Herpetofauna Mexicana Vol. 1 SNAKES OF MEXICO
by Peter Heimes
Available on Amazon: http://amzn.to/1tCe4TL

Moderator: Scott Waters
Jimi wrote:I jumped on it yesterday; Amazon said they had one available and I got it. Hopefully they'll get some more in soon.
I'm kinda curious what kind of print run Chimaira did. You might be able to just get it straight from them (the publisher, in Hamburg). They have lots of natural history books that might also interest you:
http://www.chimaira.de/
Just click the Union Jack for an English translation of their site. See the left-side column of categories for herps, birds, inverts etc.
FWIW, I have several of their books (both hard and soft), they hold up pretty well. Seems to be a decent build quality.
Good hunting,
Jimi
Yeah it was. $132 all told, from Amazon. Books have gone up, ha ha...but then again, who hasn't lamented the absence of a decent "herps of Mexico" book?Was it over $100?
I see that 108 Euros is about $122 today (damn, I gotta book a European vacation! that's a relatively great exchange rate; I wonder what this Brexit vote will do????). Anyway, it's a much shorter boat trip from Germany to Finland, than FRG to USA, so maybe that accounts for the cost difference?98€ on the website, and a tennerandabit for shipping costs.
I can't really use that word ("investing") in association with books. Or camping gear, cars, snake cages, GPS units, plane tickets etc - they're all more like "toys" or "consumables". They just cost money, and you're not getting the money back (certainly not with interest). Use them up and have a great time, I say. The nice thing about books is, if the build quality is any good, they age pretty well. My copy of "Snakes of Sumatra" must be pushing 20 years old now, and it's holding up great.Investing on books is a tricky game. A bit of a bastard buying a book for 100+€, and there being a further print for 50€.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/arc ... 19320.htmlMark Brown wrote:One small oddity I noticed about the book - the title on the binding is printed upside-down. So when it is on the bookshelf you have to tilt your head to the left to read it as opposed to the right, which is normal. Interesting.
You'd be amazed at what European individuals can do.Scotttriv wrote:I am a little bit suspicious of a European individual putting a book like this together
Your last two posts have convinced me that you need a little educating. The milk snake split didn't elevate every subspecies, it sank lots of them and made several new species, and that was very necessary if you ask me. The desire to hold onto the old subspecies is very sentimental but it isn't very scientific, and it's time to catch up with the past two decades of snake taxonomy.Scotttriv wrote:I am sure that it wasn't the author of this new book, but what kind of idiot would sink the species triangulum and make
all of the sub species of milk snakes whole species?
I may avoid buying the book just because I could not stomach seeing Lampropeltis triangulum polyzona listed as Lampropeltis polyzona![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's why we write books, so we can remember what we forget.Scotttriv wrote:I would bet you a beer that I have forgotten more about snakes and snake hunting then you will ever learn
Regardless of the alpha male BS in that statement, how does that work, betting on a quantity you forgot? First you insult the population of an entire continent, and then you trash-talk the content of a study you haven't read? Nice ánd smart.Scotttriv wrote:My copy is on the way and I would bet you a beer that I have forgotten more about snakes and snake hunting then you will ever learn.
And just how old are you? In the parable of the adulteress (John 8:9), it was noted that the oldest were the first to realize their temerity.As you get older and read more about reptiles, you will learn the unfortunate fact that taxonomy and genetics are not related nearly as much as they should be.
"Scientists" come along every day and decide to rename animals for reasons that are often self serving and have very little to do with sound science.
IMO, whoever decided that Lampropeltis triangulum polyzona should be renamed Lampropeltis polyzona is an idiot, regardless of whatever DNA or other data he presented to justify his reclassification.
Women in the sciences have it hard, in large precisely because of the attitudes of a bunch of male chauvinists like yourself, its an uphill battle dealing with sexism in the sciences. Fellas like yourself often make rude denigrating comments and then if its brought up as inappropriate just hide behind their bastion of saying its only a joke, what can't you take a joke... You were talking about her work, you may not agree with it (although you have failed to provide any valid reasons why besides that you dont like it) what her appearance has to do with it, I'm not sure. Keep your chauvinist comments off of here, no ones laughing at your 'jokes'.scottriv wrote:Gene,
It is unfortunate that you were born with underdeveloped "genes" in the sense of humor portion of your brain.
Sara can invite me to her "Snake Pit" and lump and split with me any time her heart desires.
I have all sorts of kinky names we could throw at the Lichanura group, but you have to have a sense of humor to participate.
Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Congrats, you've added not even knowing what taxonomy is to the fact that you didn't read a paper before you bashed it.
Over time our understanding of certain concepts has changed, we know that older approaches are not as good as we once thought they were. New info gleaned by using new techniques (oftentimes using technology that wasn't available until recently) and a greater understanding call for certain revisions. Do you understand how Science works? Keeping something the same just because thats the way its been for a long time is a terrible approach and not how things work in the scientific community nor should they.scottriv wrote:Rather than wasting your time insulting me, why don't you guys defend what Sara did.
Explain in scientific terms why changing names that have been published thousands of
times in thousands of publications for over a century was a good idea.
There is no such thing as time honored in science, if new information becomes available then out with old and in with the new. This is science we are talking about not an antiques museum.What Sara did is in my opinion, an atrocity and I will bet anyone here a beer that her professor has never allowed ANY of his male herp students to wantonly destroy 150 years of taxonomic tradition by lumping and splitting time honored genera the way that she did.
You haven't offered a SINGLE bit of scientific critique and just make denigrating comments about the people involved, all you have been saying is that you don't like the results yet are unable to explain why besides historical precedent. I told you in science historical precedent counts for very little so there goes your argument.scottriv wrote:
I am desperately looking for someone, anyone, to defend or explain what Sara did from a scientific perspective and absolutely none of you have been able to even attempt to defend what she did.
You may find out the hard way that the owner and moderator of this board does not appreciate name calling and personal attacks.
Again, because that's not the point of the dislikes you're getting. I for one am not wasting my time trying to enlighten someone who is too lazy to read the concerned paper. Hell, I may even disagree with their findings. Get it?scottriv wrote:absolutely none of you have been able to even attempt to defend what she did.