Raymond Hoser’s Private Taxonomy. — Between January 2000 and September 2012, Raymond Hoser named two superfamilies, one family, three subfamilies, 89 tribes and subtribes, 113 genera, 64 subgenera, 25 species, and 53 subspecies of reptiles, including Old and New World snakes, geckos, skinks, and crocodiles (Table 1). These names constitute 76% of genera and subgenera and 16% of species and subspecies newly proposed for snakes over that time period (Uetz 2012). Hoser’s invariably single-authored papers are characterized by a lack of scientific rigor and plagued by a variety of other problems, including: (1) naming of putatively allopatric populations without primary evidence, but listing the current distribution as the sole or primary distinguishing character (e.g., the diagnosis of Oxyuranus scutellatus barringeri—Hoser 2002a:47); (2) invention of evidence (e.g., body color of Oxyuranus scutellatus adelynhoserae Hoser 2009c, based on a holotype that is actually an isolated head: BMNH 1992.542); (3) repeated description of the same taxon as new (Leiopython albertisi barkeri Hoser 2000a = L. a. barkerorum Hoser 2009a = L. a. barkerorum Hoser 2012b; Oxyuranus scutellatus barringeri Hoser 2002a = O. s. andrewwilsoni Hoser 2009c); (4) descriptions of new species and subspecies based on morphological aberrations and vague differences in color pattern (e.g., Acanthophis barnetti Hoser 1998:24—diagnosed by the absence of raised supraoculars, which is merely an artifact of preservation [WW, pers. obs.], and “heavier dark pigmentation;” Pseudonaja textilis cliveevatti Hoser 2012i:38—diagnosed by stating that “each dorsal scale is darker brown tipped”); and (5) harvesting of clades from published phylogenetic studies for description as new genera or subgenera. For example, the division of Natrix into three monotypic genera (Natrix, Jackyhosernatrix, and Guystebbinsus) by Hoser (2012aa[1]) stems from the recognition of an unsupported branch in Pyron et al. (2011). Even though the use of patronyms in the naming of taxa is not a contravention of the Code, Hoser does not coin and assign names for the purpose of scientific need, taxonomic clarity, or improved characterization of biodiversity, but rather for personal reasons, as explained by the author in most of his etymology sections, as well as in several Internet blogs and social media environments. Hoser’s genus and species names are all patronyms, and many include the author’s surname (N = 43; Table 1) or the names of his relatives, employees, and even pets.
Without exception, Hoser’s taxonomic decisions have been published in outlets with evaluation processes that, if they exist, are not designed to safeguard scientific rigor. Most recently, Hoser (2009a–e, 2012a–ac) has published in the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH), a vehicle produced and mailed by Hoser himself, and primarily geared towards taxonomic articles of which he is the exclusive author and editor. Although the AJH masquerades as a scientific journal, it is perhaps better described as a printed “blog” because it lacks many of the hallmarks of formal scientific communication, and includes much irrelevant information (Ross et al. 2012). Examples of the latter include private email messages in their entirety, as well as polemics against taxonomic herpetologists (e.g., Hoser 2001:48–56; Hoser 2009a:3–21, 30; Hoser 2012a:1–34), taxonomic journals (Zootaxa; Hoser 2012a:15ff), wildlife officials (e.g., Hoser 2012f:12), and even judges in courts of law (e.g., Hoser 2012i:45). We maintain that AJH should not be considered a “public and permanent scientific record” and therefore fails a requirement of the Code (Art. 8.1.1; emphasis added) in both style and substance. The AJH is not a journal in the scientific sense. It is instead personally distributed by Hoser for unscientific purposes, and should therefore perhaps be best classified as advertising.
