Is faunology an important aspect of entomology?

Tentator
So the sadness is that Gilyarov wrote about those who work in research institutes and universities, and not about amateurs.

Yes, and if he wrote about professional biologists, then what is the level of amateurs? In fact, there are no Darwinian "insensitive transitions" from the layman to the specialist. These are all systems, as Venechka Yerofeyev wrote, woven from fervent and brilliant stretches. For science, there are only specialists and non-specialists, regardless of the original education, place of work, degrees and positions. An amateur doesn't fit into this system because they have other goals. I want to draw your attention once again: for some reason, there are no fans of aphids, cicadas, bristletails, collembolas - the list can go on for a very long time. The desire to help a specialist with their material is certainly commendable, but the persistence of this "obsessive service" is surprising in cases where the specialist refuses the offered help.

For the groups and specialists listed by you, there are only a few, or even none at all...

As for the intrusive service, I already understood everything a little earlier. That's why I also postponed my visits to the 101st office. This happened because I was used to at least some kind of mutually beneficial cooperation in my life, and somehow I wasn't used to imposing myself, a curious person, on people out of the blue.

This post was edited by omar - 05/13/2008 14: 23

Hello, colleagues !
In addition to Dormidont's remark ("Do you know the paradox of two disputants? That's right, everyone is even more convinced of their own rightness”) I will give the following thesis. A dispute is basically useless: if one of the parties presents clear arguments, then the subject of the dispute is exhausted; if there are none – the parties find out each other's point of view and disagree (this is not my opinion, but I remember it). In our case, the subject of dispute seems to be no longer there: almost everyone voted "for faunalism". The participants mostly clarified their positions during the discussion. In particular, the point of view of Tentator (thanks to him) and Juglans (with clarifications about who the specialist is) is very close and clear to me. There doesn't seem to be any reason to get personal.
All the best, KM

In general, yes. Thank you all very much. It is important that the position of one of the leading experts in the group was finally clarified, and this is important, because it differs from the one that I, for example, and maybe not just me, held. Special thanks to KDG for developing the discussion.

Discussion on the verge of a foul! My word of honor, gentlemen! Fans of faunistics somewhere imply that taxonomists are right, but as in that anecdote about Stirlitz, they "stand on their own". Fans of taxonomy, somewhere imply that faunalists are right, but in the same way and with no less zeal they subject themselves to the above-described exicution. Moreover, as noted by Mr. Makarov, the survey is all FOR. So maybe we should compromise?

I want to add my five kopecks. Working in England, I was surprised to find that the main floral work is done by the so-called "citizen scientists", those who are usually called"amateurs" here. It's the same in America.
And the second. The Encyclopedia of Life should become a place where floral and faunal finds from all over the world flock. I really hope that this will be the case.

> The Encyclopedia of Life should be the place where floral and faunal finds from all over the world come together.

It is unlikely to be possible to forcibly "unite" everyone on one site. How many sites on the Internet that claim to be "flocked there ... from all over the world."

In the same England, the requirements for full-time researchers are much higher than in Russia. To maintain your position, it is not enough to engage in faunalism - you need to do something more substantial. Otherwise, your competitors will eat you up. Therefore, there are no full-time employees-faunalists. No one requires an amateur to "keep up with the times", there is no competition related to employment and compliance - you can work in the field where you like, and at an affordable level. A full-time employee often has enough material already available, and you can work all your life without actually leaving the laboratory. An amateur, as a rule, is interested in the element of proximity to nature - to get out into the forest, observe, catch a beetle with his own hands, etc. A big plus, probably, is that the school of "amateur" has a longer and more established tradition - the local amateurs have their own societies, their own publications, their own level requirements. Well, there are more well-off people. Still, to practice entomology for fun, you need to have both free time and money.

Dear colleagues, we invite you to attend the environmental seminar of the Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

K. V. Makarov, A. V. Matalin (Moscow State Pedagogical University)

Problems of studying the fauna and population of ground beetles (on the example of the carabid fauna of the Elton region)

On the example of the well-studied ground beetle fauna of the Lake Baikal basin. Elton compares the effectiveness of year-round inpatient studies and multi-year episodic collections. The reliability of traditional faunal lists and data from quantitative counts of soil traps is discussed. It is shown that up to 3/4 of the species composition and up to 90% of the population in some stations are migrants. Thus, our ideas about the local ground beetle fauna and methods of studying it need to be seriously adjusted.

The seminar will be held in the conference hall of the A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution at 33 Leninsky Ave. (metro station "Leninsky Prospekt") on February 5, 2009 (Thursday). The seminar starts at 18: 00. All questions can be sent by email ecoseminar2009@mail.ru

  
In the same England, the requirements for full-time researchers are much higher than in Russia. To maintain your position, it is not enough to engage in faunalism - you need to do something more substantial. Otherwise, your competitors will eat you up. Therefore, there are no full-time employees-faunalists.

These are not increased requirements for a researcher. This is a suppression of classical zoology. I'm not sure if these are normal trends. Kerzhner and Kryzhanovsky were not engaged in molecular systematics, which did not prevent them from being world-class scientists

Eh... Precisely!

I didn't notice!

I didn't get to the seminar, but I got acquainted with the text of the report. In a concise form, this indisputable point of view is set out here in the topic, it was voiced by Kirill Makarov. The author cites the experience of foreign researchers, which partially confirm the authors ' correctness, to prove his correctness. That's just one-year collections of ground beetles do not turn the tongue to call faunal research, even if you cut it. Environmental, - maybe so? The report has been published, of course, but I have a copy of it lying around somewhere. If I get my hands on it, I'll scan it.

This post was edited by omar - 11/21/2009 19: 38

Why?
Ideally, beetles living in a particular area should be found there every year.
Another thing is that we don't "want" to catch them every year.
The sample volume (number of traps) should be "sufficient". Everything is quite logical...

This is me

Linnaeus and Darwin didn't seem to be interested in molecular biology either
There is a time for everything.
You just need to pay attention to the calendar.

The important aspect here is this situation.
We are going with the Japanese on the Mongolian land. The Japanese are botanists and geneticists. One has been working on buttercups for 50 years. Sees a flower. What's it? I say buttercup! How he admired it - the first time he saw buttercup in nature.
On one Western website, I saw a lot of data on the development of butterflies. Everything would be fine, but often butterflies before the genus are incorrectly defined.
Now-a combination of competent, versatile taxonomists, faunists and molecular scientists is a very rare thing.
Sincerely for the development of science-sincerely against the fact that the necessary industries are built in favor of fashion. I will never believe that faunistics and taxonomy in their classical sense are not needed by anyone.

This was also mentioned by N. V. Timofeev-Resovsky. Moreover, when genetics was just emerging in our country. The first "two dozen" specialists were primarily biologists (botanists or zoologists), and only then geneticists – these (in his words) were "real biologists". Subsequent "purely geneticists" - respectively, not real ones.

And geneticists aren't biologists, are they? Or are they just" not real " biologists, but pseudo-biologists?

This post was edited by bora - 25.11.2009 10: 53

Yes... according to N. V. Timofeev-Resovsky. A biologist should be "defined" as a zoologist or botanist (or perhaps a specialist in the other realm, if you can put it that way), "and only then study physiology, genetics, etc... own objects" (something like this).

A zoologist or botanist (or a specialist in other Realms) who doesn't know genetics, biochemistry, or physiology is just a naturalist, not a biologist.

A zoologist or botanist (or specialist in other Realms) who doesn't know genetics, biochemistry, or physiology is just a naturalist, not a biologist.

Now "zoologist" or "botanist" or others is not what it was at the beginning of the 20th century... these concepts "include data" about genetics, physiology, and so on. And these are no longer "just naturalists".
But what do you call "pure geneticists"? Unnaturals?

Blessed is he who believes.

Unfortunately, most (according to my perhaps unrepresentative observations) biochemists, geneticists and other modern biologists cannot distinguish a woodpecker from a starling, a bear's trail from a tiger's, and do not know the names of Grzymek, Attenborough and Darrell. I'm exaggerating... but slightly.
I remember the excellent report of Professor A. Y. Kharitonov (Novosibirsk) on the shortage of natural science education in biological faculties. It was a brilliant report. Biologists gradually forget how to look for beetles, how the autumn forest smells, how beautiful it is when nightingales wake you up early in the morning.
A biologist without a love of nature, a biologist without a broad outlook on biota is false. Just like the zoologist, who believes that the zoologist's main ammunition is waders and binoculars, and genetics is the corrupt wench of imperialism.
But the younger the current biologists are (these ones without boots), the less they know about nature, about the world around us - the silicone plastic world... Biology is about birdsong, impressions, butterflies, cladograms, and complex karyological work. In our case, everything is one-sided - either you are an amateur naturalist (a la Vincent Brown, D. Darrell), or you are a serious person.
Field practices are excluded from university programs. I
believe Lukhtanov (he knows the classical methods of studying taxonomy, he knows what the Palearctic is, so he can correctly apply the methods of karyosystematics)
, I believe my friend S. Smirnov, who passed the Altai along and across from Lake Baikal. Kanas to Teletskoye from Tigirek to Dzungan Gobi. And I searched and studied complex colors. He worked in Herbariums and genetic laboratories from Beijing and Urumqi to Berlin. Now he is restoring some connections using modern methods. I believe him.
A botanist who has been working on buttercups for 50 years and does not know what it looks like, a person who is engaged in karyosystematics of some group in Siberia, but does not know where the Indigirka is and where the Irtysh is-I do not believe this.
Timofeev-Resovsky is right.
And if a zoologist should know biochemistry and genetics, then a geneticist should also know botany and zoology. I have been discussing this for a long time , but it seems to me that this is a very urgent problem...

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 26.11.2009 15: 57

In general, respect to Makarov (I mean Omar's story in the subject).
It seems to me that it should be remembered that science does not collect impressions (how the autumn forest smells or how beautifully nightingales wake you up... this is all from the field of poetry).
If this is science, then it must operate with iron facts.
It is gratifying that here we have reached the essence of the question about the type criterion.
The continuing mess in taxonomy has its source precisely in a lack of understanding in the foundation. Any honest researcher who delves into the topic is faced with the fact that in modern biology there is simply no clear unambiguous definition of a species as an indivisible unit. Everyone (such researchers) knows the facts about the circumpolar tern, American toad, voles, etc. when extreme populations often cannot produce offspring. Or about lysandra (2 of her "types") from Turkey, which in some points of the range simply mixes without problems (this is generally a pindyk by the standards of classical taxonomists). I.e., the Mayer definition quickly goes on an erotic journey on foot is absolutely fair due to its incomplete adequacy to the real world. Against this background, faunistics seems to be a valuable direction only in the form of reinforcement (in the study of morphology, for example) genetics. Because the structure of the organism is set precisely by it and it is the genetic structure that has insurmountable barriers in different species (insurmountable by selection). Unlike subspecies, which can also easily not produce offspring when crossed (for completely different reasons, however). After all it is also no secret that in humans and earthworms the genes are close to each other to put it mildly but in both cases not protein snot is obtained but organisms of different types. Here, for example, is the classic case of Darwinian finches. But who proved that this is not the same species that gives different subspecies? In other words under different conditions from a wide spectrum of the genome of a species different groups of genes are realized in the dominant and this affects not only the phenotype but also the ability to reproduce in a mixture? Or the question of tissue differentiation after zygote division and in the meristem (here also-regeneration as a nonlinear process with material linearity of the genetic carrier construct). In general, while there are only holes in the database, what can we even talk about? There are no criteria.! Many dig in the direction (Lukhtanov, Stradomsky for example, etc.) very interesting...
Unfortunately, this is often not a cheap "pleasure". But on the other hand, starting to use the ability to Think (and not just remember and compile what you remember in different combinations) does not require financial costs. It is a pity that this is not taught in schools and universities...and most often even the opposite.

It seems to me that it should be remembered that science does not collect impressions (how the autumn forest smells or how beautifully nightingales wake you up... this is all from the field of poetry).
If this is science, then it must operate with iron facts.

You're quoting me somewhat incorrectly. I was referring to zoological, botanical and natural science horizons, which are now being lost by biologists.

so far, these are just attempts to systematize the environment.. because it makes it easier to "hack" information and understand what is what.. Of course, it is easy to define the boundary between a bird and a fish.. But between very close species is difficult.. But we need to move on - this is a proven way of learning ))

"and it "creates" a "mess" not only in taxonomy (to put it mildly) "(C)
*
Well, if you look honestly, then in general in science there are only zeros in the database.
Take at least physics - ALL 4 interactions are incomprehensible to science as the Essence. I.e., the manifestation of horseradish evo knows what is described. And for quite narrow conditions in terms of parameters. The so-called "axioms" are fig leaves that are trying to cover up a complete misunderstanding.
Just the form of organization of society does not allow those in power to spread real Knowledge because this poses a real threat to the status quo in which they feel comfortable. In other words, there is a primacy of population optimization (for a narrow group of people) and all "science" is focused only on this task (and here, too, is a tool for this). I'm not talking about some individual Thinkers-Scientists. I'm talking about the system. In principle, any bytovukha is a "belch of the military-industrial complex" and in the same bytovukha nothing really new has been introduced for xz skoka years.
So it turns out the" study of meat breeds " of cattle instead of the type criterion.
And the naturalists? da nehai xie is picking at the differences in phenotypes. Grants (gingerbread), titles, consultations..."science" is shorter...bonuses or their withdrawal (if you poked your nose where it is not allowed).
*
"So far, these are only attempts to systematize the environment"(C)
*
well, to systematize something, the first thing you need to do is distinguish. And only then group what is different according to certain (similar) characteristics. So we are just talking about the criteria by which to distinguish, i.e. about the very beginning of the path. This is exactly what "science" does not understand (about the reasons - above). Therefore, Andrey smiles at your "But we need to move on - this is a proven way of learning ))" (C). No one argues - we need to move. The whole question is how to determine the course. About this sobsno and song.

The issue really needs to be resolved.. We need suggestions, research, and then reflection.. Probably now there is already enough research, it remains only to draw conclusions )) Who would just do it )

It seems that many people already understand this. The question is different - what are the minimum and maximum terms for the formation of a new species?
There are more stable forms, and there are less. If one species varies only the average size from year to year, and then not much, then another may vary the range of colors, pubescence, a little pattern, but all this is not significant. And some of them have new variations, shapes and other deviations from the standard range every year, but they may not be very tenacious, and in the future the question is still what determines the consolidation of a new species.. Genetics, habitat, appearance?
I'm interested in this - people with down syndrome-a different kind? Still, 1 more chromosome. They are able to give birth to children and about half of their children are also born with down syndrome.. (in the sense of a 50% chance). So what is it-variation, pathology, aberration, or the selection of a new species? After all, the number of people born with this syndrome is growing, and this is already a trend.. ??? 7?

There are more stable forms, and there are less. If one species varies only the average size from year to year, and then not much, then another may vary the range of colors, pubescence, a little pattern, but all this is not significant. And some of them have new variations, shapes, and other deviations from the standard range every year, but they may not be very tenacious, and later

The more evolutionarily young a species is, the more phenotype variations it has in populations (if my sclerosis isn't lying to me).

in general, selection objectively exists and it is stupid to deny it.
The whole question is whether there are insurmountable barriers to selection. That is, when the genetic structure of an organism cannot be translated into another type of structure. That is, if ice, water and steam are forms that pass into each other, then graphite and diamond are already different forms of particle interactions..immediately.
So in down, its properties are due to mutations. Mutation, however, is not a crossover. Is the thought clear? so in any tissue of the body there is an inherent allowable number of mutations (in different tissues it is different). If the number of mutations for the transition from one construct to another exceeds the vital threshold, then this is a different type. And also-to the question of what is simple and complex as concepts within the same coordinate system. A simple automaton is part of a complex one, otherwise we are stupid and compare the incomparable. This is the question of the manifestation of different forms in the development of the embryo of the same person.
So Stanislav I would not rush to conclusions about the inviolability of the view criterion. Something changes, but to what extent?
If you compare the genome with a literary work, then changing the letter in the text (randomly) will add meaning? The "meaning" in this case will be the very possibility of existence in a tough competitive environment. Examples of a shaft (for example, an electric ramp) when the body would have to drag xs for how many generations a bunch of signs that do not add optimization, but on the contrary (they eat the resource). By the same analogy, you can compare this with a piece of music and false notes in it, or a piece with "dirt" (inharmonious to the whole) -color. Only in the case of metaphors it remains a metaphor, and in the case of life it remains a kerdyk. I have already written above about differentiation in the zygote, for example. What triggers it? And why do we need a Y-chromosome that does not carry somatic characteristics and why do we need a so-called "garbage" genome? Maybe it's in the minds of someone, and not in Nature, where everything is megarational?
That is, according to the logic of non-existence of rigid boundaries of the view, the very concept of "view" cannot exist. Two siblings by this logic are different species )))).
Because they are not identical. In other words, with this approach, taxonomy can be considered a science only taking into account ALL the quantitative (there are no qualitative differences according to this logic) differences.

Bad Den: about the youth of the species is clear.. But the question is still different. After reading Plavilshchikov (Barbels of the USSR), I realized that old beetles - such as prionins, are not particularly variable, and young ones, such as cortoders, which have not yet completed their evolutionary path-are very variable, as they still continue to develop new forms and types of subspecies, etc. And that's the real question, how much is required in the genus, let's say a Cortoder, to get a new species, and how much is in the genus Prionus. If there are appropriate conditions. This also gives a lot of information to think about - why some types are more variable, how this or that form is fixed, why the "old" ones vary slightly. And in general, in fact, how is the species formed!? Fornax and I were chatting recently, thinking about how random mutations are a pretty weak point in theory, and what else might be behind it.. After all, there is some Agapanthia violacea, which is distributed almost all over the continent, and in which the variability is extremely weak - the color is slightly darker and lighter, the size is slightly larger and smaller. And there is some morphocarbus with all the colors of the rainbow within one population. In this case, shouldn't violacea, which lives in a wide variety of biotopes, vary more than any morphocarabus, and why exactly? In general, there are still a lot of questions. and there are few answers, except for guesses and assumptions.

About the downs.
I'm not talking about natural selection.. Under conditions of natural selection, there are no conditions for obtaining a flock of white crows, although white does not have significant disadvantages, only color.
When someone uses the word pathology, it seems to imply that this should not be the case.. But there is nothing in nature. what should or should not be, there is a tolko what turns out.. Therefore, the word pathology, I think, is not very appropriate in our conversation. Yes, this is a deviation from the norm, but the norm is only our analysis of statistical data. I would like to point out that this mutation is innate, that it is not so rare, that it appears more often, that it has a certain character, etc.
The thing is. what if we assume that the downs will be able to organize societies, connect, etc. as now )) Then can you end up with some new, stable form..? It doesn't matter if the conditions are artificial or natural, it's important whether it turns out..? After all, in fact, if such conditions exist - they are created by society or natural conditions, then in any case, they give a result.. But which one? Will they then be a different species, or will they just be a different form of our species?.

Since when are people with Down syndrome able to have children?
___________
Any taxon is exactly the same as a genetic community.
Read about the problem of determining the type here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

old beetles, such as prionins, are not particularly variable, but young ones, such as cortoders, which have not yet completed their evolutionary path...

Prionins, too, have not finished their evolutionary path, otherwise they would have been known only in the fossil state.

Ripper, if you are really interested in the opinion of biologists about the evolutionary process, then the most detailed presentation that I have seen can be found in the book

"The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" written by a famous scientist (now deceased) Stephen Jay Gould. His biography, (should interest you) is here http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гулд,_STIVEN_JAY

An English-language page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure...utionary_Theory
gives a link to the full version of the book on the web (so I think it's legal)

http://www.macroevolution.narod.ru/gould/gould.htm

I myself have only looked at this book (live, not online), but I think that it is difficult to find a more complete presentation.

This post was edited by amara - 04.12.2009 19: 25