Red Data Book and Orthoptera

Your answer is not entirely clear. So I'll ask you directly. What do you want? Imagine that you are supervising a general list of types of CC, cooperating with specialists, they have prepared a list of their group, and then, when the general list is already in the ministry, it so happened that cooperation stopped. What would you do?

There is no doubt that before adding certain species to the CC list of a subject of the Russian Federation, specialists in this group are needed, and it is VERY DESIRABLE that they are local, who know many nuances of specific populations. That's why a number of specialists in the group that would not seem "funny" and abandoned this project...

Oleg, it is absolutely true that there could have been such a motive for refusal. But hardly at all: in modern science, the presence of shame is still a great wonder; after all, there were hunters to prepare a list that requires much more knowledge of the fauna of the region than writing individual articles). But, of course, people are slowly getting smarter, and someone no longer wants to be laughed at tomorrow when they put a species on the list of protected areas with one hand, and write an article with the other, in which they will have to give a list of at least known localities, which, as it shows, is not a good idea. The experience of a number of CC's (including the CC of Ukraine, which has already been discussed in a related topic) often turns the version of "population reduction", " rarity "and the need for protection into a" flight of fancy", to say the least. You can guarantee otherwise only if you are absolutely sure that you are fully and geographically informed about the region. And if there is such awareness (although all the "cool" shots, as we are told, are exhausted), then the author of the article should not show it, so as not to question the very inclusion of the species in the CC (otherwise why write and include it at all?). And incomplete knowledge on the distribution of the species for the author of the article in the CC is also a source of public shame, since any teapot can double this "cool" knowledge with one successful week-long trip (we already know a lot of examples). A vicious circle. So, indeed, the script was concocted by literates, and they leave it to others to shame themselves in front of the public.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez-08.04.2018 21: 42

Carcharot
No irony or quibbling with words - I just want to understand this:

Your answer is not entirely clear. So I'll ask you directly. What do you want? Imagine that you are supervising a general list of types of CC, cooperating with specialists, they have prepared a list of their group, and then, when the general list is already in the ministry, it so happened that cooperation stopped. What would you do?

I will answer a direct question directly. First of all (this is basically true), I usually offer my options only to those who listened to my advice from the very beginning of the venture. But if I had decided that, there would have been no entomological sections of the CC at all. And when they wander into a swamp on a shitty, but private road, and then directly ask: "You don't understand, you don't swear, but offer specifically, what should I do in this situation?" my direct answer is: come back yesterday and you will be guaranteed to get good advice, with which you will never get into such a mess. And now-who advised you to get in there, ask them how to get out, but I can rightly state that there is no scientific value in this line of behavior.

Secondly (this is in particular and only for the future, because in the current case my train has left and you are already stomping along the thorny path of sin). Never start any "collaborations" with specialists who have not signed a long-term contract stating that they will also be responsible for their own (not only protective, here I am generally against) indicative bazaar with evidence-based articles. If a different practice is adopted, object to it and refuse to work in this tradition. Sometimes, after all, the topic of the dissertation is approved a few months before the defense (if the dissertation is actually ready). So why is the list so far ahead of the articles? You can cooperate in a comprehensive manner from the very beginning - so that they immediately prepare specific proposals and specific articles for their own specific proposals, because in principle there can be no more authoritative proof of the need to include a species in the list than a specific article about it for the same CC. And if the view is rejected - the article goes to the trash (and you do not offer anything that is unworthy of protection , and you will not work in the trash!) So that you don't have to look for someone who will agree to prove other theses with their articles. After all, these theses can be scientifically sound only as conclusions from an accurate knowledge of the situation; if they were left behind by "cool" people who are not able to write specific articles based on their own outlines, then these are not conclusions from the analysis of facts, but an a priori "flight of fancy".

Third (for the current case). If a sincere awareness of the situation still caught on the road, then, as I understand from your words, the choice is small. The first (minimum program-morally and scientifically) is a scandalous conversation in the ministry about the postponement of deadlines and possible revision of the list for the group, not just taking into account, but based on the opinion of those who will still commit to preparing articles. Second (compromise, but scientifically and morally bad decision)- removing the group from this edition of the CC, but this will create a skew in the entomological section. The third (the most principled and scientifically sound solution, which eliminates the bias in the entomological section and removes the fundamentally unavoidable problems that we are already tired of talking about here) is to insist, as much as possible collectively, on removing all entomology from the CC altogether, because in the other groups, hand on heart, they just did not save themselves before writing articles, but after all, there is no more order, only that they can blush less over the paper; or did the authors work in those groups not from meat and bones, as in straight-winged ones? or is the region heavily studied by them? and how long ago was Pseudochazara euxina known only where Nekrutenko pointed it out? yes, to drag there is not to drag... I would go exactly this way (but better from the beginning than from the middle), and there would be no entomology in the CC. I still understand T.'s pathos. Penzyak, when he shakes over a polyxene or eupheme, the krayareal tails of which he was lucky enough to find in his own region (although in this situation I consider the CC meaningless, this has already been said), but the Crimea is almost an island, where krayarealness is not the most private reason for entering the species in "rarities". The reasons for entering giant scolia, purple xylocopa, swallowtail, Crimean procerus, or deer beetle in the CC are different, and it is already very difficult to talk about these reasons without a profanity.

The fourth alternative (if none of those three pass) is to keep things going as they are, but that's a hack's job. It will always take place most calmly - at the stage of preparation (this can be seen from the list, if you read it in its entirety, throughout the entire entomological section). With the stage of subsequent shame, however, will have to accept. Something will be done somehow, but then we should not blame our "flights of fancy" and the fact that even the proponents of QC will call it a slop (with all the understanding of the many objective reasons for this suckiness).

I don't see any other lines of behavior in this situation. The choice is up to the participants in the process.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 24.06.2015 02: 04

It should be understood that the first professionals who compiled the list of animals for the Crimea were from Nezalezhnaya... It is clear that they have no reason to be exposed to the close attention of pravoseki. So colleagues need to help their comrades and not be ironic - after all, people have asked for help and it is somehow not appropriate for us to make fun of those "what and how led Masha to an interesting situation" - she needs to simply give birth to a healthy and viable baby. To the greatest regret, the forum mostly now features people who not only consider QC unnecessary - BUT also consider it extremely harmful and dangerous (for whom - read dealers and merchants from entomology!) and because of the scarcity of thinking, they try to push the Red Book in the slightest bit and belittle it with Arakcheev's shouts of "Atu him"! This is not the place for philosophical verbiage like "come yesterday" or I have four ways to reshape the world if... it is very similar to the bearded anecdote - " And don't tell me!"... They already have a deer beetle that seems banal to talk about without profanity is ALREADY difficult and who easily lives in the back of a country estate and its larvae like a rhinoceros beetle in manure... According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, I have already been told that I do not understand anything behind the scenes of the underground struggle, what needs to be protected at the moment and why politically... Impenetrable inertia and unwillingness to change anything is not just depressing (let the merchants rejoice) - but kills any desire to waste such precious time on the casuistry of verbiage. Unfortunately, now (in part) the editorial Board of the CC RF continues to flourish not sanity and a strictly scientific approach to the selection of species - but bureaucracy, formalism and eternal chewing gum of a stagnant stagnant swamp (while hiding behind some incomprehensible secrets of policing and the casuistry of bureaucratic verbiage). And what would seem easier is to put up for discussion the proposed lists of future protected species of the Russian Federation and honestly and most importantly openly discuss it. Naturally, this is to put it mildly "uncomfortable" for them, they understand that for a number of species they will USUALLY sit in galoshes without knowledge of the topic at least and IGNORANCE of the current situation for a number of taxa (it's so difficult to read modern faunal studies)... So they think in the old categories and hide behind "You don't know how it happens there"!
Alexander, if you need something on the CC write to me in a personal account, if I can't do something myself (which is quite natural in the endless topic of entomology), I will advise sensible people.

  Carcharot
No irony or quibbling with words - I just want to understand this:

How can I adjust the list if you don't know the region or distribution of species well? Moreover, the adjustment was as follows:: We don't know the region, but we'll remove the views. Very simple indeed.

I didn't express myself accurately enough here, so it turned out to be ambiguous. We sent out a list of those things, but we didn't get any results, no one said anything in substance, and no one agreed to participate. Therefore, we have removed these species ourselves, since we don't know anything about them at all, and left only those that we can write about at least somehow, if none of the orthopterologists will take it at all.

This post was edited by Carcharot - 24.06.2015 20: 22

Do they bother you there with something, do they not allow you to live in peace? There are reasons, once included, we discussed it for a long time and met about it specifically, by the way.

Here I am generally also in favor of having more species in the CC, purely from a utilitarian point of view - the CC is essentially a hub of information about the ecology/biology and faunistics of the described species, and this publication is popular, easily accessible, etc., and even more so our Ukrainian CC with its excellent electronic version in terms of functionality.
But .. somehow personally, in my humble opinion, there are sooo few objective reasons for finding sooo many insect species there, or vice versa-if so, then why again, sooo many insect species are not there, although they should be by the law of precedent

  Without any scandals, the order involves adding views... With an exception, it is more difficult, but it is also possible if there are good reasons (just not such as "we have a lot of it", of course)

Alas, it is true. It has long been understood that professionals love CC so much that it is much more difficult and scandalous for a person to fly out of it than to get into it. Presumption of inclusion, so to speak. So to speak, our CC is not longer than the cadastre yet, but all is not lost. Especially if "we have plenty of them" is considered "naturally" a less important consideration than "downsizing" and similar "flights of fancy".

What is our rationale for preserving protected areas that are important for the protection of entomofauna? Or let them build everything up?

How the professional community (including entomologists) should respond to development plans in an expert way, that there are laws even without CC and that it is a matter of complying with them, has already been discussed thousands of times, and there are no arguments in favor of linking the entomological part of CC to protected areas (and to the fight against predatory development). they didn't give it here, they also limited it to declarations. All these fake links have long been exposed here, and there have been no arguments against them yet. Discussions were preserved on the forum. Protected areas in the USSR were already there when there was no question of CC (not only for insects). And today I have a warehouse of various agricultural complexes at home, Setunskaya Floodplain is nearby, and Prioksko-Terrasny Nature Reserve is 100 km away. They've already talked about the PTZ here before it got boring; and the "Setunskaya Floodplain" with its beautiful stands with a list of things that can't be destroyed there, can now be studied from behind the fence to the roar of all the metrostroevs who have grown up there. Professionals, instead of going to the courts and prosecutor's offices about the mockery of existing CC and protected areas, give birth in agony to the next CC, which officials, who calmly relieve themselves on all protected areas, in my opinion, will soon ask to publish rolls for their own convenience. A species is included in the CC primarily to protect it at the individual level. Entomology specialists can't help but understand that with plankton under such a general requirement, you can't get into the CC (and you can't report with an extra publication), and they frighten us with "indicators", "protected areas" and buildings. But for the protection of biotopes, it is not at all necessary to publish collectively wise faunal nonsense beforehand, and then force the legislator to disgrace the protection of plankton at the individual level (and the CC requires this first of all) and invent fines for the individual caught. You just need to participate in the protection of biotopes and fight against their destroyers, for this you need to rely on the existing law and have the desire and courage to protect exactly biotopes (and not your own literary fame), and CC with their very frequent ignorance or direct falsification of reality and with their vicious general idea in the entomological part is absolutely unnecessary and even harmful.

So what? Well, we found it on Chatyrdag, then what? Let's say they wouldn't have found it, and they would have written that it is known only from Ipetri. But that's how it would have been at the time of writing. But finding it at a different point did not change anything in principle: the species is still limited in distribution by the settled petrophyte slopes of high yayla with the dominance of the endemic Elytrigia strigosa. Then someone would have caught me on Chatyrdag, so what? It would be "what a shame for the authors of the CC, they didn't know, but I caught it", so you are used to doing?

Not just me, but a lot of people understand this shame. Including those authors of articles who, even when they know the truth, try to present the species in a more distressed state than it really is. The fact that it is absurd, instead of protecting what a given species deserves, to legally protect the indicator itself at the individual level (and this is exactly what the presence of a species in the CC and the regulations appealing to it require) was also discussed here. But the fact that there are points-"indicators", visiting which often simply shows, as a symptom of the disease, that the CC was compiled by people with crusts at random Lazarus, without sufficient knowledge of the region, is a fact. And you can guess three times who exactly is a shame if people after the release of the CC find the view in more previously unknown points than indicated in the CC points for the entire period of observations - the one who immediately discovered it, or the one who, not knowing their own region, for people's money amuses their own itching to protect plankton.

For the sake of KK, no one will destroy gas stations in all the yugas, where the janitor sweeps half a bucket of crushed cervuses from under light sources every morning during the active summer (witness himself), and will not prohibit automobile transport-although, "naturally", the mass nature of the species is not an argument for pros. And, as is clear from your words, in order to remove from the CC, arguments are needed; this is not what to insert. To insert it, it is enough for very authoritative people to gather, for whom mass participation is not an argument or who simply do not know about it, to argue for a long time and collectively work out a solution that the white world then laughs at as a disgrace. What matters is not whether the solution is smart, but how many certified blind brave people and how long and hard they puffed over it. If tservus da protserus is painted in the Crimea, the same should be done in Moscow and in the Moscow Region with nemoralis (its people are less pressured in settlements, sanatoriums, etc.), and then in general with all the fauna. However, maybe the cervus is an "indicator" of something like this, other than the presence of oak and tolerable environmental conditions?

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 13.07.2015 02: 02

Do they bother you there with something, do they not allow you to live in peace? There are reasons, once included, we discussed it for a long time and met about it specifically, by the way.

So you called the most scientific of the reasons - "do they interfere with you there with something, do they not allow you to live in peace?" If the compilers of the list were guided by this (include everything that does not interfere), then the product can no longer be checked. The main thing is that before including inveterate banals with a vast area, everyone got diplomas and sat for a long time and collectively. This is now, it turns out, not an aggravating, but a mitigating circumstance. The moral premise is the same: shame is not smoke. I repeat, the forum rules and the law do not allow discussing other motives.

Let there be flaws, let them call it what they want, but to throw out all the erect wings and mantises so as not to disgrace yourself - that would be a real shame.

It is with this understanding of shame that such results are obtained. By the way, I do not consider throwing out the group to be an optimal solution in terms of conscience and science, but only one of the alternatives to unprincipled behavior in this situation.

Make an appointment with the Ministry of Natural Resources and ask them this question, but we work on the basis of the existing regulations on the management of the CC, according to which you first need to approve the list.

I provided for the "we followed orders" argument, which is why I said that you need to be able to brawl with those who give orders. A real scientist should have not only a head, but also a spine. I would not participate in anti-scientific and anti-social activities at all , either according to the prescriptions of the ministries or in addition to the prescriptions. But why should I go to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment? You need to go there. And if you don't go, it means that the situation suits you and you are not a victim or even a witness, but an accomplice. When I need to respond to my superiors demanding something I fundamentally disagree with, I do so (up to and including legal challenges) and don't ask entomologists to go to war with my superiors about my tasks. If I ever start to justify myself by saying that I did something shameful and unscientific in my work because my ministry demanded it, you can spit in my face. I understand that the specific situation did not develop at a certain stage according to your forecasts, but these are details; and the main thing is that, if you were brought to these galleys at all, any situation now is at the expense of credibility. That's why I said that the face-saving option wasyesterday, and today there are only more or less shameful alternatives. But, as I understand it, you are a man of business and completing the task is more important for you than these considerations, and you prepared for the shame ahead of time with all the courage-everything is not to go to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

At this point, please excuse me, I will not conduct further discussion with you, everything has already been said.

Apologize. I didn't mean to bother you with questions, so I promise I'll take your silence for granted. However, without reciprocation, because the matter for me is not personally in you. I consider it necessary to express my objections to statements with which I disagree and which, moreover, many of our comrades will read.

To the greatest regret, the forum mostly now features people who not only consider CC unnecessary - BUT also consider it extremely harmful and dangerous (for whom - read hucksters and merchants from entomology!) ... They already have a deer beetle that seems banal to talk about without profanity is already difficult and who easily lives on the back of a country estate and its larvae like a rhinoceros beetle in manure...

Oleg, for one two-hour excursion in the huge area of the cervus (even if not on the outskirts of the area), it is quite natural for me to note up to a couple of hundred beetles. Most of this, today or tomorrow, is bird food (under each current oak tree, a pile of pincers and other spare parts from beetles pecked by birds accumulates during the season). Even more of them can be seen at the gas station during the night. This is a lubricant for the wheels of cars. And this is over the course of weeks. But their commercial value is negligible. You won't find so many rutabagas for a tour. If you don't believe me, even though I've never lied to you in my life, come to the appropriate places, I can tell you them along with the deadlines, and you'll get sick of the banality of these Red bookers and be the first to devour all the CC and cervus. There's a direct train from you, by the way. With all the roads and pleasure in five days, you will meet with interest. Everything seems strange until you study it directly.

What are the reasons not to include in the CC species that in these vast territories are marked in infinitely smaller numbers than cervus, even in cities lying here and there crushed on asphalt (including in the Crimea), - and there are thousands of such types, - we have not yet been explained. So far, we have only been told that the list was approved by people who are authoritative and slow, and that they included things that don't "interfere", but this is not an explanation for why absolutely everything is not included. To put it bluntly, I assume that one of the reasons for this is a mischievous fear that someone will make money on the cervus (for which fear, in addition to the psychology of the ogre, there is an absolute ignorance of the entomological material market and the state of the species in nature). Or maybe they also remembered the old non-scientific tearjerkers about "a view that adorns nature".

We all know roughly what countries and regions those who then sell entomological material go to, because the merchant needs profit, and not ruin on driving for the sake of a pile of garbage; but only a complete moron can rush to the Penza region for the sake of commercial catching of polyxena or euphema, who does not belong in trade, but you know where.

In regions filled with commercially uninteresting fauna, there are CC's that do not affect the interests of merchants at all. So you're looking for monetary interest on the wrong side. After all, even a penny fee, for example, for a specific article about polyxene in the CC of the Penza region. and then it will be infinitely large in comparison with the total earnings of merchants on the Penza polyxene for the entire history of its predatory trapping... And this can be said about most of the species from the CC.

If a person has been unable to counteract numerous concrete refutations for years, then it is a sin for him to blame that his original spells (based solely on the tenets of faith) do not meet with widespread support, and to think that we are all completely swollen from commercial income. It's just that people have long realized that the conviction is the strongest, that value judgments are sweeping, but there are still no counterarguments on the facts given to you, as if no one has told you anything here.

The fact that the CC is hostile to entomology because of its legal prohibitive and punitive tail, which cannot rely only on often poor staff, is a fact that has been repeatedly proven (and indeed obvious) here. Who cares about entomological education (this is for T. Hierophis, who again has not read past polemics), let him allocate money for the development of science and for normal entomological literature (for a start, he will reduce the cost of state-owned periodicals, which today not only a butterfly merchant, but even another bear keeper, will not be able to buy), than for a psvedonauchnoe manual for cops about how to discourage people from going to entomology.

But CC merchants and security lists generally help a lot, and not only in the Russian Federation, any merchant will confirm this to you; after all, the surest way to inflate the prices of bullshit is to pass it off as unique, with reference to the fact that the species is Red book... The merchant is interested just in maximizing the inflating of our CC, and the bans fall well on the poor collector who carries several mattresses, but not on serious guys who, if they come across, are not due to the reliance on some CC, but most of all due to the absence of Russian policemen there, the ability to properly protect their protected areas based on the local population and meticulously inspect luggage with a sweeping ban on the export of fauna objects (which, of course, is also not very smart).

Prices for a number of Caucasian and Far Eastern species have historically benefited from their inclusion in the CC, rather than from a real shortage in nature. However, our CC, like a good pig, everything is for the future, and they often descend to such bullshit, which no one needs for nothing, except for a snotty kid filling the first box in his life. Therefore (and also due to the ignorance of settled authors), there really is a lot of things that are of commercial value outside the scope of the protection lists. And that is why T. Hierophis is right in his concluding remark, and not at all in the beginning, where he admires the electronic merits of meaningfully anti-scientific and socially harmful nonsense, which only the absolutely illiterate does not laugh at.

That's when you refute it and you will not be able to object, then complain about the misunderstanding, but not before and not instead, yakshi?

Andrey, tell us directly - do you think the Red Book of Russia is necessary???
In particular, of course, we are talking about the section of insects in it!?
We know perfectly well that you are a philosopher by your direct specialty (damn, it's tempting to remember the anecdote about two men walking near the bathhouse... sorry!) and there is honestly no time to argue with you about the high matters of being in entomology (summer is in the yard!) no energy (tomorrow at the dacha... work hard... but then two weeks in nature). Just finished spreading out the insect collections from the last trip to the south-west of the region, the university is unusually quiet... Almost all of the gosas have passed, and field practices are in full swing... outside the door, the hallway is unusually deserted... outside the open window, the sun breaks through the foliage of old oaks, maples and limes... a brood of redstails calls to each other... somewhere in the blue sky, a flock of swifts passes by... Oh, I would now...

A. Y. Elez, about the first part of my comment - while certain entomologists, if they produce books, then indeed, they are very expensive and copyright is not respected in a childish way - not a single participant from here seems to have posted his book in free access, maybe there are some, but I haven't met them. On the contrary, at one time there was a whole war on this topic, which is also available freely in the electronic version, there are faunal data, ecology, biology, and photos.

And all why-yes, because the state allocates money for this, and accordingly. everything is freely available, plus the compilers get their own benefits from this, that is, participation in the preparation of the QC. The sites where the CC is located were also developed specifically - search works there, there are some database functions - you can display by region of inhabitants, etc. So the more types of insects( as well as other animals and vegetation) there will be the better

Andrey, tell us directly - do you think the Red Book of Russia is necessary???
In particular, of course, we are talking about the section of insects in it!?
We know perfectly well that you are a philosopher by your direct specialty (damn, it's tempting to remember the anecdote about two men walking near the bathhouse... sorry!) and there is honestly no time to argue with you about the high matters of being in entomology (summer is in the yard!) no energy (tomorrow at the dacha... work hard... but then two weeks in nature). Just finished spreading out the insect collections from the last trip to the south-west of the region, the university is unusually quiet... Almost all of the gosas have passed, and field practices are in full swing... outside the door, the hallway is unusually deserted... outside the open window, the sun breaks through the foliage of old oaks, maples and limes... a brood of redstails calls to each other... somewhere in the blue sky, a flock of swifts passes by... Oh, I would now...

First of all, I don't need to worry; secondly, I have already said so many times that the CC is necessary for the protection of animals, including without fail-for protection at the level of individuals, when the legislator provides for a sanction for each Red Book head. How many more direct tales do you need?

Accordingly (and for other reasons), the section on insects and other plankton in the CC RF is not necessary. This, too, has been said many times, first of all by serious entomologists, and I only agree with their opinion. Why it is not needed-see past posts, there were no objections to their provisions even on your part, there was only a repetition of what was already broken to pieces and indignation. Absolutely all arguments in favor of inclusion in the CC were given counterarguments - we read you carefully and, you must admit, do not miss your arguments without attention, whether it pleases you or not. On your part, there were no specific refutations to these counterarguments. However, I don't think I know the anecdote about two men; if you don't mind, let me know (you can do it in PM).

At one time, I assumed that CC through the protection of species can serve as an aid to the protection of biotopes, but life (especially the quiet life of entomologists among the active authors of the red books) in recent years has particularly clearly shown that this is not the case. Each time - an irrefutable criticism, a little more or a little less shame, and the benefits - a bump. If you don't believe me, look at the Google photos of the apollo biotope in the Kovrov district of the Vladimir region about ten years ago and today - there you will see both fires and new logging. The fact that it is not fatal for Apollo (the Kaluga bulldozer is much more dangerous) is his personal plus; but the fact is that both firefighters and loggers do not plan their work on the basis of the CITES list.

But even opponents of introducing insects into the CC, which has legal significance, distinguish between the one who writes about the state of the species competently and honestly and, therefore, at least does not stutter about "unauthorized collection" and other false dangers such as building up and overgrazing the zakirkazonennogo slope of the railway, and the one who writes from nonsense, on emotions and self-interest. As long as there is a CC, it is better for them to contain as much correct information as possible. There is nothing unprincipled about this position. For example, even a principled opponent of prostitution, who himself will never stoop to it, does not care (as long as it exists regardless of his will), girls are standing along the highway dressed and calm, or in a negligee and even with machine guns to convince customers. Another thing is that the transition of an entomologist to a principled scientific position will lead him beyond the circle of creators of CC, because a good knowledge of the biology of an insect species and its state in nature is incompatible with dreams of its legislative protection at the level of individuals. That is why participation in the CC rarely leads to admiration of the author from the professional community. Therefore, you can save face only yesterday, and not after entering this road.

Your last paragraph - hats off to you. In general, you've always had a very noble penchant for lyricism. I'll just note that I haven't expressed any philosophical ideas about CC yet, I'm trying to find more and more arguments from entomology and from law (when it comes to CC), like many others here, but you read these arguments upside down, and now you're looking for salvation in philosophy. I'll tell you about the easily verifiable mass character of the cervus, and you'll tell me about the "matter of being" (??)...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 06/29/2015 02: 39

A. Y. Elez, about the first part of my comment - while certain entomologists, if they produce books, then indeed, they are very expensive and copyright is not respected in a childish way - not a single participant from here seems to have posted his book in free access, maybe there are some, but I haven't met them. On the contrary, at one time there was a whole war on this topic, which is also available freely in the electronic version, there are faunal data, ecology, biology, and photos.

And all why-yes, because the state allocates money for this, and accordingly. everything is freely available, plus the compilers get their own benefits from this, that is, participation in the preparation of the QC. The sites where the CC is located were also developed specifically - search works there, there are some database functions - you can display by region of inhabitants, etc. So the more types of insects( as well as other animals and vegetation) It will be all the better there

Some people benefit from CC, this has already been recognized more than once, and mostly completely legal (at least I definitely haven't heard about kickbacks from funding yet). Benefit to authors, trappers, and merchants alike. CC has long been called a poacher's guide. The regional CC is simply obliged to maintain crocs, otherwise, based on abstract region-wide information, how can they then talk about protecting a particular tract from development or demand the creation of protected areas on a particular patch? Yes, and the merchants were taken care of, QC with its increasing attention to the" commercial value " of the species in general may soon turn into an illustrated annotated price list.
As for the fact that in the absence of gas in your own house, a neighbor's fire will also do, because you can run there with a frying pan and have time to fry eggs, I do not agree with this. First of all, the state - at least in the Russian Federation - still finances, as you should know, not only the CC, but also a large network of academic, university and museum science. Secondly, if you are going to have a cook for lack of a cook, this is your problem, and publishing harmful and disorienting nonsense just because some clumsy activist does not get to normal literature and specialized sites (and bullshit, as always, is free and easily accessible) is a great sin.

The Red Book of the Republic of Crimea has been published.
Plants, algae and fungi.
Animals.

Maps are just creepy. Judging by them, scorpions with solpugs roam the sea, and, for example, Pseudomogoplistes bysantius does not go to land at all. Still, in this regard, the CCU was better.

Well, wow! In the CCU, all the dots were completely missing, since the authors put them first on a black-and-white map, and the designer then put them on his own, looking at the "sample". And here is grid mapping, actually. If a square with a solpuga contains a sea, it does not mean that it should not be marked as inhabited by a solpuga (even if a small corner of it will be inhabited by a solpuga).

No, well, if you like sea cricket, then that's fine!



That's right, there is no need to give any black archaeologists entomolgoam tips, let them better search for rare species of insects in the sea splashing! But for an outside reader, this looks very strange. For comparison, I looked at a couple of Red Books of the subjects of the Russian Federation: the Moscow Region (because the center, therefore, is the standard) and the Krasnodar Territory (because it is closest to the Crimea), there is no such ambiguous know-how anywhere.

No matter how bad the performance of the CCU cards is, the idea underlying them seems much more sound. Yes, and in the execution with the appropriate software, this is no more difficult than generating the same grids, no designers who put points manually are necessary.

This post was edited INO-01/25/2016 18: 52

The method seems to be normal, but the resolution is certainly cool, almost 20km cell.

Cool article about shemaya Krymskaya looks like everything is on land, you don't really understand whether there are rivers there or not, and then this photo : shemaya seems to be alive on a pebble bank sitting on fins, and then the steppe, the forest is visible, and it seems that she is about to jump off the pebbles and into the forest uchuhaet )))) Original photos )

The name of the giant ktyr there is hard ) It was necessary to write "Giant honeycomb" and not invent it )

Submitted Or offended ..

There is a catamenes dimidiatus, but what about catamenes flavigularis? It seems more logical to do the opposite?

Damn it, Ezox is not a reader,
it's amazing that you are, Ezox. this is a megauchon and you don't know about the nets If you pay attention, then each square where the point with the poor cricket is marked includes the land too

Pan would have to decide whether he is for the reds or for the whites. Sometimes he doesn't like the perfectly acceptable (in the case of Shemaiah) location of points on the map, then suddenly abruptly begins to like the sea cricket.
That land can only be seen with a bo-o-olshushem magnification (and in printed form, probably-it is impossible). I don't dispute that from a purely formal point of view there is no catch in these maps, but what about visibility and aesthetics?
But with shemaya just everything is in order, there are rivers under the points. Well, they took a picture of a fish in an aquarium, what was it necessary to change the backdrop especially for the CC?

As for the strange names: obviously, they were inherited from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. For example, I (and search engines too) was struck by the fact that Askilaf is called some kind of "butterfly man", but it turned out that in environmental regulations he goes by this very secret name.

Of course, in order to make it pleasant and interesting for readers to read, it would be necessary to finish this business and finish it. After all, this is not some magazine article, but a whole law! But as I understand it, the Big Round Seal has already laid down, so it's too late to beat Borjomi, at least until the next edition.

This is for you, Ezox, you need to think better, in the article about shemayka everything just turned out cool, and nothing more.
Is grid mapping a primitive technology? Mdya )) This is a tool from GIS, the possibilities there are decent, but another thing is that either the resolution of a particular grid should have been made more or the scale should have been smaller, so that the points were not so noticeably separated from the shore. But in the first case, just more fuss, so we decided to simply see zababahat with a resolution of 20 km, you never know, suddenly it's not for long

No, well, if you like sea cricket, then that's fine!



That's right, there is no need to give any black archaeologists entomolgoam tips, let them better search for rare species of insects in the sea splashing! But for an outside reader, this looks very strange. For comparison, I looked at a couple of Red Books of the subjects of the Russian Federation: the Moscow Region (because the center, therefore, is the standard) and the Krasnodar Territory (because it is closest to the Crimea), there is no such ambiguous know-how anywhere.

No matter how bad the performance of the CCU cards is, the idea underlying them seems much more sound. Yes, and in the execution with the appropriate software, this is no more difficult than generating the same grids, no designers who put points manually are necessary.

It feels like you're seeing grid maps for the first time. Yes, I like the sea cricket, it is marked on Cape Martian and Karadag, which is reflected by the presence of dots in the corresponding squares. And in the text for "black entomologists" it is indicated, and it is written in what biotopes it lives there.

And if without software? And then why did these designers at the CCU still ruin everything? And in general, what kind of map do you think you need to make to cope with 775 views from hundreds of authors (and everyone does it in their own way) in a month when the lights are turned on twice a day in the morning and at night?

The method seems to be normal, but the resolution is certainly cool, almost 20km cell.

Cool article about shemaya Krymskaya looks like everything is on land, you don't really understand whether there are rivers there or not, and then this photo : shemaya seems to be alive on a pebble bank sitting on fins, and then the steppe, the forest is visible, and it seems that she is about to jump off the pebbles and into the forest uchuhaet )))) Original photos )

The name of the giant ktyr there is hard ) It was necessary to write "Giant honeycomb" and not invent it )

Submitted Or offended ..

There is a catamenes dimidiatus, but what about catamenes flavigularis? It seems more logical to do the opposite?

Not 20, but 10 exactly.

Cool, I didn't notice. It seems to be an aquarium on the background of a wallpaper or window.

Normal name.

Katamenes flavigularis is not needed there, he is not in any danger.

P. S. And filed, even more so.

This post was edited by Carcharot - 25.01.2016 23: 02

Yes, I know perfectly well. But for some reason, for the bourgeoisie, for example, the fruits of this primitive ersatz technology, which, presumably, is used to save space on servers, do not cause such a cognitive dissonance as in the case of the Crimean CC.:

Maybe I really should have done more. Although by and large, if we are talking about a purely graphic picture, why?

And what, you don't mind a point in the sea near Yalta? It's just that the dots are bolder (for the entire square), and the sea is not visible behind them. And so, the same thing.

As for the permit, some of them couldn't handle it either!!! I am preparing one job here, it will be 5 by 5 km, and for KK this would be good, but not necessary, and due to the lack of time due to the power blockage, it is disastrous.

Maybe it won't last long

Very primitive. There is even no cumulative effect: if two points fall into one square, then one of them will stupidly disappear. Unless it is suitable for data compression (lossy). But in the case of a paper-based PDF publication, this is not necessary.

Now for more serious things. Too bad the spiders didn't show up. Rare spiders are sometimes quite large and noticeable, that is, for inclusion in the CC (if we proceed from applied purposes), they have a higher priority than any planktonic crustaceans. It is a pity that as there were no spiders in the CCU, so there were no spiders in the CC of the Crimea. It seems that you have arachnologists, the atlas of spiders of the Karadag Nature Reserve was written not so long ago..

There is also a shortage of specialists in insect groups (for example, arthropods were ignored altogether).

Apollonian... well, God be with him, hope dies last.

Bats really got back to the CC in full force? Or at least someone was left out?

1. Don't forget that this is a CC, where everything and everything from mosses to dolphins. And all this needs to be done in one format. The grid option is optimal here, and it's not for nothing that more and more publications are switching to it. Otherwise, discord begins: what is considered a point? Do I count plants growing 10 meters apart as one point or two? In 100 m? 1 km away? Where is this line? And if this facet also turns out to be different in different groups of biota?

2. Well, it is known that all arachnologists of the post-Soviet space have agreed among themselves not to include anything in any CC.

3. This is true, but where can I get them? For many groups that could not be bypassed in any way, they were barely found (Ukrainians often refuse, and many Russians say that they have not been to Crimea and do not know it and the state of affairs in their groups here).

4. So the status is "0", especially since there is a type, where to go... So it is with the seal. I was there once.

5. Yes, everything. Bats, orchids and grasshoppers - everything, this is our everything. )))

This post was edited by Carcharot - 25.01.2016 23: 20

Well, they took a picture of a fish in an aquarium, what was it necessary to change the backdrop especially for the CC?

But by the way, I changed the "backdrop" everywhere where the situation was not natural (fish on the lawn, butterfly on the couch, etc.). All photos on a flat background of different colors are those that were taken in the wrong place. I didn't notice it here, because it's really not immediately noticeable.

Of course, in order to make it pleasant and interesting for readers to read, it would be necessary to finish this business and finish it. After all, this is not some magazine article, but a whole law! But as I understand it, the Big Round Seal has already laid down, so it's too late to beat Borjomi, at least until the next edition.

Listen, I have an idea, let me give people in the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Crimea your coordinates, and in 10 years they will contact you, and you will show them a master class on how to bring things to mind.
Especially since I pass, I've had enough, and they'll have to look for someone new and young.

This post was edited by Carcharot - 25.01.2016 23: 30

  

Katamenes flavigularis is not needed there, he is not in any danger.

Something I didn't understand at the time. Because it seems that it was like this - dimidiatus-lives both in the Crimea and in Ukraine, it was noted many places, and flavigularis - is known only for the Crimea and is quite rare there. I don't remember where I read this, but it seems like this. And it turns out that the dimidiatus that we have here is rare in the Crimea

But I, by the way, changed the "backdrop" everywhere where the situation was not natural (fish on the lawn, butterfly on the couch, etc.).

Well, in vain )))

Yes, dimidiatus lives both in the Crimea and in the Ukraine-everywhere in the steppes, of which there are few left, and those that remain, some sleep and see to plant the forest. This has already happened in the Simferopol district, where he disappeared. Now this species can be found mainly on the Tarkhankut and Kerch peninsulas. And flavigularis lives only in the Crimea, you don't have it. But there is plenty of it all over the mountainous Crimea - on the yayls, in the foothills, on the southern coast. In terms of collections, it is several times larger, but it is not even a matter of numbers, but of biotopes, plus real data on the decline in the number of dimidiatus.

Why in vain? Why do we need fish on the lawn in KK? It's better to just put it in the background.

This post was edited by Carcharot - 25.01.2016 23: 43

 
Why in vain? Why do we need fish on the lawn in KK? It's better to just put it in the background.

"You"- I don't know, but "us" just look cool

In theory, this is in theory, but in fact, from the experience of the CCU, I know that everything is done the other way around. Therefore, having such experience, I undertook to do everything myself. So that there were no "crustaceans" scorpions, etc. And since I'm still not a geographer, and I don't know how to work with all sorts of complex software, I did what I could. And there was no one to help me, at least when it came to the technical side of design work. And many of our grandmothers (among the authors) are also not friends with coordinates, and the person who has nothing to do, so that he can translate labels into coordinates, and then drive them into some program unknown to me, was also not there.