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

The discussion of Russian butterfly names in this section is offtopic, I agree, and the curator should have stopped it right away. But I think it's wrong to dismiss this problem. It exists! Our discussion confirms this. Only the developed system of Russian names will help to overcome the chaos in the Russian nomenclature. Kuzyakin, Gornostaev, Krivokhatsky, and Efetov had some suggestions. The latter, by the way, tried to overcome the skepticism of most colleagues on this issue at the last REO congresses. He also developed, in my opinion, a very sensible concept of the system of national zoological names. I enclose the cover of his brochure. In its design, a fragment of the wing of P. apollo is used, so my message seems to correspond to the topic of the section .
Discussion of Russian zoological nomenclature on such forums will be very useful, so you need to create a separate topic, IMHO.

Pictures:

_______.jpg — (150.84к)

just a little more vludan )
On the ZIN website there is an article dedicated to the correct Russian names of beetles, which says that, for example, Correctly Staphylinids, and not staphylins, barbels or woodcutters, and not squeakers or something else, etc.
If there are no rules on how to speak, then this does not mean. that it is necessary to show the deepest carelessness and seriously call everything by other names. Another thing is when you just jokingly call the same yolks zheltyankami or even as it occurs to you, etc.

And yet - Russian names are one thing, folk names are another thing - the Russian name of one plant can be one, and the folk name is completely different, without any serious logic)

MOVED BY THE AUTHOR FROM THE TOPIC Genus Parnassius (section IMAGES OF INSECTS)

On the ZIN website there is an article dedicated to the correct Russian names of beetles, which says that, for example, Correctly Staphylinids, and not staphylins, barbels or woodcutters, and not squeakers or something else, etc.

If we have already switched from genera to families, then it is correct - not skripuny, but skripunidy (from scripunidae). But if you are serious, then seriously they don't talk about the Russian nomenclature at all: when there are no Russian names, probably not even a hundredth of a percent of the species known to science, is it worth complaining that there were no konidae lying around in the available crumbs of this nomenclature? By the way, "apollons" instead of "parnassius" is not "the deepest negligence", but just an example of a very well-established name even in serious literature. The deepest (but that is why it is not discussed at all at the level of science) is "blue eyes" and "chocolate girls". But from everyday consciousness, what a demand; but when in science they call Ligeya chernushka in Russian, and ugolnaya (!) golubyanka (rimnusa) – still golubyanka, it is, of course, shocking, until you get used to it. Personally, I've been used to "blackies" for a hell of a long time, although I prefer to say "erebia". The trouble here is more general – that in general, strictly speaking, the correct or incorrect nomenclature in entomology can only be Latin, so it is she who deserves to argue about the degree of adequacy; but there is no correct Russian nomenclature in entomology (and why and to whom did it give up there?Therefore, the question of its correction (if people in communication at least understand each other's terms) is a purely scholastic question. Moreover, it has already been put on several times and each time safely rotten.

If there are no rules on how to speak, then this does not mean. that it is necessary to show the deepest carelessness and seriously call everything by other names

Quite true, but in this particular case, the fault is not so much the lack of" rules on how to speak "as the lack of"rules on how NOT to speak"...

Only the developed system of Russian names will help to overcome the chaos in the Russian nomenclature.

No god, no king, and no hero! It's like "chaos" in three pines to overcome the annoyance of another two million new pines, only good for nothing... After all, even the 90-volume Tolstoy novel has not yet been translated into Nanai or even English, so where is it? And how it would help to "overcome chaos" in Nanai or English quoting of his works... And so it is necessary to refer to the original language for a whole mass of works. But the ability to refer to the original distinguishes (among other advantages) a scholar of philology from a sucker. With the nomenclature - a similar question: isn't it more rational for entomologists (I'm just talking about them, because with plants, T. Ripper, the situation is completely different!) instead of solving the absolutely far-fetched problem of "overcoming chaos" in such an unknown animal as "Russian nomenclature", should we take comfort in the presence of a fundamental Latin nomenclature and pay more attention to its adequacy to the latest achievements in taxonomy? I would like to address my friends to the book whose cover you offered us to admire; this book is available online (thanks to T. okoem): http://crimea.fotopage.ru/lib/Efetov_koncept.pdf. Consider, colleagues, how convincing and generally scientific are the arguments of another proponent of inflating national nomenclatures (and the author of the preface, of course, too) in favor of the expediency of this idea and – especially – to what extent these arguments are acceptable in relation to the insect world. But a grant for such a non-alchemy can be required quite a lot (especially in those zoogeographic provinces where attention to science lags far behind attention to patriotism, including language). People, be vigilant!
P.S. Please rename the attached Chinese material (taken hastily with a mobile phone) to Apollo of Orleans. Sort of like Jeanne d'Ark is called the Maiden of Belvedere...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 17.03.2009 09: 49

Pictures:

DSC04471.JPG — (155.09к)

In fact, the question raised is, let's just say, an interesting one. On the one hand, Russian taxonomists have a tradition not only to give their objects Russian names, but also to monitor the binary nature of the Russian nomenclature and compliance with the international nomenclature. They transferred, for example, a plant from the genus Matricaria to the genus Tripleurospermum - and, accordingly, in Russian, it immediately turned from a chamomile into a trihedral. I'm not sure if this is a good thing. What a chamomile is is more or less clear to any non-botanist (despite all sorts of popovniki), what a trehrebernik looks like-a non-specialist will have to explain. At the same time," trehrebernik " is clearly an artificial word, with Russian roots, but in fact not peculiar to the Russian language. As a result, the Russian name loses its main advantage - clarity. The Russian" correct " nomenclature turns into the same incomprehensible gibberish that is subject to rote learning as the international one. But then why is it needed at all, if it is quite possible to do without Latin names?

It seems that this is a problem exclusively for nerds? If only... I remember an article by one of the Siberian experts on dragonflies, where the author was not too lazy to come up with Russian names not only for the species, but also for the genera of dragonflies. So he got all sorts of "letodedki" and "kogtebabki".

By the way, this topic has already been raised: http://www.molbiol.ru/forums/lofiversion/i...php/t51471.html

Yes, it's different for nerds. There is a historical explanation for this - in everyday language there were originally much more terms for denoting plants than for denoting insect forms. After all, plants were much more used by man and generally entered his life at the level of, say, species than insects. I'd have to start with insects almost from scratch right now. Yes, and there are so many types of them that it will be lost. They don't give money for normal science, they write faunal lists with even noticeable holes for the amateur, there are no funds for expeditions and business trips, so the entire budget of all post-Soviet academies of sciences was not enough to spend on rolling empty barrels (like the "Russian nomenclature"), which are thrown to us by people who closely follow the nationalist sentiments of the upper classes. And you might be smart enough... It's not a job to do. Opportunities to communicate with foreign colleagues will not increase from this (rather, it will be easier to start forgetting Latin), and your own science, already poor, will lose even more in financial and intellectual resources, without having received any actual scientific benefit.

And as for binomiality – we have nothing to make people laugh about. Who needs Papuan binomiality? Where we really were ahead, we did not need to drown in the ocean in front of the whole world, and entomological binomiality (and the entire nomenclature in Russian) is certainly like a cow's saddle for us.... By the way, we have long surpassed it: according to some sources, we also have a large night peacock's eye, and small night peacock's eye, and even the moth-moth poplar-birch (if I'm not mistaken, I met such a twist in the Soviet edition of the atlas of the Tykach)...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 03/21/2009 01: 59

Well, until they ordered to use Russian names in Russian-language scientific journals instead of Latin ones - it's not so scary - rather, it's stupid. Previously, they say, the creation of national term systems was enjoyed by the "independent" Ukrainian brothers - I don't know if they had it or not... Now it's the turn of the Great Russians, too...

In scientific journals, Russian names, in my opinion, are not allowed at all!
We can say that Russian names are a kind of entomological slang. But it seems to me that you should not be completely stupid and call everything just how, but also connect it with science in any way - hence the call for reasonableness - do not call it just how, do not claim that this is true and do not use it together with entomology, i.e. for example, write apollons in the topic, why? Maybe then we can add something to all the topics - for example, ground beetles from the genus of the thief-chopper Procrustes.
among themselves, you can call everything whatever you want, but distribute it, especially via the Internet, as "accepted" why?

2Ripper: on the account of the Procrustes genus, the sentence is incorrect, Procrustes, like Apollo , are proper names. So, if ground beetles are called "thief-chopper", then Parnassus will probably have to be called "butterfly-god of arts"

As for Russian names , I mostly agree with the principles outlined in the work of K. A. Efetov. But it seems superfluous to me to give a mandatory separate name to each genus. The binomial "family - species" is quite enough, i.e. "Golubyanka Icarus", etc
. In entomology, Russian names are by and large not needed, but it's another matter in popular and popular science literature. Accordingly, there is no need to artificially invent names for various "small things" that are not interesting to the common person. As a child, I used to read my first books on entomology, with "kapustnitsammi", "urticaria", "barbels"... And about the fact that there were no "Pieris brassicae" that I didn't understand and didn't need at that time, etc.Time passed, I started studying seriously - I learned Latin names. Everything has its time and place.

In my opinion, currently there is another point concerning the ordering of Russian names. If earlier, when publishing a non-Russian name in a book, it remained in the book, but now, when publishing such a name on the Internet, it begins to be thoughtlessly copied from site to site, and somewhere it can be added as a synonym to the generally accepted name. somewhere it is used as the only and main thing. Thus, the mess in Russian names increases significantly, some species acquire two, three or more names that are completely superfluous, for example, "Yellow-ochre Bronzefly", "Mail horn". It doesn't seem to harm entomology, but I don't see anything good in increasing the mess. If a species has several Russian names, you can choose one and indicate the rest of them (in the book or on the website). as synonyms, it seems absurd to me. IMHO, the rest just throw away and forget.

In general, I agree, but ignorance cannot be overcome by unarmed science. Of course, if all illiterate scribblers agreed to "throw away and forget" unnecessary philistine names, it would be very good. But how can you force them, even if scientists agree on a single Russian name for a particular form specifically for everyday writing? Scoundrels are not even forced to write correctly in Russian today, not only to monitor scientific adequacy. Ignorance runs rampant in much more mundane sciences than entomology. Of course, if editors were removed from their jobs for grammatical errors in published material, if they were put in prison for spending money on cultivating ignorance in society, but we are not living in those times. And even in the old days, the entomological part of it was impossible to keep track of everything. I have already cited the example of "In Search of Apollo" by Yu. S. Arakcheev. So, in this book, the reviewers with the help of whom the book was published are indicated: N. I. Kochetova and D. V. Panfilov, no less. Specialists! And at the same time, we read on p. 125 the speech of a supposedly literate butterfly farmer about mnemosines (!): "You, for example, noticed that there was not a single butterfly below, I looked carefully! They only appeared here. And there's plenty of clean-up down there. Why is that? Maybe the climate isn't right for them? Or something else?"

So you can kill the forces and resources (which are not even available for business) to work out the rules of entomological nomenclature for the profane (actually, this is one of the justifications for Efetov's idea, read the ridiculous example with mushrooms in the preface), but where do we then stick these rules? After all, those to whom they will be addressed will not lose anything (but only gain time and money) from the fact that they prefer to "throw away and forget" not stupid entomological names and just prejudices, but our rules. It's easier that way, but there are no punishments. While we live in such a society, colorful albums called "Insects" will be published, devoting a lot of pages to spiders... Nothing can be done about it. As for children's books, there was also a lot of confusion in our fighting youth (although Latin, of course, was not bothered from infancy): one and the same butterfly was either a big iridescent or a big silverfish (!). I think we will have to accept for now that entomological literacy is not available to a non-entomologist in principle. Physicists do not develop a special code for fools because not every journalist or physical education student knows under what conditions Hooke's law is valid. If the child does not follow our special line, even as a hobby, then let him confuse one species with another, big science will survive this, and for general intelligence you can do without a lot, God forbid you learn a school zoology course. And if he becomes an entomologist, he will have the opportunity to quickly correct the prejudices perceived from the printed dummies. We also started with dope, and nothing, we got smarter little by little. Problems of children's education are not yet a reason for global nomenclature building. Darwin also read the Bible earlier than serious biological works, but somehow managed to get smarter and even stronger, and we are already living in the XXI century.