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

[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.

[thesnakeman]

Thanks Stefan-A for your post. You have introduced me to the new concept of evidence free criticism.

All the best

[chris-uk]

Thanks Stefan-A for your post. You have introduced me to the new concept of evidence free criticism.

All the best

Thank you Mr Hoser. You've introduced us all to the concept of evidence-free, non peer-reviewed, scientific papers.

[gregmonsta]

... Mr. Hoser, I would love a copy of your stand up DVD ... you really crack me up!!!

Shunned by numerous forums and the scientific community across the globe.
Really ... you are following the same idiotic pattern as I have seen on at least 3 other forums. The 'burden of truth' lies with YOU, not US. Show us your evidence in a standardised, cohesive manner. Show us how these things correlate. Assure us that the scientific method was the same for each of the phylogenic sequences you reference (As your papers even fail to address possible gaps/improvements in methodology between studies).

If you want to be taken seriously - start again and do things properly

[thesnakeman]

Thanks for the insults.
Fortunately insults do not constitute scientific evidence.
Now it is an interesting concept that you find a little mtDNA and morphology as "evidence free".
I still await ANY evidence in rebuttal (PS Insults don't count).
All the best

[chris-uk]

Thanks for the insults.
Fortunately insults do not constitute scientific evidence.
Now it is an interesting concept that you find a little mtDNA and morphology as "evidence free".
I still await ANY evidence in rebuttal (PS Insults don't count).
All the best

We're not saying that there isn't DNA evidence, what I am consistently saying is that you haven't presented the evidence. Simply referencing 30 papers and saying that they provide evidence of your teapot orbiting Mars isn't good enough, you need to reference the relevant papers and tell us why those papers support your argument. That means a hell of a lot more detail than you have gone into in the AJH articles I've read.

Present your evidence in an unarguable way and you may find that there is more productive criticism.

[Stefan-A]

Thanks Stefan-A for your post. You have introduced me to the new concept of evidence free criticism.

You're not terribly bright, are you? Tell me, what have I criticized, except for your reading comprehension, which appears to be severely lacking? By the way, do you know what a "red herring" is?

Thanks for the insults.

You're VERY welcome.

[Didymus20X6]

A classic example of the Outer Space Teapot analogy.

"There's a teapot orbiting Mars."
"Really? Do you have any evidence?"
"I don't need evidence. You have to prove it isn't!"

I may not agree with Bertrand Russell's worldview, but here, I think his analogy is applicable. You can't just assert X and then demand that your critics must prove that X is false. You have to start by presenting your own evidence first. You can't just make claims, present tenuous evidence at best, and then demand that your critics prove that you are wrong.

[-MARWOLAETH-]

Why doesn't he get a felt tipped pen and write "hoseri" on the end of scientific names in his reptile books so he can pretend he's a proper scientist.

[kibakiba]

He's probably like to write thesnakemani hoseri on all of the species he researches.