|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2013 6:21:01 GMT
Having worked through most of the night, on this the first day of the site, I really should go to bed. But looking for a few interesting threads to get the forum off to a start with, I couldn't help but start reading this article published by the respected journal, Scientific American, June 20, 2013. It's a fairly long read which I really must come back to when I've had a good sleep. So I shouldn't really comment too extensively on it, just yet. All I can say for now is, it's a bit of a shame I'd never heard about it before (as believe me, it's quite fascinating!) and something really needs to be done about the rules on naming organisms and their relationships to one another, particularly in view of what one crazy Australian is up to. It seems he's exploiting loopholes, performing often-poor (non-peer reviewed) research and generally poking fun at a lot of people (where fun shouldn't really be poked). What's the world coming to? Late, late edit: Here's a wikipedia page about himHere's his homepageThe guy seems a bit of an egomaniac with a need to honour his loved ones by naming / re-naming species after them (his dog with a daft name, even gets a mention). Maybe there aren't enough un-named stars / comets left in the sky for him? And then, the article mentions another Australian up to similar mischief... Whilst it appears Mr Hoser has been up to no good for quite a while now (he even unethically operates on snakes, severing their venom ducts etc. to supposedly make them "safe" for public display - for which he's been in trouble with the courts on at least one occasion), he seems to have been very prolific over the last year or so in moving reptiles from one genus to another etc. We can only hope he's near the end of his great project and not just finding his feet, so to speak. What's particularly worrying of course, is that many of the species he's now renamed are indeed venomous snakes. With anti-venoms requiring a doctor to know the exact snake that bit the patient, confusion here could easily result in loss of life etc. Maybe, someday in the future, I could honour the guy by using his name in the curse-filter?
|
|
|
Post by Thylacine on Jun 30, 2013 18:38:05 GMT
Got to read the post before I comment but this site looks really good Archie!!!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2013 18:50:53 GMT
God, it took me a long time to do that edit. I didn't see you come in, Thylacine. It's great to have you onboard. I'm off to have some sushi and then run myself a bath. Then maybe an early night. But this is off-topic. Glad you like it.
|
|
Fossa
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by Fossa on Jun 30, 2013 19:35:51 GMT
Very interesting and amusing post! This guy sounds like a cheat and a generally unpleasant sort of chap. The author has certainly made his case very well. But I suppose taxonomy is quite controversial anyway - I think there's a lot of debate over lemur classification, for example - so there are bound to be issues. It's probably not helped by there being no universally acknowledged definition of a species (or sub-species). It sounds like the ICZN system is highly flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 30, 2013 21:37:25 GMT
Defining species was always going to turn into a minefield when our big brains got carried away with it. Hell, if there's millions of unidentified species, some crackpot like this guy can always plead innocence (maybe not so with vertebrates, of course, but you get the point). I forget which gull it is, but I think it's one that breeds in Scotland. It starts off on one coast (I seem to recall) and as its range circles the globe, all the populations are pretty much able to interbreed. That is, until it's within INCHES of the finish line and IT'S A WHOLE NEW SPECIES!!! You couldn't make it up! edit: The situation with gulls (involving lesser black-backed and herring gulls) is an example of a 'ring species' where intermediate species can all hybridise as the group of species stretch around the arctic circle. wikipedia explains here
|
|
|
Post by cabbage on Jul 2, 2013 3:02:36 GMT
The whole subject of taxonomy is desperately in need of a revamp. The idea that everything can be neatly divided up and popped into distinctive boxes is a nonsense that needs to be swept into the gutter of history. No idea what to replace it with though
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2013 21:08:43 GMT
I'm not sure if I agree cabbage. Of course the subject is flawed, but do you really think it can be improved (by starting from scratch)? I think we just have to be more aware of its limitations, remember that "species" is just a human way to pigeon hole things that sometimes seem to want to go in other holes (honestly, no pun intended here). Ultimately though the governing body needs to tighten up the rules, I would say. The body of data we have already is quite astounding (I believe it's around the 2 million named species mark) and precious and no way will we ever or can we ever give that up. Imho. Caveat: Unless we can mass-manufacture production-line robotic zoologists that can work very fast, 24/7/365. (They'd probably have to be waterproof, too).
|
|
|
Post by cabbage on Jul 3, 2013 22:20:12 GMT
I'm not sure if I agree cabbage. Of course the subject is flawed, but do you really think it can be improved (by starting from scratch)? I think we just have to be more aware of its limitations, remember that "species" is just a human way to pigeon hole things that sometimes seem to want to go in other holes (honestly, no pun intended here). Ultimately though the governing body needs to tighten up the rules, I would say. The body of data we have already is quite astounding (I believe it's around the 2 million named species mark) and precious and no way will we ever or can we ever give that up. Imho. Caveat: Unless we can mass-manufacture production-line robotic zoologists that can work very fast, 24/7/365. (They'd probably have to be waterproof, too). No I suspect its far too late to start from scratch. It'd take generations to come to a new consensus. My own feeling is that life can't be split into discrete units, each with its own box. Species relationship isn't an 'either, or' thing but rather a continuous line - a bit like the previously mentioned ring species but over a much larger scale. I think that the classic image of a tree of life, each species with its own unique branch is a powerful one - but its also wrong on a fundamental level. A species doesn't stop evolving and fix in place when it 'arises' and gets a branch of its own. Maybe an 'ivy' of life would be more appropriate, each strand intertwining, growing back on itself and tieing strands from opposite sides of the tree in knots. I remember years ago, back when I was a teenager, having an argument (on a very primitive messageboard!) with a creationist. He/she kept going on at me about how the fossil record was nonsense because there were no 'transitional' fossils and too many 'missing links'. I was trying to get my point across that ALL fossils (and thus all species) are transitional, everything we see is transitional. There's no final point when a species becomes fixed and immutable, everything is part of an evolutionary journey from then to now - and on into the future. All this is just a way of getting to the heart of why I care. A lot of people are of the belief that the Scottish Wildcat (my favourite, non giant prehistoric shark, animal species) should be allowed to die out, without any real effort to conserve it, because its not a species, just a subspecies. I think that's nonsense to put it mildly
|
|
|
Post by snakeman on Aug 7, 2013 5:28:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Aug 7, 2013 10:55:01 GMT
So, you're the real "snakeman"? What do you do, google your name / nickname every day to see who in the world is criticising you lately? If you are indeed the man himself, do you do exclusive interviews on Internet forums by any chance?
|
|
Fossa
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by Fossa on Aug 8, 2013 20:18:43 GMT
Hello Snakeman, welcome to the forum. Thank you for your post. It's interesting to read your point of view. I have to be honest - I have little knowledge of this area. I've had a quick skim over the document in the link but I'd have to do extensive reading, including looking at the original papers you've referenced, to come to a truly informed conclusion. But the number of critics you have (if indeed it is you) makes me a little sceptical! I'd be interested to hear your justification for keeping and showing venomoid snakes. Besides anything else, I'm not sure what kind of message you're trying to send to the public here? Venomoid snakes bite Snakeman
P.S. We'd like more members, and welcome controversy, so please feel free to sign up!
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Aug 9, 2013 9:07:13 GMT
My guess for venomoids is public safety. Look at the number of handlers and the like killed by snakes lately. Two kids in Canada and the snake handler in France at End June. No brainer really.
|
|
|
Post by Snakeman on Sept 11, 2013 9:49:50 GMT
Thanks Guest for the injection of logic (pardon the pun). We use venomoid snakes so that our reptile shows and kids parties are risk free. There is the added welfare benefit for the snakes as in no need to use metal tongs. Those wanting a better idea of what we do in terms of wildlife education in Melbourne Australia are advised to view our website at www.reptileparty.com.au rather than get third hand rubbish from posters with an axe to grind. Now talking taxonomy, I am not the first taxonomist to be widely criticised and to an extent this goes with the business. However I note that none of my critics have anywhere near the hands-on experience with the said taxa as myself and so I dismiss their claims as uninformed. In terms of the vocal criticism on the web, I put this down to sour grapes by many upset that a person they see as a rival has literally upstaged them by naming formerly unnamed taxa. This has particularly been the case for the African Cobras and Vipers I recently named, much to the disgust of a bunch of so-called herpetologists who assumed they had monopoly rights on naming African species. All the best
|
|