|
|
|
RE: Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good Point Riley. The CNAH has published some "interesting" ideas over the years.
Was not long ago they wanted to say that turtles and lizards are not reptiles. Wonder what ever happened to that study ?
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Rob_Carmichael on March 14, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I had a chance to talk to Dr. Joseph Collins about why this was on his web site and he gave an excellent response:
Hey Rob
I know all about Hoser. The CNAH email gave him no credence whatsoever. Don't shoot the messenger. CNAH merely announced that the paper existed and what it did to the taxonomy of rattlesnakes, if someone were crazy enough to adopt it.
Unfortunately, Hoser's new generic names are valid; his publication satisfies the requirements of the ICZN Code and the will have to be taken into account by future researchers.
Now you know. If we had not announced it and started all this email traffic, few would have known, someone might have unknowingly adopted it, and we would have been derelict. Ignoring something like this will NEVER make it go away.
The herp community needs to address it.
So it goes.
Cheers,
|
| |
|
RE: Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on March 14, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder if I can get my infamous "hoop snake" article published there. It also reclassifies all the rattlesnakes under "hoopidae". Long story and a lot of beer invloved if I remember correctly.
DH
|
| |
|
Calm down!
|
Reply
|
|
by viper007 on March 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It’s all interesting.
So far three pages about a paper by a disliked author and except the first post that rehashed a summary, there’s not a single criticism of the paper itself.
That is, “I think Hoser is wrong in this because of that.”
No one has come out and said his claims on phylogeny are wrong or that his estimated timelines for group splits are in error.
That’s what’s needed to kill off the Hoser names!
I think it’s agreed here that no one likes Hoser.
We’ve established that fact.
We know he doesn’t wash. Is he a pom or an aussie?
He cuts out snakes venom glands.
He masturbates snakes. Bestiality?
However, his taxonomy papers have made a mark and this one is definitely no exception.
Reading this paper on rattlesnakes, I notice sharp differences between this and his earlier taxonomic forays.
That’s not just because he’s crossed the ocean either.
Previously he’s gone against the crowd and made judgments that at the time seemed ridiculous.
Hoser’s always the man who goes against everyone else.
His original description of Acanthophis wellsi was rubbished by all including Australia’s god of herp, Cogger two years later, as were his descriptions of Leiopython hoserae and genus Broghammerus for the retics.
In all these cases later workers corrorobrated and validated his names.
Aplin, Rawlings and Schleip, all got stuck with the Hoser names and used them.
Many would say Hoser stole naming rights, but he’d deny the claim.
This rattlesnake paper seems to go backwards and rather than making new judgements or claims, simply relies on some previously published papers to justify his splits and on that basis he provides nothing new.
So the argument doesn’t turn on Hoser’s credibility or his papers, but rather those he’s cited.
This includes the likes of Murphy, Wuster and others.
While these people may be credible, Hoser’s paper can’t even run on this.
The data these people present also has to be credible and ultimately must be correct.
The main paper Hoser’s hung his hat on seems to be Murphy’s which produced several well-defined phylogeny’s for the rattlers based on dna and Hoser seems to have adopted it without arguments.
All he’s really done is taken the logical step of working out what names were available for the groups and then taken naming rights for the rest.
I can visualize him saying, “wow, I can’t believe there’s no available names, I can stick my name on these!”
In hindsight I can see a few other taxonomists kicking themselves for not doing this simple intellectual excercise sooner.
Be honest, Who here wouldn’t want their name stuck on rattlesnake for perpetuity?
Maybe Hoser isn’t such a dill after all?
I’ve read the paper and the references, and decided to check a bit further and see what I could make of the argument.
Example, Indian / African elephants had a split about 8 million years back and were put in different genera.
Hoser’s rattlers, according to his papers cited, seem to place his earliest split at about 13 million years! I think he took that from Wuster.
Now I know rattlers aren’t apes or elephants, but the comparison made seems to run in his favour.
Then it’s got to be realized that when crotalus was first coined, it was a one genus species. I think horridus was the type.
Who here really thinks that the species ravus or lannomi should be in the same genus?
If anyone does, post it here, and with the reasons, as this will be the best possible repudiation of the Hoser names and this is the sort of thing future taxonomists will work on.
But in the end, most people using the names, whatever they are will be clueless as to who hoser is, or won’t care if they do, so there’s definitely no need to pannick.
if luck runs our way, a Hoser venomoid will regenerate venom and kill him.
and the rattlesnakes are the same. They haven’t changed a bit.
|
| |
|
RE: Calm down!
|
Reply
|
|
by pictigaster1 on March 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In the year 2000 I discovered a new species of huntsman spider.I passed the spider off to a known spider expert.He confirmed it was a unknown species.At that time he dreamed of a spider with his name and here it was.He happened to be an alcoholic who lost all the data and the spider.I continue to look for this spider,tho the locality is now posted so I can not return there.It would be great to have my name on a animal.I lack the education to do this.I also read his paper and do agree with his or who evers grouping of these snakes.I think they are placed in like categories ..As far as the man I do not like his method of working with venomoid animals.I also do not like that you do not fill in your profile.So be it.I do not have the education to make a valid argument so I did not.My area of expertize is in keeping and collecting desert snakes.I am not a expert in other areas.I will always leave myself open to knowledge.
|
| |
|
RE: Calm down!
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. viper007, you bring up some interesting points.
Perhaps, you are Mr. Hoser himself ?
The problem is that you have nothing in your profile to say who you are, or, what experience you have.
So, why should we pay any attention to you ?
I can tell by your spelling of some words that you might be Australian or British, and can also tell you know something of the subject at hand.
How about updating your profile so that we can continue, and have a real discussion. It would not bother me if you are Mr. Hoser, as it would give us a chance to see what you really have to offer.
It would be fun to dig into the proposed research, and see where it could take us. I would love to hear an argument from the source, as to how the proposed list was created, and what evidence there might be to support it.
And as far as naming a animal after myself, no, I would never do that. An honorarium is something bestowed by ones peers, and, even that has lost much meaning in resent years, as folks rushed out to name animals for folks whe were clearly undeserving of the honor. To name an animal for one's self is just tacky!
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: Calm down!
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on March 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Linneaus probably named more species than any other person in history...and after all of that I only know of one organism that he named after himself - a humble flower.
|
| |
|
RE: Calm down!
|
Reply
|
|
by TruthHater on March 17, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A few comments on viper007's comments:
1. You are quite correct that Hoser has (unusually) actually gone with the best available literature (Murphy's 2002 phylogeny), circled the clades identified, and attached names to them. So, his proposed (sub-)genera do make sense in that they are monophyletic groups.
2. The argument that because humans and chimps are in different genera, all species that have been separated by > 5 million years (or whatever) should be split into different genera is nonsensical. There is no standard across all species as to how old genera should be. It is also well known that mammals and birds are oversplit compared to other animals - I'd be quite happy with Pan sapiens myself. Especially because it would REALLY p*ss off the creastionists ;-). Anyhow, applying that criterion of age would imply raising a very high proportion of the world's species to separate individual genera.
3. There is no universal genus criterion - a monophyletic cluster of relatively closely related species distinct from other such monophyleltic clusters seems to be about as good as it gets. Since Crotalus is a monophyletic group, there is no obvious reason to split it into multiple genera. If you are happy with Crotalus as a single genus, then continue using it, and treat all other names as synonyms. I suspect most people will do exactly that. However, if you do feel it needs splitting, then you now have a large selection of names to pick from for the various clades, however you want to split it.
4. Yes, some Hoser findings have later been corroborated. However, before we start a "Hoser was right after all" bandwagon, let's look at how often he was wrong. For instance, since Broghammerus was mentioned, let's look at the generic arrangements in his two earlier python papers (1999, 2004). In those, he described Broghammerus for reticulatus alone, Shireenhoserus for regius and anchietae, Katrinus for fuscus and mackloti, Lenhoserus for boeleni, resurrected Nyctophilopython for oenpelliensis, Austroliasis for the amethistina group, assigned timorensis to Austroliasis, and resurrected Helionomus and Aspidoboa for the sebae and curtus groups respectively. Later analyses have confirmed one single one of these 9 changes, recognition of Broghammerus (and then for reticulatus AND timorensis, whereas Hoser assigned the latter to Austroliasis). That's a hit rate of 1 out of 9 decisions made, or 11%
In a nutshell, he fires shotguns, and once in a while hits something.
Cheers,
TH
|
| |
|
RE: Calm down!
|
Reply
|
|
by viper007 on March 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gents were getting somewhere at last which is the (devil of the) detail of the Hoser rattlesnake paper, rather than the usual “I hate Hoser” stuff.
Now truthHater you seem to be attempting to deal with the paper but seem to have got either lost or confused.
At the start you said “So, his proposed (sub-)genera do make sense in that they are monophyletic groups” meaning that in this paper at least Hoser got it right and you agree with his splits.
In paragraph three you seem to hedge your bets both ways by saying ” If you are happy with Crotalus as a single genus, then continue using it, and treat all other names as synonyms. I suspect most people will do exactly that. However, if you do feel it needs splitting, then you now have a large selection of names to pick from for the various clades, however you want to split it.”, which again seems to put the Hoser names as the logical option.
At the moment, Sistrurus are the only snakes split off and it’s rare to see that group called crotalus.
Also for example, after all for the group of snakes Hoser put in Matteoea, the Hoser name is the only available name. Ditto I assume for the other Hoser names.
Your second paragraph puts you at odds with most mammal people, but at least that’s a valid opinion. You are firmly in the “lumping” camp.
More importantly it puts you against Hoser on the basis of where you define a genus. However that hardly makes Hoser “wrong” as asserted by many. At worst it makes him a splitter rather than a lumper.
Yes, we could argue that’s nearly as bad.
Those arguments have been around for years and are hardly Hoser specific.
The end point so far however seems to be that the Hoser rattlesnake paper, even if based on someone else’s data, does seem to be correct if the view is that rattlesnakes as in the generally accepted Crotalus, should be divided. That is, Hoser at least got the groupings right in terms of phylogeny, if a person is inclined to split.
Correct me if I’m wrong on all this.
Revisiting the Hoser pythons papers that you’ve raised, I think you’ve woefully misrepresented Hoser, by claiming just an 11 per cent success rate in taxa naming at the genus level.
The paper you refer to is Rawlings 2008, as it is the only one I know that uses Broghammerus. Correct me again if I got this wrong.
They used Broghammerus, but no other Hoser names and you seem to have added Wells and Wellington names and yet no others to the Hoser list to arrive at your claimed 11 per cent.
But none of this is fair to Hoser as the Rawlings paper did the ultimate in lumping and effectively subsumed all the Australasian genera, including Liasis, Leiopython, Antaresis and so on, including even Aspidites to put them into a single giant “morelia” clade.
That’s put Hoser in an even lower percentage and even eliminate the people who named these other long established genera such as Aspidites!
Rawlings rediagnosed Broghammerus as just one of three major clades of pythons.
The mere non-use of the other available names for genera in that paper don’t make the Hoser-used names or the others like Liasis “wrong”.
In fact the most important bits of data by Rawlings actually confirms the Hoser position as seen on page 614 of the paper.
In his 2000 paper Hoser assigned the names Lenhoserus and katrinus ostensibly to be consistent with the other groups like the Wells and Wellington and other pre-existing groups.
Hoser did define where he was setting his genus parameters.
The phylogeny presented by Rawlings (page 614 top) shows all the splits ascribed by Hoser as being in excess of 20 million years and the groups effectively monophyletic past that point.
The Hoser genus Lenhoserus is for example more secure and better defined than the commonly (and still used by Schleip at end 2008) genus Leiopython, the least secure of the lot, as well as Antaresia, now in general use and so on.
Katrinus is of similar depth to Antaresia and so on the basis of the known phylogeny and so is consistent.
In other words if anyone chooses to recognize Leiopython or Antaresia, then Katrinus and Lenhoserus become mandatory on the Rawlings phylogeny.
The paper’s on the web, but the simple calculation can be made from drawing a line at the 20 million year mark with all the Hoser defined genera falling behind or older and consistent.
Hoser was radical in sinking Kluge’s Apodora, and yet it was effectively corroborated by the Rawlings paper.
You have ignored that one as well, if you seek to define Hoser’s successes or failures in terms of his propositions.
Also bear in mind, most taxonomic changes at higher levels seem to get resistance, especially from others who have previously inspected the said group.
There’s another point you’ve missed.
Many an eminent herpetologist has published a paper on python phylogeny. McDowell, Underwood and Stimson and Kluge, all eminent and all predating Hoser’s 2000/2004 papers.
And yet based on the Rawlings phylogeny, Hoser’s is by far the closest match in terms of constancy and defined genera and the only one with the foresight to recognize Broghammerus as distinct from the rest.
How is it that a supposed idiot like Hoser can somehow eclipse the world’s best?
Maybe he has actually been out in the field and elsewhere and looked at the animals?
Also of note is the papers by Schelip and Hoser on Leiopython. Both recognize the Hoser’s Python as in Leiopython hoserae as a valid taxon. But Hoser claims Schleip has no evidence to support his claim of the northern white-lipped pythons being split into various species.
On Schleips website he admits he never did the DNA on the said snakes due to an apparent lack of money, which as Hoser points out not what’s either stated or inferred in Schleip’s 2008 paper, stating he did do the DNA.
TruthHater, can you please tell us which of the pair you think is correct in terms of the northern leiopython and why.
Is there just one species or at least four as Schleip contends?
Also, if you can, could you give us a list of sorts of how you’d place the pythons in terms of genera for the widely recognized species.
If anyone else can add to all this, please do.
After all, there may be several completely sensible options to choose from.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
|
|
