#emydocephalus

[herpsandbirds]

Turtle-headed Sea Snake (Emydocephalus annulatus), family Elapidae, Philippines

Venomous.

photograph by Pedro Arong

[is-the-snake-video-cute]

Hi! I’m feeling a little glum, could I ask for some fun snake facts to brighten me up? And maybe a cute snake pic if you have any? Thank you sm! <3

Sorry you're feeling down. Here are some fun facts that cheer me up!

Flying snakes are a thing. Snakes in the genus Chrysopelea can spread out their ribs to give themselves a sort of frisbee-like shape and glide!

Here's an old NatGeo clip that shows them in action - I love this clip because it captures how their "flying" is more of a controlled free-fall.

Rattlesnakes aren't born with full rattles, segments are added as they shed. As babies, they just have a little nub called the button. It's, like, really cute.

Speaking of babies, have you ever seen pictures of baby cobras? They're ridiculously cute.

Like 90% eyes by volume on these guys.

Did you know that we owe a lot of life-saving medicines to snakes? Snake venom is an important ingredient in medicines used to treat heart disease, diabetes, seizures, and more!

Sea snakes in the genus Emydocephalus eat almost exclusively fish eggs. That's right - there are snakes out there who only eat caviar! The three snakes in the genus lack teeth thanks to their unique diet, which means they're also the only non-venomous elapids (the family of cobras and their relatives).

And here's a picture of my sweet Miriam wearing her tail as a hat.

[otterloreart]

Art Prompts: 

1-TV Headed Men

2-Moth Dolls

3-Planet Themed Mermaids

4-Milkshake Dragons

5-Ice Cream Themed Superheroes

6-More Magical Pony Art (I Love Them!!)

7-Ocean Themed Space Aliens

8- Sea Snakes (They’re awesome! Here’s a link to an article about them: https://blog.padi.com/sea-snake-facts/) 

9-Snakes With Prosthetic Arms

10-An Otter With A Cute Little Bow In Her Head

I got way inspired by the sea snake prompt apparently and spent way more time than I meant to on them! I included the whip snake (highly stylized) as an example of a "land snake" (opened up one of my herp books to a random page).

If they were toys like the other snake designs they would include stands to represent the fact theyre "swimming" whereas the land snakes would have slightly more flat bottoms so they can "stand". The sea kraits have round bodies with flatter tails while the seasnakes have vertically oval bodies.

These designs are not 100% accurate to real snakes, obvi, they're artistic reinterpretations of the snakes design. For ex: the whip snake has a stripe, but also has very distinct scales, so I made them diamonds. And the eyelash shapes are just for cuteness.

ok facts about sea snakes I want to add to clarify some things stated in that article (just adding my own knowledge/clarifying things (PLEASE do not take offense to this i am glad to read facts about snakes i just have brain worms when it comes to snakes))

put under cut because it was getting too long

"to keep things simple" isn't... right: theyre split into different categories because they're separate evolutionary lines! And there are a handful of other differences (although the article does go into those later, but ngl thats why i dont like lists organized this way). Anyways, it makes it sound like these categories are not relevant to the evolutionary history imo

I would have clarified that while they all do have paddle like tails, the kraits actually have bodies more similar to land snakes, whereas the true sea snakes have vertically elongated bodies to make swimming easier and are bad at being on land.

Okay so this is true mostly EXCEPT we built a huge canal through panama and there have been sightings of sea snakes on the "wrong" side of the panama canal, specifically yellow-bellied sea snakes which live on the pacific side. There are no breeding populations, but due to human intervention there's potential risk of them being introduced.

See this is why I was like the categories aren't for "simplicity", the sea kraits are separated from the other sea snakes because of their many differences: a major one being that they come on land to lay eggs! A number of snakes all over the world give birth (though yes, not in the ocean) to fully formed (not "nearly") babies!

I would just add that this is part of why they can't cross over to the Atlantic! here's a paper!

...all snakes are carnivores (hence, weird thing to say)? unless you count eating eggs as being "not a carnivore". in which case this would be untrue because the turtle-headed seasnakes (genus Emydocephalus) eat primarily fish eggs!

and this one isn't quite right because of turtle-headed seasnakes again! They have almost no teeth except tiny fangs and as far as I can find are either mildly venomous or nonvenomous. since they dont hunt their venom glands are vestigial.

Sea snakes and kraits are elapids, which include other highly venomous snakes like cobras, coral snakes, and all of the highly venomous Australian species!

While doing research on realistic snake plushies, sea snakes made by WildRepublic were one of the major clear attempts at a retailer trying to be scientifically accurate.

Kraits DO actually look like cartoon animals

and yeah the olive sea snake does really look like that:

(although the olive one has apparently been taken off their website?)

although the way they title and tag their products continues to piss me off to no end, like this is an EEL not a SNAKE, they're just out here spreading misinformation and confusing things.

they completely rebranded in like 1999 because their wildlife plushies took off so personally I think they have a responsibility now to scientific accuracy since they took on that mantle. but i digress.

[cypherdecypher]

Animal of the Day!

Turtle-headed Sea Snake (Emydocephalus annulatus)

(Photo by Carmelo Abad)

Conservation Status- Least Concern

Habitat- Coral reefs in the Pacific Ocean

Size (Weight/Length)- 60 cm

Diet- Fish eggs

Cool Facts- Named after their short head, the turtle-headed sea snake is a relatively chill dude. Eating exclusively fish eggs, these snakes stake out a claim on a coral reef and stay there their entire lives. Algae is the enemy of the turtle-headed sea snake. A large enough buildup of algae reduces the snake’s speed greatly and can be a matter of life or death when facing a predator. They get some help from friendly fish looking for a meal, gobbling up the algae buildup from their scales. Due to their friendly nature and lack of a deadly bite, humans are eager to see turtle-headed sea snakes in person. Sadly, this tourism results in reef degradation and disturbances of the snakes, increasing the likelihood of the snake abandoning its territory and leaving it unable to find a mate.

Rating- 12/10 (Living stack of Oreos.)

[bethanythebogwitch]

For this Wet Beast Wednesday, I'll be talking about sea snakes. While there are a lot of snakes that can swim and spend time in the water, I won't be talking about all of them. I'm specifically talking about snakes that spend most or all of their time underwater and have specific adaptations for an aquatic lifestyle. The true sea snakes are members of subfamilies Hydophiinae (which also contains some terrestrial snakes that I won't go over) and Laticaudinae (the sea kraits). There are 72 species of sea snake, all of whom inhabit warm waters in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and are related to terrestrial Australian snakes.

(image: a sea snake)

Sea snakes have developed many unique adaptations for a life spent in water. Of note, the true sea snakes spend their entire lives underwater while sea kraits still spend time on land. This is reflected in their adaptations, with sea kraits being seen as representing a transitional stage between semi-aquatic ancestors and fully aquatic sea snakes. Sea snakes are ventrally (side-to-side) flattened and tails flattened into paddles, giving them an eel-like body plan and aiding in swimming. In true sea snakes, the ventral scales, which terrestrial snakes use for movement, are highly reduced, leaving them virtually helpless on land. Sea kraits have normal ventral scales and can move normally on land. Sea snakes are the only snakes with nostrils on the tops of their heads and they have special adaptations for keeping water out when breathing. Most species can obtain oxygen from water passing over the tops of their bodies, allowing them to supplement their held breath while on dives. Subcutaneous respiration like this is very rare amongst reptiles as their thick scales usually prevent it. The lung is proportionally larger than in terrestrial snakes, filling most of the body, and may have adaptations to help maintain buoyancy, similar to the swim bladder of bony fish. All true sea snakes are ovoviviparous, meaning they retain their eggs, which then hatch internally, and give live birth. Sea kraits are oviparous, laying eggs, which must be laid on land. Sea krait nests are very rarely found and seem to only be placed in very specific locations. Like other marine tetrapods, sea snakes ingest way too much salt as a result of accidentally swallowing sea water, and have adaptations to expel this excess salt. In their case, they have special glands in the mouth that let them release salt as they flick their tongues. The majority of sea snakes are venomous, with some species having more potent venom than any land-dwelling snake. Bites to humans are rare, but require immediate medical attention. The exception are members of the genus Emydocephalus, which feed almost exclusively on fish eggs.

(image: a black-banded sea krait. Note the paddle-shaped tail)

Sea snakes have modified senses compared to land snakes. Land snakes rely heavily on vision, chemoreception, and hearing/vibration detection. Water interferes with these senses and the adaptations of sea snakes have been poorly studied. They seem to rely primarily on chemorecpetion/smell using their tongues like land snakes. Water carries chemical signatures better than air and so sea snakes only reveal the tips of their tongues instead of the whole tongue like land snakes. Sea snakes seem to use pheromones to attract mates. One species, possibly more, has light-sensing cells on its tail, likely used to ensure it is fully hidden during the day. Some scientists have proposed that sea snakes may have evolved electromagnetic reception and pressure detection, but these have yet to be tested.

(image: a sea snake)

The majority of sea snakes are active predators who prey on small fish, crustaceans, and squid. They are generally reluctant to bite and many can be handled with little risk, but some species are more aggressive than others. It seems that species who use their venom primarily for defense are more likely to bite people than those who use venom to take down prey. They are active at day and night, with different behavior depending on species. Most species will bask in the sun during the morning and early afternoon by swimming near the surface of the water. They can dive up to 90 meters (300 feet) deep and spend a few hours between breaths, depending on species. Social behavior has been observed, with some species schooling, occasionally in huge numbers. These mass swarms are likely associated with mating. The black-banded sea krait has been seen teaming up with others of its species as well as yellow goatfish and bluefin trevally to hunt, with the group working together to flush small prey out of crevices. Most species live in shallow waters near shores or in estuaries and some will swim up rivers. Three species have adapted to a completely fresh water life.

(image: a yellow-bellied sea snake that washed up on shore)

[brodacea]

It was previously thought molluscs were invertebrates, closely related to earthworms and brachiopods. However, a newly described species may provide an insight into mollusc evolution.

Paradoxolimax emydocephalus is a recently discovered species of enigmatic gastropod-like animal found off the coasts of Australia and South America. Along with several features linking it with turtles, such as a pair of lungs, an albeit tiny plastron, a vestigial beak, and a cartiligenous skeleton, it also shares some features with modern molluscs, such as a primitive radula, a calcite shell, and a very limpet-like bauplan.

Research on the phylogeny of Paradoxolimax emydocephalus is currently ongoing, however, morphological studies have determined them as being related to the turtle family Trionychidae, and this species, along with all of the Mollusca, may be situated in this family.

partially inspired by @valdevia’s work

[todropscience]

POLLUTED WATER IS TURNING SEA SNAKE BLACK

Although turtle-headed seasnakes (Emydocephalus annulatus) are banded or blotched across a wide geographic range, most individuals are melanic in polluted inshore bays of the Pacific island of New Caledonia. Why has melanism evolved in these urban sites? The pigment in black skin may help city snakes rid themselves of arsenic and zinc, facilitating excretion of pollutants as sea snakes shed their skin. The first evidence of “industrial melanism” in a marine species is reported in Current Biology.

-  Melanic and banded turtle-headed seasnakes from a peri-urban population near Noumea.

According to researchers, black sea snakes shed their skins more frequently than banded from sites without pollution, supporting the idea that the darker color allows reptiles to facilitate excretion of pollutants

Photo by Claire Goiran

Reference (Open Access): Goiran et al. 2017.Industrial Melanism in the Seasnake Emydocephalus annulatus. Current Biology.

[snakebusters]

Scientific Fraud! Newly discovered species of sea snake is not so new after all! Media release dated 1 April 2020 - Yes April Fool's day!

The widely publicized alleged discovery of a new species of sea snake in north-west Australia on 1 April 2020 has been exposed as a scientific fraud. In a supposedly peer reviewed paper, a group of so-called scientists alleged they had found a new species of sea snake in Western Australia and proceeded to formally name it Emydocephalus orarius, Nankivell et al. 2019. It can now be revealed that their alleged work is nothing more than a thinly veiled fraud in that their key findings had in fact been lifted from a 4 year old paper that had already discovered and named the very same species. In a brazen lifting and theft of the works and findings of Australian scientist Raymond Hoser, Nankivell and his gang of thieves rehashed a four year old paper of Hoser and prostituted it as peer reviewed scientific discovery in an online journal Zootaxa. Nankivell and the gang of thieves used the exact same specimens, morphology and findings of Raymond Hoser, including the same holotype specimen of their allegedly newly discovered species that Hoser had used four years prior. Yes, Raymond Hoser, better known as The Snake Man had identified and named the exact same sea snake species as separate to better known northern and eastern species in the same genus four years earlier. The name assigned was Emydocephalus teesi Hoser, 2016, named in honour of highly respected human rights lawyer, Alex Tees of Bondi in New South Wales, Australia. As this name has a four year date priority over the bootleg name, it is Emydocephalus teesi Hoser, 2016 that is the correct name and that which must be used. The 2020 paper by Nankivell et al. fraudulently markets the contents of their 2020 paper as their own original work and discovery. They have repeated this dishonest behaviour with numerous media releases and posts on social media (e.g. Facebook, twitter, etc), including a patently false series of claims alleging they had discovered the species when doing fieldwork, when in actual fact, Hoser had done the hard yards over preceding decades. Importantly, Snakeman Raymond Hoser had been onto it and published his findings many years prior. While authors overlooking or ignoring earlier important papers was common in years past, it is rare in the present time due to the fact that scientific papers are databased and widely accessible almost immediately after publication. Significantly Nankivell admits to having read the earlier Hoser paper, but cites a blog post by a friend of his (Wolfgang Wuster), cited as Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to ignore the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and unlawfully over-write the Hoser name. In terms of a reviewer, it would be impossible to miss the obvious fact that the key evidence and findings in both the 2016 and 2020 papers are effectively identical. At the time Hoser’s 2016 paper was published he was widely accused by a gang of thieves known as the Wolfgang Wuster gang of “Taxonomic vandalism”, which is a nefarious practice of recklessly renaming species that have already been named. Hoser challenged this claim on the basis his newly discovered species of sea snake had significant morphological and molecular divergence and were reproductively isolated. Ironically, it is the actions of Wuster's closwe friend Nankivell and his et al. who in 2020 have actively engaged in taxonomic vandalism and scientific fraud. Zootaxa is the online journal that published the fraudulent Nankivell paper. It is a holotype PRINO paper and shows the hazards of the internet in terms of the ability of pseudoscientists to be able to rush bad science or non-science into print and without any serious forms of editiorial control or peer review. The only journal Zootaxa has developed a reputation as being a holotype PRINO, or peer reviewed in name only journal, because it frequently publishes fake science and bootlegs of the works of genuine scientists. Taxonomic vandalism as practiced by Nankivell and his listed co-authors, is not just fraudulent and unscientific, but it is also highly illegal as Australia has signed several international conventions forbidding it and binding all scientists to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which expressly forbids taxonomic vandalism. In any event, one thing is clear and undeniable. The allegedly newly discovered species of sea snake from Western Australia is not so new after all. It was formally discovered and named 4 long years ago. The most recent case of scientific fraud by Nankivell has been heavily promoted on social media by his good mate, Wolfgang Wuster, a serial law breaker and fraudster from Wales in the UK. Wuster has set out to destroy the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature and regularly tells others to ignore the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. He aggressively encourages friends and members of his cohort of thieves to plagiarize and steal works of others and market their discoveries as their own. Wuster's cohort have illegally renamed dozens of previously named species in a practice known as Taxonomic Vandalism, including works of 1800's greats like John Edward Gray and Leopold Joseph Franz Johann Fitzinger, throwing the science, taxonomy and nomenclature of reptiles and other animals into chaos, with enormously negative public health and wildlife conservation outcomes. Members of Wuster's cohort have recently been convicted of child sex offences, theft, shootings and other serious crimes. They also run hundreds of fake social media accounts and heavily attack sites like Wikipedia in order to peddle their warped agenda and mislead people into believing that they are a majority of reptile scientists, when in fact they are merely a side group of thieves and trouble makers. The two relevant papers are as follows: Hoser, Raymond T. 2016. A previously unrecognized species of sea snake (Squamata: Serpentes: Elapidae: Hydrophiinae). Australasian Journal of Herpetology 33:25-33. Full text available at: http://www.smuggled.com/Issue-33-25-33.pdf and James H. Nankivell, Claire Goiran, Mathew Hourston, Richard Shine, Arne R. Rasmussen, Vicki A. Thomson, Kate L. Sanders, 2020. A new species of turtle-headed sea Snake (Emydocephalus: Elapidae) endemic to Western Australia. Zootaxa (PRINO - Online), 107(3):517-523. Full text available at: https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4758.1.6

In terms of the fake claims of a new species of sea snake allegedly discovered this April Fools Day!

From Nankivell et al. (2020) who stole the basis of their paper from Hoser, 2016. They wrote: "Hoser (2016) named Emydocephalus populations from coastal Western Australia and the Timor Sea as a new species; however we follow the recommendations of Kaiser et al. (2013) and consider names published outside of the peer-reviewed literature post 2000 to be unavailable." Problem one was that Hoser (2016) was in fact peer reviewed and Problem two is that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature administered by the ICZN, which governs scientific names of species, does not mandate for peer review to make names available to use, which is a good thing as the majority of the millions of scientifically named organisms were not named via peer review - including quite ironically Nankivell et al. (2020)! (The online Journal Zootaxa is notoriously PRINO, meaning peer reviewed in name only). Nankivell et al. (2020) then wrote: "On the basis of nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA and morphological evidence we regard the coastal Western Australian E. annulatus as an evolutionarily distinctive new species with no available name." before renaming the species as an objective junior synonym (meaning this name is illegal and must not be used, with the correct senior name with date priority being used instead), "Emydocephalus orarius sp. nov. Fig. 5, 7A–B Holotype. WAM R165708. Adult male collected in Shark Bay (25°15`38”S, 113°08`19”E), WA on 10/02/2006 by G. Parry." And so there is absolutely no doubt as to from where he stole his alleged discovery .... From Hoser, 2016. "EMYDOCEPHALUS TEESI SP. NOV. Holotype: A preserved specimen number R165708, at the Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia, obtained from Shark Bay, Western Australia, (shot dead) caught on 10 February 2006. The snout-vent length is 660 mm, tail length is 132 mm and weight is 245.0 grams. The Western Australian Museum is a government-owned facility that allows inspection of its holdings. Paratypes: Specimen number R47852 from the Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia collected from Barrow Island, Western Australia, Lat. 115°40‘E Long. 20°8‘S in December 1975. Specimen number R28469 from the Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia collected from Barrow Island, Western Australia, Lat. 115°25‘E Long. 20°45‘S on 9 September 1966. The Western Australian Museum is a government-owned facility that allows inspection of its holdings. Diagnosis: Emydocephalus teesi sp. nov. would previously have been identified as E. annulatus. However it is readily separated from that taxon by having 21-23 body bands in females, versus 24-25 in females of E. annulatus. In males there are 19-21 body bands versus 22-30 in E. annulatus. These same characteristics separate E. teesi sp. nov. from the otherwise similar E. chelonicephalus and E. szczerbaki. Complete melanism is known to be common in E. annulatus and E. chelonicephalus, but is effectively unknown in Emydocephalus teesi sp. nov. and E. szczerbaki. Melanistic E. teesi sp. nov. seen in Ashmore Reef, WA retain remnants of cross-bands on the lower flanks as whitish or lighter flecks on the rear of the relevant scales. Emydocephalus teesi sp. nov. commonly (but not always) has 3 postoculars, versus a standard 2 in E. annulatus, E. chelonicephalus, E. ijimae and E. szczerbaki (and some E. teesi sp. nov.). The three postocular condition in Emydocephalus teesi sp. nov. is caused by the usual larger lower postocular (seen in other Emydocephalus) instead being two smaller ones. ..." Full text of Hoser 2016 is available at http://www.smuggled.com/issue-33-pages-25-33.pdf

Further information at: (Australia) 0412-777211 snakeman (at) snakeman.com.au

[sitting-on-me-bum]

Turtle-headed sea snake - Emydocephalus annulatus

(Image credit: University of Adelaide)

[fullfrontalfish]

Turtle-headed Sea Snake (Emydocephalus annulatus)

[typhlonectes]

NEW SPECIES ALERT:

Western Turtle-headed Sea Snake Emydocephalus orarius

This newly described turtle-headed sea snake has a fairly restricted range only occurring in Western Australia from Shark Bay to Broome. Unlike other true sea snakes (subfamily Hydrophiinae) Emydocephalus lack venom, and teeth other than their remnant fangs, due to the lack of need.  These harmless sea snakes are caviar specialists, eating only fish eggs. Read the Description here: https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4758.1.6

via:  Herpetological Conservation International

[mingyahung]

#飯島氏海蛇 Emydocephalus ijimae 又名 #飯島氏龜頭海蛇，為蝙蝠蛇科龜頭海蛇屬的爬行動物。分布於日本、中國大陸南部與台灣沿海等地，多生活於海水中。該物種的模式產地在日本琉球海。 動物界 Animalia 脊索動物門 Chordata 爬蟲綱 Reptilia 有鱗目 Squamata 眼鏡蛇科 Elapidae 龜頭海蛇屬 Emydocephalus 飯島氏海蛇 E. ijimae Aug 11,2020 #綠島柴口 最大深度17.3m 平均深度10.9m 水溫26.2度 潛水時間43m OLYMPUS TG-6 PT-059潛水殼 Weefine Smart Focus 2300流明攝影燈 #MINGDiving #日月潛行 #海底圖鑑 #凡潛過必留下痕跡 Keep Diving and Carry On MINGの潛水紀錄 www.mingdiving.com ⬆️⬆️Go Diving⬆️⬆️（在 綠島柴囗） https://www.instagram.com/p/CD8eVY-n-TlAOtGo8d0K4EF-xOg_6P-X4egmeM0/?igshid=4g2soc9d4jdu

[is-the-snake-video-cute]

what is it that makes sea snakes so difficult to keep? is it an issue of needing enough space, or something about their needs, or what? (dw just curious, certainly not planning on trying to get one or anything)

Haha no worries, they're often so difficult for even aquariums to find that I'm not really worried about anyone reading this and taking it as a challenge!

The biggest thing with them is they need a lot of space. They like warm coastal water and really need miles of space to swim, hunt, and dive in to stay happy and healthy!

Their diet can be very difficult to replicate, as well. Sea snakes eat almost exclusively eels, and aquariums who keep them can get them on f/t fish but it's not an easy task and requires careful nutritional balancing to make sure they stay healthy. That's not even mentioning the genus Emydocephalus - they eat exclusively fish eggs, which is...difficult to replicate in captivity, to say the least!

They're also finicky and fragile, so their perimeters need to be on lock. Water salinity, the temperature gradient, everything needs to be just perfect. They have a lot of tricky little behaviors - such as evolving to drink fresh water from rainfall on the surface of the seawater - that you need to account for.

They're just all-around tricky to manage! It's a shame, because by all accounts, they're supposedly very mild-mannered and lovely. I'd love to work with one someday, but I'd be happy if I even got to see one in person.

[localizeduniverse]

Dark skin lets sea snakes slough off pollution By Patrick MonahanAug. 10, 2017 , 12:00 PM In the industrial United Kingdom, dark-colored peppered moths (Biston betularia) famously flourished, as they were better camouflaged against the soot-coated trees than their lighter counterparts. But a new study shows another reason why species might darken in response to pollution: not to blend in, but to detox. Animals living in polluted areas can pick up toxic metals like lead and zinc from their diet. But these toxins bind to melanin, a pigment that many animals produce to create brown and black colors. So in theory, a dark-colored animal could use melanin to sequester these toxins, and even slough them off with its skin. Researchers tested this idea in turtle-headed sea snakes (Emydocephalus annulatus, pictured), in which some individuals are striped, and others are jet-black. Sure enough, when studying museum specimens and surveying areas in the South Pacific, reefs near cities and other polluted sites had far more black snakes: On average, four out of five snakes in these sites were black, compared with fewer than one in seven in pristine reefs, the team reports today in Current Biology. And the discarded skins of urban sea snakes—particularly the dark colored bands—were chock-full of heavy metals, further supporting the idea that dark snakes might shed pollutants along with their skin. Dark-colored pigeons (Columba livia) appear to get a similar advantage in cities, so this process may be widespread: One more for the list of ways in which animal species have rapidly evolved to cope with humanity.

[rapidsnakeremoval]

Scientific fraud: The widely publicized alleged discovery of a new species of sea snake in Western Australia on April Fools Day 2020 on the internet has been exposed as evil and unlawful Taxonomic Vandalism. The authors simply lifted and stole the findings from another scientists paper published four years earlier! Emydocephalus orarius, Nankivell et al. 2020 had in fact already been named Emydocephalus teesi Hoser, 2016

[reptilemanaustralia]

Species illegally renamed by thieves ....

Got trouble keeping up with the taxonomic vandalism of the Wolfgang Wuster gang. Well here are over 70 illegally renamed reptiles! Illegal name coined by associates of the Wolfgang  Wüster gang of thieves and improperly promoted.Comments or reasons given by author for breaching  International Code of Zoological  Nomenclature.Correct taxon name according to scientific  ethics and International Code of  Zoological Nomenclature.Acanthophis cryptamydros Maddock, Ellis, Doughty, Smith and Wüster, 2015Falsely alleged Wells and  Wellington, 1985 name not code compliant. See Wellington (2016).Acanthophis lancasteri Wells and Wellington, 1985Afronaja  Wallach, Wüster and  Broadley 2009.Falsely alleged earlier Hoser paper  not published according to Article 8 of Zoological Code.Spracklandus Hoser, 2009.Ahaetuliinae Figuero et al., 2016.No reason given. Due to time  factor and authorship, oversight must have been deliberate.Charlespiersonserpeniinae Hoser,  2013 (Alt: Ahaetuliinae Hoser, 2013) Amerotyphlops  Hedges et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser  et al. documents of 2012/2013.Altmantyphlops Hoser, 2012Antaresia stimsoni (Smith, 1985)Name published after Wells and  Wellington, 1985, (date priority) but improperly not renounced.Antaresia saxacola Wells and  Wellington, 1985. Note: Nomen nudem  claim on Wikipedia is false. Antillotyphlops  Hedges et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser  et al. documents of 2012/2013.Mosestyphlops Hoser, 2012Archipelagekko Wood et al. 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Extentusventersquamus Hoser, 2018Asiatyphylops Hedges et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser  et al. documents of 2012/2013.Argyrophis Gray, 1845Bartleia Hutchinson et al. 1990Deliberately ignored name authority  to rename taxon (nomen furtum).Techmarscincus  Wells and  Wellington, 1985Bassiana  Hutchinson et al. 1990Deliberately ignored name authority  to rename taxon (nomen furtum).Acritoscincus Wells and Wellington, 1985Brachyseps Erens et al., 2016Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Oxyscincus Hoser,  2015Broadleysaurus  Bates et al., 2013Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Funkisaurus Hoser, 2013Candoiidae  Pyron et al., 2014No reason given, but authors and  stated reviewers have improperly attacked Hoser for years.Candoiidae  Hoser, 2013Carlia isostriacantha Silva et al. 2018No reason given. Did not cite  Wells and Wellington, 1985.Carlia mysteria Wells and Wellington, 1985Cautula  Hutchinson et al. 1990Deliberately ignored name authority  to rename taxon (nomen furtum).Harrisoniascincus  Wells and  Wellington, 1984Chelodina burrungandjii Thomson, Kennett and Georges, 2000Alleged Wells and Wellington,  1985 not code compliant when it was.Chelodina billabong (Wells and Wellington, 1985)Chelodina canni  McCord  and Thomson, 2002Falsely claimed Wells and  Wellington, 1985 nomen nudem.Chelodina rankini Wells and Wellington, 1985Crocodylus halli Murray et al. 2019No citation or reason given.Crocodylus adelynhoserae (Hoser, 2012)Ctenophorus spinodomus Sadlier, Colgan, Beatson and Cogger, 2019Falsely claimed Wells and  Wellington, 1985 name invalid.Ctenophorus hawkeswoodi (Wells and  Wellington, 1985) Cubatyphlops Hedges  et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser et al. documents of 2012/2013.Dannytyphlops Hoser, 2012Cyclocoridae, Zaher et al. 2019 (via Weinell and Brown,  2018)Authors cited Kaiser et al. (2015 version)Oxyrhabdiumiidae Hoser, 2013.  (by later author’s family definitions)Dasypeltis arabica Bates and Broadley, 2018Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Dasypeltis saeizadi Hoser, 2013Diporiphora granulifera Melville et al. 2019.See for Lophognathus horneri Melville et  al., 2018.Diporiphora melvillae Hoser, 2015.Diporiphora gracilis Melville et al. 2019.See for Lophognathus horneri Melville et  al., 2018.Diporiphora garrodi Hoser, 2015.Egernia arnhemensis Sadlier, 1990Original name over-written in  expectation ICZN would rule against Wells and Wellington (they didn’t!).Hortonia obiri Wells and  Wellington, 1985 (genus in contention)Emydocephalus  orarius Nankivell et al.  2020Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Emydocephalus  teesi Hoser, 2016Emydura macquarii dharra Cann, 1998Alleged Wells and Wellington,  1985 not code compliant when it was.Emydura cooki (Wells and  Wellington, 1985)Emydura macquarii emmotti Cann, McCord and Joseph-Ouni, 2003Alleged Wells and Wellington,  1985 not code compliant when it was.Emydura macquarii windorah (Wells and Wellington, 1985)Gehyra arnhemica Oliver, et a. 2020Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Phryia paulhorneri Hoser, 2018Gehyra capensis Kealley et al., 2018No reason given. But published  several weeks after Hoser, 2018.Dactyloperus bulliardi Hoser,  2018.Flexiseps Erens et al., 2016Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Clarascincus Hoser,  2015Hapturosaurus Bucklitsch, Böhme and Koch, 2016No reason given. Also co-published  hate rant (Denzer at al. 2016).Shireenhosersaurea Hoser, 2013 Indotyphlops  Hedges et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser  et al. documents of 2012/2013.Maxhoserus Hoser,  2012Japonigekko  Wood et al. 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Sparsuscolotes  Hoser, 2018Leiopython  meridionalis Schleip, 2014Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Leiopython  hoserae Hoser, 2000Leiopython montanus Schleip, 2014Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Leiopython albertisi bennetti Hoser, 2000Lemuriatyphlops Pyron and Wallach, 2014Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Elliotttyphlopea Hoser, 2012Lepidodactylus  aignanus Kraus, 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Shireenhosergecko  jarradbinghami Hoser, 2018Lepidodactylus kwasnickae Kraus, 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Adelynhosergecko brettbarnetti Hoser, 2018Lepidodactylus mitchelli Kraus, 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Adelynhosergecko stevebennetti Hoser, 2018Lepidodactylus sacrolineatus Kraus and Oliver, 2020Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Bobbottomcolotes bobbottomi Hoser, 2018Lepidodactylus zweifeli Kraus, 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Bobbottomcolotes potens Hoser, 2018Lophognathus horneri Melville et al., 2018No reason given in paper.  Description lifted from Hoser, 2015. Editor cited Kaiser et al. veto.Lophognathus wellingtoni Hoser, 2015Macrochelys apalachicolae Thomas et al., 2014Falsely claimed no holotype ever  existed. Claim rebutted by co-author.Macrochelys muscati Hoser, 2013.Macrochelys suwanniensis Thomas et al., 2014Falsely claimed no holotype ever  existed. Claim rebutted by co-author.Macrochelys maxhoseri Hoser, 2013. Madatyphlops Hedges  et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser et al. documents of 2012/2013.Ronhoserus Hoser, 2012Malayodracon Denzer, Manthey, Mahlow and Böhme, 2015No reason given. Later published hate  rant (Denzer at al. 2016).Daraninagama  Hoser, 2014Malayopython Reynolds et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2014Invoked Kaiser veto; also falsely  claimed Broghammerus a nomen nudumBroghammerus Hoser, 2004 Malayotyphlops  Hedges et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser  et al. documents of 2012/2013.Katrinahosertyphlops Hoser, 2012Matobosaurus  Bates et al., 2013Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Swilesaurus Hoser, 2013Metlapilcoatlus Campbell, Frost and Castoe, 2019No reason given. No citation of  Hoser, 2012.Adelynhoserserpenae Hoser, 2012Microauris  Pal et al. 2018No reason given. No citation of  Hoser, 2014.Tamilnaducalotes Hoser, 2014Monilesaurus Pal et  al. 2018No reason given. No citation of  Hoser, 2014.Skrijelus Hoser, 2014Montivipera xanthina occidentalis Cattaneo, 2017No reason given. No citation  of Hoser, 2016.Montivipera yeomansi europa Hoser, 2016 (or simply M. yeomansi Hoser, 2016)Montivipera xanthina varoli Afsari, Yakin, Cicek and Ayaz  2019No reason given. No  citation of Hoser, 2016.Montivipera snakebustersorum Hoser, 2016.Myuchelys  Thomson and Georges,  2009Falsely claimed Wells 2007 breached  article 8 of Zoological Code.Wollumbinia  Wells, 2007Mopanveldophis Figuero et al., 2016.No reason given. Due to time factor  and authorship, oversight must have been deliberate.Chrismaxwellus Hoser, 2013Narawan Esquerré et al., 2020No reason given in online paper.Nictophylopython  Wells and  Wellington, 1985Naja (Boulengerina) guineensis Wüster et al.  2018Wolfgang Wüster said on Facebook  he invoked Kaiser “veto” to coin new name.Boulengerina jackyhoserae Hoser, 2013Niveoscincus  Hutchinson et al. 1990Deliberately ignored name  authority to rename taxon (nomen furtum).Litotescincus Wells  and Wellington, 1985Oedura elegans Hoskin, 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Marlenegecko shireenhoserae Hoser, 2017.Oedura nesos Oliver et al. 2020Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Oedura bulliardi Hoser, 2017Oedura luritja Oliver  and McDonald, 2016Falsely alleged Wells and  Wellington, 1985 name not code compliant.Oedura greeri Wells  and Wellington, 1985Ophiomorus kardesi Kornilios et al., 2018Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Ophiomorus macconchiei Hoser,  2015Paralaudakia Baig et  al., 2012Author was a signatory to Kaiser et al. documents of 2012/2013.Adelynkimberleyea Hoser, 2012Pogona brevis Witten,  1994Witten falsely claimed the Wells  and Wellington, 1985 holotype was “missing” when it never was.Pogona henrylawsoni Wells and Wellington, 1985Ptychozoon cicakterbang Grismer et al. 2019.Authors over-written Hoser names  previously. See for Mopanveldophis.Cliveevattcolotes (or alternatively Ptychozoon) steveteesi Hoser, 2018 Rhacogekko  Wood et al. 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally ignore rules of ICZN’s  code.Alexteescolotes  Hoser, 2018Silvascincus  Skinner et al., 2013.Co-author Mark Hutchinson has long  term form for renaming Wells and Wellington taxa (e.g. Niveoscincus).Karma  Wells, 2009.Solomonsaurus Bucklitsch, Böhme and Koch, 2016No reason given. Also co-published  hate rant (Denzer at al. 2016).Oxysaurus Hoser, 2013Stegonotus melanolabiatus Ruane et al. 2017No reason given. Ostensibly  overlooked by 6 authors and alleged peer reviewers. Diagnosis effectively  lifted from Hoser 2012.Stegonotus adelynhoserae Hoser, 2012Sundagekko Wood et al. 2019Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Scelotretus Fitzinger, 1843 Sundatyphlops  Hedges et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser  et al. documents of 2012/2013.Sivadictus Wells and  Wellington, 1985, (Note: Anilios  Gray, 1845, is a different genus: Type sp. australis)Suta gaikhorstorum Maryan et al. 2020Cited Kaiser et al. (2013) as a basis to illegally  ignore rules of ICZN’s code.Feresuta hamersleyensis Hoser, 2018Tribolonotus parkeri Rittmeyer and Austin, 2017No reason given.  Remote possibility it was a genuine  oversight.Pediporus (Feretribolonotus) greeri Hoser, 2016Tropicagama Melville et al. 2018No reason given in paper. Description  lifted from Hoser, 2015. Editor cited Kaiser et al. veto.Melvillesaurea Hoser, 2015Tumbunascincus  Skinner et al., 2013Co-author Mark Hutchinson has long  term form for renaming Wells and Wellington taxa (e.g. Niveoscincus).Magmellia Wells, 2009.Tympanocryptis osbornei Melville et al. 2019.Falsely claimed T. lineata holotype was T. telecom Wells and Wellington, 1985  to assert species unnamed.Tympanocryptis lineata Peters, 1863.Varanus  teriae Sprackland, 1991Allegedly overlooked name authority  and then refused to renounce synonym.Varanus  keithhornei (Wells and  Wellington, 1985). (Note: genus assignment is in flux). Xerotyphlops Hedges  et al., 2014Author was a signatory to Kaiser et al. documents of 2012/2013.Lenhosertyphlops Hoser, 2012  Underlined names in original document (not copied here as underlined) are OBJECTIVE synonyms (as in exactly the same type specimen or type species). Items in blue (others) are so-called subjective synonyms, but based on second authors taxonomic diagnosis are one and the same taxon as earlier items on right, meaning oldest available names must be used.  Items in blue typically include specimens from same location and collection series and/or extremely closely related species if genus, with later authors typically lifting important diagnostic material from earlier authors papers (mainly uncited or alternatively derided, but bootlegged). About half the junior synonyms have NOT been recorded in Zoobank (ICZN Repository) as of end January 2020 and many of the others are incompletely listed. All senior Hoser names (most on this list) have been fully recorded in Zoobank at time of original publication since inception of Zoobank (ICZN), and also recorded on publication and archived at Zoological Record, National Library of Australia, Natural History Museum, UK, etc, and fully comply with rules of the in force International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Last updated 20 May 2020. Learn more here at http://www.smuggled.com/scientific-fraud-wolfgang-wuster.htm