The Red Book and insects

Just in case, let me remind you: there is Moscow, and there is the Moscow region (Moscow region), I say this as a Moscow resident.

You know, I live (and catch) very close to Moscow, 9 km from the Moscow Ring Road, and these species (which I quoted) regularly collect in the vicinity / within my city. And in Moscow there are parks very sickly Izmailovsky, Losiny Ostrov, Kuzminsky (this is what is closer to me).
And I am sure that there, too, you can find many of the above types in large quantities (you shouldn't even talk about the center-there is nothing there). And in 2000, I caught the same Rhinoceros Beetle repeatedly on the territory of the ZiL plant, where the ecology always left much to be desired (everything is soaked in oil for many meters deep into the earth (I didn't quote it because it also became rare for us). However, I found one female at the Railway station this year.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 28.06.2010 15: 15

In recent years, the rhinoceros beetle should have been added to the city - I mentioned this somewhere on the forum-as many private stables were bred (including in forest park areas) and, accordingly, horse shit was added; this is not only in the region, but also in the city. I've seen such points myself within the city limits of Moscow.
I just wanted to remind you once again that there are types for which the occurrence in Moscow and the occurrence in the Moscow Region differ by orders of magnitude, and this should be taken into account.

To T. kotbegemot. Of course, the situation in the Ministry of Defense and in the city is different. But generalizations and averaging are dumb things; I would say that within the city of Moscow, we can distinguish territories that are more environmentally friendly than the average MO, and territories that are more catastrophic than Chernobyl. But such a difference in territories within Moscow (many times more dramatic than between srednyaya Moskva and srednyaya MO) is not a reason for each of them (separately in Maryino, for example, and separately in TLCA Park; or: separately in Molzhaninovsky district and separately in the territory around three railway stations) to create special CC. There should be a faunal record, that goes without saying, but whether a special CC is needed for the city is a separate question. Such CC's set precedents and pave the way to hell. We now have our own government and our own ministers in any neighborhood, tomorrow any Papuan can say that we are worse than Moscow's, and make a mess (at the appropriate level, if he is still in Moscow) its own CC for each city. After all, there are such industrial cities in the Russian Federation that the difference between their fauna and the fauna of their regions in general will be colossal, where there are Moscow differences between the city and the region... And then (it is necessary to work) Moscow will also set them an example in writing the CC for municipal districts, etc. Faunal work is a blessing, and as for the CC, the real value today, perhaps, in no document is so insignificant as in the CC of the city of Moscow... Look at this Moscow.

To T. kotbegemot. Of course, the situation in the Ministry of Defense and in the city is different. But generalizations and averaging are dumb stuff;
[...
Faunal work is a blessing, and as for the CC, the real value today, perhaps, of no document is so insignificant as that of the CC of the city of Moscow... Look at this Moscow.

Don't let other cities do their own CC, Andrey! Just Moscow and St. Petersburg - the same Subjects of the Federation, as the Moscow and Leningrad regions!

And as for the insignificant value of the CC of Moscow-alas, it is difficult to disagree. But then nothing will change, as long as they don't give a kick in the ass to a Bald Nit (we'll do without surnames ).

PS I sent the form the next day after our gatherings, did you get it?

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 06/28/2010 16: 50

Just in case, let me remind you: there is Moscow, and there is the Moscow region (Moscow region), I say this as a Moscow resident. For them – different CC's.

  
Guys! This is a list for KK Moscow! Not MO, but specifically Moscow. It is based on the results of monitoring within the city, not the surrounding area. And quite adequate.

Thank you for the short educational program on the administrative division of the Moscow region . Just in case - it is absolutely clear to me that we are talking specifically about Moscow, within the administrative boundaries of the metropolis. And it is KK for her in this form that I consider nonsense. And I can't agree with the adequacy of the list. This list is meaningless profanity!

If the city CC is not mistaken for a regional one, then the list of types in the city one will not seem so funny. I haven't seen the same Broscus cephalotes in the city for twenty-five years (and I used to catch it on Ukrainsky Boulevard between Kievsky Railway Station and Kutuzovsky Prospekt). And glabratus and so on can be considered ordinary only for the region. But Cetonia aurata (and not only it) in the city has increased in recent decades (due to the destruction of industry, obviously). Prionus coriarius, judging by the most recent years, is also not on business in the city CC, but there is no need to rush to conclusions about this species, since the number of old trees in the city is catastrophically decreasing, even in forest-park areas that are practically devoid of undergrowth. Although in the coming years, this species in the city, of course, is not in danger.

And why in Moscow (this, correctly emphasized, megalopolis) should these species be protected? What if the protection of Broscus cephalotes and Carabus glabratus in Moscow somehow affects the state of these taxa in general in the Moscow region, central Russia? And why, let me ask, are these beetles in Moscow (given what it is and where it is going in its development)? City parks are also city parks, so that they can be maintained in the proper state for urban spaces. Here, sanitary logging and other relevant measures to bring the parks into a "divine appearance" are necessary! This means that the number of old trees suitable for populating Prionus coriarius will decrease. Consequently, this beetle will also leave Moscow. And what's the big deal? Why is this barbel in Moscow? So that ordinary people shied away from this "terrible cockroach" and crushed it with frenzy at a chance meeting? Prionus coriarius can be preserved in central Russia (and, in particular, in the Moscow region), regardless of whether it is found in Moscow. Moreover, the measures that can be taken to protect it will contradict the need for" ennobling " urban green spaces. Whether we want to or not, parks in Moscow, including for people to walk on them, and old, rotting dunces, dying trees, with the achievement of this goal (I'll make a reservation, for most citizens, and not for you and me, turned) do not fit in any way.

 
Based on my basic assessment, I agree. CC of Moscow with the heartfelt words of Luzhkov-despite what is happening in Moscow-profanity, a mockery of common sense.

  
By the way, the CC of Moscow is a very correct thing, since the city and the region have completely different environmental conditions. Both bureaucrats and departments are also different. Delirium is the CC of the Russian Federation (I mean insects).

Insects in the CC are nonsense for any Red Book, even for some region, even for the Russian Federation. I won't talk about the reasons - there are already a lot of broken copies in this topic, and it's clear to those who read the topic which side of the barricades I'm on and why. And the CC of Moscow (as an idea) is possible. the thing is correct, but not in the form in which it was created by the will of those who are ruining the ecological situation in the capital.

And why in Moscow (this, correctly emphasized, megalopolis) should these species be protected? What if the protection of Broscus cephalotes and Carabus glabratus in Moscow somehow affects the state of these taxa in general in the Moscow region, central Russia?

No, but it may affect their condition in Moscow. The CC of Moscow is written with an eye to this subject of the federation, if anything.

And why, let me ask, are these beetles in Moscow (given what it is and where it is going in its development)? City parks are also city parks, so that they can be maintained in the proper state for urban spaces.
[...
Whether we want to or not, parks in Moscow, including for people to walk on them, and old, rotting dunces, dying trees, do not fit in with the achievement of this goal (I'll make a reservation, for most citizens, and not for you and me, turned).

Just in case, I'll tell you that forest parks (which are protected areas in Moscow) are not there to be visited by drunk companies and mothers with strollers. And so that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere remains at a more or less habitable level. That is why the ash-leaved maple is so (quite justifiably) loved by landscaping services - no one eats it and no outbreaks of numbers will affect atmospheric indicators (which does not eliminate the need to deal with it outside cities).
In London, by the way, the parks (not only forest) are specially laid out stacks of rotting wood for the development of xylophages - so that it does not become completely dead.
And the fact that it is banal species in the region that are listed in the CC of Moscow is also correct: because if they die , then there will be nothing left at all...

Insects in the CC are nonsense for any Red Book, even for some region, even for the Russian Federation.

And again nifiga! We just need to identify rare species - and protect their habitats, in places where they are still common. The Red Book is simply a legal document that establishes a list of such types.

No, but it may affect their condition in Moscow. The CC of Moscow is written with an eye to this subject of the federation, if anything.

Everything is right. On their condition in Moscow. And what is the practical (or aesthetic) significance of the condition of Broscus cephalotes in the Moscow megalopolis, for example ?

Just in case, I'll tell you that forest parks (which are protected areas in Moscow) are not there to be visited by drunk companies and mothers with strollers. And so that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere remains at a more or less habitable level. That is why the ash-leaved maple is so (quite justifiably) loved by landscaping services - no one eats it and no outbreaks of numbers will affect atmospheric indicators (which does not eliminate the need to deal with it outside cities).

Drunken companies that hang out in our Russian cities not only in forest parks, but also wherever it is possible and impossible - this does not depend on the state of green spaces, but on the state of culture of the population (at what level it is - everyone is well aware). And from the fact that in the park (even leso ) old trees that threaten to fall in strong winds (or even windbreaks, windbreaks, and other dead wood) will remain, and these companies will not be reduced. But mothers with children walking on such a burel is not very pleasant. What's wrong if they want to take a walk there? By the way, the level of oxygen in the atmosphere from the presence of rotting trunks in forest parks will not increase. And here is an example with an ash-leaved maple-in the subject ! That's right: no one eats, and the oxygen level is normal.

In London, by the way, the parks (not only forest) are specially laid out stacks of rotting wood for the development of xylophages - so that it does not become completely dead.

Well, duc is in London!!! There is not something that stacks of rotten things are laid out - there, for example, it will not occur to the driver to offer a bribe to the police officer in case of traffic violations! And if he does, where will he end up? We still have generations to go before we reach London. And it's not worth starting with the rotten things in the park - something tells me that they didn't start building their democracy with them either .
Although, seriously, I admire these stacks of rotting wood in parks! This is the case, not like the CC of Moscow with its empty declarations of the impracticable!

And the fact that it is banal species in the region that are listed in the CC of Moscow is also correct: because if they die , then there will be nothing left at all...

No, not right! No one and nothing prevents you from at least starting to run an urban economy so that banal species do not disappear from Moscow, regardless of their inclusion in the CC. And the banals will remain-there may also be non-banals! (although I hate the word "banals"). And from the fact that with the blessing of the person you vividly described a few posts above (without specifying his completely landscape surname), the Red Book of the subject of the federation was written, banal and non-banal views in Moscow will no longer be. See what they offer as security measures? Don't be afraid to ban trapping again?

And again nifiga! We just need to identify rare species - and protect their habitats, in places where they are still common. The Red Book is simply a legal document that establishes a list of such types.

Dyk, I've been saying for a long time that the CC is a legal document (I hope my serious confrontation with one of the forum members is not forgotten)! A legal document must meet certain requirements. In particular, it should provide for a mechanism for its implementation. I agree to all 300% - it is necessary to protect biotopes!!! But in relation to the city, do not forget that it is written after all KK of the city, the metropolis. And the species to be included in such a CC should be selected accordingly. How and why should Broscus cephalotes biotopes be protected in Moscow? Or Leistus ferrugineus? And how do you imagine the reaction of Moscow officials (and not only officials) to the demand to preserve such and such territory in its original state (or return it to it), since, you see, the cranobook Sericoda quadripunctata or Ophonus stictus deign to live there? I won't go through the whole list of chokhom khayat - there are species that are quite worthy for inclusion in the CC, as indicator species for the protection of biotopes. But there are a minority of such people there!

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 28.06.2010 20: 15

By the way in the subject: I went out today just to walk on my back streets of the city and 2 persons involved
in this very KK observed in the mass: C. aurata and T. fasciatus (they sit on everything from snyti to ivan-tea) and there were always plenty of them. And Moscow is visible from the windows of the upper floors of tall buildings.

kotbegemot: No, but it may affect their condition in Moscow. CC of Moscow is written with an eye to this subject of the federation, if anything


I don't understand why you should write the CC of a particular locality. The CC of the region/region that this locality belongs to is sufficient.
Moreover, there is no need to invent the "rarity" and "extinction" of certain species for a locality, if the animal feels fine outside this point.
Monitoring the entire fauna of a locality is another matter... and a much more useful thing than QC.

This post was edited by Adamov - 28.06.2010 23: 05

Vlad, after all, the CC is dragging a very big legal tail behind it. It is better to leave faunistics to faunistics and where there is no positive practical sense, do not support it with a cop. Colleague Dmitrich here, in my opinion, looks at the root, and the topic is not generally on faunal lists,but on CC. And, by the way, the last remark of T. Adamov is quite rational.

In London, I can only take your word for it. In Moscow, there are enough rotters in the parks as it is (it would sometimes not hurt to clean up, because the city has wooden architecture, and it doesn't need extra technical wood pests), but the English rotters are far away from us - go to Filevsky Park, Terletsky, Izmailovsky... We can also lend this good fellow to the Londoners as much as we can. But I am not sure that in London, too, another Baron Arnheim and the "Ideal Husband" (a London character, not a Moscow character) are not behind this unfolding of rotten things:" The whole thing is a second Panama... " In Moscow, they also take great care of nature: they shave the lawns almost weekly until soil, the slope turns out God forbid for five centimeters. There is no talk of any development of entomofauna on such grass, but there is an extra twist of budget money. What is the CC with such violence against the plant world? (I wonder, by the way, if this is how lawns are raped in London.) In Victory Park, all the undergrowth is shaved off, and you can't find nettles or willow-leaf tea there now. At the beginning of the season, I looked at the Stone Dam, in the so-called nature reserve (i.e., there is already a protected status!) "Setun floodplain". Right on top of the pigeon populations of alexis, argiades, dispar and lycaon satyrs are some kind of technical truck and a drilling rig that is conducting a soil survey in connection with the planned construction of another transport highway. Against the background of all this, a passerby can read a huge stand about the natural resources of the reserve and the fact that it is forbidden to pick flowers there... But the bald one (don't be mentioned at night) is truly the common denominator for all the positions expressed here, and we can only be unanimous about it... And those who have been, say, in the Serebryanoprudsky district, usually remember the bald man along with his woman...

Oh, by the way, I received the form to fill out from you and read it carefully, it's just that it's still the height of the season, and in a little while I'll get right into it.

A practical question for an example. What should be done, for example, on the Ukrainian Boulevard in Moscow to preserve the population of Broscus cephalotes? I'll tell you why he disappeared there. He lived mainly on the territory of the secondary school, but also in general on the boulevard and in the courtyards around this territory, but the city was cultivated in this place. The ground beetle was found under various rubbish, which once lay a lot: some scraps of roofing material, slate, rusty tin, chipboard, concrete, bricks, plywood, almost foiled fiberglass, God forgive me, there was something to hide under. Now there is not a single brick fragment in the entire school yard, bald ground, perfect cleanliness, plus asphalt approaches to the school. The boulevard is also well-groomed, its lawns are completely "cultivated"; the only survivor of the large beetles is the ubiquitous nemoralis, for which, apparently, there are enough shelters under curbs, etc. Yes, it probably has other factors that determine its high productivity: after all, passers-by crush it all the time, and it still lives (although the number has clearly declined over the past twenty years). And before that, there were also cancellatus and the mentioned cephalotes.

So, to protect the view, we will offer our curly-haired man to scatter more construction junk along the Ukrainian Boulevard - and this after whole brigades in orange and other robes were rumbling government loot for the sake of "ennobling" this boulevard?

A practical question for an example. What should be done, for example, on the Ukrainian Boulevard in Moscow to preserve the population of Broscus cephalotes? I'll tell you why he disappeared there. He lived mainly on the territory of the secondary school, but also in general on the boulevard and in the courtyards around this territory, but the city was cultivated in this place. The ground beetle was found under various rubbish, which once lay a lot: some scraps of roofing material, slate, rusty tin, chipboard, concrete, bricks, plywood, almost foiled fiberglass, God forgive me, there was something to hide under. Now there is not a single brick fragment in the entire school yard, bald ground, perfect cleanliness, plus asphalt approaches to the school. The boulevard is also smoothed out, all "cultivated" lawns;
Therefore, to protect the view, we will offer our curly-haired man to scatter more construction junk along Ukrainian Boulevard-and this after whole teams in orange and other uniforms were banging government loot for the sake of" ennobling " this boulevard?

That's what I meant. You can't go to the point of absurdity. The city will not be better off if Broscus cephalotes thrives in cluttered schoolyards. And the environmental situation will not get any better from this. School yards and must be cleaned up! And the existence of Broscus cephalotes in Moscow's environs will not be affected by the fact that it will become less common within the borders of the metropolis itself. In my opinion, the word "gentrification" in relation to this particular boulevard is put in quotation marks in vain. This is a city boulevard, and it should be swept, cleaned, mowed, etc. Of course, let's say that it would be in my personal interests to keep it cluttered, taking into account the preservation of the cancellatus and cephalotes micropopulations there. But this would be contrary to the interests of the majority of citizens. And they are probably right to protest against the scattered construction waste in the courtyards of their children's schools.

Here's another example. Who can argue that Sphodrus leucophthalmus is an extremely interesting and rare beetle? The inhabitant of not only burrows, but also (like a synanthrope) - cellars, basements... It is included in a number of CC (offhand, I will recall the Kaluga and Leningrad regions). It was celebrated in former times in many cities of central Russia. But how to save it in them? Arrange "protected areas-micro-zapovedniks" in the form of preserved houses of old-fashioned buildings with basements? Having identified beetles in some basement of a private house, prohibit "ennobling" a building with a basement (and even more so, demolish)? None of this is serious. With the development of our cities, the passing of old wooden buildings into the past (and most importantly-changes in its condition in even the preserved part), Sphodrus leucophthalmus will inevitably disappear in cities. And there's nothing you can do about it, include it in the CC or don't include it.

  
I don't understand why you should write the CC of a particular locality. The CC of the region/region that this locality belongs to is sufficient.

Here's the thing. The Federal Law of April 24, 1995 "On the Animal World" establishes the need to establish not only the CC of the Russian Federation, but also the CC of the subjects of the Federation. Moscow and St. Petersburg are not just localities in their respective regions, but equal subjects of the federation. Hence, the publication of the CC of Moscow and St. Petersburg (along with the CC of the Moscow and Leningrad regions) is provided for by the current legislation.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 06/29/2010 12: 45

I recall in this connection the "Golden Calf". I can't guarantee the accuracy of the text, but the point is this. When Ostap and Koreiko travel through Central Asia, Ostap asks a guide who proudly promises that the dilapidated city bazaar will soon be demolished, etc.: isn't it a pity to demolish it? After all, Baghdad! The guide responds to this with displeasure: this is for you, for visitors; and we have to live here.
Again, I am referring to the question of the meaninglessness of a narrow (whether from entomology or history) protective approach, which is in contradiction with objective (in this case, in the sense of not coming from an evil uncle) historical processes.
We need, as they say now, a balanced approach, and the scope of the city of slick is narrow (not so much spatially - the area of another city is much larger than the area of a good nature reserve-but according to ecological trends) to fight for the maximum representation of insect species. Studying this representation is another matter, if only because of the indicator - i.e., secondary - role of insects.
To protect the habitat of any insect species in the city in case of economic benefits of its destruction-no one really will allow. Insects are only allowed to survive insofar as they can adapt to changes in the environment; they can't, because of their sadness. So it applies to people, what can we say about ground beetles. Rasei's middle-class capitalism is not a place for applying Western environmental views. If the West places the dirtiest industrial shit in its neocolonies, and can at least nurture xylophages in its capitals,then we are not the West, but quite the opposite. Until the garden city is still further and further away.

I apologize in advance to those who may find this post boring, but still:
http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/images/redspbe.jpg
This is a page from the CC of St. Petersburg. So I see crowds of " lovers and collectors "(by the way, how do they differ from each other ?), catching tons of musky barbels in the northern capital!

Interestingly, such articles themselves completely refute the expediency of including the species in the CC. (In Moscow, by the way, in the post-Soviet period, this type also increased). But the creators are like water off a goose. The logic has probably already been used: if individuals cannot be considered invulnerable (and no individuals can), then the species as a whole (sic!) should be considered vulnerable. In such cases, invulnerable soon will be only kkshnoe attention to insects. It's a pity we don't have the smiley face "laughter through tears" ...

in Ukrainian.
ПРОБЛЕМА ОХОРОНИ РАРИТЕТНИХ ВИДІВ КОМАХ І КОНЦЕПЦІЯ ЧЕРВОНОЇ КНИГИ

ЕКОСИСТЕМОЛОГІЧНІ АСПЕКТИ ПРОБЛЕМИ ОХОРОНИ РІДКІСНИХ І ЗНИКАЮЧИХ ВИДІВ КОМАХ

File/s:



 kanarsky_zb_2010.doc

size: 68.5 k
number of downloads: 1641









 ecosys_aspects.doc

size: 82.5 k
number of downloads: 1242

A bibliographic reference to the first opus...

A bibliographic reference to the first opus...

Наукові основи збереження біотичної різноманітності. Матеріали 10-ї наукової конференції молодих учених).
In print.

In many regions, it's time to update the existing Red Books (or write those that don't already exist). Entomologists are kindly requested to assist in collecting literature on rare species. In particular, work has now begun on the KK of Karachay-Cherkessia. If you came across anything from the literature, please tell me. Not everything can be pulled from the Internet. And I want to come to Moscow libraries already a little prepared. Thank you in advance.

Red Books and insects are heresy! You have already picked up," guardians " of insects, do not indulge in the most. An army of parasites, by God. What will you do to Uncle Vasya with a plow if he plows a meadow where a population of a rare local species lived? Nothing at all. But if God forbid the collector collects a dozen insects there - anathema to him and the state house.

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=90568

I also wanted to give this link. ahead of

assist in collecting literature on rare species.

And what is "literature on rare species"? Red Books?
If you are interested in any specific literature, take a look at here
Also, you can ask in this the topic.

If you need articles (such as finds), try searching here - http://elibrary.ru/
Keyword search works. If the article itself isn't publicly available, at least you'll know what to look for.

All these "rare insect species" are from the evil one. There are local ones. There are no rare ones - the survival strategy of insect species does not provide for "rarity".

"Heretics" and" parasites " from Finland released the Red Book (2010)

page
http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?conten...&lan=fi&clan=fi

link to a volume on animals, including insects:
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=123017&lan=fi

This post was edited by Pirx - 02.12.2010 10: 50

Dear colleagues,

From October 20 to 22, 2011 in Simferopol on the basis of the Tauride National University named after V. I. Vernadsky, the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference
RESERVES OF THE CRIMEA will be held. BIODIVERSITY AND NATURE PROTECTION IN THE AZOV-BLACK SEA REGION

File/s:



 _______________2011.doc

size: 89.5 k
number of downloads: 492

Dear friends!
I've been watching the Red Books for a very long time. I have accumulated a lot of questions (positive and negative). And what do you think if we discuss the Red Books at one of the meetings of the Entomological Seminar?
Please note that information about the meetings can be found here: http://www.sevin.ru/menues1/index_rus.html

A collection of working materials of the Commission on the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region has been published

Rare species of living organisms of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Collection of working materials of the Commission on the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Issue No. 2. Nizhny Novgorod: Min-vo ekol. and natural. Resources of the Nizhny Novgorod Region, 2010.

Table of contents below


CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Preface 4
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Bakka S. V., Kiseleva N. Yu. On the issue of the principles of introducing species of living organisms into the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 6
Anufriev G. A. Set of proposals, additions and corrections to the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 9
Kurochkin D. V., Morozova N. M., Surov S. G. Proposal for the introduction of new species of living organisms into the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region introduction of amendments to the regulations on the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 33
PLANTS AND FUNGI Shestakova A. A. Rare Bryopsida species in the Nizhny Novgorod region 34
Urbanavichute S. P. A new fern species for the flora of the Nizhny Novgorod region 43
Zhovina O. V., Mininzon I. L. New vascular plant species for the Nizhny Novgorod region that are promising for inclusion in the regional Red Book 43
Zhovina O. V., Mininzon I. L. New finds of habitats of some species of higher vascular plants of the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 45
Levashkin A. P. Finds of plants listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 47
Mininzon I. L., Dosaeva M. A. New finds of family species. Orchidaceae of the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region on the territory of Nizhny Novgorod and its immediate environs 47
Mininzon I.L., Dosaeva M. A. On the introduction of species of the genus Euphrasia L. (ochanka) in the Appendix to the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 48
Urbanavichute S. P. New information on the places of growth of plant and mushroom species from the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 49
Urbanavichute S. P. Lists of vascular plants, algae, lichens and fungi of the regional Red Book registered in the Russian Federation in the reserve "Kerzhensky" 51
Hrynova T. R. Plants of the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region in the Botanical Garden of the UNN 57
INVERTEBRATES
Anufriev G. A. Proposal to include a medical leech in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 63
Adamov K. N. About the meeting of the common yazykan in the Lower-urban region 64
Bakka S. V., Glybina M. A. Proposals for introducing ground beetles of Schonherr The Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 65
Galinichev A.V., Anufriev G. A., Zinenko P. V. New data on the findings of insects listed in the Red Book on the territory of the Kerzhensky Nature Reserve 67
Kireeva S. A. On the Apollo encounter in Dzerzhinsk 71
Bakka S. V. Finds of invertebrates listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 72
Zarubo V. P., Zarubo T. V. On the finds of rare butterfly species in the Nizhny Novgorod region 81
Korb S.To. Clarifications and additions to the list of rare club-whiskered Lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) 82
Levashkin A. P., Rymina N. V., Bondarev O. O. New findings of invertebrates listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 91
Mokrousov M. V., Zryanin V. A. Critical review of hymenopteran insect species (Insecta, Hymenoptera) in need of protection in the Nizhny Novgorod region 92
Mukhanov A.V. Galatea Melanargia galathea (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Nizhny Novgorod region 106
Mukhanov A.V. Smooth bronze moth Protaetia aeruginosa (Drury, 1770) in the Nizhny Novgorod region 107
Fedyantsev L. E. On the findings of rare insect species in the Bor district 107
Telegin S. N. On the discovery of ranatra in the Chkalovsky district Yu8
Shustov S. B. A new find of the giant scolia Megascolia maculata Drury (
Klevakin A. A., Moreva O. A., Anuchin Yu. V., Shvetsov N. S. Kartograficheskie materialy po rasprostraneniyu rarednykh vidov kruglorotykh i ryb Nizhegorodskoy oblasti [Cartographic materials on the distribution of rare species of kruglorothes and fishes of the Nizhny Novgorod region|.

Nizhny Novgorod region 121
Bakka s.Koryakin I. V., Kiseleva N. Yu., Levashkin A. P., Denisov D. A. Current state of rare species of birds of prey listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation in the Nizhny Novgorod region 130
Bakka S. V. Results of long-term monitoring of colonial near-water birds in the Nizhny Novgorod region as justification for their conservation status 144
Bakka S. V. Distribution and abundance Magpie sandpiper (Haematopus ostralegus) in the Nizhny Novgorod region 167
Bakka S. V., Koryakin I. V., Kiseleva N. Yu., Levashkin A. P. Proposals for changing the conservation status of birds in the Nizhny Novgorod region 174
Bakka S. V., Kiseleva N. Yu. On the expediency of including the European cedar (nut) Nucifraga caryocactes caryocactes in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 184
Kurochkin D. V., Surov S. G. Proposal to exclude the gray duck from the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 187
Levashkin A. P. Proposals to exclude the meadow harrier and vertiche from Appendix 2 to the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 188
Bakka S. V.. Koryakin I. V., Kiseleva N. Yu., Levashkin A. P., Glybina M. A., Modina T. A., Kolesova N.E., Golova S. V. On rare bird species sightings in the Nizhny Novgorod region 189
Gubareva V. V., Gubareva A.V., Chernova A. S. On the encounters of birds listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region, in the north of the Vetluzhsky district 193
Zarubo V. P., Zarubo TV. On the findings of rare bird species in the Nizhny Novgorod region 195
Kostyunin V. M. Brief notes on the encounters of birds listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 196
Levashkin A. P., Rymina N. V. Findings of some Red Book bird species: new and confirming the current stay at known points 197
Noskova O. S. Rare bird species in the materials of long-term summer studies 203
Rybasov I. V. Sightings of rare bird species in summer on lakes and channels of the Serezha River valley 205
Shustov S. B., Kiselev A. K. Brief summary of Red Book bird species sightings in the Pustyn Nature Reserve during the field seasons of 2009-2010. 208
Mastyugin A. B. Meetings of rare bird species in the Spassky district 209
Telegin S. N. On meetings of rare bird species in the Chkalovsky and Gorodetsky districts 210
Bolotnikov A.V. About black stork sightings in Krasnobakovsky district 211
Astashina N. I., Klimov B. S., Frolov A.V. On the encounters of some bird species listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 212
Doronina A. V. Finding of the snake-eater in Vorotyn district 212 Nedopivtseva T. V., Nedopivtseva A. A. New finding of the golden pike settlement in Vorotyn district 213
Groza A. B. About the meeting of the golden eagle in Voskresensk district 213 Komarov L. P. About the meeting of the white stork in Navashinsky district 213
Komissarova T. About the meeting of the white stork in Vetluzhsky district 213
Kuzmin S. K. About White-tailed eagle sightings in Balakhninsky district 214
Permafrost n. M. About meeting of an osprey in Semenovsky district 214
Satdretdinova A., Gainetdinova E. On the white stork sightings in the Krasnooktyabrsky district 214
Fedoseeva N. S. On the previously unknown white stork sightings 215
MAMMALS Bakka S. V. On the expediency of including the tiny shrew and common mole rat in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region 216
Kurochkin D. V., Morozova N. M., Surov S. G. Proposals to exclude the European roe deer and the European Steppe marmot from the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region Red Data Book of the Nizhny Novgorod Region 218
Morozova N. M. Current state of the European steppe marmot in the Nizhny Novgorod region 226
Gubareva V. V., Gubareva A.V., Chernova A S. On the occurrence of mammals listed in the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region in the north of the Vetluzhsky district 229
Zarubo V.P., Zarubo T. V. About a roe deer meeting in the Pavlovsky district 230
Kostyunin V. M. About a new find of the hazel dormouse in
the Nizhny Novgorod region 230
Index of Latin and Russian names 231
Contents 245

"The Red Books and insects are heresy! You have already picked up," guardians " of insects, do not indulge in the most. An army of parasites, by God. What will you do to Uncle Vasya with a plow if he plows a meadow where a population of a rare local species lived? Nothing at all. But if, God forbid, the collector collects a dozen insects there - anathema to him and the state house"

"All these' rare insect species ' are from the evil one. There are local ones. There are no rare ones - the survival strategy of insect species does not provide for "rarity""

Rare species of living organisms of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Collection of working materials of the Commission on the Red Book of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Issue No. 2. Nizhny Novgorod: Min-vo ekol. and natural. resources of the Nizhny Novgorod region, 2010..
..
Korb S. K. Clarifications and additions to the list of rare club-whiskered lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) Nizhny Novgorod region 82

you should first read what I wrote there. well, then they were embarrassed.

By the way-yes, it would be nice to have a scan of your work.

Stas, do you have a copy?

of course there is

By the way-yes, it would be nice to have a scan of your work.

Stas, do you have a copy?

of course there is

If we are talking about a scan, then I think one copy will be enough for all of us . If Stanislav puts a scan here, I will be very grateful. Indeed, you need to get acquainted, and only then draw conclusions. Personally, I strongly doubt that T. Korb would contradict his usual position in the publication. Therefore, I personally need his text not for testing purposes, but for educational purposes.

By the way, Stanislav, isn't it possible to get the other authors of entomological articles to agree to the placement of the corresponding scans and post them immediately?

www.stankorb.com/kk2010.pdf

I won't say anything about the other authors. I don't have time to contact them right now - I'll be in the fields in 3 days.

www.stankorb.com/kk2010.pdf

I won't say anything about the other authors. I don't have time to contact them right now - I'll be in the fields in 3 days.

Photo by P. dorylas from the Nizhny Novgorod region - to the studio!

Photo by P. dorylas from the Nizhny Novgorod region - to the studio!

my definition is sufficient.

I forgot to log in. The last 2 messages from the guest are mine.