mobile - desktop
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by Paul Hackett on October 28, 2002 at 20:40:54:
Thanks to the lot of you for posting the various bits and pieces re this new taxa.
Having spoken to people here in Oz with hands on experience, the consenus is that Hoser's name is legit under the ICZN's code and therefore we're stuck with it.
It's also interesting to note some of banal comments by WW, DW and RM who seem to have an obsession with Hoser.
Firstly, RM, species and subspecies are not the same thing. I suggest you take a rudumentary course in taxonomy and nomenclature.
DW, your references to Slater's description was curious. Slater provided NO quantitative data separating the New Guinea and Australian Taipans, merely citing distribution as the reason to separate the two.
If Slater can do this, why not Hoser?
Maybe it's abias on your part.
None of this was surprising as Slater noted he didn't even look at ANY Australian Taipans.
WW, you seem to have mixed up taxonomy and nomenclature and perhaps you should take a course in both as well.
Citing articles from the code in alleged support of your argument gets you nowhere as well.
You conceded Hoser published a diagnosis for the taxa barringeri and then go on to claim that it fails to convince you it's different, and then claim the name barringeri is nomen nudem.
The code expressly forbids this, both in the preabmle and in the articles you cited but then chose not to quote.
because they destroyed your case.
The relevent section states that the diagnosis only needs to purport to tell the differences.
Thus, if Hoser's diagnosis is in fact inadequate as you contend, then should anyone else later find Hoser's division correct, they are duty bound under the rule of priority to use the name.
You WW, I am sure, know this.
But then again, you own motives must be questioned.
Checking the EMBL database I saw that as of today's date, you were still claiming Acanthophis wellsi is not valid and likewise for Hoser's pailsus pailsei, which you are again claiming is merely Pseudechis australis.
Sorry mate, but the DNA's in for them already and Hoser got a hole in one for them too!
Looks like you'll be stuck with Oxyuranus scutellatus barringeri Hoser, like it or not and no amount of bleating and psuedoscience will alter the reality.
Perhaps some proper information instead of misinformation would be in order.