Looking for input....

[snakemanaust]

Thanks Miller for your reply.
Firstly don't believe all you read on the web.
Australasian Journal of Herpetology IS peer reviewed.
Getting past this relatively minor detail I note that:
Taxonomic proposals and changes are often not accepted for many years (sometimes hundreds) and sometimes never, and so, acceptance or otherwise of my recent taxonomic actions by other/s shouldn't be taken as the final word on anything.
Generally there is resistance to all taxomic changes as most people are used to calling species a given name and frankly hate to change this.
I often call species by outdated names (which have been widely shown as such) simply because I cannot keep up with everything in terms of changes.
For what it's worth, common species subject of name changes tend to have name changes widely accepted faster than obscure species, so you will see my python changes getting accepted quickly and others more slowly.
Quickly usually means within 20 years as opposed to say 50!
Now for the benefit of others here, a name is usually "available" and either used or not. They are generally not "accepted" as such by ruling body (in this case ICZN).
The ICZN usually only get involved in formally rejecting names on the basis of priority and the like, but that's beyond the scope of this post.
Now in terms of the comment:
" who is trying to use taxonomy for legal justification to keep certain subspecies of B. reticulatus and P. bivittatus because they don't get that big and as such I feel should be exempt from laws written to keep people from owning "giant snakes.""
I issue a warning on several basis. 1 - Taxonomy of species by law enforcement agencies is usually very behind the times in that it uses a "standard reference" and usually a conservative one at that. Furthermore it is rare to invoke subspecies for several reasons, so trying to exempt one retic on the basis of size from the rules would be doomed to fail unless and until they were reclassified as separate SPECIES.
I don't see that as happening anytime soon (if ever).
2 - The rules against giant constrictors seems to be more in terms of their invasive/pest potential to wild ecosystems (animals), as opposed to any danger of the snakes. Even the much criticized Rodda reports (on the web) downplay any risks of the big snakes.
3 - Some places regulate snakes as dangerous if they grow in excess of 6 feet or two metres. All the Retic/Burms get bigger than that, so the "danger" argument is not a place I'd recommend going to, but if you do, I'd just compare these animals with the deadly ones like dogs and horses which kill way more people.
Hope this helps.
All the best