Announcements of new literature

Community and Forum → Entomological collections → Announcements of new literature

17.12.2008 22:50, Aleksandr Safronov

I ordered and received from the author the book "Retezar Imre, 2008 The Carabus of Abkhazia, Caucasus (Coleoptera, Carabidae)". Excellent author's work on the genus Carabus for the territory of Abkhazia. Checklist for all types (subspecies) broken down into complexes, synonymy. Area mapping. 76 color tables with excellent photos of taxa and the genital structure of males. List of literature. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in this group of beetles.
I would like to express my gratitude to barko for providing information on this publication on the forum! Of course, a low bow to the author of the publication.
It's a shame that there is nothing like this in our native country and, it seems, is not expected.

Pictures:
picture: Imre_Carabus_of_Abkhazia.jpg

Imre_Carabus_of_Abkhazia.jpg — (52.4к)

Likes: 8

Likes: 1

Likes: 11

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

09.01.2009 19:52, Nikolaj Pichugin

I ordered and received from the author the book "Retezar Imre, 2008 The Carabus of Abkhazia, Caucasus (Coleoptera, Carabidae)". Excellent author's work on the genus Carabus for the territory of Abkhazia. Checklist for all types (subspecies) broken down into complexes, synonymy. Area mapping. 76 color tables with excellent photos of taxa and the genital structure of males. List of literature. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in this group of beetles.
I would like to express my gratitude to barko for providing information on this publication on the forum! Of course, a low bow to the author of the publication.
It's a shame that there is nothing like this in our native country and, it seems, is not expected.

Today I received a book from Hungary. I completely agree with Alexander's opinion, the book is awesome!!! Also, I would like to thank the author and barko for drawing our attention to this publication. It is a pity that there are no such books in Russia.

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

17.01.2009 2:29, guest: omar

So, gentlemen, it's done. Indeed, the Red Book of the Moscow Region was published. Just a few hours ago, I was holding a copy in my hands. The monstrous thickness of a brick weighing 3 kilograms (and maybe more) is made at a crazy premium level. Moreover, this applies to everything. The binding is made of excellent quality calico in the color of arterial blood with high-quality gold embossing. Thick coated paper of impeccable quality. Polygraphy - you won't believe it - I've seen it in a few foreign publications. The design of the pages is in the spirit of Pavel Gorbunov's book about butterflies of the Urals - the one with a claim to chic. And in this edition, the claims to chic are much greater.

All photos and drawings are big and beautiful. Each species is accompanied by an image of a collector's item, a photo of the species in nature, a map with marked points of finds, and a photo of the biotope. All photos are large and very beautiful. Views, unlike the Red Data Book of the Ryazan region, for example, correspond to images. The part that is based on beetles is made without any blunders at all, except for the Russian name of one ofon. the part on butterflies, even to my inexperienced eye, is very incomplete in terms of well-known points of finds of some species. Ailez, who also had the opportunity to look through one of the first copies to see freedom, lamented this very much. Volodya Vasilenko was also present. the circulation of the book is currently under arrest due to the crisis and non-payment of circulation.

Whether the publication will be sold is still unclear. However, the estimated cost of a copy may exceed 2000 rubles. But! This money is paid for a beautiful souvenir and a premium gift. Such a Red Book is a pleasure to show even to the British (oh, I'm sorry if I offended anyone)

All the rest can be told by Ailez and Vasilenko. If desired, of course

Likes: 5

Likes: 6

17.01.2009 9:36, Sergey Didenko

So, gentlemen, it's done. Indeed, the Red Book of the Moscow Region was published. Just a few hours ago, I was holding a copy in my hands. The monstrous thickness of a brick weighing 3 kilograms (and maybe more) is made at a crazy premium level. the circulation of the book is currently under arrest due to the crisis and non-payment of circulation. Whether the publication will be sold is still unclear. However, the estimated cost of a copy may exceed 2000 rubles. But! This money is paid for a beautiful souvenir and a premium gift. Such a Red Book is a pleasure to show even to the British (oh, I'm sorry if I offended anyone) All the rest can be told by Ailez and Vasilenko. If desired, of course

And what publishing house? I would buy for myself

18.01.2009 11:09, gumenuk

Now we have received the first batch of 300 copies-they are distributed among authors (as payment). The entire first print run - 7000 copies-will probably go to libraries. There is a question about the second edition, which may go on sale. The quality is very good.
As far as I know, work has already begun on the next edition, so there is an opportunity to participate in both updating the illustrative part and information about the places where insects are found (as well as mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, invertebrates, plants and fungi).
The book's weight is 4 kg. A4 size (21x30). Publishing house: Partnership of Scientific Publications KMC, published in St. Petersburg by JSC "Print Yard". Coated paper, offset printing. I think that in terms of its volume (827 pages), print quality, and informative content, it is worth 3000 rubles.
Initiators can be contacted via the Internet (Red Data Book of the Moscow Region).
If there are difficulties with further replication, then maybe you should organize a subscription?

19.01.2009 15:09, А.Й.Элез

But it seems to have been published in Tula.

But it seems that it was published in Leningrad at the Gorky Printing Yard (15 Chkalovsky Ave.). Format 60x90 / 8. Boom.chalk. Offset printing. 104 pp. Edition of 7000 copies.

The underestimation of points is colossal. No importance is attached to the priorities of population discovery (obviously, we will have to consider the person whose "message" or "material" the author of a particular article knows about it as the "author" of a particular point). To the extent that the authors were "enough", the work is excellent, both in informational terms and in editorial terms. The editors were extremely careful to "track" the uniformity of article construction. The specific information, despite serious gaps, is very extensive and will be extremely useful to any of the readers. Indications of places of finds are quite sufficient for a competent entomologist, but they will not be able to become manuals for a fool with a purely collecting interest (this, I believe, is the best balance of information content in indicating points). The illustrative material is of high quality. The printing process is also excellent. But there is no less scientific work left for the future. Not so much because the fauna reports something new about itself every year, but because even at the time of preparing the publication, it was possible to take into account much more. But, I repeat, to date, of all the Red Books published on the territory of the USSR, this one is in all respects the best. In the development of the Red Books, its release can be considered a breakthrough: in any case, with regard to insects, I can't competently judge other sections. The editors of the invertebrate section, A.V. Sviridov, N. B. Nikitsky, and L. B. Volkova, deserve our deepest gratitude. It is a pity, of course, that it is not the fault of the KMK publishing house that there were problems with collecting circulation, and I sincerely wish K. Mikhailov a successful solution to these problems.

It is gratifying that many articles in the book do not directly provide for the baiting of entomologists, but other articles still include "protection from (unregulated) collection" (the same ban on trapping as always) as necessary protection measures. Interestingly, the presence or absence of such a mossy recommendation is present almost exclusively depending not on the degree of vulnerability of the species, but on who wrote the article about it. Of course, if, without first collecting information from lepidopterists (at least via the Internet), you know only one-tenth of what you should know about the distribution of, say, lepidoptera in the Moscow region, then you can recommend putting them in jail for catching cabbage.

Therefore, a serious author who knows how to distinguish plankton that reproduce on a scale that allows them to provide food for the rest of the animal world and sometimes even resist spraying from an airplane from commercial animals like brown bear or elk, even mottled carniolica in the Moscow region did not think to protect "protection from collection". And Antonov apples (falling not far away) will require "protection from harvesting" even for Euphydryas aurinia, for both Carcharodus species, for Erynnis tages, Parnassius mnemosyne, Erebia aethiops, Coenonympha tullia, Pararge aegeria, Brenthisdaphne, Argynnis laodice, Clossiana titania, Boloria aquilonaris, Clossiana eunomia, Melitaea phoebe, Melitaea diamina etc. I repeat, this is partly due to the lack of knowledge about the actual state of populations (even populations that are stable to this day are indicated for a particular year, when they were reliably noted by a particular source of information). But this very lack of knowledge - especially in the days of the Internet - is no excuse. In this regard, one of the most comical is the article about the species Nymphalis xanthomelas, which at the turn of the millennium, even the most professional lepidopterist, it would seem, convinced that the" waves of life "rely much more reliably than the "Red Books". Not since the beginning of the 2000s (as stated in the article), but since 1994, there has been an increase in the number
of this species in the region, and in many places at once; in the mid-2000s, on one puddle in the vicinity of platf. We observed more than 150 males simultaneously, and in the city of Moscow, at one point in the field of view, more than ten individuals could be noted, even at the beginning of Kutuzovsky Prospekt near the hotel "Ukraine" (!), and one at a time, but often, even in the very center of the city; but almost rare in those days the same years (compared to the usual several years earlier) were just Nymphalis polychloros and N. antiopa.

Of course, the authors of the Red Books will never suggest among the main measures " to wait until the wave of life brings the species to the peak of population." But it is also not worth whipping up a green panic, scaring us with a "green" snake of prohibitions. After all, the Red Book is written not only for their own authors. And, if N. xanthomelas really declined in the last two years, it is not because there were more fishers, but because almost all the lepidopterofauna of the Moscow region suffered from terrible weather conditions during these years. For example, if it were not for false awakenings in the winter of 2007-2008, which did not allow the majority of wintering Nymphalis vau-album to survive to a normal spring, this species in the summer of 2008 would also have flocked to the puddles in hundreds, because after the winter of 2006-2007, the flight was such that five individuals were fed on one birch tree in the spring), which in previous years was simply impossible to see in our places. An entomologist I know who specializes in breeding butterflies at home found a whole colony of young caterpillars and bred almost a hundred vau-album individuals at home in the summer of 2007. Two years earlier, I managed to remove 70 xanthomelas from a colony of caterpillars (not fully collected) from the Ramenskoye district (from an oligotrophic swamp). A year later - the same amount from the colony, which was already collected in Moscow. By the way, most of them, because of some microscopic defect, were released immediately into nature; since nature itself can never provide such a percentage of survival, we should only be awarded some green reward for such an "unregulated collection" of caterpillars. But, alas, from the text of the articles devoted to lepidoptera, it is impossible to understand even why the authors judge the number only by the individuals of the imaginal stage that have caught someone's eye or in a net. For example, in the Oka floodplain near Serpukhov in other years, I could collect a hundred or two moth moth caterpillars in a day if I wanted, but imagos are found on flowers or come to light in much smaller numbers.

By the way, about the "waves of life". Mottled ephialt in 1995 in the Serpukhov district was locally not just common, but numerous. By the way, in 1995, the peak number was in many species. For example, Boloria aquilonaris in the Taldomsky district was a supermassive species in 1995, rather than a large one, over a multi-kilometer area. But not because the year before entomologists refrained more than in other years from the "unregulated collection" of these species. Should we not simply indicate "return to 1995"as one sufficient measure for the protection of these and many other species?

On the other hand, species that can be considered exotic in one sense or another for the Moscow region today (such as Parnassius apollo or Iphiclides podalirius), the Red Book considers, apparently, so banal (despite the fact that it itself indicates their complete absence or extreme rarity!) that it offers protection from collection! So close to the protection of Harlequin in Greenland... If someone today can seriously think that the absence or rarity of such species within the Moscow region by at least one millionth of a percent is due to their "collection", then with such views one can only compromise the idea of nature protection. We can break all the nets over our knees and suck out all our ethyl acetate, but that doesn't make the sky buzz from apollo in the Moscow region. Fauna will not benefit, but faunistics will suffer.

The influence of the factor of intra-shop competition on calls to prohibit another person from collecting what you are allowed to collect, in this case, I believe, is minimal, because the Moscow region is generally not a region for commercial fees, in particular lepidopterological ones. All the shortcomings of the book are due to purely scientific factors: insufficient knowledge of information (resulting from the neglect of communication with colleagues, including non-professionals, who, due to their own number, collectively know much more about the number of lepidoptera and their distribution sites than a few professional entomologists) and an uninhabited Antonovism. Why is the main group of volunteer assistants to entomological science so ungratefully treated by its individual representatives? And to protect against the fool, it is quite enough that even under socialism, children's butterfly nets were discontinued (at 23 kopecks apiece).

It is high time to think about protecting entomologists from "protection from trapping". The movement in this direction has begun; I would like the editorial work on the next edition to include a complete deletion of all emotional "recommendations" that are devoid of scientific and practical meaning and harmful to the development of faunistics, with the necessary exception of articles on those very few species whose protection up to the level of individuals is still required of us. more inert poison-green international legislation.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 19.01.2009 15: 48

Likes: 10

Likes: 6

20.01.2009 2:09, А.Й.Элез

I would be more careful with terms like "Antonovschina".
1. You may be misunderstood by supporters of the very famous opponent of Bolshevism in Russia.
2. I knew Elena Mikhailovna personally, and she wasn't as pointlessly opposed to collecting insects as you imagine her to be. In any case, she didn't say such things in the entomology class.
3. As you know, E. M. Antonova died. Therefore, you should not mention it through a phrase in such disparagingly negative terms.

Don't be offended. I didn't even mention it through the phrase. Everything is dosed very much to a minimum, reread the text. No one is trying in any way to offend the memory of E. M., whom I also knew personally and with whom we communicated, although rarely, but very amicably. But not everyone knew her equally and in the same way. Most venerable entomologists, who knew her better than you and I do, would rather agree with me - if not in the assessment (it depends on the position), then in the idea of her true attitude to private non-professional collecting (and I didn't talk about anything else; I know that to kruzhkovtsy, as well as to she always treated the amateurs who worked with her very warmly). However, unfortunately, venerable entomologists just do not visit the forums. I believe that a more retrospective view of E. M.'s "environmental protection" activities, rather than personal acquaintances, can help us correctly assess her position. An obituary was published on the occasion of her death, and the author knew her as well as any other circle member; read this obituary carefully. I'm not making anything up on my own, but the phrase "deserves protection as a species that adorns nature" has no scientific meaning (today, it seems, all literate people agree with this), and I already know this phrase from the sets of postcards "Butterflies" published by E. M., the first issues of which were published when they were published in the United States. it was just me and you two. The disappearance of this phrase (and this is only a small detail from the environmental biography of E. M.) from the literature is not blasphemy, but progress in the movement of scientific thought (but why put forward such postulates at all??) By the way, this progress was observed during the lifetime of E. M., and your acquaintance with her, I believe, took place just at the time when her attitude towards our brother was at least slightly softened; after all, life teaches something. And I remember E. M. about a year ago in 1974; you should have talked to her then and shown her the entomological material you collected privately before joining the circle... I'd like to hear what she has to say. And I know people who have. I know both her specific achievements in lepidopterology and her specific achievements in the fight against non-professional entomology. These achievements for amateurs, as well as for science, will be recalled for a long time (from regional lists of fines for each tortured bug to more serious consequences) and in general will never be played back. In this aspect, her figure is second to none in the USSR. She was the soul of the Red Book business in entomology, though of course she wasn't the only one doing it. You should have listened to the expressions of Central Asian or Ukrainian entomologists about the discovery of Papilio machaon in the Red Book (by the way, subspecies for insects were not highlighted in it). We would review the late-Soviet collections of the Central Research Institute of Glavokhota RSFSR in their entomological part - and see how much effort was spent by entomologists (professional, by the way) in preparing annotated lists for the new Red Book precisely because it was necessary not so much to deal with new material as to sort out the"green" ones already broken with the active assistance of E. M. firewood... What entomologists then criticized the first Red Book (more precisely, the second, but the first with insects), can generally be retrospectively made the motto of E. M.'s work on the" protection " of butterflies: "Talk about a decline in the population in the absence of data on it." I don't want to unnecessarily occupy your attention, but there is a lot to remember about this issue and a lot to document before clear eyes. Therefore, I used the term you mentioned more than reasonably. In the late 1970s (or even as early as the 1980s) she screamed like a poacher at one of my friends, who just brought her an atypical Limenitis camilla specimen (from the Moscow region), nothing more. What do you think, did he later have a desire to show her new material or just tell her about new finds? That's right - it didn't appear. God only knows if he'll call the witnesses next time. Has science benefited from this? That's right - I lost. She lost, because my friend could have given her such information that would have clarified her faunal lists in very specific positions. After all, a single EM could not be simultaneously located at all points and track them, so how could it be possible to cut down branches of empirical material under one's feet? But in the mid-1990s, E. M. she didn't even raise her voice, and only with a little sadness, but quite benevolently, truly like a colleague, she advised me when I told her about my hunt for Parnassius apollo (!) in the Serpukhov district, asked about the details of the population's behavior, and even about my (amateur!)behavior. In addition, she helped to contact the person who was in charge of the very attempt to reintroduce the species to the PTZ in the early 1990s. Moreover, E. M. was not even shocked at that time by my very definite disagreement with her bug-proofing position (previously, she listened to my arguments with much more open rejection and it was almost impossible to speak in favor of "dummies" with her). Therefore, I do not believe that E. M. did not change until the end of her life, and I am by no means prejudiced against her. But please note that it was not amateurs who changed under her initially rabid position, but she at least slightly softened in relation to amateurs, gradually learning to distinguish the amateur with a net from the culprits of genuine faunal disasters in the form of economic or other anthropogenic disturbance of biotopes and beginning to understand that the first ones are still their own, and the enemies are only the second ones. So your impression of her as a person in the aspect in which you knew her, and applied to the corresponding - very late - period, is certainly correct. It's just that in my last post, I didn't cover the issues that I didn't raise, and I didn't write special characteristics of a particular person. It is necessary, so to speak, to complement our impressions, from this we will only get closer to the truth. Anyone who wishes can post volumes of good personal memoirs about E. M. on the forum, and I won't say a word against it. We're not animals either. But we will leave" nihil nisi bene " out of the scope of scientific discussions...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01/20/2009 02: 47

Likes: 9

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8... 29