The "Hoser review" of the genus Thamnophis...

[chris-uk]

Dear Stefan-A, I am sorry you seem so emotional over a few new names...

You wrote in reply to me:



"As I said before, if someone has evidence that the genus is monophyletic rather than paraphyletic and the evidence can be corroborated, (heard of mtDNA?) then it is unlikely the two genera I have assigned will ever get widely used.



It's still not the issue here."

I am sorry to correct you, but THIS IS the issue!

All the best

Hoser - one of my issues with what you've written is that you reference a whole load of scientist's work, and make statements about the "evidence" that supports a paraphyletic classification, and in the case of Pyron et al you make a statement that disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the authors.... And yet in your writings you don't actually say how the papers you reference support your statements. With a degree in medical genetics, yes I'm quite familiar with mitochondrial DNA, and I'd be interested to read more about the evidence that supports your statements. However, I suspect that your understanding of the research conducted by Pyron et al is insufficient for you to be able to make a credible reinterpretation of their work.
The onus is not on anyone else to prove that Thamnophis is monophyletic to refute you, as far as I'm concerned you've not provided any evidence that it is paraphyletic, you've merely made a statement that you have then failed to backup. Where's the scientific method in that?

Another issue is the lack of peer review of your writings. You (as the editor of the AJH) make statements about refereeing articles, but conveniently reserve the right not to publish any information about who has refereed an "article". You'd gain greater respect and credibility if the scientific and hobbyist community knew that your work was peer reviewed by credible scientists. If these articles have been peer reviewed and the conclusions you've come to are in fact supported by scientific evidence then what you are suggesting is one of the most significant reclassifications of species in recent times. And in that case I'd encourage you to make a submission to a recognised journal (I'd love to read about this in Nature or New Scientist).

So, the objections I have to your reclassification is not based on a personal dislike of you, a hate of your name, or because I'm attached to how my snakes are classified and named. It's because you seem to have a complete disregard for scientific method, and you seem to think that making vague statements without justifying what you are writing. To then claim a right to name anything shows a lack of respect for the real scientists who have conducted the research that you are piggybacking on.

[Stefan-A]

The onus is not on anyone else to prove that Thamnophis is monophyletic to refute you, as far as I'm concerned you've not provided any evidence that it is paraphyletic, you've merely made a statement that you have then failed to backup. Where's the scientific method in that?

There is some evidence that Thamnophis is paraphyletic in the Pyron et al. paper. What's the implications are, is a different matter and I see no reason to jump the gun.

[chris-uk]

There is some evidence that Thamnophis is paraphyletic in the Pyron et al. paper. What's the implications are, is a different matter and I see no reason to jump the gun.

Hence I'd question what Hoser will evidence Hoser has that that justifies a different interpretation of Pyron et al. If the authors weren't comfortable dividing Thamnophis based on the results of their research, Hoser needs to be more specific about why he can justify a different interpretation of the research - presumably, given Pyron et al were actually performing the research they have the knowledge and understanding to draw conclusions.
I also think it would be fair to say that Hoser has had no success convincing the scientific community, which is why he's trying to influence the hobbyist community.

Not everyone that reads his posts on forums will be in a position to interpret what he writes and say "Um, yes. That's bollocks", which means those that do should ensure that our friends aren't taken in thinking that there is real science behind all this.

If I read Hoser's ramblings in a credible journal, or if he is openly endorsed by reputable scientists, I'll have a read and pass the news on.