[Taxacom] Hoser Macrochelys Issue

[Stephen Thorpe]

Ross,
I'm not sure you see the point here that your opinions are held in equally "high esteem" as those of Hoser, so I doubt many taxacomers will even bother to read your email. Anyway, let me just point out that I have been at the sharp end of more than my fair share of "bastardry" and exclusion from access to collections, but I do not seek revenge on the global taxonomic community by churning out self-published poor quality taxonomy. The best way to get back at those who have wronged you is to find a way to make positive and constructive contributions to taxonomy, despite their attempts to stop you from doing so. Gratuitous self indulgence of the kind that Hoser engages in helps nobody. Being badly treated is no excuse to behave badly!
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 14/4/14, Ross Wellington <rwrossco at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Hoser Macrochelys Issue
 To: "Frank.Krell at dmns.org" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>, stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com" <drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com>
 Received: Monday, 14 April, 2014, 6:42 AM
 
 Hi folks,being privy to
 various messages that have been going back and forth I have
 refrained from comment until now and have to say only
 this.
 From my experiences of 30 years ago and, whilst I
 thoroughly endorse viewing and examining Type specimens as
 part of 'Normal Practice', I know from my own
 experience that there are some ethical issues and
 extenuating circumstances that complicate this scenario at
 times. Some need to be mindful of this.
 
 In 1984/5 Richard Wells and I published a couple
 of articles describing new species and proposing new
 arrangements. ?All good one might say, however despite
 Richard and I becoming somewhat infamous as a result and the
 true/complete story is still yet to be heard by all and
 sundry. ?We were referred to as the 'Aids of
 Zoology' and 'Taxonomic Terrorists' at the time
 in 'peer reviewed' literature, and this was long
 before 9/11!
 
 Richard Wells had been a voluntary benefactor to
 the Australian Museum (AM) in Sydney. ?He had donated over
 20,000 specimens to the AM, which at that time was over a
 quarter of the institutions holdings amassed over 150 years.
 ?These specimens had been collected at his own expense and
 out of his own interest. ?Many of these specimens were
 highly important because not only did Richard collect
 valuable series of specimens across (in some instances) a
 species vast continental range but also they usually
 included specimens that were variants and unusual specimens
 from alternative areas that did not fit the 'normal'
 picture of a homogenous species that was understood and
 sorted, ie they were usually indicative of new
 species/entities.
 
 I had earlier been a part time employee of the AM
 and had seen how Richard was treated to his face and behind
 his back during his regular visits to that
 institution.
 Richard spent endless hours examining ALL of the
 institutions holdings (his specimens + historical
 collections of others). ?His obvious and stated interests
 were often overridden with specimen series collections being
 farmed out to others (quite often students) at his expense
 ie student colleagues of the 'powers that be' in the
 AM.
 
 I also spent days and days assisting Richard with
 his endeavours to sort out the conservative approaches that
 were in play and which masked the true diversity of
 Australia's herpetofauna. ?Richard did field work
 across most of the Australian (vast) continent and also
 worked in the Northern Territory Museum when it was in its
 infancy and inspected other state institutions collections
 as well. ?His mastery of the literature and possession of
 it is immense and legendary (he has the largest physical
 technical library in Australia - bar none!). ?Yet despite
 all this benevolent benefactory he was disliked by many, not
 because of an obnoxious personality, quite the contrary, it
 was simple jealousy and the feeling of inferiority he
 generated without trying amongst many academics. ?This is
 what comes from a life long passionate interest and
 insatiable appetite for understanding of Australia's(in
 particular) herpetofauna!
 
 At that time I was in the process of describing a
 few small semi-fossorial skinks and was working with Richard
 on his grander plans when the AM staff decided to victimise
 him and exclude him from further access to the
 collections (the greatest single benefactor of Australian
 herpetofaunal specimens in history).
 
 This single act of bastardry was the primary
 trigger for 'Wells and Wellington 1984/85' and
 whilst I happily admit these documents were brief and
 perfunctory in so far as applying the Rules of the second
 addition of the Code that was in force at the time and way
 below our own ideals in terms of what we would have and
 could have included in our works (given access resources and
 specimens) that resulted from the frustration of
 denial.
 
 Anyone who underestimates Richard Wells'
 knowledge and understanding of the Australian Herpetofauna
 is a dill. ?To lump him in with Ray Hoser and use him as
 some sort of lever to assist in eliminating both he and
 Hoser from the herpetological taxonomic scene is doomed to
 failure.
 
 Ray Hoser is no dill either when it comes to
 knowledge of the fauna he publishes on. ?Collectively
 Richard (and Rays) herpetological knowledge is vast and I
 know Richard could debate anyone any time on Australian
 herpetofauna with success - he does know more than any other
 living Australian herpetologist about the Australian fauna -
 without question!!
 
 So where are we now. ?Richard continues with his
 interest and publishes on Australian Herpetofauna as time
 and funds permit. ?Ray Hoser obviously does his own thing
 as well, unfortunately to the angst of many!
 
 Nevertheless, both individuals have the right to
 an opinion, have the right to offer that opinion in the
 literature to the benefit or otherwise of the wider
 community.
 However, going down the path of censorship and
 'control' is doomed to failure and a critical
 analysis of where Ray is wrong would be a far more worthy
 approach to 'personal' attacks and condemnation in
 so called 'peer reviewed' literature which only
 damns that label as a joke.
 
 Getting back to the primary purpose of my message
 and that is whether Ray Hoser examined specimens that are
 included in his descriptions of Macrochelys Snapping Turtles
 highlights the point that access to specimens MUST be
 considered a major factor in the arguments currently raging
 and in the final judgements as to whether species
 descriptions are valid or not.
 
 The current debate rages around the register
 numbers of Types of new species descriptions and as to
 whether the visible records of holdings have been changed
 since Rays descriptions to prevent a repeat of his use of
 electronically available registers/holdings and specimen
 numbers.
 
 Whether you are pro or against Ray Hoser his
 descriptions hardly usurped the more recent geneticists from
 naming them as many others for decades have previously
 proposed the splitting of the species in question Ray did it
 first! ?Amateurs, quite often intuitively (as well as on
 more solid grounds) know what are good species - Ray is one
 of those types, irrespective of his gleaning confirmation
 from more recent genetic analysis.
 
 I wish you well in your sifting through this
 imbroglio but mention the above to paint a perhaps ignored
 component of the story!
 regards
 Ross Wellington
 
 
 ???
 ???