Entomological labels

Community and Forum → Entomological collections → Entomological labels

09.02.2009 0:04, А.Й.Элез

Barcodes are why.

A side and obviously dead-end branch of scientific progress - not in general, but in relation to entomological labeling, of course. The same ZIP codes (as in recent times, our postal codes, which were also mentioned here) are not only not required to be indicated at the address, but the vast majority of correspondence today walks with classic addresses printed on a laser printer, and is read in-person (and sorted manually). The same book on karabus from Budapest, sent to me recently by registered air mail, was sent to me for two weeks. In Brezhnev's time, such a period for correspondence from Hungary would have been considered the maximum. Lenin, if I'm not mistaken, in a pre-revolutionary letter to Kollontai (I think he was writing from Switzerland to the States) apologized for the delay in responding, due to the fact that her letter was sent from the States for a very long time (while naming dates that today, in the days of airmail, would have seemed cosmic!)

Self - service stores are much more optimal - for a normal country. In the pre-perestroika years in Moscow, bakeries were probably already all like this. Now there are God knows how many small shops on another small street, there are always several employees (not to mention stalls on wheels) in each, and the bread is released by hand, just like hundreds of years ago. This is despite the fact that self - service" supermarkets " are also a dime a dozen.

I can still understand the talk about chips with information about the instance, although I also consider them by and large manilovschiny. I can only understand rational progress, not progress for the sake of progress. I can understand a lighter, but I don't understand, say, a numerically controlled flintlock. I can understand a car, but I can't understand my grandfather's cart, in which the mare is not whipped, but driven through an electrode implanted in her head. I can still understand moronic barriers in a trolleybus, but managing them from space (why? for the sake of accuracy, so that the driver doesn't use chemicals!) I would consider it not a step forward, but in general complete idiocy.

No one remembers electronic typewriters now, but just a few years ago they were considered a big chic. Now it is a museum exhibit, or rather, museum junk. People who switched to computer typing immediately from a conventional (or electric) typewriter only saved money (at that time, electronic typewriters were not so cheap). The time gap was minuscule, and only those who had itchy hands moved on - for a few years or even months - to this nonsense. In the end, there was no benefit to anyone, except for manufacturers who then warmed up their hands on this (although then most of them went down the drain with this product, such as Smith Corona in the USA, etc.). I know people who re-hammered old typewritten text for the sake of "quality" into the same text on electronic typewriters (they, you see, leveled the right edge themselves and allowed typos to be corrected before printing), and after a year or two, they entered all this into the computer, swearing. Loss of money, paper, and expensive time.

Probably, you need some flair not to give in to unnecessary enthusiasm about well, very cool new technology.

I got acquainted with the Canadian material, for which I would like to thank T. Romik. Anyone who speaks English, I strongly advise you not to run through this material with your eyes, having understood only the surface of the question, but to read it carefully. I read it. There are two main topics covered: the content of a standard label and the use of barcodes (instead of the traditional form) for labeling. Barcodes are often used today, the method of reading them is optical, and a dirty card (or a store cash register scanner hidden in a transparent (!) polyethylene casing) is no longer as easy to read as an open and clean one. As far as I can see, the machine no longer reads a card that is turned at an angle of forty-five degrees. The device also does not read a card that is presented with a barcode not in front of the scanning surface, but somewhere to the side.

I suggest that those who want to stick at least a two-point cow on the barcode. If the device in the store considers it a miracle of nature, then move on to more serious experiments. Stick it on the barcode (in the center, because the label will be on the pin exactly in the center of the copy!) straightened cabbage. Next time - a straightened pear saturnia. And try to read the barcode with an optical scanner.

If the experience is successful, then you can not write in the personal account, but announce it here.

Try, further, not to stick saturnia, but under it (you can leave the distance as much as the pin allows, even without taking into account sticking it into the mat)pin a regular barcode and sneak up on the scanner so that it can read the code.

If it doesn't work, then we have only one option to read the barcode: remove the label every time we need to get information about the copy. If I am told that you can additionally write in human language on the top label (for the ordinary eye), and only pin a dashed tsatsku under it, then I will answer that the label above which there is another one, without removing it, is no longer considered by the Lord God; moreover, if you put a dashed tsatsku on the top label we managed to fit all the richness of data about the specimen, without which, as I understood, entomology is simply a knife, then why do this barcode at all? The consequences of removing the label from the pin have already been fully explained here, and no one objected to these obvious things.

I can't read a barcode with a lot of information with my eyes. And I don't really understand the product code in the store. None of us have fully mastered this, we don't even remember the list of country codes of manufacturers, except for a few basic ones. The barcode in all its rich content is read only by electronics. But electronics are stupid. If I can read a greasy label, then it's better not to offer the scanner a shiny barcode filled with fat from an insect. What now - do you need to laminate barcodes? Or just-do you need a snack? and do not take into your head any scientific rubbish..

With the barcode, the question is clear, and here I agree with T. Ripper, at least in that you need to act wisely, and not because others do or do not do it. The form without which we will be turned out of the entomological shop must be observed; but in any brainless adherence to tradition or regulations, there must be a measure. Otherwise, you turn into a brute who acts on instinct and is not interested in rational goal justification of actions. This is less acceptable in science than anywhere else (we will not compare ourselves to Galileo or Darwin, but we will keep them in mind as a worthy example).

By the way, this is also understood by Canadians, to whom our colleague addressed us. They consider all information in addition to place and time, imagine, as additional, not including them in the necessary minimum of scientific and informational support for the instance: "The absolute minimum label data required on any specimen are locality and collecting date. However, the addition of data about the collector, collecting method, hosts (where applicable) and habitat greatly increases the information value of the specimen". But no one argues with the latter position. Of course, it would be good, and many other things would be nice... After all, even "data about the collector" has a truly rubber value... Just how does it fit all this information on the label?

Canadians give such examples of labels (see at the end of the message).

Examples, as we can see, are far-fetched even for them, not to mention the reality of the race (in Russian, everything is usually longer than in English, this is well known). Deliberately short geographical descriptions have been selected to show the reader how much space is still left on the label for the rest of the writing. Such abstract nonsense, of course, needs to be supplemented with some clarification. But who and where said that the label, for example, with the locale " mountains. Moscow" can only be specified using GPS numbers? Why this cheating?

Anyone who served in the army probably knows the old anecdote about an observer who chose a herd of cows grazing in a meadow, a shepherd, and the chairman's UAZ car rushing along a dusty road as landmarks. For entomology, such support products are also not suitable. But in comparison with the errors that we can accumulate over time on the initial GPS readings, the movement of a cow from the pasture home is a trifle.

I'll give you my own example. I will localize a specific meadow as follows: "Mountains. Moscow, meadow between: Starovolynskaya St. from the north-west, Minskaya St. from the north-west, Kievskaya railway from the south-west, Setun River from the south-west " Believe me, as long as this meadow and these streets are on four sides around it, it will not drift anywhere and between they will be located there. And on the current map - forever. But the coordinates in fifty years can already lead you a little to the side. Quite a bit, but this will mean, depending on the direction, that, say, I caught ausonia either on the construction site of a shopping center on Mozhaika, or on the dome of a mosque on the edge of Victory Park, or on the territory of bourgeois mansions in the Setuni floodplain (where everything is so" cultivated " that you can only catch not say what), or at the dacha closed to me by T. Stalin's house near the new MES-ovsky mansion. Now, if I replace my information with coordinates, then surely in a hundred years my last name on the label will be absolutely necessary, so that at least on my grave my colleagues can ask me: what kind of place did you mean, technotronic head, explain in a human way, otherwise they found Moscow, and then nonsense turns out...

The main thing I can agree with the Canadians on is that the information on the label should be unambiguous. If the person who recommended this material to us has read it carefully himself, he must agree that Moscow is one regional center in Russia, but to limit itself to its name would not mean ambiguity, but extreme ambiguity. And nothing on the label can be more reliable than humanly indicated coordinates (not in the digital sense). By the way, ambiguity cannot be avoided for anyone who tries to indicate the name of the collector A. Y. Elez, not to mention A. I. Petrov or N. P. Sidorov (in general, ambiguity). In order to avoid ambiguity, we will have to comment on which one is A. I. Petrov, otherwise what is the point of specifying such a nebula? Like J. P. Johnson on the Canadian label (see below)! Well, just a unique surname and rare initials.

Canadians go completely against the accepted (not only in our country) method of specifying additional information (biotopic and other circumstances of collection, except for those already indicated on the main label): they suggest, as you can see in the picture, to hammer all this into one label. The flag is in your hands, colleagues, and the shaft is wherever you want. Just keep in mind, if you consider these Canadians for authority, and not for idle chatterers, that even with their deliberately chosen short localities with very short names
of localities (and Canadians rightly recommend avoiding abbreviations!) they are forced to recommend us the 3rd pin and as a big gift - the 4th. True, and the size of the label they have absolutely........ ical: 17x6 mm (not even my 18x8!) But the size 3 is not yet on any laser source will not merge the lines even in the recommended Canadians of equal-thickness fountains like Arial. But believe me, with such a pin, you must remove the label every time to read the data, because under a large individual you will not read this mess, and with a magnifying glass you will not really fit under Artemis. Size 3,5 is the limit for extreme cases (I use it almost exclusively for uppercase letters of abbreviations like "USSR" or for digital data, since numbers are written the size of an uppercase sign, not a lowercase one, and it's not a sin to reduce them). The usual minimum is the 4th size, and the larger one is whatever the size of the text allows.

Please do not forget that we do not live in Canada. The richness of Russian toponymy and often the coincidence of names simply do not allow you to specify a village without bypassing higher-level administrative divisions. All this in a normal font will spread over such hectares that it will not fit into the Canadian size in any way, unless you make a black mess of signs no larger than the 2nd size instead of the label, which is impossible to read. However, in New Zealand, I remember, there is a village whose name is expressed in 83 letters. Canadians didn't think to use this name in their label samples. Or-you guessed not to use it...

As for the question of the name of the collector on the label, here Canadians are admirable; I offer a quote: "The name of the collector should appear on the label, partly for credit, but also because it can often help to link the specific to additional data, especially if field notes are published or archived. Multiple collectors should be listed or alternatively a field party or study label can be used".

Literally, this means that the name of the collector on the label is necessary partly for recognition, but also because it can often help link the sample to additional data, especially if field notes are published or archived; collectors in a group must be listed, or the label of a field batch or some study can be used instead.

Happy transition to the 1st pin, friends! But do not be in a hurry to despair: after all, all this Canadian buzz, firstly, concerns what we have already discussed together in an exhaustive way, and secondly, it actually recognizes that with a normal label, the name of the collector, except in very rare cases, does not give a damn at all. It's just that Canadians, who clearly understand all this about themselves, do not consider it profitable to directly argue against the generally accepted template, although they do not see any scientific meaning in it. Not the Galileans. The article is valuable - after all, if the supporters, and very professional ones, can't really say "yes" to anything, then the opponents can take a breath...

Once again, I thank my friend who drew our attention to valuable foreign sources on the subject; I would hardly ever have stumbled upon them myself.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/14/2009 06: 31

Pictures:

labels2.gif — (9.28к)

Likes: 1

09.02.2009 1:04, А.Й.Элез

Imagine if in the future a mini flash drive with photos of the biotope,video and full articles on the description will be attached to the insect instead of a label.But this is if the flash drives are cheap and small

Flash drive is no good: magnetic storage. From any extreme influence-temperature, vibration, and even more so from the magnetic (electromagnetic) field-the information on it will bark.

I advise you to develop a divider with a diameter of no more than 10 mm with a unified rubberized pin hole from 000 to 6. Only, when filling it in the computer, you need to make sure that the laser does not melt the rubber gasket and that the disk itself does not fall out of the drive onto one of the boards due to its small size and does not fall under cooler blades, for such a mother... And most importantly - do not store the copy for too long. These are paper manuscripts that live for centuries, and what is recorded with a laser on a disk will not last so long under any circumstances.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/09/2009 01: 09

Likes: 2

09.02.2009 2:42, А.Й.Элез

I'm sorry, but" flash drive " (flash memory) It is NOT a magnetic carrier. This is a crystal chip-a chip. There are materials and chips based on them that are very, very resistant to various kinds of physical influences. Some satellites and their electronic components have been operating for decades. Well, a nuclear explosion will not survive any "label", no matter what it is made of

I apologize for the flash drive. I misinterpreted it by analogy with an external screw; thanks a lot for the clarification.

But, for the practical side, still explain: is the electronic stuffing that holds information, even if not for centuries or millennia, but at least for decades, in a satellite exposed to impacts that are only more terrible than a nuclear explosion? For some reason, I thought that electronics were something that was put in perfect greenhouse conditions in space, so that God forbid there would be anything, and that it was carefully protected from extreme impacts in the satellite, much more carefully than we protect our flash drives in everyday practice. Or is it different for them, and I'm wrong?

It's just that in my memory, some of my friends (on Earth) have already covered flash drives for some reason (and the media type itself is still very young). There were cases (from which no one is immune at all) when this flash drive turned out to be a very gentle and demanding creature, which even from a non-system disconnection or simply lost information for no apparent reason or even failed. And it was clearly not in a nuclear explosion, not in a mechanical failure, and not in the gathering of information from the virus. And books in the same conditions (indoors, in a briefcase, etc.) spend much more time (centuries, for sure) and do not lose information. I am talking about the most ordinary conditions, realizing that everyone has limits to endurance and that in a mildewy environment, a book will probably die faster than a crystal, but its information will survive, say, a blow with a large mallet more easily than written on a chip. So to what extent is information on chips still durable (if today it's time to evaluate this indicator)?

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 09.02.2009 04: 37

Likes: 1

09.02.2009 8:17, okoem

Just in my memory, already some of my friends (on Earth) flash drives were covered for some reason

A flash drive is a microchip. Like all microchips, it is made of a semiconductor crystal, solder, plastic, etc. Plastic ages from time to time and gives micro-cracks in the places of its contact with metal leads, air gets to the crystal and solder, the solder ages and falls off, and at some point the microcircuit suddenly refuses to show signs of life. Semiconductor devices are not very reliable and not very durable things. As for the "space" chips, do not compare them with consumer goods. For space, there are much higher requirements for technology and quality selection (acc. and the "space" cost). This is not at all the same as the products of the Chinese company NoName, bought in a store around the corner.

Likes: 1

09.02.2009 12:01, mikee

I apologize for the flash drive. I misinterpreted it by analogy with an external screw; thanks a lot for the clarification.

But, for the practical side, still explain: is the electronic stuffing that holds information, even if not for centuries or millennia, but at least for decades, in a satellite exposed to impacts that are only more terrible than a nuclear explosion? For some reason, I thought that electronics were something that was put in perfect greenhouse conditions in space, so that God forbid there would be anything, and that it was carefully protected from extreme impacts in the satellite, much more carefully than we protect our flash drives in everyday practice. Or is it different for them, and I'm wrong?

It's just that in my memory, some of my friends (on Earth) have already covered flash drives for some reason (and the media type itself is still very young). There were cases (from which no one is immune at all) when this flash drive turned out to be a very gentle and demanding creature, which even from a non-system disconnection or simply lost information for no apparent reason or even failed. And it was clearly not in a nuclear explosion, not in a mechanical failure, and not in the gathering of information from the virus. And books in the same conditions (indoors, in a briefcase, etc.) spend much more time (centuries, for sure) and do not lose information. I am talking about the most ordinary conditions, realizing that everyone has limits to endurance and that in a mildewy environment, a book will probably die faster than a crystal, but its information will survive, say, a blow with a large mallet more easily than written on a chip. So to what extent is information on chips still durable (if today it's time to evaluate this indicator)?

1. Yes, in space, any object is exposed to hard (high-energy) cosmic radiation of a very different nature and intensity. As part of this radiation, there are particles with energies many times higher than the energies of particles in a nuclear explosion. Of course, there is special protection on satellites, but it is not absolute. And electronics flying there is also not household, of course

, In our discussion it is important that such a stable electronics fundamentally exists.
2. household flash drives, as a rule, fail when connecting/disconnecting to the computer's USB port. This phenomenon - more frequent failures at switching points - is also typical for things like a regular light bulb. Exactly the same flash memory crystals soldered into cameras, mobile phones, iPods, etc. fail significantly less often.
3. yes, while books are more durable than electronic chips. But they are, of course," technically " much simpler things. And, I emphasize, all this is only so far.

Likes: 1

09.02.2009 12:12, okoem

2. household flash drives, as a rule, fail when connecting/disconnecting to the computer's USB port. This phenomenon - more frequent failures at switching points - is also typical for things like a regular light bulb. Exactly the same flash memory crystals soldered into cameras, mobile phones, iPods, etc. fail significantly less often.
3. yes, while books are more durable than electronic chips. But they are, of course," technically " much simpler things. And, I emphasize, all this is only so far. All right. And precisely because the transition from labels to flash drives is currently not only not planned, but not even expected, I think it's still very, very early to seriously discuss this issue

Unless you want

to brand

Likes: 1

09.02.2009 12:37, RippeR

well, yes, we fantasize about labels in the future

, because the topic is not highly specialized

Oh, there will be warobki with anti-gravity inside, where they will be fixed in the air without anything at certain positions, and the glass of the box will be something like a touch screen, by clicking on the composition of a butterfly or beetle, you can get information about it.. you will also be able to move insects just by swiping your finger or stylus on the glass of the box

and you will not need pins, as the insects will hang in the air.

the glass of the box will also work as a magnifying glass with a good zoom, so that you can view each specimen as if under a microscope and turn it around as you like to view certain signs

PS I will be called soon ^_^

09.02.2009 13:14, mikee

Anyone who served in the army probably knows the old anecdote about an observer who chose a herd of cows grazing in a meadow, a shepherd, and the chairman's UAZ car rushing along a dusty road as landmarks. For entomology, such support products are also not suitable. But in comparison with the errors that we can accumulate over time on the initial GPS readings, the movement of a cow from the pasture home is a trifle.

I'll give you my own example. I will localize a specific meadow as follows: "Mountains. Moscow, meadow between: Starovolynskaya St. from the north-west, Minskaya St. from the north-west, Kievskaya railway from the south-west, Setun River from the south-west " Believe me, as long as this meadow and these streets are on four sides around it, it will not drift anywhere and between they will be located there. And on the current map - forever. But the coordinates in fifty years can already lead you a little to the side. Quite a bit, but this will mean, depending on the direction, that, say, I caught ausonia either on the construction site of a shopping center on Mozhaika, or on the dome of a mosque on the edge of Victory Park, or on the territory of bourgeois mansions in the Setuni floodplain (where everything is so" cultivated " that you can only catch not say what), or at the dacha closed to me by T. Stalin's house near the new MES-ovsky mansion. Now, if I replace my information with coordinates, then surely in a hundred years my last name on the label will be absolutely necessary, so that at least on my grave my colleagues can ask me: what kind of place did you mean, technotronic head, explain in a human way, otherwise they found Moscow, and then nonsense turns out...

I read both the Canadian article and the long post by A. J. Elez. I do not consider passages that do not cause obvious rejection. What I can't agree with is the opinion that has been repeatedly expressed that geographical coordinates can change over time.
A coordinate grid is a common abstraction of meridians and parallels linked to the Earth's rotation axis and the Greenwich Observatory. All these GPS, Glonass, Galileo and other satellite geodetic systems are just tools for determining the position of any point on the earth's surface relative to this grid. The same as ordinary geodetic instruments: astrolabes, theodolites, measuring tape measures, etc. Differ only in accuracy (significantly higher). Changing the coordinates of a point on the Earth's surface (NOT buildings, streets, etc. of "stationary" objects) is possible in principle - let's recall the same continental drift. But these are extremely slow changes, noticeable only in comparison with geological epochs. Rapid change = a global catastrophe. The coordinates obtained by different satellite systems may differ, including significantly for practical purposes, due to the use of different models of the Earth's geoid (the Earth is not a sphere). The problem is solved by specifying which system received the coordinates. If all measurements are made using GPS (or Glonass, just one and the same system), then the problem is removed. But we are talking about units, maximum units of tens, meters (5-20), which is usually ignored.
In my opinion, ordinary everyday changes are MUCH MORE significant. Because of the speed of these changes. This has already been discussed: the magnetic pole is drifting (compass directions change), the accuracy of the compass strongly depends on local conditions and position relative to the magnetic pole, streets are renamed, rivers change their course, buildings are demolished, swamps dry up, forests are cut down...
That's all there is to it. Everyone can decide for themselves which binding system to use - coordinates or object-based. They complement each other well, as the Canadian article explicitly states. Just don't demonize scientific and technological achievements. It is not necessary, of course, to idealize them.

PS. To be honest, using the coordinates in the label, I personally will find the right place much faster and more accurately compared to object binding. Why do we spend so much time discussing GPS when the WHOLE world is actively using it?

Likes: 3

09.02.2009 14:01, Alexandr Rusinov

I didn't want to get involved in this... Reasoning that in a hundred years it will be more accurate-a description of the position of a meadow between streets or GPS coordinates of the same meadow seems rather meaningless to me. It seems to me that the meadow will be built up with something much earlier than these hundred years. Or it will become overgrown with something. After all, biotopes change very quickly - certainly faster than continental drift. There was such a case in my practice - Elizar and I once went to look for an interesting beetle species based on the descriptions of the early 20th century. The descriptions were very precise and detailed. We arrived at the place, after which we belatedly realized that the landscape had changed during this time, to put it mildly, because the forest is growing, the meadows are overgrown. After wandering around the village (formerly "lesnaya dacha") to my surprise, we managed to meet a forester, who did not send us away, but rather clearly explained to us where the meadows had previously been located. However, instead of the meadow we need, there is now an aspen tree with trees of 70 years old. Of course, it would be strange to find a meadow species in this biotope... So a very precise label didn't help us much... I don't see much difference if it just said "okr. d."Gavyrino"...

Likes: 4

Likes: 2

09.02.2009 15:28, RippeR

well I don't know where such cards are that lie so much

and now there is Google Earth, encarta.. True, the increase there does not seem to be large.. But the images are satellite.. Yes, and maps now seem to be made in the same way..
However the map shows whether there is a forest or not

And in general, there are special cases, but in most cases you can cope! If the view is very interesting, then you must first make inquiries, and then you can take the risk.. But if there is a forest on the map, and there was a meadow in that place in the 20s, then it is clear that there is nothing to hope for.. True, this is also not the limit-sometimes the views shift - a forest grew in one place, and a clearing nearby, to which the species could move..

Or what, I didn't understand, does it mean that nothing helps, so it's better not to write labels at all? Like, and putsoe is an occupation, in 100 years the species will still die out, the biotope will change and Armageddon will come..?

09.02.2009 16:29, Alexandr Rusinov

In the Soviet Union, all maps contained an error, so that a potential enemy dropping a thermonuclear charge would necessarily miss

This error is usually 100-200 meters,and in highly secret regions it is much more. Now the USSR is no longer there, but most of the maps have remained the same. That's the first thing. And secondly, most of the maps are quite outdated. The field in our lane is overgrown with forest in 10 years, but the maps are updated much less frequently. I can't say anything bad about Google maps, but this is not the ultimate truth either. I didn't mean that you don't have to write labels, because everyone will die. It is necessary to write, but the accuracy in my opinion should be without fanaticism. "30m north from the big curve of the birch" in my opinion can be omitted. In 100 years, it won't matter. After all, everyone knows that on the territory of modern Moscow, Apollons flew, but is it really important on the site of which specific building they flew? Why do we need this information and lay flowers?

Likes: 3

09.02.2009 16:45, mikee

In the Soviet Union, all maps contained an error, so that a potential enemy dropping a thermonuclear charge would necessarily miss This error is usually 100-200 meters,and in highly secret regions it is much more. Now the USSR is no longer there, but most of the maps have remained the same.

During the New Year holidays of 2007/2008, I visited you in Yaroslavl by car using a map scanned from the usual kilometer atlas for tourists and linked to the area. So, on the way, the GPS navigator showed me which half of the Moscow-Yaroslavl highway I was driving on. And the atlases were compiled on the basis of Soviet-era maps. So, if you link them correctly, you can easily use these maps. Errors were given in the coordinate grid, but not in the relative positions of objects and directions. As for the relevance of old maps, the main changes occur primarily around industrial centers. Where, by the way, none of us really wants to catch

, but a little to the side or away and quite a correct match of maps and terrain. Of course, not always. In the Ryazan region, for example, the forest is simply "shaved off" by whole blocks annually

09.02.2009 16:52, RippeR

in some places, information is important, and in some it is useless..
But there is another side to it. For example, if you lay flowers to an extinct species or look for commonplace things at a specific point when it is everywhere full, there is no point.
But let's say you are making a revision of a certain species, and you need accurate maps of the area.. what then.. Or suddenly it turned out that there is not only a violacea, but also an interlude, research begins.. When a new subspecies or possible subspecies is detected, and then an accurate check is needed. Suddenly 2 forms are found in one place? Or they have the border of 2 subspecies different sides of the ridge, and the label says ridge So-and-So..
the meaning is not in everything, but in some things there is, you just need to look well

Likes: 1

09.02.2009 19:47, Victor Titov

Of course, you should not bring everything to the point of absurdity. Who can argue that a copy without an accurate (within the necessary, reasonable limits) label has absolutely no scientific and simply amateur-collectible (if I may say so) value. But even thoughtlessly relying on maps, longitude and latitude would be reckless. Anthrenus is right: a field or meadow becomes overgrown with forest in the middle zone in 10 years. But the change of the biotope occurs even earlier. I know a lot of places where literally in 4-5 years, or even less, fields, mixed grass meadows were overgrown not even with forest yet, but with dense, impassable small-leaved undergrowth. And that's all, there is no longer the same entomofauna. So excessive detail of the point, in my opinion, does not make sense. It is much more important to give space to a brief but exhaustive description of the habitat conditions in which the specimen was collected.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 09.02.2009 19: 49

10.02.2009 6:36, А.Й.Элез

I am very grateful for explanations on the flash drive. Live for a century and learn for a century.

But:

The coordinates obtained by different satellite systems may differ, including significantly for practical purposes, due to the use of different models of the Earth's geoid (the Earth is not a sphere). The problem is solved by specifying which system received the coordinates. If all measurements are made using GPS (or Glonass, just one and the same system), then the problem is removed.

It doesn't get any easier... So, again, there are compatibility problems: you also need to specify the system in which the coordinates are obtained. Congratulations to those who have already indicated the coordinates in numbers: now reissue everything with the addition of information about the system, otherwise the label will be ambiguous (which is forbidden).

Why do we spend so much time discussing GPS when the WHOLE world is actively using it?

So far, yes; but there has already been a lot of active use there - both 360 KB floppy disks (read them now), and color films of the 41st process (develop them now), etc. But even today, the "WHOLE WORLD" hardly uses GPS data, for example, when issuing a telephone location certificate at a restaurant or when delivering an email. Everything has its place. And zip codes, as it is correctly said, are used in the world, but this does not make us drag them to the label under the bug. So if GPS as such is discussed here, it is only for fun. And I'm not discussing its usefulness (here I'm the first in favor of repeating it), but only the expediency of stuffing its data into an entomological label. Now it turns out, however,that not only data, but also indications of the system in which the coordinates were obtained... With the hope that neither in two days, nor in fifty years, the structures that provide it will not go bankrupt and new systems will not be created.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.02.2009 07: 04

10.02.2009 6:48, А.Й.Элез

I know a lot of places where literally in 4-5 years, or even less, fields, mixed grass meadows were overgrown not even with forest yet, but with dense, impassable small-leaved undergrowth. And that's all, there is no longer the same entomofauna. So excessive detail of the point, in my opinion, does not make sense. It is much more important to give space to a brief but exhaustive description of the habitat conditions in which the specimen was collected.

Of course, the latter is very important; but faunal-without specifying the point can not do. One thing is a book for schoolchildren about the preferences of certain butterflies, and another is a specific faunology. The variability of a factor is not an excuse to ignore it. If the names of streets, cities, regions, or states change , then don't indicate them, or what? But then and if the botanical nomenclature changes - do not specify on which plant it was caught? If the entomological information will obviously still change - and not ask about the species?

Conversely. In my opinion, the meaning of the faunal (and zoogeographic) aspect of the matter is that these biotopic conditions that allowed this particular species to live were present at that particular time in this particular place. The fact that faunal dynamics largely reflect biotopic dynamics is indisputable, but this does not mean that we should be interested in labeling ONLY biotopes in detail. In my opinion, both sides are needed here.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.02.2009 14: 54

10.02.2009 14:26, Victor Titov

Of course, the latter is very important; but faunal-without specifying the point can not do. One thing is a book for schoolchildren about the preferences of certain butterflies, and another is a specific faunology. The shyness of a factor is not an excuse to ignore it. The fact that faunal dynamics largely reflect biotopic dynamics is indisputable, but this does not mean that we should be interested in labeling ONLY biotopes in detail. In my opinion, both sides are needed here.

But did I mention ignoring the point that ONLY biotopes should be considered in detail when labeling? God be with you! I only meant that in some cases, indications such as " mixed grass meadow in the vicinity of d. Verkhniye Luzhki of the N-sk district of the N-sk region" is quite enough (well, with an indication of the direction and distance from the reference point). This is especially true in populated areas that are exposed to constant anthropogenic impact. As for the fees in deserted, so to speak, "reserved", "virgin" places, where there was no settlement for many kilometers and there is no-then here you can't do without GPS data, so far nothing better has been thought up.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 10.02.2009 14: 27

Likes: 4

10.02.2009 15:05, А.Й.Элез

But did I mention ignoring the point that ONLY biotopes should be considered in detail when labeling? God be with you! I only meant that in some cases, indications such as " mixed grass meadow in the vicinity of d. Verkhniye Luzhki of the N-sk district of the N-sk region" is quite enough (well, with an indication of the direction and distance from the reference point). This is especially true in populated areas that are exposed to constant anthropogenic impact. As for the fees in deserted, so to speak, "reserved", "virgin" places, where there was no settlement for many kilometers and there is no-then here you can't do without GPS data, so far nothing better has been thought up.

If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. You spoke out against the" excessive detail " of the point, and I didn't understand what excess can be implied here (unless the GPS coordinates themselves). Specifying the lines between which a particular meadow is located, or something else? In general, I now see, at any rate, that there is no disagreement on this point. You give me a point.

I myself meant by a point, one way or another, exactly the exact place of capture (no matter how you describe it), and not a locality or any other nearby map feature.

By the way, about other map features. Where there are no populated areas for many kilometers, there are rivers, lakes, ridges, or at least individual hills. There are trigonometric points in meters plotted on the map, and it is possible to give directions and kilometers (this was already mentioned). This accuracy is more than enough, and a lot of detail would be really unnecessary. Earlier, entomologists somehow pointed out, and caught beetles not only by anthropogenic factors.

These are minor comments, but mostly I agree.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10.02.2009 15: 07

Likes: 1

10.02.2009 17:51, Victor Titov

That's why I used to label it so that I didn't miss on the map and on the ground, but that it also fit into a piece of paper...

But this is extremely concise and accurate. That's the whole point. And I don't mind GPS as such. I only doubt that the absolute value of GPS data is correct. By the way, there is another point: personally, to me, the mossy hemp, labels with words seem more aesthetically pleasing than a bare figure. Although, many, probably, will not agree with me. The Russian language, by the way, is great and powerful, they can express such nuances! Here's how to translate "dry road of the old poplar" into English ?

And all Russian speakers will understand this. And you can't be more precise! And there are a lot of such words that are often used in the entomological environment. And the area of the label, indeed, restrains in verbal outpourings.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 10.02.2009 18: 00

Likes: 1

10.02.2009 19:45, Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg

Retrograde remark:
I have to write several dozen labels in ink on tracing paper right now. Labels are small, because the material will be stored in alcohol, in eppendorfs. I will have to write in ink, because I am not sure about the durability of labels printed on a laser printer. Still, it is very desirable to briefly duplicate the labels with an ordinary pencil, since the good old "Soviet" casein ink no longer exists in nature, and I don't know how German rapidograph ink will interact with alcohol over time.
This is all due to the fact that there are technologies (pencil, good ink) that are time-tested.

PS. Regarding the discussion about flash drives, barcodes, etc. Reading information from a once-ordinary 3-inch floppy disk is no longer such an easy task. And there were also 5-inch, and "plates", and various streamers... But no more than 20 years have passed.

Likes: 2

11.02.2009 13:59, А.Й.Элез

Semiconductor devices are not very reliable and not very durable things.

I think you're right. I consulted today with one of my butterfly friends, who knows more about technology than I do. According to him, first of all, in space, the reliability of electronics is ensured not only by physical protection, but to the greatest extent by such a simple way of ensuring reliability as duplication of data and functions. This is despite the fact that every extra gram in space is very expensive. For us sinners, this means that for the reliability of label data, we would have to hang several chips on one copy and from time to time refresh the information on them in turn. Second, he reminded me that one U.S. Apollo, which cost the treasury so much money that it is unlikely to spend on labels, and then died because of electronic errors. This is not about using paper punch cards in space, but about the reliability of semiconductor devices and their data.

By the way, this friend's opinion coincided with mine on the name of the collector, but the main factor, in his opinion, was not even the uselessness of specifying it, except in unique cases with the archives of great entomologists, who did sometimes indicate the place and time very carelessly and approximately. So this is when there was practically no standard of label requirements yet. But today , the situation is not the same: everyone has long been used to specifying the exact place and date, especially those professionals from whom some archive will remain in science, and not just discussions on the forum. But the main thing, my friend believes, is not even this, but simply the danger of such indications of the last name on his own head: in his opinion, if the law-makers who constantly want to eat will tighten the green nuts even more steeply in the future, then the names of collectors will be very useful to law enforcement officers and will be accepted with gratitude. We are not living in the time of Menetriye. There is less use, and more lookout...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 12.02.2009 01: 19

Likes: 1

Pages: 1 ...4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12... 28