Is it ethical to sell paratypes?

Yeah. I got it, I think.
The congress of forum participants should be held twice a year. Like the best houses in London and Paris. By the way, about houses-in Prague, the burza takes place just in a building called " Narodny dum "(roughly literally-people's house)
Then we'll all fall in love, I hope.

Regarding paratypes, I have never had a special craving for owning a specimen with a red label, BUT a collector who deals with a certain group of butterflies will not be hindered by such a specimen. Here, I am the lucky owner of the Zaranga tukuringra paratype, thanks to Roman Yakovlev. So what if I didn't catch this zaranga myself. You see, it will turn out even more. The craving for personal collection on Zee did not diminish from that. Rather, the opposite is true.
In addition, I have something else that is typical of tufts.

If you don't want to have a standard instance in the collection, you don't need one - yes, please! If the goal of collecting is aesthetic enjoyment of personally caught butterflies , then it is not necessary.
Do not forget also that standard instances are reasonably given more attention when working on revisions, etc.
So buying / selling paratypes doesn't hurt anyone. Whoever needs it will buy both a copy and a series. And who doesn't need it, it won't make it any worse.
And, in the end, let the scientists earn extra money!

The question of ethics/unethicality itself is not put very correctly. Maybe we should decide for ourselves this question about the ethics of such a sale in this way:
1. unethical because someone is jealous?
2. unethical because "I think so"?
If the former, then I'm sorry, the world does not stand still. If you want to live, be able to spin.
If the latter, then (Roman, correct if not so) these are like super-valuable ideas.
Perhaps I'm already tired of my diagnostic guesses, but this is how it looks.

And a novice entomologist, a boy who has just learned to distinguish cabbage from turnips with turnips - in general, does not know what kind of paratype! And nafiga
he gave up to him, when on the windowsill a swallowtail pupa from a dill bed will hide a butterfly!
So, to each - his own, guys.

A congress at least twice a year becomes necessary.

Ah, yes! selling "fake copies", if this is also mentioned , is not only unethical, but also abominable.

This post was edited by Morozzz-06.01.2010 01: 13

A congress twice a year is necessary, but let the 2nd chur congress be in Chisinau At the same time there will be more Ukraine. A large room is always found )) But where to sleep you need to think )
And anyway, why else did no one come to visit, I'm not happy

I recommend reading it:

Thank you, just what are such heavy photos - in the body of the message?

The envelope was sent to DjVu

File/s:



 Tennent_commercial_interest.djvu

size: 56.94 k
number of downloads: 151

how heavy are they? heavy ones are 160 meters each .

Here's more on the same topic:

Here's more on the same topic:

Great article!

This post was edited by amara - 07.01.2010 20: 32

Here's more on the same topic:

Strange article, not strictly scientific. Rather journalistic. In the first part, everything is clear. The specialist in his group analyzes, gives arguments, and draws his own conclusion. Then he gives you tips and suggestions. Everything is clear here.

The last paragraph of the article is just a tangle of emotions and contradictory statements. The fact that paratypes are offered for sale leads the author to believe that the taxon was described as exclusively marketable. Strong output. All subsequent maxims are not related to the stated topic of the article. The author discusses what is good and what is bad. Reasoning is just right for the forum. It's funny how in one paragraph they peacefully coexist-a call to tighten control over the sale of" illegally collected butterflies " and an admission that absurdly excessive prohibitive measures push scientists to places where bans do not interfere with work. Rough.

It's funny how in one paragraph they peacefully coexist-a call to tighten control over the sale of" illegally collected butterflies " and an admission that absurdly excessive prohibitive measures push scientists to places where bans do not interfere with work. Rough.

What's so funny? I absolutely agree with the author that we should fight not with the collection, but with the sale...

2 barko

and I just liked the last paragraph the most.

+1000 000

Paratypes are not so simple. The author of a species can identify as many paratypes as he wants, if he writes in the description "more than 100 specimens (paratypes) were examined". And this is the author's right to choose where to deposit paratypes (if he collected them!). For a researcher, selling paratypes is a disgrace. And if it is an amateur-this is strictly his business. The main thing is the holotype, only it is a nomenclature type.

...For a researcher, selling paratypes is a disgrace...

Golden words!!!

2 barko

and I just liked the last paragraph the most. it is correct. try traveling to Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan without a permit and in full view of a couple of local residents. then you can unsubscribe about your communication experience

It's good that you can't fish there without permission. This means that everything collected with permissions can be put in collections and sold. The author writes about the ban on selling only illegal collected insects.

What's so funny? I absolutely agree with the author that we should fight not with the collection, but with the sale...

Why struggle with collecting and selling? They are part of the entomological process. Collectors collect, sellers sell to collectors and scientists. Division of labor.

Paratypes are not so simple. The author of a species can identify as many paratypes as he wants, if he writes in the description "more than 100 specimens (paratypes) were examined". And this is the author's right to choose where to deposit paratypes (if he collected them!). For a researcher, selling paratypes is a disgrace. And if it is an amateur-this is strictly his business. The main thing is the holotype, only it is a nomenclature type.

Golden words!!!

I have a question. Is it acceptable for a researcher to donate paratypes to other entomologists, for example?

This is acceptable, but you should keep in mind that it is customary to specify where paratypes are stored in the publication. In other words, it is better to transmit them before the publication, and then indicate where they were transmitted. In general, in the current Russian reality, the most optimal way is when paratypes are sent to different institutions.

This is acceptable, but you should keep in mind that it is customary to specify where paratypes are stored in the publication. In other words, it is better to transmit them before the publication, and then indicate where they were transmitted. In general, in the current Russian reality, the most optimal way is when paratypes are sent to different institutions.

At the time of publication, the place/locations of paratypes are indicated-this is understandable. And after the publication. Can't paratypes be donated or exchanged? This was my question.

Can. The only thing that can prevent this is the inclusion of paratypes in the catalog of the collection of a particular institution or strict rules for storing typical material of the research institute (museum) in which the researcher works. Then everything should be done officially, through the management. The best way out is to write in the publication that some of the paratypes are stored in the author's collection.

I didn't ask about the museum material. So everything is clear.

So you don't see any obstacles to transferring paratypes from the private collection of the author who described the view to another collection, i.e. you don't mind changing the owner? Why then condemn the sale? Given a butterfly, exchanged or sold what's the difference?

Hm. But I can see it.
In addition to the holotype, it is correct to designate several paratypes sent to museums and colleagues working with this group , but the storage locations of all type material should be indicated in the original description and remain unchanged from now on, as far as possible.

But the latest fashion for labeling 500 paratypes and then selling them is a vicious practice that needs to be eradicated in earnest - and the sooner the better. Because a doubtful researcher is more likely to describe a linden taxon, if it will increase its welfare, than wait.

Fundamental science can only be financially unprofitable.

hands and feet for, kotbegemot. commercialized pseudoscientists have already got it easy. they are still trying to say something about the "authority of Russian entomology". we have authority only in moths and cockroaches remained, because no one buys them: D

Damn, the most ironic thing is that even the paratypes of a taxon that is evidently synonymized do not lose their status. For science, they have the same value as all others!

Hm. But I can see it.
In addition to the holotype, it is correct to designate several paratypes sent to museums and colleagues working with this group , but the storage locations of all type material should be indicated in the original description and remain unchanged from now on, as far as possible.

But the latest fashion for labeling 500 paratypes and then selling them is a vicious practice that needs to be eradicated in earnest - and the sooner the better. Because a doubtful researcher is more likely to describe a linden taxon, if it will increase its welfare, than wait.

Fundamental science can only be financially unprofitable.

At the expense of eradication, the question on Bulgakov "Do you know the method?"

To begin with, you need to start prescribing such things in the publication rules.

serjeznye izdaniya bez ukazanija mest hraneniya paratipov statji ne berut. ih publikujut toka izdanija samih kommersantov :D

sorry, zabil podpisatsa )

I didn't ask about the museum material. So everything is clear.

So you don't see any obstacles to transferring paratypes from the private collection of the author who described the view to another collection, i.e. you don't mind changing the owner? Why then condemn the sale? Given a butterfly, exchanged or sold what's the difference?

Do you see the difference between what they give you and what they sell you? Imagine if friends did not give gifts for the New Year, but sold them? I repeat: I do not condemn amateurs, but for a researcher such an act is "off the scale" for ethical standards. The state pays him a salary for his scientific work. For example: he goes on a paid research trip to Vietnam, collects butterflies there, and then starts selling them - this already smells like a violation of the Labor Code. Working on the state square, using state optics, visiting the collections of world museums AS a RESEARCHER-all this imposes certain rules of behavior.
If you cross the line, then the sale of holotypes will follow, etc. But if this is a research institute-based commerce, then please legalize it

I don't know about entomology, but in paleontology, selling typical material has become a huge problem, reaching the level of crime:
http://www.baloo.narod.ru/mineral2.htm

Yes, the sad fate of the Avtokrator holotype is known... It was scandalously returned back to Russia, almost from an auction... By the way, can someone tell this story?

Wagons unload (c)

Wagons are being unloaded (s)

this is in the past (besides, you won't make much money from it).

Evgenich - You were ahead of me with the answer. I agree.

A little strange logic. Following this unspoken rule, an employee of this institution should not be engaged in collecting their own collections at all. Because, collecting for himself not on the subject of his direct work, he still does not finish the material, even if it is other groups. What a difference!!!

The logic is that the collections of large institutes (ZIN, MSU, Novosibirsk), BPI (Vladivostok) contain material on ALL groups of insects (and not only) and have curators for all groups as well . Therefore, an employee simply cannot sell or leave material (even non-standard material) outside the walls of their home institution. Well, they do not collect for themselves, why is it so difficult to understand!

I will not quote, there are already a lot of thoughts repeated for several rounds.
I'll tell you what I think. Specify the locations of types in registered collections when describing them. (as a rule, all private collections in our BSSR do not have registration) and the author of the description. And what to do with instances of the standard series that were submitted for description by private individuals?. Should I give them away or leave them in museums?
After all, there is no practice to buy standard material from museums. Or is there?
As far as I know, in addition to buying and selling, there is a movement of standard copies between museums, researchers and institutes. True with a mandatory refund. And what is not lost? The author of a typical series can give gifts, but cannot sell them. And what is the fundamental difference? The material has moved from point A to point B. One needs money, the other needs fame, respect, and authority. And isn't it enough to give something and hope for a return gift? It's not a trade? The most important thing is to be honest with yourself and people. There is a commandment, thou shalt not steal. Who sells stolen goods-this applies to the Criminal and administrative Code. It is their right to mine and sell for themselves. The Middle Ages, of course, but that's life.
You don't need to answer any questions.
Yes, I remembered something about how workers in the USSR reprimanded A. B., Pugachova: "We feed her, give her water, send her abroad, but she is a hooligan, sends the hotel administrator in obscenities, we need to put her to the machine, let her work, not sing."

Wow, it's worth going away for five days and there's so much to do here. I'm itching to scan an article about disabled taxa by one of our colleagues, also published in the Note, which seems to be Nekrutenko. But - we will not do this. If we consider strictly the article on synonymy in pestryanki, then I dare say that if we really consider taxonomy as a tool for understanding phylogeny, then on Munku-Sardyk and xp. By default, identical taxa of the same subspecies rank cannot fly Taicharyn-Ula. Especially in pestryanki.
Tremewan is undoubtedly a well-deserved authority on the zygenes, but as an expert on Mongolia, I would like to express my opinion that all butterflies from the Sayan River have similar taxa in the highlands of the southern Mongolian Altai - most of them in the form of well-defined morphological taxa - three aeneis, 3 erebia, 3 sailfish, and many pigeons. Why shouldn't this one be in Siegen?..
A wonderful excursion about 20 Euro paratypes in general shocked me. I wonder what kind of material good zigenologists would work on if it weren't for fishing in forbidden places - apparently all their conclusions about the siegen fauna would be based on data obtained in the vicinity of Bonn and London. The old man flared up a little - and everyone is already ready to clap their hands - Aidas and Churkin were wrong. And even if you made a mistake , what of it?
I have combined my own taxa into synonyms more than once, some of them were described at the dawn of my youth with our active colleague. To be honest , I was just bullied because of these described subspecies! And they did the right thing. I also brought together a couple of cossids-when there was no data on types - then they appeared.
Dubatolov, Churkin, and Ustyuzhanin were all taxonomists who combined their own taxa when they understood them.
The sale of paratypes by researchers is not a very good thing - I agree, especially now, when young people receive 30-45 thousand rubles each from the research institute with PRND. This is normal money for the Russian Federation. Almost no one who works in large museums puts private collections. why? It's just silly even. And dishonorable. In universities , this is a normal practice, since most of them do not have a developed museum business.
And the letters of Europeans about the restriction of fishing, this is unfortunately with the deepest respect for Tremevan, I interpret as stupidity and some kind of unscrupulousness of the European elderly liberal, who, working in the fully purchased Witt collection, in the semi-purchased Naumann collection, shakes (shakes) their owners ' hand-said-oh my God, what a nice collection, how many here, the former Soviet Union, and look at Mongolia, is. And who caught in Burma, and who in Mauritania - again crazy Russians (Czechs, Hungarians, Germans) - ah well done. Ah, the robbers. And what a fine fellow you are, Thomas (Clas), to buy all this from them, so that I, the law-abiding Angilian Lord Tremevan, can look at it and study it. It's so cool to have so much fresh material again...

Well, really Tremevan-good old Tremevan didn't know that butterflies are sold, if in 2006, when we met him, he sang these songs to Witt. Or maybe I just forgot. Age is such a thing. Or conscience.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 11.01.2010 18: 49

Yes, he does not write about the restriction of fishing - rather the opposite!

I will be answering everyone tonight - I have more than 60 emails. Sorry.
I'll have the information for you by tomorrow morning.
Who laughed and mocked-ALL! Name any name of a more or less well-known specialist at that time. I was told that I had buried myself for entomology, that I would never be taken seriously, that someone was swearing to my face... It was very pleasant.
"As it is written on a French monument - We will forgive, but we will not forget..." D. Granin

Yes, he does not write about the restriction of fishing - rather the opposite!

So I didn't complete the text of the article... Sorry

A curious article, which, from my point of view, requires explanations from the "accused", but, apparently, in a separate topic.
However, it is strange to see this work in the topic of selling paratypes, since it clearly does not deal with taxa established for this purpose. Therefore, I am at a loss to guess what the logical chain of G. Yakovlev that led from paratypes to the discussion of the validity of specific taxa is.

The logical chain is as follows.
1. the claim that many people who trade in paratypes describe left-handed taxa. And in confirmation-articles from competitive entomologists and dealers-Saldaitis, Tarrier and Churkin.
2. In contrast, the opinion is expressed that those who do not trade in paratypes do science at an unimaginably higher quality level.
A very simple logical chain.
In general, paratype trading is such a separate topic from science... You can describe individual apollos or phabuses from each new clearing and then trade these series, but no one will buy them except for a couple of maniacs.
You know when I scientifically gave up on daytime butterflies (well, except for publishing illustrated faunistics in the form of a series of Chikolovets, where I really described a new pigeon without co-authors) and publish small articles... and I sent my main activity to a "non-profit" group, I realized how great it is.
I only get HUNDREDS of materials as a gift, hundreds of them for processing, and I buy hundreds of butterflies for pennies. No squabbles. Healthy discussions of the system, comments from colleagues... This is such a cool topic - entomology, not bickering in daytime butterflies.
And about paratypes - I caught a large series of eversmannies on Ukok. And what-the Japanese described. Mr. Sorimashi. I then reduced it to a synonym.
He described 3 Parnassians - two Phoebes and one Clarius. 2 taxa-P. phoebus bajangolus et P. ariadne erlik-are unconditionally accepted as good subspecies by the majority of specialists in this group - Rose, Turlin, Manil, Gursching, etc. the third is a weak subspecies hanging between the nominative and poorly studied halasicus Huang et Murayama. Very little material from Xinjiang is bad. You can't compare them.
And there are still holes in Parnassus-well, davydovi, enigma, anjuta... Tibet still pleases. I think that I myself distinguished myself here by collecting a magnificent black clarius.
I slipped off again and decided to talk about Parnassus.
In general, in my opinion, the value of any faunal article is higher than articles describing a new subspecies.

I posted it just so that there was no understatement. I don't love her. Nakosachil - there was a case. But the one who does nothing is not mistaken.

Boldly. It does you credit.