Zoogeography issues

I'm writing something that for some reason no one mentioned. To add fuel to the fire, I also deal with flies and, after weighing all the pros and cons, I chose Gorodkov's scheme at the time (so that I could be accused of bias). So.

1. Literature on the Gorodkov scheme.

Gorodkov K. B. Tipy arealov insektov tundra i lesnykh zonov evropeyskoy chasti SSSR [Types of insect ranges in tundra and forest zones of the European part of the USSR]. Arealy insektov evropeyskoy chasti SSSR, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984, issue 5 (Maps 179-221), pp. 3-21.
Gorodkov K. B. Three-dimensional climate model of the potential range and some of its properties. I // Entomol. obozr. - 1985. - Vol. 64, issue 2. - pp. 295-310.
Gorodkov K. B. Three-dimensional climate model of the potential range and some of its properties. II // In the same place. - 1986. - Vol. 65, issue 1. - pp. 81-95.
Gorodkov K. B. Area dynamics: a general approach. I // In the same place. 1990, vol. 69, issue 2, pp. 287-306.
Gorodkov K. B. Area dynamics: a general approach. II // In the same place. 1990, vol. 69, issue 4, pp. 791-809.

2. Literature on the Yemelyanov scheme.

Yemelyanov A. F. Suggestions for classification and nomenclature of areas // Entomol. obozr. - 1974. - Vol. 53, issue 3. - pp. 497-522.

3. There is Pesenko's Zinovite monograph, I think, with a discussion of these and other arealogical schemes. Who-thread give a link, and ischo lucce-scan

4. I have complaints about the Yemelyanov scheme. First, he writes that the areal SCHEMES should be based on the existing biogeographic (I don't remember exactly, the impression is at work) division. And I think that this DIVISION should be based on arealogical schemes. That is, you need to stand on your feet, not on your head. I agree with Gorodkov and many other contemporary Russian authors on this point. Secondly, the Yemelyanov scheme is so detailed that it (a) applies only to species with a very well-studied distribution; and (b) is very cumbersome. Gorodkov also has some rough edges — he mainly worked on the vast and flat Eurasian Arctic and temperature ranges. But Gorodkov's scheme initially includes the possibility of an "upgrade".

5. Individual authors ' bias towards Gorodkov's scheme is poorly reasoned. And in ZINA, many people took him and his scheme with hostility. Let's not get personal. And don't bet on it. And not a fig for yourself-a theoretical scientist!?! Have you seen how many Gordikov gatherings from the Arctic, and across the entire Union, are taking place in Zina? I wish there were more such theorists now. And if there are questions about the three - dimensional scheme of an ideal area, this does not mean that Gorodkov's scheme of nomenclature of real areas is bad.

6. The meaning of Gorodkov's nomenclature scheme. The range has three components: longitude (European species, Euro-Asian, Palearctic European – Lena, trans-Euro-Asian-etc., read his articles); latitudinal (by climatic zones, non-morally steppe, temperature, narrow boreal – etc.); high-altitude (mountains; Montane, Alpine – etc.). the vast majority of habitats are problem-free and very productive. For the rest, see point 4.

7. In his dissertation, he "completed" the Gorodkov scheme (subboreal-subtropical, etc.). Open Architecture

3. Here are Pesenko's publications, except for the most recent ones.

http://www.zin.ru/labs/insects/Hymenopt/personalia/Pesenko/

This post was edited by Salix - 02/21/2008 19: 00

Strange, but apparently, my old friend meant this job:

PESENKO, Yu. A. (1992b): Methodological aspects of particular zoogeographic regionalisation as a method for study of animal distribution and history of formation of faunas. - Trudy. Zool. Inst. Akad. nauk SSSR (St. Petersburg), 234: 48-60 [in Russian with English subtitle].

Not a monograph, but I think everyone knows Pesenko - I think it's worth reading...

Yes, I forgot to add about the main components of Yemelyanov's nomenclature - he introduces, in addition to the longitude and latitude components, also a sector component that depends on the position relative to the ocean (i.e., reflecting the degree of continentality, western atmospheric transport, etc.). This really allows us to describe the area more accurately, but it makes the scheme much heavier.

This post was edited by Pirx - 22.02.2008 21: 44

However, this is exactly what those who work in areas with a monsoon climate like

Now, while working on landscape zoogeography, some local entomologists look at changes in local faunas in the context of remoteness from the sea – both high-altitude (i.e., mountains near the sea) and longitude. This is, of course, time-consuming research.

This post was edited by Juglans - 22.02.2008 17: 43

Pirx

to Juglans

Thank you for such a detailed answer.

But the biogeographic division is the result of arealogical research... Still, I didn't really understand why Yemelyanov's scheme is better for "delineating" the "biogeographic core". Is this more due to the greater detail or the original idea? Perhaps it will be easier for you to briefly describe the essence of the fundamental differences between both schemes. They may have more similarities than differences. Of course, Yemelyanov's scheme is very popular, but it is also older. But Gorodkov's scheme is still developing and has many admirers. But popularity is not an indicator of truth. An interesting argument in favor of this is

Yemelyanov's work:

Emelyanov A. F. O so-called istoricheskom i ekologicheskom podkhodakh k biogeograficheskom zoning [On the so-called historical and ecological approaches to biogeographic zoning]. 4th International Conference "Biological Diversity of the Caucasus", dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Professor G. M. Abdurakhmanov, Makhachkala, 2002-2002.-pp. 120-123.

from here: http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/emel2002.htm

Now I read it with a fresh look — very interesting, it seems that Yemelyanov foresaw our argument. I strongly advise everyone.

by the way, one of Gorodkov's main works is laid out nearby:

http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/rus/gorodk84.htm

Pirx
Yes, you are right that popularity is not the essence of truth, but is there a single truth in biogeography? Here, for example, is the Cape Floristic Kingdom: there are a huge number of endemic plants, even endemic families. But zoogeographically, southern Africa is not as remarkable as Madagascar. Zoogeographic zoning based on mayflies and freckles is a completely different "song" than, say, for straight – winged birds. In Diptera, chironomids and sarcophagids will have different names. Therefore, a real researcher dealing with a particular group is faced with a choice of what to rely on? This is where I think the first mistake occurs, because the first question should be about the goal and material. Landscape zoogeography, comparison of local faunas, analysis of faunas throughout the Russian Federation, determination of the origin of faunas, etc. – different goals, different approaches.
There is only one database – faunal lists, maps with areas. It would seem that there are some problems: analyze these lists, apply mathematical data processing, build graphs, and then choose which scheme is most suitable. But here's the problem: everything is based on data on the ranges of specific species. But how complete is this data? The same Yemelyanov described a lot of new species from the Far East, the range of which has not been established. They begin to study Sakhalin in more detail and find species that were previously known only on the continent. At the same time, the researcher is forced to "simplify" the situation, assuming a priori that these species cannot be introduced to Sakhalin in the last 20 years. Gorodkov is more of a proponent of the" dispersal " model of zoogeographic reconstructions, which is perfectly justified for many groups of insects. But there are many groups with a fragmented range: all the conditions for the existence of the species are there, it lives both to the south and to the north, but for some reason it does not exist in this territory. On the continent, we found an extensive natural population of the island species Ilex-we decided to look for Sakhalin-Kuril insects that feed on holly, but they were not found. And no one can say why). Some researchers tend to simplify this situation by eliminating" holes " in the habitats, while others, on the contrary, see them as the beginning of isolation. 20 years ago, Andreev published the book "Analysis of ecological and geographical data using fuzzy set theory" (we usually operate with clear sets, assuming that the range of a species is limited to a "line"), developed algorithms, but this did not find a response. We still try to simplify the scheme, assuming that if we find instances of this species in point A, then it lives there, and if we don't find it, then it doesn't live there.

This is more like reasoning "out loud", doubts. We want clarity and certainty, and it may not be there. It is good to study zoogeography of island faunas.

Pirx
...20 years ago, Andreev published the book "Analysis of ecological and geographical data using fuzzy set theory" (we usually operate with clear sets, assuming that the range of a species is limited to a "line"), developed algorithms, but this did not find a response. We still try to simplify the scheme, assuming that if we find instances of this species in point A, then it lives there, and if we don't find it, then it doesn't live there.

This is more like reasoning "out loud", doubts. We want clarity and certainty, and it may not be there. It is good to study zoogeography of island faunas.

I can only join in your doubts...

A small example, as the leader liked to say. I work with sirfids, and the "ecological" approach is very applicable to them. The group quite clearly follows the botanical and geographical zoning of land, plant belts. But take goosebumps — according to Radchenko, the group completely brazenly does not follow this zoning, having a great connection with climate indicators. All because of different trophic strategies, perhaps.

Example of application of fuzzy set theory in biogeography:

Tepavčević A. & Vujić A. On an application of fuzzy relations in biogeography // Information Sciences. — 1996. — Vol. 89, № 1–2. — P. 77–94.

Aren't there similar ideas? I have an impression, and I can scan it if I want. The second author is a well-known Yugoslav sirphidologist. But you are absolutely right — very few people are interested in this.

Pirx
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
I wonder if the distribution of sirphids, whose larvae live in water bodies (Eristalinae), has any special features?