Is faunology an important aspect of entomology?

To be honest, I am simply amazed by the described position... And how would they know that the fauna is changing, if not for faunal work?!

I'm working on the response of insects to climate change. There is almost nothing to cite from Russian works... But in the same England or Holland, permanent surveys are conducted on the basis of a 10-by-10 km grid, and this makes it possible to show how and who reacts to climate change and everything else.

How can you not know who lives here and who doesn't?

There are simply no words...

D.

I got so excited that I hurriedly "clicked" on the wrong circle (for some reason, the survey image didn't open correctly). It is my lone voice that stands in the position "It only makes sense in connection with the description of new species and their study", but I ask you not to take it into account! I, of course, believe that faunalism is still relevant, and especially (and just!) in connection with the changing conditions of our planet under the influence of numerous factors. It seems incorrect to argue with such an authority as K. Makarov. But it seems to me that as arguments that refute the importance of faunistics, he cites factors (climate change, the availability of food resources, etc.), which should, among other things, be studied in faunal studies, taken into account when determining the reasons for the movement of one species to the south (north, east-west) and extinction of a different type on the territory previously "inhabited" by them. Probably, it is not necessary to "mince" and make generalized conclusions based on the faunal list of a single "point" (at K. Makarov on Istra, where Omophron limbatum was not present 8 years ago). But on the scale of the entire Moscow region, observations from this point are also important for getting an idea of the boundaries of the range of this species, its living conditions, factors affecting the frequency of its occurrence (number), and the prospects for the existence of the species in the region in the foreseeable future. In short, faunalism was and remains, in my opinion, an important aspect of entomology. And what someone is not specifically interested in is not her problems, but the one who thinks so.

As of 17: 16 on 07.04.2008, 4 people (100%) are already "in favor" of the relevance of faunistics. Maybe the moderator can remove my stupid vote from the second position of the survey and add it to the fourth?

This is a well-known opinion of taxonomists on this problem.
And it's not just about changing species ranges, climate warming, etc. The negative attitude of taxonomists to what we usually call faunistics is quite understandable.
Taxonomists are very skeptical of faunal work performed by non-taxonomists. Whatever they say about monitoring, new points, and, God forbid, about Red Books, the basis of faunal research is the correct definition of any, even the most meager material. And this is precisely the sin of those who deal only with faunistics, without going into the details of the taxonomy of the group, those who determine everything according to the hopelessly outdated "Green" and do not use the latest summaries and determinants (mainly in foreign languages).
Faunists are often not familiar not only with the works on the taxonomy of the group, but also with the same faunistics. Many of them still refer only to the same Jacobson, without suspecting anything about the works of less famous predecessors. There are also known cases of ignoring each other's work. This gives rise to a fairly impressive list of species that are supposedly new to the territory.
A faunal work that contains a list of species, many of which have long been synonymous or in other genera, containing several references to the same species in different genera, without references to the necessary (including foreign) literature, full of banal typos, finally causes a change in the angle of the taxonomist's eyebrows. Moreover, faunalists are often poorly informed even about which species from the group they "study" are described from the territory they are engaged in.
In conclusion, it is worth adding that faunalism is still too tied to a very unstable administrative division that has no biological meaning.

PS So this is more likely a relation not to faunistics, but to faunists.

You Shoffer me a lot by saying a lot of what I thought, thank you.

And really what is faunalism?
1. a list of species in my dacha,
2. in a separate administrative region that covers several geographical zones,
3. or, for example, a list of beetles in the forest zone of European Russia?
It seems to me that points 1 and 3 have more biological meaning, although the second one may attract with its gambling interest.

This post was edited by amara - 07.04.2008 18: 25

And really what is faunalism?
[...]
2. In a separate administrative area, covering several geographical zones,
[...]

The second point is important for all sorts of Red Books. Otherwise, we will protect all kinds of swallowtails.

So, let's understand the subject of the dispute. Talking about the attitude to faunalists is a subjective approach. Probably, it is not necessary to prove (this is an axiom) that insufficiently competent (and, frankly, conscientious) people are also found among taxonomists (this topic, in the context of unjustified splitting of taxa, descriptions of "new" species have already been discussed on the forum). This, as I understand it, is about something else - is faunistics a branch of entomology (and, by the way, why so narrowly? zoology in general!), or is the appendix to be excised and forgotten? I fully agree with Musolin: how would they (taxonomists) know that the fauna of a particular region is changing, if not for faunal work?! Well, isn't information about species recorded from a specific territory valuable for science?! And the question of the reliability of this information, the correctness and depth of its analysis is already a question of the professionalism of specific researchers. Faunalism not only has the right to life, it is absolutely necessary. And taxonomists-first of all.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 07.04.2008 18: 36

Of course, the administrative division is not only conditional, but also changes over time (some regions were absent in the USSR (Russia) until the 30s, if not later, years of the last century; for example, Kostroma). But every piece of information can and should be understood! I agree that the concept of "entomofauna of such and such an area" is very controversial. But summing up and analyzing the data on the occurrence of species in the Moscow, Kaluga, Tula, Yaroslavl and other regions through the prism of natural zones, one can get a very clear idea of their distribution in the forest zone (and after all, it is heterogeneous, and species found in its south are often absent in the north and vice versa). In my opinion, the necessity and importance of faunal research is simply stupid to prove, the only question is in their content.

Hmm .. Makarov would still say: well, they will let the cows in, plow the field, the leaf-eater will disappear ,and with them the lebia, and with them some kind of bird, and then both, and there will be a lot of weeds..
I don't think so.. This is why such studies are needed, so that you can view the behavior of insects and their "relationships" with animals and plants, and then predict possible events in order to prevent them or, conversely, not "turn them away".

Roma, your hard work is priceless! Don't listen to others

Okay, I'll tell you more. Well, now that I've started. Undoubtedly, the faunist is different from the faunist. And this has become very well known to me in the last year and a half. And often the fact that annoying mistakes happen is not his direct fault. He does his job conscientiously. It's just that its blade is selectively sharpened at a different angle. And it is good if he realizes this and turns to a good taxonomist for help. But when a taxonomist accepts a faunist in this way, I'm afraid there won't be a second time. It just makes me feel bad that you're actually doing some frivolous nonsense instead of describing new species or studying larval biology...The taxonomist is essentially categorical. He is good at determining whether the right view is right or wrong. Hence the rejection - you are not carried away with that, my dear, you should be hammering nails... So I was looking at the wrong steppe. And although the requested copy of my stenolophus from the discovered window sill population was taken with gratitude, and, paradoxically, it was recognized as "interesting for such a northern point", half an hour later the assumption was made with laughter " ... and after all, they will be listed in the Red Book. Budget money will be spent... " No, gentlemen, they won't bring it in. Because the same Nikitsky is not only a faunist, but also a good taxonomist.
P. S. And maybe to spit on all this, and give up in Primorye, there is a financial opportunity. For new views. This is exactly how one citizen from the forum urged me to spend money. Do it, he says, and everything will be covered in chocolate at once.

This post was edited by omar-04/08/2008 00: 19

I consider myself a faunalist, and some of Shoffera's comments may also apply to my work. But these mistakes are more likely not from malicious intent, but from a banal lack of literature. It is now in the Internet you can find not only links, but also the articles themselves. And earlier in the province in the covers of not only foreign magazines - but the native "Entomological oborzenie" was not... They weren't discharged...
I believe that faunistics is one of the foundations of biocenology, and its data are also used in practice in environmental protection and even in MB. climatology, etc.
Who, if not faunists, noticed the dispersal of the stinking bronzer, the appearance of imported dangerous xylophage species???
And about the example of Omophron limbatum. given by K. M.-I will exclaim according to Stanislavsky: "I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!" He was on Istra (only the respected K. M. did not look for him or looked for him without enthusiasm, and when an abundance of his stations appeared, the view became widespread, easily accessible and caught...
So, Omar, the" field " in the MO is still untilled... go for it!!!

I also say that faunalism is still important. So, for our region, a large number of species are known from finds of the 19th or early 20th century, their current status on the territory of the region is a mystery covered in darkness, but you need to study the fauna in dynamics, the areas do not stand still. If we do not study this, we may lose the species and not notice them, and they will continue to be listed in the fauna of the region... And to study the fauna of the region as a whole or a single district or dacha is the choice of the researcher himself. Administrative boundaries may not fully correspond to natural areas, but they do provide a real link to the area, and this already means a lot. You can't study the territory without clearly defined borders.
And at the expense of the relationship of taxonomists-what can you do, I myself, reading the next fragmentation or renaming of any kind, do not always see the logic in this...

Dear omar, do not take Makarov's statements so personally. He is certainly a deservedly recognized and respected specialist, but unfortunately, he did not show his best qualities in a conversation with you. In my opinion, this is outright snobbery, arrogance, poorly hidden disrespect for research, even if not such a well-known colleague as him. I fully support the opinion of Elizar,and - the field for your work in the Moscow region, and in any other region, is not plowed, and I am sure it will never be completely plowed: life does not stand still, natural conditions change, and with them the entomofauna of each region. And let those who do not understand (or do not want to understand) be ironic - the practical benefits of faunal research are obvious! And those who are ironic, they themselves use the results of these studies in one way or another anyway.

Of course, faunalism "has not been canceled yet", and we all know this.
However, to understand the taxonomist's attitude to it, you need to take his place yourself, and here what Shoffer said helps this a lot.
I myself, who am neither one nor the other (I just love beetles for a long time), are equally interested in both classes. A taxonomist (once tried on), a person with an exact structure who knows "everything" about his group, sometimes very small, but where his word is "iron-concrete", and a faunist, more of a romantic at heart, who knows a lot about a lot of things and of course provides important information about the distribution of species of which everything is later they use it. And we know examples when both are combined in one person.
As for areas, of course, for lack of a better one, such data links species to a specific territory and is therefore always interesting. However, for example, in my situation, where another area begins 1 km from the dacha and one population can be located both here and there, this should always be particularly explained, and in my opinion, borderline species should be included in the lists of both areas (which rather reflects reality).
In short, you need to do what you are interested in, and here in any place there is something to do with meaning.

I also consider myself a faunalist. And in the same way, taxonomists told me: "Mr. good, it's not serious to deal with a large group of insects. Take a smaller group - say a 50-species genus - and hammer it down. Dig up the Palearctic and go further."
The position is clear and, in my opinion, correct from a certain point of view. but. There is one big BUT. That along with such a position, there is another one that also deserves to exist. After all, in fact, what distinguishes a taxonomist from a faunist is only that one is limited to a certain taxon, and the other is an administrative-territorial unit - a city, district, or region.
Ideally, taxonomy should provide information for faunalism. It often happens that the taxonomist is satisfied with the description of a new species and its APPROXIMATE range. And faunalists should specify this area. And one more important aspect - there are more faunalists !!! Agree, not everyone becomes a taxonomist. But many people can study the fauna. And these studies should definitely be published, even if they may contain an error. Any study has the right to be published, because in the end it will give an impetus to a further, more accurate understanding of the species ' range. Thus, answering the question of whether fauna is needed, you can also answer the question of whether a detailed study of the area is necessary. I believe this is necessary.

I think that K. V. Makarov did not mean that faunistics should not be studied (it is difficult to imagine a taxonomist who would not be a faunist, but, unfortunately, not vice versa), but that there are a lot of much more important and urgent problems than studying the dynamics of the fauna of the Moscow region. For example, for many groups of invertebrates, either there are no specialists at all, or there are extremely few of them. Knowing the ecology of the species, geography and state of the environment in a particular area, the taxonomist can inductively draw a conclusion about the distribution, and is rarely mistaken. Therefore, the study of, say, ecology is more important than studying the dynamics of regional fauna. In provincial magazines and collections, articles like "New species of fauna of the Stavropol Territory" are piled up, and they are not new, they simply did not gather in this particular small territory, but from the general range it was clear that they should be there. Of course, this is new knowledge, but its value is low.

I think that K. V. Makarov did not mean that faunistics should not be studied (it is difficult to imagine a taxonomist who would not be a faunist, but, unfortunately, not vice versa), but that there are a lot of much more important and urgent problems than studying the dynamics of the fauna of the Moscow region. For example, for many groups of invertebrates, either there are no specialists at all, or there are extremely few of them. Knowing the ecology of the species, geography and state of the environment in a particular area, the taxonomist can inductively draw a conclusion about the distribution, and is rarely mistaken. Therefore, the study of, say, ecology is more important than studying the dynamics of regional fauna. In provincial magazines and collections, articles like "New species of fauna of the Stavropol Territory" are piled up, and they are not new, they simply did not gather in this particular small territory, but from the general range it was clear that they should be there. Of course, this is new knowledge, but its value is low.

In provincial magazines and collections, articles like "New species of fauna of the Stavropol Territory" are piled up, and they are not new, they simply did not gather in this particular small territory, but from the general range it was clear that they should be there. Of course, this is new knowledge, but its value is low.

I believe that by the term "new species" in this particular case, first of all, it means that these species were not previously specified for this territory. And this does not at all contradict the understanding that, based on the existing ecological conditions, they should live here a priori. And their actual detection only confirms the conclusions about their reasonably possible detection. The theoretical conclusion is confirmed in practice. "Should be" is one thing, but "discovered" is quite another...

In provincial magazines and collections, articles like "New species of fauna of the Stavropol Territory" are piled up, and they are not new, they simply did not gather in this particular small territory, but from the general range it was clear that they should be there. Of course, this is new knowledge, but its value is low.

My attitude to simple faunal lists (not to faunal science) just as skeptical. I believe that faunal work should be as extensive and detailed as possible, including as many collection materials and private collections as possible. but as for the "small territory", this is debatable. For flying insects, the Stavropol Territory is a small territory, but for such a group as leaf beetles, it is not even small. In general, it is necessary to try to make large faunal articles, this makes working with them much easier.

I believe that by the term "new species" in this particular case, first of all, it means that these species were not previously specified for this territory. And this does not at all contradict the understanding that, based on the existing ecological conditions, they should live here a priori.

There is no question of a contradiction. "Knowledge is useful just because it is knowledge," said N. A. Kholodkovsky. No one is forbidden to engage in faunalism at the level discussed, if it is not a pity to spend time and effort on it. It's about scientific value. If a species, a eurybiont polyphage of some haze, is found from the Far East to some Portugal, what prevents it from living in the Stavropol Territory? Is speculation inferior to experience? Well, why not open all kinds of insects in a row for the presence of malpighian vessels, heart and trachea? Further, I am struck by the pretentiousness of some middle-class faunists: they found a couple of such obviously characteristic species for their area and inflated the article by 20 pages, although the content of the page is 2.

Further, I am struck by the pretentiousness of some middle-class faunalists: they found a couple of such obviously characteristic species for their area and inflated the article by 20 pages, although in fact it contains 2 pages.

To understand whether it is a typical species or not, its fauna must be studied at a fairly good level. This is in the first place. And secondly, I generally believe that the conversation "who is cooler" and who is engaged in real science, and who is not serious - this is not a topic in which you can reach an understanding between colleagues. On the same level and with the same success, a physicist and an entomologist can argue. One will argue the great value of his science and reproach the entomologist for studying useless beetles. Another will say that he is worth something.
Tell Tentetor, what is the use of describing new species, if in practice it is very difficult to establish whether they are full-fledged species, I mean whether they can interbreed in nature with each other? And the very nature of taxonomy has recently been criticized. Everything is relative. You should not take the faunist as a second-class specialist and speak with him from a high point of view, if only because all taxonomists came from faunists. First of all, science should have a relationship ethic that provides for proper treatment of each other, and not break off the young and beginners with their own coolness, inflated to universal proportions. Otherwise, entomology degrades very quickly, turning into a club of "cool snobs" who are unable to understand anything new, admiring their own "coolness".

This post was edited by Dormidont - 04/10/2008 12: 33

To understand whether it is a typical species or not, its fauna must be studied at a fairly good level. This is in the first place. And secondly, I generally believe that the conversation "who is cooler" and who is engaged in real science, and who is not serious - this is not a topic in which you can reach an understanding between colleagues.

I completely agree with all this and would not like to look at the topic of relevance of research from the point of view of "who is cooler". And a serious specialist and an intelligent person will never "break off" a beginner, but will show the mistakes of his choice and advise what is really worth doing. But when such a novice rests his horn and does not listen to any advice, well, he wants, you know, to engage in dolphin ethology in Saratov and all that, then, as a rule, it does not lead to anything good. Agree that a lot of bad faunal works are published. And all because you can't just be a faunalist. Only a taxonomist can write a good faunistic work (= "Fauna of the USSR (Russia)", etc.). Who is a pure faunist that you contrast with taxonomy? "My portrait will be brief: four feet in it from head to toe..." This is just a collector (and not always a good one; it is a talent, not just a desire), who at least knows how to use old determinants and from time to time enters into a symbiosis with the taxonomist. Of course, there are exceptions (and it is in the power of any person to become such an exception), but the mass is such.

It seems that this is not the place to talk about the nature of taxonomy, but still, by whom and what serious criticism is it being subjected to now? A cause that cannot be directly perceived can be judged by its effects - this is the basis of all science, not just taxonomy.

I positively enjoy this discussion. Everyone can express what they think, although this may not be the generally accepted opinion and not everyone likes it. We all benefit from this.
It seems to me that the faunist should strive for the accuracy of the taxonomist out of all (informational) forces, and the taxonomist should take into account all the data of faunists.
And, most importantly, everyone does what they like, and only then we will understand such concepts as"important and necessary".

There is another source of good faunal works. This is an amateur. They don't need to submit reports or send out publications. I found something worthwhile and published it. For a small, well-studied region (for example, the Stavropol Territory), there are 1-2 such finds per season, or there may not be any at all. And then what should a "specialist" in faunalism do? So there are articles like "Zoogeography of pryoptera of the grandmother's garden".

Yes, I almost forgot, taxonomists and faunalists for that matter, please write complete and up-to-date determinants, such as beetles, and the accuracy of faunal works will not lose out.

The basis of zoogeography is faunistics, the basis of faunistics is species lists, and the basis of lists is material. If the material is not only qualified, but also available to other researchers, then I am in favor of such faunistics. But, alas, many lists are unverifiable by anyone. It's not even about amateurs – and those who call themselves professionals make monstrous mistakes. The sad thing is that in our country there is no tradition of full-fledged faunal publications, as is customary, for example, in Japan or Europe. There are provincial museums and societies with their own periodicals. They publish lists, new finds, and all this is supported by photos and links to collections. And where can we publish a similar list with high-quality photo tables?

I am against the a priori arrogant attitude of metropolitan specialists to provincial faunalists. In my memory, there were cases when metropolitan experts hacked down magnificent faunal articles just because they considered it not a science. Some people are simply "shaken" by the title "A new species for the fauna of Russia" (although, for example, this is a completely normal practice for ornithologists). As a result, species that are new to the Russian Federation have been kept in collections for decades, but there are no articles about their discovery. The following story is significant (it is not entomological, but still): for a long time, the main expert on bivalves in Japan was T. Habe – his authority was so great that no one dared to write anything without his nod. And so they began to find a type of mussel in Japan that had not previously lived there. Habe was categorically opposed to these findings-he believed that all these are errors of definition. As the years passed, the species moved north, and it was already being found in our waters. But Habe persisted, and when they brought him a shell of this kind, found near Tokyo, he trampled on it in anger.

Faunistics is not only a statement that such species live here, but also an analysis of this fauna. I don't know if there are such examples in entomology, but at one time a work was published on lichens in the vicinity of Petrograd. Almost 100 years have passed and this work has been repeated-very interesting changes have been identified, which were not always explained by atmospheric and soil pollution. And what, for example, lived and grew in the vicinity of the same Vladivostok 100 years ago, no one really knows.

Gentlemen, here we must clarify again. I am just an amateur who has become too small for the circle of "old determinants". So I turned to specialists primarily for knowledge and good, up-to-date literature, which, for obvious reasons, I do not have access to. In addition, the instance I came up with was really non-standard, which caused difficulties in determining. "why are you so worried?" I heard the reply. "Well, fuliginosum is it." Then I have already told you.

The sad thing is that in our country there is no tradition of full-fledged faunal publications, as is customary, for example, in Japan or Europe. There are provincial museums and societies with their own periodicals. They publish lists, new finds, and all this is supported by photos and links to collections. And where can we publish a similar list with high-quality photo tables?

Now the publication of such articles with color images is not a problem, the only question is why. If the view is easily recognized from the photo, then there are usually no difficulties in identifying it. But there is no point in making pictures of "complex" views. There are also museums attached to provincial universities and institutes, and the material is indicated in the articles, but still the level is not the same. It means that we don't have any wrong traditions.

I am against the a priori arrogant attitude of metropolitan specialists to provincial faunalists. In my memory, there were cases when metropolitan experts hacked down magnificent faunal articles just because they considered it not a science. Some people just "shake" from the title "A new species for the fauna of Russia" (although, for example, this is a completely normal practice for ornithologists). T. Habe-his authority was so great that no one dared to write anything without his nod. And so they began to find a type of mussel in Japan that had not previously lived there. Habe was categorically opposed to these findings-he believed that all these are errors of definition. As the years passed, the species moved north, and it was already being found in our waters. But Habe persisted, and when they brought him a shell of this kind, found near Tokyo, he trampled on it in anger.

Well, a real scientist would never do that. If the species is new to the fauna, then it is new, there is no escape from this, you just need to check the definition. As for Japanese, Chinese and other Korean specialists, this is a special question. People of Eastern culture, of course, can be good specialists, but sometimes the traditional way of thinking fails them. Science in the modern sense is still a product of Western civilization, and the Buddha, as you know, compared those who think about abstract topics to a fool who, instead of pulling out an arrow that has hit him, talks about who shot it, why and what material it is made of.

Gentlemen, here we must clarify again. I am just an amateur who has become too small for the circle of "old determinants". So I turned to specialists primarily for knowledge and good, up-to-date literature, which, for obvious reasons, I do not have access to. In addition, the instance I came up with was really non-standard, which caused difficulties in determining. "why are you so worried?" I heard the reply. "Well, fuliginosum is it." I've already told you more.

What did you want to hear? Did you get rejected for literature? You were helped with the definition. No one forbids you to publish an interesting find, if you consider it such.

There are problems. Sorry, but in our magazines like Zoological or Zoosystematica Rossica, even a black-and-white photo will not be published decently. I have seen very few provincial magazines with high-quality color inserts. Photos of butterflies are not a trifle, they can show inaccuracies in the definition of even difficult species. An experienced taxonomist can see a specimen in the photo, in which he intuitively feels "something is wrong" - if there is a collection, then the specimen can be studied in detail.

In my opinion, you confuse faunal works with textbooks. And about the experienced taxonomist and his unique eye-this is an old topic that has long since outlived its usefulness. Let me remind you of the discussion between Semenov-Tyan-Shansky and Kuznetsov and Ion on the use of genitalia in the taxonomy of butterflies, one of the first groups where signs of these structures were used. For that matter, faunal works should not be provided with color photographs, but with drawings of diagnostic features. Magazines with good print quality are quite enough: these are, for example, KMC magazines, and good regional publications such as the Caucasian Entomological Bulletin have also begun to appear.

I
have idealized ideas about real scientists. They are very different. And ZINA has world-class specialists who

The brand of idealism is always an excuse for laziness of the soul and unwillingness to change something first of all in oneself. And Zina has a lot of things, you don't have to tell me about them.

 
It seems that this is not the place to talk about the nature of taxonomy, but still, by whom and what serious criticism is it being subjected to now?

Yes, I agree that even a new topic will not be enough to discuss the topic of taxonomy issues . But I will still specify my position. I mentioned that in entomology it is customary to distinguish a species only by morphological criteria. Meanwhile, it is not at all clear to what extent such a criterion is correct and how much then the whole system is correct (although a new question arises - whether it should be biologically correct at all, say, in the course of evolution, or whether it should be used simply as a tool for identifying an object from similar ones), and meanwhile geneticists turned to the structure of RNA they have improved their system, although they have beetles in the same group with bedbugs, but these are small things . Let us recall that several criteria are necessary to characterize a species - the same genetic, ecological, physiological, biochemical, and geographical criteria.! In short, I just wanted to say - do not idealize taxonomy, it is just an instrument of knowledge of the surrounding world, and far from ideal.

My opinion regarding the place in this life for faunists and taxonomists is as follows: the taxonomist should strive (I do not mean in any way that this should be all his work) to create good!!! guidelines for faunalists. Faunalists provide information to taxonomists. We often nod to the fact that a faunist made a bad or inaccurate definition. Gentlemen, does the level of our qualifiers allow us to make a good definition? Take the same green determinant - there are few images, poor quality, and no photos either. Defining tables for some groups are designed in such a way that you can only understand them if you have a large collection of them already! specific comparative material. Well, what can we say about a person who has several beetles that he got by chance! There are also a lot of complaints about faunalists. I recently looked at the faunal lists of some authors compiled according to the classical standards of the 19th century - i.e. the title of the work, the cap - who, where, when and the list of species, without specifying the material, and here I came to the conclusion-probably this author did not collect or define this material at all, but simply printed a list of the most common That'S ALL. I am absolutely against such faunalism. If you do faunal work, then you need to take the territory as large as possible (or more interesting) and try to process as many collections as possible.

Yes, I agree that even a new topic will not be enough to discuss the topic of taxonomy issues . But I will still specify my position. I mentioned that in entomology it is customary to distinguish a species only by morphological criteria. Meanwhile, it is not at all clear to what extent such a criterion is correct and to what extent the whole system is then correct (although a new question arises - should it be biologically correct at all, say, in the course of evolution, or should it be used simply as a tool for identifying an object from its like)

In entomology, it is customary to distinguish species according to all available criteria for studying. If a species is distinguished only by morphological and geographical criteria, then there is nothing unscientific about it. Hiatus in morphological characters indirectly indicates the immiscibility of genes, i.e. the presence of reproductive isolation - the most important indicator of species independence, and sympatry confirms this. The question of "biologically correct" or, in other words, evolutionary or phylogenetic taxonomy is no longer seriously raised by anyone. Otherwise, you will end up with an extremely unstable and non-universal system. Taxonomy is not a tool for identifying objects-it organizes their diversity.

My opinion regarding the place in this life for faunists and taxonomists is as follows: the taxonomist should strive (I do not mean in any way that this should be all his work) to create good ones.!!! guidelines for faunalists. Faunalists provide information to taxonomists. We often nod to the fact that a faunist made a bad or inaccurate definition. Gentlemen, does the level of our qualifiers allow us to make a good definition? Take the same green determinant

Of course, it is good when a taxonomist finds the time and opportunity to write a large, carefully developed determinant. But still, this is not the main purpose of the taxonomist's activity. The determinant, as a rule, does not contain anything new for science, it is a generalization of already done research. You demand that the taxonomist save you the trouble of studying a large literature and summarize it in one book. By the way, if we are talking about the determinant of 1964, then there is no need to build on it in vain. In general, this is a very good determinant; to use them successfully, you just need to know the morphology of a particular group well.

Thank you, Tentator, for a well-balanced answer. Nevertheless, it seems to me that writing a good determinant that is accessible to everyone or almost everyone is the pinnacle of a taxonomist's creativity. Only a good taxonomist will be able to write the most succinct and accessible delimiter. This is the sum of all his many years of systematic research, carefully considered and balanced, refined to such an optimal degree that everything necessary is present, and difficulties and particulars that are understandable only to a specialist in the group are eliminated. This is the quintessence of all his accumulated knowledge, which can be passed on to people, and not just to a narrow circle of his colleagues. Hence the well-deserved fame or criticism among the masses. sorry for the amateur's confusion.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that writing a good determinant that is accessible to everyone or almost everyone is the pinnacle of a taxonomist's creativity. Only a good taxonomist will be able to write the most succinct and accessible delimiter. This is the sum of all his many years of systematic research, carefully considered and balanced, refined to such an optimal degree that everything necessary is present, and difficulties and particulars that are understandable only to a specialist in the group are eliminated. This is the quintessence of all his accumulated knowledge, which can be passed on to people, and not just to a narrow circle of his colleagues. Hence the well-deserved fame or criticism among the masses. sorry for the amateur's confusion.

Yes, I agree with you in many ways, but still not the determinant is the pinnacle of the taxonomist's creativity, but something like "Fauna", which includes the determinant and all the knowledge of the taxonomist in its group. I recently received another volume of the Fauna of France from the expresident of the French Entomological Society, Pericard. This is really the pinnacle of creativity! Moreover, a person releases such a volume every few years. That's what you need to look up to.

What did you want to hear? Did you get rejected for literature? You were helped with the definition. No one forbids you to publish an interesting find, if you consider it such.

I wanted to say something different. It seemed to me that you, being a taxonomist, for the sake of solidarity ignore my note, which sounded in the first messages.

To Tentator:
As for taxonomy, I am still inclined to believe that the selection of new species is somewhat subjective. A lot of things depend on the position of the specialist, including what the hiatus between species should be, as you put it, so that these species are considered different. Thousands of species are described every year, but are they all "good" species? I don't want to say that all taxonomy is not scientific. I just think you should always keep in mind that not everything is so simple. The difference in phrases about taxonomy does not seem to me significant. Taxonomy is designed to help isolate an object from its own kind, to create a single system that would be easy and convenient to use. This is a descriptive science-like geography, where the names of objects were also given. Only the rivers and mountains are already named, but with insects it is more difficult .

About the qualifiers. First of all, I cannot and do not want to demand anything from taxonomists . However, I believe that creating a good determinant will primarily help the taxonomist himself. Since faunalists will make fewer mistakes at least. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the western atlas determinant of genera, where there were many drawings and arrows! it shows exactly which attribute you need to pay attention to.

I don't remember the year of publication of the determinant, but it is European ch. b. SSSR vol. 3.The determinant is good because it includes many potentially possible types, but there are few drawings.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 04/10/2008 22: 17

I wanted to say something different. It seemed to me that you, being a taxonomist, for the sake of solidarity ignore my note, which sounded in the first messages.

Are you surprised that Makarov did not support you and did not express sympathy for your ideas, that for him "maybe" is equal to "is"? To your question " Is classical faunalism necessary?" I answer: it is necessary, but it should be handled by a taxonomist or someone who is well acquainted with taxonomy. In this regard, I do not distinguish between a specialist and an amateur, since they are united by their love for the object of study, and therefore by a good knowledge of it, which is not typical for just a faunist.

To Tentator:
As for taxonomy, I am still inclined to believe that the selection of new species is somewhat subjective. This is a descriptive science-like geography, where the names of objects were also given. Only the rivers and mountains are already named, but with insects it is more difficult .

Of course, you are right, there are mistakes here, and even very experienced and reputable taxonomists. But I would not say that because of subjectivity, rather, because of some bad faith and arrogance. What is the main danger that lies in wait for a scientist at the level of, so to speak, "microsystematics"? -- take variability for hiatus. You can avoid this by studying large series from different parts of the range and, if there is not enough material, do not rush to describe it. as for the descriptive nature of taxonomy , if a taxonomist's activity were limited only to the description of species and the creation of determinants, it would be one of the easiest professions in the world. To build a natural system of a large group - that is where the real difficulties and real creativity of the taxonomist lie.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the western atlas determinant of genera, where there were many drawings and arrows! it shows exactly which attribute you need to pay attention to.

The determinant is good because it includes many potential views, but there are few drawings.

I don't see the point in either the pictures or the arrows. Why give signs that you don't need to pay attention to? And pictures can knock a person down: it looks like that's all, why else bother? Yes, schematic drawings are very useful, but at a certain stage of working with a specific determinant, they are no longer necessary, except in particularly difficult cases.