Click Here for Tortoise Town!
News & Events:
Posted by Scott Thomson on March 07, 2002 at 14:35:42:
In Reply to: Excuse me! posted by Raymond Hoser on March 07, 2002 at 04:23:41:
thought I would acquaint myself with this one. I read your Python paper. I see several issues.
Is it valid under the ICZN: yes (end of that matter).
There is no synonomy in this paper, sorry Ray but listing the available names and giving a description of each taxa does not constitute a synonomy.
A synonomy lists the name; publication; all in synomic order with a justification for the inclusion or exclusion of each name. The description attached in a synonomy is a description of the type not the species.
Ok thats the nomenclature dealt with.
From a systematics point of view you have referred to DNA sequence data, where is the reference to this? If its not published it has not been done. Sorry, but that is a harsh scientific fact of life. You cannot refer to unpublished work in this way. Therefore this is not a character, nor is it a validation of your taxonomy.
Ray, a little suggestion, if you are going to use Latin, learn it. Now contrary to what someone else here posted in another thread you do NOT have to use the Latin language in a description. The code is referring to the Latin alphabet not the language. You can use any combination of Latin letters you like (as long as its not offensive), you just cannot use Cyrillic or Japanese or such similar. So there is nothing incorrect about your names under the code. Its just that when you are obviously using the Latin language it looks bad if you get it wrong. For example you used "ensis" when naming something after your daughter, "ensis" means it is from a geographical location.
Ray, it is obvious from your papers that you know the animals. You possibly have much of the taxonomy right. However, that is not relevant. In a taxonomy paper you are identifying a new taxa, you must present credible evidence that the population you are describing represents the taxonomic level you are assigning it. Nothing more, and nothing less. Your personal opinion is irrelevent in the paper, you just need substantive character evidence. Assessed in a way that leaves no doubts.
Ray, any paper that gets the flak and refusals to acknowledge them that yours and Wells and others have gained are poor taxonomic works. You should be publishing with a quality that leaves critics without a leg to stand on, thats how you shut critics up. You only make it worse when you accuse them of being against you, wether its true or not.
Ray, you know me, I do not believe it takes a University degree to be a taxonomist. But wether you have the degree or not you still have to do the hard work. Statistical back up, all citations, good character analysis, a phylogeny and a proper synonomy.
I believe you are capable of it Ray or I wouldn't give your papers the time of day. You just have to do it.
: Pity you haven't read my original paper as it dealt with all other synonyms for the snake known as Leiopython albertisi!
: Best to read first before shooting from the mouth.
: None of the forms described by myself have prior names and that's why I named them.
: Anything illegal about this?
: ALL THE BEST