Resurrected again!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]

Posted by Raymond Hoser on April 01, 2002 at 17:13:58:

In Reply to: Re: Pailsus pailsei - the "Underfed King Brown" resurrected!!! posted by Scott Eipper on April 01, 2002 at 07:02:40:

Your right - see below,
but Scott you've failed to see why I have to repeat myself every other week.
I am merely correcting the continual misinformation by WW and others.
Surely the barbs should be put their way and they should be asked to stop their repetitive attacks!
Happy herping.
And that's why I'll take leave from here for a while.
ALL THE BEST
: Ray,

: I don't see how you are correcting Bryan.

: He never with this last group of posts that P. pailsei is not a valid species. He just believes that they should be included within the same genus as Cannia (Pseudechis) australis and Cannia butleri. I personally hold the same view as yourself and feel that they are to far apart to be within the same genus, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

: I and I am sure most others on this forum and others (elapidae and Venomous) have heard what you say about the Williams aand Starkey papers etc and while I agree with most of your concusions I don't think we need to hear it every other week.

: Regards,

: Scott Eipper.

: P.S check your email..I will send that Wilcannia stuff tonight.

Papers on Australian herp taxonomy

Follow Ups:

The clown is Back! n/p Jude 04/04/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Your right - see below, : but Scott you've failed to see why I have to repeat myself every other week. : I am merely correcting the continual misinformation by WW and others. : Surely the barbs should be put their way and they should be asked to stop their repetitive attacks! : Happy herping. : And that's why I'll take leave from here for a while. : ALL THE BEST : : Ray, : : I don't see how you are correcting Bryan. : : He never with this last group of posts that P. pailsei is not a valid species. He just believes that they should be included within the same genus as Cannia (Pseudechis) australis and Cannia butleri. I personally hold the same view as yourself and feel that they are to far apart to be within the same genus, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. : : I and I am sure most others on this forum and others (elapidae and Venomous) have heard what you say about the Williams aand Starkey papers etc and while I agree with most of your concusions I don't think we need to hear it every other week. : : Regards, : : Scott Eipper. : : P.S check your email..I will send that Wilcannia stuff tonight.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]