To discuss the information on the description page of the form

Eugene was my idea, so explain: there are 2 things - 1) Ideally, in the future we plan to profile similar species (externally), to a person once seen, is there any similar options, and, accordingly, whether he could be wrong For example, in the determination.But to create such a partition requires a lot of data, most likely - a form for users so they can bring their opinions on the subject, etc. Ie it will be realized if, in the future. Section types with the same colors partially performs this function - of course, the similarity is limited to the color.2) I believe the color information is interesting and function definitions, and it is interesting to see that there is a set of colors similar to this species. I admit that it may not be interesting to anyone else but me.

Because - yes, the question for discussion, asking all stakeholders to express their views.

Ps.Eugene, solyanka might seem overly team yet because the last few days for the species, a set of colors that did not put down, as the same set of demonstrated other species in which the set is also not entered. Now it is fixed, and this section is activated only for species that have as a set of something specified.

W.ZY About Traffic - depending on the number of similar color, the traffic to the page can go twice as many than those without this section.

Z.Z.Z.Y. By the way, one of the options - make a section customizable. Ie By default, it is displayed and the user, which is not suitable, it may affix the appropriate setting, such as in the Personal Area.In fact, many plans dopolno display settings for registered users, it can be also a ...

Put my wife, give her any butterfly and make determined. My wife has all the scoops.

And please, when you create a new type of pages you need to unite the field and author of the year, otherwise the brackets round, square or without skobok- not understand

About his wife - I did not quite understand. If it means that the kettle would not determine how it helps - so it is so, but why not make more convenient for poluchaynikov starting nechaynikov and other developing? .. If the meaning was in the other - please explain. ..

About parentheses - the question: is it possible to list the maximum number of different options, where some braces can be located and what it means (here the same remark about the specific name in brackets).

Dmitry Pozhogin, 14.01.2011 16:58 - I fully support - split into two Strait is not just senseless and harmful!

Petr Khramov, 16:16 14.01.2011 - "Ideally, in the future we plan to profile similar species (externally), to a person once seen, is there any similar options, and, accordingly, whether he could make a mistake, such as the definition.But to create such a partition requires a lot of data, most likely - a form for users so they can bring their opinions on the subject, etc. ... "
- Peter! Such things are realized, experts taxonomists in the group (for example - CD determinant "Butterflies of Eastern Europe ... " Ivy and Morgunov and companies).Just like it is the user will golubyaki Icarus and Argus, well, it is quite relevant to different groups. Hence the question - complete resource for amateurs created (in which all the shovels Butterfly :)), or still is assumed to be the professional level? It is better defined once, and then later not raking that is formed!

and in this sense. He gave his wife turned apollo- scoop.

If the author's name is in parentheses, it means that the author believed that this species belongs to a different genus.

Eugene, on the section of similar species - Now is not entirely clear how this thing to realize, admit to anyone from editing, etc. - Because, perhaps, it is still not. Open-ended question in general. All sorts of opinions, again, welcome.

With regards, for whom life - I believe (though a lot of people managed to disagree), it is possible to connect to a single resource of random people who are just interested in what they have clicked at his dacha, people passionate topic, but little versed in it, beginners or just have some cognitive interest,as well as different levels of amateur and professional. The main thing is that with all of this to the content of the (same accuracy in determining, for example, or adequacy of the species) had a ratio of people actually in the subject, not passers-by. Then the quality of the information will be on top.And if the site will help someone move from a group of illiterates in a literate - and then all will be well.

Summary: to the resource was useful for specialists, it is necessary not that it was not dummies, but the fact that there were experts who have third-party data is filtered, and did not disdain to add their own.Again, if some function overload the page, I made them customizable.

Ps. In all this wonderful picture is superimposed by the fact that I myself am not a butterfly specialist, even though there are all sorts of education and other husks.

Dmitry correctly I understand that options (other than standard) can be taken into account following - the year in brackets, the author in parentheses brief specific name in parentheses. Or something else?

The main thing is that with all of this to the content of the (same accuracy in determining, for example, or adequacy of the species) had a ratio of people actually in the subject, not passers-by.
And how do you define the topic people or not, but about the adequacy of the kinds of pro and you will not say anything. How many professors, so many opinions.Simply take something for the basis (the same site as the most affordable Saveliev) and this dance.

Without parentheses, all in parentheses + a year in square brackets is another option. Simply will integrate the above mentioned fields.

I do not even biological education. I'm not special. Then identify and hang the photo with certain types have no right.
You'll have to pull all the same, that is not real. It turns out the project is doomed ???

Dmitry Pozhogin, 14.01.2011 18:40 - Dmitry! A lot of people with a "biological entity " cool inferior not a biologist, but enthusiastic SERIOUSLY "layman ". Examples of this are countless! Including do not cry the blues :) I am a professional entomologist, but with some very familiar butterflies and a lot of entomologists do not teach me! And that's OK!

Dmitry, I remind you, just spices are not and just because a site is not a one off. But you think it is spices, so th and Wellcome, and all that. Right now I'm writing from the phone as an Internet will accomplish your goal more.

Since merge fields with the year and the author - very wrong (and how to sort kinds of description, the time or the author?) I write all options ready examples - as it can be and that may mean. Without examples - did not happen.

Peter! Who's supposed to sort kinds of description of the year? If there is someone "angled " on such statistics, it is too bold for the sake of one or two a problem.So it is for the author - that's a very special thing, again, units will require, but the observance of the nomenclature of accuracy - it should be a priority! That kind of sort (to sample) in the region - this is really necessary. And here is unification of geographical indications. And we have not even mandatory to anchor the photo can not come ...In one box to the author and year of description. Dmitry rights.

The simplest examples:
Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 - view of the kind described in 1758;
Iphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus 1758) - the form is described in another way, in 1758;
Zegris eupheme (Esper, [1805]) - the kind described in a different way, based on indirect evidence in 1805, the exact date of the publication of descriptions are not known.
What is the description of the search by date, it is the last thing that is recognized in the literature.The publications always indicate the name, most of the abbreviated name of the author, rarely full name of the author, and then already - the date of the description and do not always ..

Do I understand that is also possible LastName firstname [1919], when the species was described in this way, but the year is also known only from indirect data?

Before [1919] by essno ...

theoretically, yes. but could not find.

This option is unlikely to have. This applies to very old works of 18-19 centuries, generations are now changed so that all of the old types in later births.

but found no date at all. only the author.

On funet is full of options. First got an example: Godman & Salvin, [1890] on the page http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/papilionidae/papilioninae/protographium/index.html

Or is there something else was meant?

With regards to who should sort the year - it does not matter who it is necessary or not. Keep out of the year, along with a text by the author - it's wrong.A bracket can solve a problem in a different way, you only need to decide with all possible options. ZY And again, a lot of useful information you provide the brackets? Compared to option if always sculpt without braces at all. The blessing is done so often (judging by pop music, by itself).

If not mistaken, then there should be the date of first citation. BKZ date vrodebto not allowed. If not published, thus not described. we can safely describe under his own name.

Keep out of the year, along with a text by the author - it's wrong.
Peter, this is your opinion, biological nomenclature thinks differently. It's a conversation about how to write the name in Latin or Russian. For me personally, technically, it's a very daunting task in a simple program, I would have walked variants. a website is down. This you will have to decide.that the sheep were intact, and the wolves are fed.

Alexander, biological nomenclature nothing said about the proper storage of data - it's just not part of its mission. Ie the question of how to store a year - separately or together by the author, not in any way associated with the biology. At the same time, the fact that the need to do so that it is convenient to operate biologists - is not disputed.I have previously done with brackets, but not at all in the course was. What we just learned ...

I tried to make a fool of data when downloading the program name before opening bracket of the village put a comma and in the year after the year bracket. It worked. Just do not need to put a comma, then the two of them appear after the names. Peter, I see a site in front of the scientific gains. All right, people's website, for a wide range of users.but in the pages of Piste small letters. tolzhno be the correct name, according to the rules of nomenclature.

Peter delicious field. Nobody on the year, and the author will not search. Perverts go to other sites.

Peter year here, no release date and priority. Its main functionality is, we need to establish, priority name, if one and the same species was described by various authors. But it goes beyond the functions of the site. The drafters of the audit work with primary sources.

Messrs, here the dispute purely theoretically. I will do so, so that you can boot denote brackets, but it will all be stored in different fields, and all will be the norm.

Still in its make. Although 3 people said delicious.

Dmitry, 3 people said they need braces. And braces are. And at the exit (on Un descriptions) they will look unified. What is really more?

Yevgeny Komarov, 14-01-2011 17:55
I fully support - split into two Strait is not just senseless and harmful!
Alexander Zhakov, 0:14 20.01.2011

Keep out of the year, along with a text by the author - it's wrong.

It was a quote, I do not agree with it.
Petr Khramov, 20.01.2011 0:06
. Keep out of the year, along with a text by the author - it's wrong.

As to how to store - the question is not biological, and programmer's. If someone has a desire to discuss this position - Wellcome, let's discuss. The biological question - as it is shown on this website (this is no problem, the brackets will, as I mentioned above), as well as the information entered into the database of the site.In the latter case, the possible options: to do as it is now will be a plus mark (bracketed year / parentheses Author + year) or make one general field, and then the program will disassemble the author, year and brackets separately. In the first case it is easier to avoid mistakes and it understandable for someone who first enters the Old.The second case is good if you are going to enter a lot of data-trees (that you are comfortable with the copy of the author Year and staples from some other source).

Therefore, I can understand, if you stand up for the second option on the reasons I have voiced.If other reasons, and the first is not an option - please voice, for me it is important to understand what is the point.

Предлагаю расширить пункт,Добавление инфы о виде. А конкретно, на примере водных насекомых добавить пункт Среда и условия обитания. Под средой понимаем континентальный
водоём (озеро, река, болото и т.д и здесь же указывать характер воды: стоячая, медленно или быстротекущая-Два последних, для рек и ручьёв.
А в условиях обитания показываем др. инфу.:Термальный источник, подземное озеро , подземная река. Водоём пресный, солёный, кислый.
Предусмотреть место для насекомых обитающих на открытой поверхности морей и океанов, или просто указывать море, океан. Как-то так.

Юрий, такой пункт однозначно нужен, только как его назвать? Я когда-то давно уже предлагал аналогичный, но более широкий пункт "Биоэколгические особенности". Такой пункт универсален и "проглотит" инфу по любым таксономическим группам, хоть по водным, хоть по почвенным, хоть каким угодно. Однако такого пункта, увы, нет. Информация, которую туда можно было бы заносить, частично (не вся) раскидана по 8 полям, что мне не кажется верным. Особенно такие поля, как "Дополнительная информация о стадии имаго/личинки" - Уж это-то точно должно объединяться в эти самые "особенности". Туда же и число поколений (генераций), поле для которых не предусмотрено вообще! Кстати, в очередной раз наткнулся на поле "Время лёта" - фантомную болячку от лепидоптеры. Ну не все взрослые насекомые летают! Есть же устоявшийся термин "Период активности имаго".

Евгений ! Если навскидку и коротко ,то так и назвать как предлагаю. Вот сегодня заполнял инфу по водомеркам и " забуксовал". Вот захотелось указать, что обитают в континентальных водоёмах, а куда её заносить ? Пришлось запихать пока в кормовые растения, нету пункта.Вот и родилась мысля создать пункт Среда и условия обитания.
Да, я тоже не понимаю пункт " Дополнительная информация о стадии имаго, личинки. " Что вообще суда можно заносить? Вот была личинка, и стала она взрослой. И что дальше ?.,.становиться " натуралистом и считать сколько раз за минуту повернёт голову на север, а ск-ко на юг ? и тд.Явно эту строку надо убирать, или менять на более конкретную.
Что касается твоего предложения назвать пункт "Биоэколгические особенности", то ничего не имею против. Только такой заголовок мне представляется более обширным и видимо более полным. И тут вопрос, а достаточно ли будет удобно всё это считывать на стр. Добавление новой инфы о виде. Может под этот заголовок "Биоэколгические особенности" лучше создать отдельную стр. прикреплённую к основной:-где описания, время лёта и т. д. Всё это обсуждаемо и решаемо. Но будет ли Пётр вносить изменения странице ?. Надо, чтоб вы все сперва в служебке договорились и в случае принятия решения вынесли это на обсуждение.
Ps https://insecta.pro/taxonomy/1037384 Инфу суда добавлял

Юрий, как-то последнее время все обсуждение ведется Петром, Василием и мной - остальной народ либо в полях, либо как-то интерес теряет в связи с резкими телодвижениями на сайте. Я сам 30-го июня улетаю к Вам (Витязь+Анисимовка) до 17-го. А поля и информацию на страницах вида обсуждали активно и многократно, вот только сам видишь - изменения если и идут, то крайне медленно. Обсуждали уже и "время лета" и многое другое ...

Евгений ! Как ведётся обсуждение, примерно по комментам сайта представляю.. Что народ не очень участвует, может и не так уж и плохо, т.к. снижается вероятность как в басне " Лебедь, рак и щука" Будут желания, будут и решения.
Опять Вы в интересные места едете. Удачи Вам, новых интересных находок. А я всё рядом с домом и то, когда здоровье позволяет и тем не менее порой даже Лобанов удивляется, как много видов в черте города.

Юрий! У Вас "черта города" понятие весьма разнообразное :) Ничуть не удивляюсь богатству насекомышей. А уж территория Ботсада ... Мы едем в две наиболее интересные, как нам показалось, точки по итогам поездки 14-го года, да они и наиболее удобные с организационной точки зрения - мы уже шиковать с арендой машины не собираемся. А в Витязе - Чистяков, в Анисимовке - Шестаков. Обе точки контрастны по условиям, ну и затраты считать приходится. Лишь бы какой тайфун не зашел в это время!

Евгений! На биоразнообразие в черте города не жалуемся, сам порой удивляюсь. С погодой думаю всё у вас будет Ок. Все циклоны и тайфуны в основном в июне.