USGS Python Rebuttal- Python Distribution

[morti]

Please See the Below Post by MRCota. The full text of the articles can be found attached to this post.

[mrcota]

Today, an extremely well referenced paper and rebuttal was published today by the Chicago Herpetological Society. What the rebuttal and paper do is show the dubious manner in which this “climate envelope” was formed by Rodda et al. (2008 ).
.
Barker, D.G. & T. M. Barker. 2008. The Distribution of the Burmese Python, Python molurus bivittatus. Bull. Chicago Herp. Soc. 43(3): 33-38.
.
Barker, D.G. & T. M. Barker. 2008. Comments on a Flawed Herpetological Paper and an Improper and Damaging New Release from a Government Agency. Bull. Chicago Herp. Soc. 43(3): 45-47
.
Together these papers show most of the faults in the misleading Rodda et al. (2008 ). I say misleading because they publically insist that the entire paper is predicated on their ‘climate envelope’, not on the biology, natural history or ecology of this species, but then make comments regarding those very topics in the paper itself. Although it will be difficult to undo all the damage that USGS has done misleading the public, the press, the law makers and the government (and someone may have actually broken the law doing so and this is worth an investigation into under the federal Iformation Quality Act, as suggested in the rebuttal). Barker & Barker (2008a) shows that the USGS map of geographical distribution was done in great error (again, contrary to the very references they cite), calls into question where these weather stations were actually located and that the bivittatus taxon should actually be elevated to species status, in other words, you can pretty much throw Rodda et al. (2008 ) in the rubbish bin.
.
Of all the things that I see that destroys the credibility of the paper most of all, it is not providing the weather data and the location of the 149 weather stations done in their climate matching and developing their ‘climate envelope’. These weather stations, which form the very foundation of their paper, are not referenced nor were they available when requested. This is from the paper:

"We don't know what parameters were set in the data analysis because the data are not included in the paper. We emailed a request to authors Rodda and Reed for information about what environmental factors and values were utilized in the analysis. Our requests were unanswered.
.
We recommend that it would be a proper action now for the authors to publish the data used in all analyses, including location, elevation, all temperature and climate data, annual and seasonal precipitation, and any other seasonal data. In particular, it would be important to list all analyses that were made, and all changes of the data to achieve each analysis."

I personally believe this of great importance, because through my earlier investigation into the references showed that there were only a few locations in all the references that they cited and the highest specific location is only 850m! Since they only relied on their references and admitted to not asking anyone for information on them, it is highly doubtful that even half of their 149 weather stations had ever had a Burmese python anywhere near them.
.
One thing that I really like about Barker & Barker’s paper is that it was given comments and reviewed (as evident in the acknowledgements) by many names easily recognised throughout the herpetological community. An important question yet to be asked is: Who exactly reviewed Rodda et al. (2008 )??? Whoever it was has not been released and if they are indeed a herpetologist, I sincerely believe that they don’t want their name associated with the paper.
.
To Barker and Barker, I would like to say: Job well done. That is how you write a paper. Your papers are well referenced, well written and to the point. You actually sought out people in your references (which Rodda et al. did not do) and even had some of them review your paper.
.
To those that would say I might be biased, I will tell them that I have no connection to the US pet, reptile or python trades. In fact, I think the trade of large pythons and dangerous reptiles SHOULD BE REGULATED to keep them out of the hands of the children, teenagers and irresponsible adults. If there is any bias on my part, it is on the side of scientific peer review process; however in the case of the Rodda et al. paper, I just saw too much that was wrong, purely speculative, apparently purposely misleading and not supported by their references. Did I carefully look through and analyze Barker & Barker, like I did Rodda et al.? Yes, Dave Barker was kind enough to send me the paper asking me what I thought of it and I even questioned one item in the paper. Mind you, that is only one item of concern I had (part of one sentence), when in Rodda et al. there were pages worth of concerns, many of which have yet to be addressed. As it turned out, the one item (mangrove habitat) was confirmed by a specific location and from two sources – again, good job!
.
Please contact me if you would like a pdf copy of this hard hitting rebuttal and well written paper. Unfortunately, any requests made for the papers after Sunday morning my time (Saturday night your time in the US), may take longer, since I will be away from home.
.
Cheers,
Michael

[RevMojo]

I bet the rebuttal doesn't end up in USA Today though...

[morti]

PS... The other thread is gone. Long story but, Thanks again Michael for all your help!

[razeraze]

Michael you are awesome. Can you PM me the Chicago herp members full names involved so I can thank them on their forum? I am new to the Chicago herp society and am not familiar with everyone, but I really appreciate what the two Barkers did.

[Genevieve]

Finally we have some voice of reason. Thank you very much to the Chicago herp society.

[morti]

The PDF's are back. See first post.

[VexalUntil]

I was talking with someone else who's been very very active in the political scene of the Burmese python and other invasive reptiles here in FL a couple days ago. He also began asking if the Rodda and Reed paper was peer reviewed. If it was published in a scientific journal it should have been.

[Jason_Hood]

For those of you who are very interested in this original paper, the rebuttal by Barker, another as of yet not released letter by Barker and more info sure to come I want to say that the Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society will have another article next month dealing with this and since one of the original paper's authors is a member of the CHS there will more than likely be an answer to the Barker's points of contention and questions raised coming soon. I was told that the Barker's will not release their latest letter until the next Bulletin has gone to press and I would be surprised if the response from the original authors gets online like the Barker's has. Sooo... if you want to get this info it will be by getting the Bulletin of the CHS or by someone who does get it posting it.
So if you want to get the articles you can join the CHS and get one of the best monthly herp society based publications out there by going here...
Membership
Or you can ask the editor Mike Dloogatch for copies of the previous month (volume 43, number 3) and the next month (volume 43, number 4) and I will try to update you if I hear of a rebutal coming to publication from the Reed camp. You can ask for the Bulletin hard copies here...
Bulletin
I should warn you that there are only about 50 "extras" printed as back copies and this particular one is being asked for by other societies and private individuals already so they may sell out fast but if you want a copy of the next one and get your request in before the 10th they might make a bigger run. From what I hear from Mr. Dloogatch the next letter from Barker to another of the government funded scientist dealing with the press is pretty darn good. I can't wait and it is killing me. I heard about this latest article about a month ago and it was a rough wait for sure.!!

Jason

[razeraze]

Thanks Jason, I just found the bulletin. Hopefully I will see you at the fest.

[VexalUntil]

Since the paper is still inpress in the journal Biological Invasions, I would like to see if it even gets published after going through the peer review. The authors seriously jumped the gun and released their findings and proposed maps to the media before the scientific community.

I'm putting my trust in those in the herpetoculture industry who are well connected to the political scene to add the voice of reason to this mess.

[mrcota]

Originally Posted by VexalUntil

I was talking with someone else who's been very very active in the political scene of the Burmese python and other invasive reptiles here in FL a couple days ago. He also began asking if the Rodda and Reed paper was peer reviewed. If it was published in a scientific journal it should have been.

Rodda et al. was not only peer reviewed, as any paper in any scientific journal must be, but it also had to go through an internal government review which is stipulated under the federal Information Quality Act, which is specifically in place to stop the dissemination of such questionable information and misleading content by government agencies (the authors are USGS employees). This is what so many of us are amazed at, that this paper somehow passed peer review and an internal review. Whoever was involved with the peer review process or the internal review did not do their job and luckily for them, the names of those involved were not released. One thing that was learned from Bob Reed on another forum, was that none of the MANY herpetologists in this region were ever contacted (wise for passing questionable information that would otherwise be objected to).
.
Dave Barker just recently sent me an email about some Florida senator who wants to 'educate the senators of the other states' using the Rodda et al. map.
.
As far as the Rodda et al. paper, it was published over two weeks (over three weeks?) before the Barker & Barker paper was published. I was asked to give my comments almost two weeks after the Rodda et al. paper was published and soon after Barker & Barker was submitted (in press).

[razeraze]

Thank you again Michael for clearing some of the process up for us. Please keep us informed on the senator education as well.

[VexalUntil]

Thanks Michael for correcting me. I was under the impression it was still inpress and not published (and therefore not peer reviewed) yet.

Here's a video clip of said Senator who wants to go around and "educate" the other senators in the map's range.

Fla. Politicians Take Steps To Rid Everglades Of Invasive Pythons - Local News Story - WTVJ | Miami

[VexalUntil]

Well after digging around on UF's library catalog I found the journal that the Rodda and Reed paper was published in and got a full text pdf. The paper has only been published online first, not in a printed version of the journal. PM or email me for a copy, I couldn't attach it.

[morti]

It has been posted here on RTB.

Python Ban... Bad news

Page two has a post by BWSmith with the article and figures.

[VexalUntil]

Yes I saw that one, but it's a Word document. I found the .pdf version from Biological Invasions with the figures embedded. Just for those who, like me, want the original printed source, not the submitted paper.

[razeraze]

Thanks for sending me the copy. I find it strange that a book I own was referenced but the book is about Reticulatus not about Molurus or Bivittatus. In fact in the entire book I have only found one sentence pertaining to either, and it has to do with Myanmar. I hope they used plenty more references before claiming Borneo and Indonesia Molurus territory. The book does mention that Reticulatus has the most extensive range of all python ssp. According to Barker and Barker (1997). Makes me wonder why reticulatus has not taken over the everglades, Texas and the southern hemisphere Could it be because they prefer tropical micro environments like Molurus and Bivittatus?