Another of my articles on environmental issues

does anyone read such articles in department collections? why not in magazines with at least some audience?

To be honest, firstly, I didn't take the risk (I was afraid of reviewers), and secondly, I posted the article on the Internet. For some time now, I have a prejudice against MAIK magazines - they do not ensure the availability of materials due to their pricing policy and contracts with a ban on independent distribution. In addition, the collection is much faster. However, the collection does not impose any such restrictions. One bad thing: not Vak's. And there will definitely be one in the Zinovskaya library.

So let's see if the article will attract an audience

PS. I will add the output data as soon as the collection is published on paper.

such collections are a mass grave... forums... Ah, too, not och. Seriously... if you want people to read and react, you should still give it to the places you can read, I think...

Yes, the man prikalyvaetstsa. You read it - is he really serious about it? ) Even I don't like it.

The term "medium", which has taken root in Russian literature, is more or less equivalent in meaning to the term "Medium "of works in German (e.g. Friederichs, 1930) and English (Clements and Shelford, 1939), as well as to the French word" milieu " (e.g. Candolle, 1832). and the extremely widespread term "environment"in modern English-language literature.

In the 2nd notebook of Roulier's Zoobiology (cit. according to: Raikov, 1955, p. 499) Roulier wrote about the water and air shells of the Earth as follows: "But in relation to the animal itself, they constitute the nearest substance in the midst of which [the animals] live, and are therefore decently called environment." In total, it consisted of three environments inhabited by animals. On the same page of "Zoobiology" in the next paragraph, you can read: "So, animals live in 3 different environments — in water, in the air, in the ground."

And pra worms is relevant!
Accordingly, "internal animals or worms" (2nd notebook "Zoobiology", cit. according to: Raikov, 1955, p. 512), Rudders were considered as part of the "type of water animals", which they put in accordance with the aquatic environment...

And then all of a sudden!

About how to:
the environment of life is a system that has similar properties (including specific ones) at different points of the physical space it occupies, consisting of chemical substances, physical bodies and fields, energy and information flows, structures formed by them and interactions existing between them, and is able to participate in more or less close permanent or temporary contacts with biosystems by influencing them and, as a rule, being subjected to retaliatory influences on their part.

Prague is difficult! And apply it?

Xto is here... Monomedials, bimedials and .. even (a rare perversion! ) e-parallel polymedials! Nda...

And who is this article for? What can you learn from it for a normal child?

Plants live by their roots in the soil. Cool! And I didn't know!

In the end, so nichigo. That a seal has twice as much blood as a chilovek. Nada check when I go north by sea.

What did the author do himself?

A little bit of a small finish. Horror!))

Taking these complexities into account is necessary for understanding the organization and evolution of supra-organizational biosystems, including the patterns of selection and formation of adaptive zones by them.

Afftar, so what should I do? Tell me!" Don't plant potatoes?

:D

Explain to me, is such a fancy grammar a sign of fashion, intelligence, or something else?
I was referring to Mr. Volkov's grammar from the remote steppes of Transbaikalia

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 08.12.2010 23: 22

And you need to work with your hands, and not roam the forums. Do you have any experimental observations of your own? Opus is completely in the trash, and a person can still turn out to be a scientist.

Such anonymous remarks remind me personally of throwing shit from behind bushes. IMHO.

No, it's just a style that has developed. Sorry, behind the shoulders of the German school-affects
No, rhopalocera.com And VVolkov, I don't have much time for jokes-in any case, I would be too lazy to write so much for them. Note that there is nothing to say about the work in essence again. Unless the question "How to use all this" is asked. Because the rest is about style. And style is still a matter of taste, it's pointless to argue about tastes. Honestly, I don't really like it myself - but this is how it turns out - but it's more or less unambiguous-there are no special ambiguities. Speaking of ambiguities... If one of the readers has erotic associations with being confined to certain environments - well, what can I say?.. Monsieur knows a lot... Not otherwise with monoplanes and biplanes cohabits directly on the airfields (the rest for the style of my answer, please excuse - but what is the remark, such is the answer).

What I did myself will be published in other articles, I promise. But if you try to double-check everything with your own hands-life will not be enough to generalize anything. I assume that the probability of erroneous data or their interpretation in published works is significantly lower than 50%. Accordingly, the more other people's data is generalized, the more reliable the resulting picture (according to the law of large numbers).

I would also like to explain that this text appeared in response to my attempt to distribute the diversity of wildlife representatives by habitat - and then it turned out that nothing fits into the traditional schemes from university textbooks on ecology. I had to deal with the very concept of "environment". It seems, indeed, to be a set of trivialities. However, so far it seems to me that this option works better for classification than others. I hope that this paragraph will pass for an answer to the question " And who is this article for? What can you learn from it for a normal chilowek?"

vo, and it hit me . although I then laughed at the style of the above post. I haven't read the article and I don't want to, because I don't have time for this right now. Maybe later... Then, perhaps, there will be comments.

As for horses and the Caspian Sea, I've thought a lot about the risk of such a perception of work. Literally, the same quote from Chekhov was remembered. I decided to take a chance after all. You see, it is very difficult to independently assess whether you have written nonsense or something useful. Negative reactions, by the way, were not unexpected - I understood what I was going for

Anthrenus, thank you for your support. However, I don't think that the person deliberately hid from me for anonymity - it's easier to assume that they didn't log in or didn't want to register for some reason.

Stanislav, you would at least explain what you are laughing at - then you wouldn't even get such answers. If you think I threw shit at you, I'm sorry. Although, in my opinion, the author of the quotes to which I answered in his own style is not difficult to calculate: it is still signed. So let him take it personally.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 08.12.2010 13: 54

Duc is a well-known polymath VVolkov, who knows that " only chicken red blood cells have nuclei." It's his fun to throw shit around...

Well, if it's not serious. )) Yento I sa swaimi students pagavoril on siminar...

Then yes-the head of a man! A year to read and not to read, not to understand! But what the treatise is about and for whom-I still don't understand.

I opened the article, realized that this is not my field and decided to start from the end.
I read the English Abstract because it sets the goals and objectives of the article. And as a boring person, I wanted to change it a little. Here's what I got::

A novel classification of ecosystems (?) based on ...(I couldn't translate "bases of stations" into English.)

A stricter definition of the term "ecosystem" (?) and the major types of it were proposed. The term "mediotone" was introduced as a bordering zone separating two ecosystems. The different types of ecosystems (?) and mediotones were further characterized by their inhabitants.

But since I'm not an expert in this, I immediately ran into difficulties with terms.

For example, I do not know if there are such words as "bases of stations" and "life mediums"in English? I haven't seen it myself, so I might not understand. I arbitrarily replaced it with ecosystems. Let the author forgive me and correct me, I'm not an expert in this.

But it's already getting interesting. I'm starting to wonder. Maybe that's why such articles are written so that people start thinking? This is the answer to Volkov.

This post was edited by amara - 08.12.2010 17: 50

If I discuss such things with my students at the seminar, then I am very careful - to put it mildly, not everything coincides with the generally accepted conceptual framework - and then I will pass the state exams, candidate's papers, etc. I sometimes voice my position, but as one of many. Naturally, I use a different, less formalized style (phrases are shorter and without complex grammatical constructions). Because at the seminar, you can ask me to explain something - and I can check whether I was understood correctly.

Amara, thank you for your attention to the article. Unfortunately, I cannot accept these amendments , because they greatly distort the essence of the article. A living environment is not an ecosystem. Ecosystems are what is built into environments - and the same ecosystem can easily include multiple environments. It is not necessary to go far for an example: every terrestrial biogeocenosis is an interweaving of air, soil, organism and other media. Populations assemble complex stations from a combination of different environments, and the spatial boundaries of stations (as well as the populations themselves) are not necessarily the same as the boundaries of ecosystems. Yes, the word "station" is practically not used in modern English-language environmental literature. The word "habitat" is closest to it, but it is extremely ambiguous and much broader in the range of its possible meanings than the "station" of Russian works. Therefore, I could not replace "station" with " habitat "in the English resume, I had to use the etymological word" station "related to"station".

The expression "life medium" is also not typical for English-language works, and again it was used in the resume for a reason. The reason is still the same: the word "environment "is extremely vague and ambiguous in its meaning, and for" living environment " I give an unambiguous definition (even if not everyone likes this definition). But in any case, thank you for a constructive conversation.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 08.12.2010 17: 54

Dear Pavel, I did NOT proceed from the terminology in this area, which is not familiar to me, and therefore you have the cards in your hands, but from the simple idea that a reader in English in order to understand the meaning must read in a clear language. And not only have I never met the constructions you introduced in my life, but I didn't find them, no matter how hard I tried, either in Wikipedia or PubMed. This means that your colleagues may not understand. Do you need it?

Here's a look at what situations the word station is used in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station

not even close.

This post was edited by amara - 08.12.2010 18: 03

the word "station" is practically not used in modern English-language environmental literature.

- when used, how is it spelled in English?

The word "habitat" is closest to it, but it is extremely ambiguous and much broader in the range of its possible meanings than the "station" of Russian works. Therefore, I could not replace "station" with " habitat "in the English resume, I had to use the etymological word" station "related to"station".

- so who will understand what we are talking about? As far as I know, this term is not used in the sense of "station" in English.

But in general, I don't think that the English-speaking reader is worth worrying about in this case...

I have seen "statio" and "station" in French (and French-language) works. At Dekandol-Sr.-approximately in the modern Russian-language meaning (but this is the XIX century). Then the geobotanists of the Brown-Blancke school-but there the meaning is different. But so that it is in English that it is "station" - perhaps I don't even think. In translations from English to Russian (for example, in "Mirov" publications), sometimes" station "was translated as "habitat".

Amara, I know what you're talking about. But then there are claims to Decandol (who, as I understand it, gave the words " statio "and" station "the meaning that is used in Russian biology), to Roulier, who introduced the term" statio " into the Russian language, to A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, who finally Russified it. Who's to blame if other languages don't have this meaning, but don't have a full synonym? Or should I have written "statsiya"?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 08.12.2010 18: 13

I have seen "statio" and "station" in French (and French-language) works. At Dekandol-Sr.-approximately in the modern Russian-language meaning (but this is the XIX century). Then the geobotanists of the Brown-Blancke school-but there the meaning is different. But so that it is in English that it is "station" - perhaps I don't even think. In translations from English to Russian (for example, in "Mirov" publications), sometimes" station "was translated as "habitat".

so no one will understand what kind of station we are talking about... That's what I'm saying...

Amara, but what if there are at least two terminology systems in ecology - German-Russian and English), and the English one is objectively worse? At the same time, the British and Americans do with the terms what they want - only Connor with the "biotope" and Whittaker with the " ecotope "(which are not related to the "biotope" of the German Dahl, or to the "ecotope" of the Englishman Tansley) are worth something! Udwardi (a Canadian-American ecologist) tried to fight this, but no one listened to him. As a result, the Russian term "habitat" also suffered - due to translations of English-language porridge into Russian. I can't use one terminology system in my Russian work and another in my resume, and I don't agree with it.

I absolutely disagree.

In some areas, a scientist MUST learn to think in English,

if he wants his ideas to spread.

of course. but in this case, it didn't work out very well...

but I had something else in mind - cathedral collections are not something that foreigners do not read......

and how does the whole world suffer at the same time, which in the second half of the twentieth century writes on ekologich. the topics are almost exclusively in English... and he won't remember any other languages...

The situation is really anecdotal. I go to Wikipedia, enter habitat, everything is fine in meaning, but I switch to Russian and get the word "Area" (?).

I enter "station", there is one in Russian, but it DOESN'T give an English counterpart at all!

That is, a complete discrepancy in terminology. It will be difficult to reach an agreement like this.

So it is really, in fact, tormented As suffered, for example, Odum, who wrote that it is necessary to distinguish between "habitat of a species" and" habitat of a community " - while in the USSR at the same time, someone who did not know the difference between a biotope and a habitat, could have a deuce in terms of ecology roll in Well, at least, these two concepts were distinguished by many.

As for whether everyone should write in English - this can be developed by a whole flood with ideological overtones. Don't want. I will only say that I believe that our students should be taught in their own language and, if possible, from primary sources. Our mass English is not so good that it does not become an obstacle to learning non-linguistic specialties. And who knows if we won't be just as thoughtful about the importance of Chinese (or at best Spanish) in years to come?

By the way, " stations "in the meaning of "station" in Russian zoology also happened-in the late XIX-early XX centuries-for example, at Menzbir (a famous Moscow ornithologist).

P.S. I made some changes to the Russian Wikipedia , although I probably didn't follow the design rules there. It remains to be hoped that someone will correct the text there, and not just erase it.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 08.12.2010 19: 37

For example, I do not know if there are such words as "bases of stations" and "life mediums"in English?

Life media.

The "Life media" option was considered . In the dictionary, "media" and "mediums"were separated by commas as plural variants for "medium". Since English is clearly not my native language, I couldn't see any semantic differences between them and chose the first option that came to mind.

"Medium" is a word of Latin origin. In this case, English usually uses Latin grammar. But if there is also "mediums" in the dictionary, then this option is also acceptable; it just cut me off...

In fact, I only changed the necessary minimum in Wikipedia: I removed the link from "Habitat" to "Area" in the English section (since this is simply incorrect), wrote a short article "Habitat" in the Russian section and made a link to it from "Habitat" as a translation. In the article "Habitat" I gave two meanings-as a synonym for station and as a synonym for biotope. And all mediotones and polymedials - this is for the future

Duck and chago novago? КОли до Одуми уже договорилися.

Wow, tutawa is also in English.

P.V. Ozerski
An attempt to classify life mediums as bases of stations and adaptive zones
SUMMARY

A strong definition of life medium is proposed. Main kinds of the life mediums are described. A concept of mediotone as a boundary zone between two life mediums is proposed. Different kinds and specific features of inhabitants of the different life mediums and mediotones are described.

Like this forest steppe? Or Tama, where the surf zone is? Vo, yoda littoral is such an esti. On anlitsky I suffsem not panimayu. And why is it so necessary to obbshat a lot?

So why plant potatoes-between the beds of nowicha?

Maybe you don't need to touch Wikipedia yet? ))

>Like this forest steppe? Or Tama, where the surf zone is? Vo, yoda littoral is such an esti.
VVolkov, man ecoton, RTFM!

>Maybe you don't need to touch wikipedia yet?
You, VVolkov, are definitely not recommended. Except for the Albany section.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 08.12.2010 22: 28

And I don't even bother with tudy, what do I need Wikipedia for? I listen to smart people! And I read the magazine. Science and housing is ffot old. Everything is written there.

And try seriously to read your article again. I type fast, so there are typos. And words are not the main thing. Paper that only and where does not tolerate.

And try to formulate your comments to the point - because otherwise it is impossible to talk about anything. So far I've seen 3 claims: 1) You don't like the style - but what can you do about it?.. You can't please everyone. 2) You think that there is nothing original in the article... But someone has to generalize what others have done. Otherwise, why even make an "empirical study" if no one should use these materials for any other purpose? 3) You don't like the suggested terminology. But if you want, you can see ambiguity in any phrase. There would be a desire.

This is the last attempt to communicate with you in a normal human language. Further, if trolling continues, I will simply ignore it.

1) Submit to specialists, and do not please yourself here with the comments of amateurs.
2) This is philosophy and philology, not biology.
3) From inventing names, the essence does not change.

About the lack of something new-find something new in your opus. I would, but I won't.

No, it's just a style that has developed. Sorry, behind the shoulders of the German school-affects

I didn't mean your grammar