The Red Book and insects

I read A. V. Sviridov's article. There is certainly a great historical review, but there is nothing new and constructive on the conduct of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. About this - read the book by Shchurov and Zamotailov (2006), and for those who find it difficult to search for it - first of all, my review of it - should be available in Eversmannia for 2008.
Unfortunately, A.V. considers himself the only advocate of the CC of the Russian Federation and simply ignores other people's both abusive (addressed to the CC) and constructive works on this topic. He cites no one after 2000, except" CC - chief " Prisyazhnyuk-the main culprit of the fact that the CC of the Russian Federation has no scientific justification. There are no such concepts as "rarity" or "locality" (after the specific parameters of which the view must be protected). There are also no specific parameters for "reducing" types. Kustnitsa and hawthorn are also reduced, but they are not included in the CC. Ignoring the works of Poltavsky, but especially Shchurov and Zamotailov , is simply destructive!
As for the IUCN, this is a purely Western European list. Its authors have no idea about the diversity of species on the territory of Russia! Example: they didn't even know that Zerinthia Kavkazskaya lives here - they thought that she was only in Transcaucasia, outside the Russian Federation! By the way, thanks to the works of Shchurov, almost everything is known about this species now - just A.V. does not deal with day butterflies and does not know. Finally , there is no need to take into account the IUCN CC and the EU=NATO CC in Russia! Only THEIR species are included there - they don't have data on the Russian Federation (you see, they can't read Russian works - it's us, fools, polyglot people who read all their nonsense). Finally, it is a huge mistake to include Pseudophilotes baton, a species that (contrary to the Catalog, ed. Blue and Lviv-Wink) not even close to the Russian Federation! The closest place for this species is the Western Czech Republic - even for Slovakia and Poland, it was not confirmed. It's just that for A.V. the main authorities in the field of diaries are not specialists, but nomenclature workers who have no idea about diurnal butterflies.

The funny thing is that apollo in lowland Europe is a synanthropic species - it reaches its maximum number in burning areas and clearings, along with a forage plant.In the original biotopes, on the same upper Kolpi, where it is known to all local small populations.
In the CC, it is especially touching to read about the decline in the number of species whose number is unknown.
When I grew up in the madhouse named after Tov.Kashchenko in the position of a psycho, I had a full-fledged colleague, who spent whole days measuring the corridor with steps, between only known points to him.The result never met my expectations.I cried and got extra money.treatment.
Can CC authors apply to Zagorodnoye Shosse? They are familiar with the problem
there. P. S. I would like to once again take a look at the defenders of krill, hamsa and shrimp, although there is clearly a problem here.Unintentional pun -sacred is what you can eat

I read A. V. Sviridov's article. There is certainly a great historical review, but there is nothing new and constructive on the conduct of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. About this - read the book by Shchurov and Zamotailov (2006), and for those who find it difficult to search for it - first of all, my review of it - should be available in Eversmannia for 2008.
Unfortunately, A.V. considers himself the only advocate of the CC of the Russian Federation and simply ignores other people's both abusive (addressed to the CC) and constructive works on this topic. He cites no one after 2000, except" CC - chief " Prisyazhnyuk-the main culprit of the fact that the CC of the Russian Federation has no scientific justification. There are no such concepts as "rarity" or "locality" (after the specific parameters of which the view must be protected). There are also no specific parameters for "reducing" types. Kustnitsa and hawthorn are also reduced, but they are not included in the CC. Ignoring the works of Poltavsky, but especially Shchurov and Zamotailov , is simply destructive!
As for the IUCN, this is a purely Western European list. Its authors have no idea about the diversity of species on the territory of Russia! Example: they didn't even know that Zerinthia Kavkazskaya lives here - they thought that she was only in Transcaucasia, outside the Russian Federation! By the way, thanks to the works of Shchurov, almost everything is known about this species now - just A.V. does not deal with day butterflies and does not know. Finally , there is no need to take into account the IUCN CC and the EU=NATO CC in Russia! Only THEIR species are included there - they don't have data on the Russian Federation (you see, they can't read Russian works - it's us, fools, polyglot people who read all their nonsense). Finally, it is a huge mistake to include Pseudophilotes baton, a species that (contrary to the Catalog, ed. Blue and Lviv-Wink) not even close to the Russian Federation! The closest place for this species is the Western Czech Republic - even for Slovakia and Poland, it was not confirmed. It's just that for A.V. the main authorities in the field of diaries are not specialists, but nomenclature workers who have no idea about diurnal butterflies.

Lavr, I agree with you!

In general, I agree, but I will say from my own experience that the population fluctuations are very large, but in good years, at the peak of summer, the view of the territory of the south of the Krasnodar Territory (I don't know further west than Dzhubga) is more than usual (for a short excursion, you can meet fifty specimens. no wonder); in the years of moderate summer, the butterfly is simply common; it flies to feed in vegetable gardens, and even sometimes on construction sites and on the railway track, if something blooms there; and endemicity is not a reason for protection, if we are not talking about the endemic of one mountain, but about the endemic of a very large one a vast territory. In my opinion, large-scale mixing of biotopes for the economic interests of bloodsuckers is criminal in itself, but this particular species will not soon require protection. There are a lot of areas, including completely inconvenient and unnecessary for the Olympic project roadsides of any level, stream valleys, etc., where Zerinthia feels great. There are, for example, passes - or just road sections - with such crumbling that any construction site (or even just laying the roadbed) it's basically hopeless there, so Zerinthia will survive without CC. Unlike Sviridov, who has less room for maneuver than Zerinthia; this, too, should be remembered, at least rejoicing that in his place (to which the KKZH bureaucracy will not allow an open oppositionist anyway) - not a reincarnation of Antonova.

Oh, by the way, about the IUCN-you should distinguish between the IUCN Cr lists (for butterflies, this is mainly, as I said above, a narrowly Western European product) and the IUCN System of categories and Criteria. This is exactly what should be accepted in the CC of federal coverage! It specifies how to assign categories and even a number of levels of subcategories to a species, depending on the size of its range and the rate (projected) of its decline. But what is important for insects, there is also a criterion B2 - "area of habitat". This is not at all the same as the area. The habitat area can be painted over the entire continent, and the "habitat" is the total area of biotopes of the stenotopic species! For the same Apollo democrat-it will be exactly the 2nd category.
But our official "Red books" still do not understand this. There is an area for them - it means that the insect moves freely there, like some big bird. They continue to issue circulars where they talk about "rarity" and "reduction". but they do not know about the smallest thing - to finally prescribe the specific meanings of these phenomena! But since the IUCN has already prescribed this , it remains only to adopt it. This will also make it possible to compare the parameters of species in our country and in NATO, if the assessment system is unified. Shchurov and Zamotailov wrote about this, and I held it (see the review). Well, if you don't want to take the IUCN system, make your own analog (after all, in the military industry, everyone rips off what is successful from each other). But no, and our VNII OPiZD (sorry, this abbreviation) is not capable of this!
Another thing is that the IUCN system cannot be used in regional CC systems -it is also "global", it is designed for estimating global parameters.

By the way, Andrey Valentinovich never supported those stupid things like fishing bans that were prescribed by academic bureaucrats. Yes, Antonova was among them, but she was a forced person and in personal communication, although she sometimes scolded collectors, she understood the stupidity of such a prohibitive ideology. And it was she who even earlier A.V. supported the protection of local steppe species.
But A.V. could, knowing the publications of the "oppositionists", suggest something constructive to the" KK-superiors". Finally, involve specialists in cooperation. But he didn't do any of this, unfortunately. He himself does not really understand why it is necessary to protect stenotopic local species. But what can I say, not one museum and university professional burdened with an academic degree, with whom I spoke, does not understand this - they think that butterflies fly randomly anywhere. They have insufficient field practice: as the classic said, "they are too far from nature"!

Don't take these prohibitions to heart. There are no mechanisms for their implementation. No "authorized body" has any ability to monitor whether someone is catching species. This is possible only in relatively compact nature reserves, but it is also very problematic in large ones due to the small state of protection.
Here, for example, in the CC of the Tula region, which has been threatened for more than 10 years, but only now there is a positive movement, there will be no direct bans on catching insects, but soft requests are planned to "refrain" from catching the most local and small-numbered species. However, it cannot be ruled out that the CC will publish an administrative decree with bans and fines that is independent of the authors ' work. It's just that lawyers also need to "check in" somehow. But we do not have such law enforcement units in the region that would be able to do something in this direction. Even bans on drinking in city parks can be implemented by 5% - you can't put a police officer on every alley.

Last time I write on this page.

Red Book - the book is red and terrible...., fishing bans, who needs it, don't let it go, don't go there, don't touch evonto, etc. etc.
How can you not understand that working on a regional Red List project on the ground is usually the ONLY opportunity for a provincial entomologist to get at least something from our rulers from the bottomless pocket of the state to study the entomofauna of their native land!!! And only the "cream" should get on the pages of a regional publication - which is also paid not from the empty pocket of the authors of essays - but from the same state one. As they say from "....... at least a tuft of wool". Books will get into libraries, CHILDREN will learn at LEAST SOMETHING about the nature of their native land, you see who will be interested! I very much doubt that someone will specifically try to catch this or that type of insect to us in the middle zone of Russia... Rare species are just indicators of the preservation of certain landscapes in a particular area. What is so bad and hateful about this for a certain part of our audience!?? I want at least something to remain in the nature of our native land after us - since there are no other ways to protect territories (protected areas, nature parks, natural monuments and protected areas) and it is unlikely that there will be in our unsightly but so beloved fatherland...

In addition to the question about the Red Data Book of the Voronezh Region, which was raised in another topic ("Finding a topic for a dissertation"). Due to the large size of the message, I attach it as a separate file.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez-02.04.2012 04: 06

File/s:



 Read_more.pdf

size: 88.78 k
number of downloads: 489

Last time I write on this page.

Well, why so? The topics here may change. I'm always interested (and I think others are) in your opinion.

Thank you Yuri, as they used to say in Russia - You should drink honey with your lips!
I just don't like the decoding of this topic: - what are the origins of this nonsense? --

Maybe they haven't posted it yet?
The Red Book of Chuvashia. Volume 1. Part 2. Animals. Originals in .pdf -
http://gov.cap.ru/hierarhy.asp?page=./13/7.../145630/1139759
invertebrates-book section 1 (weighs almost 600 mb)
Who wants to take it easy (22 mb) - the whole book in djvu -
http://birdchuvashia.ru/index.php?option=c...ategory&catid=8
there is also the first part of the plant...

Hydrophilus piceus (Linnaeus, 1758) has also been found in the KK of Tatarstan, although it is highly doubtful that it is found in your country. I will be glad to see at least some confirmation of this, for example, a photo.

But these who are not pitseyusy? I look at the keys of the green determinant like it fits. Both the median keel and reddish spots are present. Caught on April 25-26 in the light of the village of Bolshye Bitamany, Vysokogorsky district of the Republic of Tatarstan. although this is not even a forest-steppe zone, but a subzone of the southern taiga.

This post was edited by niyaz - 28.04.2012 18: 32

Pictures:

P4280022.JPG — (2.79мб)


P4280023.JPG — (2.42мб)

But these who are not pitseyusy? I look at the keys of the green determinant like it fits. Both the median keel and reddish spots are present. Caught on April 25-26 in the light of the village of Bolshye Bitamany, Vysokogorsky district of the Republic of Tatarstan. although this is not even a forest-steppe zone, but a subzone of the southern taiga.

As you can see on the underside, these are aterrimuses. Green is completely unsuitable for identifying water lovers. I don't know why, but even in volume 5 of the Freshwater Invertebrate Index, the external signs for these species are very obscurely spelled out. Therefore, with Alexey Sazhnev built that is for clarity.

As you can see on the underside, these are aterrimuses. Green is completely unsuitable for identifying water lovers. I don't know why, but even in volume 5 of the Freshwater Invertebrate Index, the external signs for these species are very obscurely spelled out. Therefore, with Alexey Sazhnev built that is for clarity.

Now I see. If you look at the groove on the keel on the middle chest, it turns out that aterrimus.

And pitseus doesn't go that far north. These are the Aterrimuses.

A new edition of the CC of the Ryazan region has been published. All in one heavy volume. I have an "author's" copy, and I will try to get an electronic original.


This post was edited by mikee - 05/10/2012 00: 30

A new edition of the CC of the Ryazan region has been published. All in one heavy volume. I have an "author's" copy, and I will try to get an electronic original.

What do I see Tau already flying?

What do I see Tau already flying?

Males are already flown, and, in the PTZ is stronger than on the Nerskaya. Of the 8 caught in the Burrow, 5 are of good quality. The numbers of the 7th flew, see the report vicgrr

What do I see Tau already flying?

they are probably also included in this book)))

they are probably also included in this book )))

little peacock's eye was on, but tau wasn't. But this is according to the old edition.

little peacock's eye was on, but tau wasn't. But this is according to the old edition.

And it's not included in the new edition. For some reason, it seems to me that the compilers consider this view missing in the area

To be honest, I'm very interested in who wrote it that is:

Does anyone edit these books at least sometimes?

You can't edit the "holy books".

You can't edit the "holy books".

Madhouse. But people far from entomology read and firmly believe in it.

You can't edit the "holy books".

exactly. we are preparing a new edition of the CC in Nizhny Novgorod region - many of the things that we proposed to exclude were not accepted. but turn it on-it's always welcome. probably the officials there measure themselves: "but in our cc there are 100 species" - "but in our 150, we are cooler."

I apologize for the terrible question. And how is the work on creating a QA paid? As far as I know (I'm only familiar with individual cases, I don't know the general picture), it was paid on an article-by-article basis. Maybe here and "the dog rummaged"? More recently, I learned from an" informed source " that the financing of environmental protection measures will also be funded (or is it already funded?) based on the number of protected objects.

And then sometimes every (!) article in the CC is quoted as a separate publication.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 05/31/2012 13: 06

I apologize for the terrible question. And how is the work on creating a QA paid? As far as I know (I'm only familiar with individual cases, I don't know the general picture), it was paid on an article-by-article basis. Maybe here and "the dog rummaged"? More recently, I learned from an" informed source " that the financing of environmental protection measures will also be funded (or is it already funded?) based on the number of protected objects.

And then sometimes every (!) article in the CC is quoted as a separate publication.

I don't know, to be honest. at the meetings of the Nizhny Novgorod branch of the REO, I was put in the supposed authors of essays on diurnal and part of mottled butterflies. At the last meeting - where, in fact, the final list was approved - I was not present due to reasons beyond my control. It's been a long time since he left - they don't ask me for essays, which means someone else will write them. What they will write there is the second question...

But, to be honest, I have no particular desire to participate in the Red Book movement in the Nizhny Novgorod region. Our conservationists are too aggressive when it comes to excluding species. They yell so loud it makes your ears pop. And I'm not used to communicating like this.

Sviridov no longer catches mice at all.

Here is a list of butterfly species that I would exclude from the CCMO::

Hepialidae
Pharmacis lupulinus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Papilionidae
Papilio machaon (Linnaeus, 1758)

Hesperiidae
Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780])
Heteropterus morpheus (Pallas, 1771)

Pieridae
Colias myrmidone (Esper, [1777])

Lycaenidae
Plebejus optilete (Knoch, 1781)
Lycaena alciphron (Rottemburg, 1775)
Lycaena dispar (Haworth, 1802)
Thecla betulae (Linnaeus, 1758)
Quercusia quercus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Satyrium w-album (Knoch, 1782)

Nymphalidae
Pararge aegeria (Linnaeus, 1758)
Melanargia russiae (Esper, [1783])
Brenthis daphne ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775)
Argynnis laodice (Pallas, 1771)
Nymphalis xanthomelas (Esper, [1781])
Melitaea diamina (Lang, 1789)

Lasiocampidae
Malacosoma castrense (Linnaeus, 1758)

Saturniidae
Saturnia pavonia (Linnaeus, 1758)

Sphingidae
Laothoe amurensis (Staudinger, 1892)
Macroglossum stellatarum (Linnaeus, 1758)

Geometridae
Cyclophora annularia (Fabricius, 1775)
Ecliptopera silaceata ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775)
Catarhoe cuculata (Hufnagel, 1767)
Acasis viretata (Hübner, [1799])
Hydrelia sylvata ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775)
Chloroclystis v-ata (Haworth, 1809)
Petrophora chlorosata (Scopoli, 1763)
Parectropis similaria (Hufnagel, 1767)

Notodontidae
Drymonia ruficornis (Hufnagel, 1766)
Stauropus fagi (Linnaeus, 1758)

Erebidae
Hypena crassalis (Fabricius, 1787)
Callimorpha dominula (Linnaeus, 1758)
Thumatha senex (Hübner, [1808])
Pelosia muscerda (Hufnagel, 1766)
Eilema sororcula (Hufnagel, 1766)
Catocala sponsa (Linnaeus, 1767)

Nolidae
Earias clorana (Linnaeus, 1761)

Noctuidae
Autographa mandarina (Freyer, 1845)
Moma alpium (Osbeck, 1778)
Calophasia lunula (Hufnagel, 1766)
Callopistria juventina (Stoll, 1782)
Elaphria venustula (Hübner, 1790)
Cosmia affinis (Linnaeus, 1767)
Hyssia cavernosa (Eversmann, 1842)
Eriopygodes imbecilla (Fabricius, 1794)
---------------------------

Move to the add-on before fresh finds:
Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus, 1758)
Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus, 1758)
Oeneis tarpeia (Pallas, 1771)
Malacodea regelaria Tengström, 1869

It's been a long time since he left - they don't ask me for essays, which means someone else will write them. What they will write there is the second question...

Stas, Bakka said at the penultimate meeting: "120,000 rubles have been allocated for all specific essays of the entire Red Book. They have already been received and reported for"

I apologize for the terrible question. And how is the work on creating a QA paid? As far as I know (I'm only familiar with individual cases, I don't know the general picture), it was paid on an article-by-article basis. Maybe here and "the dog rummaged"? More recently, I learned from an" informed source " that the financing of environmental protection measures will also be funded (or is it already funded?) based on the number of protected objects.

And then sometimes every (!) article in the CC is quoted as a separate publication.

Now I will reveal this terrible secret. I don't know how it is in other regions, but I didn't get a single penny when preparing two editions of the CC of the Republic of Karelia, although I wrote essays and spent a lot of time working with lists. I can't say anything about the editors, no one advertised it, and ordinary compilers were not given money, they said that they were already so good. So, neither the number of species included in the CC, nor the prepared essays, did not affect anything here.
By the way, I am not at all proud of my participation in the preparation of the CC RK, because the value of the book is rather doubtful, if you do not take into account the coated paper and color drawings . We have very few entomologists in Karelia for a considerable territory, and there are quite a lot of groups of insects that are not covered by attention, so we sometimes had to get out of it. But "from baldy" (without materials and reliable evidence from specialists), not a single species was included in the lists.
If we were paid for this, the attitude to work would be somewhat different and more time would be given to this. Perhaps in other regions the situation is different, but in our country it all depended on the local Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Ecology, they ordered the preparation of lists and financed the publication. Now everything has been shuffled, and the CC is in charge of the Ministry of Nature Management and Ecology of the Republic of Kazakhstan-M. B. something will change for the better...
There has long been a debate that it would be a good idea for Russia to switch to the use of IUCN categories and criteria. The only thing that does not suit us is that all this is designed to evaluate large vertebrates, and we face significant difficulties in applying them to insects. This is also superimposed on the vast territory of Russia, which is full of places where the entomologist has not yet set foot. But long-term observations are needed to establish that the number of a species tends to decrease, and it would also be good to establish the reason for this. In the meantime, most insect species will have the DD - data deficient category. The practice of issuing beautiful books once every 10 years is vicious, constant monitoring is needed, and CC lists for the region should hang online and be regularly adjusted based on new information received.
As for the essays in the CC, indeed, some "eagles" counted each of them for a separate publication, which greatly contributed to the defense of the doctoral thesis. But let it remain on their conscience.

Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg @ 31.05.2012 13: 58)
I apologize for the terrible question. And how is the work on creating a QA paid? As far as I know (I'm only familiar with individual cases, I don't know the general picture), it was paid on an article-by-article basis. Maybe here and "the dog rummaged"? More recently, I learned from an" informed source " that the financing of environmental protection measures will also be funded (or is it already funded?) based on the number of protected objects.

And then sometimes every (!) article in the CC is quoted as a separate publication.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer the first part of the question, it should be said that any CC is a state program and is somehow funded - but in each subject of the Russian Federation in its own way (obviously, the Moscow CC is the best-this can be seen in the printing industry). However, such cases when the authors of essays or illustrations do not receive anything - this is a form of piracy on the part of those who are in charge of financing - direct appropriation of the results of someone else's work - i.e. theft. As far as I have come across this, the average (+_80%) price of an essay in the regional CC is close to 500 rubles., the prices of illustrations fluctuate more strongly (the original drawing is certainly expensive, comparable to an essay, a processed or complex photo is somewhat cheaper, a simple photo that can be made with a soap dish is even cheaper, copying from literature is even cheaper M. to be a gift). And cartography is also paid approximately at the level of "cheap" illustrations.
Regarding the financing of other environmental protection measures, it depends on the penetrating abilities of the managers of these works and the ideas of the regional administration about their "benefits". For example, in our region, faunal and floristic surveys of the territory were funded only sporadically (for 20 years there were 2 or 3 topics) and symbolically (for a season - about 1 salary of n. s.). But for monitoring emissions or landfills, lemons are spent annually. And for the destruction of nature through so-called "sanitary" logging or turning "weeds" into "aglitsky lawns" - no less.
For the second part, we can say that it is sometimes advisable to cite a separate essay when discussing a particular taxon. In other cases, it may be more convenient to cite the entire set of essays on a specific group (for example, on beetles, butterflies, etc.). But the situation when the author himself presents each of his essays as a separate scientific work is of course nonsense. A separate work can be considered only the totality of all the essays of this author in one CC. Or even a whole section (for example, Plants, Invertebrates, Vertebrates, etc.) as a collective work.

kotbegemot
Permanent member
This Country
yesterday, 16: 41 URL #629
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sviridov no longer catches mice at all.
Here is a list of butterfly species that I would exclude from the
CCMO:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vlad, it was not only Sviridov who compiled this - besides, at that time the Moscow region was in the pen in terms of study - we had to rely on Sirotkin's lists and research by the authors themselves essays. Shame on you! There are more entomologists-collectors in Moscow and the region than in the rest of European Russia. In addition, they are on average much more affluent and better equipped with methodical literature than the provincials. And only a few of them provided assistance in making CC. Hence the gaps. True, I also wrote many letters to Sobolev and Volkova about the composition of species in the CC, but they decided that they knew better "on the spot". And in some cases they said "no data", we can't make a decision, we'll leave it as it was in the 1998 edition
.-----------------------------------------------------
Move to the add-on before fresh finds:
Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus, 1758) Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus, 1758) Oeneis tarpeia (Pallas, 1771) Malacodea regelaria Tengström, 1869
--------------------------------------------------------
For such cases, most CC's have Category 0-probably extinct species. Additions (or appendices) include either insufficiently studied species or species that are close to being included in the CC soon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vasiliy-feoktistov
yesterday, 08: 57 URL #623
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I am very interested in who wrote this: It has been known in the Moscow region since the XIX century (8). Over the past 30 years, it has been noted only in Serpukhov district - in the PTZ and its environs in the early 1990s and in Serpukhov in 1992 (9, 10).Recently doubted catching at home on the light. And yesterday morning in general "marked" it !in MOSCOW! at the Kazan railway station, sitting on a pole with lanterns. Does anyone edit these books at least sometimes?
-------------------------------------------------------------
CC should be reprinted at least in 10 years. In between, it is "supposed" to monitor and make changes. The latter can be either in the working order (in the author's table or report), or reflected in publications. But funding for such "QA Management" programs is not available in all areas. As far as I can see, the situation is better in the republics (at least research can be paid for and collections on CC-species finds and proposals for status changes are published ANNUALLY), but not at all-in most simple regions (including Tula). In some cases, funding and activation of CC research begins only one year before the intended publication (reissue) of the CC - "remember" about this case.
Hence, if the CC enthusiasts themselves do not conduct regular monitoring and (if they are not the authors of the CC themselves) bring information to the authors/editors - new information in subsequent (in 10 years) reprints of the CC will not be able to appear or will be limited. In the CC of Moscow, this happened in the worst possible way with pyadenitsy-E. M. Antonova left, and there was no one to deal with it-they practically rewrote everything from the 1998 edition, and it's still good that (under my annoying pressure, among other things) the nomenclature was updated. On other nights - Sviridov collected information, but his contacts were very limited - he demands to show him the material (at least a recognizable photo) and does not really believe oral reports. If you tell him that you saw this thinworm, maybe he will take it on a pencil. But it is better to have a butterfly in the collection or a photo and present it to the CC editors or Sviridov closer to the point (before the next CC is published-we will be alive, by 2018) .

I would also like to see the authors of these books (or who writes them). they did not disdain and looked here.
A photo of a thin worm from the city of Zheleznodorozhny here: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1323716 (and it's already in the collection). Yes, and I also took a copy from the Kazan railway station (although I haven't done it yet: I can't even get my hands on it).

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 01.06.2012 09: 08

In some cases, funding and activation of CC research begins only one year before the intended publication (reissue) of the CC - "remember" about this case.

You are in the topic "Red Book and straight-winged birds" from here take a look. The deadline is "until yesterday".

PS. I apologize, but the exact link is not inserted!

I would also like to see the authors of these books (or who writes them). they did not disdain and looked here.
A photo of a thin worm from the city of Zheleznodorozhny here: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1323716 (and it's already in the collection). Yes, and I also took a copy from the Kazan railway station (although I haven't done it yet: I can't even get my hands on it).

You just like the first time a butterfly in your hand took ))
All these marks like: "the last time this species was registered xxx years ago" are written mainly by big uncles from big science. And such uncles usually do not go to their native outskirts, because this is a very dusty business, they sit in their offices, and sometimes they go to [Thailand].

So, if you want to make a "contribution to science", bring them your findings, describe where they were found, in general, inventory, protocol, fingerprints And see what they will tell you ))))

So, if you want to make a "contribution to science", bring them your findings, describe where they were found, in general, inventory, protocol, fingerprints And see what they will tell you ))))

Is It "On A Silver Platter"? This won't do. I go to my own blood in the Moscow region sometimes and do not cry that they say they do not allocate money, etc., etc
. That they should buy a ticket, take the train and drive 100 kilometers from Moscow for example: assess the situation on the spot, "in the fields"? Will it hit your pocket hard? Of course, it is easier to sit in the office and write delusional red books while receiving a salary for this. Yes, no offense: half of the insects from the "CC of the Moscow region" should be thrown out in a good way to hell.

Stas, Bakka said at the penultimate meeting: "120,000 rubles have been allocated for all specific essays of the entire Red Book. They have already been received and reported for"

aaa.. It's clear.
I thought we'd at least get the environmental protection agency to pay for giving them our information .

No, let them do the digging themselves now. I don't like ungrateful people, but I despise unnecessary ones.

Is It "On A Silver Platter"? This won't do. I go to my own blood in the Moscow region sometimes and do not cry that they say they do not allocate money, etc., etc
. That they should buy a ticket, take the train and drive 100 kilometers from Moscow for example: assess the situation on the spot, "in the fields"? Will it hit your pocket hard? Of course, it is easier to sit in the office and write delusional red books while receiving a salary for this. Yes, no offense: half of the insects from the "CC of the Moscow region" should be thrown out in a good way to hell.

exactly. on a silver platter.
for some reason, the gentlemen in jackets and offices think that they are doing us a great honor by accepting our material and then publishing it under their own name.

we will send them together to the place where they usually wear diapers