Taxacom: Standards for species identification

[lynn]

Hi Peter,

We have previously discussed several errors and misinformation existing on the reptile database that you run. The most recent concerned the skink genus Scelotes. I have now found yet another set concerning the species Scelotes limpopoensis FitzSimons. You say:
Limb morphology: This species lost its forelimb entirely and retains only two digits on the hind limb. 
However, the species does have forelimbs, in the nominate subspecies these have three digits and in the second subspecies albiventris Jacobsen they have two digits. Furthermore, while you say that the hind limbs only have two digits, if you were to check the type descriptions you will find that both subspecies actually have four. I checked this myself a few minutes ago on a specimen of the nominate subspecies.

In another example in the genus you list a species Scelotes anguineus Boulenger and give the following synonymy
Herpetoseps anguinus BOULENGER 1887: 416
Herpetosaura anguinea — TORNIER 1902: 704
Scelotes anguina — BRANCH & HAAGNER 1996
Scelotes anguineus — WHITING et al. 2003 
As you will note, the original name is anguinus so why have you used anguineus. Tornier’s anguinea is preoccupied by Merrem’s name anguineus some 82 years previously. The name anguineus is actually a synonym of bipes Linnaeus and you have that synonymy listed under Scelotes bipes elsewhere in your database. I have previously advised you that the correct name is anguinus but you have obviously decided to ignore my advice as you were still using anguineus when I checked a few minutes ago when I copied the section pasted above.
Anguis bipes LINNAEUS 1766: 390
Chalcida bipes — MEYER 1795: 31
Bipes anguineus MERREM 1820 (fide GREER 1970)
Scelotes Linnaei — DUMÉRIL & BIBRON 1839: 785
Scelotes bipes — GRAY [1845: 123]
Scelotes Linnaei — GRAVENHORST 1851: 376
Scelotes bipes — BOULENGER 1887: 414
Scelotes bipes — LOVERIDGE 1936: 74
Scelotes bipes — WHITING et al. 2003 
 Your post below seemed quite petulant but maybe it would be better for you to actually fix errors that are pointed out to you in good faith in order to improve the accuracy of the database. If your database is incomplete or inaccurate and you are not prepared to correct it when advised with evidence then is there any point in making it available? 

To tell you the truth I find it a useful guide but then I know that I cannot just accept it as accurate but always need to check and recheck everything I read. Unfortunately there are a great number of people out there who don’t and may be being given inaccurate information that they believe to be correct.

Please accept this in the spirit that it is given, I.e. an attempt to help you provide more accurate information, not an attempt to denigrate your work. Maybe I have just happened to hit on a specific problematic genus in this instance but I haven’t actually checked other genera.

Best wishes,

Lynn

> On 19 Sep 2022, at 05:04, Peter Uetz via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
> These claims are, of course, factually not true, but I won’t waste another minute of my life to respond to this nonsensical rant.
> If you don’t accept the information in the Reptile Database — simply don’t use it.
> 
> P
> 
> 
>> On Sep 18, 2022, at 10:56 PM, Ross Wellington <rwrossco at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Let’s not forget the unilateral (perhaps moronic?) decision by the Uetz team to abandon ICZN Rules and also ‘cleanse’ all Russian reptile nomenclatural acts from the same database on their whim and fancy as some sort of possibly deluded act in favour of Ukraine! 
>> 
>> Whilst howled down at the time and reversed soon after, it serves to illustrate the perhaps arrogant self serving power base some seem to think they wield from the helm of such data repositories and hence think they can selectively ‘change history’ by only being a repository and lists derived from a selection of ‘some’ of the literature! They apparently still haven’t worked out they aren’t the Zoological Record or Zoobank and that the purpose of a DB should be it’s utility as a complete collection of data for all to evaluate and not a censored subset of reality.
>> 
>> Consequently, it is an incomplete database that cannot be relied on and is riddled with errors, inconsistencies and omissions!
>> 
>> Ross Wellington
>> 
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 at 10:27 pm, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <viper007 at live.com.au <mailto:viper007 at live.com.au>> wrote:
>> Dear all, 
>> 
>> well for Peter Uetz and reptiles there are clearly NO STANDARDS for identifying (alleged) species.
>> Look no further than Uetz's mate Wulf Schleip who has about four (alleged) species of Leiopython on "The Reptile Database", all of which are wholly fictitious and named without a shred of evidence.
>> Then you have validly named taxa, with peer reviewed scientific evidence BANNED from his same database (e.g. Leiopython hoserae Hoser, 2000), even after the ICZN ruled in favour of the correct earlier ICZN names last year.
>> 
>> All the best
>> 
>> Raymond Hoser
>> 
>> 
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>> -- 
>> Ross Wellington
>> Proprietor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cceb797f574d044d69e0908daa2d72a82%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638001342293508894%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7gGA%2FSok3FHorfd0%2BO6Iw8gBuY70VWOROMgdSy7yXmA%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.