I came by this paper today by Kaiser et al. on herp taxonomy run wild (mostly by Hoser and Wells). I don't think they have a single authority like AFS to set nomenclature, but I think the fish community would benefit itself by looking at what is happening with the herp community. I've always been intrigued by the common use of subspecies when it comes to snakes (the Morelia spilota and Lampropeltis getula complexes come to mind). Many of the snake subspecies, if fish, would be given species status in a heartbeat. Anyway, enjoy.
http://www.markoshea...Peer-Review.pdf
Herp Taxonomy paper relevant to the fish world
Started by
Guest_rjmtx_*
, Mar 20 2013 08:51 AM
17 replies to this topic
#3
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:23 PM
Many of the snake subspecies, if fish, would be given species status in a heartbeat.
I don't know -- I'm sure snakes have much better dispersal capabilities than some darter blocked by a huge river to hop drainages. Also, the color patterns usually never line up with genetic clades in snakes (look at Pantherophis vulpinus gloydi and P. v. vulpinus). I thought the elevation of the Pantherophis obsoletus subspecies were legit until I saw this photo: http://www.flickr.co...kii/3115281917/
I guess the Apalachicola River ain't no thang for a male to cross, which is what they used to demarcate two species (P. alleghaniensis and P. spiloides).
Edited by blakemarkwell, 20 March 2013 - 04:48 PM.
#4
Guest_mzokan_*
Guest_mzokan_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:25 PM
Some of the things in herp taxonomy are a bit questionable recently (rat snakes). There seems to be an over reliance on mitochondrial clades and failing to collect across zones where different "species" or subspecies overlap or intergrade. The genetic data doesn't match morphological differences, which reminds me of human genetics where genetic distinctions often don't follow racial/ethnic differences, which suggests to me its all one variable species with some population structure.
#6
Guest_mzokan_*
Guest_mzokan_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:12 PM
It remains in Pantherophis, vulpinus was split due to mithochondrial data, but it turns out other genetic data do not match, so all populations are still P. vulpinus. I did not mean to restrict my criticism to herps, as I see it plenty in ichthyological work too.
#9
Guest_snakeman_*
Guest_snakeman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:42 AM
Dear all, yes, there is complete and utter taxonomic chaos and anarchy going on in the reptile world at the moment and the source of it all is Mark O’Shea and his mates.
In one foul swoop they seek to override the established rules of the ICZN (including priority) and try to run a global boycott of about 300 established names and rename species as they see fit and without any evidence.
This is seen in the “hit list” they published with their ”paper” known as Kaiser et al. 2013.
Including transfer of species in genus Eulamprus to Lampropholis, (without explanation or evidence, see their table one) which for you fishos is like sticking a shark in a genus of Gobies!
They have been trying to engineer a boycott of my scientific names in one form or other since 1998 and got nowhere, but this is clearly their most deperate effort yet and I suppose born of a few years too many seeing their false claims of “non-taxa” being exposed and the names they hate, coming into common use – e.g. Broghammerus Hoser, 2004.
Anyway a bit of interesting information easily verified below is given so you can see the sort of person O’Shea really is:
PLAGIARISATION BY 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, cross referenced with O’Shea 2007, p. 148, which is a book by O’Shea covering Boas and Pythons.
In the former publication O’Shea condemns the Hoser 2000 original description of the species Leiopython hoserae, formerly regarded as a variant of L. albertisi.
In O’Shea 2007, he refers to it as an obviously distinct and separate species! But instead calls it Leiopython sp. making a point of not in any way citing the Hoser 2000 paper.
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.
I haven’t publicly mentioned this act of plagiarization until now, but in the wake of a 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!
By the way of you Google Leiopython hoserae you will see it is recognized by pretty much everyone in the world except O’Shea!
MORE CASES EXIST!
In one foul swoop they seek to override the established rules of the ICZN (including priority) and try to run a global boycott of about 300 established names and rename species as they see fit and without any evidence.
This is seen in the “hit list” they published with their ”paper” known as Kaiser et al. 2013.
Including transfer of species in genus Eulamprus to Lampropholis, (without explanation or evidence, see their table one) which for you fishos is like sticking a shark in a genus of Gobies!
They have been trying to engineer a boycott of my scientific names in one form or other since 1998 and got nowhere, but this is clearly their most deperate effort yet and I suppose born of a few years too many seeing their false claims of “non-taxa” being exposed and the names they hate, coming into common use – e.g. Broghammerus Hoser, 2004.
Anyway a bit of interesting information easily verified below is given so you can see the sort of person O’Shea really is:
PLAGIARISATION BY 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, cross referenced with O’Shea 2007, p. 148, which is a book by O’Shea covering Boas and Pythons.
In the former publication O’Shea condemns the Hoser 2000 original description of the species Leiopython hoserae, formerly regarded as a variant of L. albertisi.
In O’Shea 2007, he refers to it as an obviously distinct and separate species! But instead calls it Leiopython sp. making a point of not in any way citing the Hoser 2000 paper.
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.
I haven’t publicly mentioned this act of plagiarization until now, but in the wake of a 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!
By the way of you Google Leiopython hoserae you will see it is recognized by pretty much everyone in the world except O’Shea!
MORE CASES EXIST!
#14
Guest_snakeman_*
Guest_snakeman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 April 2013 - 12:35 AM
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.
However as already mentioned, 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 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 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 eight listed authors of Kaiser et al. or those people who allegedly blindly followed them by endorsing the fatally flawed document.
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.
However as already mentioned, 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 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 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 eight listed authors of Kaiser et al. or those people who allegedly blindly followed them by endorsing the fatally flawed document.
#15
Guest_Dan Johnson_*
Guest_Dan Johnson_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 April 2013 - 11:25 AM
Raymond, from what is said in the Kaiser article, it appears that most of your taxonomic works have recently been all published in your own journal and without peer review. I'm curious why you chose to publish your works this way. It seems like your works would not have been criticized so much if they had been successfully published in a peer reviewed taxonomic journal.
#16
Guest_snakeman_*
Guest_snakeman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:11 PM
Dan wrote:
“Raymond, from what is said in the Kaiser article, it appears that most of your taxonomic works have recently been all published in your own journal and without peer review.”
Fair question, but unfortunately one based on a false statement. Facts are 1/ AJH IS published by myself and 2/ It is also subject to what is probably the strictest peer review in the business!
By contrast and not disclosed by the authors of Kaiser et al. is that one of the authors (Schleip) edits the journal (Herp Review) that he published the article in.
Furthermore, based on the same copy of that paper from 2012 (before submission to the journal), as circulated by Kaiser (published unedited by Hoser in AJH Issue 14 in 2012), it is seen there has been no review of any real sort of the paper before it was printed in 2013, save for the removal of all reference to Bill McCord, after he got his lawyers onto Kaiser.
That there was no peer review of any sort is seen in the blind printing of (acceptance) of evidence-free taxonomic judgments, including the placement of skinks from the genus Eulamprus into Lampropholis, which for you fishos would be like shoving a Goby into a genus of sharks!
It is also relevant, but not disclosed that Schleip and Kaiser are close friends of Hansen (editor of Herp Review) and based on correspondence between then as far back as 2011, they had planned on a hatchet job against me, knowing they had a free reign to print what they wanted in Herp Review.
There is a strong difference between claimed peer review that is a charade and peer review that actually works as an effective form of quality control.
Unfortunately Herp Review falls in the first category.
Finally, as to why I have my own journal and books, it is for the same reason I now publish my own books.
My earlier publications (including my first three books and papers) all published by commercial or other enterprises sold well and made considerable profits for the publishers and/or gave the relevant journals wanted profile with what they saw as definitive papers, which was not a bad thing.
However I decided that it was advantageous to have control over my IP (Intellectual property) and as a commercial decision, I have chosen to go down that path.
In terms of the books in particular (and the journals), the correctness of the decision has been a no-brainer, easily seen by the number of copies we disseminate.
I am not alone in terms of the above.
I am still regularly approached to submit and publish elsewhere and in theory still do, but time factors generally preclude this at the present time.
All the best
“Raymond, from what is said in the Kaiser article, it appears that most of your taxonomic works have recently been all published in your own journal and without peer review.”
Fair question, but unfortunately one based on a false statement. Facts are 1/ AJH IS published by myself and 2/ It is also subject to what is probably the strictest peer review in the business!
By contrast and not disclosed by the authors of Kaiser et al. is that one of the authors (Schleip) edits the journal (Herp Review) that he published the article in.
Furthermore, based on the same copy of that paper from 2012 (before submission to the journal), as circulated by Kaiser (published unedited by Hoser in AJH Issue 14 in 2012), it is seen there has been no review of any real sort of the paper before it was printed in 2013, save for the removal of all reference to Bill McCord, after he got his lawyers onto Kaiser.
That there was no peer review of any sort is seen in the blind printing of (acceptance) of evidence-free taxonomic judgments, including the placement of skinks from the genus Eulamprus into Lampropholis, which for you fishos would be like shoving a Goby into a genus of sharks!
It is also relevant, but not disclosed that Schleip and Kaiser are close friends of Hansen (editor of Herp Review) and based on correspondence between then as far back as 2011, they had planned on a hatchet job against me, knowing they had a free reign to print what they wanted in Herp Review.
There is a strong difference between claimed peer review that is a charade and peer review that actually works as an effective form of quality control.
Unfortunately Herp Review falls in the first category.
Finally, as to why I have my own journal and books, it is for the same reason I now publish my own books.
My earlier publications (including my first three books and papers) all published by commercial or other enterprises sold well and made considerable profits for the publishers and/or gave the relevant journals wanted profile with what they saw as definitive papers, which was not a bad thing.
However I decided that it was advantageous to have control over my IP (Intellectual property) and as a commercial decision, I have chosen to go down that path.
In terms of the books in particular (and the journals), the correctness of the decision has been a no-brainer, easily seen by the number of copies we disseminate.
I am not alone in terms of the above.
I am still regularly approached to submit and publish elsewhere and in theory still do, but time factors generally preclude this at the present time.
All the best
#18
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:48 PM
I dunno, this is a look into how the sausage is made. Herps or fish, lots of people here are curious how the meat grinder deals with new species. Sure it's not directly relevant to NA native fishes but it's providing a forum for at least one side at the moment.
Then again, I tend to prefer open format forums...perhaps that's just me.
Then again, I tend to prefer open format forums...perhaps that's just me.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
