Is faunology an important aspect of entomology?

I will express my opinion, although almost all these thoughts have already been expressed by many forum participants. I believe that faunalism is a very necessary and important area in entomology, and this is not going anywhere, although there are comrades who say the opposite. Another question is who handles these issues. There are unscrupulous researchers who know their group of insects poorly, and then publish articles with a mass error. And after that, some comrades begin to show skepticism about the importance of this science. And, by the way, there are such "bad" taxonomists who stamp out dozens of new taxa without understanding their groups, and then other specialists reduce all this to synonyms. Therefore, both taxonomy and faunalism are the most important branches of entomology, but there are simply unscrupulous people who conduct "research" in these areas. It's just that when you read both sitematic and faunal works , you need to read them with criticism. And work with obviously unreliable data should be immediately eliminated. There are plenty of crooks everywhere, causing confusion.
And more. I believe that it is necessary to write faunal notes/articles about new finds. Especially in such popular groups as, for example, mace-whiskered lepidoptera. Compared to many other groups, they are very active and studied by many. And people are actively interested in them. Therefore, the importance of faunal finds in such well-studied groups is very high, in contrast, for example, to groups where research is conducted by 1-2 specialists. Here in these groups, where you will not come, you will dig - and immediately find new species for this region. Because there are few specialists and the regions are not all studied for these groups of insects.

Dear colleagues!
Thanks to the kindness of KDG, I learned that I was the unwitting culprit of the controversy. After reading the discussion materials with curiosity, I decided to join it – otherwise I will die misunderstood. After registering on the site, first of all, I voted for the need for faunalism. Secondly, I will allow myself a few remarks.
About faunistics
I envy botanists. They have floristics-a respectable field of knowledge, clearly separated from phytocenology, geobotany, etc. (I suspect that botanists have a different opinion – but from the outside it seems so). In zoology, the concept of faunistics is relatively vague, and its key concept – "fauna" - is interpreted widely-from "a historically formed set of taxa with similar parameters of their ranges" to lists of species and indications of individual finds (and there are also "zooths", etc.). Ambiguity is a common phenomenon in biology (for example, "a large number of taxa with similar parameters of their ranges").forest " means both a biotopic characteristic, and zonal and belt) and this does not bother, as long as the understanding of such a term is unambiguously determined by the context. Unfortunately, this circumstance was ignored in the formulation of the voting question. I gave my vote for faunalism in the traditional sense, but what about other colleagues?
Faunistics, claiming to be a science, should study the meaningful connection of phenomena; the discovery of certain species in a certain territory is only a small part of this science. Rude (but hopefully permissive) exaggerating, we can say that registration is the fate of the device (in physics it is easier, in biology it is more difficult), and the task of a person/scientist/specialist is data analysis. It is strange that the discussion very quickly went the way of discussing the importance of" registrations " - who argues, devices are needed. But I would be surprised at a specialist who deliberately limits himself to the "instrument" level.

Returning to the ideas about fauna, I have to envy the botanists again. They have a well-developed conceptual framework that makes it possible to distinguish ideas about regional flora, specific and local flora, flora of an elementary area, and so on. In zoology, the term "concrete fauna" was introduced by Yu.I. Chernov (1975), but in the course of its application, various interpretations and ambiguities in distinguishing specific and local faunas quickly accumulated. And this is despite the fact that the term has a very limited application – special works on local ground beetle faunas can be counted literally five. For the sake of clarity, it is reasonable to continue the analogy with floristics, distinguishing between a specific fauna (as an elementary and unique lower unit of the faunal system) and a local fauna-as a faunal sample (i.e., a list of species of a certain area – 10 or 100 square kilometers, etc.). Such lists, provided they are relatively complete, are very useful, even if They are represented by a trivial set of taxa. But: we are talking about a list of species of a small, if possible, naturally allocated territory. The questionable scientific value of lists for administrative allotments (especially large ones) is a frequently expressed opinion. Of course, there are some benefits from such lists – for example, for regulating the use of natural resources, etc. But their meaningful interpretation is complicated by the artificiality of the allocation, and the variability of administrative borders is a source of numerous misunderstandings.
example. Serebryanoprudsky district formerly belonged to the Tula province/district / region and only since 1942 has been part of the current Moscow region. The fauna of this southern area significantly complements the lists of animals of the Moscow region. For example, in 2002 N. B. Nikitsky collected Carabus sibiricus haeres in this area (Nikitsky, 2003). An outside observer who records changes in regional lists may interpret these data as a result of the expansion of the species due to climate change or a reduction in the area of cultivated land, etc. It is hard to expect a specialist in global climate warming to be caustic about details (for the Tula region, this taxon is known), and once "in the clip", the example will wander from publication to publication.
The attitude to the lists of local faunas, generally speaking, is also far from unambiguous. At one time, I was thinking of publishing a list of ground beetles in the vicinity of the Istra reservoir. But at first perfectionism interfered (I overlooked it there, I didn't collect it here), then doubts accumulated (every year, the list changes, and you don't immediately understand why: either the climate has changed, or you have learned to catch) and only later realized that the idea is fundamentally flawed. Long-term collections do not specify the characteristics of local fauna, but "blur" it with random finds. Intensive (all types of traps + manual collection) study during one season (preferably all year round) would be correct. Then we get a relatively complete list, clearly linked to the current climatic and biotic situation, and which seems to be quite suitable for the role of a unit of faunal analysis. In 2006/7, at the initiative of A. V. Matalin, we conducted such work in the Elton region – the results were very interesting and instructive.
Faunae and finds
A common variant of faunal studies, the novelty of which seems to be indisputable, is the marking of species outside their known range. There are, however, two considerations in this regard.
First, we do not always represent areas correctly (i.e., our representations are mostly inaccurate). Usually, the range is described on the basis of a number of marks and some ideas about the biology (!) of the species: The taxon is related to coniferous trees, their locations X and Y are known, both lie in the taiga zone. Therefore, we will consider the taiga zone between X and Y to be the range, unless otherwise specified. In this state of affairs, the significance of a new find is not easy to assess, especially if the biology of the species is poorly understood.
Second, we usually underestimate the migratory capabilities of insects. Recently, it was shown (Feng et al., 2007) that even relatively weak "flyers" - ground beetles Harpalus, choosing a flight altitude with a suitable wind, can fly hundreds of km per night. I remember very well how in my youth I used to catch the light in a Pharmacy. With touching care, he took the lamp far out into the sand, plugged it into the weather booth – and spent half the night trying to see the psammobionts among the thousands of water beetles and beetles that were falling on the sheet. Everyone can tell a lot of such stories.
example. In this aspect, one of the results of our work in the Elton region is significant. From about 50 thousand copies. ground beetles collected during the season, a little more than 10 thousand accounted for the share of Harpalus rufipes (95% were caught by soil traps). However, no oviparous females and only a few sexually mature males were found among these individuals (generative phases of this species are usually considered as well as others). Consequently, all the mentioned 10 thousand were migrants who moved from point A to point B mainly on foot (the distance between the extreme reference lines exceeded 30 km). How long did each individual stay in this area? Did you eat? Could it compete for resources? I.e., can we consider these migrants to be members of the community/local ground beetle fauna of the Elton region? Not only does a simple mark not provide an answer to these questions, it doesn't even allow you to put them – but there are still questions.
What does the statement "type C-us found at point D" mean, then? Yes, anything. Its interpretation depends, in particular, on the knowledge of bionomics, and here in many cases (probably, it is more correct to say-in most cases) there is nothing to brag about.
These considerations, in general, are trivial and lie on the surface. They regularly occur to specialists and develop a professionally cautious (in full compliance with Occam's rule) attitude to various kinds of finds. To compensate for the multiplication of finds, it was even proposed to eliminate the exact labels – which, perhaps, is superfluous.
Since ideas about the extent of animal ranges are often extrapolated, it is appropriate to ask the question: what is more important-finding a species at a new point or finding out its preferences, ensuring the correct interpretation of marks on the map?
Faunistics and bionomy
When discussing the composition of any fauna, we explicitly or implicitly take into account its history, environmental compliance with the requirements of a particular species, and interspecific interactions. Questions of faunogenesis are often speculative, while other parameters are more accessible to study. Having found out (at least in the form of a so-called expert assessment) the biological features of the species, we can economically describe its range with a minimum of finds (for example, "the forest zone of Eurasia with the exception of the northern taiga"). Putting dots on a map is not an economical process, and an attempt to interpret the resulting picture will inevitably raise the same questions about the bionomy of the species.
example. In connection with the development of biological control methods, the biology of Lebia grandis feeding mainly on preimaginal stages of Leptinotarsa was studied. L. grandis was described from the North. North Carolina in 1830 and was considered a local species. During the 19th century, an expansion of the range of L. grandis was recorded, as it turned out – due to the spread of the food object-Leptinotarsa juncta. Since the 1870s, the ranges of L. juncta and L. decemlineata overlap and the transition of Lebia to feeding on the Colorado potato beetle, although the preferences of the original host have been preserved (Weber et al., 2006). Now, knowing the features of the biology of this Lebia, we can more accurately assess the range and, in part, predict its dynamics. In addition, this knowledge increases the factual base – understanding becomes available not only reliable finds of the species, but also its reliable absence (if there is a host).: here you can think about the role of the photoperiod, the sum of temperatures, predators/competitors, etc.
Obviously, we will not be able to do without accurate findings, but we can only understand them and assess their range based on the bionomy of the species. The process of filling the map space with dots is endless and meaningless; studying the biological features of a species and extrapolating these concepts seems more rational.
I would very much not like my point of view to be perceived as orthodox, denying the significance of finds, exact bindings, etc. This is part of the original faunal data and cannot be dispensed with. In addition, there are good cases where the very fact of finding already means a lot – for example, if we are talking about amphipacific areas or transatlantic disjunctions. However, in my opinion, it is not correct to identify the factual base with faunalism. In this context, the following question is clearly indicated: who does faunistics? Faunalists – who are they?
Faunists and taxonomists
I tried to remember the faunists "from ground beetles". The top five are almost obvious-Goldhouse, Lindroth, Darlington, Kryzhanovsky, Irwin. Although there are hundreds of publications for each of them, the subject range of articles and monographs is largely similar: some early articles by M. B. are devoted to interesting finds (not always), but the bulk of them are more or less private taxonomic studies (+ determinants). Large generalizing faunal works are usually published in adulthood. The general trend is quite clear – a "faunist" takes a long and difficult time to form as a specialist, accumulating and comprehending facts. Naturally, these facts also include findings/marks, but the ideological component is the area of broader extrapolations. This is also evidenced by the fact that all these faunalists (except, perhaps, Lindroth) did not limit themselves to ground beetles, analyzing the distribution of different groups of insects. The most significant example is that of Darlington, who built his Zoogeography almost exclusively on vertebrate examples , since data on the distribution of insects are difficult to interpret.
I am not sure if there are any significant faunal works in the field of entomology written by non-taxonomists. A more or less close example of this is the summary of ground beetles of Holland Turin (2000). But this is rather an exception: the territory is small, has been studied for a long time, and the author's generalizations relate mainly to ecology, not faunalism.
The next level of faunistics is various regional lists, usually compiled by taxonomists, less often by specialists in related disciplines or amateurs. After all, there are quite a few works, and they are also accompanied by major summaries/determinants (these genres can be difficult to distinguish) for regional faunas. This category of work is certainly important and useful, but with regard to ground beetles, this level of study did not give any noticeable generalizations.
Finally, works on local faunas (not to be confused with lists of arbitrary small territories) are still few in number, but a number of generalizations based on them seem promising (for example, the works of L. A. Kropotkin).Penev's guide to local Carabus faunas). In this area, however, the contribution of ground beetle specialists is surprisingly small – progress is provided by individuals who have developed skills in analyzing local faunas on other groups of arthropods.
Simplifying and coarsening the picture, we can say that in the considered works faunistics as an independent science reveals itself twice: at the level of large generalizations (macrofaunistics) and local faunas (microfaunistics). All intermediate variants are derivatives of taxonomy in its various forms. A typical "faunist" is thus an erudite taxonomist.

It turned out, of course, a little long – please excuse me. For sure, many people will find part of what was written trivial – but my previous attempt to present this point of view concisely failed, and the specifics of the pedagogical institute make themselves felt.

Sincerely, KM

Dear Makarov,

It seems that you wrote everything correctly, but, I note - "it seems to be". Data analysis is already a subjective aspect of the issue, which is meaningless without accurate lists. I'll give you an example. There is such a book by Kafanov "Bivalves and faunal biogeography of the Northern Pacific". The book is a data analysis with output, etc. But if for Japan the lists are for almost every major bay, for every bay, then for our coast the lists are very incomplete. In one bay, the Zinovites found a number of subtropical species - from this early conclusions are made. Meanwhile, an unknown work of a schoolboy (!) was published, which contains a list of shellfish from bays in the ROC. Vladivostok - and these subtropical species were also found there. In Japan, an ordinary biology teacher can publish a list of species from a local bay in the proceedings of a local museum. Thanks to such publications, it is absolutely clear where the border of subtropical and boreal faunas passes in Japan. And the topic is not about the fact that a good faunist is a bit of a taxonomist. We are talking about what an amateur can give to faunistics.

And the topic is not about the fact that a good faunist is a bit of a taxonomist. We are talking about what an amateur can give to faunistics.

Exactly.

Yeah. Just pray that this teacher will put the CORRECT types on the list. Otherwise, you will not get such an analysis of faunas and their boundaries...

You will immediately be told in chorus that if he incorrectly identified the species, it is not his fault, but the taxonomists who did not write new definitions and did not consult him on this issue.

Colleagues, thank you !
All-so I really don't want to embarrass fans and tease forum participants. Therefore, I will immediately note two circumstances:
- I would not put an equal sign between a certain problem situation and the problems of science (let me remind you that we voted for science);
- there are excellent studied groups in which an amateur can do a lot, since taxonomists, ecologists, physiologists, etc. have already worked before them. (for example, we are talking about birds), and there are groups where even a specialist is afraid to conclude something like this.
Ground beetles are an excellent group, and they are often referred to as relatively well-studied. Don't believe it, this is a myth - all problems and lack of data. And this myth arose because of the large number of publications that lie on the fine line of science and something else (perhaps, non-amateur). The main problem is that often the data of these publications is not data, but a mystery. And I tried to give examples on this subject (there are actually thousands of them) and considerations. How to position an amateur in this situation and whether there is a place for him here - I don't know. It seems that the Japanese teacher is not very useful here either.
If I may, a separate remark to Juglans ("Data analysis is already the subjective side of the question, which is meaningless without accurate lists"): with regard to ground beetles, there are very few lists that can be called accurate (it just so happened), and everyone tries to deal with the subjectivity of analysis by different methods, and this is rather not due to with the quality of the source data, but with the quality of analytics.

All the best, happy holidays
KM

- there are excellent studied groups in which an amateur can do a lot, since taxonomists, ecologists, physiologists, etc. have already worked before them. (for example, we are talking about birds), and there are groups where even a specialist is afraid to conclude something like this.

A very correct idea, which, by the way, did not sound on the forum. Indeed, there are groups in which a specialist will break his leg . Where there is no clear border between the species, or the differences are so shaky that the amateur will get lost. Although if we develop this topic, it turns out that the general part of insect groups is difficult to determine, except for mace-whiskered lepidoptera. Despite Mr. Makarov's comments, my opinion remains the same-this is the case in modern science, but with a reservation. As a collector, this is necessary, and as the author of a publication, with great care, and only after consulting with a specialist, viewing stock collections. Of course, if everyone publishes new species for fauna without a good reason, it will turn out to be nonsense of a gray mare. But remember that most amateurs do not go into the authors of works. They just need to collect an insect, identify it and put it in a box.
By the way, I have an idea right now - why don't amateurs give information about their fees on special Internet sites created, say, with the same ZINA or this forum? And it is not considered a publication, and the information is available. Name, for example, the catalog of bedbugs in Russia. If a specialist is interested in something from the list, they will contact an amateur. What's not a way out for you? And taxonomists will stop shouting that they are being bombarded with unverified data, and amateurs will understand that they are doing an important and necessary thing, which by the way will not be so far from the truth!

This post was edited by Dormidont-05/08/2008 01: 28

By the way, I have an idea right now - why don't amateurs give information about their fees on special Internet sites created, say, with the same ZINA or this forum? And it is not considered a publication, and the information is available. Name, for example, the catalog of bedbugs in Russia. If a specialist is interested in something from the list, they will contact an amateur. What's not a way out for you? And taxonomists will stop shouting that they are being bombarded with unverified data, and amateurs will understand that they are doing an important and necessary thing, which by the way will not be so far from the truth!

In my opinion, a great idea! For, for and only for!

So what's the big deal? I don't think that a specialist will not have enough time to work on such a site. After all, it is interesting first of all to him. So let's say the faunal list came to the editorial office, the work does not meet the editorial policy, and the material should not be lost. You can forward information to such a site. You just have to do it. Then there will be normal serious science.
And now about a specific proposal. Do experts find time to sit in this forum and talk with their tongues? They can even tell from photos. We just need to upgrade and optimize the operation of this site somewhat. Create such a group - catalog of insects in Russia and neighboring territories. I am sure that each of the fans present in the forum will add to this list of species. For complex questions, make a determination based on the photo. This is elementary. The question is only for the site moderators and that's it. You don't need to invent a new site, this one is already quite well-known, just rebuild it and create a new category. I certainly do not know the financial side of the issue, but maybe it is somehow possible to solve? I think there are enough people on the forum who can curate certain topics at a subprofessional level, and some even at a professional level. In the framework of the journal Entomologyinfo to announce such a prekt. Yes, you can even get an RFBR grant for this case . The shortage of specialists can be solved. Why there are not enough of them on the forum, because the forum is full of topics like "oh, something bit me", or "a terrible beast started up in my corridor". This of course also has a place in our life, but with such a level of specialists you will not find. But for example, KDG told Mr. Makarov that there was a whole discussion about him on the Internet and he immediately found time not only to read it, but also to give a voluminous answer!!! I am sure that if the site is worthy, many and many people will visit it, first of all graduate students (and this is not bad at all), then more famous scientists. The information will spread faster than you think . After all, many scientists on the Internet do not spend a couple of hours a day. For example, I created the Pulava catalog of burrowing wasps, and included a bibliography and synonymy. And many young professionals turn to this site. I am ready to supervise burrowing wasps, and give information on the fauna of Ukraine, I can even scan articles and place them in a separate category. Well, what should we try?

This post was edited by Dormidont-05/08/2008 17: 11

Hello, colleagues !

Let me add some pessimism in honor of the holiday.

First, the eternal - about amateurs. It seems that there is a certain chaotic state and it's time to find out who this amateur is. In the meantime, he was identified with the collector – which is probably incorrect. I can't define an amateur on the fly. I can – a specialist (and then with the restriction of a zoologist). This is a person who a) tries to find out the existing connections/patterns in nature, no matter in what area (these can be functions, structures, and diagnoses – the latter reflect a repeated combination of features, etc.) and b) has sufficient information, logical, and, if possible, hardware base for this. I humbly ask you to note that this definition does not include degrees, titles, citation indexes of publications, etc. – they may or may not be, this is how life turns out. Starting from this definition, it is easy to deduce the concept of an amateur: he satisfies point a), but not b). And the amateur? He probably does. What: go for a walk and see the world? Catch butterflies? Write / publish articles? To breathe fresh air and, without straining, feel your involvement in "science"? Get degrees and titles (this is also a form of love, understood as taxis)?
I do not know who the amateur is. For example, I caught a dozen German girls and gave them to a specialist-am I a German lover? I dug up two hundred Aphodius (and gave them to a specialist) - can I be considered an amateur of this genus? I set up traps, collected fifteen hundred small Hymenoptera and gave them to a specialist-is this enough to join the ranks of hymenoptera lovers? Will five thousand pupaars be enough? Let's assume that some of these finds are interesting-does this increase my claim to the role of an amateur? Perhaps it is correct to describe this role as an importer. In the typical version, collectors are holy (and very respected) people: they get something and give it to other people (option-museums), without really hoping for an assessment of their work. Materials can last for 50 or 150 years – and then who will remember about the collector? And if it remembers, so what for the importer? There are collectors "from God" who are remembered for 200 years, but this is an exception from which it is impossible to draw a conclusion. Consequence: there should be no typical collectors in nature (we don't consider the "hired insect killer" option for obvious reasons). It seems that in very many cases, the "collector" is a specialist neighbor, driven by altruism or something else. To avoid confusion, let's agree that the collector has no claims to a momentary assessment of his work.
And if it does? There are two obvious options.
1. The collector begins to understand his material – and then, under minimally favorable conditions, he grows into a specialist. This is the usual life path of a zoologist, isn't it? Some became collectors in childhood and for them this path passed through the university / institute and was accompanied by the acquisition of degrees and titles. For others, equally respected and qualified, the path was different. In the light of the initial definition, this difference, which is noticeable in everyday life, is essentially irrelevant – in the end, we find not a collector, but a specialist.
2) The collector puts this work on the shoulders of a specialist, but defends its primacy. What is the life strategy of such a person? Of course, the search for a" suitable " specialist-scientific knowledge here fades into the background. How would you describe such an assembler? M. B., this is an amateur? I don't know …

The second reason for the holiday pessimism is the plans to establish a website. Colleagues, take a look at ZINA's website. Do you like it? Insects in embroidery … How the copras sing … Here is a close example: 3-4 times a year I send a disk to the ZIN, which strictly contains two sections: with photos and with an updated list of ground beetles in Russia. I sent the last version of the list on April 18 of this year. The photos have already been posted, and the list remains in last year's edition (May 24, 2007) - and God knows how many more will be like this. But the RFBR grants in ZINA for this site are constantly received ... A good site www.carabidae.ru? It has already started to get littered ... Yes, there are excellent sites on the web (for example, www.elateridae.com), but it is very noticeable that they have a minimal team of authors-1-3 people. And large-scale projects that have started to develop rapidly (for example - http://tolweb.org/) they're going to die soon. I'm afraid of big projects. This suggests an anarchic option – there are a lot of small independent sites under a common roof, but is it good ?..

Yes, it was long again. And there are a lot of ellipses. How would you end up optimistic? Happy holidays, colleagues !

КМ

I'm sorry, I completely forgot about the Japanese teacher. I found the following phrase of Juglans very significant: "There are excellent atlases-determinants. Co-authors in such articles include specialists who check the definitions of the most difficult types." What about the teacher?
КМ

to Makarov

Praise the Almighty! Professionals began to appear on the forum, albeit somewhat forcibly drawn in.

Dear Makarov,

I totally agree with you about the ZINA website. Alas, it all comes down to the human factor.

About an amateur and a specialist. it is just more difficult for me to determine who the specialist is. Here I have "Who's Who: Biodiversity" (KMC, 1997), which lists 8,715 specialists of the former USSR studying biodiversity. I see the names of those I don't personally consider experts, but this is my subjective opinion based on personal contact. It's easier with amateurs: if this is not their professional field, but they are METHODICALLY engaged in something, collecting literature, then they are an amateur. In essence, it is both an amateur and a professional sport. At some stage, an amateur with a high reputation in scientific circles can be considered a specialist (alas, a bad specialist will not be called an amateur-bad or good, he is still an expert).

About the teacher: you can go to the beach and collect two bags of shells-this is the level of an amateur. An amateur will see something rare or new in storm surges among hundreds of shells. This should already be appreciated. Perhaps a random collector is just a nature lover who has not taken the path of methodical study of a particular group. In any case, we have an abnormal attitude towards amateurs in our country. My biochemist colleagues have a strict rule: the material collector is ALWAYS included in the co-authors of the article. For zoologists, this is a matter of a specialist's personal attitude: some do not even include colleagues involved in the article, while others consider the collector of interesting material to be a co-author. Not so long ago, A. G. Kuznetsov died: he was a mountaineer, collected unique material in the Himalayas. In my opinion, respect for an amateur collector who is able to collect material and "feel" rare species is something that many specialists lack.

Happy holidays!

Dear sirs!
Mr. Makarov later joined in what I see as an endless discussion . And I will once again express my position. Who is an amateur - a person who does not work in the field of study. For example, here I have a biology degree (I don't have a degree), I have several publications, but I don't work in an educational or scientific institution. I don't go through advanced training, don't participate in conferences, hearings, and don't work in a scientific environment. For me, this is an amateur, because nothing encourages me to study insects. When I wake up tomorrow, I can make my own decisions that I don't work on insects or, on the contrary, I work hard and I won't report to anyone about this or even inform them. I gave an example with Mr. Efetov from Simferopol Medical University. The person is engaged in mottling, is a doctor of medical sciences, dean of the faculty, but from my position in entomology, he is an amateur (let him forgive me if he thinks otherwise )
Regarding the site, this is certainly true and probably my idea is too idealistic (I apologize for the tautology), really all good projects are based on personalities. One person, one project. In short, you need to organize your project and everything will be OK.

I write to the addendum. About the Japanese teacher. Unfortunately, our teachers differ from Japanese teachers for the worse. With a few exceptions, they love their work, but in most cases, this is not the case. The general level of biology teachers is clearly lame and many have no idea about science at all. Many people consider entomology not a science. In general, their literacy is clearly lame. I do not know how in Russia, in Ukraine with biology at school is quite bad. The new textbooks are illiterate and not designed for students. Children in the 8th grade are given full photosynthesis with all phases and chemical reactions!!! And the number of hours of biology is reduced. According to the new program, for example, in the 10th grade there is a biology lesson 2 times a month. And this is almost the senior class! At the same time, the program is not simple at all. But what about the school and teachers - we have candidates of science, not at all the level that is required. All this is a big human factor associated with our mentality. On the one hand, the arrogance and snobbery of professionals, on the other, the dense ignorance of amateurs. It happens when these two factors are combined in one person and then it becomes very bad. For example, I believe that the main thing in a scientist is not so much his knowledge, but the level of culture. It is a pity that until now this level has not been given any importance. In the 19th century, at least the nobles were doing this, but who is doing it today? There is no such thing in Japan. And why, because if they do something, it's good. And they have developed a tradition of relationships. I am sure that there are no such questions as who is an amateur, who is a professional. There is one Japanese and another Japanese, and the result of their joint work. And who works where is a secondary question.

[...]
I am sure that there are no such questions as who is an amateur, who is a professional. There is one Japanese and another Japanese, and the result of their joint work. And who works where is a secondary question.

I won't say for Japan, but that's the way it is in England.

Yes, and this is due to our Soviet past. In our country, the individual has never been put in charge. There was always a job, the solidity of the institute in the first place. For example, MSU is a power, ZIN is a level. Meanwhile, what are MSU and ZIN? These are primarily people who work there, and not vice versa . Our editorial staff is more likely to print mediocre work but from the Institute, rather than good amateur work. The very word amateur is akin to something not qualified. I was recently asked by Mr. Tentator to get somoeducated, since I did not study at Moscow State University or St. Petersburg State University . That's our whole mentality. We even recently put the last name and first name only at the end on a written envelope, and before that there was a cap city, street, institution. the trouble is ours, the big trouble.

In continuation of the topic
, it seems to me that the terms "amateur" and" professional " denote different approaches (stages) to science, and not at all a place of work (specialty) or a scientific degree. An amateur taxonomist can do a lot more damage than a professional faunalist. I, for example, working in an academic research institute with an agricultural bias, see how a number of well-deserved" professionals " in their positions and doctors of biological sciences work at the amateur level until retirement, i.e. they do not improve.
Taxonomist and faunist are, of course, professions and occupations, not positions, and secondly, two sides of the same coin. A taxonomist cannot conduct genus revisions without a faunal database prepared by both amateurs and professionals. And the researcher himself chronologically passes through the amateur stage. In addition, the taxonomist often simply uses the works of other faunalists and without them he would not have done anything. We're all doing the same thing. But you can do it badly, but you can do it well. You can collect a great collection based on someone else's group, or you can process it in a mediocre way. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the quality of work does not always depend on the scientific degree, title, position, or level of training (education in the specialty), but on average it positively correlates with this. That is, imho, more high-quality work is done, for example, by employees of the ZIN, and not by university teachers (there are, of course, many exceptions). This is all so clear that it doesn't make sense to "put it up for defense".
In many ways, the problems raised in the forum have become more acute, from my point of view, due to the incredibly increased flow of work in recent decades and years (take at least the theses of all these endless conferences). And the flow is growing, making it easier to publish and distribute information. Most of these works do not stand up to criticism. If only it were so simple — " They are young, they are studying! Give them a chance! You were the same yourself!" But all forumchane know what a huge number of works are abandoned at the level of coursework-diploma, or, even worse, the level of many authors for decades does not rise above their first works. Hence the forced (averaged) attitude among taxonomists to the authors of such works (many of them are faunal). Hence the caution and prejudice towards newcomers.
The models of interaction between amateurs and professionals that have developed all over the world gradually overlap with our local specifics (for example, paid work in NA institutions on so-called "budget topics"). Let's see how one respectable employee of my institution jokingly says.
It's a bit messy, but I'll clarify if anything happens.

Everyone has their own vision of professionalism and amateurism. One thing is clear - there is and cannot be a clear distinction between these concepts. I think my position is more correct than the one stated by Pirx . I believe that a professional entomologist can be called a person who is professionally engaged in insects, and this implies a) proper education b) a place of appropriate work. Only these two criteria separate the professional from the amateur. However, this does not mean that a professional is always good, and an amateur is always bad. Often the opposite is true, as Mr. Pirx has already mentioned . Ideally, a person who is engaged in professional activities should understand the topic better than the undead, because he gets money for it in the end. But reality is not ideal, that's the whole point .

I believe that a professional entomologist can be called a person who is professionally engaged in

Well... In real life, such a designation for a given person is still more common - "entomologist scientist". And "professional"," professional in their field " is usually called a real master. That is, this is already a positive characteristic with a respectful accent. As a rule, an entomologist is or will often become a professional in the future. Or should I? And who are we comparing it to? Where is the control?

Ah, now I see. For you, a scientist is not yet a professional, and the latter is the pinnacle of scientific thought progress (sorry for the complexity). Well, yes, from this point of view, you are right. And of course, not every scientist is a professional with a capital letter. However, I would replace the word professional, as you understand it, with the word luminary. And that would be the right thing to do. So, now you can approach the construction of a hierarchical system . According to Dormidont, it looks like this: 1. delitant, 2. amateur 3. professional 4. corypheus, According to Pirx probably so 1. delitant (not mentioned, but probably Mr. Pirx also highlights it), 2. amateur 3. entomologist 4. professional. Well, the same thing only with different terms. I don't see any differences . And as for kotrol, so it is not. There is only one global control - Time. Well, in general, as the good old saying goes, "science is the satisfaction of one's own curiosity at public expense," although this account has recently failed to meet any of our needs, except for curiosity alone .

Ah, now I see. For you, a scientist is not yet a professional, and the latter is the pinnacle of scientific thought progress (sorry for the complexity). Well, yes, from this point of view, you are right. And of course, not every scientist is a professional with a capital letter. However, I would replace the word professional, as you understand it, with the word luminary. And that would be the right thing to do. So, now you can approach the construction of a hierarchical system . According to Dormidont, it looks like this: 1. delitant, 2. amateur 3. professional 4. corypheus, According to Pirx probably so 1. delitant (not mentioned, but probably Mr. Pirx also highlights it), 2. amateur 3. entomologist 4. professional. Well, the same thing only with different terms. I don't see any differences . And as for kotrol, so it is not. There is only one global control - Time. Well, in general, as the good old saying goes, "science is the satisfaction of one's own curiosity at public expense," although this account has recently failed to meet any of our needs, except for curiosity alone .

No, no, I wanted to say that this should go in parallel.
Let's develop it

That is, reducing to the quality of work:

1. Amateur (Beginner).
2. Professional.
3. Corypheus.
4. Live classic.
5. The genius.
6. Eternal weapon.
7. God's mode.

According to the employment record:

1. Amateur (Philistine, Street Enthusiast).
2. Scientist-entomologist.
3. Scientist-entomologist from the Academy of Sciences.
4. Official head of the school.
5. Chairman of the REO (nothing personal!).
6. Chairman of the biological commission in VAKA (especially).
7. God's mode.

An amateur is a larva of the first instar in an Amateur, it makes no sense to isolate it, although this stage can theoretically be started up to neoteny
Look, Mr. Dormidont, it looks like we're flooding... And in general, in(on) Ukraine there is still Victory Day. happy holidays!!!!!!!!!!
[blushes and leaves]

Reading some of the messages that appeared after K. V. Makarov's detailed and convincing answer convinces us of the correctness of dialectical materialism: everything develops in a spiral, but for some reason without much progress

So let's say the faunal list came to the editorial office, the work does not meet the editorial policy, and the material should not be lost. You can forward information to such a site. You just have to do it. Then there will be normal serious science.
Do experts find time to sit in this forum and talk with their tongues?

This project is utopian not even because it takes a lot of time, but because no one will agree to take responsibility for someone's unverified information. A specialist curator of a section of such a site can correct obvious errors in the list they receive, but not recognize non-obvious ones without the material. Generalization of published material and unpublished material is "two big differences" in the first case (important and, of course, useful), the responsibility largely lies with the authors of primary sources. If someone has new interesting material on the fauna of the group, which the author is sure is true, then it should be published in short messages or in the form of a full-fledged article, depending on the volume and level of the material. If there is no confidence in its correctness, the data should be checked by resorting to the help of a specialist, and again published. Just in case, I will repeat once again: you only need to catalog and summarize published data, the ends of which can not be lost.

Do you know the paradox of two disputants? That's right, everyone is even more convinced of their own rightness

But there is an absolute truth: there are fewer and fewer fans.

There are also no more specialists, which is much sadder.

But there are more kbn and dbn defenses per year than for the entire USSR in the 80s.
Almost on the topic:
http://www.russ.ru/teksty/provincializm_ka...ossijskoj_nauke

Well, I got to the forum after a short sabbatical, which I devoted to the old habit of an amateur amateur to search for new and interesting species in my region. It is very difficult to refuse, nothing can be done, probably a useful habit, because, as already noted, you have to breathe fresh air "If we don't take off, then we'll swim" (C) This time there was also a population of an interesting steppe beetle, and a wingless one, although not new to the region, but still very interesting. First of all, I would like to express my immediate gratitude to the KDG for bringing the data of our discussion to the attention of a key, albeit unwittingly key, participant. Further, I am grateful directly to Kirill Makarov for a detailed and thorough disclosure of my point of view on this problem. I hope he didn't take offense at me for putting his thoughts on this publicly available entomosource. In order to avoid reproaches for distorting the professor's thoughts, he quoted as accurately as possible, and it seems that he did not mix up a single word anywhere. In the end, it seems to me that all the forum participants only benefited from this event. Further, I dare, in accordance with my bad character, to add a little criticism on the points of all this.
1. Do I apply for the role of a specialist? After all, no. Or maybe he consciously restricted himself in something? Not true again. I decided to act as a device-a fact. Why the role of the device was considered insignificant and frivolous-that's the rub. And I left room 101 extremely confused by exactly such, how should I put it, non-positive thoughts.
2. The example of Carabus sibiricus haeres seems to me extremely unfortunate. Is Nikitsky's article identical in form and content to the list of sawyers for MO Danilevsky, for example? After all, absolutely not. For me, it's not clear at all how, when reading such a note, you can skip the collection point of a species. Obviously, only intentionally. In other words, he who has eyes, let him see. In general, the criticism of respected specialists reminds one of an old Soviet film. There, one person repeatedly repeated the phrase "And if he was carrying ammunition?!"So the respected KDG did not even go too far, but completely twisted the stick "Just pray that this teacher indicated CORRECTLY defined types in the list" I think that if a person is really interested in this problem, then with all the fibers of his soul he will advocate first of all for the CORRECT definition, and try his best to achieve it, excellent realizing that otherwise all his activities lose all meaning. By the way, experts, aren't you mistaken, and besides, also on annoying trifles? Why shouldn't we pray for the accuracy of the definition of a specialist? Are only faunalists and amateurs sinful? Sorry, of course, but really tired of hearing celestial phrases of this kind.
3. Why the idea is "fundamentally flawed", I still do not understand. Honestly, is there a person on the forum, except for the respected Kirill, who considers the list of ground beetles of Fedorenko, for example, "fundamentally flawed"? If there is, then let him speak out, please. Yes, we really often underestimate the migration capabilities of insects, we don't know much about their biology, but it seems to me that this is not a reason to, like the surgeon from the joke, throw a scalpel and cry with the words "it didn't work out again!" Why shouldn't new species found in subsequent years be published as additions to the main list? Even as insignificant, modest notes? Or is it shooting a cannon at sparrows? But is there really not a single small-caliber rifle in the staff of the pedagogical institute? No, I don't offer myself, but maybe we should work not only on "increasing the caliber"? However, this problem seems to have also been discussed.
4. To be honest, Cyril is the only person involved in entomology, of all those who were known to me, who carefully pronounces the phrase regarding the abolition of label accuracy "perhaps it would be superfluous". This surprised me. On the contrary, I was taught all my life to write labels as accurately as possible. Obviously, I was also hopelessly out of step with the requirements of modern entomology, as in the case of my amateur interpretation of faunology. Finally, it seems that area maps are also being compiled for migrant butterflies. With an indication of their migration routes, including theoretically possible ones (hawkmoth). In fact, no one here seems to consider a good knowledge of the biology of the studied species as something lower than faunistics.

And to ask - zapadlo or laziness (necessary to emphasize).

So after all, dear omar just tried to ask, but came across a misunderstanding. Or did I get something wrong?

.I have the following thoughts: first, about the teachers .if the teacher is familiar with at least some specialists who can say something about him, about his passion and definition, then only then can we say about his article .if no one has ever known this teacher, and he has never known anyone, then most likely the article is a mess, since it is very rare for specialists to come out of nowhere ,who do nothing but read scientific articles all day ,and take knowledge out of nowhere .after all, there are so many additions and undisclosed and scattered information that one person can not collect it

.speaking about the meeting between Omar and Kirill Makarov, I can assume that such a situation could arise due to the lack of their previous acquaintance ,as a result of which Mr. Makarov could simply react ,they say ,why are you fooling scientists ,go better than do serious things
.but I will not judge ,only Mr. Makarov himself can say something Specific

Hello, colleagues !

Everything just seemed to clear up and calm down …
After Ripper's remark, I think that I should also speak out about the meeting that gave rise to such a chain reaction.

BASIC. Omar sets out his vision of the world and I can only take it for granted – if such a point of view exists, it has the right to exist (a kind of presumption).

PERSONAL. I must admit that I was somewhat taken aback when I read the first letter. I remember Roma leaving 101 with a smile and the intention of visiting us in a week to determine the difficult Bembidion groups (Roma, am I not confusing?). Apparently, something in the world has already changed. Based on the facts, everything is correct. He also spoke about the fact that individual findings do not say much, and about the benefits of studying the biology of Lebia, etc. And his lips must have been crooked – try talking with straight lips ... I can't. On the other hand, he did not scold "classical faunalism" and did not say anything about "sandy ridges".
The tone of the letter is, by and large, a purely reflection of the author's worldview. Roma is still a young man, and it is up to him to decide how he will look his colleagues in the eye.

Yes, after reading the letter for the first time, for some time I was tormented by vague, faintly perceptible associations. Then I remembered. I will allow myself a long quote, since it is at hand in digital form.

"I remember a table covered with green baize, over which the head of Tikhomirov, the rector, winked like the dead muzzle of a monkey, asking a trifle and dismissing it with "very much"; here is the head of M. Menzbir, like a gorilla, with a greenish face and a black tuft of hair; it was as if he was barking at a student, inaudibly throwing questions; about Sushkin, an assistant professor without a student, was a broad-shouldered, seasoned polisher in a jacket, and without a student, he was looking for a suitable victim with boar's eyes, one of those people who, having stolen a ticket, prepare at a small table, waiting for Tikhomirov to let the student go: they rushed to him almost two at a time; they also went to Menzbir Which was dangerous; but Sushkin was sitting idle: everyone was calling him names; he puffed for a long time with those he caught; his heavy, puffy, red face, as if streaked with smudges; his lips, chunks of them, in the glowy vegetation, twitched and twisted; his fleshy, purple nose; and - sentimental, evil little eyes: "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry." not that goose, not that boar!
When I took the ticket (a mammalian nasal cavity), I gasped with joy: I could fry without preparation; I blinked very merrily at Sushkin, who was blinking and waiting for his daughter; Sushkin beckoned me: "Would you like to come with me?" I went. Immediately the muzzle flashed with infernal joy, no longer hiding its intentions.
Sitting down next to him , he began to drum; he was listening to a report on the structure of noses and nostrils: the lancelet, the fish, the reptile; when I came to the frog, he interrupted: "Well, how do the nostrils of the embryo develop?”
I swallowed my tongue: this is not anatomy, but embryology, which we have not passed! /.../ I improvised, but where do we know. We didn't listen to Ognev. Devilishly rubbing his hands together, Sushkin pinned the question; and, amused by his red nose, he threw out half-sentences with a hiss: ignoramus, daddy's son; I knew I was failing: according to the Ognevsky course; the father is the chairman; and - it is impossible to complain. Sushkin took this into account;/.../ we were ominously silent; and even Menzbir marveled at the silence, and put his lips close to his tormentor's ear; they whispered. Sushkin turned to me mockingly: "Come on, sir," he rubbed his hands together, winking at the ceiling.
And I thought: "He's going to kill me with the skull of a bony fish!" - " Tell me about the arterial system of the fetus in relation to the maternal system and about uterine respiration." Puzzle no worse than a bone skull! This question was included in the list of my arrears; and the expert on a question of this kind will go astray; I whispered: under the ominous posapik: not a sound in response, when I fell silent / ... / - "So, sir!" - and "three" poked in; Sushkin's plan was collapsing.
For twenty-seven years I shudder, remembering my half-hour acquaintance with the" academician " Sushkin/.../"

This scary at first glance text was written by the famous writer, symbolist poet Andrey Bely. And, as far as I understand, this did not affect either the professional or personal qualities of Mezbir and Sushkin.
All the best,
KM

But there are more kbn and dbn defenses per year than for the entire USSR in the 80s.
Almost on the topic:
http://www.russ.ru/teksty/provincializm_ka...ossijskoj_nauke

Unfortunately, every word in this article is true, including these words that are directly related to the topic of discussion: "Unfortunately, in Russian biology (I do not mean molecular biology, where the situation is much better, but zoology, botany, ecology, hydrobiology, traditional genetics and evolutionary biology), we are not able to use the same methods as in other countries. we see a lot of work done according to one simple principle - let's go to the forest (to the lake, to the river, to the seashore ...), find some living creatures there (perhaps even determine up to the species and count) and we will "study" all this, and then, you see, as we process it then something will happen by itself. Alas, it doesn't work! In the absence of any idea at the beginning of the work, in the absence of understanding what the research is being conducted for and what a priori this or that result will mean, nothing arises at the end. Empirical material will only "speak" when it is collected in accordance with the idea being tested, when it enters into a certain theoretical context. That's where you need to keep up to date with the latest literature - let's not reinvent the wheel again and repeat other people's mistakes."

By the way, experts, aren't you mistaken, and besides, also on annoying trifles?

Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but that's not the point, it's the attitude to their mistake. It is clear that for an amateur, entomology, like any other "logy", is a hobby, entertainment by and large, and amateurs are much calmer about the consequences of their actions than specialists: well, I made a mistake and made a mistake-not cardiac surgery after all (not a literal quote, but very close to the text of previous statements in this topic). The specialist understands that one small mistake can lead to the collapse of large and complex constructions, and that his authority depends on it. And therefore, the specialist will not publish results that he is not sure about. Yes, and what's wrong with the soul: a specialist always knows his subject better and therefore makes mistakes less often.

On the contrary, I was taught all my life to write labels as accurately as possible.

I don't know what labels have to do with it, but if the conversation has already started, then their accuracy is different and, indeed, often excessive, and bordering on absurd. For example: Leningrad region, Saint Petersburg, 2nd Murinsky Prospekt, on the balcony of the 5th floor. Or another original wrote: on my hat. Or, for example, there is a ridiculous desire to be sure to distinguish specimens collected in the villages of Ivanovo, Sergeevo and Verkhniye Gnilushi, which are in direct line of sight from each other.

The post was edited by Tentator - 13.05.2008 03: 03

Tentator
So the sadness is that Gilyarov wrote about those who work in research institutes and universities, and not about amateurs. I was sent another abstract from ZIN: the work is not bad, but the author talks about the fauna of the group in this region, although it was found there ... 1 view. Recently, we had an ugly defense of a" scientist " (by no means young): both opponents and the leading organization wrote a negative review, but he still defended himself... (because the director defended him)

Makarov
Yes, your words have convinced me that everything is very relative in terms of interpreting the facial expressions of the interlocutor...

Or, for example, there is a ridiculous desire to be sure to distinguish specimens collected in the villages of Ivanovo, Sergeevo and Verkhniye Gnilushi, which are in direct line of sight from each other.

Oddly enough, this makes sense, but only for the coordinates of long-playing traps, such as Maleza. Coordinates are linked by GPS up to a meter and are visible in Google Earth (although not always, but the map scale is constantly increasing). Over the past 10 years, I have not met foreign labels without GPS binding.

Dear Kirill,
I didn't mean to offend you in any way.
Then follow the facts. You didn't say anything about classical faunalism. But I didn't write anything. But about the omophron - it was, alas, about sandbanks and overgrowth of reeds, as well as your final phrase: "What do you say, there is this species in this point from the point of view of the faunist or not?" This is not my fantasy. I don't complain about my memory. And, to be very precise, in addition to the omophron in your example, Agonum marginatum also appeared, which is caught in your country stably, like on Istra, regardless of the sand ridges, because you always seem to have reeds there. This is your example! What conclusion should I have drawn based on the examples you gave? I'm sorry, I was a little taken aback then. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. About the lips - again an inaccuracy. All I said was that you "grinned into your beard." The survey was conducted really on the basis of his worldview, which arose after visiting room 101. I, for my part, as an amateur, having a certain stock of curious finds not only individual, but also population, came to you to get acquainted really as a device, there is nothing offensive in this. At the same time, by prior agreement with Andrey Matalin, I brought a specimen from one of these populations, and stable populations at that. By the way, Andrey Matalin turned out to be the most attentive person to me, who showed interest in what I was trying to tell him, for which I am grateful to him. Everything else-jokes, irony, mockery, that now this stenolofus will certainly be listed in the Red Book-didn't it happen? No, I wasn't offended. That's where I got completely lost. I did not have a sense of my own need, demand as a device, if you will. The balloon with stenolofus was a test one. People are really different. But I was so surprised by your position and examples that I decided to share them. The decision did not come immediately. I was debating whether to do it or not. And nothing has changed in the world. In the end, I decided not to worry about it all by myself. Please understand me correctly. If I offended you with my tone, I sincerely apologize. But somehow I think we can still be useful to each other. As for the difficult Bembidion, especially from the Caucasus, the decision on them was temporarily postponed due to the start of the season and the need to clarify the definition of some vital elephants from the Moscow region. I also remember Andrey Matalin's request about Cicindela maritima from Moscow region.
Sincerely, Roman Khryapin

This post was edited by omar - 05/13/2008 16: 12