Entomological labels

In my collection of labels written in ink in the old Soviet times, I did not translate them into a "laser" format and I do not intend to. Although, now in the new fashion I use a laser printer. God only knows how long these labels will last.

In any case, longer than anything else. After all, as far as I understand, digital data has the disadvantage that it is either read or not read (intermediate cases - more or less hemorrhoid partial recovery of lost data). And data on a piece of paper or on a photo (film, video) film can be greasy and worn out, but it is still reproducible. It is very difficult to cover them at the same time (except in such a disaster, when there is no question of saving the instance itself). A little crumbling label can always be noticed (here plus or minus a month or even a year - it doesn't matter) and replaced with a new one. In general, for at least ten years that I personally use lasernik, the labels did not crumble at all. You don't have to bend them. And I always poke them with a pin between the signs. By the way, before that, for several years (since 1985), I made labels on a copier (i.e., essentially with the same toner), simply re-shooting the typewritten layout with a reduction; so they are alive and feel very calm. If such dynamics (i.e., none) continue, then laser printing can be considered quite durable. But, I repeat, even in extreme cases, we will have a lot of time to replace the label with a fresh one.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 11.02.2009 15: 26

in fact, the law is absolutely powerless here. A label is not a document. and even more so written by an amateur's hand - just a piece of paper.. Whether or not to take the information on a piece of paper seriously is our business, but the law can't do anything against it! There are no seals, no certifying documents, there is nothing..
If they want to exterminate amateurs, then the absence of a surname will not help, and if you calculate each copy by the names of the labels, you will not prove anything.. You never know what I write-maybe my friends bring me and I write with my own name, and students and friends catch a well-known amateur, and he also puts his own name - where is the proof? They don't exist

Yes, I totally agree. After all, the presumption of innocence: even a man caught with a bag of parnassus on his back can show you proof that he didn't pick them up dead somewhere near a barnyard or a country club.
And yet, even drawing a black cat after yourself is an amateur. And the last name is somehow calmer if you leave it in the place of sin, then not at all your own, but someone from the forum comrades (joke). The point is not the proofs of the surname, but its sufficiency to arouse the desire to seek evidence specifically against the owner of this surname, and not someone who is not connected with it in any way... Imagine that some detective has been tested for greenness and discovers a species listed in the International Red Book under the same name of the collector in completely different collections. Guess three times who he will find more promising to dig under - under the owner of this name or under Louis de Funes... Until quite recently, the case of Ponosov (from a school where left-wing software was used) would have seemed unthinkable in Russia. And there it is...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 11.02.2009 14: 21

pencil-the best friend, will not crumble and for many many years! It doesn't get wet, nothing will happen-the height of a technological breakthrough If printers wrote with a pencil, then probably you wouldn't have to be afraid of labels at all

pencil-the best friend, will not crumble and for many many years! It doesn't get wet, nothing will happen-the height of a technological breakthrough If printers wrote with a pencil, then probably you wouldn't have to be afraid of labels at all

The lead is less sticky than the toner that has passed the oven. This is a plus: you can press as smooth objects as you like to pencil notes, and the notes will survive. What is printed on a copier or laser printer should not be placed on smooth objects for a long time. The record for a sweet soul will stick to that object-whether it's a transparent file, a polished surface of furniture, or even the same exact sheet. And it is impossible to keep two laser texts facing each other in a dense stack: both will become chipped, randomly flipping one to the other.

But the pencil also has a disadvantage: finely written things are very easily erased with your fingers, neighboring sheets, or something else. In the resulting gray mess, sometimes you can no longer see the original letters. More than once I had to complain about this, helping one of my friends to sort out the diary entries of a long-dead scientist (for publication), made with a simple pencil very small (but not smaller than the 4th size!) handwriting. And in terms of extreme fineness of the font, the pencil, alas, lags behind.

Since the label doesn't have to be pressed down with anything smooth, I think laser printing is much more reliable than writing with a pencil. Ink is more labor-intensive and does not allow such a small font as a laser printer (and, accordingly, such a large amount of information on the same area). Although, I admit, from the label made in ink, and reeks of the spirit of entomological collecting...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 11.02.2009 14: 54

About whether it makes sense to know the last name of the importer.
I agree that the label can somehow indicate the exact location of the capture. However, if the collections are not too old, then you can get additional details from your collector that are not written on the labels, for example, for butterflies - whether there was a lot of this species or a single find, whether it was the end of summer or the beginning, whether they were active in the morning or evening; if these are caterpillars, then where exactly did they sit and how to find it.. yes, you never know what else can be clarified. Up to which side leads a convenient path to the place
Another thing is that for fresh collections, you can often just ask the instance owner who exactly the importer is. If he (the owner) I haven't forgotten yet, of course.

in fact, the law is absolutely powerless here. ... You never know what I write-maybe my friends bring me and I write with my own name, and students and friends catch a well-known amateur, and he also puts his own name - where is the proof? They don't exist

you can simply ask the instance owner who exactly the importer is

immediately come running to you like a cute one!

You're not going anywhere

There's no getting away from it

Pitifully. And where will you go?

You can't get away from it.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 11.02.2009 15: 35

and?

as for the pencil , just don't rub the label with your fingers and everything will be fine
mascara I don't really like, because it is too dark and because of this, the ex seems to be lost. Although writing in ink with a small rapidograph 0.1 is a complete pleasure! Basically convenient for butterflies.

just don't rub the label with your fingers

Of course!

the last name of the collector is also needed for one more reason - when there is a question of the adequacy of an interesting find. Whether this collector has confused something, whether he is not inclined to crazy fantasies...

Oh, by the way, a kind of "Quality Mark".

This is me.

the last name of the collector is also needed for one more reason - when there is a question of the adequacy of an interesting find. Whether this collector has confused something, whether he is not inclined to crazy fantasies...

Oh, by the way, a kind of "Quality Mark".

The idea itself is good. It would be nice if that were the case. But just how to use the last name in this regard? We also have references in the new regional Red Data Book to names that are not famous at all, and nothing. After all, if Uncle Vasya is "prone to crazy fantasies" and wants to posthumously cheat someone with a place and date, then someone from authority can also indicate the last name. Here T. Ripper correctly said that the last name is not stamped.

On the other hand, there are also great authorities with great flaws. It's already T. Bad Den mentioned such things. They also happened to note Parnassius phoebus in the Caucasus (in Adjara, I think), and P. apollo "in the steppe and treeless Dzhankoi region"... So much for surnames as proof of the "adequacy of the find".

Colleagues, why are you so clinging to this name? Is it your own, or what? What other "foundation" will we pull up by the trunk tomorrow? I can already see in your eyes that it is becoming clear to you that the matter with the surname is dead, that all the petty justifications that are being forced out of the last of their strength are far-fetched, and that God forbid it will really come in handy in one case out of a million. This is the usual formality, which we are dragging along by inertia from those times when they tried to somehow (and even then for a penny) insure themselves against negligent instructions on the place and time, which have already been mentioned more than once, and when, by the way, the cops had more important things to do than protect the entomofauna. But after all, everyone has long learned that you need to specify a specific point and date. Except for points (and approximately dates), and almost none of you remember anything shortly after the trip. Where and when there was a cloud, remember.

In rare cases, when a copy is caught in non-traditional circumstances for the species, I do not arrange for descendants to rebus in the form of my precious surname (with the need to find me personally later), but simply indicate these circumstances in human language on the label. If the turnip is caught in flight, I'm sorry, I don't mention this wonderful circumstance. But if apollo merzbacheri on Kungei-Alatau, unlike our democratus, happened to catch a flight in cloudy weather under raindrops, I will make a reservation on the label. That's what they call responsibility to science, and not stupid following the form without any use (get rid of the last name, and the sabbath, and you will dig up my diaries yourself after death...) And I'll give you more than the label, and I'll never remember it myself.

In addition to unique finds, any entomologist does not remember the circumstances for each specimen. The entomologist accumulates data on species, subspecies, and so on. I, for example, learned long ago that many bull-whiskered males are well caught on a moderately stale pile of shit. But this is not news for science. But even if it was important, you can mark it immediately on the label, and not put your own unnecessary last name instead. If I am shown forty argus males that I caught at one point in one day, how can my name help me determine which specimen was caught in vegetation, which on a pile, and which in flight? Did I remember them all by sight, or something? I remember the habits of the species, not the tastes of each individual specimen...

The season will come, the battles will subside, beautiful words will be forgotten, we will start pushing recklessly, throwing hastily on mattresses and in freezers, just to have time to gain more, and only then-retroactively indicate the month and the mainland. I have two big freezers full of stuff. Yes, dry with a cubic meter. Many thousands of copies of this good man, most of them banal. As you can guess, it's all A. J. Elez, no other names. But if I ask this Elez today about any circumstances (other than what is already marked and what will go on the label anyway, if God gives me the health to straighten it), and he won't remember a damn thing. Except for how to get to the point, but this, excuse me, is only for your own people, and not for everyone; and for entomological science, the number of the nearest bus is not necessary at all.

The surname, alas, is not a criterion for anything, including for deciding on the "adequacy of the find". Only an extra ace of diamonds on your own back (see the message. No. 321) for the sake of extra-scientific show-offs...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 12.02.2009 15: 01

Oh, by the way, a kind of "Quality Mark".

That's it , the last name of the importer as an argument for determining the collected material correctly. Personally, I always pay special attention to this.

about the fact that surnames are not certified with seals, he said only in the sense that the law cannot use this data in favor or against anyone.

Again, you yourself said that punctures always happen, and there is a negligent attitude. Therefore, you can not always treat this information with 100% confidence. But this is not a reason not to make labels at all, nor is it a reason not to put the name of the importer.

To write an authoritative name, you will also have to fake his label well, write his handwriting all right.. This is already a good fake, and it doesn't matter whether the last name of the importer is there or not - after all, everything will be there..
Another thing is if labels are printed (even printed labels have their own special format, it can be different for different people, it can be the same..).. Such labels are always much more difficult to trust, because the source is not so clear..
Also, if a different collector is written on the standard label of one person, then it is more difficult to trust such a label (usually such labels arise during exchanges, gifts, purchases, etc.). Another thing is if you are familiar specifically with the person who has such instructions on the label, you can trust him or not.

And it also happens that some comers fake labels, indicating another place to earn extra money. If there is a name of the importer, it will be easy to calculate the authenticity of labels. For example, you can ask the importer itself or find out from other sources whether the importer was in that place at that time, whether a particular type was collected there.

 

Colleagues, why are you so clinging to this name? Is it your own, or what? What other "foundation" will we pull up by the trunk tomorrow? I can already see in your eyes that it is becoming clear to you that the matter with the surname is dead, that all the petty justifications that are being forced out of the last of their strength are far-fetched, and that God forbid it will really come in handy in one case out of a million. This is the usual formality, which we are dragging along by inertia from those times when they tried to somehow (and even then for a penny) insure themselves against negligent instructions on the place and time, which have already been mentioned more than once, and when, by the way, the cops had more important things to do than protect the entomofauna. But after all, everyone has long learned that you need to specify a specific point and date. Except for points (and approximately dates), and almost none of you remember anything shortly after the trip. Where and when there was a cloud, remember.

And if we take the name of the collector on the label as a sign of gratitude to the person who fed mosquitoes, froze, mok, knocked his feet to bloody calluses so that this copy appeared in our collections?

If you use your purely rational approach, then it's okay , for example, if a person shows up for a funeral in a colorful shirt, shorts and sandals. What's the big deal? However, most people come to funerals in black..

Still, I will insist. Here, for example, looking through the old collections of leaf beetles in the Moscow region now, you find a new species that no one else seems to be going to. It's one thing when you don't know anything but the place and date, but it's another thing when you read"Plavilshchikov" or "Yakobson"at the bottom. Immediately, the relationship to the instance changes. Or here's " A.Zubov" I've been really enjoying writing on labels lately. Good such fees, with a soul.

Colleagues, why are you so clinging to this name? Is it your own, or what? What other "foundation" will we pull up by the trunk tomorrow? I can already see in your eyes that it is becoming clear to you that the matter with the surname is dead, that all the petty justifications that are being forced out of the last of their strength are far-fetched, and that God forbid it will really come in handy in one case out of a million. The surname, alas, is not a criterion for anything, including for deciding on the "adequacy of the find". Only an extra ace of diamonds on your own back (see the message. No. 321) for the sake of extra-scientific show-offs...

Listen to A. Y. Elez Your posts are not only lengthy, but also very offensive. No one uses such expressions as you in any dispute on this forum!

That's it , the last name of the importer as an argument for determining the collected material correctly. Personally, I always pay special attention to this.

The last name of the collector doesn't always match the last name of the person who identified the material! Therefore, the identification label usually indicates the initials and surname of the person who identified it, the month and year when this copy was identified. This is very important information, which can be used to determine whether to trust the definitions or not.

you can still identify and write the name of the caller 100 years after the capture, but you will not be able to write the name of the collector.. And often you can just throw out ex.

Listen to A. Y. Elez Your posts are not only lengthy, but also very offensive. No one uses such expressions as you in any dispute on this forum!

Let's be more patient. And then there and my Russian language has become bad. Therefore, I must confine myself only to the expressions used by others. And I, see, also use my own. As recently as on the last page, however, we heard from other colleagues both "damn", and "shishi", and "afiget", and I was not offended, I did not teach people the language (it is generally bad on forums, colleagues do not like to polish their posts), but reacted to the essence. Why should I be offended? There is no profanity in this, and the richness of the language is not a bad thing. And critical expressions are used according to the criterion of objectivity and must correspond to the content, adequately express the idea. Scientific criticism does not know such a criterion as whether the critic is offended or not offended. Then it would be impossible to criticize anyone. We'll be the ones who curtsey at the tea party at home, and the methods of scientific discussions do not include any hospitality or gallantry. Do you know the name of a scientist who, when arguing, thinks not about the truth at the cost of any of his own and other people's emotions, but first of all about whether it will offend or not offend the opponent?

There is no profanity, which is punishable by law , and that's fine. In this case, any resentment is interpreted as the last valve of dissatisfaction with the lack of arguments on the merits of oneself. I have enough arguments in the essence of the matter, so it would never occur to me to take offense at someone's "pancake" or "afiget", didn't you notice? If I am wrong on the merits, I will not leave a single argument unread, believe me, and I will accept any criticism, if only without direct curses, without ambition, in a businesslike way. Just like when filling out the label, I will think about the benefits of science, and not about my precious "I". The last message confirms my idea that my opponents realized that they were wrong and that their own arguments were weak - even earlier and more unambiguously than I expected... I only regret that to put thanks three times - do not allow the rules of the forum... In conclusion, I apologize to my colleagues, first of all to the moderator, for the question that I did not launch into the topic of labels about the culture of scientific dispute, about the degree of permissibility of expressions that another person did not use before you, and in general about the language...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 12.02.2009 21: 06

Let's be more patient. And then there and my Russian language has become bad. Therefore, I must confine myself only to the expressions used by others. And I, see, also use my own. As recently as on the last page, however, we heard from other colleagues both "damn", and "shishi", and "afiget", and I was not offended, I did not teach people the language (it is generally bad on forums, colleagues do not like to polish their posts), but reacted to the essence. Why should I be offended? There is no profanity in this, and the richness of the language is not a bad thing. And critical expressions are used according to the criterion of objectivity and must correspond to the content, adequately express the idea. Scientific criticism does not know such a criterion as whether the critic is offended or not offended. Then it would be impossible to criticize anyone. We'll be the ones who curtsey at the tea party at home, and the methods of scientific discussions do not include any hospitality or gallantry. Do you know the name of a scientist who, when arguing, thinks not about the truth at the cost of any of his own and other people's emotions, but first of all about whether it will offend or not offend the opponent?

There is no profanity, which is punishable by law , and that's fine. In this case, any resentment is interpreted as the last valve of dissatisfaction with the lack of arguments on the merits of oneself. I have enough arguments in the essence of the matter, so it would never occur to me to take offense at someone's "pancake" or "afiget", didn't you notice? If I am wrong on the merits, I will not leave a single argument unread, believe me, and I will accept any criticism, if only without direct curses, without ambition, in a businesslike way. Just like when filling out the label, I will think about the benefits of science, and not about my precious "I". The last message confirms my idea that my opponents realized that they were wrong and that their own arguments were weak - even earlier and more unambiguously than I expected... I only regret that to put thanks three times - do not allow the rules of the forum...

You're not paying attention. I didn't discuss entomological labels with you.

you can still identify and write the name of the caller 100 years after the capture, but you will not be able to write the name of the collector.. And often you can just throw out the copy.

In general, so. But should I throw out copies because only the collector's last name is missing? Or did you have something else in mind? I didn't understand it then.

By the way, about the definition. Just the name of Masokhin-Porshnyakov about the copy of agestis in the PTZ area was in its place. But a few decades later, when he was no longer alive, this did not save his find from the doubts of entomologists: even they began to suspect that the classic thus mistakenly identified a more or less close aberration of allous. And the instance, as far as I understand, has not been preserved, in any case suitable for redefinition. So go redefine it in 100 years! But I do have a last name. Well, what's the use of it? And I can be sure of the old definition, no matter who made it then, a classic or a non-scientist, because I myself found this species in the same places - in such a variant that there can be no question of any allous. If I had not done this, no surname of Masokhin would have helped, and little by little his attribution would have been finally considered a mistake and given up on agestis (within the MO). And so on one site it has been hanging for a long time... Now, however, the task is to teach high science not to ignore our materials and sites...

You're not paying attention. I haven't discussed entomological labels with you.

I noticed that. Did I deny it? You really refrained from discussing it - except for one very witty message that a person without a sense of humor might have been offended by, and which I personally admired. When someone is well teased, I myself or myself, I am always happy. Is it a shame? And you don't expose yourself, A. Y., and then they can only offend themselves.

But what is offensive, T. Barko, is that such a final chord, which is usually perceived in discussions (whether we like it or not) as the signing of an unconditional surrender, a person who did not express a single erroneous thought on the issue (although he had a different opinion from mine)really took responsibility for the entire brigade and in general, he did not participate in battles... If I were my colleagues, I would literally overwhelm you with thanks.

Salut!

By the way, about the definition. Just the name of Masokhin-Porshnyakov about the copy of agestis in the PTZ area was in its place. But a few decades later, when he was no longer alive, this did not save his find from the doubts of entomologists: even they began to suspect that the classic thus mistakenly identified a more or less close aberration of allous. And the instance, as far as I understand, has not been preserved, in any case suitable for redefinition. So go redefine it in 100 years! But I do have a last name. Well, what's the use of it? And I can be sure of the old definition, no matter who made it then, a classic or a non-scientist, because I myself found this species in the same places - in such a variant that there can be no question of any allous. If I had not done this, no surname of Masokhin would have helped, and little by little his attribution would have been finally considered a mistake and given up on agestis (within the MO). And so on one site it has been hanging for a long time... Now, however, the task is to teach high science not to ignore our materials and sites...

Hooray, and here is agestis / allous! Let me invite you to the next topic: maybe you can also express your point of view on the problem (or, perhaps, its absence? )

Genus Aricia - borders of agestis and artaxerxes species --
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=314870

I apologize for the flame...

I noticed that. Did I deny it? You really refrained from discussing it - except for one very witty message that a person without a sense of humor might have been offended by, and which I personally admired. When someone is well teased, I myself or myself, I am always happy. Is it a shame? And you don't expose yourself, A. Y., and then they can only offend themselves.

But what is offensive, T. Barko, is that such a final chord, which is usually perceived in discussions (whether we like it or not) as the signing of an unconditional surrender, a person who did not express a single erroneous thought on the issue (although he had a different opinion from mine)really took responsibility for the entire brigade and in general, he did not participate in battles... If I were my colleagues, I would literally overwhelm you with thanks.

Salut!

A. Y. Elez, you are shooting at the kurapatki that did not exist. There was no discussion.

The last name of the collector doesn't always match the last name of the person who identified the material! Therefore, the identification label usually indicates the initials and surname of the person who identified it, the month and year when this copy was identified. This is very important information, which can be used to determine whether to trust the definitions or not.

Of course, no one argues, but if you don't write who defined it ,then by default it turns out that the importer defined it.
Whether it is correctly defined or not is another matter, but the main thing is determined by someone ,and this is already important information. The importer is different from the importer.
Just because of this, you should write your last name, not to mention the other criteria specified above.

I don't really like to argue about abstract things .

This post was edited by rpanin - 12.02.2009 20: 25

It's one thing when you don't know anything but the place and date, but it's another thing when you read"Plavilshchikov" or "Yakobson"at the bottom. Immediately, the relationship to the instance changes. Or here's " A.Zubov" I've been really enjoying writing on labels lately. Good such fees, with a soul.

Well, except that it is pleasant. So I said from the very beginning that as soon as my last name is at least one-tenth as significant to others as you mentioned, I will put it on labels. For then they will no longer be purely faunal specimens, but serious documents on the history of science. Or even in general history. Somewhere in the mid-70s (by the way, when I first communicated with E. M. Antonova) he himself admired looking at other labels in the Moscow State University Zoo Museum (then they were not turned over in the museum for fear of poaching). Imagine this: our ordinary seven-point ladybug was caught in 1905! Not on Presnya, however, but in Pyatigorsk, but the date, of course, is impressive. I don't remember the collector's last name (I was too young), but in any case, this is already a historical exhibit. The faunal community will not care about its presence or absence in the collection, and the exhibit is awesome.

Or, let's say, I accidentally got a couple of parnassians caught by a famous foreign entomologist, who has been dead for maybe half a century. I'm blowing dust off his last name.

Or I will remember how in my childhood I bought a book by Yu. Alperovich " The Republic of Oddballs "(essays on collectors and people with interests in general). There is an essay about O. Grachev, who is known to us (to you, for sure, since his collection got into the Moscow State University Zoo Museum), which mentions a butterfly from his collection caught by the exiled revolutionary Valdaev.

So I will repeat what I have already said: a book with Uncle Vasya's notes is one thing, and a book with Sholokhov's or Yesenin's notes is another. But the value of a book as a text source of information does not depend on the owner's last name. So it is here. It's one thing when you see the name "Probkin" or "Dyatlov", "and another thing when you read at the bottom: "Plavilshchikov" or "Yakobson". Immediately, the attitude to the instance changes." But this is a matter of authority, when we act more as historians, archivists, etc., and as grateful students; and as entomologists, alas, we are not immune (examples have already been given) from negligence and direct errors of great entomologists in labeling, so the faunal significance of the specimen today in the literature with the authority of the surname is real it almost doesn't connect. They may believe Uncle Vasya and doubt Masokhin... Open the new Red Book on the Ministry of Defense (which we have already discussed in another topic) and see that the book, as a source of reliable information, often indicating the names of non-professionals, nevertheless did not indicate the unfortunate agestis at all, doubting, therefore, Masokhin-Porshnyakov (!). you and "another thing", that's your epithet... And more powerful surnames in the history of entomology have been questioned, even those listed on labels.

And if we take the name of the collector on the label as a sign of gratitude to the person who fed mosquitoes, froze, mok, knocked his feet to bloody calluses so that this copy appeared in our collections?

If you use your purely rational approach, then it's okay , for example, if a person shows up for a funeral in a colorful shirt, shorts and sandals. What's the big deal? However, most people come to funerals in black..

The second is absolutely true. I have already said that giving a surname is not "purely rational" (and science knows no other), but a completely different approach-loyalty to formality, traditionalism or something like that. In this case, scientific methodology is reduced to the standards of behavior in everyday life, where they simply observe the form and external decency, regardless of their expediency. So I don't argue with that.

As for the sign of appreciation, I would also not object (with the caveat that we are not talking about scientific rationality again); but what about the fact that your name will be put on the label not by those who are grateful, but by yourself? People have performed even more important feats in their lives for the sake of people than to catch a beetle, and even then they least thought about how their name would survive and that humanity would then know who to include personally in the memorial book. Personally, for reasons of gratitude (appreciation), I could put someone else's last name on their material, but mark my own material with my own last name?.. Here, they say, guys, what's my name, so don't forget to thank me... This is not much different from the examples of tactlessness at funerals that you have given...

Further, a lot of interesting and rare material is extracted just by professional hunters who "feed mosquitoes" for the sake of earning money, and not having your collection in mind as an end in itself. Therefore, there is no reason to be moved and shed tears of gratitude about the labels of such material. In this case, the money you paid (or exchange material) balances the scores, and the memorial day becomes a completely unnecessary tribute to romanticism.

But, I repeat, this is already a translation of the question from the scientific plane to the everyday ethical one (and even then, as I said above, with a fair ethical touch of selfishness). In this plane, the issue is ultimately decided by the personal choice of everyone. I personally proceed from the Gorbachev formula (don't be mentioned by nightfall): "We are not consumed by vanity." Of course, if you really want to be thanked for being brave, indicate your last name (by the way, since there may be a lot of matches in surnames, even with initials, you will have to add at least some minimum passport data, since it is forbidden to make the label ambiguous). But first of all, it is necessary to decide by personal choice whether it is necessary to replace the scientific question with an ordinary ethical one at all...

about the fact that surnames are not certified with seals, he said only in the sense that the law cannot use this data in favor or against anyone.

But in another sense, would you say that they are being assured? The main thing is that the truth was told, and I already have the opportunity to " use this data in favor or against someone."..

Again, you yourself said that punctures always happen, and there is a negligent attitude. Therefore, you can not always treat this information with 100% confidence. But this is not a reason not to make labels at all, nor is it a reason not to put the name of the importer.

Of course, this is not the reason. Yes, how many more "reasons" are needed for complete happiness? In my opinion, a sufficient reason is that even those who defend the surname (like those Canadians) consider it only additional information. And an additional one is only necessary insofar as it can clarify something about the instance that science needs to know about the place, time, and conditions of collection.

The rest-about the possibility of clarifying whether you can trust a copy transmitted from somewhere - sounds serious, but it is unlikely that anyone has often had to perform this operation, especially with the help of the name on the label. I don't suppose you often hold such inquiries, either. And if possible, we learn crocs from friends or from literature in general, regardless of whether we have labels with someone's last names. The same person who gave you the same material he took from another, and without an inscription knows from whom he received it; and no one can really provide you with information about the conscientiousness of some tenth hands. A close chain works even without an inscribed last name, but a long one doesn't work at all.

But, I repeat, painfully rare options, painfully complicate, it would be for what. No colleague of yours with any references about the previous owner of the copy will make this person more trustworthy than the classics already mentioned a hundred times. If you have at least the third link will be a figure abruptly A.D. Nordman (whose name is named after the only endemic Caucasian species Parnassius), congratulations. I don't even have the closest friends of this level, and I don't expect them to. In particular, Nordman allegedly extracted P. phoebus from the Ajara-Imereti region in 1836.

Write all the really necessary information immediately on the label (this is possible if you do not waste its space on bullshit just for the sake of tradition), this is the most rational thing, then they will thank you later; and to skip this simple question through the last name and subsequent clarification, this is scratching your left ear with your right hand through the back of the neck. The label itself should already be designed in such a way that faunistically significant information can be read from it unambiguously, regardless of whether the collector himself has survived in nature at all, so that the specimen can live a full-fledged independent scientific life.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 12.02.2009 23: 41

I am a collector, and for me the name collector is important, I like it when it is a famous person, or just my friend. Well, it makes me feel good. In general, there are traditions according to which this information should be present on the label. And if someone has revolutionary changes in this regard, then it should be justified in such a way that the majority would accept it. And I still don't see this, which means it's just verbiage, well, for me, of course.

And this (in verbiage) is the whole point. The topic itself has nothing to do with it. In general, these lengthy reports are very interesting, but not in entomological terms.

Well, yes, like an opinion is formed.

And not only.

Mr. Elez

And if the last name under agestis would not stand at all? Then most likely it would have been thrown out even earlier! And where did you get the information about finding a species in that place - is it from the wrong label, after which you decided to go there to look? If so, then the person's last name has served you well, otherwise the data might not have reached you.. ?

Well, oil is poured into the fire, you can go to the new circle.

There are just people who are self-sufficient, they are generally not interested in who found what where.

I can even guess what such self-sufficiency is called. I fall silent.(as if not to run into accusations of switching to personalities, and this is such a fertile topic!)

Friends, let's not make a storm in a glass of water. For me, everything is very clear in this matter. There is a generally accepted (and, on a planetary scale) standard: the name of the collector MUST be on the label. As well as the person who identified the instance. What's there to argue about?! And this age - old tradition (by the way, absolutely logical and unambiguously justified-the arguments have already been given here, and I will not say too much) cannot be changed at the whim or whim of individuals. Labels without the name of the importer are semi - finished products. They are flawed.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 13.02.2009 14: 37

And the "revolutionaries" are already adding their names to labels.

Mr. Elez

And if the last name under agestis would not stand at all? Then most likely it would have been thrown out even earlier! And where did you get the information about finding a species in that place - is it from the wrong label, after which you decided to go there to look? If so, then the person's last name has served you well, otherwise the data might not have reached you.. ?

I didn't say anything against the name. But what does the label have to do with it? For all arguments "for" - not a single" for " without skipping! "I answered (whether you want to listen or not), the rest of the pros are just spells. For an argument, it is customary to put forward an argument, and not a repetition of the previous phrase, just a little louder. And not invented by us, not for us to change? Not a scientific approach. This applies in everyday life, but not in science. After all, the requirement of the exact place and time did not fall from the sky, but was once invented by people. Here t. Bad Den has already pointed out how in the old days they could label: "TUrkestan" and "Caucasien". If we still held on to such a "template", science would be good. The development of science in general, as far as I know, is not contraindicated: only, of course, in a rational direction, and not in the direction of "decency "(important in everyday life, but not in scientific methodology) and not in the direction of fashionable, but rationally unfounded, hobbies.

About agestis (if it's interesting). At no point in this story did any labels appear at all. And no one seems to be suggesting banning surnames. The information came either from the literature (it was published, I remember, in 1951), and there the indication of authorship is important only in legal terms and for the sake of identification (when we are interested not in agestis, but in the author - Masokhin-Porshnyakov). Not to indicate the authorship in the publication or online (or the person who found an important copy or at least provided it to the researcher) - of course, to some extent plagiarism or at least tactlessness. It's not for me to argue with this: I don't know what the lovers of their surnames are like, but I've personally been a victim myself. But the label will not insure against someone else's impudence either.

We often exchange information both on the forum and in other forms. I am with you, you are with me and with each other. Was it ever preceded by the fact that I saw your labels with your last names in my eyes, and you-mine? I don't recall that. I'll tell everyone I think I need to know right now, without them holding on to my personal label first. Dead, and I won't say anything by his last name. Cutlets, therefore, do quite well without flies, so let's get used to separating one from the other.

By the way, I did not purposefully look for agestis in the Moscow region (it would not have occurred to me), just as I did not look for, say, in the city of Moscow (!), either giant scolia (maculata), or even ausonia... It comes across itself.

If that old article about the mace-moustached PTZ fauna had been signed not by Masokhin-Porshnyakov, but by Tugan-Baranovsky, Miklukho-Maklay, Sukhovo-Kobylin, or Gus-Khrustalny, it would have concerned only the author's authority and law, but nothing for me or anyone else would have changed in content, that is, it would have changed the author's position. in faunal terms, nothing at all would say about that specimen. The subsequent development of events regarding agestis in the PTZ is proof of this. The discovery indicated by a major scientist has been ignored to date. In such cases, the desire for" appreciation " in relation to one's own beloved surname is precisely the very word that the previous speaker did not dare to utter.

But it's not the last thing to identify whether discussion posts belong to the same person, so first we'll learn how to register before leaving messages... And even with their last name here (where it just wouldn't hurt, since here we just communicate), in my opinion, very few people sign ( ) at all... That's why here, in an ordinary everyday situation, there is a dislike for one's own surnames and first names???

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02/16/2009 03: 57