Features of the Russian-language nomenclature, Russian equivalents - pros and cons

The main thing is not to try to transfer strict rules from Latin to Russian names. For example, do not require binomiality, do not invent a separate Russian name for each genus. I'm not sure that animals that are relevant only to specialists need them at all.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 23.10.2005 17: 52

And in general-how do you like "grandfather horned"? And this is the name of a dragonfly. But it pales in comparison with the name "letodedka" suggested by someone for some kind of the same gomfid-I don't remember the author of the work, but it was teeming with neologisms no more understandable than Latin. And why?

Yes, there are kinks all the time. So in practice, students come to check the definition of the dragonfly Calopteryx virgo and ask: - Is this - " Pretty girl male?"!

It can, indeed, give a Latin transcription, or at least a translation, but omitting such names.

On the contrary, I would support the idea of the Zinovites - sometimes, when discussing something with a Russian-speaking person, you don't always remember the scientific name of the species, especially if you are not particularly interested in this group. And in pedagogy, using Latin names in general is not always useful and necessary. Therefore, the approval of generally accepted national names is not very urgent, but it is necessary. At the same time, in my opinion, it is worth sticking to names that have long and firmly entered the lexicon, as the authors of the above article point out.

I read the article. IMHO, what I wrote does not contradict its provisions in any way. Although the hands, sometimes, so itchy... Is that why all Chorthippus are skates and poor albomarginatus is a white-banded filly? The machinations of feminists, or so in the days of Uvarov's pre-war works, it seems that this was not fashionable. On the other hand, I once referred to Chorthippus montanus as a "forest horse" in a conversation with an ornithologist...

My opinion, as an entomologist , is that Russian names are needed, but there are no
neologisms without special need, and tracing papers from Latin.
And for" non-Russian " species, local names are needed, not Russian ones.
In fact, the horned grandfather and the beautiful male girl are not as confusing
as, for example, Artogeia napi. It takes a while to figure out that it's just
Pieris napi. And this trend is already familiar. So why abandon the
existing Russian names of the insect? White-banded filly - it has long been
known that this name hides a horse.
And let Chorthippus montanus remain traditionally a "forest horse", do not rename it to "mountain"

IMHO, trivial names should be left out, but you don't need to try to call each insect in Russian at all. Look at the Gornostaev determinant. The man was wonderful, he knew Latin very well, but the desire to name Russian insects in Latin-mantis tattooed (Iris polystictica), grasshopper protivoborodavochny (Decticus verrucivorus), etc. - this is too much. Especially hard with tropical species, there is generally a swamp. So there is no need to overdo it with Russian names, Latin is no worse, even more beautiful sometimes. Is it really hard to say "Hortipus", and not "Horse", IMHO, no difference.
And about the fact that in the conversation it is not clear what is meant, so there is a language, you can ask. I don't understand "Sagittarius bunny" or "Apatele leporina" all the same, but with Latin it's easier to find out what this sem is. Noctuidae. In short, I'm fine with Latin, I don't need any extra hemorrhoids

I totally agree with Bolivar'om Swamp is not only with tropical species, but also with most domestic ones. Tracing paper from Latin sounds terrible in most cases, and inventing something from scratch is acceptable... this is really creativity in the spirit of "you can't understand Russia with your mind" - like how the Slavophiles came up with" wet shoes "instead of" galoshes " IMHO, the intellectual efforts necessary for this are worthy of better use.
Ordinary people really don't care, but let nature lovers (including young naturalists) learn Latin. In the end, even to perceive and memorize Latin is no more difficult than some "metal-like modestoides" (Euchalcia modestoides). And most importantly-there will be less confusion with oral messages (otherwise it turns out some pre-Disney times: try to understand sometimes what some enthusiast is talking about).
And there is another aspect in all this - cultural. After all, if you think about it, then NATURAL trivial names like "urticaria" or "deer beetle" are interesting in themselves, this is evidence of what and how people noticed in the insect world... And by inventing all this pseudo-national verbal garbage, we are blurring it...

This post was edited by Helene - 10/24/2005 12: 14

Regarding the "forest horse" - the trouble is that there is such a bird, and not just a filly

And a mountain horse - there is such a bird, and a cricket is a bird (I don't remember about the field one, but the river one is exactly :-)) And Prunella is both a bird and a plant.
By the way, ornithologists often do without Latin at all.

By the way, ornithologists often do without Latin at all.

After all, probably not everywhere and not always. There are also genera with many similar species, for which there are simply no generally accepted Russian names. And full of puns, too. This is not to mention the exotics...
By the way, in English, bird names are worse than in Russian: there are completely different genera (almost from different families) called the same. My ornithological friends told me about it
They (friends-ornithologists) have also been studying insects for some time, while trying to drag their own customs into entomology - I try to wean them off at least the first one with varying success by using the field definition and ignoring Latin...

2Helene
Field detection based on the sounds of birds and insects is convenient, and I think it is correct, since the vast majority of both have species-specific signals (I practice this myself). There is nothing to" drag through " here, since many bioacoustic entomologists collect and determine species "for sound". So you need to immediately start with the second one-ignoring Latin .

2Helene
Field detection based on the sounds of birds and insects is convenient and, I think, correct

That yes. But those guys practice VISUAL field detection. I should have clarified that right away.
Ornithologists always have help in the form of screams in addition to external signs, and sometimes insects are completely silent (the same butterflies). And they (with the exception of some groups) are still better to determine in the laboratory.

This post was edited by Helene - 24.10.2005 14: 59

I have long been running around with the idea of using it (even in a computerized version) to monitor the state of ecosystems. No one gave any money, although it's a good thing that the Voices of Animals website took place thanks to the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. But the grant is running out and the new RFBR will not give...

But visually in the field-dismiss. Tell the difference between a female Ch. brunnus and a female Ch. biguttulus, and both mollis. I don't even like it in the field. Each determinant offers its own characteristics and all are doubtful. This is even if we assume that there are only these 3 species and no maritimus or miramae.

yes, you are right - these 3 species of females can only be distinguished intuitively: -)
brunneus is slightly larger and longer-winged, mollis has slightly narrower elytra...
And in the sand associations live green forms of mollis and brunneus,
in which even males "do not pass" by the determinant!
The way out is to catch a female and deprive her of the company of males - after
a couple of weeks in the cage, she will sing with longing as a male: -)

It may be easier to relate to this. If people want to come up with these names, let them try. Lampert's index also contains the names of many moth-like butterflies, probably suggested by Shiryaev, or David Carter's atlases are full of English names of tropical species.

About the English names of tropical species. They (our English-speaking brothers) finally just relate to this Judging by the oak-scaled translations of all sorts of "children's nature encyclopedias", they have any blue butterfly - golubyanka (blue), regardless of the family, which indicates, IMHO, that they do not attach any importance to this at all, but calmly use Latin. And collectors have developed their own slang, like aquarists (they have a lot of their own exotic names-like "blue dolphin" or "princess of Burundi").
About "treat easier". I once saw a popular science book about mushrooms: there, Latin is given for each type, and Russian names are given in parentheses (if any). And if the mushroom is well-known , then there are several options. That's what I liked!
But I don't like it when they come up with artificial Russian names and raise the question of creating an official Russian nomenclature. This is really too serious... and it looks like Dolinean times

Probably, it would be interesting to talk about this topic with taxonomists-botanists - they have word-making, it seems, put "on stream"

Probably, it would be interesting to talk about this topic with taxonomists-botanists - they have word-making, it seems, put "on stream"

IMHO, radish horseradish is not sweeter - that botany, that entomology... Both here and there are full of "modest metalworms" and"false sheep fescue"
In general, the botanical taxonomy is somewhat strange in itself. References to the original writers are written in a strange way... And there is a lot of confusion (discrepancies) in it, up to the level of families. Some authors separate "heather" and "berry" (unfortunately, I don't remember the Latin - the damage to the "Russian nomenclature" also did not pass), others consider them to be one family.
And if you read the book that Skvortsov published here on a Greenpeace grant (notes to some species) - if he is right, then there is still a blockage

This post was edited by Helene - 10/25/2005 15: 06

You can call it something, but will they understand? In Latin, the principle of priority works... And also: and if the species was moved to another genus, do you also need to change the Russian name?

to Dracus
Well, you will come up with a new name, and who else will use it? And everyone will build their own garden. So talk to such a person, you will understand figs.

That's why we need a single national nomenclature, as suggested by the Zinovites

It's still going to be done by someone in particular, with their own mice, you know. It's one thing to name a new species from scratch, but it's quite another to name existing ones, which are about a million if you take them all. This is a completely unaffordable project, even for Zin. You need to devote your whole life to this, but who will?

Yes, it's not that with your mice, the point is-why?! Why bother creating and approving duplicate items?! After all, it should be understood that if it is official, then we will be OBLIGED to accept it and continue to apply it in articles, etc. Which will just make it harder to work, including with translations. Not to mention "their own mice", the fact that someone will probably disagree, disputes will begin, etc., and from scratch. It's as if there aren't a lot of scientific squabbles about taxonomy... And what will happen when the Zinovites get to the Micros?
And another point: amateurs, whose convenience seems to be taken care of. Yes, these two official nomenclatures will finally make their brains dirty! Why go too far: I myself (an amateur in plants) in this topic could not remember the Latin names of botanical families, because Russian ones get into my head. And now, it turns out, young scientists, nature conservationists, etc. need to somehow get used to the two OFFICIAL names of each species! Or one will use Latin, the other national nomenclature, and there will be a complete mess
Isn't it better to leave the Russian names just as additional, without dictation and officialdom? To whom it is convenient, he will call his animals among themselves, and for communication between different communities - Latin (well, not for nothing did Linnaeus work)?
And as for the pleasantness of naming some exotic animal beautifully and in your native language - so this is all the more who bothers? We will develop collectibles and the maintenance of home insectariums - there will also be slang, like aquarists. There is nothing seditious in this: "the princess of Burundi" is really beautiful

To avoid confusion with names, you need to deal with the Latin nomenclature! I would suggest transmitting it according to a well-known principle
For example, the realms would be called 1; 2;3;4. Types, for example, in Realm 3 would be called 3.1; 3.2;3.3, etc. Then the classes in the type, for example, 3.2 would be called 3.2.1;3.2.2, etc. The full name, for example, German wasp, would look like this:
3.3.2.5.18.9.11
That would be a NUMBER, no priorities, synonymy, homonymy))

to Helene

Are you confused by the fact that "because of" the Russian name, the scientific one was forgotten?
Do not be sad, it is not forgotten. I will tell you, as a psychologist to a psychologist:
it's just that we are Russians, and we think in our native language, unfortunately : - (
And it is certainly harmful to forcibly introduce Russian nomenclature.
It is sufficient that the scientific literature should also include
Russian (if any) names of species, along with the official ones.
And synonyms wouldn't hurt, either.
In fact, it is very difficult to give a (Russian) name to a species; it is primarily
the prerogative of the person who described this species, or was so imbued with its life
that he felt the need to do so. Otherwise, it will be nonsense :-)

to slr

The number will soon be put on all of us on the forehead, and on the right hand :-)
No need for numbers, the longing from them is already : - (

I think we need names. Especially for teachers. It's hard to learn in Latin alone. and how easy it is to tell a 5-year-old child. But this is not the main thing, applied science, practice. Latin doesn't take root. Beautiful and resonant. We need rules for their formation.

I think we need names. Especially for teachers. It's hard to learn in Latin alone. and how easy it is to tell a 5-year-old child. But this is not the main thing, applied science, practice. Latin doesn't take root. Beautiful and resonant. We need rules for their formation.

But why doesn't it take root? Calmly, people say: briodema, pecilimon, barbicistes...
And for a child of five years old, the level of detachments and (partially) families for which there are already generally accepted Russian names is quite enough. Well, the most recognizable representatives, who also have Russian names...

2andr_mih: If we think in Russian, then Russian names will not die out. If they are not elevated to official status, then the most successful and viable ones will take root by themselves. Natural selection-c

This post was edited by Helene - 10/28/2005 16: 22

> We need rules for their formation
Once you enter them, you will have to "cancel" a lot of well-established Russian names.
> Calmly people say: briodema, pecilimon, barbicistes...
IMHO, this is already slang that is incomprehensible to the "uninitiated".

In my opinion, it is better to trust the elements

Hmm, do you also consider the names of Gornostaev among the elements?

So the "element" will sweep them away. Although, maybe some of them will get vaccinated.

> Calmly people say: briodema, pecilimon, barbicistes...
IMHO, this is already slang that is incomprehensible to the "uninitiated".

I have already mentioned the uninitiated above. Namely, about the cultural aspect of the problem, about the folk names of insects in the original sense of this concept. There are very witty "locally respected" names. For example, Russian Kyrgyzstanis call satyrids from the Chazara family, who fly there on rolling pins and on scree, "masons". I'm not saying that the official Russian nomenclature can "spoil the people", but we would like to pay attention to this word-making of ordinary people-it's interesting
And slang is really incomprehensible to ordinary people - even Latin, even Russian.

>Or "fire bug" - zlatka,
And for me it was always called Cantharis - I remember it from childhood. This is a question about the value and usefulness of Russian names. Moreover, attempts to unify them will only lead to an "incident of reeds" - a plant known by this name in everyday life is never called that by botanists, and vice versa.

Being a professional entomologist, he very rarely used Russian names. But as soon as I started writing popular articles and books, the problem came to full head. Sin, for some species of Siberian fauna, it was necessary to invent Russian names, most often by direct translation. For the usual ones, I used well-established names from the qualifiers, but I also borrowed something from Gornostaev. Unfortunately, there is no place without Russian names in popular literature.

As for the international practice of using national names. Americans have published lists of official English names. Japanese people use their own names in popular books. It is good if there is an index of Latin names at the end of the book. So in Japan, the number of entomologists per capita is probably higher than in Russia. And I wonder how things are going in the Czech Republic? If someone undertakes to make a list of official names of all species of Russian fauna-the flag is in his hands. But I think this process is long and rather evolutionary. The more popular literature appears, the more often certain names will be heard. Something will die, something will remain. In the meantime, I prefer to use the rule of reasonable necessity.

Being a professional entomologist, he very rarely used Russian names. But as soon as I started writing popular articles and books, the problem came to full head. Sin, for some species of Siberian fauna, it was necessary to invent Russian names, most often by direct translation. For the usual ones, I used well-established names from the qualifiers, but I also borrowed something from Gornostaev. Unfortunately, there is no place without Russian names in popular literature.

As for the international practice of using national names. Americans have published lists of official English names. Japanese people use their own names in popular books. It is good if there is an index of Latin names at the end of the book. So in Japan, the number of entomologists per capita is probably higher than in Russia. And I wonder how things are going in the Czech Republic? If someone undertakes to make a list of official names of all species of Russian fauna-the flag is in his hands. But I think this process is long and rather evolutionary. The more popular literature appears, the more often certain names will be heard. Something will die, something will remain. In the meantime, I prefer to use the rule of reasonable necessity.

Russian names should exist, this is convenient for us Russians, and international nomenclature...no doubt about it-Latin and all!!! And why invent it? I also want to call laeve brilliant, but no one called it! They say "there is no Russian name" ...there is no trial...Well, I can't call it brilliant! so far, no one has named it before me!!!

It is important to remember, however, that Russian names are not regulated, so there are so many people, so many opinions, potentially. For the most common species, the names are more or less "staked out"; for all others, using Russian names instead of international Latin names will cause confusion. Latin names were introduced to avoid confusion.

In English, for example, in large butterflies ("Macrolepidoptera") In Britain, "local names"have been introduced, mostly by way of pulling over the ears. As a result, in the British moth newsgroup I'm subscribed to, people are using them, and I have to go through a book to find out what kind of species they're talking about. Terribly inconvenient!
  
People, by your gods, please use Latin!

With both hands behind! It's much easier to say Erynnis tages than "thick-headed hedgehog". And a lot more people will understand you. Why complicate it?

With both hands behind! It's much easier to say Erynnis tages than "thick-headed hedgehog". And a lot more people will understand you. Why complicate it?

Yes, there is a topic here - "Russian names-pros and cons", and opinions are divided... And the topic of the need to introduce an official Russian nomenclature is promoted not by marginals, but by Zinovites... So how would we, comrades, really not have to cram "tolskogolovok ezhegolovnikov"

I don't think it will be necessary, most likely Latin will remain in the scientific literature.