration by scientists. Sharing of data between
scientists is routine.
Published papers often benefit from the input of more
than one person.
Good scientists will, as a rule, have all their material
checked. This is at all stages of the research and
publishing chain. Inputs are calibrated and checked.
Experimental data checked, as are hypotheses, theories,
results, conclusions and the like.
At the publishing stage, again, all inputs are checked and
re-checked and when possible, other experts are invited
to review all aspects of the publication before printing.
At the final proofing stage, a few extra sets of eyes may
not only find factual or contextual errors, but even such
humble things as typographical mistakes.
To this end, the majority of scientific journal editors claim
to engage in a process known as “peer review”.
“Peer review” as generally defined, involves a paper
being sent to one or more reviewers with relevant
expertise to check for ways to improve the draft and if
need be, reject the paper as unsuitable if material within
is plainly wrong, out of context or similar.
5
While it is not a sure-fire way to guarantee a quality endproduct, the statistical reality is that peer reviewed
publications are on average of higher quality than those
that are not.
In other words peer review in its ideal form is a form of
quality control.
To that end, both journals I have edited, namely Monitor:
Journal of the Victorian Herpetological Society in 19981999 and Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH) from
2009 to the present (2013) have had vigorous peer
review, the full history of the AJH journal is detailed by
Hoser (2012a). In the case of the Journal Monitor:
Journal of the Victorian Herpetological Society, it was not
peer reviewed until I took over as editor and instituted
that procedure.
Using world’s best practice, I had four reviewers for each
paper (as opposed to the usual two) and a streamlined
process whereby reviews were quick and effective, with
reviewers being given clear guidelines as to what they
should be looking out for.
The same procedure was adopted for Australasian
Journal of Herpetology in 2009.
For the record, and to correct a common lie peddled by
Wüster and associates, I have published numerous
papers in various peer reviewed journals and over which
I have no editorial control since my first paper in 1980
(Hoser 1980, Hoser 2012a).
As a result, I find myself in the first instance, in support of
the general statement:
“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”.
Snakebusters
Australia’s best reptiles
Proudly supporting herpetological research
and publication through support of the
Australasian Journal of Herpetology.
With more than 30 years of verifiable expertise
on reptiles, Snakebusters are regarded as the
best when it comes to wildlife education.
Being Australia’s only hands on reptiles shows
that let people hold the animals, it is not
surprising that more teachers book
Snakebusters than anyone else.
Snakebusters are owned by Australia’s
Snakeman, Raymond Hoser.
Details at: http://www.snakeman.com.au
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Of particular relevance here however is that if I were
asked to vote in terms of the principal as espoused, I
most certainly would be voting in favour of it.
However, I note that some excellent research findings
and publications have been produced in the absence of
peer review and in some other cases some terrible
papers have made it through a peer review process! As
with most things there are exceptions, and in terms of
peer review, this is a system easily open to abuse as
shown below.
Authors may “shop” papers to journals known to have lax
quality control or peer review processes. Alternatively
errors can slip past even the most well-meaning of
reviewers and editors.
And so one of these outcomes is the case within the
“Point of View” section of Herpetological Review with the
title “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” Herpetological Review 44(1):8-23, cited
throughout, as requested by Kaiser as, Kaiser et al.
(2013).
That paper, better described as a dangerous rant, should
never have been published!
It is so replete with lies, false information and
misrepresentations including being designed to incite
hatred of bona-fide scientists, as to be reckless. If its
objectives came to fruition, the safety of members of the
public would be put at risk.
Of course the comparison between peer reviewed and
non-peer reviewed publications is neither new, or in fact
relevant to the final “Items of Action” (pp. 19-20) of Kaiser
et al. Discussion of the relative merits or otherwise of
peer review as done by Kaiser et al. is in reality merely a
distraction from the main and, in reality, only issue of the
factuality of the content of my published articles. Their
‘rant’ does nothing more than present a false assertion
that there has been no peer review at Australasian
Journal of Herpetology and is therefore somehow inferior
and lacks taxonomic merit even though no evidence is
forthcoming on any specific taxonomic changes.
In the context of Kaiser et al.’s claims about peer review,
Australian reptile taxonomist Glenn Shea wrote:
In the context of Kaiser et al.’s claims about peer review,
Australian reptile taxonomist Glenn Shea wrote:
“The second issue is that there is no clear dividing
line between the non peer-reviewed literature and the
peer-reviewed literature. Even the peer-reviewed
literature results in taxonomic and nomenclatural
changes that are controversial and are either not
supported by the evidence that is claimed in the
paper, or which can be subject to differing opinions.
See, for example, the recent dispute over the division
of Anolis in the pages of Zootaxa (3626(2): 295-299
which, by the way, has an awesome introduction!).
There have been papers published which have
somehow made it through the peer review process,
which are inadequate under the Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. The erection of the gecko genus
Saltuarius, for example, somehow overlooked
nominating a type species for the genus. There was a
recent case of new species of Hemidactylus being
described without the provision of diagnostic
characters, which means those names are
unavailable under the provisions of the Code of
Zoological Nomenclature. The recent paper dividing
up the Caribbean Mabuya by Hedges and Conn, with
the description of numerous new species and
genera, included a reclassification of skinks, raising
many lineages within the Scincidae to family level,
with the only argument provided being that having
lots of species in a family made it unwieldy (try
telling that to the coleopterists, who still happily deal
with vast
numbers of species in the family Curculionidae
(weevils)). I’m still happy to deal with a single family
Scincidae, rather than a number of different families.
The Anolis, Saltuarius, Hemidactylus and Mabuya
papers were published in major peer-reviewed
journals. On the other hand, there are numerous
papers published in fringe journals (entomologists in
particular often publish new names in books, which
aren’t peer reviewed in some cases) that apply to
clearly valid taxa. The descriptions are accompanied
by clear arguments and evidence. So where do you
draw the line?”
(Shea 2013d).
To further qualify Shea’s comments, the Saltuarius paper
he referred to was in fact: Couper, P. J., Covacevich, J.
A. and Mortiz, C. 1993. A review of the leaf-tailed geckos
endemic to eastern Australia: a new genus, four new
species, and other new data. Memoirs of the Queensland
Museum 34(1):95-124. That is in fact an “in house”
scientific journal in which Museum workers publish their
own material that effectively by-passes standard peer
review processes. Although Shea raises the above
examples, there are numerous other relevant papers he
could have also cited to press his point, some emanating
from an organization with which he is affiliated, the
Australian Museum within its own ‘in-house’ publication
the Australian Museum Records!
But notwithstanding the above, the fact is that the
arguments provided in favour of peer review by Kaiser et
al. (2013) are generally sound and broadly not in dispute
the utopia espoused by peer review or at least the
perception of its objective application is clearly a situation
that rarely happens in reality. The problem in this
instance however is that the arguments and quotes from
publications such as Yanega (2009) are presented as a
basis to support a false claim against the papers of
myself (Hoser) in Australasian Journal of Herpetology in
2009-2012, that false claim being that they are not peer
reviewed. The fact is that they were!
If Kaiser et al. were not running a false claim against
Australasian Journal of Herpetology, a better title for their
blog would have been “Taxonomic Decisions in
Herpetology are Acceptable Only When Supported by a
Body of Evidence”, because in reality they will only be
accepted in time by other scientists if presented with hard
evidence.
In taxonomy, as in most other areas of science, it is the
evidence that matters the most, not some idealized or
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
6
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
false perception of the adequate application of peer
review!
The latter done properly is used as a means to check the
former, although history and published experimental
results shows that peer review at its best and without bias
can and does routinely fail to find mistakes (Ware 2011).
KAISER ET AL. 2013.
Kaiser has had a long working relationship with the editor
of Herpetological Review, Robert Hansen, having
published there many times.
Well before Hansen had even seen a draft of their paper
(ultimately published as Kaiser et al. 2013) in 2012,
Hinrich Kaiser had sent out a SPAM email on 5 June
2012 with the same “paper” saying it would be published
at Herpetological Review (see copy of the email in Hoser
2012as, the email and attachments cited herein as
Kaiser 2012a and Kaiser 2012b). In other words, he
knew in advance that the alleged peer review process at
Herpetological Review was not going to threaten the
detail of the “paper” of which he was listed as the lead
author.
There were other reasons rasing serious questions of
ethics, which further explain why Kaiser knew his blog
would be published effectively unchanged, but we’ll deal
with this later.
The detail of the SPAM version as compared to the final
version was virtually unchanged, save for the notable
removal of all references to Bill McCord and his tortoise
taxonomy. This removal arose after McCord had his
lawyers write to Kaiser in July 2012 and told him he and
the vehicle of publication would be sued if the draft article
was published containing his false and defamatory
material about their client McCord.
The first section of this published point of view (pages 89) are not at issue as they rather do nothing but
verbosely explain what I have done in my preamble.
Yes, it makes sense to base taxonomic decisions on the
basis of evidence and I can’t imagine anyone openly
arguing the contrary.
Where Kaiser et al. (hereon sometimes cited merely as
“Kaiser” for convenience sake) come unstuck is in the
second part of their “paper”, where he (as senior author)
essentially makes a series of false claims against myself
and fellow herpetologist Richard Wells. Then on the
basis of the false claims, then asserted as “fact”, that he
seeks widespread support for his position. His position is
in two parts, the first being to gain widespread hatred for
myself and Wells. On the basis of his “facts” if believed
without scrutiny of what is said, this would not be hard to
obtain (see also O’Shea 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b
and 2013c).
The second part of Kaiser et al’s position is in fact a
wholesale usurping of the established rules of Zoology,
including 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and
elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and
elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65
and elsewhere).
Their aim is disclosed (on page 20 of the document) as
being to enable themselves (and closest friends) to
rename dozens of validly described and already named
7
reptile genera and species.
This action would cause chaos, not just for
herpetologists, but to all zoologists everywhere, if the
same tactic of suppression of names purely for the
purpose of enabling the re-naming of taxa were to be
followed. In fact Kaiser et. al. (2013) claim they hope this
very chaos happens (p. 20). The concept of stability in
zoological names as defined in the Zoological Code
(Principals 3-5, Articles 23, 52, 65 and elsewhere) would
literally be a thing of the past!
The first of many targets of this attack on the Code is all
taxonomic papers of myself (Hoser) and Richard Wells
(published separately and totally independently) as
published in the period 2000 to 2013, listed by Kaiser et
al. (2013).
Included are the entire contents of issues 1-15 of
Australasian Journal of Herpetology from 2009 to 2012,
all published by myself (Hoser) as well as numerous
papers by myself in several other recognized
herpetological journals from 2000-2008 and a large
number of papers by Wells in the Australian Biodiversity
Record, a Journal of which he is editor.
Kaiser et al. seek to gain widespread support for a
boycott of all names proposed within these journals (and
perhaps others as they see fit) and then the renaming of
all relevant taxa by themselves.
Of course, putting a proposal forward to literally ignore all
the rules and conventions of zoology built up over more
than 2 centuries would/should never gain support.
On the other hand to propose to somehow suppress the
work of a person (or persons) who (allegedly) is a
“taxonomic vandal” who habitually likes to “plagiarize
others” and engages in “taxonomic vandalism”, “fraud”,
“taxonomic piracy”, “bogus taxonomic accounts” and
“deliberate acts of intellectual kleptoparasitism” would in
the absence of evidence to the contrary only be
supported by uninformed people as a popularised view
(or others with the very same attributes they say they
despise), this scenario would set a dangerous precedent
in zoology.
This is especially so, if the plan was marketed (falsely) as
being fully endorsed by the ICZN (O’Shea 2013c, Coritz
2013)!
However, here I now demonstrate serious and
fundamental flaws in Kaiser et al’s false claims against
myself, just listed, including the false claims of
endorsement by the ICZN.
I include details of his own unethical activities in breach
of the SSAR’s own ethics statement, (the controller of the
publication he published his blog in), actions in breach of
the rules of zoological nomenclature (including those
sections previously cited), his ignorance of the
differences between taxonomy and nomenclature and
why the Kaiser et al. attempt to usurp the rules of
Zoology for their own personal self aggrandisement
should not be allowed.
Before detailing specific errors and flaws in Kaiser et al’s
document published in Herpetological Review, I draw
readers attention to earlier instances of documented and
unarguable fraudulent, dishonest and unethical conduct
involving the authors of Kaiser et al. (2013), including
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
numerous instances by the co-authors Wolfgang Wüster
(see Hoser 2012a), Wulf Schleip (see Hoser (2009a),
Mark O’Shea (Hoser, 2012as) and Hinrich Kaiser (Hoser
2012as, cross-referenced with Kaiser et al. 2013) as well
as listed “supporters” of Kaiser et al. (2013) such as
David John Williams (Hoser 2001) which are generally
not repeated here due to space considerations.
SPECIFIC CLAIMS AGAINST KAISER ET AL. 2013
I now address some of the claims by Kaiser et al. (2013).
“Unscientific taxonomy, embodied”
The claim made against myself under the following
subheading
“Raymond Hoser’s Private Taxonomy”
Automatically makes adverse inferences against me and
without basis.
First fact is that if my taxonomic judgments are in error
and have no scientific basis, then as a matter of course
none would ever be used (Wüster 2003). This would not
be the first time in history where such a situation had
occurred and would not be the last.
The rules of zoological nomenclature deal with so-called
“non-taxa” (a term used by Wüster et al. 2001) by
relegating them to synonymy with other taxa, via the law
of homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), and
has done this effectively for many years. This means
there is never any need to step outside the rules,
effectively making Kaiser et al’s (2013) alleged reason to
exist effectively redundant.
Recall that the claimed purpose of their paper is to deal
with “unscientific incursions”, but as already shown, no
action outside the zoological Code is in fact required to
deal with any taxonomic or nomenclatural decisions/acts
made by Hoser or Wells (or anyone else in the Kaiser
firing line).
However this most basic claim by Kaiser et al. of
“unscientific incursions” by Hoser and/or Wells is shown
to be false by O’Shea at al. (including Kaiser) (2012),
where for example they concede that Broghammerus
Hoser, 2004 is named in recognition of a genus of
snakes for which there is sound scientific evidence to
support the new designation. In that paper they wrote:
“Rawlings et al. (2008) determined that reticulatus
and timoriensis were sufficiently phylogenetically
distinct from other species in the genus Python to
warrant separate generic recognition. However, we
believe that the generic name assigned to these two
species by Rawlings et al. (2008) is taxonomically
unavailable”
without giving any reason or basis to the claim of being
“taxonomically unavailable”.
Specific claims made under the heading “Raymond
Hoser’s Private Taxonomy” are invariably either false or
taken out of context, easily shown as such if quotes are
read in conjunction with the rest of the relevant
descriptions. Of course Kaiser et al. hope that readers
don’t look that far!
Amazingly, out of the dozens of descriptions published,
by myself (Hoser) from 2000 to 2012, Kaiser et al. are
unable to identify even one that they can show, with
evidence, is in any significant way, defective!
Instead they have resorted to unscientific, unsupported
and evidence free personal attacks of “taxonomic
vandalism”, “fraud”, “taxonomic piracy”, “bogus
taxonomic accounts”, “unscientific incursions” and
“deliberate acts of intellectual kleptoparasitism” as a
basis to call for a total rejection of the Zoological Code
and the fundamental laws of 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5,
Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article
23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles
23, 65 and elsewhere).
The heading “Raymond Hoser’s Private Taxonomy” is
also insidious. It implies there is something
fundamentally wrong with how or where my papers were
published, when this is not the case. The publications
were routine, normal and “public”. There was nothing
“private” at all!
At best they could claim that Australasian Journal of
Herpetology was not published as a result of a taxpayer
funded handout! And not ‘ peer reviewed’ by them!
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“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.”
Is collectively spiteful and not true. Firstly a new
unnamed taxon needs to be identified before it is named.
I refer again to the rule of Homonymy!
Once an unnamed taxon is identified, it must be named,
according to the rules of zoology. There is a wellestablished “scientific need” to name unnamed taxa!
Scientists do this daily!
It is standard and common practice to recognise persons
or entities who have provided benefit to herpetology, the
author or the wider community when naming taxa. In a
breach of the SSAR’s own Code of ethics, the co-authors
of Kaiser et al. (2013) fail to tell readers that they
themselves have engaged in the practice of naming new
species after friends, a practice sometimes known as
nepotism.
There is no basis whatsoever in the claim that species
were named “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”.
Because there was no basis for the claim by Kaiser at al.
they failed to provide a shred of evidence to support it!
That is not a very ethical or scientific approach to
publishing in a supposedly scientific publication such as
Herpetological Review!
In any case there are institutions that receive payment in
support/funding of future research and in return name
things after these financial benefactors seeking
taxonomic immortality, with the ICZN itself being forced to
make an official statement on the matter on their website
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
8
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
at www.iczn.org Anonymous 2013f), this being, “What is
the ICZN official position on selling scientific names?
There is no official position taken by the Commission.”
However, it is noted here that the Rules of Zoology do
call for wide dissemination of nomenclatural acts
(Recommendation 8A) to the extent of ‘posting’ details of
my own publications and access to them on my personal
facebook pages, websites I control, and relevant internet
lists, for which I make no apologies. Again this is in line
with the same practices of most other practicing
taxonomists, including the authors of Kaiser et. al (2013)
and not something for which I should be held up for
public hatred.
Cases in point including Kaiser et al. author, Wulf Schleip
and his privately owned “leiopython.de” (Schleip 2012) as
well as similar sites controlled by Wüster, O’Shea and
Kaiser himself! Who are the hypocrits yet again!
For the record within 24 hours of Kaiser et al. being
published online, it was SPAM posted on dozens of
websites by the 8 authors of the rant and their close
associates as part of the entire issue of Herpetological
Review, posted online, as well as on numerous
Facebook pages, in an apparent serious breach of the
SSAR’s own publishing and open access guidelines (see
Bartholemew 2013a, 2013b), resulting in Bartholemew
himself sending out, unsolicited, a SPAM email to
hundreds of recipients on his commercial email list
advising of the breach of SSAR rules (Bartholemew
2013a) and damage caused.
Mark O’Shea repeatedly posted the Kaiser et al. rant as
a link including with the header on his facebook page to
read “A very important herpetological paper has just
9
been published - read about it here first.” (O’Shea,
2013a, 2013b).
In this case, wide dissemination and blatant selfpromotion had been taken to a ridiculous extreme.
“Hoser’s genus and species names are all
patronyms”
As noted already, this claim is broadly correct and no
apology is required.
A patronym is a scientific name after a person or thing
(like a pet dog), as opposed to one describing the animal
in some way, usually using the dead language Latin.
There are several sensible reasons for this. Firstly and
most importantly the Zoological Code allows this.
Secondly the practice is widespread, acceptable and
effectively a standard in modern zoology as noted
already, including among the authors of Kaiser et al.
2013.
It is not as if I am somehow a lone renegade worthy of
“boycotting” because I bestow patronyms. Thirdly, the
alternative is naming via a Latinized description of the
taxon. The only benefit of this course of action is on the
presumption that the reader knows and understands the
dead language of Latin and relative descriptive terms as
applied to a given taxon. Outside of a limited section of
the small community of taxonomists, most people on the
planet have no understanding of Latin. More significant is
the rule of Homonymy; that is no two organisms can have
the same scientific name. When the Linnaean system of
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
nomenclature was devised there was little conflict in
terms of names, as the total number of described species
taxa was only numbered in the thousands. Now with an
estimated million or more metazoan organisms formally
named it has become nearly impossible to coin a
descriptive Latin name for a taxon without finding it
already occupied by another (animal) organism.
In fact I even found difficulty assigning some patronyms
on the basis of prior occupation by another organism or
group, meaning some I had earmarked for potential use,
were simply not used. I also note that running an
argument against a person’s taxonomy or nomenclature
on the alleged basis of use of patronyms shows how
devoid of merit the case of Kaiser et al. really is!
The complaint about naming more than one species after
a given person also lacks merit. Here are a few examples
from the many thousands of patronyms in use: Boiga
wallachi Das, 1998, Leptotyphlops broadleyi Wallach and
Hahn, 1997, Nothophryne broadleyi Poynton, 1963,
Elapsoidea broadleyi Jakobsen, 1997, Leptopelis
broadleyi Poynton, 1985, Dipsadoboa broadleyi
Rasmussen, 1989, Atheris broadleyi Lawson, 1999,
Platysaurus broadleyi Branch and Whiting, 1997,
Pelusios broadleyi Bour, 1986, Lygodactylus broadleyi
Pasteur, 1995, Ptychadena broadleyi Stevens, 1972 (has
anyone yet suggested banning naming things after
Donald Broadley?) or Oedura coggeri Bustard, 1966;
Oxydactyla coggeri Richards and Menzies, 2004;
Ctenotus coggeri Sadlier, 2005; Hydrophis coggeri
Kharin, 1984; Emoia coggeri Brown, 1991; Lampropholis
coggeri Ingram, 1991; Geomyersia coggeri Greer, 1992;
Mixophyes coggeri McDonald, Richards and Alfred, 2008
(has anyone yet suggested banning naming things after
Hal Cogger?) or Rhynchophis boulengeri Mocquard,
1897; Neolamprologus boulengeri (Steindachner, 1909);
Cylindrophis boulengeri Roux, 1911; Mantidactylus
boulengeri (Methuen, 1920); Hynobius boulengeri
(Thompson, 1912); Atelopus
boulengeri Peracca, 1904; Cryptobatrachus boulengeri
Ruthven, 1916; Scinax boulengeri (Cope, 1887);
Morethia boulengeri (Ogilby, 1890); Scutiger boulengeri
(Bedriaga, 1898); Pseudepidalea boulengeri (Lataste,
1879); Gephyromantis boulengeri Methuen, 1919;
Cornufer boulengeri Boettger, 1892; Epipedobates
boulengeri (Barbour, 1909); Amblycephalus boulengeri
Angel, 1920; Liolaemus boulengeri Koslowsky, 1896;
Lepidiolamprologus boulengeri (Steindachner, 1909);
Bryconaethiops boulengeri Pellegrin, 1900; Trachyboa
boulengeri Peracca, 1910; Lamprologus boulengeri
(Steindachner, 1909); Boulengerinia Dollo, 1886 and
many other boulengeri species noting that yet again no
one has ever suggested too many were named after Mr.
George Boulenger!
Or if scraping the bottom of the barrel, Elseya irwini
Cann, 1997 and Crikey steveirwini Stanisic, 2009, both
named in honour of Steve Irwin! Recall he’s the vandal
who ripped off the original Crocodile Hunter Mick
Pitman’s trademark name “The Crocodile Hunter” and
then made a fortune in unspeakable acts of animal
cruelty that was broadcast on international TV.
At the same time he was simultaneously having his
mates in the Queensland wildlife department shutting
down countless other competing zoo businesses and
getting government funds diverted to himself instead of
other wildlife “charities” that he also viewed as
“competitors”.
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“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.”
Is a false statement. Period!
Notwithstanding the false claim, the merits of the
publications speak for themselves.
As already noted, the critical make or break factor for any
publication is its evidence and content, not who publishes
it, where it was published and who may or may not have
reviewed it prior to publication.
If the conclusions within are correct, they will be adopted,
just as Darwin’s theory of evolution was eventually
adopted by a skeptical scientific community, noting that
Darwin’s publication was most certainly NOT peer
reviewed and widely condemned at the time.
On the other hand, if the conclusions in my papers are
wrong due to a lack of scientific rigor, then they will not
be cited or used and the names unused as well. There is
no need for a formal suppression order for this or any
need to step outside the established Rules of Zoology
including the key rules of 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5,
Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article
23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles
23, 65 and elsewhere) (Wüster 2003).
I also note that the papers I have published have not
been submitted to vehicles of publication that the likes of
Kaiser or Wüster have editorial control or influence over.
This may irk them and their desire for control, but noting
that there have been allegations of their own “peer
review” process unnecessarily holding up publications,
allowing them to potentially use the submitted data in
their own papers and by so doing potentially ‘scoop’
naming rights for species over others. Consequently,
there is no way I would be taking the risk of sending an
important taxonomic paper their way!
I now note however, that assuming the recent “Hoser”
papers do have scientific rigor, and describe valid
species, then the taxonomy used within will come into
general usage and in accordance with the established
rules of Zoological Nomenclature. This is actually what
Kaiser et al. (2013) know and fear and is the prime
motive for their ‘rant’! Proof of this comes from the
Facebook page of Mark O’Shea himself where he has
posted his knowledge of the fact in one of his ever
increasing outrageous angry outbursts.
On 25 March 2013, O’Shea wrote on fellow author Wulf
Schleip’s Facebook wall:
“150 years from now Herpetologists will consider
hoser the greatest herpetological taxonomists of
OUR generation. This must not be allowed to
happen.”
In other words it is clear that it is personal hatred and a
mentally twisted state bordering on psychosis that drives
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
10
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Kaiser et al. (2013) and nothing scientific at all!
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“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).”
This is a ridiculous criticism. The vitriolic language above
written by Kaiser et al. is inappropriate in the first
instance. More importantly, there is no rule against any of
the material cited above being in scientific journals. As
science is indeed a search for the truth and discussion of
the same, it is important to include all relevant
information, including if necessary e-mails and the like. If
asserting a case of fraud, as outlined in AJH Issue 10
(Hoser 2012a) against Wüster, it is important to include
all relevant documents, in this case including emails
(which is nothing different to any other personal
correspondence which has often been used and cited for
centuries) to document the detail of the fraud and to
verify what is a serious claim against a man with a
position as an academic at a taxpayer funded University.
Furthermore authors of relevant e-mails may accuse me
of misrepresenting them out of context should full copies
of e-mails not have been printed where appropriate.
By the way, there is no law against citation of other
herpetologists, taxonomic journals, wildlife officers, court
officials and so on! In fact Kaiser at al. did it in the above
paragraph!
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“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.”
This is a patently ridiculous statement.
The facts are Australasian Journal of Herpetology is
“public and permanent scientific record” and complies
with all rules for the same, including Article 8.1.1 of the
Code. I know this as fact because the ICZN has
confirmed this obvious fact by e-mail on 19 March 2013
(Nikolaeva 2013a)!
So the two questions beg: Why did Kaiser et al. publish
such a ridiculous claim to the effect that AJH is in breach
of the Code when it clearly is not?
And:
How did such a patently ridiculous (and demonstrably
false) claim get past the alleged peer review at
Herpetological Review?
The claim it is “personally distributed by Hoser for
11
unscientific purposes” is also ridiculous. Kaiser et al. are
herein arbitrarily setting themselves up as a group
usurping the ICZN itself by redefining the Code and what
is a legitimate publication, that being one that must be
published exclusively by a person who meets their
personal approval as a close friend. The claim that
Australasian Journal of Herpetology is “best classified as
advertising” is outrageous.
The fact is that the journal carries no paid advertising!
Whilst talking about advertising, we find from the SSAR’s
own website at: <http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/
HRinfo.php>
that:
“Herpetological Review accepts commercial
advertising. For rates and ad submission details,
please check here for display advertising information
in (pdf).”
On that basis, should the rant of Kaiser et al. be
disregarded as “advertising” and having no taxonomic
weight?
(This also ignores their disclaimer on page 10 of the
document that reads: “These recommendations are not
formal nomenclatural proposals according to articles of
the Code” which as written makes one question why they
published their ‘rant’ at all!)
In terms of the issue of taxonomic weight, I will argue the
merits or lack of them in Kaiser et al. (2013) and not
waste time with diversionary ‘red-herring’ arguments and
claims against them or Herpetological Review.
By the way, copies of each issue of Australasian Journal
of Herpetology can be downloaded as identical pdf’s of
the printed version at <http://www.herp.net> and again
they speak for themselves.
They are clearly scientific literature!
In each issue the following is also written:
“Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Publishes original research in printed form in relation to
reptiles, other fauna and related matters in a peer
reviewed journal for permanent public scientific record,
and has a global audience.
ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)
ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)
Full details at: http://www.herp.net
Online journals (this issue) appear a month after hard
copy publication.
Minimum print run of first printings is always at least
fifty hard copies.”
This text alone makes a mockery of the false claims
against Australasian Journal of Herpetology by Kaiser at
al. (2013).
Now this text is not exactly hidden either. It commonly
appears prominently placed in the journal, including on
the very pages of papers they have sought to specifically
condemn (see for example, Hoser 2012aa, bottom of last
page and cross match this with their specific complaint
number five and also the rest of the page with their false
claims of “evidence free” descriptions).
Again I note that it’s even more disturbing that false
claims like these by Kaiser et al. made it past the alleged
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
peer review process at Herpetological Review!
The claim that my descriptions are:
“irreconcilable with published evidence”
is false and itself irreconcilable with Kaiser et al.’s other
claim that I have engaged in:
“harvesting of clades from published phylogenetic
studies for description as new genera or subgenera”.
Hence the central claims of Kaiser et al. that my
publications are unscientific, a term usually associated
with such bogeys as “creationism” and “intelligent design”
is shown to be false on his own published evidence!
“Harvesting of clades” is itself at the minimum, a
statement I have based my descriptions on some kind of
evidence from somewhere!
Kaiser et al. (2012) accused me of having used evidence
“lifted from others”, which was in fact true in many cases
in as much as all the molecular evidence cited had come
from other people’s work, that I had appropriately
referred to and cited.
This 2012 statement, removed from the 2013 document
confirms that Kaiser et al. knew at all times that my
descriptions were based on the most robust of evidence.
Notable is that in 15 pages of rant, Kaiser et al. (2013)
don’t once challenge the evidence I have gained from
“Harvesting of clades” and “lifted from others” to
challenge the taxonomic and nomenclatural judgments I
made arising from this obvious evidence. I note that they
had dozens of papers to choose from (listed at the end of
this paper) and none was apparently weak enough to be
credibly criticized.
Again I note it is even more disturbing that false claims
like the descriptions made “in the absence of evidence”
by Kaiser et al. made it past the alleged peer review
process at Herpetological Review, even when the claim
of “Harvesting of clades” was in the same paper and
evidence being “lifted from others” was in the 2012 draft
that they were also aware of!
There is also the issue of those papers by myself (Hoser)
published in journals over which I have no editorial
control.
While citing my own publication and editorial control of
Australasian Journal of Herpetology as the basis for
seeking to boycott all scientific names proposed by
myself, this does not sensibly explain why the proposed
Kaiser et al. boycott must include those descriptions of
mine predating 2008 and as far back as year 2000.
These include such widely used names as
Broghammerus Hoser, 2004, that were published in other
journals and over which I clearly had no editorial control.
Kaiser et al. (2013) cite and list publications and scientific
descriptions of new taxa by myself for the period 20002008 within no less than four other scientific journals
(they overlooked a fifth with a taxonomic paper naming
new taxa from 2003), one of which Wüster and O’Shea
have themselves also published a taxonomic paper
(Hoser 2000b, Wüster et al. 2001)!
Kaiser et al. wrote:
“This accountability extends to the taxonomies we
create or use. We also believe this responsibility
includes monitoring the evidence presented as
justification for taxonomic decisions. Normally, this
is a key function of peer review (McPeek et al. 2009;
Perry et al. 2012; Thompson 2010).”
Anyone who thinks peer review is a reliable means of
eliminating falsehoods, errors and other inappropriate
information being promulgated is a fool (Ware 2011).
One look no further than Herpetological Review, and in
particular the very article in question written by Kaiser et
al. (2013) to see this. Kaiser himself is a profile elevation
seeking nobody from an even less significant institution
in backwater California. This crummy little institution is a
‘vanity degree’ issuing organisation peddling creationist
theory and intelligent design (Berni 2010, Diaz 2010,
Pamplin 2013) and PhDs by mail order that gets a
sizeable chunk of its funding selling degrees to students
over the internet. Here Kaiser and his other northern
hemisphere nobodies are telling (in part) Australians who
have worked with local reptiles for decades how we
should or shouldn’t classify herpetofauna here in
Australia…. Can they be serious?
Kaiser et al. said:
“Differentiating between science and non-science in
taxonomy is a challenge.”
Well Kaiser et al. said it and for them this is clearly the
case. They have automatically declared Hoser and Wells
publications “non-science” and as shown later haven’t
even read the allegedly offending publications (see below
for statements by Schleip and other evidence, such as
their inability to even properly reassign taxa in their hitlist).
In other words it is Kaiser et al. that deal in “non-science”
in taxonomy.
I note also that as alleged scientists, none of the gang of
nine have been able to actually rebut a single taxonomic
conclusion with a shred of evidence against Hoser or
Wells in their sizeable blog! Now if they were scientists
they would either “put up or shut up”.
Kaiser et al. wrote:
“Taxonomists are relegated to “redescribing” valid
taxa that were named prematurely in acts of mass
naming or in deliberate acts of intellectual
kleptoparasitism (e.g., Aplin and Donnellan 1999;
Rawlings et al. 2008).”
The above is copied herein as part of Kaiser et al.’s rant
and not because it applies in my case, although they are
falsely arguing it does.
The claim is ostensibly supported by two cited references
who had correctly used my taxonomy and nomenclature.
However neither of the references contain anything
remotely resembling the claim attributed to them, that
being I had taxa “named prematurely in acts of mass
naming or in deliberate acts of intellectual
kleptoparasitism”. In other words the claim fails as
fraudulent on the basis that the cited references don’t
support it. This means the document by Kaiser et al. is
produced with a veneer of purported truthfulness and
verification when in fact there is none!
There are numerous similar cases in the same rant,
which I have not detailed herein on the grounds of
tedium.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
12
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Yet again, I note it is even more disturbing that false
claims like these by Kaiser et al. made it past the alleged
peer review process at Herpetological Review!
Obviously their alleged reviewers didn’t read the cited
sources!
Also I note that the claim that “Taxonomists are
relegated to “redescribing” valid taxa that were
named prematurely in acts of mass naming or in
deliberate acts of intellectual kleptoparasitism” could
be equally leveled at the likes of Gray, Boulenger, Cope,
Fitzinger, Peters and others who created hundreds of
new reptile species and genera, thereby depriving others
of the right to stick their names on given taxa when these
same taxa were revisited at a later date.
It’s also worth revisiting the exact taxa that Aplin and
Rawlings were allegedly left to redescribe as a result of
my own taxonomic work.
In the case of Aplin it was a species of Death Adder,
genus Acanthophis I had named in 1998 (see Hoser
1998a). Fact was, in 1980, I had deferred naming the
same species to allow Glen Storr of the West Australian
Museum the right to name the same species.
Instead he chose to regard it as a variant of Acanthophis
pyrrhus (see Storr 1981). My holotype of the species
Acanthophis wellsei was in fact one of several specimens
of the taxon that Storr had inspected himself and in my
view incorrectly classified as A. pyrrhus as listed in his
material examined. I named that and other Acanthophis
variants as new species as part of a 20 year project
working on the taxonomy of Death Adders.
This was in fact my first ever paper naming new taxa in a
period spanning nearly two decades of publishing in peer
reviewed journals.
My first peer reviewed publication was in 1980 in the
journal Herpetofauna (Hoser 1980).
To allege I have somehow sought to rush in and usurp
another herpetologist is patently outrageous.
Aplin did subsequently publish a paper further validating
my description of Acanthophis wellsei with new molecular
data, but there is absolutely no question that I had been
working on the said snakes for many years longer than
him (Aplin and Donnellan 1999).
The same applies in terms of the Reticulated Pythons,
that I placed in the genus Broghammerus.
At the time of my publication (Hoser 2004a), I had been
publishing papers on python taxonomy since 1982
(Hoser 1982) a span exceeding more than 20 years. So I
was no new kid on the block seeking to rip off someone
else’s work as scandalously inferred by Hinrich Kaiser et
al. !
The 1982 paper was notable for transferring the species
carinata Smith, 1981 from the genus Python to Morelia, a
move for which I was widely condemned at the time. But
since about 1990 the concept has been generally
adopted, (although in 2009 and 2012 I have now since
transferred the species to a new genus; see Hoser
2009a, 2012b).
At the time of publishing Hoser (2004a), no other people
were working on the taxonomy of the relevant taxa
including the Reticulated Pythons and of note is that
13
numerous expert taxonomists including McDowell (1975)
or Kluge (1993) had published monographs on python
taxonomy and chosen to place the species reticulatus in
the genus Python.
In the period leading to the publication of Hoser (2004a)
and relying on obvious morphological differences as
detailed by McDowell (as in the same data he had
available to himself), I interpreted the data (along with my
own) differently and had no hesitation in transferring
reticulatus to a separate genus. In the absence of an
available name, I did in accordance with the rules of
Zoological Nomenclature (Ride et al. 1999) create one,
this being, Broghammerus Hoser, 2004.
There is nothing at all unreasonable with what I did and
to be condemned by Kaiser et al. a decade after the fact
is totally outrageous, especially when the only proven
grievance is a long term personal hatred of myself by the
other key authors of his “paper”.
Wüster and others published widespread condemnation
of my taxonomic act with the taxon reticulatus, including
on www.kingsnake.com <http://www.kingsnake.com>
chat forums .
In 2004, I was not able to read into the future and see
that four years later a student biologist in the form of
Leslie Rawlings would inspect the DNA of the same
species and confirm my splitting of the original genus
Python on the basis of then unknown molecular data
(Rawlings et al. 2008).
To blame me for relegating Rawlings to “”redescribing”
valid taxa” is an outrage.
Should all living herpetologists stop describing new taxa
so that later generations won’t be relegated to
“”redescribing” valid taxa”?
Should we allow species to go extinct in order to allow
later generations the prospect of being able to describe a
given taxa perhaps then long since gone?
What is perhaps most surprising in hindsight is that no
other herpetologist had in the previous 200 years seen
the obvious and that being that the species molurus and
reticulatus were not remotely alike!
I further note the size and abundance of both species,
they are neither exactly small or obscure.
With Google showing over 20,000 uses of the validated
name Broghammerus Hoser, 2004 on the web alone, as
of March 2013, including more than 100 uses online in
the week following publication of Kaiser et al. (2013), I
must say that to expect Kaiser and friends to be able to
violate the fundamental rules of zoological nomenclature,
including 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and
elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and
elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65
and elsewhere), so as to assign their own name to the
same taxon group name of pythons really is an outrage.
Finally I note that as recently as March 2012, under the
user name “Mokele” Wüster edited the Wikipedia page
for the Reticulated Python to ensure that the snake was
not listed under the name Broghammerus.
In other words he’d been boycotting all Hoser names
since well before the publication of Kaiser et al. (2013).
The statement “Taxonomists are relegated to
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
“redescribing” valid taxa that were named
prematurely in acts of mass naming or in deliberate
acts of intellectual kleptoparasitism” is also notable
when reconciled with the rest of Kaiser et al. (2013), and
can easily be seen as a case of some would-be
taxonomists getting their noses out of joint (‘sour grapes’)
because a man with whom they have fought for more
than fifteen years has named species they are now left
re-describing and having to otherwise use his names in
their own publications (e.g. Schleip and O’Shea 2010),
when they would clearly rather not, as seen in O’Shea
2013b, where O’Shea posted on Schleip’s Facebook
wall:
“150 years from now Herpetologists will consider
hoser the greatest herpetological taxonomists of
OUR generation. This must not be allowed to
happen”.
See also “Repeated plagiarisation by Mark O’Shea”
detailed below.
Now as for the claims repeated by O’Shea regularly (e.g.
O’Shea 2012a, 2012b), that I, Hoser have rushed out
and named too many species, thereby depriving others
of this alleged right, a reality check is in order.
Scientific consensus is that there are a lot more
unnamed species of animal than named (Goldenberg,
2011, Osborn 2010), including about 20% of reptile
species remaining unnamed, giving a total of reptiles
unnamed, still in the thousands.
Now rather than bitching and moaning and wasting
everyone’s time publishing hate and lies about a man
they don’t like who has named a few dozen species and
genera, perhaps Kaiser et al. can set about describing
some of the unnamed biodiversity before people
exterminate it!
It is also interesting to note they hypocircy and double
standards of O’Shea, Wüster and friends in their attacks
on myself.
O’Shea (2012a, 2012b) complains that I (Hoser) have
named too many species, thereby depriving future
generations of herpetologists of the opportunity to name
taxa (see also Kaiser et al. 2013), and along with Wüster,
have successfully convinced their good friend Peter Uetz
to boycott the use of any Hoser names on his “reptile
database” (Uetz 2013c), relying on these claims within
Kaiser et al. (2013). Yet on the very page Uetz
announces the boycott of the Hoser names, he also pays
homage to others including Hobart Smith and Aaron
Bauer for the large number of taxa they have formally
named!
We do in fact get a glimpse of the false marketing by
Kaiser et al. as seen below:
“We have learned that better placed or marketed
falsehoods may supplant truths in public perception.
Thus, a taxonomic fact can become obscured by
nonscientific information, misleading those who are
unable to discern whether the information was
appropriately generated.”
Here they delude themselves into thinking if they say
something often enough it becomes true. The intended
outcome of which is to supplant the original discoverer
and describer with one of their own publications that
results in the intellectual theft of someone else’s work.
Otherwise an objective scientist would just prove that the
taxonomic change proposed is not correct (e.g. Wüster
2001, Wüster et a. 2001, both of which over the next
decade failed to convince other better and quite properly
sceptical scientists of any factual basis to reject the
Hoser taxonomic proposals in the period predating 2001).
Why else would you want to supress a proposed
taxonomic change by demanding a boycott and yet
without presenting a scientific basis for it?
THROWING AWAY THE RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
In the June 2012 draft of the same document, Kaiser et
al. (2013), Kaiser et al. wrote:
“we propose that a 9-member herpetological
consortium with rotating, global representation is
formed to establish a List of Available Names in
Herpetology.”
My response to this in Hoser (2012as) was a statement
that this was:
“simply a grab for power by the truth-haters and their
self appointed “consortium”. They seek to usurp the
ICZN, to assert naming rights on all previously
named reptiles, to rename all species as they see fit,
shamelessly ripping off the work of other zoologists
and in violation of a Zoological Code that’s operated
for more than 200 years!”
The same authors have now altered their claim to:
“List of herpetofaunal taxa published on or after 1
January 2000 that can be objectively classed as
unscientific, non-peer reviewed, misguided in intent
or presentation, fraudulent, or lacking evidence.
These names should not be used in herpetological
nomenclature, pending suitable action by the ICZN.
Instead, we urge that these names be treated as
listed in the column titled Recommendations by
reverting to the older name of record, or by another
suitable name as indicated.”
This statement is then followed by a list of hundreds of
names.
Which in effect is much the same thing!
What hasn’t been properly revealed by Kaiser et al.
(2013) is the real basis behind the false claims in their
“paper” and what they are in fact seeking.
In 1993 and 1996, I published a pair of books about
wildlife smuggling and corruption in Australia (Hoser
1993, 1996).
Adversely named therein was David John Williams,
identified in the books as being found guilty in a court of
law of extreme animal cruelty and wildlife smuggling
(Hoser 1996) as well as another smuggling incident
(Hoser 1993).
Whilst dealing with the subject of illegality and movement
of specimens of animals between jurisdictions and the
conservation impacts of such activities the recent
activities of listed “supporter” of Kaiser et al. and major
advocate for them, Bryan G. Fry are worth noting.
In 2011 Brian Fry, whilst working at Melbourne University
was alleged to have illegally imported and exported
reptiles to and from Victoria as well as from and to
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
14
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
various other jurisdictions. Brian Fry was ultimately
caught and had a search warrant executed upon him by
Victorian Police and the DSE. This search warrant
ultimately triggered a further 5 simultaneous search
warrants in NSW and Victoria. According to Victorian
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE)
official Tom Thyuss, Brian Fry then fled to Queensland in
an effort to avoid the prosecution that would otherwise
have followed, being forced to remain out of state for at
least two years to escape charges (DSE are undecided
on whether to exercise extradition). But in any case Fry
has left a trail of devastation among the other amateur
herpetologists lured into his illegal activities on the naïve
pretext that they thought it was all legal due this research
status at the University of Melbourne.
Shane Black a noted NSW amateur Elapid keeper and
breeder was raided and his massive collection ultimately
dispersed and he soon after lost his wife who died as a
direct consequence of the devastating outcome. He now
also lives in that refuge for people on the run from the
law called “Queensland”.
Other amateur’s lured into Fry’s web that were subject of
heavily armed raids in his wake included noted Victorian
amateur herpetologists Robert Valentic and Chris Hay,
both of whom had wildlife seized and destroyed,
including the only captive Pilbara Death Adders
Acanthophis wellsei in Victoria, charges laid and in due
course very heavy fines, which at the time of writing this
in 2013, they are still paying off. Their lives were
similarly trashed in Fry’s wake. This is the calibre of
individuals with whom Kaiser et al. co-publish and, with
whom, they purport to practice ethical science (Thuys
2013)!
Or, applying the legal litmus to Mark O’Shea would not
come without blemish, noting that in 1993 he left a trail of
indecent or sexual assault investigations in his wake after
leaving Australia.
Williams and friends, Wüster, Mark O’Shea, Wulf Schleip
and others have in effect waged war against myself ever
since, doing all they can to undermine my good name
and tarnish my reputation built over more than 40 years
of working with reptiles.
Each and every taxonomic proposal I have published
since the first taxonomic paper in 1998, has met with
published protest by these same individuals, making
directives to others to not use the names and further
increasingly ridiculous claims against the relevant
publications.
Examples of such papers and claims against my own
taxonomic works by these people have included Williams
and Starkey (three versions of the same paper listed as
1999a, 1999b, 1999c), Wüster et al. (20001), Williams et
al. (2006, 2008), Schleip (2008), Wallach, Wüster and
Broadley (2009), Wüster and Bernils (2011) and others.
Using the internet as a key weapon and often posting
under false names, they have harassed journal editors
and others and tried to ensure that none of my taxonomic
proposals have been recognized or names used.
These individuals have used a range of often fraudulent
claims and methods and have had some degree of
success.
15
However, with science being a search for the truth and
my taxonomic papers being based on hard evidence, the
names proposed by myself for what were then hitherto
unnamed taxa, have since come into general usage.
Better known examples include Acanthophis wellsei
Hoser, 1998, Leiopython hoserae, Hoser, 2000, Pailsus
(or Cannia or Pseudechis) pailsei Hoser, 1998, Pailsus
(or Cannia or Pseudechis) rossignollii Hoser, 2000,
Broghammerus Hoser, 2004 and so the list goes on.
In 1998, Wüster and others simply claimed my taxa
described weren’t different to other named species. An
example of the often repeated “non-taxa” claims are seen
in Wüster (2001a) and Wüster et al. (2001).
By 2003, Wüster commenced running claims that my
papers were not validly published according to the Code.
In the face of the false claims against my 2003 paper,
this was dealt with most easily by describing the same
taxa again in 2003/4 in another publication (Hoser
2004a).
In 2009 I commenced publication of Australasian Journal
of Herpetology for several reasons, including so that
Wüster and others could not harass journal editors to
either not publish my material, or alternatively make them
retract my papers to enable them to republish
descriptions of the same taxa using my data.
It should be noted that unlawful approaches to do exactly
this were made in 2000 (two editors), 2001 and again in
2004 (see Hoser 2012a for details and citations). To the
credit of each editor, they resisted the threats of Wüster
and Williams.
Put simply, I wouldn’t tolerate their illegal threats and that
was the basis for me taking control of my own journal. I
am not the first to have done this and will not be the last.
I also note that with Schleip as an editor at Herpetological
Review, Kaiser et al. have hypocritically committed the
very act, they seek to demonize me for!
It was also believed (in hindsight erroneously) that by
being in active control of the publications, Wüster would
not again raise a false claim that they were not published
according to the Zoological Code.
However following a series of taxonomic papers in AJH
issues 1-7, naming numerous species and genera,
Wüster and two co-authors (Wallach and Broadley) made
an outrageous claim that none were published according
to the Zoological Code and they falsified their data in a
paper the same year to support the claim. At the same
time the authors sought to rename a genus of Cobras, I
had named in AJH Issue 7. In the same paper (Wallach
et al. 2009) and elsewhere (e.g. Schleip and O’Shea
2010) the claims were repeated and they invited or
incited others to breach the Code by attempting to usurp
the names validly published in AJH Issues 1-7.
In the earliest period 1998 to about 2008 when
condemning the “Hoser names” Wüster had written
things similar to what he had written in 2001 when he
stated:
“it is clear that all the taxa described by Hoser are
validly described under the provisions of the Code.
The names are thus available, and, where they are
the oldest available names for biologically valid
species or genera, they must be used. However,
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser’s descriptions are much less convincing when
it comes to establishing the biological reality of his
taxa.” (Wüster 2001a, Wüster et al. 2001).
Hence he was advocating people not believe the taxa
were valid.
As each were revisited by other scientists, including the
likes of Aplin and Donnellan (1999), Rawlings et al.
(2008), Eipper (2012) and so on, the taxa were validated
and so the names came into usage.
In 2009, Wüster decided to reverse the original claim and
say that while the taxa may be valid, the publications
were not, as he did in Wallach et al. (2009).
Then in 2012 and 2013, when all his tactics failed (see
below), he has now said he has no respect for the rules
of Zoology and wants to rewrite all Hoser’s names in his
own peculiar way (e.g. Kaiser et al. 2013).
The central theme spanning this 15 year period has been
a continual campaign to boycott use of the “Hoser”
names.
Of course science should deal with facts and not
personal dislikes, and the end point of taxonomy and
nomenclature should be that organisms are properly
named and in accordance with the rules, not who named
them!
Fifty years from now, no one will care who Hoser or
Wüster were!
The claim that I have named too many species, inferred
explicitly in page 16 of Kaiser et al. (2013) and stated
openly by O’Shea (2012) is ridiculous in the extreme.
Naming dozens of taxa is insignificant when compared to
hundreds by the likes of Boulenger, Gray, Fitzinger, Cope
and others. Will these individuals have their valid
scientific names put on the embargo list because they
named too many species?
In passing I note that Wüster’s close friend, Van Wallach,
has tried the stunt of renaming validly named taxa in
breach of the Zoological Code’s three critical rules of, 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere)
several times. He did this in 2006, when erecting the
genus Austrotyphlops to usurp the properly named genus
Sivadictus Wells and Wellington 1985, using the same
type species. Coauthoring with Donald Broadley (of
Wallach, Wüster and Broadley 2009 fame) in 2009,
Wallach created the genus name Afrotyphlops to
retrospectively usurp the valid Fitzinger 1843 name
Aspidorhynchus for the same type species.
These acts of “taxonomic vandalism” in direct breach of
the rules of Zoology are the same sort of nomenclatural
chaos that await all legitimately publishing herpetologists
if the Kaiser et al. (2013) proposal to retrospectively
suppress hundreds of names gains traction.
In 2012, and well aware of the non-stop antics of Wüster
and others to claim my publications were not valid, a
series of six more issues of AJH were published (issues
9-15), all taxonomic in nature, with printed receipts from
the printer for the hard copies of the journal printed within
each issue.
This was to negate further false claims that the journal
was only published online or “on demand” (in violation of
the Zoological Rules).
The same year, and again in 2013, Kaiser et al. have
continued their campaign against usage of “Hoser
names” not on any scientific or moral basis, but rather
due to hatred and spite and their own total contempt for
the rules of zoology, including 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5,
Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article
23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles
23, 65 and elsewhere).
The paper Kaiser et al. 2013, runs 15 pages and yet in its
entirety fails to address a single taxonomic act I have
performed and identify it as being in error. The closest
they get to this is on page 16, where they have quoted
sections of descriptions (usually a few words from
descriptions running paragraphs) for a handful, or
claimed without factual basis “invention of evidence”
totally out of context to allege the entire descriptions are
somehow in error.
This is done even though the evidence presented for
each description in the original papers was vastly greater
than inferred/stated and most certainly not invented as
alleged.
Even more bizarrely, Kaiser et al. (2013) concede I have
made correct taxonomic judgments, (page 9, top of
second column), which in the normal course of events
should lead to an endorsement of my taxonomy and use
of my nomenclature ... except for the fact that these socalled scientists have a personal dislike and put that
ahead of the rules of nomenclature, including 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere).
Hence when the veneer of lies and misrepresentation is
viewed objectively, there can be no basis for suppressing
the zoological Code in favour of a gang of 8 who in
summary seek to retrospectively usurp the rules by over
12 years to have them rename taxa that already have
valid names and many in wide usage.
Put simply, Kaiser et al. are well aware that the taxa
named by Hoser in 2012 and earlier have been named
on the basis of firm molecular and morphological
evidence and are therefore valid taxa and also properly
named according to the rules of zoological nomenclature.
What they fear and dread is that a herpetologist they
have decided to wage war against has names proposed
by him that end up in widespread general usage.
It is also notable that these same authors make no ambit
claims against generic names resurrected from
synonymy by myself or Wells, even though these number
in the dozens and would in theory have been created by
the same allegedly “evidence free taxonomy”. This
absence confirms that the Kaiser et al. claims and intent
is motivated solely by malice (or petty jealousy) and no
noble scientific intent as claimed. Running out of false
claims to make against individual taxa described, which
have in 2012 become too numerous to try to deny, and
unable to again claim that AJH is not validly published,
they have launched their final attack against Hoser and in
effect the entire Zoological Code in order to suppress
dozens of valid names for valid taxa.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
16
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
The clear (and virtually stated) end point is so that they
may in time themselves seize naming rights for the same
organisms.
The statement that the taxa in their list are “objectively
classed as unscientific, non-peer reviewed,
misguided in intent or presentation, fraudulent, or
lacking evidence.”
is also patently false.
There has never been any objectivity by Kaiser and his
co-authors. This has been admitted by O’Shea and
Wüster on numerous online chat forums. Kaiser himself
has lied about this as well. In his SPAM email of 5 June
2012, he said he was disseminating the first draft of his
rant as a neutral secretary, not at the time identifying
himself as nominated lead author.
Elsewhere in Kaiser et al. (2013) they conceded
Australiasian Journal of Herpetology was in fact peer
reviewed (p. 17) making their above quoted hit list
statement on page 10 of their manifesto fraudulent.
As for the part stating the Hoser (and Wells) publications
were “lacking evidence”, well, I’ve already mentioned the
other claim of “harvesting of clades from published
phylogenetic studies” making a mockery of “lacking
evidence” bit.
As the publications of AJH followed normal scientific
processes, procedures and methods, the claim they were
unscientific is also false. And as already noted, if false,
can be dismissed as such forever, without need to
enforce some kind of “boycotting” (Wüster 2003). There
is not a shred of evidence to suggest anything fraudulent
in the papers, that is unless Kaiser et al. are going further
and suggesting that perhaps some of the references
cited in my papers, like Pyron et al. (2011), Kluge (1993),
McDowell (1973) and the like are themselves fraudulent.
However again, they have not produced any evidence of
this.
And returning to the often repeated claim that
Australasian Journal of Herpetology was not peer
reviewed is also false. For the record, repeating a lie
many times does not change things.
It remains a lie!
I also note that the “Items for Action”, essentially an in
text qualification of the stated demands of their “Table 1”,
statement is a direct breach of the Zoological Rules
which in its preamble states “none restricts the freedom
of taxonomic thought or actions.” However their call to all
herpetologists, editors and the like to “strictly avoid the
use of the taxon names listed in Table 1” is a very serious
breach of the Code in that it is a direct censorship of
freedom of individuals to make taxonomic judgment’s!
The plan by Kaiser at al. (2013) to restrict taxonomic
publications to the journals over which they alone
exercise editorial control and censorship (p. 19) is both a
direct breach of the above-quoted preamble to the Code,
and the stated intent of recent amendments to it enabling
wider publication outlets including electronic, provided
the well-defined criteria of publication are adhered to
(Ride et al. 1999).
Could you image the anarchy that would ensue if all
taxonomic publications had to be vetted by individuals
17
such as the despotic internet trolling Wolfgang Wüster or
an angry little man named Mark O’Shea?
PEER REVIEW - OR IS IT A JOKE AT
HERPETOLOGICAL REVIEW?
Throughout this paper (above and below), I detail clear
factual errors by Kaiser et al., consistency errors and
mistakes that should have been eliminated in any
sensible peer review.
I will state that I am of the view that the Kaiser et al. rant
should have been rejected wholesale.
This is because it’s central factual claims are in error.
Noting that I am a proponent of free speech, only
tempered by the caveat that truth should be a part of this,
I note the following points on the basis that Kaiser et al’s
piece was invariably destined to be published in
Herpetological Review on the basis of a lack of effective
editorial control.
While it is clear that the alleged peer review at
Herpetological Review was not viewed by Kaiser as an
impediment to his material being published, I do note that
the alleged peer review at Herpetological Review has
failed to even properly cross reference the allegedly
unscientific publications of Hoser and Wells to get Kaiser
et al’s own taxonomic proposals correct.
This is significant, as it shows that both Kaiser at al. and
the peer reviewers at Herpetological Review (if they
actually existed) have in fact failed to even read most, if
any of the publications they seek to condemn!
I give but a few examples.
In the list of Hoser and Wells taxa that they seek to
relegate back to their proposed alternative, there are
numerous errors including but not limited to:
Costinisauria couperi is not Lampropholis couperi, but is
a northern population of Eulamprus kosciuskoi (the
original description makes it clear that the species was
described from within what others consider Eulamprus
kosciuskoi). For readers, like Kaiser et al., totally
unfamiliar with these Australian species Lampropholis
and Eulamprus belong to separate tribal groupings within
the family Scincidae, Kaiser et al. have demonstrated by
this evidence free taxonomic act that they have no idea
what they are talking about when it comes to making an
assignation of an Australian skink to the wrong tribe;
Cyrtodactylus abrae is not a synonym of Cyrtodactylus
tuberculatus (this matter was dealt with by Shea in 2011,
when designation of a neotype made the species a direct
synonym of Cyrtodactylus pulchellus)
Zeusius sternfeldi is not a synonym of Cyclodomorphus
casuarinae, but is most similar to
Cyclodomorphus venustus (the population named
sternfeldi was considered part of venustus when Shea
described that species).
See Shea 2013c.
For those unaware of Australian skinks, the first mistake
is akin to placing a species of Garter Snake
(Thamnophis) in the same genus as an Indigo Snake
(Drymarchon).
In other words, if readers were to adopt the taxonomy
proposed by Kaiser et al. (2013), there would be even
greater taxonomic chaos with species being totally
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
misidentified and being placed in radically different
genera to where they should be, even in the highly
conservative taxonomic arrangements that predate
Hoser and Wells!
All this again shows that the hit list of Hoser and Wells
taxa to be suppressed is in itself unscientific and is totally
“evidence free”.
It is the accusers, Kaiser et al. who are guilty of the very
offences they are accusing others of!
The continual reference to Hoser and Wells names being
“unscientific names” and calling for these to be
“boycotted’ is as Shea stated “clearly ridiculous and
unworkable” (Shea 2013a).
In all that Kaiser et al. have printed, by far the most
“unscientific name” formally proposed in writing by
anyone is the transfer of Eulamprus kosciuskoi to the
genus Lampropholis as advocated WITHOUT
EVIDENCE by Kaiser et al.!
BYPASSING PEER REVIEW BY BEING THE EDITOR!
This claim has been thrown at myself (Hoser) ever since
I first published Australasian Journal of Herpetology in
2009 and is cited repeatedly as a basis for condemnation
by Kaiser et al. (2013) and posts on the web by the
authors before and since (e.g. Schleip 2009, Schleip
2013). As mentioned previously, several factors led to my
commencing publicationof the journal, not least being the
non-stop harassment of several journal editors by Wüster
in particular, seeking the formal retraction of Hoser
papers. Some editors even published their distaste at
Wüster’s unethical conduct, this being for the sole
purpose of giving him the right to rename Hoser named
species, with two even editorialising about Wüster’s
misconduct, namely Newman (2000), Van Aken (2001).
Of course with Kaiser et al. spending a large part of their
paper condemning myself for allegedly bypassing proper
peer review and quality controls and manipulating things
in my role of editor, it would come as a shock to readers
here to know that Kaiser et al. and Schleip in particular
have been guilty of these very things.
You see Schleip is in fact an editor at Herpetological
Review!
Now of course under the SSAR’s ethics statement, such
conflict of interest should be disclosed with the paper. It
is not!
By contrast, my own editorial role at Australasian Journal
of Herpetology is disclosed in the proper way.
In spite of dozens of internet posts by Schleip himself
condemning myself for being editor of the journal I
publish in, he has refused once to disclose this relevant
fact in terms of himself.
Of course, knowing Schleip’s form for fraudulent conduct
(see below) and the obvious breach of standard peer
review or quality control in the Kaiser et al. blog, it is now
patently clear that the conflict of interest with Schleip bing
an editor at Herpetological Review is relevant, not just in
terms of how the defective Kaiser et al. (2013) blog was
published, but also how his defective 2008 Leiopython
paper (see elsewhere) got published in the SSAR’s other
journal, namely Journal of Herpetology in 2008!
While talking a lack of ethics in terms of Schleip, Kaiser
and the whole editorial process at the SSAR, it is worth
contrasting that with the higher standards at Australasian
Journal of Herpetology.
In 2012, in Issue 14 of Australasian Journal of
Herpetology, I published the entire document Kaiser
(2012b) without any editing whatsoever. At the same
time and place I published my rejoinder and critique of
the same blog.
That way unbiased readers could read and view both and
make an informed conclusion in terms of the papers.
At the time Kaiser sent his blog via SPAM globally, I
wrote to Hansen by email and asked him for the proper
right of reply at thre same time and place as that which
he published a piece by Kaiser and others.
While Hansen (2012) then said that he wouldn’t be
printing the material, which he then stated he hadn’t yet
got, he was then put on notice I would be seeking such a
right of reply and at the same time and place.
It is notable that in 2013, and well after he had received
Kaiser et al. (2013), Hansen broke all ethics, including
the SSAR’s own published ethics statement by 1/ not
informing me he had received the Kaiser et al. blog and
2/ not inviting me to publish a rejoinder to this Kaiser et
al. blog at the same time and place as would be
expected.
All the above shows that the claims of malpractice
against myself (Hoser) and Australasian Journal of
Herpetology lack basis or merit, while Kaiser et al.
(including Schleip and the fellow Herpetological Review
editor Robert Hansen) have engaged in systematic
ethical breaches and scientific malpractice.
Even if one were to accept the dubious claim that Schleip
and Hansen were in fact scientists as some kind of
defence for their editorial malpractice, the statement by
North (2013), “that having a journal run by scientists does
not, by any means, preclude poor judgment. But then we
knew that, didn t we.” Certainly rings true in the case of
both the SSAR’s Herpetological Review and Journal of
Herpetology.
Now as to how I found out the critically relevant fact that
Schleip was an editor at Herpetological Review, it came
from a series of posts he made on a German language
chat forum “pure-reptiles.de” where in a series of posts in
March and April 2013, he effectively bragged to readers
that he was able to push the publication of Kaiser et al.
through the editorial process and bypass proper peer
review because he was an editor at the magazine
(Schleip et al. 2013b)!
Cross-checking with the SSAR’s own website confirmed
this important fact at the bottom of one of their own
webpages (Anonymous 2013e).
While talking about the improper relationship between
Kaiser, Schleip and Hansen, allowing for a clear breach
of standard peer review and the SSAR’s own ethics
statement (Anonymous 2013a) to get Kaiser et al. (2013)
published, there is further evidence of misconduct on the
parts of both Hansen and Schleip. This is seen in their
relevant private cross-posts as far back as 2011 (Schelip
and Hansen 2011). On 26 April 2011, Hansen told
Schleip:
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
18
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
“Hey Wulf. No need to freak. I would not worry too
much about “biological truth” as it is an elusive
thing.”
Hansen’s own disdain for the peer review process was
seen in a paper he coauthored, when he said “the review
process has become increasingly difficult. The resulting
delays slow publication times, negatively affect
performance reviews, tenure, promotions, and grant
proposal success. It harms authors, agencies, and
institutions” (Perry et al. 2011), which of course is a
ready-made explanation as to why proper peer review
was bypassed under his watch for Kaiser et al. (2013).
It also explains why he refused to name his alleged peer
reviewers for the Kaiser et al. paper in 2013, (Hansen
2013), because in reality, there almost certainly were
none!
MAXIMUM DAMAGE IS THE AIM OF KAISER ET AL.
The stated long term plan of Kaiser et al. was published
without obvious contrary view in order to maximize
potential effect (or damage) to be caused by the Kaiser et
al. (2013) blog, which was presented with a veneer of
unanimity in the herpetological community, which in itself
was a fiction.
The so-called paper, published in breach of the SSAR’s
own published ethics statement seeks to force a “boycott”
on the use of Hoser and Wells names for more than ten
years while simultaneously breaking the zoological Code,
including the three critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy
(Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority
(Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability
19
(Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere) and
publishing and using junior synonyms, would if allowed to
succeed could in effect spell the end of the zoological
Code as it is known.
In effect a group of renegade pseudo herpetologists
could at any time target a scientist or group of taxa, (e.g.
McCord, Fitzinger, Cope or genera Python or Chelodina)
or declare the validly assigned scientific names
“unscientific names” boycott them and then usurp them
with names of their choice by simply redescribing the
taxa.
This has already been seen in part with Wallach in his
bare-faced attempts to steal naming rights for taxa as
diverse as Blind Snakes and Cobras and if Kaiser et al.
get what they desire, will extend to all areas of
herpetology and perhaps in time to other zoological
disciplines as stated by Kaiser et al. (2013), p. 20 second
column, second paragraph.
Of course the herpetologists in the Kaiser’s hit list this
week are Hoser and Wells. Last year the list included
McCord, but he was too rich and powerful to take on in
the same legal jurisdiction as the publication, so Kaiser et
al. dropped their claims against his named taxa for fear
of financial decimation via legal proceedings.
But in Kaiser et al. they reserve the rights to make similar
boycotts against anyone else this unelected group deem
“unscientific”. This in effect puts all taxonomists at risk of
having their life’s work arbitrarily suppressed by
renegades, especially those from third world countries
and without funds to legally threaten the likes of Kaiser et
al.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
THE LIES ABOUT THE ICZN
Of note: Kaiser et al. wrote near the end of their paper:
“We applaud the discussions held by the ICZN on
how best to curb taxonomic vandalism, and we
encourage the Commission to proceed with all due
speed in their deliberations. Time is of the essence,
especially given the recent emergence of instances
(described above) where individuals have flagrantly
violated the spirit of the Code and have used
taxonomic publications as a vehicle to defame and
inflict professional harm on those working within
ICZN guidelines.”
This is a total misrepresentation of the truth. Fact is the
ICZN is NOT deliberating in relation to myself or Wells as
of the date 20 March 2013 (when Kaiser et al. (2013) was
published) and have not done so at any time in the
preceding 15 years, having never deliberated in terms of
myself and dealing favourably with Wells and Wellington
in 1991 and 2001 decisions.
This was confirmed by e-mail on 26 March 2013
(Nikolaeva 2013b), where the ICZN officer reported “we
have no application from Kaiser”, which corroborates with
the published history of applications received and
published in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the
ICZN’s official website as recently as 30 March 2013.
In other words, Kaiser et al. have lied about any official
dealings with the ICZN in terms of Hoser and Wells. The
fact is there have been none!
Even more alarming is the associated false claim of
O’Shea and Coritz to potential supporters telling them the
ICZN has formally backed their position (O’Shea 2013c,
Coritz 2013)(see below).
That Kaiser et al. have not had any official dealings with
the ICZN and that none are pending makes a mockery of
other relevant sections of their rant.
At the top of their taxon “hit list” on page 10, they wrote:
“These recommendations are not formal
nomenclatural proposals according to articles of the
Code, but temporary treatments until the ICZN has
developed a suitable response to actions of
taxonomic vandals.”,
which besides making a bold and incorrect assertions
that the publications of Hoser and Wells were by
“Taxonomic vandals”, infers that their boycott was
temporary and that a ruling by the ICZN against Hoser
and Wells was imminent, when in fact at this stage, none
was even possible as there had been no submission
made or even accepted for a vote!
Thus Kaiser et al. have fraudulently encouraged a mass
breaking of the fundamental rules of 1/ Homonymy
(Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority
(Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability
(Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere) on the
falsified basis that the ICZN was deliberating in terms of
Hoser and Wells and to hand down a judgment against
both, when they knew at all materially relevant times this
was not the case.
In other words Kaiser et al. are liars plain and simple!
They have engaged in a serious act of taxonomic and
nomenclatural misconduct that not only jeopardizes the
integrity of the Zoological Code, but also puts lives at risk
(see below).
If such pseudoscientists will stoop to such patently false
actions what does this mean for the factuality of
everything they have ever written in any publication?
However, the ICZN is presently dealing with a case of
gross taxonomic vandalism and the use of taxonomic
publications to “defame and inflict professional harm on
those working within ICZN guidelines”.
The submission they are dealing with is Case 3601,
running since mid 2012, which involves the demonstrably
false claim by Wallach, Wüster and Broadley (2009) that
Hoser (2009e) was not published according to the Code
and their illegal attempt to usurp the Code by renaming
the Cobra genus Spracklandus Hoser, 2009, Afronaja
Wallach, Wüster and Broadley, 2009.
Of course readers of Kaiser et al. 2013 are never
advised of the fraud perpetrated by one the key coauthors (Wüster) and that it was the subject of ICZN
deliberations against them as published in 2012 in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69(3), page 160
(Nikolaeva 2012). That they were fully aware of the
matter is because it is also detailed in a publication they
cited, namely Australasian Journal of Herpetology Issue
14, (assuming they read what they cited), published way
back on 30 June 2012 and indexed in Zoological Record
shortly thereafter, although I should here note that on 7
April 2013, Schleip said he hadn’t read the Hoser papers
that himself as co author of Kaiser et al. (2013) wanted to
have boycotted (Schleip 2013).
Yes these are the ones branded as “unscientific” and yet
one of the alleged authors of the paper Kaiser et al.
(2013) has been so unscientific as to not read the
relevant papers and to pass judgment on them!
But returning to the subject of the ICZN, the authors of
Kaiser et al. (2013) have instead fraudulently duped the
readers of their self controlled publication Herpetological
Review into thinking that the ICZN are deliberating
against Hoser and Wells. In fact they are not. But by
inferring the ICZN are, they are in effect lending weight to
the illegal call on people not to use names formally
proposed by Hoser and Wells on the (falsely) alleged
basis that the ICZN will in a short time be ruling against
Hoser and Wells (as stated explicitly on page 10 first
paragraph and page 20 at a number of places in Kaiser
et al. 2013).
More disturbing was a post on Facebook by Wüster
himself on 20 March 2013, where he advocated the
breaking of the ICZN’s Zoological Code, including the
three critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article
52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and
elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65
and elsewhere) in order to forcibly suppress usage of
“Hoser names”.
Similarly disturbing was a post on Facebook by close
Wüster friend, the morbidly obese Al Coritz, calling
himself by the pseudonym “Viperkeeper” and who posted
a link to the Kaiser ‘rant’ from his Facebook page where
he wrote:
“The PoV also has the backing of the International
Commission for Zoological Nomenclature. Authors of
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
20
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
herpetological papers wishing to avoid the use of
names by Hoser and Wells can cite this Point of
View. A Table of preferred names for each of the
several hundred Hoser and Wells coined names is
also provided for clarity.
The Point of View is an open-access paper so
please feel free to circulate this pdf on websites,
forums and social network sites where other
herpetologists may access and benefit from it.”
21
This in turn had been lifted from an identical Mark
O’Shea post on the Facebook wall of the International
Herpetological Symposium dated 19 March 2013
(O’Shea 2013c), which is copied by a screen dump print
above to show beyond any doubt that the angry little
Mark O’Shea is a pathological liar!
The claim that the ICZN backs the Kaiser et al. ‘rant’ was
totally fabricated. They had not made any official
statements or rulings on the matter!
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
However here I do note that the ICZN had in fact ruled
against an identical scheme when executed by
Sprackland, Smith and Strimple in 1997 in their formal
opinion number 1970 (ICZN 2001).
The lie of ICZN support by Coritz, uncorrected by Wüster
and O’Shea who both posted on the same Facebook
walls with more hate posts after the above quoted posts,
shows that lies are the main tool of trade of Wüster,
O’Shea, Schleip and their friends.
It also gives rise to question what other lies Kaiser,
O’Shea and the other listed authors spun to get their
potential supporters to agree to list their names at the
end of the paper.
Of course, if herpetologists are told that the ICZN already
backed the Kaiser et al. “point of view”, the inference that
it had been cross-checked as accurate and endorsed by
them would have been invaluable in terms of convincing
otherwise skeptical scientists to lend their support to the
proposal.
In a clear act of defiance of the Zoological Code built up
over 200 years, the clear aim of suppression of the
names proposed by Hoser and Wells was clearly the sole
motivation behind the Kaiser rant.
The dishonest nature of its promotion and dissemination,
embellished further with yet more hatred and lies
removes any credibility that the rant may have originally
had.
I note again the over-use of “social media” by Kaiser et
al. to peddle their hate and yet simple dissemination of
taxonomic papers via the internet by myself in
accordance with Recommendation 8A of the Code, has
been held up by Kaiser et al. as a contemptible act
worthy of sanction and “boycotting” (see Kaiser et al.
2013, p. 17 top left).
Speaking of social media and the Zoological Rules,
Wüster’s (and Schleip’s) contempt for the latter was
demonstrated by his active posting of derogatory
remarks on a hate Facebook page created in 2011 called
“Ray Hoser, Melbourne’s biggest wanker” (Various
authors, 2011).
The ICZN rules are explicit and state that discussions
between zoologists should be in a civilized manner,
meaning Wüster had breached the Code of ethics of the
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature (no. 5). Hate posts on
Facebook, hate internet pages (e.g. leiopython.de) and
non-stop internet trolling on chat forums including
“kingsnake.com” and others sit outside this ICZN ethics
guideline (number 5).
The person who said he was the creator of the page,
novice Victorian snake handler Sean McCarthy and three
others (Andrew De Groot, Benny Moylan and Danny
Wynn) later had a court order placed on each of them
prohibiting them from engaging in such conduct, which
happened to be illegal under Australian Federal Law.
UNSCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS?
There is no formal written definition as to what constitutes
a scientific publication. As a result the claim by Hinrich
Kaiser et al. that the Hoser and Wells publications are
“unscientific” cannot be definitively accepted or rejected,
which is the same case for all other such publications,
including those of Hinrich Kaiser et al. themselves.
However, critically important here is that what makes a
legally acceptable scientific description for the purposes
of zoological nomenclature is spelt out clearly in the
Rules at Article 8 (Ride et al. 1999).
Fact is in the recent past, Kaiser, Schleip and other key
authors of Kaiser et al. have repeatedly confirmed that
the Hoser publications do comply with the Code in its
strictest interpretation (e.g. Wüster 2001a, Wüster et. al.
2001, Kaiser 2012b, O’Shea 2012).
This also appears to be the case for the relevant Wells
papers.
Hence, even if for example the Hoser publications also
happened to contain unwanted material such as detailed
etymologies, details of relevant legal matters, or even
pornography (not that this third element has been alleged
yet), these do not detract from the legality and utility of
the relevant descriptions.
According to the Rules of Zoology (Ride et al. 1999), they
must be used if and when they identify hitherto unnamed
taxa.
I note here that the rules do not seek to impede an
individual’s freedom of taxonomic judgment, although I
note that Kaiser et al.’s (2013) Table 1(p. 10) breaches
this very rule!
In the introduction to the current rules (Ride et al. 1999)
is written:
“The 4th edition of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, like the preceding editions
and before them the Règles internationales de la
Nomenclature zoologique, has one fundamental aim,
which is to provide the maximum universality and
continuity in the scientific names of animals
compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify
animals according to taxonomic judgments.”
Now in terms of the relative merits of the Hoser (and
Wells) descriptions, the importance lies not just in the
physical words accompanying the formal and legal taxon
descriptions, but also all other evidence brought to the
table to qualify the evidence and reasoning for the new
description.
Typical of all taxonomic descriptions, Hoser and Wells
included is the completely appropriate citation of studies
by other workers that provide evidence in support of the
new taxonomic proposition and any that may be contrary
if it exists and is relevant.
Each and every paper of both authors (Hoser and Wells),
which I note have been published totally independently of
one another, meticulously list all the evidence on which
the taxonomic judgments are based and the
nomenclatural actions that flow from them. This is
appropriate and in my own case, the Hoser papers have
cited references totaling thousands of documents and
many thousands of pages of evidence, including
countless peer reviewed journal articles, PhD theses and
the like.
All this has been summarily dismissed by Kaiser et al. as
not constituting evidence!
Importantly and in the face of all this cited evidence,
Kaiser et al. have not produced a single shred of
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
22
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
evidence against Hoser or Wells to substantiate the
scandalous claim of either author trying to “plagiarize
others”, although below, I’ve provided undeniable proof
here that O’Shea and Schleip have done exactly this in
terms of my own publications!
Of immediate relevance here is that it is not illegal under
the Code to provide a description without adding any new
evidence at all, if it in fact relies on a reinterpretation of
evidence provided elsewhere.
This situation is commonplace and reliance on preexisting evidence accumulated by the studies of others
formed the main basis of a number of my recent
taxonomic descriptions.
Besides making no apologies for this, I further note that
my views have been confirmed and validated by other
more recent workers either revisiting the same data, or
by adding further to it.
However of critical importance in all this is that by making
the claim the publications of myself and Wells are
“unscientific” Kaiser et al. are making the equally
outrageous claim that the sources cited within these
papers must by definition also be unscientific.
Hence the monographs of the likes of Kluge (1993),
McDowell (1975), Rawlings et al. (2008), Pyron et al.
(2011) and so on are also according to Kaiser et al.
“unscientific”.
That such a patently ridiculous claim was allowed by the
editors of Herpetological Review and their alleged peer
reviewers to find its way into Kaiser et al. some 30 times
in the single document clearly was “unscientific” in itself
and again calls into question the alleged peer review
process at Herpetological Review.
CLAIMS AGAINST RICHARD WELLS
The claims against him appear fanciful and are not
appropriate in a so-called scientific journal like
Herpetological Review.
By way of example, to claim the 361 page Lerista paper
by Richard Wells is “unscientific” is pure fantasy!
Did any of Kaiser et al. read the paper?
Have any of the gang of nine ever set eyes on a Lerista
skink?
We know the answer to the first question is an emphatic
“no” as Schleip himself has admitted to this (Schleip
2013b).
As for the answer to the second question, well most if not
all the authors of Kaiser et al. have never set foot in
Australia which is where Lerista come from.
So it’d be fair to assume that Richard Wells, having been
studying and collecting thousands of these tiny little
skinks for more than 40 years would carry a little more
expertise on them than the gang of nine!
To claim that an extremely detailed 361 page “book” on
these skinks has no factual or scientific basis is an
outrage. It is something Kaiser et al. and the editors at
Herpetological Review should be condemned for by
publishing the claim.
You’d think that a man who has worked on a group of
lizards for over 40 years would have earned some kind of
right to make taxonomic judgments in compliance with
the rules of zoology.
23
That one paper by Wells contains a lot more science and
fact than the ‘rant’ by Kaiser et al. in Herpetological
Review!
I note for example an alleged (by Kaiser et al.) threat
made by Wells to threaten “taxonomic terrorism” which is
uncited and unreferenced, meaning it cannot even be
checked for veracity!
Even if the two words could be lifted from a quote Wells
made somewhere at some time on the web, Kaiser et al.
fail to place it in context or allow readers to do so either,
which is a breach of basic scientific reporting and
publication as well as the SSAR’s ethics statement. Was
Wells serious? Was he joking? or was Wells in fact
referring to the actions of Kaiser himself?
Besides breaching the SSAR’s Code of ethics referred to
below, the alleged threat as related by Kaiser has little
weight noting that Wells is now about 60 years old and
hasn’t done anything to undermine taxonomy to date,
and he’s been publishing taxonomic papers for decades.
Likewise for the central claims that the other taxonomic
papers of Wells post 2000 lack “taxonomic merit”.
This I know to be false and can verify easily.
By way of example, the paper by Wells describing the
genus Notopseudonaja Wells, 2002 a taxon group I am
very familiar with, includes the description based on
considerable morphological evidence. No one is forcing
Kaiser et al. to adopt or agree with the ultimate
conclusions of Wells, but the claim his paper lacks
taxonomic merit or evidence is patently false.
Wells has given his evidence and/or properly cited it,
then given his judgment on the basis of this. He has
formalized his judgment according to the zoological
Code. Nothing could be more straight forward!
Of note is that the more recent molecular studies
published by Pyron et al. 2011 and others (totally
independent of Wells) gave weight to the removal of the
taxon within the Wells genus from Pseudonaja, at least at
the subgenus level.
Furthermore, if Wells hadn’t named these snakes as
taxonomically distinct in 2002, I would have done so in
2012!
And what is equally certain is that in the absence of a
Wells or Hoser name for the group, someone else will
name them!
Perhaps even Wüster, Schleip, Kaiser, O’Shea or one of
the other gang of nine!
So in accordance with the ICZN rules, I am stuck
recognizing the Wells name and would expect others to
be similarly stuck with it and use it if they agree with his
judgment!
Why should Kaiser et al. be allowed to overturn what is
clearly a stable nomenclature made according to the
rules of the Code that can be used if the underpinning
taxonomy is accepted?
Now I don’t uncritically agree with all taxonomy of Wells.
For example his sea snake reclassification (Wells 2007d)
does not fit my view of the group and unlike Kaiser et. al.
I have both read the papers of Wells and have extensive
experience with many of the relevant taxa. However
there is no need for me to engage in false claims or
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
taxonomic misconduct to deal with my disagreement with
the Wells thesis in this case. Nor do I need to censor the
work of other taxonomists.
Now having made many dozens of taxonomic acts and
descriptions, I sincerely doubt Wells or anyone else
would necessarily agree with everything I have done,
even if presented with exactly the same data I utilized.
The Zoological Code actually allows for such
disagreements without the need to go outside the Code.
For example and as already noted the preamble reads:
“The 4th edition of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, like the preceding editions
and before them the Règles internationales de la
Nomenclature zoologique, has one fundamental aim,
which is to provide the maximum universality and
continuity in the scientific names of animals
compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify
animals according to taxonomic judgments.”
Knowing that the claims against myself either lack merit
in total or are so out of context to the degree that they are
best treated as lacking merit, it must by reason be
assumed that the same applies in terms of adverse
claims against Richard Wells.
Kaiser et al. have failed to substantiate them and yet
managed to scrape through the alleged peer review
process at Herpetological Review, although having an
author as editor at the journal may have helped the
original draft get through effectively untouched and
replete with obvious defects.
Furthermore we know that Kaiser et al. failed to read the
Wells papers they so strongly criticize.
This is because they haven’t even been able to follow the
intellectual exercise of cross-matching his newly created
genera with those from where he derived the given
species and instead resorted to the totally unscientific
game of guessing, (yes guessing!) what genera the said
species came from.
Plus of course, Schleip (2013b) did in April 2013 admit to
not having read the papers he so roundly condemned in
Kaiser et al. (2013).
So in summary, Kaiser et al. were incapable of effectively
“joining the dots” in terms of the Wells papers, which is
something a normal 7 year old could do!
Until now, no one in history has ever contemplated
moving species from Lampropholis Fitzinger, 1843 to
Eulamprus Lonnberg and Andersson 1913, but this is
exactly what Kaiser et al. (2013) has told the world to do.
...and “without evidence”!
As I do not have extensive expertise on skinks of the
genus Lerista (sensu stricto) I am not going to offer a
view on the Wells generic subdivisions or whether or not
I agree with them, other than to say that in a brief reading
of his paper of 2012, I found it broadly made sense. And
yes, I have caught many of the relevant taxa in the last 4
decades!
Regardless of my current views, if Well’s findings are
ultimately found to be correct by others, then his names
should be adopted as per the rules. Again, I do not view
an unreasonable hatred of him by Kaiser et al. as valid
grounds to usurp the rules of zoological Code of
nomenclature, including the three critical rules of, 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere) in
order to rename validly named taxa.
Generic splits are often controversial and those of myself
and Wells are in reality no different to many others, but
none require a breaching of the rules of zoology to be
dealt with.
One need look no further than the 2012 split of Anolis by
several authors including Wüster and O’Shea’s close
friend and listed co-author of Kaiser et al. (2013) Brian
Crother, to get an idea of what I mean.
Should myself and Wells perhaps declare the publication
of Nicholson et al. (including Brian Crother) (2012)
“unscientific”, embargo their names and then in ten years
time apply to the ICZN to break their own rules and make
“Raymond Hoser’s Anolis bust up” legal?
Working on the crackpot theories of Kaiser et al. we’d
have grounds. After all numerous other qualified authors
have made the same judgment that Nicholson et al. were
“unscientific” in their paper, including Losos (2012), Poe
(2013), Jackman (2012) and Castañeda and de Queiroz
(2012).
Poe (2013) wrote:
“Nicholson et al. (2012) selectively adopted results of
their own flawed, unstable, and conflicting analyses,
selectively incorporated pertinent published data and
results, and changed names for over 100 species that
have never been included in a phylogenetic analysis.
The proposed taxonomy is unnecessary and
unwarranted according to standard taxonomic
practice. It should not be adopted by the scientific or
nonacademic communities.”
Now on the basis of the qualified determinations of
shortcomings in the Anolis paper to which Brian Crother
contributed, perhaps and based on the logic of Kaiser et
al. (2013) the next issue of Herpetological Review could
have a “hit list” of Crother taxa from the last 13 years in
urgent need of “boycotting” to allow myself and others to
rename!
In short, the taxonomic papers of Hoser, Wells, Crother,
Wüster and Schleip should not be treated any differently
to others or by contempt for the Zoological Code and
Kaiser et al. have not presented any good reason to do
so.
Personal hatreds spanning more than a decade are not
grounds to try to retrospectively usurp the rules of
Zoological Nomenclature by more than 12 years with an
option to add to this as desired!
If Kaiser et al. were allowed to get away with their longterm plan to rename all taxa named by Hoser and Wells,
no other taxonomist would be able to guarantee the
safety of their work and names proposed from potential
theft by thieves of naming rights at any future date.
Persons like Kaiser et al. may at any time seek to break
the Zoological Code and retrospectively usurp their
names because of some invented or fabricated claim
against their work, perhaps as trivial as the journal itself,
where it was published and who edited it. An example
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
24
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
here includes the patently false claim that Australasian
Journal of Herpetology is “advertising” and in violation of
8.1.1. of the Zoological Code.
CO-DEFENDANT WELLS
In the case of the charges against Wells, Kaiser et al.
(2013) has in effect made us both co-defendants to their
patently false allegations.
I do not intend to comprehensively defend Wells here,
although based on what Kaiser et al. have published, I
find he has in effect no case to answer!
I also know Wells sufficiently well to know he is more
than capable of pointing out many of the false assertions
and hypocritical acts within Kaiser et al. himself and will
probably do so in his own good time.
Wüster has long been critical of both myself and Wells
and has habitually lied to further his own pre-determined
agenda.
Neither Wells or myself work together and as such we
run our own things.
However Wüster in particular has sought to paint a
picture that we are renegades running as a duo,
supporting one another without criticism of either, which
is certainly not the case.
To this end he wrote in Wüster (2001a) and Wüster et al.
(2001) of my own “uncritical acceptance of the
arrangements of Wells and Wellington (1984, 1985).”
Wüster himself knew the statement to be a lie, because
he had spent time in the same 2001 paper (same copy
twice) criticising my 1998 Acanthophis taxonomy, which
he would have known happened to formally reject the
1985 Wells and Wellington proposal recognizing west
Australian Death Adders formerly identified as
Acanthophis pyrrhus as the species Acanthophis
armstongi.
The fact is, I have never uncritically accepted anyone’s
taxonomy or nomenclature and Wells and Wellington are
no different!
SPECIFIC CLAIMS AGAINST THE HOSER PAPERS WHY THE KAISER ET AL. CASE AGAINST HOSER IS
FRAUDULENT AND FAILS
Kaiser et al. (2013) make a grand total of just five
specific claims, against Hoser papers as listed and cited,
which is astounding as they did without a shred of
evidence condemn dozens of papers.
This lack of specific criticism implies that they were
unable to find fault with the rest, beyond their five listed
claims, however I note here that in April 2013, Schleip
said they hadn’t in fact read them (Schleip 2013b).
In terms of the five claims held up as the basis for
condemnation, which must be taken as the best they
have, all are, if taken at their highest possible level and
accepted as true and correct, still so trivial as to be
meaningless.
However all five of the claims made on page 16 of Kaiser
et al. are either false or quoted so seriously out of context
by omission of other relevant material, that the claims
against me as an attack on me may as well be treated as
false.
As these five claims form the entire basis by which
Kaiser et al. have condemned dozens of my papers, and
25
warranting their call to launch an unprecedented attack
on the Zoological Rules, I deal with each specifically.
This is to leave no doubt as to the lack of evidence these
authors have for their claims against me.
I also note that the totality of these actual claims against
me is just a total of 201 words, out of a heavily padded
12,638 word blog attacking me!
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“(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).”
What the authors have failed to note is that this defect
was identified in the first instance by myself (not them)
and also properly corrected some years earlier.
As a result the same taxon was described as new by
myself in Hoser (2009c) with considerably more
diagnostic information to comply with the rules of
Zoology, under the name of Oxyuranus scutellatus
andrewwilsoni and for the proper purpose of stabilizing
the nomenclature under the Zoological Rules.
Kaiser et al. have been dishonest in not noting the 2009
paper with their alleged criticism of the 2002 description
and I note that as they have claimed to have read all my
papers and cited Hoser (2009c) themselves, they could
not have been unaware of the new description that
corrected the error, four years prior to Kaiser et al. being
published.
Also see their third specific criticism for further rebuttal of
this first one!
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“(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)”
is a false statement. The evidence of body colour for the
subspecies diagnosis was not taken from the holotype.
Hence the invention of evidence claim is false! I chose
not to unnecessarily kill live specimens of the uncommon
taxon that were available, as the holotype was sufficient
for naming the taxon under the Zoological Rules. It was
those specimens from where further data was taken and
reported, which is quite ethical and normal in herpetology
and scientific descriptions in general.
Unnecessary killing of rare and endangered live
vertebrates to pickle in Museums for taxonomic science
has long been a bone of contention and it was not an
area I wanted to delve into.
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“(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)”
The claim is correct, but the context is not given, which in
itself refutes any adverse claim or inferences against me.
Interestingly they have themselves provided rebuttal
evidence for their first claim against me in terms of
Oxyuranus scutellatus andrewwilsoni Hoser 2009.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
The claim was raised by Schleip (2008) that Leiopython
albertisi barkeri Hoser 2000a was a nomen nudem. To
stabilize the nomenclature under the rules of zoological
nomenclature, the taxon was redescribed as new by
Hoser (2009a). Again this is not uncommon in
herpetology and in the circumstances, totally appropriate.
Of course this did mean that Schleip and the other truth
haters were then excluded from naming that taxon and
that was the real “problem” they were dealing with.
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“(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 artefact 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”)”
Both claims are rejected. The diagnostic differences
lifted from Hoser (1998) for Acanthophis barnetti Hoser
are only a small part of the total as published.
Furthermore they are not based on the evidence of just
“morphological aberrations and vague differences in
color pattern” as asserted by Kaiser et al., (2013).
The claim that “absence of raised supraoculars, which is
merely an artefact of preservation” is also rejected in
context. Fact is that as compared to two of three other
known New Guinea Acanthophis species (A. crotalusei
and A. laevis), the supraoculars are nowhere near as
raised!
A read of Hoser (1998a states) clearly that this diagnosis
is based on the inspection of a large number of
specimens of each taxon as held at the Australian
Museum in Sydney.
The third species, A. rugosa, is readily separated from
the others by their considerably more rugose scales
(Hoser 1998a) and other factors as listed by Hoser
(1998a). None of these features are “morphological
aberrations”, “vague differences in color pattern” or
“merely an artefact of preservation” as asserted by
Kaiser et al.
The full diagnosis of the species Pseudonaja textilis
cliveevatti Hoser 2012 is in fact perfectly reasonable and
accurate. It is also of a nature to enable identification of
wild specimens with ease by others. Therefore there is
no rebuttal required.
Kaiser et al. (2013) wrote:
“(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).”
As noted elsewhere, the first statement “harvesting of
clades from published phylogenetic studies for
description” refutes the claim by Kaiser et al. elsewhere
that my descriptions have no evidentiary basis.
The second statement is patently false and Kaiser et al.
are aware of their lie.
The abstract of the Hoser paper naming the new taxa
states that the evidence forming the basis of the new
division comes from “several phylogenetic studies
involving the Keeled Snakes of genus
Natrix and Smooth Snakes of genus Coronella as
recognized at start 2012”.
The abstract also reads: “Within the last decade, several
studies have shown the divergence between the three
members of the genus Natrix to be from 12 to 27 million
years ago (Guicking et. al. 2006), and probably further
back for the three extant members of the genus
Coronella (see comparative results in Pyron et al. 2011).”
As for the extensive published diagnosis of each new
genus in the paper, none rely on any way on any
molecular studies and results, be they Pyron’s,
Guicking’s or anyone else’s.
Those studies were merely cited as evidence in support
of the formal descriptions, which is entirely appropriate
and correct scientific procedure.
This particular paper also correctly cites and lists many
dozens of other papers and studies by other authors as
an evidentiary basis for the taxonomic conclusions within,
which besides being correct scientific procedure, clearly
rebuts the false claims of Kaiser et al. of “evidence free
taxonomy” or plagiarization of other people’s work.
Therefore, as none of the five specific allegations by
Kaiser et al. 2013 against the Hoser papers have merit or
are even true as stated, the case against Hoser papers,
as stated by Kaiser et al. must fail.
WULF SCHLEIP AND WWW.LEIOPYTHON.DE
Kaiser et al. claim that I (Raymond Hoser) have engaged
in acts of “grievous taxonomic malpractice”, but have
failed to provide any evidence to support the claim (see
above).
Herein I provide such evidence in terms of one of the
authors of that paper, namely Wulf Schleip.
What follows, effectively convicts him of the charge of
“grievous taxonomic malpractice”.
In 2001, a private snake hobbyist by the name of Wulf
Schleip from Germany, created the website
www.leiopython.de. Here he professed to disseminate
information on the genus Leiopython, which happened to
be the genus/species of snake he was keeping at the
time and clearly his favourite python.
At first his site recognised both taxa ( albertisi and
hoserae) as different species, which was in line with
accepted taxonomy of 2001, noting that Hoser (2000b)
had in the case of the latter, merely formalized a long
recognised species arrangement (Schleip 2001).
Schleip gave accounts of both as different species, which
was appropriate for a website purporting to be an up-todate reference for the genus.
Unfortunately (for him) he subsequently befriended
Wolfgang Wüster who encouraged him to oppose all
things Hoser.
Significantly in the context of this paper, from at least
2004, and after a series of posts on webforums, including
“www.kingsnake.com” by Wolfgang Wüster and
convicted reptile smuggler David Williams, Schleip
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
26
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
amended his site to deny the legitimacy of the taxon
hoserae.
He declared it “nomen nudem” in numerous places. He
further stated that the southern black “race” regularly
climbed the central range of New Guinea to hybridise
with the northern brown “race” of L. albertisi (Schleip
2007b).
No evidence was provided to support the wild
hybridization claim.
Put simply, he joined the Wolfgang Wüster and David
Williams campaign of lies and hate against “Hoser”.
By way of example, in a 2004 post to http://
www.herpbreeder.com/ Schleip also denied the existence
of L. hoserae, going so far as to infer that he had mtDNA
evidence that didn’t support the Hoser 2000a designation
(Schleip 2004a).
Based on the mtDNA material presented in a 2008 paper
by Schleip himself published in the SSAR’s Journal of
Herpetology, that confirmed the validity of the species L.
hoserae we now know his 2004 statement to be a lie.
While either of Schleip’s “new” 2004 concepts are
patently ridiculous, there was no means, or for that
matter compelling reason for myself to try to change or
remove the offending material denying the existence of
the species I had named.
The internet is full of questionable material, and in terms
of Schleip’s website, it was just one of many being run by
persons of questionable integrity with undisclosed (to
their readers) axes to grind.
Schleip avidly posted on internet forums and elsewhere
his consistently negative views of Hoser (myself), on all
matters, ranging on taxonomy, venomoid (devenomized
snakes), wildlife legislation, education and so on (Schleip
2004b, 2004c, 2007a).
Schleip also edited the “Wikipedia” webpage for
Leiopython on many occasions, where he made sure that
the view that there was only one species in the genus
was peddled and remained so, even when others edited
the site to indicate the generally prevailing (post 2000)
view that there was two species in the genus (albertisi
and hoserae), giving him the opportunity to edit it back to
the single species view. This was at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiopython
and the edit history is publicly available via a link on the
page (Schleip et al. 2007b).
As late as 12 December 2008, and following editing by
Schleip, that site read as follows:
“Leiopython is a monotypic genus created for the nonvenomous python species, L. albertisii, found in New
Guinea. No subspecies are currently recognized.”
For the record, in terms of all the Hoser descriptions of
taxa, they most certainly conformed with the relevant
“Rules” as published by the ICZN (Ride et al. 1999).
Hence the names were all “available”. However neither
myself or anyone else can force anyone to use those or
any other names to describe given taxa.
Furthermore, while anything is possible, it seemed
unlikely to me that a forest-dwelling python would be able
to climb extremely high, sometimes snow-capped hills of
the New Guinea central cordillera to find other snakes to
27
breed with, especially as in over 100 years no one has
ever found any snake that is apparently intermediate or
hybrid in any way to the taxa L. albertisi and L. hoserae.
Of significance to this paper is that as of late 2008,
Schleip’s website was still peddling the false line that the
Hoser taxonomy for the genus Leiopython was wrong
and that all could be assigned to a single species.
THE SCHLEIP 2008 PAPER ON LEIOPYTHON
Late in 2008, Schleip removed all material from his
website.
In a download (dated 7 December) all that was written
there was:
“This site is closed for major updates and will be
relaunched in a couple of days!”
(cited here as Schleip 2008c).
The site was in fact reloaded and relaunched on 10
December 2008.
The significance of the relaunch was that all his material
denying the existence of the taxon L. hoserae was
removed and Schleip had suddenly and without
appropriate explanation or apology declared the species
as valid!
The site’s relaunch was based around the simultaneous
(within days prior) publication of his 2008 paper, broadly
accepting the Hoser taxonomy and in turn “creating”
three new species of Brown Leiopython from the northern
New Guinea region and elevating a Hoser (2000)
subspecies to full species status as well.
On 28 December 2008, he posted details of his newly
published paper on Leiopython taxonomy on the website
www.aussiereptilekeeper and elsewhere.
A search of the internet yielded abstracts of the Schleip
paper only, (at: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/
?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1670%2F06-182R5.1)
see Bioone (2008), with full copies only available through
a so-called “paywall”.
The widespread availability of the abstract, in contrast to
the full paper was significant in terms of the major
discrepancies that emerged between the two.
I was able to acquire a photocopy of the publication
through a Museum-based subscriber to the Journal of
Herpetology.
Firstly, the abstract was quite definitive in stating its basis
for diagnosing and describing new taxa of Leiopython,
including mtDNA, which one would reasonably assume
would be for those species that may otherwise have a
questionable diagnosis.
However a read of the paper itself had the data revealing
a different picture to that inferred in the abstract and
essentially no different to that of Hoser 2000b (see
below).
While the Schleip website (all pages) broadly mirrored
his findings as published in Schleip 2008a (the paper in
the Journal of Herpetology), (we’ll call all pages on the
server as of 28 Dec 08 (Schleip 2008b)), there were a
number of notable differences.
The differences in essence were a more vitriolic attack
on myself and less editorial discipline leading to his
inadvertent and inconsistent statements including some
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
on various webpages stating that all the northern whitelipped pythons are of the same species, namely “ L.
albertisi”!
These points are only raised here to demonstrate the
sloppy methodology of Schleip and how motive dictates
what he writes, as opposed to the facts as they should be
written.
Note for example that Schleip made at least four
substantive changes (edits) to his website/s (at:
www.leiopython.de) in December 2008 alone!
He was also apparently active at Wikipedia, this time
apparently making anonymous edits to webpages for
Leiopython. This time however he was changing the
pages to indicate all new taxa as recognised in his 2008
paper. He wrote: “In 2008, Schleip redescribed and
provided proper descriptions and diagnoses...”.
That Schleip was the editor was revealed via a reverse
IP address search giving the European address of his
internet gateway and seeing that it matched his footprint
elsewhere on the web.
In fairness to Schleip he could sustain an argument that
he had suddenly as of end 2008, changed his mind about
Leiopython and reversed his tune denying the existence
of the Hoser-named taxa. This is not a hanging offence,
but a proper explanation and apology would have been
ethical.
Also in fairness to Schleip, the ICZN rules do call for
“wide dissemination” of taxonomic work, and Schleip
could legitimately claim his stalking the web to (now)
promote his published paper fitted this request from the
ICZN.
However, it is prudent to point out the hypocrisy here as
Schleip, Wüster and Williams have put in print many
times that Hoser’s wide dissemination of taxonomy
papers amounts to nothing more than “self promotion”,
(see Wüster et. al. 2001, or Williams et. al. 2006) and
then as reposted and promoted on the web at
“aussiereptilekeeper” by Schleip, and similar comments
by Kaiser et al. (2013), p. 17, first paragraph.
However even allowing for Schleip’s editorial
inconsistencies, complete dishonesty and hypocrisy, the
fact remains that Schleip has managed to have a
taxonomic paper published.
Regardless of how badly either that or his webpage are
written, whether or not his newly “created” species are
actually valid ultimately turns on the evidence and it is
this that is herein assessed and found to be lacking. In
other words he is guilty of the charge Kaiser et al. (that
includes Schleip) 2013 have made against me, but in
their case without any substantiation.
THE LEIOPYTHON SPECIES
Hoser 2000a taxonomy recognised L. albertisi and L.
hoserae (the latter) as described and formally named for
the first time in that paper. Two subspecies, namely L.
albertisi bennetorum from an eastern extremity of the
range and L. albertisi barkerorum (name amended) from
the northern extremity were also formally described and
named at the subspecies level.
At the species level, both the latter are synonyms of L.
albertisi.
While as recently as 2007, Schleip repeatedly claimed
expertise on Leiopython and that L. hoserae and the
Hoser-named subspecies did not exist (see for example
his 2007 Wikipedia edits), in his paper published around
December 2008 and his website (version end Dec 2008),
Schleip accepted that L. hoserae was both a valid taxon
and validly named (as in the name being available under
the ICZN Code).
More dramatically, he elevated the “bennetorum” to full
species. True to past form he alleged there was no basis
to separate barkerorum in any way from L. albertisi and
that it was also “nomen nudem” (more on this aspect
later).
None of the above so far made the Schleip paper notable
in any way, or for that matter worthy of comment.
However what was worthy of analysis here was the
dramatic move by Schleip of creating three new species
of Brown Leiopython, namely L. fredparkeri and L.
huonensis from the mainland New Guinea population of
L. albertisi and L. biakensis for the specimens from the
Island of Biak.
MtDNA EVIDENCE NOT IN HIS PAPER
In his abstract published and widely disseminated on the
web, Schleip indicated that he had assessed this to
confirm that his division of Leiopython is in fact correct.
He wrote:
“Additional evidence for some species was obtained
by maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood
analysis of mitochondial DNA sequences
(cytochrome b gene) taken from GenBank. Besides
three conventional taxa, two new mainland species
and one new island species were recognised in
accordance with the evolutionary species concept”
However a read of his paper showed he in fact provided
no DNA evidence whatsoever to separate any of his
newly named northern taxa from one another or for that
matter from the nominate race of L. albertisi.
The only conclusive mtDNA evidence given by Schleip is
in his Figure 4, which shows separation of L. hoserae
Hoser 2000 from “L. albertisi” from Madang (summarised
also in the text of the second page (second column) of
his paper).
While that confirms the taxonomic position of Hoser
2000b, in contrast to Schleip’s own posts on Wikipedia
and elsewhere at least to mid 2007, the non-publication
of similar data splitting his own “new” species seems to
indicate that the evidence he acquired (if he in fact
looked) went against his published argument in favour of
the new “species”.
Interestingly for his newly created “species” “ fredparkeri”,
Schleip wrote:
“this assignment should be subject to future studies
on a genetic basis”.
Which was in total contrast to what was written in his
widely posted abstract!
This comment also showed that he either did not conduct
genetic studies on this species, or alternatively his results
weren’t published as they went against his clear desire to
name new “taxa” and be believed by his readers.
That I know Schleip was guilty of the latter came from his
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
28
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
good friend Mark O’Shea who inadvertently let the secret
out!
O’Shea (2007) page 125, of his book, confirmed that
Schleip did have the mtDNA of all the relevant
Leiopython specimens.
The key element of the use of genetics in determining
new species is that it is essential only when the
delineation of taxa may otherwise be difficult or
questionable.
Most species known to science were never delineated on
the basis of mtDNA due to the fact that it wasn’t
necessary as the differences between taxa were
substantive and obvious.
In the case of L. hoserae, versus L. albertisi, the need to
look at mtDNA to confirm the validity of the species
designation was at best slight and in my view, totally
unnecessary.
The two taxa are obviously very different, obviously
allopatric, being split by a very substantive mountain
range barrier and hence obviously different species (see
for example O’Shea’s comments on this in O’Shea 2007,
page 128).
By contrast all the northern Leiopython are essentially
similar in most respects (phenotypically alike), as
conceded by Schleip (2008a), not divided by any obvious
and permanent physical barriers, extremely common
throughout their range and hence are the obvious targets
for mtDNA analysis as inferred in the widely
disseminated abstract, but not delivered on in the actual
paper.
In other words the abstract as published and
disseminated is misleading and dishonest.
SEPARATION OF THE THREE SCHLEIP CREATED
SPECIES
Until now, all the Schleip taxa would have been
recognised as stock, standard L. albertisi for his newly
created “biakensis”, or perhaps “L. albertisi bennettorum”
for his “huonensis” or “fredparkeri”.
Notable also is that until publication of his 2008, paper
Schleip was vocal (on his website) in declaring that
separated distribution was not a useful basis to identify
taxa (Schleip 2004a, 2004b, 2004c).
This view was taken because it was a key plank in his
printed rebuttal of the Hoser-named taxa.
In Schleip (2008a), he relied heavily on so-called
“Operational Taxonomic Units” to allege what he called
“geographically isolated or disjunctive populations” to
separate his new “species”.
This is of course based on the limited collection of
specimens he allegedly had at his disposal, noting that
most of the relevant parts of Island New Guinea (and
nearby) is relatively uninhabited and not collected for
reptiles, meaning that it’d be almost impossible to claim
no Leiopython inhabit intervening regions, unless of
course one is talking about an island population, which
then makes potential “rafting” of snakes an issue and
seems obvious in the base of Biak.
Hence, the end point as stated in his paper for defining
these new “species” using his relatively newly invoked
“evolutionary species concept”(or ESC) is that his
29
species populations are genetically isolated from one
another by being distributionally disjunct.
While the central cordillera can give a safe bet southern
New Guinea Leiopython have been separated from the
northern population for anything up to 5 million years
(mtDNA separation of about 10% as stated by Schleip
2008a), no such barrier either recently past or present is
known to separate any of the northern populations,
including the island race from Biak, which as recently as
12,500 years ago was virtually joined to the rest of New
Guinea, (see for example figs 10 and 11 in Harvey et. al.
2000, with specific reference to Biak and it’s being
effectively joined to part of the Sahul Shelf).
Those authors (Harvey et. al. 2000) found that by
molecular analysis the Scrub Python snakes from Biak
were effectively identical to those from nearby mainland
New Guinea (Fig. 6., p. 153).
Hence, it would be expected that a similar situation would
exist for the White-lipped Pythons ( Leiopython).
Furthermore, noting the findings of Harvey et. al. were
published eight years earlier and known to Schleip, it
would have been incumbent for him to provide contrary
data for his own new taxa from the same place.
Schleip had not done this!
This raises more questions than it answers, and besides
raising questions about Schleip’s bad methodology, it
also raises the ethical issue of whether or not he’s
deliberately chosen to exclude data he knew wouldn’t fit
his predetermined aim to “find” new species-level taxa,
where none actually existed!
That of course is a breach of the SSAR’s ethics
statement (Anonymous 2013a), relevant here as
Schleip’s paper was published in the SSAR controlled
Journal of Herpetology.
In terms of his morphological analysis, Schleip
deliberately excluded a host of characters, such as
temporals, parietals and postoculars on the alleged basis
that there was an allegedly “random distribution between
different populations”.
However these scales are routinely used to split other
python taxa including some from Australasia (see for
example, Hoser 2000a, noting that the relevant
diagnoses are in turn adopted from earlier authors and
therefore not merely Hoser inventions).
However it is clear that the exclusion of characters that
give no statistical standing in favour of one population
versus another have been excluded by Schleip solely so
as to inflate the relative importance of the obscure
characteristics (based on ridiculously small sample sizes)
he seeks to rely upon to separate his newly created
“species”.
In terms of the Schleip created species huonensis, it is
notable that it is found immediately to the west of the
distribution for “L. bennetorum”. Schelip’s diagnosis for
the newly created taxon, states that it’s effectively
inseparable from bennetorum save for “the lower number
of loreal and prefrontal scales as well as a lower average
number of postoculars”.
The question then begs, are these minor scale
differences observed in pitifully small samples of snakes
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
sufficient grounds to split these snakes off as a separate
species?
Also, what of snakes found between the stated known
locations for these two “taxa”, are they different again?
Or are they simply intermediates, as seems likely.
Hedging his bets each way, in the regions between his
newly created “taxa” Schleip has marked his distribution
map (Fig 5 in the paper) with a series of strategically
placed question marks (notation being “populations of
unclear taxonomic status”).
If one were to assume the logical Schleip species theory
to it’s logical conclusion, each question mark would
represent a new species, giving several new taxa, and an
end-point of many essentially similar species in the
“Leiopython albertisi” species complex, when for other
similarly distributed (and similarly mobile) python taxa in
the same region (“amethistina”, “viridis”, etc), there is
only one of each.
Actually, Chondropython azureus is a considerably less
mobile taxon than L. albertisi, and yet only one species
occupies the same range as all of Schleip’s newly
created Leiopython species, which is a result that in the
absence of a good reason, simply defies logic. The same
applies for the Boelen’s Python Lenhoserus boeleni (see
Austin et al. 2010).
Leiopython fredparkeri, according to Schleip yields scale
counts intermediate between L. albertisi”, “L.
bennettorum” and his newly created “L. huonesnsis”,
which is of course totally expected as these snakes are
found between the known locations for these.
Rather than providing evidence for the existence of a
new species of Leiopython, Schleip has in fact provided
further evidence of clinal variation in the range of the
taxon L. albertisi, within the region of Northern New
Guinea.
The same situation is of course seen with “L. huonensis”
with it being essentially intermediate in form between “L.
bennettorum” and “L. fredparkeri”, the “species” between
which it’s known.
Again, Schleip has chosen to exclude snakes found in
regions between these newly created “species” as they
would almost certainly be clinal (again) to those he has
named and further show up the fact he has in effect
described “non-taxa”. This is the term his friend Wüster
applied in terms of none other than the properly defined
and validated Leiopython hoserae Hoser, 2000 (Wüster
2001a, Wüster et al. 2001).
Hence the true picture revealed is one of clinal variation
in the north New Guinea Leiopython, rather than any
evidence of speciation, discounting of course “recent”
man-made barriers, such as roads, farms, fences and the
like, similar to those erected worldwide in the last 2000
years.
However my understanding is that as of 2012, most of
this region is still either jungle or relatively
primitive farms.
Schleip’s diagnosis of his newly created “species”, L.
biakensis is the most hypocritical act in his paper, as
shown here.
The use of head scalation characters to separate this
“species” from all other Brown Leiopython, breaks down,
so he relies on cutting up his samples to give the
appearance of consistent differences in his critically
important “diagnosis”. Yes, he even splits Irian Jaya L.
albertisi from New Guinea ones to get his statistical
gymnastics over the line in terms of diagnosing his
“species”.
This is of course the hallmark of his paper in that he
uses, statistics with dodgy parameters and questionable
statistical tests to prove his alleged consistent differences
(using carefully selected parameters), based on selected
samples and on the exclusion of intermediate (often
clinal) specimens that may distort his end figures.
Things are made worse when he concedes that his
sample size of his newly created “species” L. biakensis,
is just two animals (yes two animals), and the best
differentiating feature from L. albertisi from nearby Irian
Jaya he has is merely “two labials entering the orbit” in
his newly created L. biakensis.
It’s must also noted here that the trait of two labials
entering the orbit may not be consistent among others
from Biak!
Schleip also stated:
“This allopatric population shows little, but diagnosable
morphological differences to other species. Brongersma
(1956) assumed this population to form an incipient race.
Because of the geographic distance to the mainland
populations, of Leiopython albertisi, it is unlikely that
gene flow occurs among these populations. Hence this
population is considered reproductively isolated (sensu
Wiens, 2004) and in accordance with Frost and Hills
(1990) and based on the ESC (sensu Frost and Kluge,
1994), the assignment of specific rank to this population
seems justified.”
In other words the primary basis for separating this
“taxon” is distribution and a crude “assumption” without
data from an author 52 years ago.
Jumping the gun is a thought that springs to mind here,
but lack of data is another serious problem.
Schleip repeats the distribution argument (allopatric
populations) at length in his final justification for the
creation of his three new “species”, using selective
quotes taken out of context from papers by Frost and
Hillis (1990), Frost and Kluge (1994) and Wiens (2004),
giving an observer like myself the impression that
Schleip hopes that no one chooses to read either the
detail of the cited papers, or for that matter even the
detail of the data he’s presented himself.
Taking the Schleip interpretations and argument to it’s
logical end point, you would have almost all island
populations of almost all vertebrate species potentially
being elevated to new “species” under his newly warped
interpretation of the ESC.
Likewise for every species found in valleys that are
separated by barriers such as low hills, poor habitat,
roads, farms, factories and so on, even if the habitat
barriers were no more than a few hundred years old.
With many hundreds of islands offshore to New Guinea,
many separated for less than 12,500 years, you can see
the potential for a taxonomic nightmare emerging, not
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
30
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
just for herpetologists, but all biologists, in terms if the
idea of naming all island populations full species ever
takes hold.
However such an outcome will keep editors of
publications like “Zootaxa” busy for a long, long time!
The hypocrisy part of Schleip’s use of distribution as the
key driver to creating his “species” “biakensis” is that for
the previous 8 years and even in his 2008 paper, he
argues strongly against the recognition of the L. albertisi
from Mussau Island as distinct, claiming distribution is
not a useful character.
That population is however that named by his enemy
(Hoser), in Hoser 2000b as L. albertisi barkeri (correctly
amended to barkerorum) regarded by Schleip 2008 and
associates (as posted on the internet) as “ Nomen
nudem”.
In Schleip’s 2008 paper he wrote a diatribe claiming the
taxon was a “nomen nudem” and also arguing:
“Allopatric distribution may itself separate the Massau
Island population geographically, but it is highly
questionable if this alone is able to distinguish a taxon
from another, regardless of the underlying species
concept.”
So while allopatric distribution apparently pushes
Schleip’s own vague “species” L. biakensis over the line,
it is not sufficient grounds to push a similarly isolated
island population (more distant from the main population)
over the line as a separate taxon, even at the lower level
of subspecies.
The evolutionary species concept (ESC) was employed
by zoologists to account for allopatric and other
reproductively isolated populations of similar animals that
were not ever likely to breed or evolve together as a
species and hence would for the indefinite future evolve
apart.
In terms of it’s use and application in the classification of
pythons, recent examples of papers and outcomes
include Harvey et al. 2000 and others. Schleip’s 2008
interpretation of the ESC is so warped and extreme, that
taken to its logical end-point, you could foresee two
sibling snakes separated in plastic tubs being declared
separate taxa on the basis of scalation differences in
traits known to be variable if the owner said “I will not put
these snakes together, ever!”
I have one such example in my facility in terms of sibling
Olive Pythons, both demonstrating different head shield
configurations, and using the Schleip theories as
practiced could both be renamed as “new” species under
his warped ESC interpretation.
Not surprisingly most people agree with me and the
Schleip taxa remain generally unrecognized (Natusch
and Lyons, 2011). This includes in the hobbyist snake
keeper business, where money can be made from the
identification of a new species, race or even mutation!
Now surely if Kaiser et al. (2013) are really serious about
“grievous taxonomic malpractice” they should be looking
at the paper of Schleip (2008) as their first port of call!
Finally, I should note that meanwhile, Schleip’s good
friend Mark O’Shea (both co-authors of Kaiser et al.
2013), had already inadvertently shattered Schleip’s
31
2008a diagnosis for L. biakensis even before it had been
published.
In his 2007 book (O’Shea 2007) on page 126, there is a
picture of a specimen identified clearly as “Leiopython
albertisi” from Madang, which also happens to have two
labials entering the orbit!
With “two labials entering the orbit” as the sole diagnostic
feature of the alleged species L. biakensis, clearly being
seen in bog standard L. albertisi, the newly created
Schleip species is found to be fictitious.
I also note that in his SPAM email of 5 June 2012 (Kaiser
2012a), Kaiser wrote:
“I am acting as secretary for the purpose of neutral
dissemination of the attached Point of View
manuscript, put together by an international group of
seven respected herpetological taxonomists.”
Besides the fact that Kaiser had lied about being neutral
(he was in fact listed in Kaiser et al. 2013 as the lead
author), he also lied by alleging Schleip could possibly be
one of “seven respected herpetological taxonomists”.
As seen above, Schleip’s first and only significant foray
into the world of taxonomic publishing in 2008 was
marked by the following verified results:
·
A case of fraud,
·
Reference to data he chose not to produce as it
went against his published conclusions of new species,
·
A direct breach himself of the SSAR’s own ethics
statement,
·
Description of three new alleged Leiopython
species that were fictitious or “non-taxa”,
·
Published in a journal controlled by the SSAR that
in spite of alleged peer review, somehow evaded proper
scrutiny and as published violated the SSAR’s own ethics
statement,
·
Unnecessarily wasted the time of taxonomists for
many generations to come by the creation of three new
junior synonyms for a species of snake that already had
other available junior synonyms.
·
Caused a waste of government resources towards
the conservation of “non-taxa” better spent on conserving
genuinely threatened species.
·
Was an unmitigated disaster that created
taxonomic instability for a genus of snakes who’s
relationships had been properly stabilized according to
the science of taxonomy and rules of zoological
nomenclature by Hoser 2000a.
In terms of dishonesty, the same can be said for the
statement by Kaiser (2012a) with regards to another coauthor, namely Mark O’Shea!
SCHLEIP, O’SHEA AND WÜSTER YET MORE LIES,
REVERSING ARGUMENTS.
The trio are veritable experts when it comes to telling lies
and arguing rubbish to further their argument in internet
chat forums and elsewhere, where the readers may not
know any better or not have access to criticized papers.
In 2009, the three were trolling the web attacking the
Hoser papers, of that year, including the paper Hoser
(2009a), which exposed Schleip’s fraudulent “creation” of
three new Leiopython species.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
The trio posted on a forum at:
http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com
/2009/03/taxonomic-war.html#comment-form
where they wrote their usual unsupported claims about
Hoser papers being “without evidence”, “evidence free”
(Schleip), “evidence free taxonomy” (Wüster), and
“taxonomic vandalism” (O’Shea) with the argument that
the Zoological Code needed rewriting, leading to the
response from a person posting as “Siglind” who wrote:
“Guys, chill out, he can say what he wants, in the
end, taxonomy works by making PROPOSALS, not
demands. So, the next author looks at it, makes up
her/his own mind, and decide that those names are
synonyms for already describe species. And that will
be the end. Same for taxonomy. He is a annoyance,
but not one that requires rewriting of The Code.”
Of relevance here is that at the time Schleip, O’Shea and
Wüster were aware of the fact that all Hoser papers were
published according to the Zoological Code and valid.
In fact Schleip himself wrote:
“everybody can write a taxonomic paper, rename or
invent taxa, and if the author gets it published in
accordance with the basic requirements of the code,
the names are available.”
and
“So, as you can see, there is no tool within the
“Code” to stop Raymond Hoser and others from
publishing evidence-free and offensive papers in selfpublished journals.”
Of course, this was a case of Pot, Kettle, Black, with the
author of a holotype evidence free paper just months
earlier making the false accusation against me, but that
fact is not relevant here.
After the publication of Kaiser et al. (2013), co-authors
Schleip, O’Shea and Wüster posted links to their new
“paper” paper widely and reversed their argument. They
now argued widely that the Zoological Code actually
allowed them to boycott and rename all Hoser species.
The basis of his new claim being the Kaiser et al.
argument that no Hoser publications were ““public and
permanent scientific record” and therefore fails a
requirement of the Code (Art. 8.1.1).
Schleip repeated this on German snake forum:
http://www.pure-reptiles.de/
index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1290
on 19 March 2013.
What Kaiser et al. (2013) failed to do was quote the
relevant parts of the Code which actually in large part
define articles 8.1.1.
So here it is:
“8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing
a public and permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of
charge or by purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition
containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a
method that assures numerous identical and durable
copies.”
and
“Recommendation 8A. Wide dissemination. Authors
have a responsibility to ensure that new scientific
names, nomenclatural acts, and information likely to
affect nomenclature are made widely known. This
responsibility is most easily discharged by
publication in appropriate scientific journals or wellknown monographic series and by ensuring that new
names proposed by them are entered into the
Zoological Record. This is most easily achieved by
sending a copy of the work to the Zoological Record,
published by BIOSIS U.K.
Recommendation 8B. Desirability of works on paper.
Authors and publishers are strongly urged to ensure
that a new scientific name or nomenclatural act is
first published in a work printed on paper.”
Now while Australasian Journal of Herpetology had a
direct statement of fact that it was produced for the
“purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific
record”, this is generally assumed of other journals so is
in reality a non-argument. Then of course is the other
issue of the other five or more journals that Kaiser et al.
have ruled “unscientific publications” recognized by
everyone else as being scientific publications for up to 12
previous years and include papers by countless other
authors besides myself, including none other than
Wüster himself (Wüster et al. 2001)!
Again while Schleip, O’Shea and Wüster were claiming in
2009 and earlier (e.g. Wüster et al. 2011) that Hoser had
not described valid species or “non-taxa”, the fact was,
they knew I had, and the real problem was the fact they
had to use the Hoser names, something O’Shea and
Wüster had both made clear was something they would
avoid at all costs and even if the taxa named by myself
(Hoser) were in fact valid (O’Shea 2013a, 2013b, 2013c,
Wüster 2013a, 2013b).
In other words there was never actually a problem with
the science, taxonomy or nomenclature of the Hoser
descriptions, but rather a problem, O’Shea, Wüster,
Schleip and the others had with “Hoser”.
FUTHER RELEVANT STATEMENTS BY KAISER AND
OTHERS
I don’t intend repeating the detail of false claims by
O’Shea and others in the period preceding publication of
Australasian Journal of Herpetology Issue 14, which
contained details of Kaiser et al.’s “paper” as circulated at
the time and other claims made against me. The details
of this scandalous campaign and various false
statements made by the relevant parties are covered at
length there (Hoser 2012as). These should be read by
all interested parties in detail.
Of note again is that not once did any of the authors of
Kaiser et al. 2013 ever argue the merits or otherwise of
the taxa named by Hoser in 2012!
That is because all were defined as a result of good
robust molecular and morphological data, all of which
was cited within the papers!
As I didn’t do all the research myself, I did according to
proper convention cite all relevant sources.
There is nothing out of the ordinary in any of this!
Kaiser et al. and others instead resorted to publishing of
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
32
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
hate images in violation of the Zoological Code on
Facebook and elsewhere and making further false
statements about myself.
In June 2012, and after receipt of the Kaiser SPAM email of 5 June 2012 (Kaiser 2012a), I emailed the editor
of Herpetological Review, Robert Hansen and asked him
questions in relation to the “paper” by Kaiser et al.
In a reply email dated 19 June (Hansen 2012), he said he
wouldn’t be publishing the material, as “We do not
publish personal attacks”.
Now falsely calling a person guilty of “grievous taxonomic
malpractice” (Kaiser et al. 2013) and without a shred of
evidence must surely be some kind of personal attack!
On 7 March 2013, I was advised of the impending
publication in Herpetological Review of the Kaiser et al.
(2013) rant and I sent another e-mail to Hansen, who
rebutted his earlier email and said he was in fact
publishing the “paper” that month (Hansen 2013).
It is of note that the paper by Kaiser et al. (2013)
breaches the SSAR’s own ethics statement as
downloaded from http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/
ethics.php (Anonymous 2013a) on 20 March 2013, which
in part reads:
“2. Veracity. Members will not commit scientific fraud
(e.g., through fabricating or falsifying data, suppress
results, or deliberately misrepresent findings). All
statements made regarding methods used and data
collected will be factually correct. All interpretations
made in the Introduction and Discussion will be
truthful representations of the author’s
understanding. Relevant literature and data not
compatible with the conclusions must not be
intentionally omitted.”
Now we know that Kaiser’s paper breached the rules for
several reasons.
In 2012, Australian reptile taxonomist Glenn Shea was
approached by Kaiser to support his hate campaign.
Shea later recalled, “Despite several requests by Kaiser
last year that I provide a letter of support for his
manuscript, I repeatedly advised him that was not
interested in supporting it.”
This was not reported by Kaiser et al. in Kaiser et al.
(2013) in direct violation of the SSAR statement of ethics
above.
In terms of the 2013 final draft of Kaiser et al., which
Shea described as being “similar to the one which was
circulating last year” Shea told Kaiser it was “ridiculous
and unworkable” and “gobbledegook” (Shea 2013a).
Shea happens to be Australia’s best known reptile
taxonomist who even went to Facebook to proclaim to
the world that the Kaiser et al. rant was totally
“nonsensical” (Shea 2013b).
Of course it is uncertain as to how many other dissenting
herpetologists have had their views suppressed by
Kaiser et al. in breach of the SSAR’s own published
ethics Code.
He has only listed those whom he claims support him to
present a false picture of unanimous support within the
herpetological community for his position,
Clearly Kaiser et al. are not going to tell us who else
33
declined to get involved in their crackpot plan to usurp
the rules of zoological nomenclature. We do know
however that Hal Cogger, another key taxonomist in
Australia didn’t want to touch the Kaiser et al. plan with a
bargepole even though he was harassed by Kaiser to join
the Hoser hate campaign. Cogger received email
directly from Kaiser, which he chose to ignore and
indirectly passed on to myself via a third party.
Then of course there is the list of names who are
identified as supporting the proposal. While numbering
some dozens of individuals, it is in fact only a fraction of
the global herpetological community and a lousy end
number considering the gang of seven, then (add two
who didn’t contribute) nine co-authors had spent a whole
year harassing herpetologists around the world to join
their campaign.
I also note that this support base was also gathered with
the assistance of O’Shea’s widely repeated lie to
potential supporters that the ICZN had already backed
the “Point of view” (O’Shea 2013c, Coritz 2013) even
before it had been published and the false statement by
Kaiser (2012a) that the piece had been written by “seven
respected herpetological taxonomists.”!
The number pales into insignificance when compared to
the tens of thousands of votes, listed supporter and
convicted wildlife smuggler, David Williams got for
himself, with the extreme support of Wüster, O’Shea and
snake fancier Al Coritz in his failed attempt to get the
most votes in the now infamous Accor Hotels “unsung
hero” competition. Those thousands of votes of support
were for Williams to win himself a free holiday valued at
$20,000 (see Hoser 2012a for details).
In that case O’Shea, Wüster, Coritz and Williams himself
fraudulently marketed himself as some kind of “unsung
hero”, spreading lies about good work he hadn’t
performed, alleging he had been saving people’s lives in
the jungles of New Guinea, whereas he was in fact at the
time dealing in antivenom for his own benefit and illegally
trading in the same commodity. He had also recently
been convicted of a number of smuggling and animal
cruelty charges. While Williams gathered many votes
through misleading appeals on internet chat forums from
reptile hobbyists, Williams and the others couldn’t match
other people in the same contest and so had to resort to
generating vast numbers of votes themselves.
As the contest drew to a close Williams sent a message
out, also reposted by his helpers, including
Wüster at: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk, which read:
“I am especially grateful to my friends Shane Hunter
from ARK in Australia, Mark (O’Shea) and Wolfgang
(Wüster) in the UK, Al Coritz and Chris Harper in the
USA, and Wulf Schlep (sic) from Europe, who
promoted this contest fiercely, spending many long
hours at the keyboard or on the phone to mates
stirring up interest.”
Williams was then disqualified from the contest as he
had been a party to the generation of 4,000 “votes” for
himself from the same IP address. He also provided
untrue and misleading statements to the contest
organisers at the time he entered the contest.
However, even in terms of their alleged supporters Kaiser
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
et al. (2013) gained by making false claims of ICZN
support and the “seven respected herpetological
taxonomists” who allegedly wrote the piece, they have
gone further and falsified data in the paper.
On page 20 they report, support of “Australian Society of
Herpetologists (per unanimous Annual General Meeting
vote)”. Yet according to Glenn Shea who attended the
meeting, the vote was far from unanimous as he himself
abstained! (Shea 2013a, 2013b, ASH 2013).
It also turned out that according to a member of the
Australian Society of Herpetologists, Scott Eipper, the
vote itself was sold to the membership as a
condemnation of “taxonomic vandalism” that had already
been formally endorsed by the ICZN! And putting it that
way, who wouldn’t vote in favour of the proposition!
Not one person was shown a single copy of any of the
Hoser or Wells papers attacked by Kaiser et al. (2013) to
verify the claims within. Furthermore, no documentary
evidence to support the claim of ICZN support was
produced and that is because we know from the ICZN
that there was in fact none (Nikolaeva 2013b).
However the real failure of Kaiser et al. to get support for
their attack on the rules of zoology or to condemn the
papers of Hoser and Wells was seen in the final motion
actually passed by the Australian Society of
Herpetologists (ASH 2013). It was written as follows:
“Whereas the Australian Society of Herpetologists
recognises the importance of peer-review when
proposing taxonomic decisions and the
nomenclatural acts that follow from them,
acknowledges that works published outside of the
peer-review process are damaging the integrity of
herpetological science,
does not condone the naming of taxa for reasons
that are unscientific or not based on a trail of
evidence, and
applauds the efforts by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to curb the misuse of
nomenclature,
and a motion was proposed by Mark Hutchinson that
“ therefore, be it resolved that the Australian Society
of Herpetologists joins the other listed societies in
endorsing the point of view presented by Kaiser et al.
in the March 2013 issue of Herpetological Review,
namely that in the 21st Century, taxonomic decisions
in herpetology and their nomenclatural
consequences are acceptable only when supported
by a body of evidence published within the peerreview process”.
The Australian Society of Herpetologists, including
prominent members Hal Cogger, John Scanlon and
Glenn Shea did not want to be a part of breaking the
Zoological Rules or condemning papers of Hoser that
they accepted and used taxonomy and nomenclature
from, and so deliberately restricted their endorsement of
Kaiser et al. to the preamble which set out the above
points and in the absence of obviously false claims about
Hoser or Wells (Shea 2013a, Scanlon 2013, Cogger
2012).
And as I mentioned earlier, what scientist would not
endorse the concept of taxonomy being supported by a
body of evidence within the peer review process.
That is of course exactly how it works at the present time!
Without evidence, a taxonomic proposal fails!
Now in terms of this, no one needed Kaiser et al. to state
the obvious!
In fact a read of the minutes of the 2013 ASH meeting
shows how the meeting was quite disgusted at the idea
of having a resolution attacking Hoser papers and so
stopped proceedings to allow time to make a new
resolution in support of the general and obvious
principals of evidence based taxonomy, and subject to
peer review.
Notable is that AHS members also wanted to explicitly
support the rules of the Zoological Code, but this was
removed from the final resolution as that was against the
second part of the Kaiser et al. blog and they were trying
to keep the peace.
So on the basis of the preceding we know that Kaiser et
al. have made a false statement about the Australian
Society of Herpetologists in terms of the alleged
unqualified support.
Thus there is a strong probability that the somewhat
limited list of names given as supporters (obtained
through the making of false claims) and alleged
herpetological societies support, may also be
compromised in one or more ways.
DID THEY READ THE PAPERS?
We know from the taxon “hit list” that Kaiser et al. failed
to read the papers of Hoser and Wells properly to be able
to re-assign taxa to their original genera and so made
some significant taxonomic blunders.
If that alone doesn’t create taxonomic and nomenclatural
confusion, then nothing will!
That there have been no substantive criticisms of the
factual basis of the Hoser papers in any way, implies that
they haven’t been read in detail by Kaiser et al. or any
other potential critics either.
However readership of the papers by myself (the main
target of Kaiser et al. 2013) is important in terms of
myself and the alleged support for the Kaiser et al. claim.
In the absence of having read each and every paper and
the sources cited within, one must conclude that support
for the Kaiser et al. position of 2013 is fundamentally
flawed and untenable.
For the record, the combined word count of the relevant
Hoser papers as cited by Kaiser et al. is nearly a million
words, or the equivalent of ten full sized books by word
count. The cited references and source information
forming the basis of the taxonomic conclusions and acts
(totalling about 500, when resurrections of old names are
included) would in turn exceed several million words.
Who if any of the alleged supporters of Kaiser et al.
(2013) would have read this material before lending
support to the Kaiser et al. claims that all Hoser’s papers
were unscientific?
It should be noted that none of the alleged supporters
have explicitly stated that they have read all the Hoser
papers subject to the taxon “hit list” on page 10 of Kaiser
et al. (2013) or the supporting reference papers.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
34
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Noting the previously documented practices of Kaiser,
Wüster and Williams of improperly inflating their author
and support listings, (as detailed below), no weight
should be placed on the alleged claims of support for the
vague proposals of Kaiser and the general notion of
taking action against “Taxonomic vandalism” as alleged
by Kaiser et al. (2013).
In other words Kaiser et al. (2013) do not have a
mandate from the herpetological community to engage in
a mass boycott of scientific names, and their renaming of
valid taxa in violation of the Zoological Code including
the three critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5,
Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article
23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles
23, 65 and elsewhere).
FURTHER EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED SUPPORTERS
OF KAISER ET. AL. 2013 DID NOT READ THE HOSER
PAPERS!
While few if any people would genuinely believe that all
the alleged supporters had read all the relevant Hoser
papers as listed in Kaiser et al. 2013, or the supporting
references, the claims made within Kaiser et al. are not
supported by the publications of the alleged supporters
themselves.
By way of example Ruud de Lang and L. Lee Grismer
are listed by Kaiser et al. (2013) as being in total support
of their claims that the Hoser papers totally lack merit
and that the Hoser names should never be used, (and
that the rules of Zoology should be broken in doing so).
In fairness to the pair, they probably bought the lie from
O’Shea of ICZN backing for their document and were
understandably misled (as were perhaps each and every
other listed supporter).
However I do for completeness sake mention that Ruud
de Lang and L. Lee Grismer in fact both comply with the
relevant rules of Zoology and use one or more Hoser
names from Hoser papers listed by Kaiser at el. (2013)
as being without evidence in their own publications (de
Lang 2011, Grismer 2011).
In his book, The Snakes of the lesser Sunda Islands
(Nusa Tenggara), Indonesia, de Lang uses the name
Broghammerus Hoser, 2004 (pp. 175-188), citing Hoser,
without dispute of any form. The same use applies for
Grismer in his book Field Guide to the Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (pages 167-168).
These facts don’t match the claims of Kaiser et al.
(2013).
MORE FABRICATIONS BY WÜSTER AND COMPANY
Falsification of co-authors, fabrication of data,
conclusions and the like is not something new to the
Wüster camp. In 1999, Wüster lent his support to a
paper posted on the web by his friend, the convicted
wildlife smuggler David John Williams, alleging that the
elapid species described by myself as “Pailsus pailsei” in
1998 (Hoser 1998b) was “synonymous with Pseudechis
australis”.
The online paper was altered three times over the
following 18 months or so, to accommodate the ever
changing views of Williams, listed Brian Starkey as a coauthor, clearly to add weight to the ridiculous claims and
35
conclusion in the paper (Williams and Starkey, 1999a,
1999b, 1999c).
That was that Pailsus pailsei Hoser, 1998 was
synonymous with “Pseudechis australis”.
I might add also that molecular data published by Kuch et
al. in about 2005 confirmed my original taxonomy.
For completeness sake, I mention that the second two
alterations to the 1999 Williams and Starkey paper was
to support a false claim that I had somehow stolen his
naming rights for the New Guinea species Pailsus
rossignollii Hoser 2000 (Hoser 2000b), a claim Wüster
himself formally withdrew on 28 January 2001 as did
Williams at about the same time (Wüster 2001, Williams
2001).
In 2008, Starkey stated he had nothing whatsoever to do
with the Williams and Starkey paper of 1999 in any of its
three incarnations and that he totally disagreed with the
central claims and conclusion within.
Starkey (2008) wrote:
“I had absolutely nothing to do with time alteration
and the reposting on web. If fact I was in two minds
about the whole paper, without even seeing a
specimen of pailus. I didn’t want to pass judgment
until I had got out there and looked for myself. I did
four trips asap to the area and found a couple of
specimens 40-50 km from Cloncurry. I knew as soon
as I saw my first
DOR, that you were right! When I showed David a few
pic’s and close ups he knew too! Then I got a live
specimen amongst a small group of rocks, so fast I
nearly lost it. I have probably seen about 3 live and 45 DOR specimens in 9 or more trips. I wish we didn’t
jump the gun.
But David wrote the paper and added my name. I
never actually wrote a word, although he may have
quoted things I said during phone conversations.
And that’s the truth.”
In this instance, David Williams listed as a supporter of
the Kaiser et al. (2013) rant did quite a bit more than just
breach the SSAR’s own Code of ethics by adding his
friend as a listed author, when he had nothing to do with
the paper.
In fact he went even further than that!
In both his revised versions of the online paper Williams
and Starkey (1999b, 1999c), he cited a paper as being in
press by various authors including himself.
Williams (2001) stated that it was to be a published
description of a new species of elapid from New Guinea,
similar to Pailsus rossignollii Hoser, 2000, for which
Hoser “fortunately does not have access to specimens”.
Williams and Starkey 1999b had the following citation
referred to in the text of the paper and at the rear of the
paper added to the original text to support the backdated
claim of working on this allegedly new species of snake.
The citation read:
“O’SHEA MT, WILLIAMS DJ, WÜSTER W, BIGILALE
IH, and STARKEY BA (1998) A new species of highly
venomous elapid snake of the genus Pseudechis
from southern coastal Papua New Guinea taxonomy, conservation status and medical
implications. Unpublished (in preparation).”
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Fact was, no such snake existed and no such paper was
written, in press or ever planned.
We know this because as of 2013 nothing has been
published!
In that case Williams literally invented a paper and
invented four alleged co-authors!
The significance of all this is that consistently, Wüster
and those associated with him have engaged in all sorts
of unethical tactics to claim support for their position in
argument, whether by adding listed authors to
publications, or by claiming support that is either nonexistent or based on false representations.
Or for example the listing posted in 2001 (Uetz, 2001) at:
http://zeta.embl-heidelberg.de:8000/
srs5bin/cgi-bin/
wgetz?-e+[REPTILIA-species:’Pailsus_SP_pailsei’
which is quoted below and read:
“Species:
Pailsus pailsei
Synonyms:
Pailsus pailsei HOSER 1998
Subspecies:
Family:
Serpentes: Elapidae snakes
Distribution:
Australia (N-Queensland)
Comment:
Questionable genus and species. Probably
synonymous to Pseudechis australis (W. Wüster,
pers. comm.) “
Which was a statement to his friend Peter Uetz that
Wüster himself knew at all materially relevant times was
a lie. This is confirmed by cross-referencing with his own
data as published in Wüster et al. 2005 (see the abstract,
figure A1 and page 12 for examples).
In 2001 and by which stage it was apparent to all that the
Williams (in reality without Starkey) claims against my
species pailsei were false, Wüster did again breach the
zoological rules by improperly trying to destabilize the
nomenclature again.
In a hate piece full of yet more lies, that he first published
on Kingsnake.com on his own on January 22, 2001 at
11:29:07 to be exact (Wüster 2001a), then later shopped
to friends to be co-authors and reprinted in Litteratura
Serpentium in June that year (Wüster et al. 2001) he
falsely claimed that the species pailsei from Queensland,
(eastern) Australia, was one and the same as another
species, weigeli, from Western Australia described by
Wells and Wellington in 1987.
Wüster wrote:
“the two names represent the same species”, going on to
say “pailsei Hoser, 1998 would become a synonym of
weigeli Wells and Wellington, 1987.” and then going on a
long-winded diatribe alleging I had recklessly destabilized
the taxonomy and nomenclature of Australian snakes by
describing “non-taxa” and synonyms.
As already noted, at all materially relevant times, Wüster
knew he was lying. His own later paper (Wüster et al.
2005), confirmed that all the taxonomic and
nomenclatural judgments of myself relating to the
species pailsei (as published in 1998 and later) and
rossignollii (published in 2000 and later) had been correct
at the times of publication and that both were species
distinct from both australis and weigeli!
Later authors have correctly recognized both taxa, being
well defined, geographically, morphologically and via
molecular data published by several authors, the most
recent author recognizing both species (and the other
two) being Eipper (2012).
The paper Wüster et al. (2001a) is relevant for several
other reasons as well.
As already mentioned, effectively the same Wüster piece
published in Litteratura Serpentium in June 2001 was
first published on Kingsnake.com on 22 January the
same year by Wüster on his own as his own writing and
then widely circulated elsewhere. It was rapidly
discredited by numerous correspondents (e.g. Frome
(2001a, 2001b), Brammell (2001a, 2001b, 2001c,
2001d)).
Notwithstanding this, Wüster then “shopped” the same
piece among friends and people who owed him favors in
order to get some other “names” as “co-authors” to give
his wild allegations and claims some added credibility,
before it was re-sent to the editor of Litteratura
Serpentium on 5 May 2001 (four months later) (see van
Aken 2001a, 2001b).
This editor (Gijs van Aken), fell for the ruse, and so
Wüster’s already discredited lies got a second running
both in print in a journal and of course online as pdf.
For the record, I then sent the editor of Litteratura
Serpentium a response systematically rebutting all
Wüster’s lies and allegations and of the same length as
Wüster’s original piece.
But the editor, who had in fact invited my response, went
back on his word and e-mailed me. He said he wasn’t
going to print the response. He had been unlawfully
pressured by Wüster in the sort of information censorship
he’s become famous for.
An altered version of that response has since been
published in “hard copy” in the latter part of Hoser (2001).
As already noted, when the Wüster et al. paper in
Litteratura Serpentium appeared in print, there were four
more alleged authors tacked onto the paper, even though
clearly none had been involved in writing it, as the draft
was unchanged from what Wüster had previously
published on kingsnake.com and identified as being
written by himself alone.
Besides breaching the rules of ethics of the SSAR and
pretty much everyone else by adding authors to his own
papers, Wüster has as far back as 2001 been seeking to
present a veneer that the stand of himself and his band
of academic thieves against everything Hoser has a far
wider support base than is the reality.
This situation has been mirrored in Kaiser et al.’s (that
includes Wüster) claim of wide support for their reckless
attempt to attack the rules of Zoological nomenclature
and even in the face of their false claims in print made to
gain this support.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
36
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
These are but some of countless examples of the
dishonesty of Wüster in actively creating unnecessary
confusion in the taxonomy and nomenclature of reptiles,
peddling information he knows to be false, all driven
solely by his obsessive dislike for this author (Hoser)
manifested in a desire to suppress names for taxa
properly described by Hoser and so he can practice
intellectual theft at some time later.
WÜSTER’S 15 YEAR HISTORY OF TRYING TO GET
OTHERS TO BOYCOTT HOSER NAMES
Space precludes me from listing many of the hundreds of
other cases involving fraud and dishonesty by Wüster in
particular, usually committed as part of his long unethical
campaign to try to stop other people using Hoser names
for taxa.
However the paper, “Exposing a fraud! Afronaja Wallach,
Wüster and Broadley 2009, is a junior synonym of
Spracklandus Hoser 2009! Australasian Journal of
Herpetology Issue 9, on 3 April 2012 is a 64 catalogue of
yet more of his gross misconduct by Wüster complete
with copies of relevant supporting documents.
That paper was published primarily to rebut false claims
of Wallach, Wüster and Broadley 2009 to the effect that a
paper describing a new genus of Spitting Cobras (namely
Spracklandus Hoser, 2009) (Hoser 2009e) was not
validly published under the Zoological Code (Ride et al.
1999).
The paper went further to put Wüster’s most recent
claims into context by detailing earlier and relevant
misconduct.
Included in the paper are examples of the following:
·
Through publication of library receipts and the
like, Wüster is shown to have knowingly made false
claims in terms of Australasian Journal of Herpetology,
issue 7, notably a false claim that no hard copies were
published and that it was only an online journal (pages 310 and elsewhere),
·
On 29 March 2009 Wüster lied on “venom list”
internet chat forums about the content of Australasian
Journal of Herpetology issue 7 to allege that I (Hoser)
had split the recognized genus Naja into 20 new genera
in order to cause undue alarm to other herpetologists.
·
Wüster’s friend Bryan Grieg Fry (another man
associated with the illegal reptile trade in Australia), on
29 March 2009, did in the wake of publication of
Australasian Journal of Herpetology issue 7 reverse his
previous support for the taxonomic position espoused
within the journal by publishing a hate post on the
internet opposing the Hoser taxonomy, which
contradicted his earlier online posts including one as
recently as 6 Feb 2009.
·
Wüster co-published a paper in 2009 unlawfully
renaming the Hoser genus Spracklandus, Afronaja, on
the basis of the claim he knew to be false, that being that
Australasian Journal of Herpetology was not published
according to the Zoological Code.
·
In publishing their junior synonym, Wüster and
friends had deliberately chosen to overlook places where
hard copies of AJH had been sent to, including the most
obvious “Zoological Record” as specified in
37
Recommendation 8A of the Zoological Rules (Ride et al.
1999) or the Australian Legal Deposit Libraries, for which
Hoser was able to produce and publish hard copy
receipts.
·
Wüster and co-authors, Wallach and Broadley,
deliberately misquoted and misrepresented the
Zoological Code in their paper, in a manner not unlike
that done in Kaiser et al. (2013).
·
Wüster and co-authors breached peer review and
ethics protocols at Zootaxa by submitting a second paper
with a valuable species description at the same time as
his new Cobra description to assist in getting the
fraudulent paper published as part of the combined
package.
·
After being alerted to the falsity of his claims in
terms of the alleged non-publication of Australasian
Journal of Herpetology issue 7, Wüster and close
associates, including Schleip and O’Shea continued to
knowingly post the same lie on the internet and even in
later papers over the following 2 year period, including
getting friend and most recent coauthor Brian Crother to
do the same in another of his evidence-free taxonomic
works (Crother 2012).
·
Besides breaking the Rules of Zoological
nomenclature including the three critical rules of, 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere),
Wüster’s co-written Cobra paper of 2009 breached
several other sections of the Code (Ride et al. 1999).
·
Lies peddled by Wüster and associates in the
context of attacking Hoser have caused a number of
snakebite deaths (two listed) when bite victims have
chosen on the basis of their widely disseminated advice,
not to seek treatment on the erroneous guess they had
received a dry bite.
FURTHER WÜSTER LIES
A read of Kaiser et al. (2013) sees Wüster claiming that
none of the Hoser taxonomic publications had any
scientific merit whatsoever. As a result, he asserted all
had to be boycotted (Kaiser et al. 2013).
This of course is his last ditch attempt at stopping what
after fifteen years of calling for non-use of the Hoser
names, was clearly a failed strategy.
As other impartial scientists had revisted Hoser papers
from 1998 onwards, all the newly described taxa were
being validated one by one and so the names were
coming into general useage.
That Wüster himself knew of the validity of the said taxa
was true at least as far back as 2001, when he authored
Wüster (2001a) later shoped to co-authors and
republished as Wüster et al. (2001).
In that paper, his attack on Hoser “non-taxa” even
included a phylogeny of the Australasian pythons (fig 3)
that was clearly nothing more than a total fabrication and
with no semblance of the reality.
Produced by Wüster to discredit the Hoser taxonomy
published a year later, Wüster’s phylogeny was shown as
fraudlent when matched with that of Rawlings et al.
(2008) (Fig. 1).
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Notably the published phylogeny of Rawlings et al.
(2008) (Fig. 1), effectively validated all the genera of
pythons named by Hoser in the preceding years as well
as those of Wells and Wellington from the 1980’s.
However, Wüster has published widely that if and when,
Hoser taxa are recognized by other later authors,
including for example Aplin and Donnellan (1999) or
Rawlings et al. (2008), it is a result of good luck on the
part of Hoser rather than any scientific skill on my
(Hoser’s) part (Wüster 2001, 2013b, Kaiser et al. 2013).
In Wüster 2001, 2013b and Kaiser et al. 2013 Wüster
cites the case of the Pilbara Death Adder, Acanthophis
wellsei Hoser, 1998, being validated as correct by Aplin
and Donnellan (1999).
The significance here is that Wüster has as far back as
the beginning of 2001 been aware of the scientific reality
that the Pilabara Death Adder is a species in its own
right.
Notwithstanding this fact, Wüster has continued to use all
his influence to improperly stop useage of the valid Hoser
name for the species.
The best example of this remains on the Peter Uetz
edited website “The Reptile Database”, where for this
species it is as of March 2013 written:
“Synonymy: Not listed by COGGER 2000 ...
(WÜSTER, pers. comm. 15 Dec 2010).”
So more than ten years after Wüster himself was clearly
aware of the validity of the species, he was dishonestly
misrepresenting the species Acanthophis wellsei as
being a “non-taxa” not worthy of recognition by others.
The same sort of totally reckless, misleading and
deceptive taxonomic and nomenclatural conduct by
Wüster can be seen in Uetz’s other pages dealing with
Hoser taxa.
These also list comments by Wüster claiming they are
non-taxa or similar and that the Hoser names are not to
be used.
Examples current as of 30 March 2013, include for
Pseudechis (Pailsus) pailsei, Tropidechis sadlieri and
Broghammerus reticulatus (Uetz 2013f, 2013g, 2013h,
2013i).
These examples and the content of Kaiser et al. (2013)
show that Wüster has no interest in the science of
taxonomy or merits of classification by anyone. Rather
his actions are fuelled by a hatred of myself (Hoser) and
a desire to use all available means, no matter how
dishonest, to stop people from using “Hoser names” for
any taxa.
That this is the case was stated by Wüster himself
(Wüster 2013b) on the private facebook wall of Wulf
Schleip in March and April 2013, when discussing with
Schleip their strategy against Hoser following publication
of Kaiser et al. (2013).
In his wall posts O’Shea stressed the “need” for himself,
Wüster, Schleip and others of their choice to be able to
rename all taxa named by Hoser and then they “must”
use all means possible, regardless of the ethics involved
to achieve this aim (Schleip et al. 2013a, Wüster 2013b),
a point reaffirmed on the same Facebook wall by Wüster
and Schleip.
In his obvious state of excitement immediately following
the publication of Kaiser et al., on 20 March 2013, the
meglamaniacal Mark O’Shea gloated on his Facebook
wall, “Oh the excitement of it all!” before speaking at
length of a grand plan whereby O’Shea himself and his 8
other co-authors would from now on be the gatekeepers
for all new herpetological scientific names and taxon
descriptions and that unapproved (by himself) people
would from this time on be confined to publishing only
“natural history papers” (O’Shea 2013b).
The trio were making their comments in the context of
being unaware that I’d be able to access their posts via a
disgusted herpetologist listed as a Facebook “friend” of
the trio.
Notable also is that here and elsewhere Schleip
conceded that their battle was difficult and unlikely to be
won, because he noted “the (Hoser) names are
available.” under the Zoological Rules (Schleip 2009,
Schleip et al. 2013a).
Co-author Brian Crother has also copped considerable
flak over previous attempts to become gate-keeper for
deciding who’s scientific names go into general usage
and his own earlier evidence-free taxonomic decisions as
detailed at length by Pauly et al. (2009).
In terms of his earlier attempts to censor the taxonomy of
others in 2008, Pauly et al. chastised Crother severely in
a paper he published running over 8,000 words.
Crother had used his editorial influence at the SSAR
back then to produce an “official” list of common and
scientific names for North American Reptiles and
Amphibians (Crother et al. 2008).
That is, Crother had illegally set himself up as some kind
of “official” and governing authority, to tell people what
scientific names they “must” use.
In line with the Wüster position, in a 2012 reprint (Crother
et al. 2012), he advocated non-use of the Rattlesnake
genus names proposed by myself in 2009, citing the
discredited “paper” Wallach, Wüster and Broadley
(2009), even though Crother admitted at the same time
that phylogenetic studies had in effect further validated
the Hoser names!
Countering Crother’s dangerous position, Pauly et al.
(2009) said:
“We argue that no scientific society should suggest
or imply that they are regulating scientific names
because such regulation is counter to the spirit of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN,
1999). Indeed, the first principle of the Code
(1999:XIX) states, ‘‘The Code refrains from infringing
upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made
subject to regulation or restraint.’’
When one combines the various publications of Crother
(2008 and 2012) as well as those he has co-authored,
Nicholson et al. (2012), Kaiser et al. (2013) and others it
is clear that he is a serial offender in terms of grievous
taxonomic misconduct, mass-naming of valid taxa and
who seeks to rename as many species and genera as
possible for the express purpose of personal selfgratification.
Worse still is that Crother is content to knowingly and
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
38
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
deliberately act outside of the rules of Zoological
Nomenclature to achieve this!
HINRICH KAISER’S OWN CREDENTIALS
Also there is the other relevant issue of note and that
being that Hinrich Kaiser himself, a University Professor
of Zoology at what may be politely described as a nonmainstream university, which actively promotes and
teaches “creationism” and “intelligent design” (Berni
2010, Diaz 2010, Pamplin 2013). Kaiser is also unable to
grasp the simple difference between taxonomy and
nomenclature as outlined by myself in the preamble to
this paper.
Shea made this point in his email of 2013. In a return
email after the fact, Kaiser claimed I had got it wrong and
that he did in fact know the difference and that I shouldn’t
believe Glenn Shea.
However proof that both himself and his co-author Mark
O’Shea don’t know the difference is seen in the paper
O’Shea et al. (2012) which is co-authored by both
O’Shea and Kaiser, and posted on Kaiser’s own website.
In that paper they wrote:
“Rawlings et al. (2008) determined that reticulatus
and timoriensis were sufficiently phylogenetically
distinct from other species in the genus Python to
warrant separate generic recognition. However, we
believe that the generic name assigned to these two
species by Rawlings et al. (2008) is taxonomically
unavailable and therefore follow the more
conservative decision by Zug et al. (2011) to retain
the genus name Python.”
Actually, and based on the first part of their statement, if
they have an objection, it is to the nomenclature, not the
taxonomy!
The correct nomenclature based on Rawlings 2008 is of
course “Broghammerus reticulatus”.
By the way Zug et al’s 2001 paper dealt primarily with the
different species Python curtus Schlegel, 1872 and its
closest relatives (within describing a new species)
meaning the reference to it by Kaiser and O’Shea was
also deliberately misleading their readers.
CREATING A BATTLEGROUND BY
MISREPRESENTATION AND YET MORE LIES
Widespread publication of Kaiser et al. (2013) was in the
first instance by posts on the internet on 19 and mainly
20 March 2013, notably on the Facebook pages of Bryan
G. Fry, Wolfgang Wüster, Mark O’Shea, Wulf Schleip
and others, which is significant as these authors have
condemned myself in their rant at page 17 for doing just
that ... making posts on the internet.
Their paper was even promoted on twitter.com by serial
spammer Darren Naish (Naish 2013b), a close friend of
O’Shea (Naish 2013a) and was placed on a link from
“Wikipedia” on a Wüster edited “Raymond Hoser” hate
page on 21 March 2013 (Anonymous 2013b), a site
Wüster regularly has posted lies and hate for many
years. Wüster has gone so far as to ensure that the
Wikipedia site has a robot installed so that his false and
defamatory edits cannot be undone.
This includes a false and invented claim on the site that I
have killed four people and seriously injured many others
39
and been convicted in a court of law for the same.
The various publications of the Kaiser et al. 2013 “paper”
online were replete with false and defamatory claims
made on Facebook as part of the marketing of the paper,
including for example, that by Wüster on 20 March 2013
where he wrote: “Herpetology finally fights back
against taxonomic vandalism:” the inference being he
represents all the best interests of herpetology, which is a
joke and indicative of his own own highly inflated self
view and worse is the fact he has deluded himself to the
point that he can’t see it is he that is the real taxonomic
vandal!
His own conduct detailed above shows emphatically that
over a fifteen year period he has been a “taxonomic
vandal” of the highest degree!
By way of example, the re-assigning species formerly in
the genus Eulamprus Lonnberg and Andersson, 1913 to
Lampropholis Fitzinger, 1843, as done by Kaiser et al.
(2013) without a shred of evidence must rank as one of
the biggest acts of herpetological taxonomic vandalism of
all time!
Noting his own recent case of scientific fraud involving
the spitting Cobras (see Hoser 2012a), Wüster clearly is
not a man who can possibly claim to represent the better
interests of herpetology or science.
Or the post by Mark O’Shea on 20 March 2013 (O’Shea
2013), who had been trolling my own Facebook page
when he wrote about his new 2013 paper co-authored
with Kaiser and added:
“this was on Hoser’s site on 2 March “Just got an email today from a colleague in the USA who pointed
out that more than one in seven genera of snakes in
North America was named by myself. This shows
that the age of discovery for biodiversity and
taxonomy is far from over!” All that from his
armchair without ever setting foot in a museum or
examining a specimen!”
Of course the final statement is a total lie, easily shown
as such by viewing even my first taxonomic paper of
1998 describing new species, which was complete with
photos taken by myself of museum holotypes that had
been dead and pickled and available to anyone for years!
The animals were shown complete with tags from the
Australian Museum in Sydney, just in case the likes of
Mark O’Shea are unaware of the significance of these
Type corpses.
The significance of these depicted holotypes in Hoser
(1998a), or for that matter holotypes depicted in Hoser
(1998b and later papers, including many of those cited in
the post 2000 period, like Hoser 2001) is that based on
his Facebook comment of 2013 (made from his PC
somewhere in the UK), made after publication of Kaiser
et al. (2013), of which he was listed as coauthor, O’Shea
had condemned my papers without even having read
them (and seeing the pictures of holotype specimens in
museums in the papers), even though Kaiser et al. 2013
said they had read my papers!
See also Schleip’s (2013) statement of fact that he too
hadn’t read the Hoser papers criticised as “unscientific” in
Kaiser et al. (2013).
Of course the only other alternative is that he was
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
knowingly lying on his Facebook page.
Either way, in this case alone O’Shea has lied at least
once!
One of many examples of O’Shea’s non-stop lies was in
a post he put on his friend Wulf Schleip’s Facebook wall
on 2 August 2012, where he told a global audience of up
to a billion people (who could access the page) that I had
been jailed for forgery!
In fact I have no such criminal history!
Or another of the many outrageous lies you can find on
O’Shea’s Facebook wall was the comment also made on
20 March 2013, which read:
“he’s done this to a lot of North American species,
for example, without ever leaving Australia to study
these animals in the wild (in fact, I don’t know if he’s
ever even seen living specimens).”
That O’Shea knew that statement to be a lie is seen in
the fact that a journal he himself had despotic editorial
control of, namely Herptile, published a big paper about a
trip I made to North America way back in 1993 (Hoser
1994), complete with photos of various locations!
Details of earlier lies by O’Shea, cross referenced to
establish the fact are published in earlier papers
including Hoser (2012a) and not repeated here.
In 2012, O’Shea published a rant on Facebook giving his
sole claim against the Hoser papers being that I had
named too many species on the alleged basis I had
deprived future generations of herpetologists the
pleasure of naming species.
Fact is that there is no legal limit and at age 51 and
having spent a life working on reptiles, my total of named
taxa is nothing out of the ordinary and well below that of
many other herpetologists.
I also note it is consensus elsewhere that it is critically
important for the conservation of wildlife that the
biodiversity be formally described sooner rather than
later (Newer 2013).
Bacher (2012) even wrote: “We still need to describe
species at a much faster rate than we currently do; we
still need more taxonomists.”
I have detailed fraudulent actions by O’Shea elsewhere,
but of note in terms of this latest attempt to usurp the
Zoological Code and create nomenclatural instability are
his past actions with regards to ethics and his flagrant
contempt for the concepts of intellectual property (IP).
In 2004, his close friend David John Williams, a listed cosponsor of Kaiser et al. (2013) and another man Bruce
George, worked with Western Australian film producer
Ed Punchard to create a TV series they illegally called
“Snakebuster” in an unlawful direct infringement and use
of my registered trademarks “Snakebusters” and
“Snakebuster”.
After these men scammed three million dollars in
government handouts and fees from the broadcasters
through use of my registered trademark and as the
federal court later found, by even masquerading as
myself, I sued them and got judgment against them.
After the first judgment, the studio of the production
company at Freemantle burnt down in questionable
circumstances and at the time the main proceedings
commenced, they effectively pled bankruptcy, claiming
just $300 in the bank.
At the conclusion of the case I was paid compensation to
the tune of $30,000, which was ostensibly all the
defendants had available and this money came from the
TV broadcasters, not Bruce George and the other reptile
handlers.
At the time these proceedings were afoot, Mark O’Shea
sought to undermine my case by marketing himself and
Williams as “Snakebusters” in another deliberate breach
of my IP, even going so far as to print a “Snakebusters”
logo on several covers of the journal “Herptile”, over
which he was in despotic editorial control (see covers of
issues 32(3) and 33(1), from 2007 and 2008 (various
authors 2007, 2008).
This was to create a false veneer of widespread use of
the term “snakebuster” or “snakebusters” to support no
less than three separate sets of legal proceedings
commenced against me by the production company to try
to strike out my registered trademarks.
Ultimately the film company lost all cases, but not after I
spent an inordinate amount of time and money defending
the actions, including two long trips from Melbourne to
Sydney and another from Melbourne to Canberra
(Anonymous 2013c, 2013d) to attend legal proceedings
in courts.
Fortunately Herptile is not widely distributed in Australia,
so the actual damage to my business reputation was
minimal, especially when compared with the online
efforts of O’Shea and the others. But the actions by
O’Shea clearly displayed his lack of morals and respect
for simple IP and his attempts to create a false view of
reality, in that case to pretend the term Snakebusters was
used by many people in Australasia as a trading name,
when in fact at the time, my business was the only one.
Therefore it comes as no surprise he would seek to be
involved in a plot to retrospectively usurp names that
have been in use for more than 12 years in breach of the
Zoological Rules and to remorselessly try to induce
others to similarly break the rules by renaming validly
named taxa.
It also comes as no surprise that based on prior conduct,
O’Shea, Wüster and the other authors of Kaiser et al. will
say and do virtually anything to present a picture of
widespread support for breaking the rules of the
Zoological Code, when this is not in fact the case.
NOMENCLATURAL CHANGES AND PUTTING LIVES
AT RISK!
The claim was alleged against myself by Kaiser et al.
(2013) and more explicitly by Mark O’Shea’s allies on his
Facebook wall and elsewhere.
Kaiser et al. cite state:
“this may literally be a matter of life and death, when
name changes spread via media outlets by attentionseeking authors may cause uncertainty among
medical personnel as to which antivenom is
appropriate in cases where the name of the source
snake species has changed (Sutherland 1999)”.
The problem with this statement attributed to Sutherland
(1999) is that he never made any such statement against
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
40
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
41
This is what happens when despotic editorial control gets into the wrong hands!
In this case from 2007/2008 serial offender and truth-hater Mark O’Shea simultanously plagiarises Hoser
papers and bootlegs Hoser registered trademarks.
The illegal trademark usage was in order to fabricate “evidence” against Hoser for legal proceedings afoot at
the time.
The legal proceedings were a series of attempts to deregister the long-registered Snakebusters trademarks
in which O’Shea tried to falsely claim common-usage for the trademarked term.
The actions against Hoser ultimately failed and all trademarks remain registered.
The plagiarization was the theft of data on the subspecies Pseudonaja textilis pughi Hoser, 2003 from a paper
by Hoser (2003) in a paper by O’Shea in these 2007/8 issues of Herptile where O’Shea masqueraded the
Hoser evidence as his own and without any attrribution of the Hoser 2003 paper as the source.
You’ll even note the subspecies of snake named by Hoser in 2003 and a newly made-up David Williams and
Mark O’Shea “Snakebusters” logo put on a single magazine cover by O’Shea.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
my taxonomy. In fact he agreed with it!
The fact is that the paper merely asserts that the name
King Brown Snake (Genus Pseudechis Wagler, 1830)
and potential synonyms) is less desirable as a name than
the Mulga Snake for these snakes as it is not in fact
related to the Brown Snake and requires a different antivenom. Second fact is that both names, King Brown
Snake and Mulga Snake have been in use long before I
was born!
Once again, Kaiser et al. have cited a reference to
support a claim against myself, when in fact there is no
such claim or basis for it!
While talking about nomenclatural changes and lives
being at risk, if the argument were to be accepted, then
the question must be asked: Why is Wüster seeking to
rename snakes already renamed by Hoser?
Recall in 2009, the genus Spracklandus was created by
Hoser (2009e) to accommodate the spitting cobras. If
changing the genus from Naja (from which the spitting
cobras were generically excised) was such a potential
medical disaster, why did Wüster first condemn the move
on 29 March 2009 (Wüster 2009a, 2009b) on taxonomic
grounds only to be then (contradicted in February 2009
by his good friend Bryan Fry (Fry 2009)), a decision
made by himself without knowledge of the impending
paper (Hoser 2009e)) and then subsequently decide to
fraudulently rename the same snake genus himself in
September the same year (Wallach, Wüster and
Broadley 2009).
Recall that was when as co-author Wüster and Wallach
and Broadley sought to allege that AJH Issue 7 wasn’t a
print publication, therefore not legal under the Zoological
Rules and thus enable them to rename the same
Spracklandus taxon group themselves as Afronaja
(Wallach, Wüster and Broadley, 2009). Of course nothing
creates taxonomic and nomenclatural instability and
confusion more quickly than the making of uneccessary
junior synonyms for already named taxa.
And then nothing further cements taxonomic and
nomenclatural instability and confusion better than the
continued illegal promotion of a junior synonym by a
person who knows the fact but deliberately ignores it.
This is exactly what Wüster has done since 2009
(Wüster and Bernils, 2011).
MARK O’SHEA’S CULPABILITY FOR DEATHS
ALREADY!
Of course crocodile tears coming from the likes of Mark
O’Shea falsely alleging Hoser or Wells have put lives at
risk, is particularly irksome considering that firstly there is
not a shred of evidence to support such an assertion.
Secondly O’Shea himself has most certainly been
culpable for one or more deaths already. One of these
being that of expert UK-based herpetologist Luke
Yeomans!
The circumstances surrounding this totally avoidable
death on 29 June 2011 are covered in the etymology
section of Hoser (2012al).
Without repeating all the detail, I note the historical
record of O’Shea’s intense attacks against myself in
terms of my world first surgical devenomizing of the
world’s deadliest snakes via internal excision (Hoser
2004b, 2004c), known widely as venomoid snakes.
I note the procedure not only removed risk to handlers of
the said snakes and the public, but also removed
ongoing cruelty endured by venomous snakes through
day-to-day handling with sticks, tongs and other metal
implements.
O’Shea published in the journal he then controlled as his
personal mouthpiece, The Herptile, a blistering attack
(O’Shea 2004), replete with statements he knew to be
lies for the basis of furthering his obsessive hatred
against myself. Lies included claims of regeneration of
venom in venomoids, venomoids being unable to digest
their food, false cruelty claims and similar nonsense.
This he reposted widely and it remains on the internet at:
http://www.markoshea.info/blog_venomoid1.php as of 25
March 2013 and other sites he has placed it on.
He later had both myself and Yeomans, members of the
International Herpetological Society (IHS) of over 20
years standing expelled from that society in 2008
because we both possessed venomoids (Yeomans
2010a).
O’Shea was able to get his way in terms of the
expulsions because of his control of a meeting venue the
society needed at the time (Yeomans 2010a) when no
others were available.
O’Shea, sponsored an online petition in 2004 calling for
criminal sanctions to be taken against me for having
venomoid snakes (Hunter 2004), the petition running in
several forms over more than 8 years, which was
ultimately successful in that the procedure was formally
banned in Victoria in about 2007. O’Shea was a party to
the widespread placement of banners across other
internet forums, first calling for a ban on the “surgical
enhancement” of snakes, and then when this failed to
gain traction, changing the banner to use the words
“surgical mutilation”.
The scandal here was that neither O’Shea or the others
supporting the petition could tell the difference between
venomoid and non-venomoid snaks unless told which
was which by the owner (Hoser 2004b)!
Yeomans had a venomoid Cobra which ultimately died
and he wanted to devenomize all his venomous snakes
in the lead up to his opening of a King Cobra sanctuary in
the UK.
This was after he had a near fatal bite from a Mamba and
his close friend the herpetologist Wesley Dickinson was
bitten by a Cobra and also died.
However other factors made Yeomans make the decision
not to get venomoid snakes in the period leading to his
fatal bite. The key one was the conduct and threats of
Mark O’Shea and his close friend Wolfgang Wüster, two
very powerful individuals within the reptile fraternity of the
UK.
Of relevance was that in the early 1990’s after he was
prosecuted for the allegedly heinous crime of feeding live
food to a reptile, to wit a Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia
guttata) to a Wagler’s Viper (Tropidolaemus wagleri).
For this mortal sin, he was dragged through Britain’s
criminal courts, prosecuted, convicted and fined. Then he
was held up for public hatred in Britain’s notorious tabloid
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
42
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
media.
The legal precedent now sits as a threat and if need be, a
means to criminally charge any other reptile keeper who
dares use live food for any reptiles, including such
humble items as mealworms or crickets and then upsets
anyone in a government authority.
Yeomans said he was originally “dobbed in” by another
reptile person, namely Mark O’Shea, whom he said was
“obsessive” and had an axe to grind against him in that
O’Shea regarded Yeomans as “upstaging” him
(Yeomans2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e).
The relevant authority in the Zebra Finch matter, the
RSPCA in the UK, ran the prosecution.
In 2010 he corresponded with me in relation to the issue
of safety for himself in his own reptile shows that he
intended doing at a “King Cobra Sanctuary” he was
planning to open in the UK in mid 2011 (Yeomans 2010a,
2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e).
In this, I specifically mean the use of venomoid snakes
as described by Hoser (2004).
Yeomans had seen how in the previous 6 years myself
and ten staff had done over 10,000 venomous snake
shows with the world’s five deadliest snakes and without
any fatal or even near fatal snakebites.
He had seen videos of myself taking bites from the
snakes to prove they were safe and was well aware of
the benefits of the venomoid snakes, not just for the
safety aspect, but also the welfare of the snakes.
As already mentioned Yeomans himself had previously
owned a venomoid cobra!
Yeomans toyed with the idea of making all his large King
Cobras venomoid because he feared that sooner or later
he’d make a handling error and get bitten and end up the
same way as his good friend Wesley Dickinson. However
he decided against doing so and the reason for this is
important.
He had no issues with the surgery and the false claims of
cruelty to the snakes. In fact in terms of the venomoid
snakes, there was no sensible reason for him not to get
them except for one.
That reason was the expected attacks he would get from
Mark O’Shea, a man he described as his sworn enemy,
and Wolfgang Wüster, both within the reptile fraternity
and both of the UK and both of whom had been key
sponsors of an anti-Hoser and anti-venomoid petition
website, run by a convicted wildlife smuggler, David John
Williams and his close friend Shane Hunter in Australia.
Yeomans was in extreme fear that should O’Shea or
Wüster become aware of him having venomoid snakes,
that they would attack and undermine his reptile display
business and worse still have him targeted by the
RSPCA again.
With one “animal cruelty” conviction already, Yeomans
decided the likelihood of attacks by O’Shea and Wüster
and another more serious conviction would terminally
disable his business.
Therefore he decided instead to take the risk of keeping
his snakes that he handled for shows “hot”.
I could devote several pages to the adverse comments
made by Yeomans about O’Shea, Wüster and their
43
unethical behaviour, but these are not particularly
relevant beyond what has already been told in terms of
how the actions of O’Shea and Wüster made Yeomans
choose not to protect himself with venomoid Cobras.
On 29 June 2011, Yeomans made the snake handling
error that cost him his life.
Just days before his “King Cobra Sanctuary” was due to
open, one of his “hot” snakes bit him and he died.
At just 47 years of age, a herpetologist in the prime of his
career was killed.
If Luke Yeomans had not been forced by these other socalled “herpetologists” to put his life at unnecessary risk
with snakes that could easily have been devenomized,
he would still be breeding rare and endangered reptiles
and educating people at his new “King Cobra Sanctuary”.
Much has been made in recent years of the threats to
private individuals and their rights to be allowed to keep
and study reptiles. The alleged threat is often identified
as coming from outside the herpetological community.
The usual bogeyman identified are militant animal rights
groups and the like.
They are not the real enemy.
These people lack expertise in reptiles and do not carry
any political or legal power in terms of reptiles and the
law. Put simply, no one takes them seriously.
By contrast the real enemy is within the reptile
community. The reckless conduct of O’Shea and Wüster,
both masquerading as reptile experts were in effect
directly responsible for the premature death of Yeomans.
The death of a “private” individual is then used as a
catalyst to call for ever increasing restrictions on
individuals to keep reptiles as pets, do scientific research
on them and the like.
Of course the events just described are all on the public
record and if Wüster or O’Shea were to flag risks of
snakebite deaths arising from the actions of a
herpetologist, they should as a matter of course have
disclosed their own sordid past!
Again they have breached the SSAR’s ethics statement
in their paper Kaiser et al. (2013).
In the period 2006-8 and at the behest of O’Shea and
associates, the Victorian Department of Sustainability
and Environment (in Australia) outlawed the surgical
procedure to create venomoids, thereby stopping other
wildlife demonstrators besides myself getting venomoids,
even though most did in fact want them for the obvious
safety reasons.
As a result, in the time period since 2006 there has been
at least two deaths and several near misses (requiring
emergency hospitalization every time and usually a lot of
expensive anti-venom at the same time) involving
government licenced snake handlers who handled
venomous snakes at their displays instead of venomoids.
The handlers to die were Ron Siggins and Malcolm Biggs
both killed in 2007. Near misses, include Glen Clapton
and Mike Taylor (twice) at Healesville Sanctuary, 3
keepers at Australia Zoo, Simon Watharow and Paul
Fisher of company “Snakehandler”, Jonno Lucas (twice)
of “Educational Reptile Displays”, Mark Dorse, Peter
Mirtschin (several times), Bob Withey “Of Aussie Wildlife
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Displays”, John Deutscher (numerous times), Jon Birkett
(Melbourne Zoo), Jason Hall, Stuart Parker of Ballarat
Reptile Park (twice), Tony Johnson, Neville Burns, Tom
Parkin, Tony Harrison, Kurt Ison, and others (see Hoser
2012au).
The death and destruction caused by O’Shea’s
successful anti-venomoid campaign has in fact spread to
innocent members of the public. In 2009 a member of
the public was bitten in an accident at a reptile display
run by Peter Carter at Bathurst, NSW.
The victim, a man bitten by an adult Tiger Snake
(Notechis scutatus), was carted to hospital and comatose
for days. He is now permanently disabled.
Carter was charged by the NSW Agriculture Department
for allowing the venomous snake to bite the member of
the public. He was finally acquitted of the charge after he
said that had sought to obtain venomoids to remove the
risk of bites in 2007 and was prohibited from doing so by
the department on advice from the DSE of Victoria. They
in turn had instituted O’Shea’s sought after ban on
venomoid snakes.
DRY BITE LIES AND MORE DEATHS
Then there’s yet another scandal involving snake
handlers and the lie of dry bites.
To refute false claims that venomoids regenerate venom
as repeated on the petition site sponsored by O’Shea,
Wüster, Williams and others, I first in 2006 produced
several videos of myself taking bites from venomoid
Taipans (Oxyuranus scutellatus, Parademansia
microlepidota), Tiger Snakes (Notechis scutatus), Death
Adders (Acanthophis spp.) and the like, made in front of
a public audience, showing no ill effects from what would
normally be extremely deadly species.
The videos were removed from Youtube on protest from
O’Shea and others, for fear that their lie about venomoids
being dangerous because of alleged venom regeneration
may be shattered.
The videos were then uploaded onto “smuggled.com”
and remain there as of 2013.
They also newly asserted in 2006 that my own survival
and that of my staff from venomoid snake bites was as a
result of lucky so-called “dry bites” as in bites whereby a
snake does not inject venom.
Contrary to the belief of some uniformed people, dry
bites from venomous snakes are in the real world
extremely rare.
By way of example, none have ever been reported for
Taipans and yet a series of bites from several venomoid
Taipans of myself not requiring any treatment was written
off by our detractors as a lucky escape from dry bites.
O’Shea and others then peddled the “dry bites” lie, often
by reposting the same sort of statements by others, to
assert that the Hoser venomoids were dangerous when
they were not, including by regularly posting internet links
to the Wikipedia hate page “Raymond Hoser” which
among other things has also falsely claimed the Hoser
venomoids are dangerous and that survival of myself
from bites has only been because of lucky dry bites
(Various authors 2013).
After my eldest daughter volunteered to be filmed taking
bites from the same snakes in front of a public audience
to shatter the claims of public risk from venomoids and
the dry bite claims, O’Shea and his allies resorted to
false claims of child abuse, even though nothing of the
sort occurred.
In 2008, O’Shea and Wüster, via their obsessive creation
and editing of Wikipedia hate pages, linking to them and
the like, actively reposted an erroneous series of claims
by the DSE alleging dry bites involving Hoser venomoids
(see various authors 2008-2013).
The false claim by O’Shea, Wüster and others that dry
bites were common, has had a measurable and negative
effect on keepers likely to be influenced by them through
their obsessive online presence.
As a result there is now a widespread and erroneous
belief among herpetologists globally that dry bites are
common with venomous snakes and that if bitten by a
pet venomous snake, they too may be able to survive the
bite like Ray Hoser and his kids who according to Wüster
and O’Shea, luckily had dry bites.
One victim of this misinformation, in this case allegedly
from O’Shea’s close friend, the morbidly obese Al Coritz,
was snake keeper Aleta Stacey, who on 14 June 2011
was bitten by her pet Black Mamba (Dendroaspis
polylepis), and following advice attributed to Coritz about
dry bites, did not do immediate first aid. As a result she
died from the bite (see Various authors 2011b).
In the wake of her death has been a raft of adverse
legislation passed in the United States further restricting
the rights of reptile keepers.
Recently there have been at least two snake bite deaths
in Australia involving persons who have taken a punt that
they had a “dry bite”.
Bradley Hicks died on 3 March 2013, after being bitten by
a Stephen’s Banded Snake (Hoplocephalus stephensi) in
New South Wales and after not seeking treatment until
some hours after the bite.
By that stage it was too late to save him (Noone 2013).
On 26 November 2010 in Western Australia, Michael
Thorpe, aged 43 was bitten by a Brown Snake
(Pseudonaja affinis). He did not do anything for the bite
in terms of first aid or seeking medical help (Ninemsn
staff 2010). This was on the basis of what he’d been led
to believe about the high frequency of “dry bites”. He died
shortly thereafter (Fenech 2010).
REPEATED PLAGIARISATION BY MARK O’SHEA
Wüster, O’Shea and Schleip have dealt with their
problem of the Hoser names by boycotting the use of
them for most of the past 15 years and telling others to
do so (see dozens of examples cited and listed in Hoser
2001, 2009a, 2012a, 2012as).
A good example is seen with (Wüster et. al. (including
O’Shea) 2001, where they repeatedly refer to all Hoser
named species as “”non-taxa” and therefore not worthy of
recognition. They justify that claim by pointing out nonrecognition of said forms by earlier authors such as
Kluge (1993).
However the deliberate fraud of O’Shea is seen when
cross referenced with O’Shea 2007, p. 148, which is a
book by O’Shea covering Boas and Pythons.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
44
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
In the former publication O’Shea (as listed co-author, who
was actually improperly listed by Wüster for a paper he
had written on his own) condemns the Hoser 2000
original description of the species Leiopython hoserae,
formerly regarded as a variant of L. albertisi, describing it
as a “non-taxa”.
In O’Shea 2007, he refers to it as an obviously distinct
and separate species! But instead he calls it Leiopython
sp. making a point of not in any way citing the original
Hoser 2000 paper (Hoser 2000a), even though he
remorselessly lifts data from the Hoser 2000 paper!
I again note that while other large pictorial books on
pythons quite appropriately use and properly cite more
Hoser references than from any other authors, e.g. Kend
1997 and Barker and Barker 1994, noting the countless
definitive papers on pythons I have published since 1980,
O’Shea is content to rip off the material from Hoser
papers, using the material liberally in his own
publications, sometimes near verbatim and yet without
citing them. This is the serious academic offence of
plagiarisation and an action he should be condemned for.
For the record, there is not a single reference to a Hoser
paper in O’Shea 2007, even though he has liberally used
data published within them.
In the wake of the series of false and unsubstantiated
claims by O’Shea in the Kaiser et al. (2013) rant, it is
important I show where the real acts of fraud are coming
from. It comes from those making the false allegations!
O’Shea had in 2007 unethically boycotted the Hoser
name Leiopython hoserae and the Hoser reference. This
in effect puts his more recent 2013 calls for the same into
context as a long-term agenda on his part and not
anything new in response to 2009-12 papers in
Australasian Journal of Herpetology.
However it is clear that from O’Shea (2012) and later
rants online that the little angry man Mark O’Shea fears
that the names legally proposed by Hoser for a larger
number of taxa will come into widespread use.
I refer to his 2013 statement of fear posted on co-author
Wulf Schleip’s Facebook wall that said:
“150 years from now Herpetologists will consider
hoser the greatest herpetological taxonomists of
OUR generation. This must not be allowed to
happen”.
Now fraud and plagiarisation are second nature for
O’Shea and I could probably fill a book with examples of
this alone.
However without being too tedious I will mention another
such case.
In 2003, I described a new and medically significant
taxon of Eastern Brown Snake, namely Pseudonaja
textilis pughi from New Guinea (Hoser 2003a).
While the morphological evidence alone was more than
sufficient to diagnose the taxon, O’Shea, Wüster and
Williams vocally derided the description of the snake as a
“non-taxa”.
In March 2008, O’Shea himself published a paper
effectively redescribing the taxon, on pages 31-32 of the
journal Herptile, over which he held despotic editorial
control at the time (O’Shea 2008).
45
Readers may recall it was one of those infamous issues
in which he repeatedly and unlawfully bootlegged my
registered Snakebusters trademarks in order to assist
friends in legal proceedings (that ultimately failed) in
which they were trying to gain ownership of the registered
trademark, with O’Shea putting his own “Snakebusters”
logo on the front cover of the magazine to assist in their
legal (and false) claim that use of the term
“Snakebusters” was widespread, when it wasn’t.
In terms of O’Shea’s 2008 (effective) redescription
Pseudonaja textilis pughi (which of course he refused to
mention by name), he lifted from my 2003 paper, at times
near verbatim, diagnostic features of my subspecies
Pseudonaja textilis pughi, included a picture of the same
animal on the front cover of the magazine, next to his
own illegal “Snakebusters” logo and all without so much
as even citing the 2003 paper by myself at any point in
the magazine (O’Shea 2008).
Now there is no question that O’Shea had plagiarised my
2003 paper and its findings, then improperly
masqueraded in 2008 that the findings he was publishing
were all his own.
You see a few months prior O’Shea had also published a
paper in Zootaxa, as co-author with fellow fraudster and
convicted reptile smuggler David John Williams (see
elsewhere in this paper) actively condemning my
description of the same subspecies of snake (Williams et
al. 2008).
PLAGIARISATION BY WÜSTER
Notwithstanding his non-stop attacks on everything
“Hoser”, Wüster (and O’Shea, Schleip and listed Kaiser
et al. supporter, the convicted reptile smuggler David
John Williams) have also repeatedly shamelessly
bootlegged and plagiarized Hoser papers and findings
after the consensus swung in the direction of favouring
the Hoser taxonomy and nomenclature.
Instead of continuing to deny the existence of Hoser
named taxa as “non-taxa” (like in Wüster 2001a, Wüster
et. al. 2001), Wüster would publish one or more papers
himself making the same taxonomic findings and
judgments as in the Hoser papers in gross and blatant
acts of plagiarization.
This he repeatedly did without citing the original Hoser
material, or if citing it, done so elsewhere in the paper
with yet more false and baseless allegations attacking
Hoser or the original paper.
Examples of these outrageous acts of plagiarization of
Hoser papers include:
·
Hoser 1998a/2002b Acanthophis taxonomy
(confirmed by Aplin and Donnellan 1999, Wells 2002d),
(also see support from Starkey 2008 dating back many
years), then plagiarized by Fry et al. 2002 (including
Wüster) and Wüster et al. (2005):
·
Hoser 2000b/2003e/2004a Python Taxonomy
(confirmed by Rawlings and Donnellan 2003
(“Chondropython”), confirmed by Wells 2005 (“Morelia”
Carpet Pythons), Rawlings, et al. 2008 (“Broghammerus”
and other genera)); then plagiarized by O’Shea 2007
(“Leiopython”); also then plagiarized by Schleip 2008
(“Leiopython hoserae” and other):
·
Hoser 1998b/2000b/2001 “Pseudechis” group
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
46
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
The want to go outside of the three critical rules of, 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere).
Of course if the Hoser and Wells taxonomy is evidence
free and has no basis, the names will never come into
use.
If on the other hand the taxonomy is in fact evidence
based, then the names can and will be used, as already
seen for the likes of numerous Hoser and Wells and
Wellington names already.
In terms of Hoser (the author here), names widely
accepted include those from all the earlier papers,
including Acanthophis wellsei Hoser, 1998 (first paper
naming new taxa)( later recognized by Aplin and
Donnellan, 1999), Pseudechis (Pailsus) pailsei Hoser
1998 (second paper naming new taxa)( since recognized
by Eipper 2012), Pseudechis (Pailsus) rossignolli Hoser,
2000 (third paper naming new taxa)(since recognized by
Williams et al. 2005), Leiopython hoserae Hoser, 2000
(fourth paper naming new taxa)(since recognized by
Schleip 2008) and so on.
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
taxonomy (confirmed by Kuch et al. 2005), then
plagiarized by Wüster et. al. (2005):
·
Hoser 2002a Oxyuranus taxonomy, plagiarized by
Wüster et. al. (2005):
·
Hoser 2003a Pseudonaja taxonomy, plagiarized
by David Williams et al. (including Wüster and O’Shea)
(2008).
The context of all this in 2013 is that Wüster and the
others, are well aware of the validity of most, if not all the
Hoser described taxa in the post 2000 period (to end
2012) and their current actions can be put in perspective
with their past. Clearly they dishonestly seek to steal any
kudos, Hoser may get from the earlier taxonomic papers.
THE CORRECT WAY TO DEAL WITH GRIEVOUS
TAXONOMIC MALPRACTICE
The allegation has been made (and without any
evidence) that the papers of myself and Wells constitute
in their entirety (and I note unread) “grievous taxonomic
malpractice”.
Kaiser et al. have suggested that the Zoological Code be
totally undermined and made redundant in an all out war
on the nomenclature of Hoser and Wells.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
So we have four out of four of Wüster’s alleged “nontaxa” now being generally recognized by publishing
herpetologists (themselves) after other suitably qualified
herpetologists have properly revisited my original papers,
data and of course the animals themselves!
Itshould also be noted that Wüster also applied pressure
on the editor of Litteratura Serpentium not to publish my
rebuttal of his rant (Wüster et al. 1981), contrary to what
he’d undertaken in writing, meaning it was instead
published as an add-on to another paper in
Boydii:Journal of the Herpetological Association of
Queensland (Hoser 2001) the same year.
So, while Wüster has been consistent in his demands
that no one use any “Hoser names” for each and every
new taxon named at the time of each publication, (see
citation list to justify this claim in Hoser 2009e) and on
the basis they have been “non-taxa” for the preceding
period, history has consistently shown that his views
have not been accepted in the longer term, because he
has been consistently proven wrong in each and every
case based on hard scientific evidence.
Noting that the bulk of the taxonomic and nomenclatural
changes by Hoser 2012 are by the admission of Kaiser et
al. (2013) based on the “harvesting of clades from
published phylogenetic studies” or evidence “lifted from
others”, there seems to be little realistic doubt that the
changes are likely to be widely accepted and used in the
future.
Of course, the actions of Wüster, Schleip and O’Shea in
particular have for the past 15 years been obsessive and
if not couched in the claims of scientific discourse, would
probably have had all three land in jail by now for illegal
stalking and harassment, or some other kind of institution
for obsessive mentally dysfunctional behaviour.
Now there is a correct way to deal with cases of “grievous
taxonomic malpractice” and that is in the same manner
Zoologists have dealt with it over the last 200 years. This
is by the production of evidence and sound judgments to
match the evidence.
By way of example, the first major taxonomic judgment I
made was in 1982.
In 1981, Laurie Smith published a formal description of
the Rough-scaled Python, describing it as “Python
carinata” (Smith 1981).
I was outraged at the placement of the snake in that
genus and so dealt with it in the correct way.
In 1982, I published a paper, making the then radical
move of placing the taxon in the genus Morelia Gray,
1842. At the time I did this, I presented a logical
argument to support my position.
It took about ten years for the rest of the herpetological
community to unanimously see my view on the evidence
I had on hand and now that is the current generic
placement for the taxon.
There was never any hostile character attacks on Smith,
a claim his taxonomy was “evidence free”, even though
his actual published description was just one line, or an
attempt to usurp the rules of nomenclature to get
renaming rights on the species.
I did not seek to go outside of the Zoological Code and
47
the three critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5,
Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article
23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles
23, 65 and elsewhere).
More recently and in the wake of further morphological
and biological evidence, and the molecular data of
Rawlings et al. 2008, I have placed the same species
taxon in a new genus Jackypython Hoser, 2009. If this is
indeed an act of taxonomic terrorism, then no one will
use the name. However, if it is a correct placement, then
the name should be used according to the Zoological
Code.
TAXONOMIC TERRORISM - THE LIE!
Kaiser et al. (2013) and the same authors elsewhere
repeatedly identify Hoser and Wells as engaging in
“taxonomic terrorism” using these exact and similar
words. The fear they seek to instill among herpetologists
is that Hoser and Wells will create instability by renaming
taxa already named according to the Code.
Fact is, that the three critical rules of the Code itself,
namely, 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and
elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and
elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65
and elsewhere) prevent any such acts from happening or
ever going beyond the oblivion of synonymy.
The three rules of Homonymy, priority and stability
prevent Hoser or Wells from any feared mass renaming
of well-known taxa.
It simply cannot happen!
Nothing published by Hoser or Wells has ever sought to
do this.
To the contrary, both myself and Wells have been
staunch defenders of the Code, in all its detail, including
the correct and proper resurrection of names proposed
by others in priority of our own taxonomic judgments and
potential renaming with relevant taxa.
Hence the repeated claims by Kaiser et al. of taxonomic
terrorism against Hoser and Wells are shown to be false,
even to the point of alleging the mass production of
potential synonyms that haven’t happened.
TAXONOMIC TERRORISM - THE TRUTH
However, Kaiser 2012b and the modified document
Kaiser et al. 2013, directly call for a breaking of the rules
of the Code.
In 2012, they wrote:
“Following the intent of the Code and its stated
mission of promoting “standards, sense, and
stability for animal names in science” may require
overriding the letter of the Code in certain
instances.”
In other words they wanted to disobey the Code in a form
of taxonomic anarchy, as in act in breach of the rules.
This was changed in 2013, to read:
“authors following best practices could legitimately
create names that, under strict application of the
Code, would amount to junior synonyms of taxa
named in an unscientific manner. Unscientific names
should be boycotted and scientifically sound names
should be used in their place; applications
requesting the suppression of unscientific names
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
could then be filed with the ICZN after 10 years have
elapsed, and the Commission would then be able to
enforce the Code.”
Meaning in effect that Kaiser et al. wanted to create
taxonomic and nomenclatural instability so that in the
chaos created his people could make numerous frivolous
applications to the ICZN to potentially reverse the longstanding rule of priority to get their names to usurp the
originals in the same manner that was attempted by
Sprackland, Smith and Strimple in 1997 and was ruled
against by the ICZN in 2001 (ICZN 2001).
By the way the term “unscientific names” is Kaiser et al.’s
invented term to describe any names proposed by Hoser
or Wells. Although it’s already been established that
none of the authors of Kaiser et al. have even properly
read the relevant descriptions, it becomes hard to accept
any judgment they may publish about the relative
scientific merits of the said papers.
The above statement also in no uncertain terms calls on
others to break the rules of Zoological Nomenclature enmasse!
In Table 1 of Kaiser et al. (2013), the authors call for the
Rules of Zoology to be broken on several counts in order
to allow their own mass renaming of taxa named long
ago according to their grossly distorted and warped
application of rules of the Code out of context and
missing critical sections. The sections they choose to
ignore and breach includes the three critical rules of, 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere).
Elsewhere in the same documents Kaiser (2012b) and
Kaiser et al. (2013), the authors reserve the right to
expand their taxonomic terrorism by adding to their hit list
of banned publications and authors.
I note that in the eyes of Kaiser et al. McCord’s various
publications went from being “unscientific” in 2012 to
“scientific” and with merit in 2013 on the basis of
McCord’s legal threat to Kaiser, which in itself introduces
a new concept to the science of herpetology.
Will scientific names in future only be accepted if the
person making the proposal can afford a lawyer?
This year it is the taxa named by Hoser and Wells that
they seek to rename in violation of the Code. I also note
in some cases they erroneously tell other herpetologists
to transfer some species to genera they have never been
in previously and cannot be “objectively” placed within
(Shea 2013b, 2013c). I note also the word “objectively” is
one that is seriously misused at the head of Kaiser et al’s
Table 1.
This year they seek to violate the Code by demanding no
other herpetologists use the Hoser and Wells names by
“boycott”, including for common taxa, identified under
these names for many years.
Next year it could any of thousands of taxonomists, living
or dead, who could have their life’s work usurped and
stolen from them in the rush for naming rights of taxa by
Kaiser, Wüster and their cronies if they get away with this
heinous plan now.
Unlike the non-existent threat of taxonomic terrorism
posed by Hoser and Wells, it is the Kaiser et al. threat
that is real, ever present and now clearly defined.
Already they have committed acts of scientific fraud and
reckless taxonomic terrorism by without warning, seeking
to rename no less than three major genera of snakes in a
direct breach of the Zoological Code (Wallach 2006,
Wallach and Broadley 2009 and Wallach et al. 2009),
including breaking the three critical rules of, 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere).
In each case the authors violated the rule of priority
(Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and used the
same type species for the genus names they sought to
illegally remove from nomenclature.
Kaiser et al. 2013 directly calls for an expansion to this
plan to illegally rename some hundreds of validly named
taxa.
Even more alarming is their reserved right to expand
their taxonomic terror hit list at any time as detailed in
Kaiser et al. 2013, p, 19 (left column) and active
encouragement to others to copy “the model we present
here” (p.20 right column).
Kaiser et al. quoted an ICZN commissioner Douglas
Yanega (Yanega 2009:423) who said
“I think the present system by which we name
species is not policed effectively and has loopholes
and ambiguities. For example, scientific names can
be published in journals without peer review.
Although that freedom is fine, the reality effectively
permits taxonomic vandals to plagiarize others or
publish without scientific merit.”
Then going on to say:
“This is an apt summary of the problems in
taxonomic herpetology (and other disciplines) that
are the primary focus of this article: instances where
the Code protects names produced unscientifically,
including those without sufficient evidence,
justification, or privately published to bypass the
peer-review process.”
This is of course is the fundamental problem with their
Herpetological Review article!
It masquerades behind a façade of reasonableness but is
still unable to mask the real intent of the publication.
That is the authors wish to circumvent the zoological
Code by coercion and conspiring to destabilise it for their
own ends, i.e. the ultimate renaming of everything that’s
been named so they can usurp what has been described
before, thereby stealing the intellectual property of
others.
Furthermore and noting their false inference that
Yanega’s comments were directed at people like Hoser
and Wells as opposed to Kaiser, Schleip, Wüster,
O’Shea and their band of thieves, who were the real
targets of Yanega’s comments, as seen by the evidence
free taxonomic ‘hit list’ published by Kaiser et al.
themselves.
Also, given the overwhelming fact that the majority of the
Wells and Wellington 1984 and 1985 taxonomic
publications and all those of Hoser in the 1990’s have
stood the test of time, been further validated by other
scientists and despite the (intended) lag time to
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
48
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
acceptance being prolonged due to the previous failed
suppression attempts (ICZN 1991, ICZN 2001, Wüster
2001, Wüster et al. 2001), this latest ‘copy-cat’ effort by
Kaiser et al. should be similarly dismissed and seen for
what it is. That is the bitter and twisted sour grapes
attitude of a bunch of genuine nobodies in herpetology,
destined otherwise to muddle on in their own
herpetological oblivion as individuals who have never
made a valuable contribution to the science of
herpetology and are now seeking to gain some kudos or
notoriety they can’t find elsewhere.
AN ERROR OF PROPOSALS
Kaiser et al. are fully aware that to make an open
declaration of mass defiance of the Zoological Code,
including, the three critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy
(Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/ Priority
(Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/ Stability
(Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere), would lead to
their condemnation by the scientific community as
happened in 2012, after the first draft of Kaiser et al.
(Kaiser 2012b, Hoser 2012as)
To that end, they have marketed their scheme as a
proposal to defy the Code, but in the fine print disavowed
themselves of it, leaving those who do take their call to
boycott valid names to use improper ones literally on
their own head when caught out.
Page 19 of their manifesto reads:
“To defend herpetological taxonomy against
unscientific incursions, we propose that the
herpetological community, including authors,
reviewers, editors, users of taxon names in
applications, and other interested parties, set aside
and strictly avoid the use of the taxon names listed in
Table 1.”
At the end of their call for action (detailed below), they
again state:
“We further propose that the best practices
presented above be used as a basis for framing a
practical standard for the taxonomic process in
herpetology that can be amended and adopted by
herpetological societies and the editorial boards of
scientific journals.”
The underlines are my emphasis of the relevant words
“we propose” and “we further propose”, noting these are
the correct terms for making actions under the Rules of
Zoology (Ride et al. 1999).
However when you go to the referred to Table 1, on page
10 of their manifesto, it reads:
“These recommendations are not formal
nomenclatural proposals according to articles of the
Code.”
In summary we have a situation of Kaiser et al. failing to
define whether or not their grand plan is being made to
comply with the Code or not to comply with it.
This obvious defect in their paper should not have been
allowed by the alleged peer reviewers and editors at
Herpetological Review.
Alternatively, one may ask, would the ICZN
commissioners seriously approve of a proposed nonproposal as outlined by Kaiser et al.?
49
FINDING A LOOPHOLE IN THE CODE IN ORDER TO
FIND A WAY NOT TO USE THE HOSER NAMES
Wüster has clearly treated his war against Hoser and
Hoser nomenclature like a game of Chess, or perhaps as
a kind of legal challenge.
Either way, the regularity by which he tries to argue like a
lawyer, often arguing complete tripe as detailed above,
shows he’d make a very good lawyer (but not a
defamation lawyer) if he ever decided to change
occupation.
He went from arguing against the merits of the Hoser
taxonomy in 2001 (e.g. Wüster 2001a, Wüster et al.
2001), through to the legality of publication under the
Code (Wallach, Wüster and Broadley 2009) to a
desperate appeal to ignore the rules of Zoology in 2012
(Kaiser 2012b, Kaiser et al. 2013).
Following the publication of Hoser 2012as, the article
titled, “Robust taxonomy and nomenclature based on
good science escapes harsh fact-based criticism, but
remains unable to escape an attack of lies and
deception” in Australasian Journal of Herpetology 14:3764, it was evident that the attempt of Kaiser 2012b (with
Wüster’s obvious input, noting he was later cited as a coauthor) to openly step outside the rules of zoology to
attack the Hoser names and the Code at the same time,
would not be popular with other scientists. As a result the
Kaiser team decided to look for alternative ways to defeat
the Hoser names within the Code and jettison their 2012
plan of attack as detailed within the document.
I am not privy to all the discussions the various players
have had, but it is clear that Wüster in particular was
desperate to find a “legal” means to deal with his problem
of “Hoser names”.
The problem for him was that his earlier campaign
detailed already to argue the merits (or lack of them) in
terms of the Hoser taxonomy and names had by 2009
failed. Recall that is the date that Wüster, with Wallach
and Broadley made the totally false ambit claim that no
issues of Australasian Journal of Herpetology had been
published according to the Code as a bid to effectively
knock out a huge number of Hoser names in one go.
With all the relevant taxonomic papers bar one,
effectively redone in 2012 issues of the same journal, this
time with printer receipts within, such a false claim on
non publication could not be viably repeated, and so
Wüster needed alternative means to try to stop use by
others of the “Hoser names” assigned to then hitherto
unnamed taxa.
By 2012, the earliest Hoser taxonomy and names from
the period before 2000 had been almost universally
adopted and Wüster knew the outcome for the more
recent names to 2012, most based on superior evidence
to the earlier names, would be much the same.
This contrasted with his earlier position, encapsulated in
2003, at a time when his deception was relatively
successful in stopping people from using Hoser names,
best seen in his comments on Kingsnake.com on 18
December 2003, where he wrote: “the names are about
the least of our worries about his taxonomy”.
This was because if the taxonomy wasn’t accepted, then
the names simply fell away!
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
By end 2012, Wüster was desperate to stop use of any
and all “Hoser names”, including by continuing to
obsessively edit sites like Wikipedia, and harass
webmasters of sites like “Reptile Database”( www.reptiledatabase.org) to ensure no Hoser names got used.
To that end he also posted widely on various forums and
list servers asking for advice on a way to legally avoid
having to use Hoser names.
On one such forum list, the conversation commenced by
Wüster seeking loopholes in the ICZN Code rules.
When I printed the thread, the print out ran a total of 208
pages! But the best outcome mooted for Wüster was a
potential synonymising of some Hoser-named tribes by a
correspondent who even then didn’t think the prospect
likely to succeed in the long term (Various authors
including Wüster 2013a).
However, sometime between June 2012 and March 2013
they thought a loophole was ostensibly found. However
in their haste to use it, someone in the Kaiser et al. group
apparently failed to quote the relevant section of the
Code properly.
Quite amazingly, none of the nine alleged authors, the
alleged peer reviewers at Herpetological Review and the
entire group of listed supporters (more than 60 people in
all) all also failed to cross-check the most important
quoted section of the Zoological Rules in the final draft of
Kaiser et al. (2013) with the Zoological Rules itself to find
and correct the most obvious defect.
This is particularly alarming considering the professed
support for the document by these people!
KAISER ET AL. AND THEIR DEFECTIVE CALL FOR
ACTION
While the dominant feature of Kaiser et al’s rant is a
repetitive and unsubstantiated collection of lies
condemning my own taxonomic papers and then calling
for a boycott of them, it is of note that they have taken
the view that working within the Zoological Code rules is
in their words a “tricky business”.
This isn’t so.
In fact as a document, the Zoological Rules are easy to
work within and provided the three key rules of
homonymy, priority and stability are adhered to, it is very
straight forward.
As shown already, repeated statements by Kaiser et al.
(2013) detailing deliberations of the ICZN in terms of
“taxonomic vandalism” are fraudulently misrepresented
by Kaiser et al. to imply they relate to Hoser papers,
when they clearly do not.
The statements by O’Shea and Coritz, (O’Shea 2013c,
Coritz 2013) of ICZN support for Kaiser et al. (2013)
posted to a potential audience of over 1 billion people is
also a lie.
Asserting that the taxonomic papers of myself and Wells
are some kind of attack on herpetology, requiring Kaiser
et al. to set themselves up to “defend herpetological
taxonomy from unscientific incursions”, they then set
about in an elaborate attempt to create a legal loophole
within the Zoological Rules to usurp the Hoser and Wells
names for taxa with their own names as attempted
already by Wüster in his illegal renaming of
Spracklandus Hoser, 2009.
As already mentioned, they also sell this as a business
model to suppress other people’s valid names as well (p.
20, second column).
However, by far the most important part of their plan as
detailed is the legal loophole in the Zoological Code that
they seek to exploit.
Further, as already mentioned, the legal loophole they
seek to exploit is in error, because the authors have
foolishly misread the Code and misquoted it, with no one
it seems bothering to check the quote against the actual
source document.
They rely on Article 23.9 of the Code which deals with
“Reversal of precedence”, or in layman’s terms means
when the law of priority can be broken in order to
maintain nomenclatural stability.
Now Kaiser et al. have repeatedly misrepresented the
spirit of the Code to falsely imply I have acted outside it.
As I quoted from the Code earlier, the fact is that myself
and Wells have in fact operated wholly within the intent of
the Code which states:
“The 4th edition of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, like the preceding editions
and before them the Règles internationales de la
Nomenclature zoologique, has one fundamental aim,
which is to provide the maximum universality and
continuity in the scientific names of animals
compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify
animals according to taxonomic judgments.”
So the fact is, that it is Kaiser et al. operating outside the
spirit of the Code.
Now in terms of the spirit of the Code as stated in the
preamble and elsewhere, reversal of priority is intended
for things like when a well-established name on the
record is found to be the junior synonym of a long
overlooked name published in an obscure place, perhaps
not properly indexed or in a foreign language and a very
long time ago.
Reversal of priority is not intended when a recently (last
100 years) published name that has been widely
disseminated and indexed in places like Zoological
Record is forcibly suppressed by a bunch of thugs intent
on having their own more recently coined name over-ride
a senior synonym.
However to get their legal loophole up (in their view),
Kaiser et al. (2013) twist their alleged meaning of the
Code about quite dramatically and interpolate it with
direct quotes from it, to make their loophole appear a
viable way to forcibly suppress the usage of Hoser and
Wells names.
On page 20 they wrote:
“According to the Code (Article 23.9.1-3; ICZN 1999) it
is desirable to avoid the use of names that threaten
stability even when this reverses the Principle of
Priority. This is one area of the existing Code where
ICZN actions can favor the establishment of names
generated within a genuine scientific framework. The
Code adopts a strict stand against names (including
those that could be classed as unscientific) that have
not been used in “at least 25 [scientific] works,
published by at least 10 authors in the immediately
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
50
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not
less than 10 years” (Article 23.9.1.2; ICZN 1999); thus,
authors following best practices could legitimately
create names that, under strict application of the
Code, would amount to junior synonyms of taxa
named in an unscientific manner. Unscientific names
should be boycotted and scientifically sound names
should be used in their place; applications
requesting the suppression of unscientific names
could then be filed with the ICZN after 10 years have
elapsed, and the Commission would then be able to
enforce the Code.”
However they have in fact misquoted the relevant section
of the Code, perhaps/likely deliberately, so as to omit the
most important part of Article 23.9 of the Code.
So to clear things up and show why the Kaiser et al. plan
to rename all the Hoser and Wells named taxa is
doomed to fail at the outset, I shall quote in full the
relevant section of the Code.
It reads:
“23.9. Reversal of precedence. In accordance with
the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its
application is moderated as follows:
23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the
following conditions are both met:
23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not
been used as a valid name after 1899, and
23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been
used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid
name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10
authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and
encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.”
The important bit that Kaiser et al. 2013 left out was “the
senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a
valid name after 1899”, which I had underlined above to
make sure it wasn’t overlooked again.
This automatically excludes the Hoser and Wells names
which by Kaiser et al’s own findings are those that
postdate year 2000!
Hence the one section of the Code that Kaiser et al.
thought contained a loophole by which they could
suppress the Hoser and Wells names in favour of their
own, in fact doesn’t exist!
Inability to properly read or quote a simple document
such as the Zoological Code, or for that matter join the
dots in terms of names of taxa described and genera
they came from originally in relevant papers subject to
condemnation, do not serve as good indicators of
scientific method or ability by the nine listed authors of
Kaiser et al. or those people who allegedly blindly
followed them by endorsing the fatally flawed document.
THE LAST FAILED ATTEMPT AT IMPROPERLY
RENAMING REPTILE TAXA
Now in terms of people exploiting perceived loopholes in
the Code to suppress a modern senior synonym in favour
of an improperly created junior synonym, the Code does
have catch all sections to allow a person take a
grievance to the commission. One such section is
23.9.3. of the Code.
However this section does not get the Kaiser et al.
51
document over the line in defining a loophole in the Code
to allow mass suppression of properly constituted
scientific names for taxa.
For the record, the last well-known attempt at forcibly
suppressing a valid senior synonym in favour of a junior
synonym named in full knowledge of the latter involved
an Australian species of monitor lizard.
The case was as close a match to the current situation as
can possibly be found.
It involved “taxonomic vandalism” and a scientific name
“classed as unscientific”.
Now this isn’t my view, but it is most certainly that of
Kaiser et al. (2013) and Wüster in particular.
The species, Odatria keithhornei was described in 1985
by Wells and Wellington, the senior author of the paper
already identified by Kaiser et al. as guilty of “taxonomic
vandalism” and the other target of this most recent Kaiser
et al. attempt at mass suppression and renaming of taxa.
The 1985 publication itself was identified by Wüster in
2013 as a holotype case of taxonomic “vandalism”
(Wüster 2013a).
So we know that Kaiser and Wüster view the Wells and
Wellington papers as being of the same caliber as those
more recently produced by Hoser and Wells alone!
There was an earlier attempt to suppress the entire Wells
and Wellington publication of 1985 (and two others by
them) before the ICZN (Anonymous 1987, Hoser 2007,
Wüster 2013a) on the alleged basis that the authors had
“published their concepts in their own journal
independent of any expert opinion and it was stated
largely without any solid taxonomic basis” (Ziegler and
Böhme 1998) but that application (case number 2531)
failed in 1991 (ICZN 1991, Hoser 2007, Wüster 2013a).
In 1991, Robert George Sprackland described the
relevant monitor species, as Varanus teriae, in honor of
his wife, usurping the valid senior synonym Odatria
keithornei Wells and Wellington 1985.
After a time had elapsed, Sprackland invoked the
relevant catch-all section of the Code (Third edition) and
brought the matter to the ICZN seeking formal
suppression of the Wells and Wellington name (Case
3043)(Sprackland et al. 1997).
Fearing an avalanche of cases if this was allowed to
become a well-trodden loophole, the ICZN did to their
credit rule heavily in favour of the Wells and Wellington
name (Opinion 1970)(ICZN 2001, Hoser 2007) and went
further by placing the name Odatria keithornei on their
official list of available names to deter other potential
offenders (Anonymous 2001, Uetz, 2013a).
This is the same fate almost certainly awaiting anyone
who dares to try to illegally rename any taxa validly
named by Hoser and Wells!
This can also be inferred from the formal correspondence
I have received from the ICZN (Nikolaeva 2013b).
As for Rob Sprackland, the man who made this
audacious attempt to exploit a non-existent loophole in
the Zoological Code conduct intellectual theft and to
rename a previously named species after his wife, this
failure effectively killed his career as a herpetologist.
Notwithstanding his previous excellent work with
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
monitors in particular, he had permanently gained a
reputation for dishonestly trying to rip off another
person’s work in an act of nepotism!
Geoff Whitten tried a similar caper to that proposed by
Kaiser et al. (2013).
In 1994, he renamed the species Pogona henrylawsoni
Wells and Wellington, 1985, Pogona brevis in a brazen
and deliberate attempt to usurp the senior synonym.
Shea (1995) correctly reversed the error before it
became entrenched, thereby avoiding the need for ICZN
intervention to correct the mistake. As of 2013, the
species remains generally known as Pogona
henrylawsoni Wells and Wellington, 1985 (Uetz, 2013b).
Finally, with all relevant Hoser and Wells names now
being published widely, including in the original
publications, in Zoological Record and now within the
widely disseminated Herpetological Review, via Kaiser et
al. (2013), no herpetologist will be able to mount a claim
to the ICZN that the original names were not known or
were only published in an obscure publication as
justification for not using the correct (senior) name for the
given taxa.
Incidentally, that is usually the basis used to reverse
priority for pre-1899 names.
HOSER’S TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE IS
CORRECT AND VIRTUALLY EVERYONE KNOWS IT! THE NEXT ATTEMPT TO REVERSE PRIORITY!
While it may seem bold to assert that a collection of
dozens of papers are broadly correct in their taxonomy
and nomenclature and before being scrutinized by others
in depth, there are a few good reasons why.
In terms of the scope of the publications, only blatently
obvious species and genera were named. Anything
remotely doubtful was ignored or bypassed.
These obvious facts are underpinned by the robust
molecular evidence that also supported most of the
genera divided for the first time.
It is also obvious that contrary to the fear tactics of Kaiser
et al. (2013), the vast majority of generic placements of
species for the reptiles remain unchanged by the Hoser
publications and so there is not any out of the ordinary
instability caused by anything done by myself (Hoser).
By and large, the results of studies such as Pyron et al.
(2011) and others show that most generic placements for
reptiles at the present time are broadly correct and
nothing done by the Hoser publications changed this.
There has been no “taxonomic vandalism” or “unscientific
incursions” by Hoser as alleged without basis.
Confirmation of the above assertion in terms of
correctness of my taxonomic decisions is perhaps best
seen in the genus of lizards Laudakia Gray, 1845 sensu
lato, subject to a break up by myself in the paper Hoser
(2012ao).
In that paper genera were resurrected from synonymy
and when no names were available, new names were
created.
Subsequently, in the second half of 2012 a paper was
published by Baig et al. (2012), including Wolfgang
Böhme as an author dealing with the same lizard group.
Böhme of course is named twice in Kaiser et al. (2013)
as a supporter of Kaiser et al. (2013).
Their break up of the genus Laudakia broadly mirrored
that of my earlier paper, which came as no surprise, as
they had much the same molecular and morphological
evidence available from earlier published studies on
which to base their decisions.
However notable is that the did not use my earlier name
Adelynkimberlea Hoser, 2012 for the caucasia group,
which they renamed in violation of the Zoological Code.
Now there is a possibility that the authors were unaware
of Adelynkimberlea Hoser, 2012 at the time of
submission of their paper to their journal and so there is
a possibility that the mistake was inadvertent.
Now the errors of Baig et al. (2012), in creating new
generic names when there were names available, would
as a matter of course see the error identified by other
herpetologists and the junior names proposed by them
disappearing into synonymy very quickly.
That is how the rules of the zoological Code work
(homonymity and priority, which gives stability).
However notable is that Böhme (who is listed twice) as a
supporter to Kaiser et al. (2013), and others working on
the grand plan, have now sought to improperly suppress
and boycott the Hoser name Adelynkimberlea Hoser,
2012.
Peter Uetz, a close friend of Wüster, has at Uetz (2013c),
noted his use of the Baig et al. names and the boycott of
the Hoser names (all) referring to Kaiser et al. (2013) as
the basis for doing so. This is particularly worrying as
Kaiser et al. don’t in fact have a sound basis for calling
for the boycott in the first place and yet Uetz is blindly
following the Kaiser et al. call to arms.
On his species pages, Uetz, uses the Baig et al. names
for all species formerly within Laudakia sensu lato, while
not even advising readers of the existence of the Hoser
senior synonyms, which he is clearly aware of. Further
evidence of this is in his stellio page (Uetz 2013d), which
mentions the Hoser Laudakia paper of 2012 (Hoser
2012ao).
I also note the conflict in this case with Böhme’s stated
support for the Zoological Code and the rule of priority in
1998, when he wrote in support of all Wells and
Wellington names (co-authored with Ziegler) which were
subject of several similar illegal suppression attempts.
Then he wrote in support of the senior synonyms and
said “the provisions of the Code apply to all names”
(Ziegler and Böhme 1998).
The deliberate instability created by Kaiser et al. (2013),
Baig et al. (2012) and Uetz (2013c) if left unchecked, will
spread virally through the internet and beyond, which is
of course their grand plan.
Then as the plan unfolds, they will waste yet more time
by seeking an ICZN ruling to reverse priority for the valid
and well-known senior synonym, which in turn will likely
fail.
Success here would of course encourage others to try
the same trick and within a few short years, renegades in
all areas of zoology would be boycotting all sorts of
senior synonyms with a view to improperly renaming taxa
with their own coined names and totally destabilizing a
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
52
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
zoological nomenclature built up over centuries.
Thus the ICZN would as in cases past, be forced to rule
in favour of the senior synonym to maintain stability from
that date on, even after instability had been caused by
the deliberate improper promotion of the junior synonym
to give it wider usage in the immediately preceding years
(ICZN 2001, 2007).
Now noting the dates of publication, Hoser 2012ao, Baig
(including Böhme) et al. (2012) and Kaiser et al. (2013),
failure to divulge the conflict of interest in terms of
Wolfgang Böhme by Kaiser et al. with a direct vested
interest in boycotting of a Hoser genus name in favour of
his own later coined name, is yet another breach of the
SSAR’s own ethics statement!
I note also that generic name Plocederma Blyth, 1854 (a
potential genus within Laudakia) was also ignored by
Baig et al. (2012), potentially indicating that the over 30
reptile taxa named by Blyth as currently recognized may
also be on the Kaiser et al. renaming list (Uetz, 2013e).
OTHER HITLIST TARGETS OF THE GANG OF NINE
There is no doubt that Kaiser et al. seek to steal naming
rights for species from others besides Hoser and Wells.
Taxa named by Bill McCord was removed from the socalled “unscientific” hitlist not on the basis of any new
found merit in his papers, as they never changed, but
rather due to the threat to Kaiser from his lawyers.
On that basis it seems that the other targets of boycott
and renaming in violation of the code will remain people
from outside the jurisdiction of the gang of nine. That is
either other countries or dead people.
One additional target already mooted for boycott and
renaming of all relevant taxa using the Kaiser et al.
template was named by the group. His name is Mark van
Roosmalen (O’Shea et al. 2013). On 8 April 2013,
Schelip (2013b) also announced on a German language
internet chat forum that he intended using his paper
(Kaiser et al. 2013) as a basis to enable him to rename
the Hoser named python genus Broghammerus!
This was confirmed by Wüster (Wüster 2013c), when on
April 9 he said he hoped that someone “should be
encouraged to take the recent Kaiser et al. paper as a
cue to scrap Broghammerus and overwrite it with their
own new genus name”.
This is of course a simple planned case of intellectual
theft and plagiarisation of the most extreme degree,
which again makes a mockery of any claimed adherence
and respect for the zoological Code.
These two targets for renaming have emerged in less
than three weeks of the publication of Kaiser et al. (2013)
and no doubt more will emerge in the months and years
to follow.
The actions of these rogue individuals, if unchecked are
clearly the greatest threat to the stabililty of the zoological
Code in its entire 200+ year history!
CONCLUSION: A CALL TO ACTION
An accurate taxonomy and a stable nomenclature is the
essential infrastructure upon which all other zoological
science is based.
The rules by which it is based must be adhered to by all.
It is too important to be victim of attacks by gangs of nine
53
seeking to steal naming rights for taxon groups over
which they did not do the critically important groundwork,
or to allow a system built on homonymy, priority and
stability to be effectively destroyed.
Now we know and it is proven without doubt in every
possible way, that Mark O’Shea, Wulf Schleip, Hinrich
Kaiser and Wolfgang Wüster, the main co-authors of
Kaiser et al. 2013 are serial liars.
For the exact documentary evidence and proof, by way of
cross-referencing, see (O’Shea (2013a) cross referenced
with Hoser (1998a), O’Shea (2013c) and other relevant
sources, see cross referencing of Schleip documents as
done by Hoser (2009a), Kaiser 2012a cross referenced
against Kaiser et al. (2013) and Hoser (2012a) cross
referencing various Wüster publications.
We now know they have lied in relation to myself and my
papers to further their own warped agenda, which in
summary includes a 15 year battle running from 1998 to
2013 to improperly stop herpetologists from complying
with the rules of the zoological Code, by illegally
encouraging them to boycott all Hoser names.
We know that these individuals have no respect for the
rules of zoology or other rules of ethics noting they have
broken them repeatedly in the past, and including for
their stated objective of undermining the rules of Zoology
(Kaiser 2012b, Kaiser et al. 2013).
To allow their call to thousands of herpetologists to ignore
the fundamental rules of the ICZN, namely the three
critical rules of, 1/ Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and
elsewhere), 2/ Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and
elsewhere) and 3/ Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65
and elsewhere) and encourage the illegal mass creation
of junior synonyms for established taxa will create
taxonomic and nomenclatural chaos.
Of that there is no doubt!
The proposed actions by Hinrich et al., which are a
repeat of a similar attempt to undermine the Code by
Wallach et al. (2009) will potentially put lives at risk. This
is due to potential misidentification of venomous taxa due
to use of improper and superfluous names improperly
placed on the record as synonyms.
Failure to stop Kaiser et al.’s unprecedented plan to
dramatically breach the rules of zoology on an
unprecedented scale must be stopped. Failure to do so
may see the administration of the rules of zoological
nomenclature descend into anarchy where the rules of
Homonymy, Priority and Stability are continually at siege
and the ICZN required to intervene to maintain stability at
ever increasing regularity.
This would especially be the case, were people in areas
outside of herpetology to try to copy the Kaiser et al.
template.
Therefore the most recently published plans of Kaiser et
al. (2013) to usurp the ICZN for their own nefarious
purposes must be stopped.
More importantly, they should be publicly exposed and
humiliated for their repeated academic misconduct and
fraud so that there is a deterrent to others who may
otherwise try to emulate them.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
AUTHORSHIP
This paper was written by myself, Raymond Hoser as
author. I had assistance, comments and input from
several people at the writing stage. The final copy was
reviewed by several people, not all identified to me.
Further refinements were made as a result. All reviewers
were also provided with copies of relevant parts of
relevant cited documents to verify all claims within, the
volume of which was very large.
All reviewers also read many, if not all the relevant Hoser
papers as cited at the rear of this document and had
copies of all on hand.
Numerous people, including some reviewers offered to
publicly “sponsor” or support this document. I have
chosen to list none for several reasons.
Firstly in doing so, I would potentially be open to the
charge that some of these people had not read all the
relevant publications, which would almost certainly be
true noting that the relevant papers of my own total of
nearly a million words, or the equivalent of ten full sized
books by word count, meaning that my supporters would
in effect be taking me (at least in part) on faith, as has
obviously happened in the case of Kaiser et al. (2013).
Secondly, the issue has emerged over many years of
Wüster, Schleip and O’Shea illegally harassing persons
who have supported myself, my business, my family and
my publications (as detailed in Hoser 2012a) and on that
basis I do not seek to put anyone else at further potential
risk of such treatment.
Support for my taxonomic conclusions and nomenclature
is however best measured by usage of the names to
date. Besides the use in numerous books, including
those cited herein and those actually published by
alleged supporters of Kaiser et al. (2013), the usage of
“Hoser names” can be ascertained by simple “Google”
searches for them.
Obviously older names revisited by others tend to be the
most widely used.
Examples of a number of webpages using given “Hoser
names” by Google search results as of 1 April 2013
(recorded by screen dumps) are as follows:
Broghammerus - 22,500 separate webpages.
Morelia harrisoni - 391,000 separate webpages.
These numbers indicate the magnitude of taxonomic and
nomenclatural instability that Kaiser et al’s proposals
would cause if generally acted upon.
Finally, there are no issues of conflict of interest in terms
of this paper, the subject matter, or conclusions within,
although in case it’s been missed by readers, I note I also
edit and publish Australasian Journal of Herpetology.
The argument within this paper is about the correct use
of correct names in Zoology according to the published
rules of the Zoological Code. It is not about the name of
the person who first proposed the names. That is only an
issue to those with inflated egos.
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
·
Hinrich Kaiser and eight other renegades, namely
Mark O’Shea, Wolfgang Wüster, Wulf Schleip, Paulo
Passos, Hidetoshi Ota, Luca Luiselli, Brian Crother and
Christopher Kelly, herein cited as Kaiser et al. (2013)
have made numerous demonstrably false claims about
Hoser and Wells.
·
The claim by Kaiser et al. (2013) that Hoser’s
descriptions of taxa are unsupported by evidence is
refuted by their other claims that Hoser had engaged in
“harvesting of clades from published phylogenetic studies
for description as new genera or subgenera” and used
evidence “lifted from others”.
·
The papers and taxonomic decisions by Hoser
(and Wells) are based on robust cited evidence and
comply with the established rules of Zoological
Nomenclature (Ride et al. 1999) of homonymy, priority
and stability.
·
Kaiser, O’Shea, Wüster and Schleip have been
exposed here as serial liars.
·
Schleip and Wüster have both been exposed for
“Grievous taxonomic misconduct” by knowingly
publishing descriptions of invalid taxa or junior synonyms
and falsifying data.
·
O’Shea, Wüster and Schleip have for 15 years
engaged in a cynical destabilization of taxonomy and
nomenclature in breach of the rules, motivated by a deep
personal hatred of Raymond Hoser.
·
Over time, Hoser and Wells taxonomic and
nomenclatural judgments have been accepted as correct
by other herpetologists as confirmed by molecular
studies and their names widely used (millions of
times)(e.g. Broghammerus, Antaresia).
·
O’Shea, Wüster and Schleip have repeatedly
committed the crime of plagiarization.
·
Kaiser et al. have repeatedly misrepresented and
misquoted the Zoological Code.
·
Kaiser et al. have several times made an open
call for others to act in breach of the numerous sections
of the Rules of Zoological nomenclature including 1/
Homonymy (Principal 5, Article 52 and elsewhere), 2/
Priority (Principal 3, Article 23 and elsewhere) and 3/
Stability (Principal 4, Articles 23, 65 and elsewhere) and
the ethics of the Code (Section A).
·
Kaiser et al. seek to rename hundreds of validly
named taxa in breach of the Zoological Rules, with no
restriction on other authors or names they may later
deem “unscientific” in order to rename taxa properly
named by others.
·
In an act of “taxonomic vandalism” and “evidence
free taxonomy”, as co-author of Kaiser et al., Brian
Crother did in 2012, change the names of over 100
species of lizard, none of which had ever been the
subject of a phylogenetic study. In 2009 Brian Crother
engaged in another act of evidence free taxonomy to
improperly reassign names to dozens of North American
taxa (Pauly et al. 2009).
·
The proposals of Kaiser et al. if acted upon would
irreparably destabilize Zoological nomenclature.
·
The proposals of Kaiser et al. (2013) if copied by
others (as they suggested on page 20) would create
general taxonomic and nomenclatural chaos and
effectively destroy the rules of zoology.
·
The proposals of Kaiser et al. if acted upon would
potentially put lives at risk through misidentification of
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
54
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
venomous taxa, including through excessive numbers of
invalid junior synonyms.
·
The loophole within the Zoological rules proposed
by Kaiser et al., by which they see a means to rename
hundreds of species and genera by alleged reversal of
priority is flawed. This is because they misquoted the
relevant section of Code omitting the key line, that
relating to date of first descriptions usage needing to be
prior to 1899, rendering the scheme “clearly ridiculous
and unworkable” (Shea 2013a).
·
The use of the alleged loophole within the
Zoological Rules proposed by Kaiser et al., to unlawfully
rename validly named taxa, subsequent to deliberate
boycott of the correct names has been attempted before
and failed. This included by Sprackland, Smith and
Strimple (1997) (ICZN case 3043) and their scheme
failed. The illegal attempt to reverse priority was
emphatically rejected by the ICZN in their judgment,
Opinion 1970. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 58(1),
30 March 2001 in Volume 58.
·
Claims by Kaiser et al. of widespread support for
their position was fabricated and false. In fact the only
support they got from most other herpetologists was for a
proposition that taxonomy should be evidence based and
subject to peer review, which is the status quo. However
it is in fact Kaiser et al. who break both “rules” by
engaging in evidence free taxonomy and in the absence
of effective peer review.
·
Contrary to the published claims of Kaiser et al.
(2013), they did not have support of the Australian
Society of Herpetologists to boycott Hoser names and
illegally coin names for those taxa themselves (ASH
2013).
·
On the basis of the preceding, the assault on the
established rules of zoological nomenclature by Kaiser et
al. (2013) must be rejected by herpetologists. The gang
of nine must be condemned for their gross misconduct.
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous 1987. Case 2531. Three works by Richard
W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington: proposed suppression
for nomenclatural purposes. (allegedly written by the
unnamed “President of the Australian Society of
Herpetologists”), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
44(2):116-121.
Anonymous (2001). Options (sic) published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Raffles Bulletin
of Zoology 49(1):172.
Anonymous 2013a. (download date 18 March 2013)
SSAR Ethics Statement. Website document at: <http://
www.ssarherps.org/pages/ethics.php>
Anonymous 2013b. Raymond Hoser. Webpage at: http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Hoser, see also version
dated 21 March 2013 and (edited by user papblack) edit
history of page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Talk:Raymond_Hoser&action=history
and talk page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Raymond_Hoser
Anonymous 2013c. Snakebusters:Trade Mark History:
912066. IP Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia (available
online).
55
Anonymous 2013d. Snakebuster: Trade Mark History:
963988. IP Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia (available
online).
Anonymous 2013e. (download date 7 April 2013)
Herpetological Review Information. Website document
at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/HRinfo.php
Anonymous 2013f. ICZN Website at: http://iczn.org/faqs
downloaded on 7 April.
Aplin, K. P. and Donnellan, S. C. 1999. An extended
description of the Pilbara death adder, Acanthophis wellsi
Hoser (Serpentes: Elapidae), with notes on the desert
death adder, A. pyrrhus Boulenger, and identification of a
possible hybrid zone. Rec. West. Austr. Mus. 19:277-298.
ASH (Australian Society of Herpetologists) 2013. Minutes
of the 37th AGM of the Australian Society of
Herpetologists Inc. ASH AGM 2013:Point Wolstencroft,
NSW:8 pp.
Baig, K. J., Wagner, P. Ananjeva, N. B. and Böhme, W.
2012. A morphology-based taxonomic revision of
Laudakia Gray, 1845 (Squamata: Agamidae). Vertebrate
Zoology 62(2):213-260.
Austin, C. C., Spataro, M., Peterson, S., Jordan, J. and
McVay, J. D. 2010. Conservation genetics of Boelen’s
python (Morelia boeleni) from New Guinea: reduced
genetic diversity and divergence of captive and wild
animals. Conservation Genetics 11:889-896.
Bacher, S. 2012. Still not enough taxonomists: Reply to
Joppa et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution February
27(2):65-66.
Barker, D. and Barker, T. 1994. Pythons of the world:
Volume 1: Australia. AVS, USA:171 pp.
Bartholemew, B. 2013a. Herpetological Newsletter 5: In
this issue: Online files and copyright issues ... SPAM
email to hundreds of recipients sent on Fri, 29 Mar 2013
19:16:45 -0500.
Bartholemew, B. 2013b. Re Herpetological Newsletter 5.
E-mail to Raymond Hoser on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:11:58 0600.
Berni, L. 2010. Biology club celebrates Charles Darwin’s
201st birthday. Victor Valley Ram Page 29(1), 26 Feb:4.
Bioone, 2008. Abstract of Schleip 2008 Leiopython
paper, hosted on the internet at: http://www.bioone.org/
perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=
10.1670%2F06-182R5.1
Brammell, P. 2001a. Re nomenclature - Fry and Wüster
avoiding the obvious, posting on Kingsnake.com on
January 30, 2001 at 01:39:46.
Brammell, P. 2001b. Hoser’s taxonomy is correct and a
plea for sensibility, posting to Kingsnake.com venomous
snake forum dated January 30, 2001 at 02:04:45.
Brammell, P. 2001c. Williams/Starkey paper fraudulently
altered, Posting to Kingsnake.com venomous snake
forum dated January 30, 2001 at 02:41:21.
Brammell, P. 2001d. In defence of Hoser and a plea for
reason, posting on Kingsnake.com the elapidae forum on
February 01, 2001 at 05:48:08.
Cogger, H. G. 2012. Email to Scott Eipper, 15
June:8:03:59 PM AEST
Castañeda, M. D. R. and de Queiroz, K. 2012. Phylogeny
of the Dactyloa Clade of Anolis Lizards: New Insights
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
from Combining Morphological and Molecular Data.
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology,
160(7):345-398.
Coritz, A. 2013. Post on his own Facebook wall (of “Viper
Keeper”) on 20 March 2013.
Couper, P. J., Covacevich, J. A. and Mortiz, C. 1993. A
review of the leaf-tailed geckos endemic to eastern
Australia: a new genus, four new species, and other new
data. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 34(1):95-124.
Crother, B. I. (Ed.). 2008. Scientific and standard English
names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north
of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our
understanding, 6th ed. SSAR Herpetological Circular
37:1-84.
Crother, B. I. (Ed.). 2012. Scientific and standard English
names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north
of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our
understanding, 7th ed. SSAR Herpetological Circular
39:1-101.
De Lang, R. 2011. The Snakes of the lesser Sunda
Islands (Nusa Tenggara), Indonesia. Serpents Tale/
Edition Chamira Germany:359 pp.
Diaz, B. 2010. The Brett Side. Victor Valley Ram Page
29(1), 26 Feb:5.
Eipper, S. 2012. A guide to Australian snakes in captivity
... elapids and colubrids. Australian Reptile
Publications:280 pp.
Frome, B. 2001a. Taxonomic and scientific fraud by
David Williams, Posting on Kingsnake.com on January
29, 2001 at 20:14:05.
Frome, B. 2001b. The reason why David Williams
committed the fraud, Posting on Kingsnake.com on
January 29, 2001 at 20:44:51.
Frost, D. R. and Hillis, D. M. 1990. Species in concept
and practice: Herpetological applications. Herpetologica
46:87-104.
Frost, D. R. and Kluge, A. G. 1994. A Consideration of
epistemology in systematic biology with special reference
to species. Cladistics 10:259-294.
Fry, B. G. et al. 2002. Electrospray liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry fingerprinting of
Acanthophis (death adder) venoms: taxonomic and
toxinological implications. Rapid Communications in
Mass Spectrometry:16:600-608.
Fry, B. G. 2009. Transcript of interview at: http://
www.pethobbyist.com/articles/
ChatMonth11Transcripts/BryanGriegFry2009.html dated
6 February 2009.
Goldenberg, S. 2011. Planet earth is home to 8.7 million
species, scientists estimate. The Guardian (UK), 23
August, online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
environment/2011/aug/23/species-earth-estimatescientists
Hansen, R. 2012. Email to Raymond Hoser. Tue, 19
June 2012 22:23:05 -0700.
Hansen, R. 2013. Two emails to Raymond Hoser. Fri, 8
March 06:16:18 -0800 and Sat 9 March 07:35:51 -0800.
Harvey, M. B., Barker, D. G., Ammerman, L. K. and
Chippendale, P. T. 2000. Systematics of pythons of the
Morelia amethistina complex (Serpentes: Boidae) with
the description of three new species, Herpetological
Monographs (The Herpetologists League Incorporated)
14:139-185.
Hoser, R. T. 1980. Further records of aggregations of
various species of Australian Snake. Herpetofauna
12(1):16-22.
Hoser, R. T. 1982. Australian Pythons part four: Genus
“Morelia” and “Python Carinatus”, followed by
discussions on the taxonomy and evolution of
Australasian Pythons. Herptile 7(2):2-17.
Hoser, R. T. 1993. Smuggled: The underground Trade in
Australia’s Wildlife. Apollo Publishing, Mosman, NSW,
Australia: 159 pp.
Hoser, R. T. 1994. The 1993 Orlando Reptile Expo.
Herptile 19:1:27-41.
Hoser, R. T. 1996. Smuggled-2: Wildlife Trafficking,
Crime and Corruption in Australia. Kotabi Publishing,
Doncaster, Victoria, Australia:280 pp.
Hoser, R. T. 1998a. Death adders (genus Acanthophis):
an overview, including descriptions of five new species
and one subspecies. Monitor 9:20-41.
Hoser, R. T. 1998b. A New Snake From Queensland,
Australia (Serpentes: Elapidae). Monitor 10(1):5-9.
Hoser, R. T. 2000a. A revision of the Australasian
pythons. Ophidia Review 1:7-27.
Hoser, R. T. 2000b. A new species of snake (Serpentes:
Elapidae) from Irian Jaya. Litteratura Serpentium
20(6):178-186.
Hoser, R. T. 2001. A current assessment of the status of
the snakes of the genera Cannia and Pailsus, including
descriptions of three new subspecies from the Northern
Territory and Western Australia, Australia. Boydii:Journal
of the Herpetological Association of Queensland July
2001:26-60.
Hoser, R. T. 2002a. An overview of the Taipans, genus:
(Oxyuranus) (Serpentes:Elapidae) including the
description of a new subspecies. Crocodilian: Journal of
the Victorian Association of Amateur Herpetologists 3:4350.
Hoser, R. T. 2002b. Death adders (genus Acanthophis):
an updated overview, including description of 3 new
island species and 2 new Australian subspecies.
Crocodilian: Journal of the Victorian Association of
Amateur Herpetologists 4(1):5-11, 16-22, 24-30.
Hoser, R. T. 2003a. A new subspecies of elapid
(Serpentes, Elapidae), from New Guinea. Boydii:Journal
of the Herpetological Association of Queensland Autumn
2003:2-4.
Hoser, R. T. 2003b. The rough-scaled snakes, genus
Tropidechis (Serpentes: Elapidae), including the
description of a new species from far north Queensland,
Australia. Crocodilian: Journal of the Victorian
Association of Amateur Herpetologists 4(2):11-14.
Hoser, R. T. 2003c. A re-assessment of the taxonomy of
the red-bellied black snakes (genus Pseudechis) with the
descriptions of two new subspecies. Boydii:Journal of the
Herpetological Association of Queensland Autumn
2003:15-18.
Hoser, R. T. 2003d. A new species of elapid (Serpentes:
Elapidae), from western New South Wales. Crocodilian:
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
56
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Journal of the Victorian Association of Amateur
Herpetologists 4(2):19-26.
Hoser, R. T. 2003e. Five new Australian pythons.
Macarthur Herpetological Society Journal Issue
40:4-9.
Hoser, R. T. 2004a. A reclassification of the Pythoninae
including the description of two new genera, two new
species and nine new subspecies. Crocodilian: Journal of
the Victorian Association of Amateur Herpetologists
4(3):31-37 and 4(4):21-40.
Hoser, R. T. 2004b. Surgical Removal of Venom Glands
in Australian Elapid Snakes:The creation of venomoids.
Herptile 29(1):36-52.
Hoser, R. T. 2004c. Venomoid snakes: Silicone snakes
cause sensation in Australia and elsewhere. Hard
Evidence 4(6):25-29.
Hoser, R. T. 2005a. A new subspecies of Strophurus
intermedius (Squamata:Gekkonidae) from South
Australia. Crocodilian: Journal of the Victorian
Association of Amateur Herpetologists. Spring 2005:1415.
Hoser, R. T. 2005b. Surgically enhanced venomous
snakes. Venom glands out, silicone implants in! The
creation of perfect exhibition snakes in the post HIH era.
Crocodilian: Journal of the Victorian Association of
Amateur Herpetologists 5(1)(May 2005):17-28,5(2)(
August 2005):17-28 (And covers),5(3)( November
2005):30-36.
Hoser, R. T. 2007. Wells and Wellington - It’s time to bury
the hatchet! Calodema Supplementary Paper, No. 1.
(2007) (also online at: http://www.smuggled.com/
WelWel6a.pdf).
Hoser, R. T. 2009a. Creationism and contrived science: a
review of recent python systematics papers and the
resolution of issues of taxonomy and nomenclature.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 2:1-34.
Hoser, R. T. 2009b. A new genus and a new species of
skink from Victoria. Australasian Journal of Herpetology
3:1-6.
Hoser, R. T. 2009c. Eight new taxa in the genera
Pseudonaja Gunther 1858, Oxyuranus Kinghorn 1923,
and Panacedechis Wells and Wellington 1985
(Serpentes: Elapidae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 4:1-27.
Hoser, R. T. 2009d. A reclassification of the rattlesnakes;
species formerly exclusively placed in the genera
Crotalus and Sistrurus. Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 6:1-21.
Hoser, R. T. 2009e. A reclassification of the true cobras;
species formerly referred to the genera Naja,
Boulengerina and Paranaja. Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 7:1-15.
Hoser, R. T. 2012a. Exposing a Fraud! Afronaja Wallach,
Wüster and Broadley 2009, is a junior synonym of
Spracklandus Hoser 2009! Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 9:1-64.
Hoser, R. T. 2012b. An updated review of the pythons
including resolution of issues of taxonomy and
nomenclature. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 10:232.
57
Hoser, R. T. 2012c. A new genus of jumping pitviper from
Middle America (Serpentes: Viperidae). Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 10:33-34.
Hoser, R. T. 2012d. A reassessment of the higher
taxonomy of the Viperidae. Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 10:35-48.
Hoser, R. T. 2012e. A reassessment of the higher
taxonomy of the Elapidae. Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 10:49-63.
Hoser, R. T. 2012f. A classification of the rattlesnakes;
species formerly exclusively referred to the genera
Crotalus and Sistrurus and a division of the elapid genus
Micrurus. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 11:2-24.
Hoser, R. T. 2012g. A new genus of pitviper (Serpentes:
Viperidae) from South America. Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 11:25-27.
Hoser, R. T. 2012h. Two new genera of water snake from
North America. The subdivision of the genera Regina
Baird and Girard, 1853 and Nerodia Baird and Girard,
1853 (Serpentes: Colubridae: Natricinae). Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 11:29-31.
Hoser, R. T. 2012i. The description of a new genus of
West Australian snake and eight new taxa in the genera
Pseudonaja Gunther, 1858, Oxyuranus Kinghorn, 1923
and Panacedechis Wells and Wellington, 1985
(Serpentes: Elapidae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 11:32-50.
Hoser, R. T. 2012j. A new genus of Asian pitviper
(Serpentes: Viperidae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 11:51-52.
Hoser, R. T. 2012k. A taxonomic revision of the Vipera
palaestinae Werner, 1938 species group, with the
creation of a new genus and a new subgenus.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 11:53-55.
Hoser, R. T. 2012l. A reassessment of the burrowing
asps, Atractaspis Smith, 1849 with the erection of a new
genus and two tribes (Serpentes: Atractaspidae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 11:56-58.
Hoser, R. T. 2012m. A taxonomic revision of the
Colubrinae genera Zamenis and Orthriophis with the
creation of two new genera (Serpentes: Colubridae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 11:59-64.
Hoser, R. T. 2012n. A new genus of coral snake from
Japan (Serpentes: Elapidae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 12:3-5.
Hoser, R. T. 2012o. A revision of the Asian pitvipers,
referred to the genus Cryptelytrops Cope, 1860, with the
creation of a new genus Adelynhoserea to accommodate
six divergent species (Serpentes: Viperidae: Crotalinae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:6-8.
Hoser, R. T. 2012p. A division of the South-east Asian
ratsnake genus Coelognathus (Serpentes: Colubridae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:9-11.
Hoser, R. T. 2012q. A new genus of Asian snail-eating
snake (Serpentes: Pareatidae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 12:12-15.
Hoser, R. T. 2012r. The dissolution of the genus
Rhadinophis Vogt, 1922 (Serpentes: Colubrinae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:16-17.
Hoser, R. T. 2012s. Three new species of Stegonotus
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
from New Guinea (Serpentes: Colubridae). Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 12:18-22.
Hoser, R. T 2012t. A new genus and subgenus of snakes
from the South African region (Serpentes: Colubridae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:23-25.
Hoser, R. T. 2012u. A division of the African genus
Psammophis Boie, 1825 into 4 genera and four further
subgenera. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:2631.
Hoser, R. T. 2012v. A division of the African tree viper
genus Atheris Cope, 1860 into four subgenera
(Serpentes: Viperidae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 12:32-35.
Hoser, R. T. 2012w. A new subgenus of giant snakes
(anaconda) from South America (Serpentes: Boidae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:36-39.
Hoser, R. T. 2012x. A review of the South American
snake genera Leptodeira and Imantodes including three
new genera and two new subgenera (Serpentes:
Dipsadidae: Imantodini). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 12:40-47.
Hoser, R. T. 2012y. A review of the North American garter
snakes genus Thamnophis Fitzinger, 1843 (Serpentes:
Colubridae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 12:4853.
Hoser, R. T. 2012z. A three-way division of the New
World genus Lampropeltis Fitzinger, 1843. Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 12:54-57.
Hoser, R. T. 2012aa. A review of the taxonomy of the
European colubrid snake genera Natrix and Coronella,
with the creation of three new monotypic genera
(Serpentes: Colubridae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 12:58-62.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ab. A new genus and new species and
new subspecies of skink from Victoria. Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 12:63-64.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ac. Divisions of the Asian colubrid
snake genera Xenochrophis, Dendrelaphis and Boiga
(Serpentes: Colubridae). Australasian Journal of
Herpetology 12:65-76.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ad. Some new small-eyed snakes from
Australia and New Guinea (Serpentes: Elapidae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 13:3-7.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ae. A division of the Asian forest
ratsnakes genus Euprepiophis Boie, 1826 (Serpentes:
Colubridae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 13:8-9.
Hoser, R. T. 2012af. A three-way division of the African
centipede eating snakes, Aparallactus Smith, 1849
(Serpentes: Lamprophiidae: Aparallactinae) and a new
subgenus of wolf snakes Lycophidion
Fitzinger, 1843 (Serpentes: Lamprophiidae,
Lamprophiinae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology
13:10-14.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ag. A review of Kukri Snakes, currently
referred to the genus Oligodon Fitzinger, 1826, with a
division into twelve genera, four further subgenera and
the creation of a tribe to accommodate them (Serpentes:
Colubridae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 13:1534.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ah. A review of natricine genera
Tropidonophis Jan, 1863 and Amphiesma Duméril,
Bibron and Duméril, 1854 (Serpentes: Colubroidea:
Natricinae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 13:3546.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ai. A division of the Neotropical genus
Rhadinaea Cope, 1863 (Serpentes: Colubridae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 13:47-54.
Hoser, R. T. 2012aj. A division of Central American
snake genera, Coniophanes
Hallowell in Cope, 1860 into six subgenera and Conophis
Peters, 1860 into two genera (Serpentes: Colubridae:
Dipsadinae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 13:5560.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ak. A division of the Asian reed snakes,
genus Calamaria Boie, 1827 (Serpentes: Colubridae:
Calamariinae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology
13:61-64.
Hoser, R. T. 2012al. Yeomansus: a new genus for the
slender racer (Serpentes: Colubridae). Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 14:3-5.
Hoser, R. T. 2012am. A division of the patch-nosed
snakes, genus Salvadora Baird and Girard, 1853
(Serpentes: Colubridae: Colubrinae). Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 14:6-8.
Hoser, R. T. 2012an. A review of the taxonomy of the
living crocodiles including the description of three new
tribes, a new genus, and two new species. Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 14:9-16.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ao. A five-way division of the agamid
genus Laudakia Gray, 1845 (Squamata: Sauria:
Agamidae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 14:1723.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ap. Two new subspecies of frill-necked
lizards (Squamata: Sauria: Agamidae). Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 14:24-26.
Hoser, R. T. 2012aq. A four-way division of the skink
genus Chalcides Laurenti, 1768 (Squamata: Sauria:
Scincidae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 14:2730.
Hoser, R. T. 2012ar. A reassessment of the Dibamidae,
including the division of the genus Dibamus Duméril and
Bibron, 1839 (Squamata: Sauria: Dibamidae).
Australasian Journal of Herpetology 14:31-36.
Hoser, R. T. 2012as. Robust taxonomy and nomenclature
based on good science escapes harsh fact-based
criticism, but remains unable to escape an attack of lies
and deception. Australasian Journal of Herpetology
14:37-64.
Hoser, R. T. 2012at. A review of the extant
scolecophidians (“blindsnakes”) including the formal
naming and diagnosis of new tribes, genera, subgenera,
species and subspecies for divergent taxa. Australasian
Journal of Herpetology 15:1-64.
Hoser, R. T. 2012au. Shame file: Recent safety breaches
in the form of fatal or life threatening snakebites involving
government licenced snake handlers, their staff or worse
still members of the public at their “demonstrations”.
Published at: http://www.smuggled.com/BitLis1.htm
ICZN 1991. Decision of the commission. Three works by
Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington: proposed
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
58
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
suppression for nomenclatural purposes. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature 48(4):337-38.
ICZN 2001. Opinion 1970. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature 58(1).
Jackman, T. 2012. A case for splitting up Anolis. Online
blog at: http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/10/02/a-casefor-splitting-up-anolis/
Kaiser, H. 2012a. SPAM email sent out to numerous
recipients on 5 June 2012.
Kaiser, H. 2012b. Point of view. Hate article sent as
attachment with SPAM email sent out on 5 June 2012.
Kaiser, H., Crother, B. L., Kelly, C. M. R., Luiselli, L.,
O’Shea, M., Ota, H., Passos, P., Schleip, W. D. and
Wüster, W. 2013. 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. Herpetological Review 44(1):8-23.
Kend, B. 1997. Pythons of Australia. Canyonlands
Publishing, USA.
Kluge, A. G. 1993. Aspidites and the phylogeny of
Pythonine snakes. Records of the Australian Museum,
Suppl. 19:1-77.
Lee Grismer, L. 2011. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Seribut Archipelago. Edition Chamira, Germany:239 pp.
Losos, J. 2012. It Is NOT Time For A New Classification
Of Anoles. Online blog at: http://www.anoleannals.org/
2012/10/02/it-is-not-time-for-a-new-classification-ofanoles/
McDowell, S. B. 1975. A catalogue of the snakes of New
Guinea and the Solomons, with special reference to
those in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Part lI. Aniloidea
and Pythoninae. Journal of Herpetology 9 (1):1-79.
Naish, D. 2013a. Blog post 21 January 2013. Online at:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/
2013/01/21/tetrapod-zoology- enters-8th-year/
Naish, D. 2013b. Twitter post at: https://twitter.com/
TetZoo/status/314417334787923968 dated 20 March
2013.
Natusch, D. J. D. and Lyons, J. A. 2011. Ecological
attributes and trade of white-lipped pythons (Genus
Leiopython) in Indonesian New Guinea. Australian
Journal of Zoology 59:339-343.
Newer, R. 2013. A Rallying Cry for Naming All Species
on Earth. New York Times, 25 March.
Nicholson, K. E., Crother, B. I., Guyer, C. and Savage, J.
M. 2012. It is time for a new classification of Anoles
(Squamata:Dactyloidae). Zootaxa 3477: 1-108.
Newman, C. 2000. Editorial. Ophidia Review (1):1.
Nikolaeva, S. (ed.) 2012. New Applications. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature 69(3):160.
Nikolaeva, S. 2013a. FW Potential case 3601. Email to
Raymond Hoser from ICZN Scientific Editor, Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature sent on 19 March 2013 12:54.
Nikolaeva, S. 2013b. FW Potential case 3601. Email to
Raymond Hoser from ICZN Scientific Editor, Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature sent on Tue, 26 Mar 2013
23:07:52 +0000.
Ninemsn staff. 2010. Man dies after snake bite at
computer. News post at: http://
59
news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8173894/man-diesaftersnake-bite-at-computer on 1 December.
Noone, R. 2013. Man dies after flood snakebite rescue.
Daily Telegraph. 14 March.
North, G. 2013. Two telling tales. Current Biology
23(6)(18 March):213.
Osborn, L. 2010. Undiscovered species. How many are
there left to find? Website at: http://
www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/PlantsAnimals/number-of-undiscovered-species-living-onearth.php
O’Shea, M. 2004. The case against Venomoids. Herptile
29(2):74-83, since published online at various locations
including at: http://www.markoshea.info/
blog_venomoid1.php
O’Shea, M. 2007. Boas and Pythons of the world. New
Holland UK:160 pp.
O’Shea, M. 2008. Brief history of Pseudonaja in New
Guinea. The Herptile 33(1):31-32.
O’Shea, M. 2009. Multiple posts on website at: http://
pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/taxonomicwar.html#comment-form all dated 18 March.
O’Shea, M. 2012a. Post on facebook at: http://
www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=1231731877
27554&story_fbid=397980823580121 on May 17 at
9:18pm
O’Shea, M. 2012b. Post on facebook at: http://
www.facebook.com/#!/wulf.schleip?sk=wall dated 2
August.
O’Shea, M. 2013a. Post on facebook at: on his own wall
at http://www.facebook.com on 20 March 2013.
O’Shea, M. 2013b. Post on Facebook wall of Wulf
Schleip, dated 25 March 2013.
O’Shea, M. 2013c. Post on Facebook wall of
International Herpetological Symposium, dated 19 March
2013.
O’Shea, M. et al. 2013. Posts on facebook wall of
“Novataxa” at: http://www.facebook.com/messages/
100000474693087#!/novataxa?fref=ts on 1 April.
Pamplin, J. 2013. Darwins Dead Dot Com. Creationist
website at: http://www.darwinisdead.com/
Creation%20Science%20Fellowship%
20of%20Calvary%20Chapel.htm downloaded on 30
March 2013.
Pauly, G. B., Hillis, D. M. and Cannatella, D. C. 2009.
Taxonomic freedom and the role of official lists of species
names. Herpetologica 65(2):115-118.
Perry, G., Bertoluci, J., Bury, B., Hansen, R.W., Jehle, R.,
Measey, J., Moon, B., Muths, E. and Zuffi, M. A. 2011.
The “Peer” in “Peer Review”. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 6(3):i-ii.
Poe, S. 2013. 1986 Redux: New genera of anoles
(Squamata: Dactyloidae) are unwarranted. Zootaxa,
3626 (2): 295-299.
Pyron, R. A., Burbrink, F. T., Colli, G. R., de Oca, A. N.,
Vitt, L. J., Kuczynski, C. A. and Weins, J. J. 2011. The
phylogeny of advanced snakes (Colubroidea), with
discovery of a new subfamily and comparison of support
methods for likelihood trees. Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution 58:329-342.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Rawlings, L. H., Rabosky, D., Donnellan, S. C. and
Hutchinson, M. N. 2008. Python phylogenetics: inference
from morphology and mitochondrial DNA. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society 93(3): 603-619.
Ride, W. D. L. (ed.) et al. (on behalf of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1999.
International code of Zoological Nomenclature. The
Natural History Museum - Cromwell Road, London SW7
5BD, UK (also commonly cited as “ICZN 1999”).
Scanlon, J. D. 2013. Post on http://
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/start-ofquarter-boots/ on 2 April at 6:04 AM.
Schleip, W. D. 2001. Leiopython albertisi (Peters and
Doria, 1878) (White-lipped python), care sheet posted at:
http://www.leiopython.de/en/care/
leiopython_albertisii_en.html
Schleip, W. D. 2004a. Post at: http://
www.herpbreeder.com/ dated 19 November.
Schleip, W. D. 2004b. Post at: http://
forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,521737
dated 22 July.
Schleip, W. D. 2004c. Post at: http://
forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=520074,531946
dated 2 August.
Schleip, W. D. 2007. Website and all pages hosted on
the internet server “www.leiopython.de”, as downloaded
on 24 June 2007 (Note: The site remained essentially
unchanged until late 2008 - see Schleip 2008c below)
Schleip, W. D. 2008a. Revision of the Genus Leiopython
Hubrecht 1879 (Serpentes: Pythonidae) with the
Redescription of Taxa Recently Described by Hoser
(2000) and the Description of New Species. Journal of
Herpetology 42(4): 645-667.
Schleip, W. D. 2008b. Website and all pages hosted on
the internet server after 10 December 2008 to end
December 2008, including revisions at:
“www.leiopython.de”.
Schleip, W. D. 2008c. Website and all pages hosted on
the internet server on 7 December 2008 at:
“www.leiopython.de”.
Schleip, W. D. 2008. Revision of the Genus Leiopython
Hubrecht 1879 (Serpentes: Pythonidae) with the
Redescription of Taxa Recently Described by Hoser
(2000) and the Description of New Species. Journal of
Herpetology 42(4):645-667.
Schleip, W. D. 2009. Multiple posts on website at: http://
pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/taxonomicwar.html#comment-form all dated 18 March.
Schleip W. D. 2012. Website domain www.leiopython.de
All pages downloaded on 8 August.
Schleip, W. D. 2013. Posts on internet chat forum at:
http://www.pure-reptiles.de/
index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1290 dated 19 March
2013-7 April 2013.
Schleip, W. D. and Hansen, R. 2011. Posts on Facebook
wall of Wulf Schleip.
Schleip, W. D. and O’Shea, M. 2010. Annotated checklist
of the recent and extinct pythons (Serpentes,
Pythonidae), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy, and
distribution. ZooKeys 66:29-79.
Schleip, W. D. et al. 2007. Numerous edits to Wikipedia
page for “Leiopython” as hosted at: http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiopython, including the linked edit
history for the page downloaded on 12 December 2008.
Schleip, W. D. et al. 2013a. Posts on the Facebook wall
of Wulf Schleip from 19 March 2013 to 7 April 2013.
Schleip, W. D. et al. 2013b. Posts on internet chat forum
at http://www.pure-reptiles.de/
index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1290 from 19 March
2013 to 9 April 2013.
Shea, G. M. 1995. The holotype and additional records of
Pogona henrylawsoni Wells and Wellington, 1985.,
Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 38(2):574.
Shea, G. 2013a. Email to Raymond Hoser dated Fri, 8
Mar 2013 04:29:39 +0000.
Shea, G. 2013b. Post on facebook at: http://
www.facebook.com/glenn.shea.73?ref=ts&fref=ts on 8
March at 7.51 AM.
Shea, G. 2013c. Post on facebook on 20 March at: http://
www.facebook.com/glenn.shea.73?ref=ts&fref=ts#!/
bryangrieg.fry?fref=ts
Shea, G. 2013d. Post on facebook on 20 March at: http://
www.facebook.com/glenn.shea.73?ref=ts&fref=ts#!/
bryangrieg.fry?fref=ts
Smith, L. A. 1981. A revision of the python genera
Aspidites and Python (Serpentes: Boidae) in Western
Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum
9(2):211-226.
Sprackland, R., Smith, H. M. and Strimple, P. 1997. Case
3043, Varanus teriae Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia,
Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific name.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 54(2):100-102.
Starkey, B. 2008. E-mail to R. Hoser dated 1 Feb 2008 at
22:12:40.
Storr, G. M. 1981. The genus Acanthophis (Serpentes :
Elapidae) in Western Australia. Records of the Western
Australian Museum 9:203-210.
Sutherland, S. K. 1999. Concern over the choice of antivenom for “false king brown snake” bites and a plea for a
name change. Medical Journal of Australia 170:187.
Thuys, T. 2013. Recorded phone statement, Department
of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria, 9 April, 12.16
PM, 3 min 40 sec (transcribed).
Uetz, P. 2001. Reptile database, posting at: http://
zeta.embl-heidelberg.de:8000/srs5bin/cgi-bin/
wgetz?-e+[REPTILIA-species:’Pailsus_SP_pailsei’
Uetz, P. 2013a. Reptile database, posting at http://reptiledatabase.reptarium.cz/pecies?genus=
Varanus&species=keithhornei&search_param=
%28%28taxon%3D%27Varanidae%27%29%29
downloaded on 31 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013b. Reptile database posting at http://reptiledatabase.reptarium.cz/pecies?genus=Pogona&
species=henrylawsoni&search_
param=%28%28taxon%3D%27Agamidae%27%29%29
Uetz, P. 2013c. Reptile database posting at http://
www.reptile-database.org/db-info/news.html downloaded
on 30 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013d. Reptile database posting at http://reptile-
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
60
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
database.reptarium.cz/
species?genus=Stellagama&species=stellio&search_
param=%28%28taxon%3D%27
Agamidae%27%29%29 downloaded on 30 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013e. Reptile database posting at
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/
advanced_search?taxon=Agamidae&submit=Search
downloaded on 30 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013f. Reptile database posting at
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/
species?genus=Acanthophis&species=wellsi&search_param=
%28%28author%3D%27Hoser%27%29%29 downloaded
on 30 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013g. Reptile database posting at
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/
species?genus=Pseudechis&species=pailsei&search_param=
%28%28author%3D%27Hoser%27%29%29 downloaded
on 30 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013h. Reptile database posting at
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/
species?genus=Tropidechis&species=
sadlieri&search_param=
%28%28author%3D%27Hoser%27%29%29 downloaded
on 30 March 2013.
Uetz, P. 2013h. Reptile database posting at
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/
species?genus=Broghammerus&species=reticulatus
&search_param=%28%28genus%3D%
27Broghammerus%27%29%29 downloaded on 30
March 2013.
Van Aken, G. 2001. Editorial. Litteratura Serpentium
21(3):66.
Various authors 2007. Herptile:Journal of the
International Herpetological Society 32(3).
Various authors 2008a. Herptile:Journal of the
International Herpetological Society 33(1).
Various authors 2008-2013. Wikipedia, Raymond Hoser.
Online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Hoser
(refer to versions created by user “Mokele” (AKA
Wolfgang Wüster) and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Raymond_Hoser, see also edit history of page at: http://
en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Talk:Raymond_Hoser&action=history
and talk page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Raymond_Hoser).
Various authors 2011a. “Ray Hoser Melbourne’s biggest
wanker” Facebook page, May-July 2011 inclusive.
Various authors 2011b. NY Woman dead from snake
bite? Post at: http://www.venomousreptiles.org/forums/
Experts/51290, June 2011.
Various authors 2013. ICZN list archive at: http://
answerpot.com/showthread.php?3932747-Auto-homosynonyms? Print out dated 2 Oct 2012.
Wallach, V. 2006. The nomenclatural status of Australian
Ramphotyphlops (Serpentes: Typhlopidae). Bulletin of
the Maryland Herpetological Society 42(1):8-24.
Wallach, V. And Broadley, D. 2009. A review of the
eastern and southern African blind-snakes (Serpentes:
61
Typhlopidae), excluding Letheobia Cope, with the
description of two new genera and a new species.
Zootaxa 2255:1-100 (online paper).
Wallach, V., Wüster, W. and Broadley, D. 2009. In praise
of subgenera: taxonomic status of Cobras of the genus
Naja Laurenti (Serpentes: Elapidae). Zootaxa 2236:26-36
(online paper).
Ware, M. 2011. Peer review: Recent experience and
future directions. New Review of Information Networking
16:23-53.
Weins, J. J. 2004. What is speciation and how should we
study it? American Naturalist 163:914-923.
Wells, R. W. 2002a. A new subspecies of Carettochelys
(Reptilia: Carettochelydidae) from Northern Australia Carettochelys insculpta canni ssp. nov. Australian
Biodiversity Record 2002(1):1-7.
Wells, R. W. 2002b. Taxonomic notes on some
Australian freshwater turtles of the genera Chelodina and
Elseya (Reptilia: Chelidae). Australian Biodiversity
Record 2002(2):1-30.
Wells, R. W. 2002c. Taxonomic notes on the genus
Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia:Gekkonidae) in Australia.
Australian Biodiversity Record 2002(3):1-8.
Wells, R. W. 2002d. Taxonomy of the genus Acanthophis
(Reptilia: Elapidae) in Australia. Australian Biodiversity
Record 2002(5):1-18.
Wells, R. W. 2002e. Taxonomy of the genus Pseudonaja
(Reptilia: Elapidae) in Australia. Australian Biodiversity
Record 2002(7):1-41.
Wells, R. W. 2002f. Some taxonomic changes to the
genus Lampropholis (Reptilia: Scincidae) from Australia.
Australian Biodiversity Record 2002(8):1-24.
Wells, R. W. 2005. Post at: http://forums.kingsnake.com/
view.php?id=976434,976914 dated 29 December.
Wells, R. W. 2007a. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the Class Reptilia in Australia. A new
genus of the family Chelidae from Eastern Australia.
Australian Biodiversity Record 2007(3):1-13.
Wells, R. W. 2007b. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the class Reptilia in Australia. The
genus Cyclodomorphus Fitzinger, 1843 with a new
interpretation of the Cyclodomorphus branchialis
species-group. Australian Biodiversity Record 2007(4):123.
Wells, R. W. 2007c. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the class Reptilia in Australia. A review
of species in the genus Aprasia Gray 1839 (Aprasiaidae),
including the description of a new genus. Australian
Biodiversity Record 2007(6):1-17.
Wells, R. W. 2007d. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the class Reptilia in Australia. The sea
snakes of Australia. An introduction to the members of
the families Hydrophiidae and Laticaudidae in Australia,
with a new familial and generic arrangement. Australian
Biodiversity Record 2007(8):1-124.
Wells, R. W. 2009a. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the class Reptilia in Australia. A new
species of freshwater turtle in the genus Wollumbinia
Wells 2007 (Reptilia: Chelidae) from Eastern Australia.
Australian Biodiversity Record 2009(1):1-12.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Wells, R. W. 2009b. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the class Reptilia in Australia. A review
of the genera Eulamprus and Glaphyromorphus
(Scincidae), including the description of new genera and
species. Australian Biodiversity Record 2009(3):1-96.
Wells, R. W. 2010. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the class Reptilia in Australia.
Comments on the genus Lampropholis and related
genera in the family Scincidae. Australian Biodiversity
Record 2010(1):1-22.
Wells, R. W. 2012. Some taxonomic and nomenclatural
considerations on the Reptilia of Australia. A
reclassification of the genus Lerista (Scincidae),
including the descriptions of new genera. Australian
Biodiversity Record 2012(1):1-361.
Wells, R. W. and Wellington, C. R. 1983. A synopsis of
the class Reptilia in Australia. Australian Journal of
Herpetology 1(3-4):73-129.
Wells, R. W. and Wellington, C. R. 1985. A classification
of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia. Australian
Journal of Herpetology Supplementary Series (1):1-61.
Wells, R. W. and Wellington, C. R. 1987. A new species
of proteroglyphous snake (Serpentes: Oxyuranidae) from
Australia. Australian Herpetologist 503:1-8.
Whitten, G. J. 1994. Taxonomy of Pogona (Reptilia:
Lacertilia: Agamidae). Memoirs of the Queensland
Museum, 37(1):329-343.
Williams, D. J. 2001. Twenty two separate postings by
David Williams on the Kingsnake.com elapidae forum
and australianherps@yahoogroups.com and
herpconserv@yahoogroups.com between 22 January,
2001 at 08:48:29: and January 27, 2001 at 21:13:54.
Williams, D. J., Jensen, S., Nimorakiotakis, W. and
Winkel, K. 2005.Venomous bites and stings in Papua
New Guinea. Australian Venom Unit, Melbourne,
Australia:358 pp.
Williams, D. J. and Starkey, B. A. 1999. ‘Comments on
the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)’, Undated document
from the internet site http://www.uq.edu.au/~ddbfry/
index.html:5 pp (note the url) - “Version 1” dated 1
November 1998 (date only at foot of document).
Williams, D. J. and Starkey, B. A. 1999 ‘Comments on
the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)’, Undated document
from the internet site Kingsnake.com “ at:
http://www.Kingsnake.com/toxinology/snakes/
taxonomy.html (note the url) and later “The Venomous
Snake Forum” January 29, 2001 at 01:50:13: pp.
“Version 2”. (Actually published in this altered form in
January 2001)
Williams, D. J. and Starkey, B. A. 1999. ‘Comments on
the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)’, Undated document
from the internet site Kingsnake.com “The Venomous
Snake Forum” January 30, 2001 at 02:12:58:5 at: http://
www.Kingsnake.com/forum/venom/messages/31762.html
(note the url) - Version 3. (Actually published in this
altered form in January 2001)
Williams, D. J., Wüster, W. and Fry, B. G. 2006. The
good, the bad and the ugly: Australian snake
taxonomists and a history of the taxonomy of Australia’s
venomous snakes. Toxicon 48:919-930.
Williams, D. J., O’Shea, M., Daguerre, R. L., Pook, C. E.,
Wüster, W., Hayden, C.J., McVay, J.D., Paiva, O.,
Matainaho, T. L., Winkel, K. D., Austin, C. C. 2008. Origin
of the eastern brownsnake,
Pseudonaja textilis (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril )
(Serpentes: Elapidae: Hydrophiinae) in New Guinea:
evidence of multiple dispersals from Australia, and
comments on the status of Pseudonaja textilis pughi
Hoser 2003. Zootaxa 1703:47-61.
Wüster, W. 2001a. Post on Kingsnake.com at: January
22, 2001 at 11:29:07 (same document as Wüster, W.,
Bush, B., Scott Keogh, J., O’Shea, M. and Shine, R.
2001. Cited below except Wüster was listed here as the
sole author).
Wüster, W. 2001b. Post on kingsnake.com on January
28, 2001 at 03:59:11.
Wüster, W. 2003. Post on kingsnake.com on Thursday
18 December 2003 at 04:08:30
Wüster, W. 2009a. Post on chat forum at: http://
www.venomousreptiles.org/forums/Experts/42293
on 29 March.
Wüster, W. 2009b. Posts on internet chat forum at: http://
www.venomlist.com/forums/
index.php?showtopic=24325&st=20, during March 2009.
Wüster, W. 2009c. Multiple posts on website at: http://
pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/taxonomicwar.html#comment-form all dated 18 March.
Wüster, W. 2013a. Posts on Facebook wall of Bryan
Grieg Fry on 20 March 2013.
Wüster, W. 2013b. Posts on Facebook wall of Wulf
Schleip from 20 March 2013 to 6 April 2013.
Wüster, W. 2013c. Post on reptile forum UK at: http://
www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/snakes/946483snakeman-hoser-29.html on 9 April at 4.30 PM.
Wüster, W. and Bernils, R. S. 2011. On the generic
classification of the rattlesnakes, with special reference
to the Neotropical Crotalus durissus complex (Squamata:
Viperidae). Zoologia 28 (4):417-419.
Wüster, W., Bush, B., Scott Keogh, J., O’Shea, M. and
Shine, R. 2001. Taxonomic contributions in the
“amateur” literature: comments on recent descriptions of
new genera and species by Raymond Hoser. Litteratura
Serpentium 21(3):67-91.
Wüster, W., Dumbrell, A. J., Hay, C., Pook, C. E.,
Williams, D. J. and Fry, B. G. 2005. Snakes across the
Strait: trans-Torresian phylogeographic relationships in
three genera of Australasian snakes (Serpentes:
Elapidae: Acanthophis, Oxyuranus, and Pseudechis).
Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution 34:1-14.
Yanega, D. 2009. Careers Q and A: incoming member of
the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN) in London. Nature 460:423.
Ziegler, T. and Böhme, W. 1998. Comments on the
proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus
teriae Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature 55(2):111-113.
Zug, G. R., Gotte, S. W. and Jacobs, J. F. 2011. Pythons
in Burma: Short-tailed python (Reptilia: Squamata).
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124
(2):112-136.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
62
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Taxonomic and
nomenclatural
chaos in the
making!
Serial truth hater Wolfgang Wüster in
particular has got his closest friends to
play a part in his planned destruction of the
Zoological Code.
Within hours of the release of Kaiser et al.
(2013), Peter Uetz, had ensured that readers of
his “Reptile Database” site would be made
unaware of Hoser-named taxa on his database
when they searched for a given taxon.
He did however make a brief mention of the fact on
his “news” page (screen dump below).
Improperly, Uetz had also installed dozens of junior
synonyms for species and genera of lizards and snakes
in a move guaranteed to cause instability and confusion.
This is a direct breach of the rules of the Zoological Code!
Uetz had even gone so far as to install junior synonyms
of Wüster’s mates Van Vallach and others over dozens of
proper scientific names, including many proposed long ago
by a number of other herpetologists including dozens of
Fitzinger named taxa from the 1800’s, in what is an early step
towards their planned annihalation of the Zoological rules.
Their game plan is to set themselves up as the arbiters, gatekeepers and deciders of scientific names for animals.
Then they will systematically coin new names for everything they
desire, by stealing the work of others, to give themselves fraudulent
self-gratification.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
63
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
64
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
65
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
66
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
67
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
68
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
69
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
70
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
71
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
72
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
73
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
74
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
75
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
76
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
77
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
78
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
79
Notice: The Australasian Journal of Herpetology does not in
any way support “evidence-free” taxonomy or breaking the established rules of Zoological Nomenclature as openly advocated in this “paper”. The “paper” is reprinted here for the
purposes of procedural fairness and cross-checking purposes
with respect to the earlier paper within this journal.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Publishes original research in printed form in relation to reptiles, other
fauna and related matters in a peer reviewed journal for permenant
public scientific record, and has a global audience.
Full details at: http://www.herp.net
ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)
ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)
Online journals (this issue) appear a month after hard copy publication.
Minimum print run of first printings is always at least fifty hard copies.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
80
Australasian Journal of Herpetology ISSN 1836-5698 (Print)
ISSN 1836-5779 (Online)
Publishes original research in printed form in relation to reptiles, other fauna
and related matters in a peer reviewed journal for permenant public scientific
record. It has a global audience and is widely cited.
Full details at: http://www.herp.net
Online journals (this issue) appear a month after hard copy publication.
Minimum print run of first printings is always at least fifty hard copies.
Available online at www.herp.net
Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved
Photos by Raymond Hoser (reptiles from inland SE Queensland), all rights reserved.
Issue 18: First published on 29 April 2013, all rights reserved.
Hoser 2013 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 18:2-79.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology
Raymond Hoser