I wrote an article on biology, but not really on entomology

I would like to work on the text. Blunders like "station of its habitat" start from the first lines.

What's wrong with this phrase? A tautology? But this is a familiar stamp. Moreover, in my context, this is indeed a tautology, but, say, Naumov's is quite legitimate.

Read the same matchast. It's just illiterate. Once again: work on the text, it is very clumsy in many places.

I've already read so much about the term "station" that you probably never dreamed of it. And the form of your answer can also be regarded as "there is nothing to say in essence, but I really want to say something." If this is still not the case (I would still like to hope for this), do not take the trouble to explain what is so "illiterate" there. If I can still agree about a possible tautology, then I absolutely can't agree about any other claims (yet).

But to remove the tautology, I corrected this "habitat station" - both in the proofreading and in the electronic version. So your hard work is not in vain, thank you.

"Interaction of any population with the station used by it" - so you are more satisfied?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 03.12.2010 11: 59

That is, if the definition of a phenotype refers to the characteristics of an individual organism at a particular stage of its development, then the metaphenotype is the characteristics of a population of a particular species?

I liked the discussion of the plankton paradox. And of course, I really liked the woolly gigantelope)))

And about what will happen "millions of years ahead".
In general, I have such an idea of the population as a stage, or even as a transitional stage to the next superstructure, with the appearance of acc. emergent properties. To understand what I mean, here is such a series, with the development from top to bottom.

Stage 1

Stage 1: single-celled organisms (maximum separation in space, and genetically(maximum individuality))

Stage 2: colonies of single-celled organisms (minimization of spatial separation, but still high genetic disunity(still high individuality of colony members, including reproductive individuality))

Stage 3: multicellular organisms (single spatial and genetic structure(minimal individuality of micro-organisms-cells, only some cells have a reproductive capacity and only with the support of a macro-organism))

Stage 2

Stage 1: populations of multicellular organisms (striving for maximum separation in space, and genetic individuality)

Stage 2: (present day ) tendency to form intrapopulation colonies.
There is a tendency to divide into two branches

1 branch: eusocial (or monosocial in the genetic sense) colonies of multicellular organisms (minimizing the spread of members in space, but there is some individuality of members(sometimes a certain genetic individuality of colony members and reproductive ability is preserved))
Example-social insects

Branch 2: polysocial colonies of multicellular organisms(the population shows a tendency to form communities - "societies", characterized by the desire to minimize the disunity of community members in space, but preserving(still?) some genetic genetic independence of its members)
An example is swarms of great apes(groups of gorillas), human societies of various types.
It is particularly worth noting the tendency to uneven conditions of the reproductive capacity of individual members through social stratification in such societies, due to uneven redistribution of resources and/or dominance of individual members. As an example - the presence of dominant males in groups of gorillas.
However, in the type 2 branch, there is a tendency to form less heterogeneous genetic structures-clans, which is clearly visible in large societies, for example, in human societies. So polysocial structures seem to tend towards eusociality (monosociality).

Stage 3
can only be assumed here, but based on the fact that the second stage roughly repeats the first, with certain amendments, including due to emergence, it should be something like this:

"single spatial and genetic structure(minimal individuality of micro-organisms-cells, only some cells have a reproductive capacity and only with the support of a macro-organism)"

After accounting for new properties:

"single ?spatial?(will it really matter? ), ??informational?? and genetic structure(minimal individuality of macroorganisms, only some macroorganisms have reproductive capacity and only when supported ??new structure??)"

Thus, we can assume that at the moment there is a development aimed at the emergence of some "superorganisms" in which multicellular organisms are embedded in the same way as multicellular organisms now consist of cells, with a similar distribution of functions.

So all sorts of assumptions about meachings woolly gigantelopes can pass by

But this is also past entomology, especially in the key of "gatherer"

No, well, let's separate the flies from the cutlets. That is, there is a specific article and eats a forum with different materials, including non-scientific, and not mine. There's no point in lumping them together. Honestly, about the woolly gigantelope-this is not my work, but Dixon, and all this has nothing to do with the article under discussion, and even the plankton paradox in this article I did not touch at all (in fact, there are different messages, as you can see, different authors). In general, the forum, of course, is not uninteresting

Well, this is understandable, I just shared my impressions About gigantilops, it seems that these are serious trends now - drawing "views of the future" and showing films about it.

So, did I understand correctly about the metaphenotype, in the simplified version-

That is, if the definition of a phenotype refers to the characteristics of an individual organism at a particular stage of its development, then the metaphenotype is the characteristics of a population of a particular species?

I would not take these "gigantilops" seriously - rather, as a game of the mind and imagination. As for the metaphenotype, you got it right. Only I would even say a specific population, because different populations of the same species can vary significantly.

I've already read so much about the term "station" that you probably never dreamed of it. And the form of your answer can also be regarded as "there is nothing to say in essence, but I really want to say something." If this is still not the case (I would still like to hope for this), do not take the trouble to explain what is so "illiterate" there. If I can still agree about a possible tautology, then I absolutely can't agree about any other claims (yet).

But to remove the tautology, I corrected this "habitat station" - both in the proofreading and in the electronic version. So your hard work is not in vain, thank you.

"Interaction of any population with the station used by it" - so you are more satisfied?

What haven't I dreamed yet?

Well, for example, how differently different authors interpret "station", "habitat", "biotope". The confusion is such - just sort it out...

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 03.12.2010 16: 08

Dyks. And here is opus number 1. )) You won't get far. ))

We'll limit ourselves to quotations for now. ))))

"A vivid illustration of this" division of labor " can serve as the phenomenon of sexual dimorphism. Numerous examples of species and other taxonomic groups can be found in nature, which are characterized by differences between the sexes that go far beyond the functions of individuals in reproduction." What else are they doing??? Um, probably in the forum conversation here they discuss such intimate issues? )

"The specific nature of wind as an abiotic intermediary, consisting primarily in the non-directionality of pollen transfer, inevitably forces wind-pollinated plants to produce it in quantities that are excessive compared to how much it is required directly for pollination." Opening! )))

"Male catkins of wind-pollinated tree species are also an important food source for birds." Birds eat catkins-simply.

And the result is clear and natural! ))
"Thus, the structural and functional expression of the ecological niche of a population is not the properties of individual phenotypes of its members, but the properties of its metaphenotype as a single system. It should be noted that this statement seems to be true both in the " Grinnell "interpretation of the niche (as a set of significant environmental properties for the biosystem — Grinnell, 1917, 1928) and in the "Hutchinson" interpretation (as a set of environmentally significant properties of the biosystem itself-Hutchinson, 1957).") A strong statement!

Like the ecologist and historian of science Matekin (but at least he was from the Habsburg family and he was already under 80 years old) - " The double-stranded DNA helix represents the unity of two principles-male and female!"

Well, here the opus hooch is richer in examples, the author has not yet gone to nirvana, only cleans his feathers and invitingly gurgles, only prepares to take off into the imaginary space of non-existent thought forms.)))

VVolkov, I can imagine what will happen if I give you Schmalhausen or Ramensky to read... As for Berg or Simpson, you'd better stay out of sight. No, of course, I don't risk becoming one with them - you can put me on your own. Here with the steering wheel has already been put - I, after yesterday's shock, appreciated it and even became proud

Also, by the way, a question: will you not dare to present your works to the discerning public? Unlike you, I immediately promise to do without banter and trolling. After all, there are some things that I would love to check with modern methods - why don't you take them up instead of sharpening your teeth like this? We need to find out if these things are in your profile.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 09.12.2010 14: 27

History will appreciate it!

Read pre-Newtonian physics or even physics of the beginning of the last century about the theory of the ether? Where is everyone? Who stayed and what?

Or read a word about Igor's regiment. It is already only valuable as a monument, and it is unlikely that you will read it to the kids at night. And the author remained unknown, by the way. At the monument of the Russian word.

I have experimental work, average lousy, but I like it:
http://www.londonmet.eu/research-units/ihr...aff/volkovv.cfm
There you can find the following links. Criticism (especially from you, PVOzerski ) is very welcome. And it's better not to get personal, Tom1 is right.

Again, I would like to answer quite seriously. However, I don't have the opportunity to do this fully, because you can assume that you are a biologist (apparently, a "molecular scientist", biochemist or physiologist), and not just a fat troll, but you can't be more specific. So, just in case I guess... The people who wandered through the rainforest in the nineteenth century with herbarium folders and nets, describing new species (and even now all this continues) - are they so ideologically different from those who sit at the sequencer and describe the sequences of amino acids and nucleotides? We once had a guest from St. Petersburg State University at the department with an educational mission-he talked about the great achievements of modern botany (sic!) - genomics, proteomics, and phenomics.... So what? It is essentially the same climbing with nets through the wilds - only at other levels of the organization of living things. That is, the accumulation of facts, essentially raw material for subsequent generalizations. The system approach is practically not used. I asked the speaker whether it is now possible to calculate its domains and functional properties based on the primary sequence of amino acids in a protein. It turned out-it is impossible! Asked for: so, what are these great experimental works being done for? Maybe, after all, these methods should be used to solve some general biological problems? And then you see what a thing it turns out: you date my generalizations at the level of "Ochakovsky times and pokorenya of the Crimea" - but you don't offer your own "modern" ones either. At the same time, you demonstrate another problem of modern biologists: we have a typical "molecular scientist" - a lousy naturalist who does not know his objects. So what's so funny about sexual dimorphism playing a role in more than just reproduction? This, of course, is a well-known fact, but it seems that you didn't even know it, since you didn't even understand what it was about.

I wrote the previous post, even before reading #15. Well, I guessed right! Indeed, the FBI is a shik

There will be questions, there will be... I promise. Moreover, it is quite relevant - but not within the framework of criticism. But it is difficult to carry out criticism based on the headings of articles without having their texts at your disposal. So let's use what we have.

1) Has anyone tried to link the concepts of PFT (plant functional type) and "life form"?
2) How wide is the variety of osmoregulation variants in halophytes? What determines the distribution of these variants among plant species - their systematic position, life form, relation to some other environmental factors, specific growing conditions (within the framework of modification variability), or just randomness?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 09.12.2010 15: 09

1) Yes, Mokronosov the late, Ural ecophysiological school, Pasha Voronin in IFRe and pr-drr. This is Russia.
2) Multiple response options. Option one-osmoregulation should be. There are a lot of different combinations.

The world has shrunk, there are no distant corners. Everything is described mostly, but there are few rare species. Sitting at the computer at the sequencer is not like climbing in the tropics with tigers. The belly is growing, ryashka is rounded and there is no romance. In short, about changing the world.

VVolkov, tell us more about the peculiarities of transport of minerals and water in secondary water flowering plants, when they are actively growing under water ) On differences related to adaptation to the aquatic environment in the tissues of secondary water plants compared to the tissues of terrestrial plants

2 VVolkov:
1) Thank you, we'll look for it.
2) What it should be - who would doubt. Can't you be more specific? At least some links to the works of the comparative plan.

Hierophis - here is a friend, Ole, write to him:
http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/

PVOzerski - here is one of the co-authors, a colleague, Anna, write to her:
http://www.gla.ac.uk:443/ibls/staff/staff.php?who=PGn~~A

Here's the book:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5SlrbUa...epage&q&f=false

I can name many experts in this field.
http://ag.arizona.edu/pls/faculty/schumaker.html
http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/cgi-bi...pl?faculty=2220

Well, here are a few of my articles.
http://thellungiella.org/papers/potassiumsodium.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111...006.02876.x/pdf

I have my own projects, sorry.

Oh, my God! OH, MY GOD!!! It's just incredible, so many publications on "aquarium" plants in fact! Modifications and transients in plants that re-master / master the aquatic environment - this is generally very interesting, articles written in a scientific way that at least somehow relates to aquarium topics - this is doubly interesting. The aquarium is bypassed in science, it is clear of course that it is not serious, and yet it is also some kind of artificial environment, easily controlled and changeable, which can help in finding solutions to the problems of larger artificial ecosystems.

It is immediately obvious that the article is derived from the monograph manuscript. Because the text did not reflect the desire to express the idea as easily and concisely as possible.
Many of the terms in question are not defined, for example: life form, niche, environment, "structural and functional expression of an ecological niche".
The first paragraph contains very short quotations. As a result, the question arises that various concepts about a niche may be implied (by Severtsov), but you can only check this by finding his work – it takes a lot of time.

I didn't find the wording of the new term "metaphenotype". There are differences from "fenofond", but at the end of the text. It would be better to separate them at the beginning, and then until the very end of the article, when reading, you have to keep in mind the question of this difference.
From all that was said about the Metaphenotype in different parts of the text, it was clear that this concept was formed by some analogies and includes a list of its components, which the author has not yet finished. In general, it is described in vague terms and concepts.

There will be no corrections in this article, since it is in print, but I will take the comments into account when preparing the final text of the book. With the niche, the problem will be solved by itself - and as for the strict definition of the metaphenotype, I will take measures.