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

[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.