List of literature

I believe (although I am not professionally engaged in entomology, but in another science) that when writing a scientific article directly in the text, there should be references to specific sources, including a specific determinant as a choice of a specific methodology (according to the general scheme: methodology - method - methodology / technique), since a SCIENTIFIC article is the result (even if it is intermediate) of a specific study and the text should be clear about the logic of this study. And the determinant is exactly the tool (one of them) that is used to get published data.

"Green" - all the head!

If the faunist himself determined, then there is no faith in this. And if he mentioned a number of names in the Gratitude section - narrow specialists in the group, then this is another matter.

По моему любимому Тянь-Шаню я определяю дневных бабочек именно "на глаз" - знакомство с подавляющим большинством типов дает мне определенную уверенность в том, что определю правильно. Есть, конечно, сложные места - в частности, кое-какие недоступные типы - но со временем и их, уверен, закрою.

А по Европейской части - "зеленый кирпич" - наше все ). По Дальнему Востоку - красный кирпич. Хотелось бы кирпич синего цвета по Сибири - никто не планирует взяться за работу? Думаю, Новосибирску это по силам

  Это моё субъективное мнение
........

В целом согласен.
Как минимум, хотя бы указывать, каким образом были определены "сложные" виды. Давать ссылку на определитель, либо приводить ключевые признаки в тексте. Либо давать изображения материала, чтобы читающие смогли удостовериться, что определено верно. В противном случае, вера в достоверность определения основывана только на авторитете пишущего. Но вера - это хорошо в церкви...
К сожалению, подобных фаунистических публикаций мне известно очень мало.

  По моему любимому Тянь-Шаню я определяю дневных бабочек именно "на глаз" - знакомство с подавляющим большинством типов дает мне определенную уверенность в том, что определю правильно.

Вы же с ними не лично знакомы, они Вам своё имя отчество не сообщали.
Знакомство с этими видами, основано на конкретном источнике, который отражен в Вашей памяти, и верифицировано практикой. Обязательно нужно упомянуть источник, т.е. косвенно сообщить какой именно набор признаков у ваших экземпляров. Кроме того, по моему мнению, обязательно нужно упомянуть, как минимум, ещё одного эксперта, для подтверждения того, что ваше представление, соответствует первоисточнику (но не представлению эксперта...). Если мнение эксперта расходится с источником и не подтверждается другим источником, то это сомнительный эксперт. Другими словами, документ важнее мнения эксперта, если его мнение не документировано и противоположно.

Я хотел сказать, что напрямую сравнить экземпляр с типом по памяти или непосредственно, невозможно.
Любое сравнение строится на вербальной или невербальной формализации в памяти или документе.
В конце концов, наука, это не система образов и ощущений, а система понятий.

Сообщение было отредактировано Seneka - 06.01.2013 16:05

  Это моё субъективное мнение, но факт, что многие люди при написании фаунистических статей избегают упоминать, какими определителями они пользовались, не только в разделе материалов и методов (где это должно быть обязательно, т.к. определитель, это интструмент), но и в списке литературы (как правило, имеется в виду цитируемая литература).

Да, проблема очень серьезная. Изучая некоторые списки, приходится ставить вопрос о неадекватных методиках определения и необходимости переопределения материала. Поэтому в правилах для авторов "Эверсманнии" с самого начала было написано, что авторы, не имеющие большого опыта работы с группой, должны ссылаться на определители или специалистов, определивших материал. Но к сожалению, больше никто этого не требует.

А по Европейской части - "зеленый кирпич" - наше все ). По Дальнему Востоку - красный кирпич. Хотелось бы кирпич синего цвета по Сибири - никто не планирует взяться за работу? Думаю, Новосибирску это по силам

по силам, но вряд ли это будет финансироваться.

  Вы же с ними не лично знакомы, они Вам своё имя отчество не сообщали.
Знакомство с этими видами, основано на конкретном источнике, который отражен в Вашей памяти, и верифицировано практикой. Обязательно нужно упомянуть источник, т.е. косвенно сообщить какой именно набор признаков у ваших экземпляров. Кроме того, по моему мнению, обязательно нужно упомянуть, как минимум, ещё одного эксперта, для подтверждения того, что ваше представление, соответствует первоисточнику (но не представлению эксперта...). Если мнение эксперта расходится с источником и не подтверждается другим источником, то это сомнительный эксперт. Другими словами, документ важнее мнения эксперта, если его мнение не документировано и противоположно.

Я хотел сказать, что напрямую сравнить экземпляр с типом по памяти или непосредственно, невозможно.
Любое сравнение строится на вербальной или невербальной формализации в памяти или документе.
В конце концов, наука, это не система образов и ощущений, а система понятий.

Слишком много философствований. На практике все намного проще.

And I, perhaps, agree that the most important signs really need to be cited, regardless of the degree of one's own authority (well, not to the point of absurdity, of course). It is precisely because of the fact that "in practice everything is much easier" for specialists, and their example is followed by regionals and environmentalists, that either absurd or, conversely, very plausible lists and maps arise. Then it only turns out that a completely different species actually lives. And the theory can jump ahead at this point and draw far-reaching conclusions based on such sources. Is simplicity worth it at the beginning of such complexity later, when all you need to do is insert a paragraph, drawing, or photo? And the authority to encourage non-specialists to do it.

  А я, пожалуй, соглашусь с тем, что важнейшие признаки действительно нужно приводить вне зависимости от степени собственной авторитетности (ну, не до абсурда, конечно). Именно из-за того, что "на практике все намного проще" для специалистов, а их примеру следуют регионалы и экологи, возникают или абсурдные, или, наоборот, очень правдоподобные списки и карты. Потом только выясняется, что реально обитает совсем другой вид. А теория может к этому моменту ускакать вперед и на базе таких источников сделать далеко идущие выводы. Стоит ли простота вначале такой вот сложности потом, когда всего-то нужно вставить абзац, рисунок или фото? И авторитетом побудить делать это неспециалистов.

Faunistics with a paragraph, drawing, or photo automatically turns into a reference guide. Are you ready to take the responsibility to publish such things?

There is a much simpler way: if you are not sure about the definition , do not publish the material, give it to a specialist. Publish with them as co-authors. And your faith will be published many times more, and you will avoid many problems with misidentification. After all two birds with one stone

Faunistics with a paragraph, drawing, or photo automatically turns into a reference guide. Are you ready to take the responsibility to publish such things?

There is a much simpler way: if you are not sure about the definition , do not publish the material, give it to a specialist. Publish with them as co-authors. And your faith will be published many times more, and you will avoid many problems with misidentification. After all, two birds with one stone

It is even easier to refer to the determinant that was used for the definition, provided that the author knows how to determine. And in the end, you can thank the narrow specialists for their advice and confirmation.

The same thing, in one shot, but the technique is revealed.

This post was edited by Seneka - 07.01.2013 16: 56

Too much philosophizing. In practice, everything is much simpler.

In practice, indeed, everything is much simpler. But this only means that you need to report in the article that the definition of such species was carried out on the basis of comparison with the type specimen (directly, from memory, from a high-resolution photo on the site, etc.), and others by the determinant.

For example, I recently came across Drusilla canaliculata... I hadn't met him before, so I almost got a disability by identifying him on the Green. It can only be determined by chance. And according to the ZIN scan, in five minutes, as I personally talked to him, then checked the determinant, everything fits perfectly, with the exception of one "mine" with rear basins, which can only be accepted by knowing the answer in advance. Of course, after that, I would refer to the photo or website, and not to the identifier, because it did not help. When you determine the views by eye, you always remember where you got this knowledge from.

In practice, indeed, everything is much simpler. But this only means that you need to report in the article that the definition of such species was carried out on the basis of comparison with the type specimen (directly, from memory, from a high-resolution photo on the site, etc.), and others by the determinant.

For example, I recently came across Drusilla canaliculata... I hadn't met him before, so I almost got a disability by identifying him on the Green. It can only be determined by chance. And according to the ZIN scan, in five minutes, as I personally talked to him, then checked the determinant, everything fits perfectly, with the exception of one "mine" with rear basins, which can only be accepted by knowing the answer in advance. Of course, after that, I would refer to the photo or website, and not to the identifier, because it did not help. When you determine the views by eye, you always remember where you got this knowledge from.

I agree.

In practice, indeed, everything is much simpler. But this only means that you need to report in the article that the definition of such species was carried out on the basis of comparison with the type specimen (directly, from memory, from a high-resolution photo on the site, etc.), and others by the determinant.

For example, I recently came across Drusilla canaliculata... I hadn't met him before, so I almost got a disability by identifying him on the Green. It can only be determined by chance. And according to the ZIN scan, in five minutes, as I personally talked to him, then checked the determinant, everything fits perfectly, with the exception of one "mine" with rear basins, which can only be accepted by knowing the answer in advance. Of course, after that, I would refer to the photo or website, and not to the identifier, because it did not help. When you determine the views by eye, you always remember where you got this knowledge from.

Just the same theoretically it is simple and in principle clear to everyone. And how do you imagine the presentation of the material in the "research methods", where it would be reflected separately for each species, of which there may be a couple of hundred in the faunal list, and how did you define it?

Just the same theoretically it is simple and in principle clear to everyone. And how do you imagine the presentation of the material in the "research methods", where it would be reflected separately for each species, of which there may be a couple of hundred in the faunal list, and how did you define it?

Like this "[123]"

Perhaps some authors deliberately do not cite keys - so as not to expose themselves to the automatic fire of criticism of more knowledgeable authors?

Perhaps some authors deliberately do not cite keys - so as not to expose themselves to the automatic fire of criticism of more knowledgeable authors?

Yes, it is. I will say more. Some inexperienced authors would be happy to cite as much literature as possible, but they are often "stopped" by their supervisors. When I put into circulation data for the Tula region in the early 00s, I was repeatedly told that " Determinants should NOT be quoted." But I quoted them to spite everyone. This is an integral part of masking profanity among gray and black applicants. And because of this public feeding the professors directly and indirectly, everyone should "suffer".

Perhaps some authors deliberately do not cite keys - so as not to expose themselves to the automatic fire of criticism of more knowledgeable authors?

Knowledgeable authors also do this. Where are the boundaries of awareness? Are there no examples when the species listed or described for the first time by learned authors, over time, turned out to be whole complexes of species, or other known species?
I'll repeat myself.
A link to the source used for identifying the type is primarily needed to specify the method.
If we recall the well-known parable of the three blind wise men and the elephant, then different methods can be used to diagnose different species on the same material.
Even if the determinant is outdated, the reader will always be able to correctly understand the article, even if the type is not defined accurately or incorrectly.

That is, an informed author, reading an article about the type "A" and knowing that it is impossible to determine more precisely by this determinant, since the correct type "B" is absent there, and the type " A " is later divided into a number of types "A, A1, A2", will understand that any of the types of the complex is possible "A, A1, A2" and "B", and most likely the one whose presence does not contradict other knowledge. There is no discovery or novelty in this, but there is a correct presentation of information and confirmation of earlier data, which is important for monitoring.

If there is no reference to the determinant, then the appearance of "A" in this territory will be considered as new unconfirmed knowledge. In fact, it is not correct and does not correspond to reality, i.e. it is false. However, it is not easy to verify this, it is easier to believe or not to believe.

This post was edited by Seneka - 14.01.2013 22: 50

References to qualifiers will do nothing. Or almost nothing. It is the person who determines the types, not the book. Different people (in terms of their level of knowledge and skills) define things differently, even if they have the same qualifiers at their disposal.

Knowledgeable authors also do this. Where are the boundaries of awareness? Are there no examples when the species listed or described for the first time by learned authors, over time, turned out to be whole complexes of species, or other known species?

I have always thought that the definition from the widest possible range of sources is more moral , while new sources are usually better - but this can be argued for a very long time. I almost never write sources of definition unnecessarily - the objective reality in this case is my collection, examples from which any colleague can always check.

References to qualifiers will do nothing. Or almost nothing. It is the person who determines the types, not the book. Different people (in terms of their level of knowledge and skills) define things differently, even if they have the same qualifiers at their disposal.

And why did they invent links in articles at all? What do you want to get from the link? Your options?

I have always thought that the definition from the widest possible range of sources is more moral , while new sources are usually better - but this can be argued for a very long time. I almost never write sources of definition unnecessarily - the objective reality in this case is my collection, examples from which any colleague can always check.

I mostly agree with you, but don't exaggerate. How does a colleague know that you have primary material? Do you know what the flow of information(false information) is now? The horror! No amount of effort is enough to double-check every fact, every author. Do you refer to the collection if it's not a new type?
Not every colleague can, in principle, not everyone you allow, and not everything can be checked.

The preservation of the primary material, on the basis of which the article is written, is now the exception rather than the rule, and the further it goes, the more. I have already written earlier that in the field of molecular genetics and cytogenetics, the material is often not preserved at all, except for rare pedants and repeated research of collections. Even such attempts do not happen. In entomology, instances of known (supposedly) species are simply discarded. The collection includes individual instances, not all defined ones. It is physically impossible to double-check the facts directly in such conditions.

While the method can be checked... including with the participation of reputable specialists. Science, in general, is a method of cognition of objective reality.
That's the method you need to work on.

And why did they invent links in articles at all? What do you want to get from the link? Your options?

Options? Well, as an option, you can list the determinants used by the author to determine the types mentioned in the article. True, this does not guarantee the correctness of the definition, but you can and even need to refer to them

I mostly agree with you, but don't exaggerate. How does a colleague know that you have primary material? Do you know what the flow of information(false information) is now? The horror! No amount of effort is enough to double-check every fact, every author. Do you refer to the collection if it's not a new type?
Not every colleague can, in principle, not everyone you allow, and not everything can be checked.

The preservation of the primary material, on the basis of which the article is written, is now the exception rather than the rule, and the further it goes, the more. I have already written earlier that in the field of molecular genetics and cytogenetics, the material is often not preserved at all, except for rare pedants and repeated research of collections. Even such attempts do not happen. In entomology, instances of known (supposedly) species are simply discarded. The collection includes individual instances, not all defined ones. It is physically impossible to double-check the facts directly in such conditions.

While the method can be checked... including with the participation of reputable specialists. Science, in general, is a method of cognition of objective reality.
That's the method you need to work on.

1. New faunal finds should generally be accompanied by at least a place of storage of the material, and even better-by quoting labels. And so - nothing can be done, the world is not perfect. "You can't help, but you need to help." It seems to me that you are going in circles.

2. I don't know, in my opinion, it is necessary to work not on finding out someone's authority, but on the formation and preservation of collections, which are the very objective reality...

1. New faunal finds should generally be accompanied by at least a place of storage of the material, and even better-by quoting labels. And so - nothing can be done, the world is not perfect. "You can't help, but you need to help." It seems to me that you are going in circles.

2. I don't know, in my opinion, it is necessary to work not on finding out someone's authority, but on the formation and preservation of collections, which are the very objective reality...

We're talking about the same thing here, but in different words.

In order not to go around in circles and endlessly argue about objective criteria of truth and authority, you can introduce formal requirements for the suitability of a faunal publication, with which most agree. This is not the whole list, but only what was discussed.
It does not claim any power.
These requirements do not apply to works on taxonomy and other works that consider the characteristics of all listed species with illustrations (a low-resolution photo or an art photo in nature is not considered an illustration, while a high-resolution photo on a reputable site is equivalent to the source material, provided that it is suitable for determining the exact species)..

1) The primary material referred to in the publication should be available for repeated research and the place of its storage should be indicated.
2) The sources of the definition should be listed anywhere in the publication. Preferably, in the list of references. The text should contain at least one reference to each source or disclose the method of determination.
3) The absence of a reference to an authoritative expert in the list of authors or in acknowledgements is equivalent to the statement that the author himself is an authoritative expert in this field. To do this, he must have N suitable publications on this topic. If this is not the case, then a link to the specialist who checked the material is required.

This post was edited by Seneka - 15.01.2013 15: 25

1) The primary material referred to in the publication should be available for repeated research and the place of its storage should be indicated.
2) The sources of the definition should be listed anywhere in the publication. Preferably, in the list of references. The text should contain at least one reference to each source or disclose the method of determination.
3) The absence of a reference to an authoritative expert in the list of authors or in acknowledgements is equivalent to the statement that the author himself is an authoritative expert in this field. To do this, he must have N suitable publications on this topic. If this is not the case, then a link to the specialist who checked the material is required.

Unfortunately, all of these attributes can be found in the publication, with the exception of point 1. It is the most difficult one to check. For example, if you have sent an article to a journal, should the author take the material to the editorial office, or should its representative check it? And dissenters, and even more so the Higher Attestation Commission, generally brush off any checks like devils from incense.
I have seen dissertations, abstracts, and articles with a lot of links, including to sources that are not available in Russia and the Internet (and even before the Internet appeared). And there are thanks. But then it turns out that the person who is being thanked did not see the author in person, or had a limited communication without defining the material. And it turns out that the material is also eaten or flooded when the heating system crashes.
Only the long-term behavior of the author allows you to check it for lice. The most obvious signs are the termination of scientific work after the defense, activity in the form of publishing extracts from the dissertation and low-content theses at conferences.

And in the end , if you have any questions, contact the author and ask if there is a questionable indication of its verification (for example, in the light of the latest revision). A normal person will make contact, and the one who made a fake one will either not answer at all, or say that "there was an accident".