These two Australian dudes are awful, no doubt, but the whole "you might get the wrong antivenin" disaster scenario is a reach. How many people go to the hospital with a scientific name? If I ever get bit, I'll bring the the remains of the snake with me, and the nurse will say, "Yep, looks like a copperhead."
Academia's blockchain-like pyramid of citations is charming, IMHO. The researchers who matter, know what's going on. Citing these bozos, would be a pretty good bozo indicator in and of itself.
It's a reach to imagine your scenario applies to snakebite emergencies generally. Copperheads are large, distinctive snakes, their nomenclature is stable and in the temperate zones where they live, there are a relatively limited number of other venomous species to distinguish, hence you being so assured of supplying remains for a nurse to casually ID. In contrast, many tropical habitats, where snakebites are much more of a problem, have a much, much higher venomous snake species diversity (particularly of those small, fast elusive ones you barely glimpse), and questions about ID and species relationships are correspondingly more confusing.
It's not so much about always turning up with a scientific name. The whole effort from doctor-patient communication, to animal control, to the production, supply and procurement of specific antivenins, needs to be conducted within as stable and precise nomenclatural framework as possible.
Snakes are just one example here, there are many examples of research programmes being derailed by faulty taxonomy, with big impacts on everything from crop production to theoretical work in ecology.
> particularly of those small, fast elusive ones you barely glimpse
How is taxonomy going to help you if you don't get enough identification time and don't have enough herpetology to identify the snake's species and genus in the first place? The vast majority of people don't use taxonomic terms: "Doctor, can you help me? I have a canis familiaris bite..."
If you have absolutely no information about what bit you, diagnostics look at habitat, bitemark characteristics, venom reaction, and of course serological tests / enzyme immunological assay can be conclusive. Taxonomy is critical generally, if the patient doesn't have an ID it's not as if taxonomy becomes irrelevant.
Copperheads are also not particularly dangerous, to the point where antivenom is usually not administered, as the risk of a negative immune reaction is worse than leaving it untreated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agkistrodon_contortrix#Venom
>but the whole "you might get the wrong antivenin" disaster scenario is a reach. How many people go to the hospital with a scientific name?
Here's an example: I keep multiple tarantulas as pets (yes it's a thing). If I got bit by one that has medically significant venom, I'm 100% going to tell the ER exactly what species it was with it's scientific name (all are kept in labeled enclosures).
Why in God's name do you keep multiple venomous animals as pets? You even admit you might get bit someday. Do you even know that your hospital carries tarantula anti-venom?
Yeah, the article over dramatizes the issue, but within basically acceptable bounds imo, and they do provide other more reasonable problems that can crop up as a result of conflicting naming schemes.
Also replying with a string of expletives, and "heaps of bloody merit", is so Australian it's practically charming.
Other researchers being misguided and stupid and wrong still isn't the same as them being vandals, though. I'd be surprised if the aforementioned bozos have many citations (aside from maybe citing each other?)
Academia's blockchain-like pyramid of citations is charming, IMHO. The researchers who matter, know what's going on. Citing these bozos, would be a pretty good bozo indicator in and of itself.