# From a news site - rattlesnakes rattled



## muff69 (Mar 12, 2009)

*Rattlesnakes rattled!
Rattlesnake classification has just had a major shake up.
In fact it’s been the first such shake up in nearly a century!
Recent studies of the DNA of the group showed various lineages to be far more ancient than earlier thought.
However there was confusion as to which groups of snakes had actually been named at the genus level in the past.
It turned out that just 5 of 16 obvious subgroups had been named.
In a paper published this week, Australian zoologist Raymond Hoser reclassified the group assigning names to the other 9 groups and working out which species were closest to which.
Taking a conservative stand, all groups had diverged at least 10 million years from a common ancestor to warrant being named at the genus or subgenus level.
By contrast for great apes (including humans) anything with a divergence of more than 4 million years is placed in a separate genus.
Recent papers have placed the rattlesnakes origins back to nearly 30 million years.
Formerly all fifty-odd species were lumped into a single genus “Crotalus”, with some people placing three small species in a second genus Sistrurus.
Hoser’s paper, while seemingly radical in terms of the number of new genera named, has been described by himself as “merely stating the obvious”.
In 2004, Hoser controversially placed the world’s longest snake, the Reticulated Python, in it’s own genus, Broghammerus, taking it away from the better known genus “Python”. Later DNA studies, the results of which were published in 2008, upheld the Hoser position, showing that they had diverged from their nearest python relatives about 30 million years ago.
“Broghammerus reticulatus” is now generally accepted.
Hoser said this week, “No doubt there will be short term resistance from some quarters to use the new generic names, but, the concept of fifty odd rattlesnakes, many of radically different forms and ancient lineages, being in the same genus, is simply not tenable”.
The paper is:

“A reclassification of the Rattlesnakes; species formerly exclusively referred to the Genera Crotalus and Sistrurus.”
Originally published in hard copy in Australasian Journal of Herpetology, Issue 6 (9 March 2009):1-21.
*


----------



## SammySnakes (Mar 12, 2009)

Being the most disrespected herper in Australia wasn't enough, he has now taken on the world.

I wonder if he has ever seen a wild rattlesnake?


----------



## falconboy (Mar 12, 2009)

I wouldn't be surprised if user 'muff69' is in fact our 'friend' Raymond Hoser.


----------



## Sturdy (Mar 12, 2009)

lol first post it wouldn't surprise me...


----------



## mark83 (Mar 12, 2009)

great name btw


----------



## paleoherp (Mar 12, 2009)

*Ray Hoser* has officially been voted Australia's most embarrasing herper for 2007 by the good members of the :shock: Reptile :shock: Community. Congratulations to you Mr Hoser, now it's official!!!


----------



## leighroyaus (Mar 12, 2009)

hoser knows alot more then you guys, and has had alot more to do with reptiles then you guys. show some respect seriously.
get off your high horse


----------



## redbellybite (Mar 12, 2009)

leighr33 said:


> hoser knows alot more then you guys, and has had alot more to do with reptiles then you guys. show some respect seriously.
> get off your high horse


 thinks someone may need their venom gland removed


----------



## Chrisreptile (Mar 12, 2009)

Why did Hoser get to name the other 9 species? Was he involved in the research?

Yes Hoser has done alot of things for the reptile community, but there are also some negatives that have occurred.


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Mar 12, 2009)

i was reading a hoser paper re classifying the black snake species _Psuedechis Porphyriacus _into 3 seperate sub species a queensland one,a newsouth wales and a SA one

hmmm


----------



## falconboy (Mar 12, 2009)

leighr33 said:


> hoser knows alot more then you guys, and has had alot more to do with reptiles then you guys.



Its not his knowledge that people disrespect. Its the fact that he doesn't take his meds. :lol:


----------



## Frozenmouse (Mar 13, 2009)

redbellybite said:


> thinks someone may need their venom gland removed


Ba ha ha ha thanks for my daily laugh


----------



## SammySnakes (Mar 13, 2009)

Chrisreptile said:


> Why did Hoser get to name the other 9 species? Was he involved in the research?
> 
> Yes Hoser has done alot of things for the reptile community, but there are also some negatives that have occurred.


 
Some negatives??

Of course it wasn't his research. By the look of it, he has sat down with a phlogeny from someone else's previous work, circled the branches and gave them all new genera. Sure if you name 20-30 new genera in a number of papers, 1 or 2 may be proven to actually be valid in future works. I'm sure my toddler would occasionally put the circles in the right place. Except, she would have given them better names.

For a good review, see http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23300

Appears the moral of the story, if your work is of poor quality, start your own journal to publish it.


----------



## Lozza (Mar 13, 2009)

SammySnakes said:


> Appears the moral of the story, if your work is of poor quality, start your own journal to publish it.


 :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Chrisreptile (Mar 13, 2009)

SammySnakes said:


> Some negatives??





redbellybite said:


> thinks someone may need their venom gland removed



...


----------



## snakehandler (Mar 13, 2009)

Please note that the Australasian Journal of herpetology is edited by Ray Hoser, published by the company Ray Hoser owns, and solely contributed to by Ray Hoser. This is not a peer reviewed journal, it is not a scientific journal and holds no weight in scientific terms.


----------



## cracksinthepitch (Mar 13, 2009)

snakehandler said:


> Please note that the Australasian Journal of herpetology is edited by Ray Hoser, published by the company Ray Hoser owns, and solely contributed to by Ray Hoser. This is not a peer reviewed journal, it is not a scientific journal and holds no weight in scientific terms.


 
So in other words he took his bat and ball home and now plays in his backyard by himself and tells his mum how good he is............


----------



## Serpentes_15 (Mar 15, 2009)

cracksinthepitch said:


> So in other words he took his bat and ball home and now plays in his backyard by himself and tells his mum how good he is............



Cracks, that hasn't quite been suggested by the above comment which really was just a statement of fact. Your not far off the mark though as it's probably one of the best analogies I've read so far that describes the journal in question.

.... As much as I'm itching to tell you what i think of the journal, i will keep my thoughts to myself, as i dislike massive lawsuits being forced down my throat, but majority could probably guess the obvious when you consider the above posts.

.... Personally i hold Wikipedia in higher regard, but that's just me


----------

