The post below was E-mailed widely on 04 02 01
The post relates to matters raised by John Weigel and David Williams re
the Hoser snake descriptions.
It is an open letter to the lists as well.
This is a lengthy post.
To John Weigel I still await the apology for your comments re your post
about
1/ Who published the journal the latter description as published in,
and
2/ Your false assertion that I may "poach" naming rights on three
pythons being named (or now named) by Barker et. al.
I will now address your allegedly "new" species "Cannia Weigeli".
You have told some lies in your post re that "species" and I will take
time out to correct them.
The facts are as follows:-
1/ At the time of the Pailsus pailsei description in 1998 - I had no
knowledge of the "Cannia Weigeli" description and nor would it have been
possible for me to.
The reasons are as follows:-
A/ No such name appeared in either of the major Wells and Wellington
publications (W and W) of 1983 and 1985, and the name has never been
referred to in any publications since, indicating that no such
description existed.
Names from (W and W) of 1983 and 1985 are widely in use.
B/ The first "evidence" of such a name (C. weigeli) in existence came
AFTER my description of Pailsus pailsei came into print in 1998, after I
got a phone call from Richard Wells claiming earlier description.
C/ I asked him for a paper, but he could not forward me one as he
claimed it had been "lost".
D/ I got a later e-mail from your self (Weigel) making the same claim -
you will recall that you said in the e-mail you had thrown it in the bin
- do you want me to dig up the e-mail and re-post it?
E/ Sometime later I received the "only" copy of the paper in existence
via a fax that originated from the co-author Ross Wellington.
2/ A paper in the files of an author and effectively undistributed,
unknown and unpublished is NOT and I repeat this IS NOT published under
the ICZN's code, which I assume you are aware of.
(And a notation on the front that it was published under the rules of
the code does not invalidate my previous remark either).
3/ The faxed paper I received violated the ICZN's code on other grounds
and therefore I have quite properly disregarded it in three later
publications on Pailsus.
4/ Had I known of any prior descriptions by anyone, of the snake (or
any other), I would have been the first to acknowledge such and you are
well aware that I have already gotten my nose out of joint by being one
of the first people in Australia to use a number of W and W names (that
were properly published by the pair), including the likes of Acanthophis
lancasteri. Genues "Cannia" and so on.
Furthermore the rules of the ICZN would make it a waste of time to
rename species that already carry names - and you know this!
5/ Unlike yourself (John) who evidently changes facts to suit
arguments, I do not and I always write without fear or favour, even if I
don't like the facts as they are.
6/ Because "Cannia weigeli" is an invalid name, I will not use it -
simple really - and I would recommend others do likewise.
7/ I appreciate the fact that in your post, you disagree with David
Williams et. al. when you acknowledge that it is a different species to
the King Brown Snake (P. australis) and also referred to the diagnostic
information in my original description to do so. So my taxonomy is
sound - even if you claim to disagree with the nomenclature.
8/ I cannot comment on your information about the species P. pailsei
and being found in new locations, such as Katherine, because I do not
have this information.
However bearing in mind that the species has been described by myself, I
would appreciate more details.
9/ I would also prefer further information on your type of P.
australis, that you claim to be referable to P. pailsei.
10/ You (and Mr. Williams) have made a number of claims based on
alleged statements attributable to me, based on alleged media reports on
Pailsus pailsei, including distribution, venom toxicity, number of
people killed by the species and the like.
I did put out a media release on the species shortly after the
description appeared in print. However the claims attributed by
yourselves to me were never made by me and I never saw them in print
anywhere.
If you have copies of such claims in print, I would ask that you fax
them to me forthwith to 03 98574664.
Secondly, you should be aware that it is common for media to change
stories in media releases and get things wrong.
By way of example, I stated quite clearly in the original paper (which
you know is on my website), that Roy Pails DID NOT collect the two
original specimens, but the media reported the opposite quite widely.
To protect him from possible prosecution I had to send a letter to Qld
NPWS clearing him of the allegation based on misreporting of the facts.
Again, I have no problems with you having a whinge at me, but please
stick to the facts. That letter can be posted to the lists if
requested.
11/ Pailsus rossignolli is separate from P. pailsei and C. australis
(King Brown Snake) - refer to the description - and because (so far)
neither W and W. or Williams have suddenly drafted up a description and
claimed prior publication, that name remains valid as well and I will
continue to use it.
12/ Roy Pails of Ballarat will confirm that there was no sinister
motive on my part in describing Pailsus - he asked me to do so and after
an exhaustive check of the existing published literature, I did.
We thought (and still think) that it was an undescribed specis and so
far there is no evidence to the contrary (see above).
13/ John Weigel, I can understand the fact that you are upset that a
scientific name for a snake that could have had your name attached to
it, was not properly described, but I suggest that you get over this and
move on.
Your contributions to herpetology are widely acknowledged and who knows,
even someone like me may PROPERLY name a snake after you some day.
14/ Turning my attentions more to David Williams, I say, that when
describing a new species (or several thereof), it is incumbent on the
describer to consult with other experts on these animals and/or those
who are thought to be. This does not include later self-appointed
arm-chair experts, ignoramuses, liars and those who have other agendas.
It is also a common fact in history that many people have inadvertently
named species before others who were, without the first person's
knowledge also describing the same species and/or working towards it.
Prior to publication of both the Pailsus descriptions and the Python
paper on taxonomy (new species/subspecies named also), I consulted with
a vast number of competent herpetologists, and except for the (very late
case) case of Barker who wanted to put "his" names on three pythons, no
one else came forward to declare "naming rights", so I named them all,
(except the three Barker species).
Had Barker not told me of his work, I'd have (quite properly) named them
also - and perhaps got his nose out of joint as well.
From the posts on the herps lists it appears that there were about One
million, two hundred thousand, three hundred and eleven other "experts"
also about to name the same species, who by human oversight I forgot to
consult.
To the One million, two hundred thousand, three hundred and eleven other
"experts", I express my heartfelt apologies for "jumping the gun" so to
speak and inadvertently stealing naming rights on these snakes.
(David, cut and paste this to:
'I express my heartfelt apologies for "jumping the gun" so to speak and
inadvertently stealing naming rights on these snakes.'
and you can make me look really bad!)
But at least the above shows my taxonomy and nomenclature are OK.
15/ In his last post to the lists David Williams wrote about me:
'You have not addressed a single criticism other than to call people
names, and denigrate their character.'
- I think the above post (and previous ones) show that David Williams
has been guilty of this crime - not I.
I address all criticisms (even if not valid) in the above and earlier
posts, including my paper from Monitor 10(2/3) specifically devoted to
answering all criticisms of my original description.
Mr. Williams also said:
'however your big problem, although you can
take all the cheap shots you want at me, is that you may have a
substantially harder time trying to discredit REAL taxonomists of the
calibre of Dr Wolfgang Wuster, Dr Scott Keogh, and professional
herpetologists such as Dr Harold Cogger, Dr Rick Shine and others.'
Mr. Williams is lying here as in no posts have I attacked Cogger or
Shine.
Mr Wuster has been quite properly attacked by numerous people (including
myself) for his staunch defence of the indefensible frauds, rubbery
taxonomy and lies by David Williams.
Oh and please David don't cut and past part of my comments re Cogger as
a misquote to further your lies - either do the paragraph in full (for
all to see) or not at all.
T/ David Williams then stated:
'Given you claims in various posts about a fictitious article by Professor
Struan Sutherland and Peter Mirtschin (supposedly published in the
Medical Journal of Australia)'
- I am not like David Williams and do not make things up.
The article referred to in my paper was:
Sutherland, S. K. 1999. Concern over the choice of anti-venom for "false
king brown snake" bites and a plea for a name change. Medical Journal of
Australia 170:187.
And in an earlier post you acknowledged it's existence - and yes, you
know full well it exists - and so too would anyone else on this list who
would care to look it up. Thankfully the journal is distributed to most
university libraries in Australia -
David Williams - You have been caught out lying again.
U/ David Williams has an aversion to the truth (see above and
elsewhere).
Following his baseless attacks on my taxonomy, character and so on, both
myself and numerous others defended my position, which has always been
above board.
David Williams also came unstuck with his fraudulently altered paper
that he first added a citation to it, then changed the citation to
further a lie he was peddling. An astute reader of the Kingsnake lists
found two versions on two separate sites and the fraud was properly
exposed.
Williams has now tried to hide the truth by having relevant posts
removed from the Kingsnake dot com lists and the Mark 2 version posted
on the www site.
V/ David Williams is further trying to hide the truth, by continuing to
post lies about Hoser (myself) and then banning myself from posting on
his own "Ozherp Forum" and attempting to do the same to John Fowler's
Australian herps (?) forum.
W/ Bearing in mind that David Williams has already "blocked" posts from
me going onto his list, I ask that a recipient of this post forward it
to that list (unaltered).
X/ David Williams has sent an e-mail to John Fowler threatening to sue
him if he does not remove ALL posts by myself from his lists and
archives. He states my posts are defamatory.
This is a clear censorship of the truth by David Williams.
Y/ Nothing I have written re David Williams and others is defamatory in
the accepted sense. My legal defences are truth and public interest.
Should anyone dispute this, they may serve legal documents on me to my
lawyers at:
TO, Attention: ALEX TEES,
Duker and Associates,
Suite 707,Lvl 7,
Sussex Centre,
401 Sussex St,
Haymarket,
Sydney, 2000, Australia
For the record I have had 49 defamation actions against me over the past
decade (primarily over my books) and won them all outright. We get
costs from the people who sue us. We won three actions last year
(2000).
Z/ To keep the list managers happy, (and perhaps some on the lists), I
am happy to have all posts from myself removed from the archives
relating to attacks against me, Mr. Williams, et. al., provided that in
fairness to myself, all posts attacking my credibility, taxonomy and so
on from Mr. Williams, et. al. are similarly removed.
Yours faithfully - Raymond Hoser - Melbourne.
PS For those unaware of the details of the matters in question, I
strongly suggest that they read all the relevant taxonomic papers at:
http://www.herp.net
namely:
http://www.smuggled.com/newsna2.htm
http://www.smuggled.com/newsna3.htm
http://www.smuggled.com/newsna4.htm
http://www.smuggled.com/Pailsu10.htm
I will also be posting other relevant documents on the www at several
(mirror) sites as time permits.
Subject:
Pailsus, Mirtschin and Cogger, Via Williams - specific points
Date:
Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:55:34 -0800
From:
Raymond Hoser <adder@smuggled.com>
Organization:
AAC
To:
AA Recipient List Suppressed <adder@smuggled.com>
References:
1
None of the points raised below detract in any way from the original
published descriptions of P. pailsei or P. rossignolli, but are answered
as a matter of courtsey to those on the lists.
Similarities between venoms of Pailsus and P. australis as referred to
in posts by David Williams, et. al.
in no way negate the fact that Pailsus pailsei is a separate species.
The test of sympatry with C.(=Pseudechis) australis in the wild and the
diagnostic features as identified in the description override this.
(Recall I did not cite venom as diagnostic for the genus and also recall
studies referred to by Greer in his book splitting "Pseudechis" into
three genera (as known then).
It is common knowledge that Tiger Snake Anti-venom neutralises
Copperhead venom and no one (except perhaps Williams and Starkey) would
make the two snakes "synonymous".
However notwithstanding the above - I welcome further research by ANYONE
on Pailsus - including it's venom.
Secondly it was mentioned that Cogger had not put P. pailsei in his
book (last edition).
Three points are worthy of mention here.
1/ Cogger is a very talented herpetologist.
2/ He is NOT God.
3/ He is human
4/ He makes mistakes
5/ My maths aint too good (above)
Having said this, it's worth noting that his views on whether or not
Pailsus is or isn't a valid species don't alter my views as published.
Furthermore, if his views differ from mine, I know who'll be right.
Recall back in the early 1980's everyone (including Hal Cogger) said I'd
lost the plot when I said Ant-hill Pythons were separate from
"Children's Pythons".
Most on this list would not recall the brougha that erupted after I
published my papers stating this in the period 1981-2.
I lived - and so did the species.
I also recall how difficult I found it to convince him in the mid 1980's
that A. pyrrhus have a white belly, not pink, as he'd put in his book.
Do I hold either against him - NO.
He has "amended" his views and books.
Should anyone produce evidence to show that Pailsus pailsei is not a
valid species and when I say evidence that's what I mean "evidence" I
would obviously look at it and assess it and review my views if
neccessary.
I reserve all rights in this regard - as I should.
But to those on the list who have NOT seen the said species, I suggest
that you reserve judgement until you have.
And yes, based on the posts on the Kingsnake forums - it seems that
those who have seen Pailsus are adamant that they are NOT King Brown
Snakes -
END
Finally, to those who now claim to have "discovered" yet another new
species of "Pseudechis" in New Guinea - I wish them luck.
I know of none and quite frankly doubt another exists.
Subject:
John Weigel - A friendly request to Please get your facts straight before
posting: - see below
Date:
Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:38:09 -0800
From:
Raymond Hoser
Organization:
AAC
To:
Naming rights to snakes <hoser@in.the.clear>
Other recipients suppressed
References:
1 , 2
John Weigel wrote:
>
> A disappointing feature of Ray's many 'new' species is that his
> 'discoveries' never actually appear to be his own. The theft of
> 'rossingnoli' or whatever Ray has called it in his personal journal, was
the
> subject of much work from the labs of Keogh,
> Kuch, and apparently others.
WRONG
Sorry to burst your bubble so soon - The magazine "Litteratura
Serpentium" has been around since year DOT - is NOT my personal journal
and I have no editorial control over it.
It is in fact published by the European Snake Society (ESS)
You should have worked this out BEFORE you slandered my name on a
wide-ranging list - An apology please.
One bit of misinformation down - more to go.
John Weigel wrote:
I was contacted by one of these researchers by
> email several days ago, who is to put it mildly, is thunderstruck by what
> has just happened to his team's many months of work. Careful study of
museum
> specimens and living specimens, and an open approach to the herp
community
> about his progress (huge mistake). Ray, on the other hand, has apparently
> never even seen a specimen of this snake. Ray's claim that DNA work
supports
> his thesis that the snake is a new form recalls the value of the WWII
edict
> that 'loose lips sink ships': The only DNA work being done, as Ray
neglected
> to mention, was from one of the above named researchers working on the
> description of the new taxa. That researcher is sick with the magnitude
of
> his mistake in sharing his information in the normal way that scientists
> do - or I should probably say used to do. Relations between scientific
> herpetologists and the rest of us will never be the same. We simply
cannot
> be trusted anymore. You see, it isn't merely the gross difference in the
> scientific processes between Ray and others; it is in fact the fast
growing
> perspective that there is a very different set of values relating to fair
> play and integrity between the two widening groups.
>
> I note that Ray hints about his upcoming description of three new taxa of
> scrub pythons. The work being done by Dave Barker and others on these
snakes
> is well known to Ray, and if he once again 'shafts' those who have made
the
> discoveries (and are entitled to take more than 5 minutes to rant a
> description on a personal web site or pet magazine and undertake a proper
> scientific study), then I think his legacy in herpetology will be cast -
any
> constructive contributions will be unlikely to mean squat.
> John
WRONG AGAIN.
John you obviously failed to read my Pythons taxonomy paper.
For the benefit of yourself and the others who may be misled by your
comments, in that paper I wrote:
This author had assigned names to forms previously regarded as A.
amethistina
that is found in Islands to the north-west and south-west
of New Guinea,
however they were withdrawn from this paper after it
became apparent that
David Barker and others were similarly subdividing the
genus Austroliasis as it
is described here.
John, had you actually taken time out to read the paper BEFORE rushing
to print, you would have realsied that I had deliberately avoided the
opportunity to post my names on three species that Barker et. al were
working on.
As it happens, I had to remove them from the paper (with difficulty) as
it had been completed well before then.
So before you accuse me of scheming to "steal" naming rights, you should
acknowldge my role in doing my utmost not to.
SECOND APOLOGY PLEASE
PS - If you want to get stuck into me - that's fine.
But please stick to the facts.
ALL THE BEST
Subject:
[Fwd: You may wish to post this one far and wide - What a scandal Williams
has been up to! - From Kingsnake venomous and taxonomy forums]
Date:
Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:22:20 -0800
From:
Raymond Hoser <adder@smuggled.com>
Organization:
AAC
To:
New Species <pailsus@Irian.Jaya>
BCC:
SUPPRESSED
For the mud slingers - The following e-mail sent to me is one of heaps
I've received from people who ahve seen through the mud being thrown my
way since I published a series of snake descriptions.
I have tried to stay above the mud flying my way.
The following post also adequately clears me of the false allegation/s
claiming I have usurped other people's work by naming species -
For the few queries not answered by a defender of sanity below - Pete
Brammell - I shall answer them in follow-up e-mails.
(PS Those who wish to post in relation to this are asked to read ALL
that follows and not misquote and/or quote out of context)
Subject:
You may wish to post this one far and wide - What a scandal Williams has been up
to! - From Kingsnake venomous and taxonomy forums
Date:
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:10:31 +1100
From:
"Hadyn McPhie" <hmlmcphie@dcsi.net.au>
To:
<rajohn1@adam.com.au>
CC:
<adder@smuggled.com>
You may wish to post this one far and wide - What a scandal Williams has been up to! - From Kingsnake venomous and taxonomy forums
Hoser's taxonomy is correct and a plea
for sensibility
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Venomous Snake Forum ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Pete Brammell on January 30, 2001 at 02:04:45:
Hoser's taxonomy is correct and a plea for sensibility
As one of the few people on this list who have herpetological expertise and who has actually seen
Pailsus and Pseudechis (AKA Cannia) side by side, I've been following the comments on these snakes
with interest and until now not posted.
I will declare my hand immediately. I am a Victorian and have met Mr. Hoser through the Victorian
Herpetological Society and have read his publications. He is not however a friend of mine in any sense of
the word.
The primary purpose of this post is not to defend Hoser's taxonomy, although I will do that.
However it is a (probably misguided) plea for decency to those who are peddling what is clearly an
agenda against Mr. Hoser which will probably have no impact whatsoever against him, but rather
adversely affect herpetology in other perhaps more serious ways.
In relation to Hoser's papers on Pailsus and Pythons, they strictly conform to the rules as published by
the ICZN, which evidently some of the people on this list are unfamiliar with.
This means that the names Hoser has assigned are valid and regardless of what our personal opinions of
the man are, we (as others have already pointed out) are stuck with the names â so we may as well
get used to them as they'll be around for ever, (the rule of priority).
Contrary to the bits and pieces of Hoser's papers taken out of context and put on these lists, Hoser's
papers (available online at: http://www.herp.net ) and now posted on kingsnake forums properly diagnose
the new species described and do not solely rely on things like "more slender build" to describe the new
species P. rossignollii.
However Hoser is correct in also mentioning indicative and comparative factors of the species (even if on
their own they are not diagnostic), and the same practice is done by all competent zoologists.
Hoser's latest paper on Pailsus quite properly diagnostically separates rossignollii from pailsei and both
Pailsus papers separate this genus from similar genera such as Cannia (yes â" sorry to break it to you
- that's the correct name), Pseudonaja and the like.
That is not a requirement under the rules of the ICZN, but a long-standing convention to which Mr. Hoser
has merely adhered to.
In fact scrutiny of Hoser's papers themselves reveals nothing terribly new or exceptional in their
preparation.
In some posts, Mr. Williams has accused Mr. Hoser of stealing naming rights (if they ever existed) for
the species, but this has been contradicted by his off-sider Wuster who said on January 28, 2001 at
03:59:11: that:
"Williams, myself, and the others listed are involved in a taxonomic study on PNG Pseudechis. As it
happens, the focus of our interest is NOT the species Hoser "described"."
Thus Hoser is now indelibly cleared of the most serious allegation leveled against him.
And with the species described being properly delineated as per ICZN requirements, he is effectively
cleared at all levels.
It is noted that Hoser's quite proper call for an apology was rejected by his adversaries and in hindsight
Hoser shouldn't have wasted his breath asking for one.
The Wuster post does however raise some interesting contradictions.
Wuster (unknown here in Australia) professes herpetological expertise (and may well have it) and in
another post said himself, Williams and others are working on PNG "Pseudechis".
That comment is even more interesting when reconciled with another of Wuster's posts saying that he
had never even seen a Pseudechis or Pailsus.
Or did he intend publishing a description without ever having sighted any of the said snakes?
If Wuster and Williams have in fact accused Hoser of "bad science", then based on the above, it seems
that it is Wuster who should be in the dock.
Then there's the now innumerable contradictory posts by David Williams himself.
In an online "paper" by himself and Starkey called
" Comments on the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)" they formally declared Pailsus pailsei as being
synonymous with C. australis.
Had they read the ICZN's Rules, they'd know that their paper was effectively meaningless as the name
assigned by Hoser cannot be so simply revoked.
However more telling is a second more recent and altered incarnation of the "paper" which is essentially
the same as the original version save for the tacking on of the following alleged citation:
"O'SHEA MT, WILLIAMS DJ, WÃSTER 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)."
This implies that 1/ Williams is fully aware that Hoser's description of P. rossignollii is of a valid new
species and
2/ Williams is now again claiming Hoser has somehow "jumped the gun" by publishing before him.
However Williams' new citation causes other problems for his own unusual brand of "science".
Besides the fact that the method of citation in this new incarnation is incorrect, (it should have been
cited as "(in prep")" , not "(1998)", as clearly no such paper exists (or did so at the time) and Williams
knew full well that none ever would.
However in his belated posting of this citation he has again shot himself in the foot - probably because
he was unaware of the details of the code of the ICZN.
It's code of ethics (A:2) expressly states that a person should not publish a new name if they believe
that someone else has indicated that they intend doing so, unless a period of more than a year has
elapsed and no publication has appeared.
If the purpose of the belated Williams citation above was to purport to flag this intention (as it clearly
appears to be), then Hoser has acted completely properly by waiting a full two years after the belatedly
cited date before publishing his own description.
And as for "bad science" the Williams and Starkey piece as cited above (and still available on a
Kingsnake dot com site - http://www.kingsnake.com/toxinology/snakes/taxonomy.html) would have to
go down as one of the most stark examples anyone could see.
For the benefit of Williams and Starkey, you cannot pluck a few random statistics out of the air, relating
to unrelated taxa to formally rule a totally different and valid taxa as being invalid, (as you had done in
your so-called paper), just so that you can redescribe it a few years hence.
Zoology just doesn't work that way.
It is also notable that the Williams/Starkey paper has now been posted on these lists (kingsnake.com)
at:
http://www.kingsnake.com/forum/venom/messages/31762.html
in (at least) a third incarnation with yet further alterations by Williams - as pointed out by Neil (and
independently noticed and verified by myself as late as today â" I will post version 2? On this list as
well).
Williams has altered the in text citation of O'Shea et. Al to 1999 from the original 1998. However in his
rush to fabricate new "evidence" he failed to do the same alteration to the citation at the bottom of the
paper - the full citation, and hopefully this error will be forever recorded on the kingsnake forum so that
Williams is not afforded the opportunity to use FTP to re-alter the citations for yet another occasion.
Both were consistent as recently as this morning when I read Neilâ™s posting (Australian time) when I
downloaded an earlier incarnation of the same paper, which had both dates as 1998 - If you are quick
and beat Williams to the site (where I have no doubt that he'll "wise-up" and replace the older version
with his newest effort), you too can see the earlier incarnation of the paper at his site at:
http://www.kingsnake.com/toxinology/snakes/taxonomy.html
(Version 2?)
Other obvious alterations in this latest (final?) incarnation of his paper are the changed address for
himself and an added address for Mr. Starkey, who previously had none.
If Mr. Williams and Mr. Wuster choose to attack other people for their alleged scientific ineptitude or lack
of ethics, then it is incumbent for them to rely on facts and not change them to suit themselves and/or
improperly alter an online paper they have published in a willy-nilly manner to suit their ever changing
arguments.
If Mr. Hoser and any other serious taxonomist is viewing this forum, I am sure they will also re-read the
latest incarnation of the Williams/Starkey paper and be shocked at the way they have made alterations
to it's text without any statement to this effect within their paper.
So while talking about ethics and lack thereof, we have unsubstantiated allegations against Hoser, that
are found to be false and malicious with even a cursory investigation (refer to my other posts), while we
now have irrefutable proof that Williams has engaged in frauds and effective forgery of a document to
embellish his false assertion that Hoser had somehow stolen naming rights.
While talking ethics, I am even further shocked that Messers Fry and Wuster, both of whom I
understand work âprofessionallyâ in the field of herpetology, have tacitly supported the fraudulent
activities by Williams through their deliberate refusal to distance themselves from the continual postings
by Williams, including his now re-incarnated for the third time âpaperâ.
Because EXACT COPIES of Hoser's descriptions as now posted on Kingsnake dot com (and without the
underhanded alteration by any person since original publication) are proper in every way and stick to the
relevant facts, no amount of bleating and whinging by Hoser's adversaries on this list and elsewhere will
alter the fact.
It is also no coincidence that all those who have seen Pailsus in the flesh together with C. australis
(including myself â" at the excellent facilities of Mr. Roy Pails, of Ballarat who Hoser quite correctly
said originally drew his attention to the species) will agree that both are radically different as set-out in
Hoser's papers.
That they are different species as set-out by Hoser is inarguable. The generic placement may be
debated and I am sure will be for some time to come - and so it should be.
And to rehash the point about the recent post by " MsTT" asking Mr. Hoser to " post his own papers so
that there is no doubt as to their origin." - that indicates that MsTT has not been following the "debate".
I can only question that some of these posts by the likes of MsTT are in fact stooges of Mr. Williams in
his ongoing flame campaign against Mr. Hoser and his writings.
Hoser's papers were properly published in "hard copy" first before appearing online and as such cannot
be altered - both journals are available by subscription and yes, I've seen both. To Hoser's credit, the
papers have also been downloadable from his site for some time in three formats (pdf, word and html - all
unaltered and with identical text) and Hoser
1/ Would gain nothing by fraudulently altering the papers as he would be found out immediately by
cross-referencing with the hard copies,
2/ Hoser's paper and arguments within those properly published papers are sound enough in the first
instance, without need for continual and inappropriate "amendments".
3/ I doubt a professional scientist like I presume Mr. Hoser is would stoop so low as Mr. Williams to
practice such alterations and frauds.
It's disappointing for Mr. Wuster to immediately follow Neil's post highlighting the Williams fraud to totally
ignore the fact and respond by again attacking Hoser, when now the real issue is the scientific fraud
being carried out by his friend Mr. Williams, which Wuster tries to pretend hasn't happened and/or been
properly identified.
One can only conclude that if Mr. Wuster is not a direct party to the fraud being perpetrated, then he
actively supports it - and therefore he forfeits any pretence at being a scientist, regardless of his formal
position.
The other alleged grievances against Hoser and his papers are also worth addressing, not so much in
defence of Hoser, but rather to show that his (quite proper) actions were merely following established
precedents and that if umbrage is taken at the way Hoser has done things, then the same complaints
should rather be directed at those who either started the conventions or those who set the rules - namely
the ICZN.
There has been ridicule of Hoser for naming species after family members.
The fact is that the practice has been established for more than a hundred years and is so common as
to be routine.
Names familiar to those on this list include the likes of Sprackland, Gould and Barker, all of whom have
named species after their wives and none of whom have been subjected to the same intense ridicule (or
allegations of "bad science") on this list for doing so.
Another allegation against Hoser has been his naming of new species in journals that were not "peer
reviewed".
This same red-herring argument has been debated at lengths in Bull ICZN over the last 15 years, with
the general assumption that "peer review" while useful, does not in itself guarantee a better publication.
One would assume that Mr. Hoser had his manuscript looked at by other competent experts before he
went to print, and like I said previously, there is nothing terribly out of place in the various descriptions
he's published, regardless of whether or not they were reviewed before going to print.
Furthermore a sizeable portion of descriptions of species known to Australian herpetology were not
published in peer reviewed journals and/or originally published in obscure "in house" publications like
"rec. XYZ museum".
However at the end of the day, whether the papers by Hoser (or anyone else for that matter) were peer
reviewed or not matters little. The only thing that counts is the published papers themselves and whether
or not they stand up to scrutiny. And yes, Hoser's do.
The criticism of Hoser for "rushing to print" with limited numbers of specimens available also does not
stack up to objective scrutiny.
The fact is, that many, if not most, species of reptile known to herpetology today were described from a
single specimen.
It is fair to compare Hoser's recent descriptions of Pailsus and Pythons with that of Laurie Smith's
description of Morelia carinata (then called Python carinatus) in 1981, that was published "in house" in
Rec. WA Museum.
Smith relied on a single dead specimen to publish his description and used that as his holotype.
His so-called "diagnosis" consisted of just one line stating it had rugose scales. Unlike for Hoser's
papers, there was no direct comparison to any similar species or genera.
And compared to the detail published by Hoser, Smith's diagnosis of the species was manifestly
inadequate.
By any accepted criteria, Hoser's more recent descriptions outclass that of Smith.
Now this is not intended as an attack on Smith.
The species he described was valid and the description was valid as per the rules of the ICZN.
Hence the name is still in use.
What this does show is that the descriptions and science of Hoser's descriptions are more than
adequate.
The idea of the need to do molecular biological studies before publishing descriptions is a furphy.
Such is only needed when other diagnostic features do not adequately separate the species and as
Hoser himself has repeatedly stated, the ultimate test of whether or not a form is a species is whether or
not it breeds with anything else.
If it doesn't, it's a species in it's own right.
And like Hoser says, Pailsus is clearly sympatric with Cannia where it occurs and therefore must be a
different species.
So far, no claims of Hoser's allegedly poor science can refute that.
Hoser's description of Pailsus pailsei in 1998 was based on a single dead specimen and a second live
specimen.
Based on the relative remoteness of the collection locality and the probable difficulty in obtaining
permits, Hoser (like Smith in 1981) obviously decided that to wait for additional specimens was
untenable and published his description.
Three years later, no further specimens of P. pailsei have been legally collected from the wild, indicating
Hoser's judgement to be correct (in hindsight).
It's also common knowledge that another rival of Williams, Peter Mirtschin, is still awaiting permits from
Q/NPWS to collect further specimens.
As for P. rossignollii, it is common knowledge that there is civil unrest in New Guinea (both sides of the
island) and that in itself would make getting further specimens from the area problematic.
Hoser was completely within his rights to publish his description based solely on one type specimen
and several live captives.
The possession of a large "type series" while desirable is rarely achievable in the real world of zoology
where species are either scarce, hard to find or uncollectable due to legal constraints.
Williams then makes unsubstantiated allegations against the propriety of Mr. Hoser and at the same
time attempts to elevate the status of his side-kick Mr. Wuster.
Mr. Williams is a "nobody" whose reputation is mud (and that was long before Hoser published his
Smuggled books). Wuster is effectively unknown here in Australia.
By contrast, Hoser is regarded as one of Australia's herpetological greats, along with names like
Cogger, Greer, Shine and the like.
Hoser's book "Australian Reptiles and Frogs" while now out of date and out of print is regarded as a
"must have" by any serious herpetologist.
However unlike Cogger, Greer and Shine who have tended to sit on the fence in terms of herpetological
laws and the like, Hoser has for more than twenty years put his neck on the line by agitating for a more
reasonable legal regime for herpetologists.
And time has again shown his actions to be correct.
This along with his other role as corruption book author has clearly got a few people's noses out of joint
and it is clearly for this reason only that a vocal minority have now chosen to attack his "science".
However, Hoser's reputation or that of his adversaries is irrelevant in terms of whether or not his
taxonomy is sound. The papers must stand on their own on this and fortunately for him they do.
Now why have I spent a good half hour to defend Hoser's papers and taxonomy on a forum like this? -
Especially as I am not a friend of his and believe that he is quite capable of fighting his own battles?
The reason is this.
In the following respect, Raymond Hoser is a man ahead of his time.
Unlike most scientists who publish their works in journals that usually only have circulation's of a few
hundred (or at best a few thousand) and are generally unobtainable for the majority of interested people
including the so-called amateurs and most people who read this forum, Hoser has taken it upon himself
to republish his major papers on the world-wide-web so that the information becomes generally available
to the widest possible audience.
And that's how science should be.
Widely available and open to scrutiny and constructive comment - read "constructive" please.
So far, Hoser is probably the only herpetologist to have done this to such an extent.
What worries me greatly is that if the smears and innuendoes against Hoser's (very professional) work
continue, other scientists will shy away from doing the same (posting their work online), for fear that they
will be flamed by some relatively unknown person whom they may have inadvertently upset some years
earlier.
And this could set the progress of herpetology back many years.
Now I'm sure that based on his past posts to this list and elsewhere, David Wiliams (and his alter egos)
will want to have the "last word" in relation to my post - and I'm not in a position to stop him.
But if I can give you (David) some constructive advice it is this:-
Save your flames against me, Hoser or anyone else who's defended Hoser's papers.
Hoser's now published his findings on New Guinea Pailsus (or Pseudechis as you call them) - Yes, we
are stuck with them.
And we've also seen your multiple incarnations of your fraudulently altered online paper first published
more than two years ago (including some of which actually carried "publication date" at the footer of the
paper). We all note that you repeatedly make mention of your own work, including the citation of an
unpublished paper which you have initially arbitrarily dated as 1998 (see above).
Rather than flaming people, why not post that paper on this forum - even if only as "draft" (even if you
have to type it up now - because you may have lied in the first instance about it's existence â" like the
Wells and Wellington citation in 1985 for âHerpetology of Australia â" 10 Volumesâ, that was
also a fabrication of their mind so that we can properly compare your "science" to that of Hoser's.
And yes. If we do not see such a draft or paper posted on this forum (bearing the names of the same
alleged co-authors) within 24 hours of this posting, we can safely conclude that your above 1998 citation
was in fact another of your (now indelibly proven) lies.
Follow Ups:
Here's Williams and Starkey Mark "A" as posted to the
Venom & Toxin Discussion Group
(note NO Citations in this "paper")
Venom & Toxin Discussion Group
Re: New Genus?? Species??
From: David Williams (oxyuranus@hotmail.com)
Date: 11/1/98
Time: 9:12:06 PM
Remote Name: 203.60.19.8
Comments
Scott,
I wouldn't go getting too excited about Ray Hoser's supposed new genus "Pailsus" or it monotype "Pailsus pailsei".
Essentially, from a taxonomic perspective....I believe that Hoser failed to satisfactorily establish the credentials of the genus novae,
insofar as he has only attempted to distinguish it from Pseudechis australis, and not from any of the other recognised members of the
genus. "Cannia" (Wells & Wellington), is not currently accepted as a valid generic name for either Pseudechis australis or Pseudechis
butleri, and unless he is referring Pseudechis guttatus and Pseudechis colletti to "Panapseudechis" (Wells & Wellington), I know of no
other pending re-assignment of these 2 species.
Hence the creation of Pailsus on the basis of subcaudal arrangements and superficial cranial/general morphology would more than likely
be rejected at large, and most possibly synonymised back into Pseudechis. Infact we will be publishing a short note in a referred journal
before Christmas to this very effect.
The cranial morphology and general "more gracile" appearance that Hoser believes to be taxonomic characters for the description of
"Pailsus pailsei" are infact common to many specimens of Pseudechis colletti, porphyriacus, butleri, guttatus and australis, and also to
Pseudechis warrelli sp.nov and two other un-named Pseudechis from Papua New Guinea (our work in progress). We have also found
low numbers (or nil incidence) of divided subcaudals among both Pseudechis australis and colletti. It might be of interest to note some of
the subcaudal arrangements observed in our ongoing study:
Pseudechis australis: 41s/14d(55t); 35s/15d(60t); 48s/9d(57(t); 45s/5d(50t); 49s/8d(57t); 37s/10d(47t).
Pseudechis colletti: 59s/0d(59t); 42s/12d(60t); 54s/0d(54t); 55s/4d(59t); 42s/12d(54t); 48s/12d(60t).
The latter 4 P.australis are specimens from (1) Katherine, Northern Territory (2-4) Roma, Queensland. The P.colletti with all single
arrangements are from (1) Julia Creek (3) Winton.
The evidence of these examples is sufficient to demonstrate that the use of "single or mostly single" subcaudals as a taxonomic character
for the creation of a new genus outside Pseudechis (or a new species for that matter outside P.australis) does not stand up to
independent investigation and verification - unless of course Ray wants to propose moving P.colletti into the genus Pailsus? The fact that
he has ignored the other members of the genus Pseudechis in defining Pailsus is a fatal flaw in the erection of the genus.
Personally, I believe that subcaudal arrangements in Pseudechis are open to wide intra-specific variation, and hence, are extremely
confusing, especially when used as taxonomic characters.
I would also refute the use by Hoser of a "lack of orange or brown ventral markings and itÙs whitish coloured rostral" as a
descriptive character for "Pailsus pailsei", as we have examined many P.australis with whitish rostrals and supralabials, especially in
Queensland and the Northern Territory, and have also captured, kept and bred P.australis from various localities which were completely
devoid of ventral markings.
I would also tend to believe that Hoser's statement in the type description that: "Having said this, the P. australis from Whyalla (Eyre
Peninsula) SA, are readily distinguished from Queensland P. australis by colour (refer to comparative photos of both forms in Hoser
1989) and therefore could never be confused with Pailsus pailsei, in spite of ventral scale count similarities." could only apply with
accuracy in the event that you knew where the specimen being identified came from in the first place. A herpetologist conducting
taxonomic reviews using specimens of indeterminate locality and/or subjected to fading due to preservation deficiencies, would be hard
pressed to make an accurate identification under such circumstances, and I feel this is another significant reason for why "Pailsus" will not
be accepted in the greater herpetological community.
Although there are strong grounds for a taxonomic review of the genus Pseudechis, and in particular reassessment of several "morphs" of
Pseudechis australis, my belief at best is that "Pailsus pailsei" conforms to being a regional morph of P.australis and might perhaps be
elevated to subspecies status at some point. Such a reassessment would involve substantial analysis of a great many specimens, and
involve detailed phylogenetic analysis of mtDNA and other characters.
Interestingly, Mr Hoser appears to conform to this opinion:
"My own views are basically along the lines of your own. Re the genus Pailsus - I agree with what you have said in the short term, but I
wouldn't be surprised if in the long term there is a reassessment involving the splitting of the "black snakes" As per Greer et. al., in which
case Pailsus may end up becoming more widely accepted."
(Raymond Hoser. 28.10.98. Pers.comm by email)
And in a later email:
"re a second amended description. As far as I am concerned the "description" is done. having said that there are deficiencies in my
description, which I freely acknowledge and I agree that in reality i have done little more than flag a new species.
(Raymond Hoser. 28.10.98. Pers.comm by email)
Comments by Mr. Hoser in an AAP circulated story about Pailsus pailsei, regarding snakebite incidence and mortality in Australia also
require clarification. Several studies have established that the genus responsible for the majority of snakebite injuries and deaths in
Australia, since at least 1981 has been the brown snakes Pseudonaja spp. and NOT either the tiger snake Notechis scutatus or the
mulga (king brown) snake Pseudechis australis, as was claimed by Mr Hoser in the AAP article.
SUTHERLAND (1992) found that of 18 deaths between 1981 and 1991, 11 were caused by brown snakes Pseudonaja spp.; 4 by
tiger snakes Notechis scutatus; 2 by taipans Oxyuranus scutellatus, and 1 by a death adder Acanthophis antarcticus. In a later study of
the period from 1992 to 1994 SUTHERLAND & LEONARD (1995) reported that of 12 deaths, 6 were attributable to brown snakes
of the genus Pseudonaja. The mulga (king brown) snake Pseudechis australis has not been responsible for a fatality in Australia since
1967.
To be perfectly blunt Ray Hoser's statements about the king brown snake Pseudechis australis being responsible for the majority of
snakebites in Australia are completely and utterly wrong, and without basis in fact. To likewise suggest that "Pailsus pailsei", a "morph"
found only in a very small, restricted area of Australia with a population of fewer than 60,000 could somehow be responsible for these
"cases", is ludicrous.
It is indeed interesting to note that studies on the current brown snake antivenom manufactured by CSL Limited (previously,
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories) conducted by TIBBALLS & SUTHERLAND (1991) and SPRIVULIS et al (1996), have found
that the dose of antivenom required to prevent serious effects of the venom of one species, the common brown snake Pseudonaja textilis
was 20-25 times greater than the current recommended dosage for clinical use. This high level of inefficacy against some of the most
potent components of brown snake venom, clearly raises doubts about the usefulness of the current antivenom in cases of brown snake
envenoming. Similarly SPRIVULIS et al (1996) found that a dose of 10 times the current clinical dosage of tiger snake antivenom (also
manufactured by CSL Limited) was needed to neutralise a similar toxin found in tiger snake Notechis scutatus venom.
When the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were privatised by the Federal Government several years ago, one of the first things
done by the new corporate management of CSL Limited was to take a razor to their Venom Research Unit, which was then at the
forefront of toxinology research under the direction of Dr Struan Sutherland. At that time the average mortality rate among snakebite
victims was 1.8 fatalities per year, however in the years since Dr Sutherland and his team were sacked the rate has more than trebled.
This speaks volumes for the hollow assurances mumbled by the former Australian Labor Federal Government and CSL Limited, who
promised that nobody would suffer as a result of economic rationalisation. The clinical prognosis of snakebite victims in Australia will
continue to decline until such time as current & future Federal Governments recognise the problem and commits funds to new research
into the production of updated and improved antivenoms.
Might I suggest that this is one issue which every Australian herpetologist and/or herpetoculturalist should be writing aggressively to
his/her federal and state government members about as frequently and as often as possible, either by way of well researched letters to
the member directly, or openly via your local newspapers. Australian's do not need to die from snakebite, herpers or otherwise, and our
public officials have to be made aware that recent fatalities are not just attributable to the bad luck of the victim!
In the meantime, we can only hope and pray that those unfortunate enough to be victims of snakebite, have the good fortunate to be
treated by medical personnel who are up-to-date with the problems of envenomation, and can tackle clinical management aggressively
and with confidence.
I guess my other point in all of this is that stories such as that circulated via AAP about Pailsus pailsei, which are poorly verified before
release can be tremendously misleading, and readers should take care to independently check the facts before using the story.
Back in the 1980's a very well respected herpetologist, Richard Wells - someone who I knew and admired - and who incidently has
more experience with reptiles, and certainly more knowledge locked up in his head than all of the institutional herpetologists in this
country put together - tried to stimulate herp research in this country by using his position as editor of the Australian Journal of
Herpetology to publish a broad reassignment of many Australian reptiles and frogs. Unfortunately, Richard who was frustrated by
pedantics and petty politics, used that position to "publish and be damned" - deliberately avoiding peer review of the work, with the
attitude of "let the bastards prove us wrong". The consequence of this was a heated and protracted war was waged by professional
herpetologists such as Rick Shine, Gordon Grigg and others to have the work of Wells and his co-author Ross Wellington suppressed
by the ICZN. And while the suppression may have ultimately failed, allowing many of Wells & Wellingtons taxonomic assignments to
enter mainstream use, the infighting, bitching and so forth caused tremendous division between academics and amateurs, not to mention
the damage caused to the perceptions of overseas herpetologists about their Australian cousins. By using his position as editor of
Monitor to publish species reassignments, type descriptions and generic elevations outside the traditional framework of what is
acceptable to the herpetological community and he ICZN, Ray Hoser, might just as quickly reignite those same feelings of acrimony and
division. I personally, implore the Victorian Herpetological Society to take appropriate steps to ensure that work published in their
Journal, Monitor is properly subjected to the peer review process. And 'peer review' doesn't mean passing he paper around among your
mates... papers should be forwarded to independent referees in accordance with accepted scientific standards for publication of work.
David Williams, Coordinator, PNG Pseudechis Conservation Group.
Last changed: November 01, 1998
Note:That date citation immediately above was the end of version "1"
David Williams has wiped "Version 2" - so here it is for you to see Pete Brammell 01/30/01 (1)
To save you scrolling down - here's Williams/Starkey "Version 3" Pete Brammell
01/30/01 (0)
David Williams has wiped "Version 2" -
so here it is for you to see
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Venomous Snake Forum ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Pete Brammell on January 30, 2001 at 02:12:58:
In Reply to: Hoser's taxonomy is correct and a plea for sensibility posted by Pete Brammell on January
30, 2001 at 02:04:45:
David Williams has wiped "Version 2" - so here it is for you to see
What follows is "version 2" of the Williams/Starkey paper from the website.
I just checked and saw that David Williams (or someone on his behalf) had removed it from the
www.
Hopefully the same won't happen to this post
(Note differences in O'Shea et. al. citations and
author's address details)
XXXX - paper follows:-
Comments on the Genus Pailsus (Hoser, 1998)
D J Williams1 and B A Starkey
The Serpentarium (Cairns) Pty. Limited. P.O. Box 1865, Cairns, Qld., 4870. Australia.
HOSER (1998) examined two specimens of Pseudechis australis from near Mt Isa, North-Western
Queensland, and proposed that a new genus Pailsus be erected to accommodate these specimens,
which he regarded as a new species, Pailsus pailsei, proposing the colloquial name 'false king brown
snake'. We are currently investigating phylogenetic relationships within Pseudechis, and tender the
following data and observations with reference to Pailsus.
Few herpetologists with experience of the genus Pseudechis accept the current phylogenetic
arrangements within the genus as being without need of revision and further investigation.
Variation within Pseudechis australis, in particular, is widespread, and WELLS & WELLINGTON (1983)
removed P.australis, P.colletti, and P.papuanus from Pseudechis and created a new genus Cannia,
within which they also resurrected three previously synonymised forms from P.australis (brunnea
MITCHELL, 1951, cuprea BOULENGER, 1896, and denisonioides WERNER, 1909). WELLS &
WELLINGTON (1985) added P.butleri to Cannia, and named a further species, C.centralis. These
changes were broadly rejected, and MENGDEN et al (1986) considered that their electrophoretic and
chromosomal data were sufficient to reject the propositions of WELLS & WELLINGTON (1983), and
formally synonymised Cannia back into Pseudechis.
Recently HOSER (1998) examined 2 specimens of Pseudechis australis from north-western
Queensland, and created a new genus Pailsus, describing a single species Pailsus pailsei. HOSER
relies almost solely on entirely single subcaudal scale arrangement in Pailsus to distinguish it from
Pseudechis.
We have examined a number of specimens of Pseudechis australis and Pseudechis colletti (Table 1),
and based upon that data, reject the morphological characters used by HOSER to describe Pailsus on
the grounds that they are not unique to that genus nov. An essential error in HOSER (1998) is the
author's failure to test the morphological characters for creation of Pailsus against all of the known
species of the donor genus, Pseudechis. By only referring to P.australis, the author fatally undermines
the validity of Pailsus. Our data shows that high percentages of single subcaudal scales are found
among both P.australis and P.colletti, the former being in agreement with data presented by SMITH
(1982) for P.australis from Western Australia, which show a range of 35.7-100% single subcaudal
arrangements, and BUSH (1998) who reports 2 specimens from the Pilbara Region of Western Australia
- one with completely single subcaudals, and the other with only 3 divided subcaudals posteriorly.
Table 1: Subcaudal arrangements in Pseudechis australis and Pseudechis colletti
Single/Divided
% Single
Pseudechis australis
41/14
74.5
35/15
70.0
48/9
82.6
45/5
90.0
49/8
86.0
37/10
78.7
Pseudechis colletti
59/0
100.0
42/12
77.8
54/0
100.0
55/4
93.2
42/12
77.8
48/12
80.0
The description of Pailsus pailsei is in conformity with data collected from P.australis from elsewhere in
Australia. Both have smooth dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody, ventrals in a range from 180-225,
divided anal plates and from 45 to 78 subcaudals, which are single anteriorly, posteriorly often paired,
and occasionally all single (O'SHEA et al, 1998, unpublished data; SMITH, 1982, COGGER, 1992,
BUSH, 1998) Head shield arrangements in Pseudechis are variable from specimen to specimen,
however the data provided by Hoser is in agreement with the accepted characteristics of P.australis.
In terms of gross morphology, and in our experience, a 'more gracile' appearance is a common
observation among many wild-caught P.australis, P.colletti and P.guttatus, particularly those which are
subsequently determined to be carrying high parasite loads in the gut, and similarly reject this feature as
a valid taxonomic character. SMITH (1982) provides an excellent photograph of a P.australis from Nita
Downs, Western Australia which illustrates this point. We concur with BUSH (1998) in the observation
that female P.australis are generally smaller and more lightly built than males, and our observations on
sexual size dimorphism are supported by SHINE (1987) who examined 316 P.australis from across their
range, reporting male/female ratios of from 1.2 (WA & SA) to 1.27 (Qld). Average body size of
Queensland P.australis was 131.8(4.4 cm (males) and 103.4(4.1cm (females).
We believe that HOSER (1998) presents an incomplete and imprecise description of a form of
P.australis which while superficially divergent from other specimens on the basis of having high
percentages of single subcaudal scales, is insufficiently differentiated from other members of
Pseudechis to warrant the erection of a new genus. Although the author had access to two specimens
of this form of P.australis, no details of the scalation of the second specimen are given, other than the
observation that all 69 subcaudals were single, and this lack of further comparative data is troubling. The
admission by the author that "...diagnosis of Pailsus pailsei based on subcaudals does not apply to all
snakes otherwise referred to as Pseudechis australis." is an essential admission that the character is
not suitable as a generic denominator. HOSER (1998a) states "as far as I am concerned the 'description'
is done. Having said that there are deficiencies in my description, which I freely acknowledge..."
In past years, tremendous damage has been done to the relationship between 'amateur' and
'professional' herpetologists, by reckless and ill-conceived taxonomic forays which lacked scientific
substance, such as those by WELLS & WELLINGTON, (1983, 1985) and while, we agree with the view
expressed by HOSER that P.australis is possibly a species complex, we cannot support taxonomic
revisions lacking in comparative scientific substance.
We conclude that the character states relied upon are inadequate and unreliable, and likely to cause
confusion among taxonomists and herpetologists alike, and hereby formally synonymise Pailsus with
Pseudechis.
References
BUSH, B. (1998) Letter to the Editor of Monitor, dated 27 October, 1998 re the description of Pailsus
pailsei.
COGGER H.G. (1992) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Revised Edition, Reed Publishing, Sydney,
Australia. 775pp.
HOSER R (1998) A new snake from Queensland, AUSTRALIA (Serpentes:Elapidae). Monitor 10 (1): 5-9.
HOSER R. (1998a) Personal communication re Pailsus pailsei description to David Williams by E-Mail.
MENGDEN G.A., SHINE R., and MORITZ C. (1986) Phylogenetic relationships within the Australasian
venomous snakes of the genus Pseudechis. Herpetologica, 42(2):215-229.
O'SHEA MT, WILLIAMS DJ, WÃSTER 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).
SMITH L.A. (1982) Variation in Pseudechis australis (Serpentes:Elapidae) in Western Australia and
Description of a New Species of Pseudechis. Rec.West.Aust.Mus. 10(1):35-45
SHINE R (1987) The evolution of Viviparity: Ecological correlates of reproductive mode within a genus of
Australian Snakes (Pseudechis:Elapidae). Copeia, (3):551-563.
WELLS R.W. and WELLINGTON C.R. (1983) A synopsis of the class Reptilia in Australia. Aust.J.Herp.
1(3-4):73-129.
WELLS R.W. and WELLINGTON C.R. (1985) A classification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia.
Aust.J.Herp. Supp.1. 1-61.
1 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Follow Ups:
To save you scrolling down - here's Williams/Starkey "Version 3" Pete Brammell 01/30/01 (0)
To save you scrolling down - here's
Williams/Starkey "Version 3"
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Venomous Snake Forum ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Pete Brammell on January 30, 2001 at 02:18:47:
In Reply to: David Williams has wiped "Version 2" - so here it is for you to see posted by Pete Brammell
on January 30, 2001 at 02:12:58:
And here's the proof of the fraud - "version 3"
XXXX THE POST BY WILLIAMS FOLLOWS:
The paper of Williams & Starkey synonymising "Pailsus" into "Pseudechis"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Venomous Snake Forum ] [ FAQ ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by David Williams on January 29, 2001 at 02:27:02:
In Reply to: And here is the original "Pailsus pailsei" paper ... posted by David Williams on January 29,
2001 at 01:50:13:
Comments on the Genus Pailsus (HOSER, 1998)
D J Williams 1â and B A Starkey 2
(1) Wilsha Holdings Pty. Limited.
P.O. Box 1865, Cairns, Qld., 4870. Australia.
(2) Black Knight Reptiles,
Kennedy Highway, Evelyn Central, Qld., 4872. Australia.
â
Author to whom correspondence shown be addressed
Keywords
Elapid taxonomy; Australia; Pseudechis australis; Pailsus pailsei; Synonymy
HOSER (1998) examined two specimens of Pseudechis australis from near Mt Isa, North-Western
Queensland, and proposed a new genus, Pailsus, to accommodate these specimens, which he
regarded as a new species, Pailsus pailsei, proposing the colloquial name âfalse king brown
snakeâ™. We are currently investigating phylogenetic relationships
within Pseudechis, and tender the following data and observations with reference to Pailsus.
Few herpetologists with experience of the genus Pseudechis accept the current taxonomic
arrangements within the genus as being without need of revision and further investigation. Variation
within Pseudechis australis, in particular, is widespread, and WELLS & WELLINGTON (1983) removed
P.australis, P.colletti, and P.papuanus from Pseudechis and created a new genus Cannia, within which
they also resurrected three previously synonymised forms from P.australis (brunnea MITCHELL, 1951,
cuprea BOULENGER, 1896, and denisonioides WERNER, 1909). WELLS & WELLINGTON (1985)
subsequently added P.butleri to Cannia, and named a further species, C.centralis. These changes were
broadly rejected, and MENGDEN et al (1986) considered that their electrophoretic and chromosomal
data were sufficient to reject the propositions of WELLS &
WELLINGTON (1983), and formally synonymised Cannia back into Pseudechis.
Recently HOSER (1998) examined 2 specimens of Pseudechis australis from north-western
Queensland, and created a new genus Pailsus, describing a single species Pailsus pailsei. HOSER
relies almost solely on entirely single subcaudal scale arrangement, and a few ill-defined characters
relating to body proportions
in Pailsus to distinguish it from Pseudechis.
We have examined a number of specimens of Pseudechis australis and Pseudechis colletti (Table 1 -
*SEE LINKED PDF FILE*) and based upon that data, reject the morphological characters used by
HOSER to describe Pailsus on the grounds that they are not unique to that genus. An essential error in
HOSER (1998) is the authorâ™s failure to test the morphological characters for creation of Pailsus
against all of the known species of the genus, Pseudechis. By only referring to P.australis, the author
fatally undermines the validity of Pailsus. Our data shows that high proportions of single subcaudal
scales are found among both P.australis and P.colletti, the former being in agreement with data
presented by SMITH (1982) for
P.australis from Western Australia, which show a range of 35.7-100% single subcaudal arrangements,
and BUSH (1998) who reports 2 specimens from the
Pilbara Region of Western Australia - one with completely single subcaudals, and the other with only 3
divided subcaudals posteriorly. Clearly, the presence of entirely single subcaudals scales does not
adequately differentiate Pailsus from all species of Pseudechis.
The description of Pailsus pailsei is in conformity with data collected from specimens of P.australis from
elsewhere in Australia. Both have smooth dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody, ventrals in a range from
180-225, divided anal
plates and from 45 to 78 subcaudals, which are single anteriorly, posteriorly often paired, and
occasionally all single (Oâ™SHEA et al, 1999, unpublished data; SMITH, 1982, COGGER, 1992,
BUSH, 1998) Head shield arrangements in
Pseudechis are variable from specimen to specimen, however the data provided by HOSER (1998) is in
agreement with the accepted characteristics of P.australis.
The other character used by HOSER (1998) to differentiate his genus Pailsus from Pseudechis concerns
the supposedly more slender build of Pailsus. However, no quantitative measurements allowing a
rigorous comparison are provided. In our experience, a âmore gracileâ™ appearance is a common
observation among many wild-caught P. australis, P.colletti and P.guttatus,
particularly those which are subsequently determined to be carrying high parasite loads in the gut, and
similarly reject this feature as a valid taxonomic character. SMITH (1982) provides an excellent
photograph of a specimen of P.
australis from Nita Downs, Western Australia, which illustrates this point. We concur with BUSH (1998)
in the observation that female P.australis are generally smaller and more lightly built than males, and our
observations on sexual size
dimorphism are supported by SHINE (1987) who examined 316 P.australis from across their range,
reporting male/female ratios of from 1.2 (WA & SA) to 1.27 (Qld). Average body size of Queensland
P.australis was 131.8Â4.4 cm (males)
and 103.4Â4.1cm (females).
We believe that HOSER (1998) presents an incomplete and imprecise description of a form of
P.australis which while superficially divergent from other specimens on the basis of having high
proportions of single subcaudal scales, is
insufficiently differentiated from other members of Pseudechis to warrant the erection of a new genus.
Although the author had access to two specimens of this form of P.australis, no details of the scalation
of the second specimen are given, other than the observation that all 69 subcaudals were single, and
this lack of further comparative data is troubling. Furthermore, HOSER (1998) failed to provide adequate
comparative data from Pseudechis australis and other
species of Pseudechis. Comments that âtime and financial constraintsâ prevented him from
examining adequate material of P.australis suggest that the description of Pailsus was premature and
should have awaited confirmation
through the analysis of adequate material. This is especially so in view of the fact that a very large
number of specimens of Pseudechis spp. is available and accessible in a number of Australian natural
history collections; adequate
material could thus have been examined with a very modest outlay of time and effort. The admission by
the author that â...diagnosis of Pailsus pailsei based on subcaudals does not apply to all snakes
otherwise referred to as Pseudechis australis.â is an essential admission that the character is not
suitable as a
generic denominator. HOSER (1998a) states âas far as I am concerned the âdescriptionâ™ is
done. Having said that there are deficiencies in my description, which I freely acknowledge...â
In past years, tremendous damage has been done to the relationship between âamateurâ™ and
âprofessionalâ™ herpetologists, by reckless and ill-conceived taxonomic forays which lacked
scientific substance, such as those by WELLS &
WELLINGTON, (1983, 1985) and while, we agree with the view expressed by HOSER (1998) that
P.australis is possibly a species complex, we cannot support taxonomic revisions lacking in
comparative scientific substance.
No-one disputes the right and, often, ability of amateurs to contribute to herpetological taxonomy.
However, amateur status does not remove the obligation to conduct taxonomic revisions in a careful,
scientific manner, using a maximum of evidence, and avoiding conclusions unsupported by evidence. at
the very minimum, any scientific paper should allow another observer to repeat
the observations; in a species description, this means providing precise definitions of all characters,
details of measurements, and a full list of the material examined. Statements complaining about lack of
time simply
demonstrate a premature publication. There are no short-cuts in taxonomy!
HOSER (1998b) appears to feel that making names available, based on admittedly inadequate
descriptions, represents a service to herpetology. He further notes that some such names, for example:
some of those first proposed
by WELLS & WELLINGTON (1983, 1985), have later been found to designate valid taxa, and interprets
this as a validation of WELLS & WELLINGTON'S taxonomic practices. In fact, such a âshotgun
approachâ creates nothing but confusion. The fact that some of the names created by WELLS &
WELLINGTON later achieved
acceptance is due to the painstaking work of later taxonomists who went to great lengths to establish
the validity of the taxa concerned, and not to the papers of WELLS & WELLINGTON themselves. A good
taxonomic revision or
species description requires time, hard work, adequate material, adequate analytical skills, and, most
importantly, the unshakeable commitment to do the work to the best of oneâ™s ability. Those
unwilling or unable to make this
commitment should not dabble with this field.
We conclude that the character states relied upon by HOSER (1998) are inadequate and unreliable, and
likely to cause confusion among taxonomists
and herpetologists alike, and hereby formally synonymise Pailsus pailsei with Pseudechis australis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Dr. Wolfgang WÃster; Bryan Grieg Fry; Mark O'Shea and Brian Bush for their
assistance and comments on this manuscript.
REFERENCES
BUSH, B. (1998) Letter to the Editor of Monitor, dated 27 October, 1998 re the description of Pailsus
pailsei.
COGGER HG. (1992) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Revised Edition, Reed Publishing, Sydney,
Australia. 775pp.
HOSER RT. (1998) A new snake from Queensland, AUSTRALIA (Serpentes:Elapidae). Monitor 10 (1):
5-9.
HOSER RT. (1998a) Personal communications re Pailsus pailsei description to David Williams by
Email.
HOSER RT. (1998b) Death Adders (Genus Acanthophis): An overview, including
descriptions of five new species and one subspecies. Monitor 9 (2): 20-41.
MENGDEN GA, SHINE R, and MORITZ C. (1986) Phylogenetic relationships within the Australasian
venomous snakes of the genus Pseudechis. Herpetologica, 42(2):215-229.
Oâ™ SHEA MT, WILLIAMS DJ, WÃSTER 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).
SMITH L.A. (1982) Variation in Pseudechis australis (Serpentes:Elapidae) in Western Australia and
Description of a New Species of Pseudechis. Rec.West.Aust.Mus. 10(1):35-45
SHINE R (1987) The evolution of Viviparity: Ecological correlates of reproductive mode within a genus of
Australian Snakes (Pseudechis:Elapidae). Copeia, (3):551-563.
WELLS RW, and WELLINGTON CR. (1983) A synopsis of the class Reptilia in Australia. Aust.J.Herp.
1(3-4):73-129.
WELLS RW, and WELLINGTON CR. (1985) A classification of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Australia.
Aust.J.Herp. Supp.1. 1-61.
Table 1 from the above paper in PDF format
- Below is the actual Pailsus pailsei media release by Raymond Hoser from 1998