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

[chris-uk]

Look, I drew a house. I guess that makes me a freelance architect.





Let's leave science to the scientists, shall we?

Stefan, do you take commissions? I'd like to build a house and have every confidence that with your architecture skills it wouldn't fall down. You'd have to be willing to work with my neighbour, she fancies trying a new career in house building (she works as an educational administration manager at the moment, but must have some transferable skills).

[gregmonsta]

I want a 'love' button for this thread .

I've read many papers on Thamnophis. Some represent great summary work with inclusive referencing and direct exemplification of evidence.
Classification does suffer from 'too many cooks spoil the broth' idiomatic syndrome. Until we do actually know, I think well should be left alone instead of just re-classifying for the sheer Hell of it!

[thesnakeman]

Dear all, at age 50 with a science background and over 40 years verifiable expertise with snakes, I have some qualifications to publish on snakes.
As for claims I named too many species, well I have done a few dozen, versus for example 900 odd by the late Mr Cope, or over 500 by Mr Boulenger and similar numbers to these by the likes of Wells, Gray, Fitzinger and Gunther.
And for what it's worth, besides those genera inspected in the latest issues of AJH Issues 13 and 14, I can say there are at least 30 more I have not dissected which are clearly paraphyletic and will be broken up by someone else in the not too distant future based on already existing molecular and morphological data.
Anyway, one of the previous posters here wrote:
"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"
is in error.
Pyron et. al. stated point blank that Thamnophis, Crotalus and other genera were paraphyletic, in those exact words.
They were not looking at busting up genera or what pre-existing names were available for such (if any), which is a different and time consuming exercise as compared to what they were doing.
That's what I did!
Instead they (Pyron and co) were more concerned with higher family level taxonomy.
Anyway I've uploaded a recent phylogeny in relation to another new genus, Rentonus, due to the fact that they are commonly sold as Garter snakes.
All the best
Rentonus-Guo-Cut.jpg

[gregmonsta]

That's what I did!
Instead they (Pyron and co) were more concerned with higher family level taxonomy.
Anyway I've uploaded a recent phylogeny in relation to another new genus, Rentonus, due to the fact that they are commonly sold as Garter snakes.
All the best
Rentonus-Guo-Cut.jpg

These are asian 'garter snakes' only sold as such by ignorant shop keepers and has nothing at all to do with Thamnophis in the first place. This use of the mistaken 'common name' of the 'Keelbacks' does nothing for your argument on the subject of Thamnophis.

[Stefan-A]

Dear all, at age 50 with a science background and over 40 years verifiable expertise with snakes, I have some qualifications to publish on snakes.

And I have an engineering background, doesn't mean I'm qualified to publish on every aspect of engineering, either.

Anyway, one of the previous posters here wrote:
"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"
is in error.
Pyron et. al. stated point blank that Thamnophis, Crotalus and other genera were paraphyletic, in those exact words.

I quoted them earlier.

Anyway I've uploaded a recent phylogeny in relation to another new genus, Rentonus, due to the fact that they are commonly sold as Garter snakes.
All the best
Rentonus-Guo-Cut.jpg

And I just drew another house.

[chris-uk]

<snipped out some garbage to get straight to the big hole Hoser is digging himself>
Pyron et. al. stated point blank that Thamnophis, Crotalus and other genera were paraphyletic, in those exact words.
They were not looking at busting up genera or what pre-existing names were available for such (if any), which is a different and time consuming exercise as compared to what they were doing.
That's what I did!
Instead they (Pyron and co) were more concerned with higher family level taxonomy.

Just taking your statement above (the bit in bold)... That shows your inability to objectively interpret other scientists' work. And your ego is writing cheques that your intellect cannot deliver. Driven by a need to find some justification of your agenda you've twisted Pyron et al to your own needs. Stefan post above shows what Pyron et al actually wrote... That their work "suggested" paraphyletic genera (that falls well short of the point blank statement you've just claimed), and not that they weren't interested in reclassification, but actually they were holding back because their data was incomplete.

Once again, if you have some good science behind your claims to reclassify species, please publish the evidence and stop just writing about an unfounded hypothesis that is yet to be proven.

You also ignored my question asking you to point out some (any...) links to pages where credible scientists have endorsed your work. Failing that, could you just name the people who refereed your articles prior to publication in the AJH?

[thesnakeman]

Stefan/Chris, had you read my Thamnophis paper before launching into a series of rants, you'd be aware that Pyron's piece was not the only evidence I relied upon.
Alfaro 2001 found the same paraphyly as have others and so I took the composite of results as a basis for what I did.
Now neither of you have produced a shred of evidence in the last week or two of howling protest and hurling insults contrary to what we've published and so I take heart in this, and while one of you claimed not to care about the names, you obviously are concerned enough to post constantly here.

And as I mentioned elsewhere I am honoured to have been able to name snakes after well-deserving individuals.

All the best

[Stefan-A]

Stefan/Chris, had you read my Thamnophis paper before launching into a series of rants, you'd be aware that Pyron's piece was not the only evidence I relied upon.

In the paragraph I quoted in the beginning, you referenced Pyron et al. specifically, essentially putting words in their mouths. Now you've just intentionally misquoted them a second time. If you're going to go down the "had you read" road, I might as well do the same and state that maybe you should have read what Pyron et al. actually said, before referencing them. I know it would be unfair to say it, but I'll do it anyway.

Now neither of you have produced a shred of evidence in the last week or two

How many times do I need to tell you that the paraphyletic nature of Thamnophis is not the issue here? It's not what we are commenting on, therefore we have NO obligation to produce evidence one way or the other in regards to that question.

contrary to what we've published

Who's "we"? Are you using the majestic plural there?

and so I take heart in this, and while one of you claimed not to care about the names, you obviously are concerned enough to post constantly here.

It's not about the names.

And as I mentioned elsewhere I am honoured to have been able to name snakes after well-deserving individuals.

Do they feel honored? Or should I perhaps ask them?

[gregmonsta]

Mr. Hoser, your papers show the following - giant gaps in your referenced reading/evidence. No new evidence, no presentation of figures to back up your claim. A heavy emphasis on supposed evidence - sadly, again, lacking examples.
You show the following - refusal to show claimed evidence, on several forums. An overly defensive attitude and posturing in order to 'back up' your statements. A complete lack of support from any credible scientific corner.

... Please give up and leave taxonomy to people who actually know and study the animals that are being 're-classified'.

On another note - I'd also rather you had some fun with Greek or Latin instead of creating laughable scientific names. I'm sure my students will ask me in future if I keep 'Gregswedoshus marcianus' because my name is Greg ...

[chris-uk]

Stefan/Chris, had you read my Thamnophis paper before launching into a series of rants, you'd be aware that Pyron's piece was not the only evidence I relied upon.

Come on, seriously? Is the only reason that we would disagree with you is because we haven't read your articles?

I'm well aware that you referenced an awful lot of other work... referencing other people's work is just about all you do in any of your articles. It's probably fair to say that you have probably referenced almost every academic paper that mentions Thamnophis. Pyron et al came into this thread because you specifically mentioned that work, and it's a good example of how you have misrepresented the conclusions drawn by the authors.
If you've done it once it's not an unreasonable assumption that you have come to a dubious interpretation of other referenced work.

Alfaro 2001 found the same paraphyly as have others and so I took the composite of results as a basis for what I did.

Maybe they did. I've not read their paper.

Now neither of you have produced a shred of evidence in the last week or two of howling protest and hurling insults contrary to what we've published and so I take heart in this,

I'm pretty sure that we've already pointed out that paraphyletic nature isn't the issue, it's the lack of science in your writings. Simply quoting someone else's work and saying "they discovered this, so I'm going to name it" is simply tosh. At least try to justify your right to name whichever species you are currently working on by giving some narrative in your writings - "Pyron said this, Bloggs said that, here are the combined mDNA results tabulated, and this is why I am suggesting the following division of Thamnophis". But you don't do this, you just reference a paper and state that it provides evidence.

When you said that "we've published" I thought it would be a great opportunity for you to tell us about the people who refereed your writings, or to provide some links to the glowing endorsements that the scientific community has rained down on your work.

and while one of you claimed not to care about the names, you obviously are concerned enough to post constantly here.

The names are secondary (although I personally find the names you suggest to be ridiculous in their own right). The issue for me is that you have firstly done nothing credible to earn a right to do what you're doing. Frankly, I see you're articles in your own little journal to be a parasite on the back of work of serious scientists.

And as I mentioned elsewhere I am honoured to have been able to name snakes after well-deserving individuals.

All the best

I'm sure they are all over the moon.