Zoogeography issues

In terms of discussion, I would like to discuss the nomenclature of insect habitats.
{...}

But are there any examples of species with such ranges?

I'll give you an example:
Family Crabronidae (Hymenoptera)
Passaloecus pictus Ribaut, 1952
Morocco, Algeria, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Syria, Brazil. Since the species was recorded in two zoogeographic kingdoms, it will have the 7th type of range - Palearctic-paleotropic-polyregional.

And you can not refer to the literature, and even better the books themselves, if there are, that's exactly the Palearctic, Holoarctic-definitions. And then I'm not familiar with these works, (but I really would like to) and for the thesis you will need zoogeographic zones, etc., etc.

Gorodkov K. B. Problemy simmetrii v horologii [Problems of symmetry in chorology]. Tr. ZIN RAS, Vol. 234.1991.

First, it should be taken into account that Gorodkov was engaged in those groups of flies that have a very wide distribution – the norm. His ideas are not devoid of common sense in the sense that the areas of many synanthropic species tend to be cosmopolitan. But I don't think that megaareals can give anything in zoogeography-the latter has always operated with narrow – area species, endemics, vicariants, relics, etc.Repnitsa can give little in this regard.

Secondly, Gorodkov brought his sound ideas to a logical absurdity, trying to see symmetry in the areas. But the continents are not located symmetrically, the areas of terrestrial organisms will be interrupted by oceans (which is not evident in its diagrams).
In general, in the spirit of Gorodkov (who knew him, he will understand...)

I'm working on burrowing wasps. For this group, wide ranges are just the norm. And there are practically no endemic species. And if they do, they are eventually not recognized as separate species, but only as subspecies, and then only in the best case. The question here is broader : is it even possible to build a SINGLE universal system of classification of habitats for all groups of insects? After all, there are many types of areas, in addition, areas are not static, they change. And how can all this fit into the framework outlined by someone? And secondly , why, if it is convenient for my group to use the Gorodkov system (or, say, Yemelyanov), should I use the generally accepted one?

It is hardly possible to create a single system that meets the requirements of different animal groups in the same way. Such differences are especially noticeable in the case of good flyers, for example, wasps, which are characterized by huge ranges, and some soil weevils, for which the river is an insurmountable barrier, and the slope of the ridge is quite a decent range. In addition, it may be more convenient to apply different range systems to the same taxa in different cases and for different purposes. That is, in one case, it is enough to say that the species is European. In another case... this is not enough

It is hardly possible to create a single system that meets the requirements of different animal groups in the same way.

So I am inclined to the same opinion.

No one forbids using Gorodkov's terminology while you write to Russian magazines. And so it is necessary to rely on those works that are most often cited. There is not and cannot be a universal system - a lot of papers have been written about it.

I'll give you an example:
Family Crabronidae (Hymenoptera)
Passaloecus pictus Ribaut, 1952
Morocco, Algeria, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Syria, Brazil. Since the species was recorded in two zoogeographic kingdoms, it will have the 7th type of range - Palearctic-paleotropic-polyregional.

Here's the question. And in Brazil, where did this south-west palaearctic species come from? I think either this is an unambiguous delivery, or an incorrect definition. According to all the laws of evolution, in such different faunal units there should already be at least different species, so much time has passed since all continents were a single whole! And, by the way, if an insect has taken root in an area where it has never been and this is due to human fault, then I believe that it is not necessary to change the type of area of this insect. For example, it was south-West Palaearctic - so let it remain, even though it appeared in Brazil. Otherwise, it will introduce confusion, interfering with various phylogenetic constructions.

PS The topic is slightly incorrectly named - "zoogeography" is a broad concept. Here we discuss only one of the branches of this science, namely, arealogy.

In general, Gorodkov - well done! I have been using its system for a long time and am very happy with it, as it, unlike most others, is very slim and clear!

No one forbids using Gorodkov's terminology while you write to Russian magazines. And so it is necessary to rely on those works that are most often cited. There is not and cannot be a universal system - a lot of papers have been written about it.

And what prevents you from using Gorodkov's terminology when sending your articles abroad? Here it is not necessary to adapt to external circumstances, but you need to act according to your inner beliefs. And if it is otherwise, then this phenomenon, I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone personally, is called "political prostitution". A scientist should act as he believes, if it does not contradict the norms of ethics and morality, and not adapt to others. Here I use only the Gorodkov system in my works. I will send them abroad - I will not give up on this!

This post was edited by Ekos - 19.02.2008 07: 40

There is also a good Sergeev system (Sergeev M. G. Patterns of distribution of straight-winged insects of Northern Asia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1986, 238 p.). There, the latitudinal and longitude components of the ranges are consistently considered. This method was developed for zoogeographic zoning of erect-winged insects, but now there are examples of its successful use in studying the distribution of other insects. I tried it out on my beetles, in principle, it suits me very much.
But, each existing system today has its pros and cons, there is no universal system and probably cannot be. For this reason, you need to get acquainted with several of them and choose the most suitable one for yourself

And what prevents you from using Gorodkov's terminology when sending your articles abroad? Here it is not necessary to adapt to external circumstances, but you need to act according to your inner beliefs.

And the flag in your hands! For foreigners, almost all of our zoogeographic schemes are Chinese letters. It is not customary to publish something that they do not know about - and reviewers will not be able to adequately evaluate the article, and the reader will not understand our terminology. In the USSR-Russia, there was a real "mania" for creating original zoogeographic divisions, and these" oddities " are not intelligible to foreigners.

There is also a good Sergeev system (Sergeev M. G. Patterns of distribution of straight-winged insects of Northern Asia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1986, 238 p.). There, the latitudinal and longitude components of the ranges are consistently considered.

The system is not bad, but Gorodkovskaya benefits from the fact that it considers three components of the area - in addition to latitude and longitude - altitude. At least for the description of butterfly ranges, the altitude component is very important

And the flag in your hands! For foreigners, almost all of our zoogeographic schemes are Chinese letters. It is not customary to publish something that they do not know about - and reviewers will not be able to adequately evaluate the article, and the reader will not understand our terminology. In the USSR-Russia, there was a real "mania" for creating original zoogeographic divisions, and these" oddities " are not intelligible to foreigners.

Well, nafig then these foreigners! Although it's hard not to understand Gorodkov's system, everything is extremely simple! Anyone, even a stupid foreign entomologist, will understand if he studied geography at school! Here is the Yemelyanov system-yes, it is difficult to understand, I myself encountered difficulties when analyzing it.

The system is not bad, but Gorodkovskaya benefits from the fact that it considers three components of the area - in addition to latitude and longitude - altitude. At least for the description of butterfly ranges, the altitude component is very important

Yes, I agree with you about the butterflies. This is why I say that there is no universal system, everyone chooses what is closer to him.
But I don't have any information about foreign systems. If someone has worked with this, please share. Very interesting!

Well, nafig then these foreigners! Although it's hard not to understand Gorodkov's system, everything is extremely simple! Anyone, even a stupid foreign entomologist, will understand if he studied geography at school!  

Funny straight... It's not that someone is stupid... We should just try to make sure that science speaks the same language and uses the same terms, and that scientists understand each other (and don't invent bicycles repeatedly). Here we would write an article with an overview of Russian area classifications and introduce it to the world community...

The system is not bad, but Gorodkovskaya benefits from the fact that it considers three components of the area - in addition to latitude and longitude - altitude. At least for the description of butterfly ranges, the altitude component is very important

Then it is better to rely on the schemes proposed by A. B. Martynenko. Probably, on the website of the Higher Attestation Commission there is his abstract "Ecology and geography of diurnal lepidoptera of the south of the Far East and Transbaikalia" with a list of publications. In terms of relationships between the belt and butterfly fauna of the Far East, he is probably the best specialist.

Here's the question. And in Brazil, where did this south-west palaearctic species come from?

Well-flying insects can do this. And asking where it came from in Brazil is like trying to understand all the subtleties of speciation. At least there is an article that it was found there, and until the opposite is proved, the status of this species is Palearctic-paleotropic-polyregional. If it is determined that this is a different close view, then the status of the pictus will also change. As for whether it is necessary to change the status of advintive species. It's hard to say. I still think that it is necessary. We do not know the full picture of the settlement. There are of course centers of origin and all that, but this does not give a complete understanding of the problem. moreover, if the species has taken root in the fauna, acclimatized, and lives throughout the Palearctic everywhere, in fact being trans-palearctic, and we call it Turanian (for example) in the" old-fashioned " way.

Well-flying insects can do this. And asking where it came from in Brazil is like trying to understand all the subtleties of speciation. At least there is an article that it was found there, and until the opposite is proved, the status of this species is Palearctic-paleotropic-polyregional... As for whether it is necessary to change the status of advintive species. It's hard to say. I still think that it is necessary. We do not know the full picture of the settlement. There are of course centers of origin and all that, but this does not give a complete understanding of the problem. moreover, if the species has taken root in the fauna, acclimatized, and lives throughout the Palearctic everywhere, in fact being trans-palearctic, and we call it Turanian (for example) in the" old-fashioned " way.

In general, it is debatable whether it is better to proceed from the presumption "once the type is specified by someone, accept this data until proven otherwise", or vice versa - if the data causes distrust, then consider them unconfirmed until you are convinced of the correctness of the definition. I personally lean towards the latter. Of course, dubious finds cannot be ignored. However, you can skip including them in the distribution, and specify that the type is also marked from somewhere, but this data needs to be confirmed.

It's the same with all sorts of introducers and Adventists. If it is possible to characterize the original range, this should be done. And the regions where the species was introduced or settled together with humans should be specified separately. I believe that it is very important to distinguish between a natural area (before human intervention) and an artificial one. If we follow the path of mixing these concepts and further, it turns out that in Russia and parrots are found. I've had a couple of them live at home, and they've even bred!

For the specific case of Brazil... Very, very doubtful. Even for a good flyer.

Well, nafig then these foreigners! Although it's hard not to understand Gorodkov's system, everything is extremely simple! Anyone, even a stupid foreign entomologist, will understand if he studied geography at school! Here is the Yemelyanov system-yes, it is difficult to understand, I myself encountered difficulties when analyzing it.

Aliens are not alien monsters, but people like them. And calls to do their own, correct, Russian science, and forget about foreigners-this is a dead end. To "resist" bourgeois ideas, you must first understand them. And then to draw conclusions, who is better, Gorodkov or Mr. Smith If still Gorodkov, then you need to convincingly justify your choice. Don't accept work in one journal, send it to another. Usually, reviewers are still adequate people. However, if this is not a special work on zoogeography-horology, but a regular taxonomic-faunal one, in which you simply give a description of the taxon ranges, then there are usually no problems with this characteristic. Different groups of animals usually already have established generally accepted systems and standards that take into account the specifics of the distribution of a particular group, and usually you do not need to reinvent the wheel. Although figs knows-maybe somewhere and not so, for all I can not speak.

Funny straight... It's not that someone is stupid... We should just try to make sure that science speaks the same language and uses the same terms, and that scientists understand each other (and don't invent bicycles repeatedly). Here we would write an article with an overview of Russian area classifications and introduce it to the world community...

Precisely!

to Salix:
Here it is necessary to proceed from whether this is a single find, or vice versa, the data is numerous. Of course, if the type was specified by one author, without the ability to verify the definition, you can specify. Although I am still a supporter of the facts. If there is a description from this region, it is good, if there is an error, it is even better. But to write your own opinion in the article, which is actually not based on anything, is not correct. Especially in sphecids, this is not an isolated case, there are species that live both in Europe and in North America, there are species that occupy almost all continents, including islands. The share of narrow-local and local ones is negligible.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 19.02.2008 21: 08

Aliens are not alien monsters, but people like them.

I totally agree. Science cannot be national. We have long been proved and are still being proved "our science is better", "our education is better", "but scientists have proved niches" and so on. In reality, there is no "our science". There is one SCIENCE and people of different nationalities who are engaged in it.

To Dormidont:
Europe and North. America is just normal, a Holarctic area, there are many such species. As well as pan-continental and cosmopolitan. But the Palearctic, even with the entry into the North. Africa, and Brazil... It's a long way off, of course, but I can't support my words with anything other than subjective distrust. I can only wish you to deal with this view and then tell us how it ended

Nevertheless, I believe that the goal of a researcher is not to mechanically cite all the works on the topic and make an "area"out of them. And based on your knowledge, experience, and even intuition (!), analyze the original raw data and produce a picture (in our case, the area) that, according to the author's ideas, will be as close to the truth as possible. Plus, of course, summarize the rest of the data, including those that are not trustworthy,to make it easier for those who may later have to deal with this dubious data.

I had a case when a good (in my opinion) European species was suddenly discovered in China. I did not include this point in the distribution, but separately referred to the work and stipulated that this find needs to be checked. I suspect that my Chinese colleague was slightly offended by this distrust. However, in the future, the view still turned out to be different. If I had originally included this point, the area in the article would have been shown incorrectly initially. In my opinion, it is more correct to "expand" the area as data accumulates and clarifies, rather than then blame and justify that what was written earlier cannot be trusted

to Salix:
You may well be right. I also have few data on this type. And I'm not going to go to Brazil for more information in the near future . Ideally, of course, you need to deal with a small group of species, and then you can stop at each type for a long time, as you suggest. Unfortunately, I work in faunistics with a large number of species (about 300) and I have to take the experts ' word for it, so to speak. It is difficult to determine the ranges of each species and it is difficult to say this in faunal work, as it seems to me, it is not necessary at all. In a separate large work, for example, in a revision, this is necessary, but faunistics allows for simple citation. Although, I admit, I also wonder what causes this unusual area.
By the way, there is absolutely no need to "justify" in this case. Someone else's work was quoted, and whether it is correct is a question for the author of "Brazil".

Then it is better to rely on the schemes proposed by A. B. Martynenko. Probably, on the website of the Higher Attestation Commission there is his abstract "Ecology and geography of diurnal lepidoptera of the south of the Far East and Transbaikalia" with a list of publications. He is probably the best expert on the relationships between the belt and butterfly fauna of the Far East.

I'm familiar with his work. But these diagrams are too cumbersome and difficult to understand. And, in fact, all this is the Yemelyanovo scheme with the addition of a high-altitude component. Gorodkov's got it all figured out long ago! Just add a little more to it in relation to the Far East, and everything will be OK!

This post was edited by Ekos - 02/20/2008 03: 25

But I don't have any information about foreign systems. If someone has worked with this, please share. Very interesting!

That's right, everyone is shouting that our systems are not applicable to foreign science, but no one even mentioned a single foreign system for classifying areas! The question is - why are we arguing then?!

And I agree that Russian science is part of the world. Yes, and in general, the essence of all these systems is completely the same, but it is hidden in slightly different shells. And it seems to me that any Russian or foreign scientist can understand all this, understand the essence of each system, and that's why he is a scientist. And, by the way, a scientist in the true sense of the word never denies other people's points of view without getting acquainted with them and analyzing them. Juglans, here you say that foreign journals will not accept work based on the system developed by Russian scientists. And on what grounds?!.. Like this is not done according to Western systems and we will not even watch and publish it?!.. If this is so, then there is no world science, but there are Western and Russian ones that seek to separate themselves from each other. I hope that's not the case. And if a Russian writes a paper in a foreign magazine, using our system, decoding it, then it will even be very interesting for foreigners. And if such an article is rejected, it means that the editors in this journal are non-professionals and do not have the right to be called scientists.
And in the arguments of some colleagues in this forum topic, one can't help but see a weakness: they believe that Russian science is flawed, that we should bring everything in line with the Western one. Wake up! We don't have to do this. We should simply acquaint our Western comrades with our achievements. And if they deny all this in vain, without properly justifying it-this is their problem, but not ours! Who can say anything against it?

it's not about inferiority, but about optimality and a common language. Just because we use the Linnean system and chemists use the Mendeleev system doesn't mean that we have flawed biologists and they have flawed chemists...

about the poor Brazilian look. Option -- ask in the Entomol-L list. There are more than 6000 entomologists from all over the world.

erroneous definitions and indications are very common. my colleague periodically shows me articles about the water skater from China, although this species is not found in China.... And articles about it from Nature as well... They have identified the wrong time and are studying biomechanics... Criticality and a certain conservatism should outweigh the desire for inclusiveness (literature).

it's not about inferiority, but about optimality and a common language. Just because we use the Linnean system and chemists use the Mendeleev system doesn't mean that we have flawed biologists and they have flawed chemists...

That's what it's all about!

I'm familiar with his work. But these diagrams are too cumbersome and difficult to understand. And, in fact, all this is the Yemelyanovo scheme with the addition of a high-altitude component. Gorodkov's got it all figured out long ago! Just add a little more to it in relation to the Far East, and everything will be OK!

Yes, I know that this is an augmented Yemelyanov scheme. But it should be borne in mind that Gorodkov is more of a theorist than a practitioner, and Martynenko is an exceptional practitioner who walked almost all the mountain ranges of the Far East with his own feet. Simplicity has never been a criterion of correctness – in the old definitions, both genera and species are smaller,and they are simpler. In addition, although foreigners do not accept Yemelyanov's scheme, they at least know about its existence. And Gorodkov is practically unknown.

to Juglans:
"But it should be borne in mind that Gorodkov is more of a theorist than a practitioner, and Martynenko is an exceptional practitioner who walked almost all the mountain ranges of the Far East with his own feet."
The meaning of this does not change! All this has long been known about the vertical distribution of mace-whiskered lepidoptera in the Far East, but now only particulars are added to this knowledge that do not affect the overall picture in any way.
And, in addition, I also traveled a lot of territory (including mountain ranges) in the south of the Far East and I will say that the Gorodkov system works VERY WELL! There are practically no problems.

"And how does he, the reviewer, know that this is not another Lysenko in zoogeography?! Even purely objectively: how many entomologists in ZINA use this scheme?"
If you didn't know the Gorodkov scheme, it doesn't mean that others don't know about its existence. By the way, its system is well known in Russian entomological circles!!! And what does Zina's entomologists have to do with it? What, all the entomologists of Russia are concentrated only there?! And once again, I repeat, it is not necessary to act on someone else's instructions, but to be guided by your own principles!
And what does Lysenko have to do with it?! To put it mildly, an incorrect comparison!
And if the reviewer does not know scientists with a worldwide reputation, then it is necessary to dismiss him!

And I'll repeat it again. I am a lepidopterist, so I use this scheme because it is most applicable to this group of insects. I don't know about other groups, but other researchers know better.

It was me

Why 300 systems??? Well, imagine that you or someone needs to do a group revision and in 20 articles you use, colleagues use 10 different systems...

Well, why 300 systems... There are only three well-established entomology systems in Russia, which we have already discussed. The point is a little different, some researchers only modify them a little, without changing the essence. And this is an absolutely normal phenomenon, life does not stand still. For example, how many schemes of zoogeographic land zoning exist? You can answer-a lot! But in fact - one proposed by A. Wallace. Although everyone who is not lazy, modified it, sometimes even strongly.

Musolin
is not all that simple and a lot depends on the magazine: the higher its status, the higher the requirements. None of the foreigners are interested in reading an analysis with terms that they don't understand. After all, many of our terms were not really translated into English: how can I correctly translate, for example, "centropolar"?

I judge by what exists in aquatic zoogeography. With our zoogeographic marine charts in a foreign magazine (decent) you can't fit in that easily. Even the term "boreal" they and we understand it differently, and the borders of the boreal and subtropical zones differ significantly. And you have to adapt to the scheme that most people understand.

Ekos
The abundance of exclamation marks scares me... I'm beginning to understand why you value Gorodkov so much....

to Juglans:
 
"The abundance of exclamation marks scares me... I'm beginning to understand why you value Gorodkov so much..."

You don't understand correctly, it's just that this scheme suits me more than all the others... By the way, an example of using this scheme can be found in the work of Tatarinov and Dolgin on the warhead of the European North-East (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999). Everything is quite harmonious and, most importantly, clear. Of course, this is purely my personal opinion, but his system is the most understandable of the existing ones, you don't need to delve into it for a long time like, say, Yemelyanov's system. That's why I'm still defending it.

"There may be some particulars, but for Far Eastern entomologists they are quite significant. Let's say that Martynenko questioned the allocation of zones and subzones for the south of the Far East, which is accepted by the Kurentsov school. For Far Eastern lepidopterologists, Kurentsov's schemes are almost like an icon (however, I assume that you are an "atheist" and believe only in yourself). And Gorodkov was busy with flies..."

There's still a lot to prove. In general, Kurentsov really did a lot of useful things in this area and it is unlikely that anyone will ever surpass him in the Far East. Because he laid a solid foundation for Far Eastern zoogeography and entomology.
And the fact that Gorodkov was engaged in flies - so what? Based on this, its system cannot be applied to butterflies? Still as possible! The research of many scientists and my own prove this. It is applied fruitfully even to spiders. And why do you so defend your point of view, not being an expert in entomology, dealing with the sea?...