How are whitelips?

[Colin Vestrand]

The southern phase is called Leiopython hoserae, the northern phase is called Leiopython albertsii, and a recently recognized sub species of Leopython bennettorum which are not available in the pet trade.

just for the record, these are just names that a guy named ray hoser in australia made up... they hold no water as he has not done any taxonomic work, he just names them after himself and family/friends.
Leiopython albertisii is the accepted name of both the northern and southern phases... until someone does some real work within this taxon.

[Skiploder]

just for the record, these are just names that a guy named ray hoser in australia made up... they hold no water as he has not done any taxonomic work, he just names them after himself and family/friends.
Leiopython albertisii is the accepted name of both the northern and southern phases... until someone does some real work within this taxon.

This isn't the first time I've seen someone run with this info.

If you tell a lie long enough.................you know the rest.

For anyone interested in Hoser's taxonomic "work" here's some entertaining reading:

http://www.leiopython.de/en/hosers_taxonomy.html

[fattielumpkin]

just for the record, these are just names that a guy named ray hoser in australia made up... they hold no water as he has not done any taxonomic work, he just names them after himself and family/friends.
Leiopython albertisii is the accepted name of both the northern and southern phases... until someone does some real work within this taxon.

Just for the record, regardless if the guy who is credited with these new taxonomic classifications is full of crap, his papers are "valid". not by many in the community, but he submitted his "work" and it has been documented and accepted.

just saying.

[Colin Vestrand]

well, it's hard to do mtDNA analysis without an electron microscope or ever having seen the subspecies!

just sayin'...

[Skiploder]

well, it's hard to do mtDNA analysis without an electron microscope or ever having seen the subspecies!

just sayin'...

I thought Schleip had re-described the "work" that Hoser had done this year.

Must be embarrassing to have to have your work "cleaned" up........

A loophole or poor wording in the ICZN doesn't validate a scammer - it just means a scammer used a poorly worded code to his advantage.

I have an aspidites melanocephalus with a nice scar on his head and darn if he doesn't have huge hemipenes. I think I'll reclassify him as aspidites melanocephalus skiploderii hunglikeahorsei.........as he's obviously different from every other melanocephalus I've heard about.

Following the Hoserae lead, I don't need DNA evidence, scale counts or experience with the genus. Heck, I'm ahead of the curve - I've actually seen the animal I'm submitting on.

[fattielumpkin]

well, it's hard to do mtDNA analysis without an electron microscope or ever having seen the subspecies!

just sayin'...

never said anything he did was good.

just sayin...

[adder]

Howdy Skiploader ...
Mmm, you say if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true.
I agree.
My alleged lie???
I assume that's that Leiopython hoserae from New Guinea is a separate species from L. albertisi...
Guess what ... the lie is actually true...
Try a mtDNA difference of about 10 per cent or five million years for those with trouble understanding what it all means.
It's the same as for the Chondros, Scrubbies and Death adders, all of which I've published papers about resolving their taxonomy, starting with the Adders in 1998.
Anyway, I think the lies come from the other side.
Lies like venomoid snakes regenerate venom.
In Australia we call that "the bullhooey factor",
which brings me to the recent end 2008 Schleip paper on
Leiopython, where in my humblest of opinions the bullhooey meter has run into overdrive.
Skiploader, I give you full rights to disagree and say I am all wrong.
But I must say, I'd prefer evidence instead of name calling on forums I don't frequent.
Anyway
in accordance with the ICZN's 1999 rules (the current code),
Recommendation 8A. which reads:
"Wide dissemination. Authors have a responsibility to ensure that new
scientific names, nomenclatural acts, and information likely to affect
nomenclature are made widely known.",
I hereby advise of the recent publication of a paper in Issue 2 of
"Australasian Journal of Herpetology", in 2009 which deals at length with Leiopython and Schleip's recent foray into the realms of taxonomy.
In summary we don't agree that that the snake referred to as the northern Leiopython consists of several species as contended (without evidence) by Schleip.
The online issue of the journal can be accessed via the gateway at:
http://www.herp.net
or directly at:
http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI4.pdf
The paper also sorts out the taxonomy of Chondropython, finding two species, neither incidentally named by myself, and two subspecies, including one named for the first time.
It also sorts out the Scrub pythons as well, tidying up the work of Harvey et al, with no new taxa named, but the resurrection of old names and the sorting out of those south of Torres Strait.
Other taxonomic papers on skinks and elapids are also at the same site
gateway and recently published in issues 1 and 3.
Also and for the record, the claim has been made here and elsewhere that I have not looked at DNA of New Guinea pythons. This is not the case. In fact I have looked at no fewer than three independent sets of data on the relevant taxa and all evidence is consistent (as expected) - and that is that northern Leiopython are just one, not several species.
This is also confirmed by morphological, ecological and geological data!
Schleip and no others have produced contrary evidence and I recommend that those with a serious interest in these snakes check the fine print of the Schleip paper and not the misleading preamble (abstract).
If anyone can produce either mtDNA or nuclear data/evidence to support the split of the northern Leiopython into several species - at the species level, then make this widely known as I have yet to see this!
This is NOT in Schleip's paper of 2008.
If and when such evidence is forthcoming (and verifiable), I shall be the first to ditch my long cherished views on these snakes.
In the interim and in accordance with the ICZN's rules (ICZN 1999), it is important to maintain stability of nomenclature and that is why at this stage I throw the spanner in the works of Schleip's poorly written paper, before Schleips work causes unneccessary confusion.
Yours faithfully
Raymond Hoser.