couple of lovely snakes

Hi all,
I had the opp to photograph these lovely snakes, thankyou to who you are






Cheers,
Scott

Nice Scott.

Showing good form Scott, Pilabara's Black head Death Adder, Genus Acanthophis, Species Wellsi (Hoser) in both of his biological forms.

Occurs in dry areas, rocky slopes and porcupine grass, areas of inland Australia described by Mirtschin as having a nature less predictable than that of the Common Death Adder.

I'll let Scott answer definitively, but I don't think the third pic is wellsi, whereas the first two are. The third is praelongus.

they looking gorgeus

Hi all,

Simon is spot on...The top is a male wellsi from Pannawonica, the gold female is from another location (I am unsure if I am allowed to say so i'd rather err on the side of caution) and the third is an albino Woodland Death Adder Acanthophis (praelongus) rugosus.

Cheers,
Scott

Up young Scott Eipper , ill introduce myself here Albert or Al the rest you can see, ive read your articles on Venomous reptile org. without a doubht your the go to guy for difficult question about Austrailian Herps thanks for posting the photogs.on Wellsi et. al. Hoser

Didn't mention the albino death adder because i know that specimen and the albino Blackhead python is causing a lot of controversy for you guy's down under.

Now a days Scott i specialize in venomous arboreal palm pitviper's of the western hemisphere
any questions when i post feel free to ask or pm me. best regards Albert

Quote :

Wellsi et. al. Hoser

???

What's up with the Hoser stuff all the time? I think 99,9% of this forum laughs about him, haha

Yes, Raymond Hoser the man the myth and the legend ! et al Peter somewhere on his Smuggled website . ---> he has a right to his opinion too .

Direct any serious inquiries to Mr. Scott Eipper and i admit im a fish out of water when it comes to Austrailian herpetofauna , good to meet you Stephan and Peter glad to see your doing well! Albert.

Addtl.. Feel free to publish any information or opinion you may feel that pertains to Australian herpetofauna i find them facinating going to make a cup of Colombian coffee and surf the web ill check back often to see whats up Venomland 1# Al

Ok ill write my opinion i think Raymond Hoser is cool because he does a lot of field work legal or otherwise im not a snake police to judge and we are not the snake gestapo persecuting fellow herpers even if they are a bit mad !!! i think he does those things to bring attention to all the specimens that he has collected since science is a slow wheel and he's in hyperdrive minimum he has found plenty of specimens which still would have been un discovered .

i would hire him if i had to find a certain Austrailan specimen with very little data how would you feel about your self if you were the first to find A.Wellsi come to think about it i had a Dendrobates tinctoris named after me but the Europeans were not happy about it and now it's split her name was Dendrobates tinctoris Montejo var. Surinamensis you can google it but dont worry im not going to build a web site with lights and whistles ...

Quote :

i had a Dendrobates tinctoris named after me but the Europeans were not happy about it and now it's split her name was Dendrobates tinctoris Montejo var. Surinamensis

Are you trying to fool me (us)?

There's no Dendrobates tinctoris, but Dendrobates tinctorius.

If a subspecies has been named after you, the correct spelling would be "montejoi" or "montejoii (if your name has been latinized).

Furthermore, there is no "var." in zoological nomenclature, with the exceptions of some very old synonyms.

And finally, if you had a frog named after you properly described, you still would have it - at least as a synonym. I didn't found that on different amphbian databases.

Please help us to maintain a minimal level of seriousity here......

Best regards
Peter Zürcher

Owesome Death Adders, especially the first one ''Black Headed''. No coment on Hosers Taxonomy Definitions.

Best regards, BKK

BKK, good to meet your aquaintance .
BKK, who first discovered The Pilabara Death Adder, Acanthophis wellsi sir ?.
BKK, and who's Taxonomic definition do you agree on , respectfully asking.

These question can be considered open please feel free to chime in and Bostjan
regards , Albert

Quote :

who first discovered The Pilabara Death Adder, Acanthophis wellsi sir ?.

HOSER did definitely not discover Acanthophis wellsi as a new species - just read his own remarks about its taxonomical history to find that out!
He described it as a new species in 1998 (species name still with wrong spelling on his famous website)

Thanks for the constructive review and providing this information , ill review the article once more , Peter im the one who wants to learn something about this fascinating specimen , so maybe they are just Acanthophis pyrrhus (Boulenger). Over 1000 members on venomland and only you respond with frequency maybe someone from 'Mythunda's' region or local has also something to share also at later date i can return some information about specimens from the western hemisphere part of the world rare species from Brazil, Ecuador , Guatemala , Costarica and Colombia excuse my spelling if i mispelled some words im watching the "news of the day" from Pakistan on the BBC. Thanks A.

Hoser may have gone to publication first, but the WA Museum was working on the Pilbara Death Adder well before he stuck his nose in. And when Hoser did publish he used incorrect nomenclature. Ken Aplin (WA Museum) published a full paper shortly afterward, but gave credit to the Wells reference by using it (with correct spelling) later on. I have a hard copy of that paper somehwhere, but nothing electronic.

I also note the comment about the albino death adder causing controversy down here in Aust. Not so. It was properly bred by a respected keeper and is being sold/distributed to other adder keepers. Nothing controversial about it.

Cheers,
S

Up Simon , controversey as i read at Aussie pythons and other mainly Austrailian reptile forums , people are getting jacked ( robbed) at gunpoint over them (albinos) and Cape york's Green tree pythons , Chondro python viridis, what ever.

I've read every paper that hoser wrote, not only on Acanthophis whitch is my favourite genus but all of them. I like to read and I was curious. There is no point of comparing his work to others like Wickramaratna, Fry, etc. There are some informations to be found but it's all very confusing and badly written and defined. There are only a few references (very important) to his papers written by Hoser himself or Wells and Wellington. This papers are an assumptions rather than real definitions adding to much pseudonyms to the taxonomy. It's wrong to say that an amateur herpatologist can't make a contribution to the science and he did in some way but evidence that he presented was based mostly on morphology that can be described with different localities and mutations derived by enviroment, predators, etc. But I say it's wrong to seek attention by defining species by your own judgement like he did with Reticulated Python and some others. The same controversy we can find with Oxyuranus Scutellatus Scutellatus and Canni whitch are very different but basically the same species. Until some firm evidence and MtDna test are made it's hard to say if he is wrong or not especially not by me - non scientist.

Best regards, BKK

I agree widely with you, Bostjan.
but let me tell a few things about the case of Reticulated Pythons - your right with "defining" new taxa "by his own judgement" in the case of 6 new Reticulated Python subspecies described by HOSER in 2004, but the change of Python reticulatus to Broghammerus reticulatus has not been his judgement, but the work and the scientific findings of RAWLINGS et al. He knew that retics (and Timor Pythons) couldn't be left in the genus Python and published a new genus name in a quick paper in 2004. RAWLINGS et al., who did the serious scientific work on that issue, unfortunately had to use the name Broghammerus (how terrible).
And that's the way he works quite often. Jumping into running scientific research and creating new names where he "smells" new names/taxa might be upcoming in the future is one of his ways to penetrate zoological nomenclature with "his" names (and eternizing himself as an author), starting trial balloons like in the cases of Crotalus or Naja genera another one.....His Naja genera work went completely wrong (with at least one taxonomic error that would not happen to me as a layman) - and his splitting of Crotalus into several curious genera - well, read it and smile....
Best regards
Peter

I also note the comment about the albino death adder causing controversy down here in Aust. Not so. It was properly bred by a respected keeper and is being sold/distributed to other adder keepers. Nothing controversial about it. Correct Simon.

Pairs sold for $2000, almost got a pair, decided on 6 Notechis ater humphreysi babies instead. Good news is that now they are out there, more will be bred & available for others to enjoy. I will be looking in a couple of years for some if i stop building cages & pits!

Up, Nigel 2000.00 USD a pair , yes i think you made a good choice they maybe albino but they are Praelongus a relatively even more common specie.

The problem with Elapids is they grow fast , mature early , and have large litters i understand the national or native Austrailian pride thing but market wise id try and secure the rarest possible specimen within reason with little or no competition for years and wouldn't sell pairs till i got at least f 3s.

Welcome all.
Reading this forum and a few other’s you’d think I was some kind of mutant hybrid between an Axe-murderer and a terrorist, and one who has never actually set eyes on a living snake in his life and who publishes evidence free taxonomy based on watching youtube videos!
Oh and also one who defangs snakes on the kitchen table using a large knife!
Anyway, pushing the fictions to one side, I shall clarify a few points raised in this little thread.
Simon Ball’s comments about the WA Museum looking at Acanthophis wellsi before I stuck my nose into things isn’t strictly true.
In the late 1970’s I went through Museum collections Acanthophis holdings in preparation for the “big reclassification”, but was advised that Glen Storr of the WA Museum was doing much the same thing.
I deferred doing anything in writing until AFTER he published his paper which he eventually did.
In that paper he identified all my A. wellsi type specimens as A. pyrrhus, which is something I disagreed with all along.
He also placed northern WA Acanthophis within A. praelongus, which I also disagreed with.
I described these and several other Acanthophis in 1998 and 2002/3, and was greeted with howls of protest and even as late as 2000, Hal Cogger decided I’d got it all wrong and recognised none of them in his major book.
Taxonomy is often subject of disputes and differing opinions and I bear no grudges against either Storr or Cogger.
We politely agreed to disagree.
Unfortunately personality politics, commercial interests and the like also move into the realm and this noise also confuses better judgements, especially in the age of internet.
I stand by my Acanthophis taxonomy and for that matter all other taxonomy papers published to date, however, if and when evidence (note the word please) to the contrary emerges, I will be the first to ditch any cherished theories I have.
Scott, Acanthophis praelongus is in my view restricted to Nth Queensland and “rugosa” to the Merauke region of island New Guinea. Hence the snake you label as being “both” is in fact neither, as it’s from the NT.
For what it’s worth, DNA and venom analysis of Acanthophis and other taxa within the same biological regions from Australia and beyond has totally supported my papers divisions of not only Acanthophis, but also the pythons (e.g. Leiopython hoserae, etc).
Also for those who are unfamiliar with Acanthophis, their main claim to fame is NOT MOVING, and so as a group they are pre-disposed to speciation, something recently confirmed with DNA studies of the two populations of A. wellsi, split by a 32 km wide sand dune inhabited by A. pyrrhus for an extremely long time (try 1.5 million years).
There are users on this forum and elsewhere with an aversion to using names I’ve assigned and I have no isses with this. They are entitled to either have a different opinion, or in blunt terms to get things wrong!
Long after we have died, more competent scientists armed with yet more evidence than all of us now posess will make their own judgements of the taxonomy and nomenclature of the said reptiles and I am sure the names I have first used will gain greater currency, as seen already for taxa names like “Broghammerus”.
PS - To the poster above, "Broghammerus" was my name, not someone else's, however the first taxonomist to provide evidence in writing that there was an argument to erect a new genus for the Retics was probably Sam McDowell, (1970's), but there may have been earlier papers I've overlooked. For anyone familiar with the big pythons (obviously not many on the forums), the case for splitting the "molurus" group from "reticulatus" is in hindsight, patently obvious and backed up by about 40 million years of evolution!
PPS Personal abuse is specifically prohibited in the ICZN’s code, so when I see such diatribe about myself (or any other taxonomist for that matter), I treat the posters with the disdain they deserve.
All the best
Snakeman Raymond Hoser

Thanks for your answer and feedback Mr HOSER.
Discussion is always better than hate.
R.

Rest assured , Raymond Hoser, we have all taken notice, to your publications and statemnents ,my self coming from a cosmopolitan , international city, in The United States Of America, views your work with a wider angle and in combination with Dr. Wolfgang Wuster's work and various other passionate taxonimist , ive learned much , that has prepared me to understand what ive observed, through out the years in all kinds of settings and countries.

Moving forward ,

Albert J. Montejo