Forum users' publications

A JOKE OF HUMOR...


This post was edited by Penzyak - 07.06.2016 18: 16

Pictures:

______.jpg — (300.01к)

Korb S. K. 2016. Two new taxa of the genus Cauchas Zeller, 1839 from Kyrgyzstan (Lepidoptera: Adelidae) / / Eversmannia. 45-46: 3 - 7

Korb S. K., Matov A. Yu. 2016. Vertical distribution of lepidoptera of the noctuoid complex in the central part of the Kyrgyz range (Northern Tien Shan) (Lepidoptera: Noctuoidea) / / Eversmannia. 45-46: 68 - 72

Korb S. K., Bolshakov L. V. 2016. Molecular study of Euphydryas alexandrina (Staudinger, 1887) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) / / Eversmannia. 45-46: 12 - 13

Korb S.K. 2016. Lepidoptera of Central Asia: collecting experience //Newsletter of the Societas Europaea Lepidopterologica, 57: 17 - 25

My collection "Several Results of Lepidoptera Study I" has been published so far only on paper,
and in electronic form there is only one article (description of Pima sp.), which I upload.

Pima transfusor Tsvetkov, 2016: https://yadi.sk/i/dqmGQfINtk8M2

Contents of the collection:

E.V. Tsvetkov Diagnosis of Euphydryas sareptana (Staudinger, 1871) bona sp. ……………………………………………………………....1–5
− Description of Pima transfusor sp. n. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae) from the South Urals…………………………………………...6–9
− Description of female of Asalebria imitatella (Ragonot, 1893) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae)…………………………………….10−12
− Towards the revision of the Geometrid moth fauna of Voronezh Province, S Russia…………………………………………….13–23

My collection "Several Results of Lepidoptera Study I" has been published so far only on paper,
and in electronic form there is only one article (description of Pima sp.), which I upload.

Pima transfusor Tsvetkov, 2016: https://yadi.sk/i/dqmGQfINtk8M2

Contents of the collection:

E.V. Tsvetkov Diagnosis of Euphydryas sareptana (Staudinger, 1871) bona sp. ……………………………………………………………....1–5
− Description of Pima transfusor sp. n. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae) from the South Urals…………………………………………...6–9
− Description of female of Asalebria imitatella (Ragonot, 1893) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae)…………………………………….10−12
− Towards the revision of the Geometrid moth fauna of Voronezh Province, S Russia…………………………………………….13–23

Since this can hardly be called a peer-reviewed publication, taxonomic acts published there are most likely not valid from the point of view of the Code and the names are invalid.

Since this can hardly be called a peer-reviewed publication, taxonomic acts published there are most likely not valid from the point of view of the Code and the names are invalid.

Fortunately, peer review is not a publication criterion!
For an example of publishing an unsuitable title in a peer-reviewed publication, see
ZooKeys 525: 117-127.

Since this can hardly be called a peer-reviewed publication, taxonomic acts published there are most likely not valid from the point of view of the Code and the names are invalid.

According to the code, the collection should not be conference materials and should be "accessible" to the public, for which it is placed in at least 5 public libraries. Nothing is said about the fact that it should be reviewed.
Another question is who edits and reviews all this, and how high-quality samizdat scientific "products"are.

E. sareptana is not an independent species, which we have repeatedly shown using genitalia traits, wing patterns, and type and genetics studies.

According to the code, the collection should not be conference materials and should be "accessible" to the public, for which it is placed in at least 5 public libraries. Nothing is said about the fact that it should be reviewed.
Another question is who edits and reviews all this, and how high-quality samizdat scientific "products"are.

I didn't find this in the codex ... Point to the article, if possible (about 5 libraries).

This post was edited by Olearius - 30.07.2016 16: 38

E. sareptana is not an independent species, which we have repeatedly shown using genitalia traits, wing patterns, and type and genetics studies.

Ok

I didn't find this in the codex ... Point to the article, if possible (about 5 libraries).

Chapter 3 "Publication criteria", Articles 8-9.

Chapter 3 "Publication criteria", Articles 8-9.

You probably misunderstood: my collection was published in a small print run. 5 libraries need to send works that do not use printing on paper.

You probably misunderstood: my collection was published in a small print run. You need to send works that do not use printing on paper to 5 libraries.

In fact, the code says that authors and publishers should ensure broad access to publications in paper form. For this purpose, a "small print run" is not acceptable, it must be such that it appears in at least several major libraries. In Russia, this is at least the RSL, the main local library, and for entomologists-the ZIN library. In addition, it is necessary to send it to a number of foreign institutions.
If your collection is printed at home on a printer in 10-20 copies, then this is not a scientific publication. This is a "manuscript" that can be printed not even in 10, but in hundreds of copies. anyone who doesn't mind the paperwork. The output data of the collection should indicate the date of publication, circulation and printing house.
Although the code does not specify all such subtleties, it is possible to raise the question before the zoonomenclature commission that such a samizdat short-run collection does not meet the criteria for scientific publications and is not suitable for publishing nomenclature acts. I.e., if you wish, your new description can be officially recognized as invalid

My collection "Several Results of Lepidoptera Study I" has been published so far only on paper,
and in electronic form there is only one article (description of Pima sp.), which I upload.

Pima transfusor Tsvetkov, 2016: https://yadi.sk/i/dqmGQfINtk8M2

Contents of the collection:

E.V. Tsvetkov Diagnosis of Euphydryas sareptana (Staudinger, 1871) bona sp. ……………………………………………………………....1–5
− Description of Pima transfusor sp. n. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae) from the South Urals…………………………………………...6–9
− Description of female of Asalebria imitatella (Ragonot, 1893) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae)…………………………………….10−12
− Towards the revision of the Geometrid moth fauna of Voronezh Province, S Russia…………………………………………….13–23

There is no citation of literature sources, and there is no comparative diagnosis required when describing new taxa. It's not serious. It is impossible to talk about validity at all.

with a small print run, who will even see this description?

write the city name without a hyphen - - - Saint Petersburg

In fact, the code says that authors and publishers should ensure broad access to publications in paper form. For this purpose, a "small print run" is not acceptable, it must be such that it appears in at least several major libraries. In Russia, this is at least the RSL, the main local library, and for entomologists-the ZIN library. In addition, it is necessary to send it to a number of foreign institutions.
If your collection is printed at home on a printer in 10-20 copies, then this is not a scientific publication. This is a "manuscript" that can be printed not even in 10, but in hundreds of copies. anyone who doesn't mind the paperwork. The output data of the collection should indicate the date of publication, circulation and printing house.
Although the code does not specify all such subtleties, it is possible to raise the question before the zoonomenclature commission that such a samizdat short-run collection does not meet the criteria for scientific publications and is not suitable for publishing nomenclature acts. I.e., if you wish, your new description can be officially recognized as invalid

Even if you print it at home on a printer, do not send paper copies anywhere, but only make the description publicly available, for example, using the Internet, the work can be recognized as published, and the nomenclature acts are suitable (unless, of course, something else does not interfere). If anyone has a different opinion, then I would like to have evidence-based counterarguments that refer to specific points in the articles of the code. Otherwise, it will be a fantasy. As for my collection, it is printed in a printing house.

with a small print run, who will even see this description?

write the city name without a hyphen - - - Saint Petersburg

Thanks for the hint about the hyphen.
Without a hyphen, the predominant spelling.
But for example with a hyphen http://en.unecon.ru/
I also found hyphenation in some late 19th-century articles on lepidopteran fauna.

There is no citation of literature sources, and there is no comparative diagnosis required when describing new taxa. It's not serious. It is impossible to talk about validity at all.

These are fantasies. Please specify specific points of the Code's articles.

so many people write incorrectly. and you need to understand what language it is written in. In English - St. Petersburg or Saint Petersburg, transliterated-Saint-Petersburg, etc.

Thanks for the hint about the hyphen.
Without a hyphen, the predominant spelling.
But for example with a hyphen http://en.unecon.ru/
I also found hyphenation in some late 19th-century articles on lepidopteran fauna.

so many people write incorrectly. and you need to understand what language it is written in. In English - St. Petersburg or Saint Petersburg, transliterated-Saint-Petersburg, etc.

Thank you, I will correct the spelling in the next issues of the collection.

The code doesn't say anything about how many libraries you need to send the collection to. However, there is an 8G Recommendation (which, based on the fact that it is a recommendation, can be ignored... if you really want to):

Recommendation 8E. Public accessibility of published works. Copies of published works that contain new scientific names or nomenclatural acts, or information likely to affect nomenclature, should be permanently conserved in or by libraries that make their holdings publicly accessible.

Further. Indeed, you can also print it on a printer. A published book must have an ISBN. If a book does not have this index, it will not be considered a published book with all the consequences. Formally, however, if there is an ISBN with a circulation of more than 25 copies (Recommendation 8B is declarative in nature and in fact is an extension of Article 8 of the Code), then the work will be considered published in the sense adopted in the Code.

Regarding "but only make the description publicly available, for example, using the Internet, then the work can be recognized as published, and the nomenclature acts are suitable", you are deeply mistaken. Read article 9 of the Code:

Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:
...
9.11. text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. via the Internet), except those fulfilling the requirements of Articles 8.1 and 8.5.

What is on the Internet is NOT published in the sense accepted in the Code. Amen.

In order to do something electronic (not lying on the Internet, but electronic), the work must meet a fairly solid set of criteria:

1)The recommended format (PDF) is reported to be used
2) The paper should indicate the date of publication.
3) The work must be registered in the Zoobank.
4) The work should contain an indication of registration in the Zoobank (registration code).
5) The work must be stored in one of the electronic archives specified in the ZOOBANK.

If any of these conditions are not met, the work will not be considered published in the sense accepted in the Code. That is why, after the adoption of changes to Articles 8.1 and 8.5, such a wave of taxonomies in PDF form did not fall down: it is not easy to meet all these criteria at once. Especially point 5: archive storage is not free.

About your collection: when and how will it be distributed? Curious to get either a hard copy or PDF.

These are fantasies. Please specify specific points of the Code's articles.

Now, regarding your description of the new Pima.
Formally, the description is valid, but it is also technically unsuitable, and therefore, most likely, it will be rejected. I explain in detail:

Article 13. Names published after 1930.

13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must

13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or

13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently binominal, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7]), or

13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.

Главное в этой статье: by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon

According to your description, since there is no diagnosis in it, it is not possible to differentiate the taxon. The picture of the butterfly is made with low detail, and under the picture of the genitals (and especially the aedeagus and cornutus, which in most cases are crucial for differentiation in fitzitins), you can fit a good part of the pictures from Amsel.

For an example, I attached a picture from volume 8 of Microlepidoptera Palaearctica to the message: Can you tell the difference between the taxa depicted there and in your article, by genitalia? So I don't see them either. Accordingly, there is also a formal reason to synonymize.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 01.08.2016 14: 17

Pictures:

Scanitto_2015_02_03_226.jpg — (1.28мб)

Now, regarding your description of the new Pima.
Formally, the description is valid, but it is also technically unsuitable, and therefore, most likely, it will be rejected. I explain in detail:

Article 13. Names published after 1930.

13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must

13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or

13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently binominal, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7]), or

13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.

Главное в этой статье: by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon

According to your description, since there is no diagnosis in it, it is not possible to differentiate the taxon. The picture of the butterfly is made with low detail, and under the picture of the genitals (and especially the aedeagus and cornutus, which in most cases are crucial for differentiation in fitzitins), you can fit a good part of the pictures from Amsel.

For an example, I attached a picture from volume 8 of Microlepidoptera Palaearctica to the message: Can you tell the difference between the taxa depicted there and in your article, by genitalia? So I don't see them either. Accordingly, there is also a formal reason to synonymize.

Let's take it in order. You write "If a book does not have this index, it will not be considered a published book with all the consequences". Please indicate the point of the code article. Or a book without an index will be considered unpublished only in your understanding, but not in accordance with the meaning of the code.

Next, you quote the article "... by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon"
"Description" I wrote. Claims to the fact that such a description can not distinguish this species from similar species are very strange. But this, apparently, should be more visible to specialists in fire engines. You also took the trouble to post a page of the monograph, which shows the genitals of representatives of a completely different genus Epiepischnia (they were mistakenly placed in the genus Arsissa by Roesler, and the revision was not carried out). First, understand the generic differences between Pima and Epiepischnia, and then the idea of reducing a representative of the genus Pima to a representative of the genus Epiepischnia will disappear by itself.

Next, you quote the article "... by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon"
"Description" I wrote. Claims to the fact that such a description can not distinguish this species from similar species are very strange. But this, apparently, should be more visible to specialists in fire engines. You also took the trouble to post a page of the monograph, which shows the genitals of representatives of a completely different genus Epiepischnia (they were mistakenly placed in the genus Arsissa by Roesler, and the revision was not carried out). First, understand the generic differences between Pima and Epiepischnia, and then the idea of reducing a representative of the genus Pima to a representative of the genus Epiepischnia will disappear by itself.

Based on your description, it is impossible to distinguish the species from its relatives. This is a fact that you just have to admit.

I posted the FIRST page of the monograph that CAME ACROSS with fundamentally similar genitals, which CANNOT be distinguished from what is depicted in your case. Pima is this or something else-unprincipled. I will tell you more, there are similar aedeagus and valva in other genera of fireflies, and even not only in fitzitins, but also among crambins. I'm not interested in reducing anyone to synonyms, I'm just pointing out your mistakes. The source of your aggressiveness is quite obvious to me, but I'm not going to talk to you like that. The name is invalid because the requirements of Article 13.1.1 of the Code are not met: description, diagnosis, or pictures (or all of them together) THEY DON'T ALLOW you to reliably determine the taxon. Inshallah.

Let's take it in order. You write "If a book does not have this index, it will not be considered a published book with all the consequences". Please indicate the point of the code article. Or a book without an index will be considered unpublished only in your understanding, but not in accordance with the meaning of the code.

The Code doesn't say anything about ISBNs.
However, it has the concept of published work, printed copy, which in the West is understood as a book (do not try to translate it into Russian as a copy) or as a published work (=article). Again, in the West, a book can't be published without an ISBN, and a magazine can't be published without an ISSN. Accordingly, if the publication does not have them, it is not a book (not a printed copy) or a published work (published work). And therefore, this is beyond the scope of the Code's acceptance. If it were different, then every student with a laser printer and a brochure machine (400 bucks for everything about everything) it could produce millions of valid titles a year.

The Codex is not a Dahl dictionary, it should not contain all the words that can be applied to the nomenclature. You just need to know the subject, and no longer ask such... hmm... questions.

Excuse me, but if there is a good article and a lot of magazines, then why invent a new magazine? with a strange name... who will actually see it, except for those who have entered the ZIN?

I ask without anger or mockery. it just seems to me that the description (et al. articles) will go unnoticed, and there will only be confusion - some have seen them, some have not...

Among other things, the problem is the author's professionalism. This case is one of those that Yu. P. Korshunov called "near-scientific show-off".
I have so far superficially looked at the new description, but I do not understand from what hangover this genus Pima is. No signs of this kind are observed.
That's why there are scientific publications with editorial boards and peer reviews, so as not to miss such mistakes in the press.
I hope that if the holotype is in ZIN, Sinev will figure out what it really is.

Excuse me, but if there is a good article and a lot of magazines, then why invent a new magazine? with a strange name... who will actually see it, except for those who have entered the ZIN?

I ask without anger or mockery. it just seems to me that the description (et al. articles) will go unnoticed, and there will only be confusion - some have seen them, some have not...

I sent it to BIOSIS UK. If you Google "Pima transfusor", you can get to this forum with a link to the pdf. I think those who need it will find it.

Based on your description, it is impossible to distinguish the species from its relatives. This is a fact that you just have to admit.

I posted the FIRST page of the monograph that CAME ACROSS with fundamentally similar genitals, which CANNOT be distinguished from what is depicted in your case. Pima is this or something else-unprincipled. I will tell you more, there are similar aedeagus and valva in other genera of fireflies, and even not only in fitzitins, but also among crambins. I'm not interested in reducing anyone to synonyms, I'm just pointing out your mistakes. The source of your aggressiveness is quite obvious to me, but I'm not going to talk to you like that. The name is invalid because the requirements of Article 13.1.1 of the Code are not met: description, diagnosis, or pictures (or all of them together) THEY DON'T ALLOW you to reliably determine the taxon. Inshallah.

I see the problem in the inaccuracy of Roesler's images: it is difficult to determine from his monograph, but who said that it is necessary to identify only in this way ? My image of the genitals is quite accurate and you can figure it out with the material on hand.

The Code doesn't say anything about ISBNs.
However, it has the concept of published work, printed copy, which in the West is understood as a book (do not try to translate it into Russian as a copy) or as a published work (=article). Again, in the West, a book can't be published without an ISBN, and a magazine can't be published without an ISSN. Accordingly, if the publication does not have them, it is not a book (not a printed copy) or a published work (published work). And therefore, this is beyond the scope of the Code's acceptance. If it were different, then every student with a laser printer and a brochure machine (400 bucks for everything about everything) it could produce millions of valid titles a year.

The Codex is not a Dahl dictionary, it should not contain all the words that can be applied to the nomenclature. You just need to know the subject, and no longer ask such... hmm... questions.

The term" Published work " is described in some detail in the Code. It doesn't say anything about ISBN and ISSN numbers. Descriptions of new codex species can also be published on CD-ROMs , and you don't need a brochure machine.

Among other things, the problem is the author's professionalism. This case is one of those that Yu. P. Korshunov called "near-scientific show-off".
I have so far superficially looked at the new description, but I do not understand from what hangover this genus Pima is. No signs of this kind are observed.
That's why there are scientific publications with editorial boards and peer reviews, so as not to miss such mistakes in the press.
I hope that if the holotype is in ZIN, Sinev will figure out what it really is.

OK, I'm a layman and a show-off.

The term" Published work " is described in some detail in the Code. It doesn't say anything about ISBN and ISSN numbers. Descriptions of new codex species can also be published on CD-ROMs , and you don't need a brochure machine.

Why did you decide that you can release on CD?
The published work is covered in some detail by the Code, I agree. Before 1930, after 1930, after 1999, and so on. Your work was published after 2012 . Accordingly, these criteria should be used.
I'm tired of this discussion. You only hear yourself.
СК

a couple of new articles (and the English version of the second one)
Shapovalov A.M. 2016. Comments on the taxonomy of the genus Lytta Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera: Meloidae) with a description of a new subgenus and two new species from Asia / / Caucasian Entomological Bulletin, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 99-108.
(Remarks on taxonomy of the genus Lytta Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera: Meloidae) with a description of a new subgenus and two new species from Asia)
Shapovalov A.M. 2016. New data on the fauna of barbel beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) in the Southern Urals // Entomological Review, vol. 95, issue 1, pp. 245-248.
Shapovalov A.M. 2016. New data on the Fauna of Longicorn Beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) of the Southern Urals // Entomological review. Vol. 96. № 1. P. 131-133.

File/s:



 Lytta.pdf

size: 968.91 k
number of downloads: 241









 Cerambycidae_Rus.pdf

size: 105.05 k
number of downloads: 251









 Cerambycidae_eng.pdf

size: 202.56 k
number of downloads: 199

I didn't find this in the codex ... Point to the article, if possible (about 5 libraries).

By the way, there are also domestic rules - no one canceled 16 copies to the book chamber.

Korb S.K., Bokshakov L.V. 2016. A systematic catalogue of butterflies of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lituania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) with special account to their type specimens (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) // Zootaxa. 4160: 1 - 324.

Korb S.K., Bokshakov L.V. 2016. A systematic catalogue of butterflies of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lituania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) with special account to their type specimens (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) // Zootaxa. 4160: 1 - 324.

Can I personally receive a publication from the author (s)?

Can I personally receive a publication from the author (s)?

Yes. send us an email:

Yes. send us your email address.

vitalbata@gmail.com
Thank you very much!!!

Korb S.K., Bokshakov L.V. 2016. A systematic catalogue of butterflies of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lituania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) with special account to their type specimens (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) // Zootaxa. 4160: 1 - 324.

Please send me your catalog as well, by e-mail: kvoncstu@yahoo.com. Thank you very much!