The Red Book and insects

CC is a price list on the black market. The rarer the more expensive.

Isn't there a housefly there?"
The Administrative Code of the Moscow Region has also been compiled. There are also sorrel chervonets, and bolshaya perelivnitsa, and other quite common species.

Well, actually perelivnitsa big was in the CC of the USSR

Well, actually perelivnitsa big was in the CC of the USSR

So what? There were still a lot of stupid things going on. Swallowtail, for example, and podaliriy.

So what? There were still a lot of stupid things going on. Swallowtail, for example, and podaliriy.

In the upcoming new edition of the CC of Ukraine, these types still remain.

I came here because of a familiar child who was assigned to prepare several questions on nature protection and QC at school and couldn't resist scrolling through the entire topic. Interesting.
A couple of thoughts, as a reaction to what you read.
Of course, it is not the species that should be protected, but their biotopes. But we haven't grown up to this yet - it's much more expensive than declaring the species protected, reporting back, raking in money for "work" and then settling down.
And with the principle of species selection in the CC, the idea that large and easily identifiable species that are of interest (collection, food, household, raw materials, etc.) for unorganized and poorly organized citizens already slipped through here (if species fall into the sphere of interests of organizations, then their protection is carried out by completely different methods). There is no point in writing lists of small (even very rare) species that almost no one is interested in and die only by accident - they can only be preserved through the protection of biotopes.
And bahurin is right - getting into the CC, the species sharply jumps in price on the black market, which only worsens its situation.
In general, it is necessary to approach the inclusion of species in the CC individually, thoughtfully, and not relying only on the number of species in the region (this means almost nothing at all).

And bahurin is right - getting into the CC, the view jumps sharply in price

I don't agree. Why would he jump? Did he start breeding less from that day on? Or was there a guard assigned to every bug that was protected? There are the same Swallowtail and Podaliri already from time immemorial in the CC-no one needs it for nothing.

I don't agree. Why would he jump? Did he start breeding less from that day on? Or was there a guard assigned to every bug that was protected? There are the same Swallowtail and Podaliri already from time immemorial in the CC-no one needs it for nothing.

It's all about PR.

I came here because of a familiar child who was assigned to prepare several questions on nature protection and QC at school and couldn't resist scrolling through the entire topic. Interesting.
A couple of thoughts, as a reaction to what you read.
Of course, it is not the species that should be protected, but their biotopes. But we haven't grown up to this yet - it's much more expensive than declaring the species protected, reporting back, raking in money for "work" and then settling down.
And with the principle of species selection in the CC, the idea that large and easily identifiable species that are of interest (collection, food, household, raw materials, etc.) for unorganized and poorly organized citizens already slipped through here (if species fall into the sphere of interests of organizations, then their protection is carried out by completely different methods). There is no point in writing lists of small (even very rare) species that almost no one is interested in and die only by accident - they can only be preserved through the protection of biotopes.
And bahurin is right - getting into the CC, the species sharply jumps in price on the black market, which only worsens its situation.
In general, it is necessary to approach the inclusion of species in the CC individually, thoughtfully, and not relying only on the number of species in the region (this means almost nothing at all).

Dear Rud,
Can you hear yourself? How can an educated biologist divide butterflies into these two categories, and even try to protect them based on this approach??? You soundly speak about the conservation of biotopes, as measures for the conservation of species, but what is any common sense worth if insects are divided into "big and beautiful" and "other small" for you?

This is all nonsense, of course. Regional red books are of great interest. Populations of many species common in the south, north, and east are very sparse and sparse. The individuals that make up them are by no means suicide bombers, but simply exist in a small, most suitable territory, because due to the climatic and zoogeographic restrictions imposed on them by the region, they cannot spread everywhere. Write more meaningful things

This also happens, but not always. Remember how many species we have in our country, described in one or two copies, and even those-in "shaggy" years. Including nonsense-nonsense, and the meaning is different.

this is more often the case. most of the species described in the past in shaggy years in 1-2 specimens have now been identified as local populations. and if these species were not included in the CC, who knows, they would be searched for, organized expeditions for them?

After all, logically, adding to the CC implies a reduction in supply in the "market". Not everyone understands that this is not only on paper.

Those who collect (buy) insects just understand this ("paper" protection) perfectly well. This is not understood except by people who are far from entomology, but they are not engaged in the purchase/sale of insects.

  it is necessary to protect large and easily identifiable species that are of interest (collectible, food, household, raw materials, etc.)
....
There is no point in writing lists of small (even very rare) species that almost no one is interested in and die only by accident - they can only be preserved through the protection of biotopes.

There is no difference between small and large species, and it is pointless to protect both of them by themselves. Insect protection = this is the protection of the biotope. And the fact that collectors can harm the population is a separate question, it was already discussed on this forum (in another topic).
At the expense of adding small, nondescript species to the CC lists... I think it makes sense that the CC would be, as in Latvia (URL #74), a popular book with beautiful pictures for the general reader (he is really not interested in plain ones), but it was not a legislative document.

And with the principle of species selection in the CC, the idea that large and easily identifiable species that are of interest (collection, food, household, raw materials, etc.) for unorganized and poorly organized citizens already slipped through here (if species fall into the sphere of interests of organizations, then their protection is carried out by completely different methods). There is no point in writing lists of small (even very rare) species that almost no one is interested in and die only by accident - they can only be preserved through the protection of biotopes.

Dear Rud,
Can you hear yourself? How can an educated biologist divide butterflies into these two categories, and even try to protect them based on this approach??? You soundly speak about the conservation of biotopes, as measures for the conservation of species, but what is any common sense worth if insects are divided into "big and beautiful" and "other small" for you?

It seems to me that dear barko misunderstood the idea of Rud(a). The accusation is that the latter divides butterflies (by the way, why only butterflies? In my opinion, we are talking about all insects) into two categories on the basis of "beautiful-ugly", "large-small" is unjustified. Rud raised the issue not about dividing living organisms into these two groups, but about one of the principles of selecting rare insect species for inclusion in the Red Book. It seems to me that with such a selection, the principle of recognizability of an insect in nature, its visibility, is more than acceptable. Let's say that there are many types of pigeons, which can only be distinguished by a specialist, and even then not everyone, and not "on a whim". And among these superficially similar species, there are really rare ones. But even an employee in the field of nature protection, not to mention ordinary "citizens", will not be able to recognize them in nature. What is the meaning and legal burden of the decision to include such a butterfly in the Red Book? Destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants listed in the Red Book entails administrative liability under Article 8.35 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. This is where something can happen that we once discussed in the topic about the detention of our insect collectors abroad: theoretically, some zealous inspector can draw up a report on an administrative offense against a collector who was detained with non-disappearing pigeons in the stain! And this guy will not be able to prove anything - the butterflies caught by him will look like two drops of water like a drawing or a picture in the Red Book! Who needs it? The Red Book is a document in our country that is largely declarative, propagandistic in nature, addressed not only (and not so much!) to specialists, but also to the widest range of citizens. Therefore, it does not make sense to introduce into it some really rare scoop of nondescript unrecognizable color, flying at night. Most people (both law enforcement officers and "ordinary" citizens) not only do not recognize it in nature, but, most likely, they will never even meet it. And there are such examples - Xylomoia retinax is included in the Red Book of the Yaroslavl region, known for two or three finds in the region. Tell me, how purposefully can you protect it?! This is what I think Rud had in mind, and I completely agree with him on this issue. And as for the protection, first of all, of biotopes, who is arguing? It is clear to a fool that Sunday is a holiday! But the Red Books are not very helpful in this direction yet. This requires a whole range of measures, the adoption of which in our state is currently impossible, no matter how sad it is to admit. The reasons lie in the field of politics, so I consider it inappropriate to discuss them here.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 10/14/2009 18: 10

"Therefore, it doesn't make sense to introduce some really rare scoop of nondescript unrecognizable color that flies at night."

MAKES sense!
Here, Dmitritch, you probably don't know anything about nondescript dustpans, just as I don't know anything about beetles.
Here, I catch this scoop. I catch one piece from year to year - in some year two will arrive, in some year a hundred, and in some year zero.
Monitoring? He's the one.
The Red Book is probably created more for specialists. And for the layman who is waiting for beautiful pictures, we will introduce a swallowtail.

Swallowtail - nah from the Red Book!!! It doesn't even make sense to protect its biotopes: it's here today, breeding there tomorrow.

PS Pash, you would check your personal messages, or something...

Yeah.
Here, we went in different trains to Tugolesye and caught Papilio machaon, Colias myrmidone, C. palaeno, Brenthisdaphne, Melitaea diamina, Boloria aquilonaris, brenthisdaphne, Pseudotepna pruinata, Scotopteryx mucronata, presumably gus. Synopsia sociaria, Rodostrophia vibicaria, Callopisitria juventina, Calophasia lunula (gus), Anarta myrtilli.
Please fill in the details about pseudo-Russian women and others.

In general, I am now leafing through the new edition of the KK MO and list for the forum members what I personally collected from the LEPIDOPTERA listed there. By the way, in most cases these are points that are not specified in the publication (marked with an asterisk*).
Apoda limacodes*
Erynnis tages
Muschampia tessellum
Heteropterus morpheus
Papilio machaon
Colias myrmidone
C. palaeno
Apatura iris
Nymphalis vau-album*
N. xanthomelas*
Euphydryas aurinia*
E. maturna
Melitaea diamina*
M. didyma
Boloria aquilonaris
Brenthis daphne
Pararge aegeria*
Coenonympha hero*
Erebia aethiops
Thecla betulae*
Quercusia quercus* (both ubiquitous)
Nordmannia w-album*
Lycaena tityrus*
L. alciphron
L. dispar
L. hippothoe
Cupido minimus
Glaucopsyche alexis*
Maculinea teleius
Vaciniina optilete*
Lysandra coridon
Meleageria daphnis
Pseudoterpna pruinata
Scotopteryx moeniata
Comibaena bajularia*
Rhodostrophia vibicaria
Cyclophora annulata*
Idaea muricata*
Acasis viretata*
Eustroma reticulata*
Ecliptopera silaceata* (уж эта - банальщина!!!!)
Thera juniperata *
Euphyia biangulata*
Discoloxia blomeri*
Hydrelia sylvata* (another "banal")
Stegania cararia*Lithina chlorosata
Parectropis similaria*
Malacosoma castrensis*
Eudia pavonia*
Laothoe amurensis*
Hematis fuciformis*
Proserpinus proserpina*
Drymonia ruficornis*
Stauropus fagi* (and another "banal")
Earias clorana* (we flew well at the dacha this year)
Thumatha senex
Eilema depressa*
E. sororculum (also often)
Callimorpha dominula
Calliteara abietis
Macrochilo cribrumalis *
Hypena crassalis*
Catocala promissa*
Autographa mandarina* (also often, you need to look more closely and that's all)
Moma alpium *
Panemeria tenebrata*
Calophasia lunula*
Callopistria juventina*
Elaphria venustula*
Apamea unanimis*
Apamea scolopacina*
Apamea ophiogramma*
Atypha pulmonaris*
Anarta myrtilli
Hyssia cavernosa*
Lasionycta imbecilla*
Rhyacia simulans* (the only true find, but in the entrance of the house)

Who is not too lazy to add. I know that many people have something to write about.

Yes, unfortunately, the compiler of the book on butterflies Sviridov is an extremely passive gentleman...Oh he would have at least a quarter of the aspiration of Nikitsko

....... Regional red books are of great interest. .......

Regional CC's make sense, but not a security one, of course. This is a kind of formal result of research on local fauna, documented. That's not a bad thing.

It seems to me that dear barko misunderstood the idea of Rud(a). The accusation is that the latter divides butterflies (by the way, why only butterflies? In my opinion, we are talking about all insects) into two categories on the basis of "beautiful-ugly", "large-small" is unjustified. Rud raised the issue not about dividing living organisms into these two groups, but about one of the principles of selecting rare insect species for inclusion in the Red Book. It seems to me that with such a selection, the principle of recognizability of an insect in nature, its visibility, is more than acceptable. Let's say that there are many types of pigeons, which can only be distinguished by a specialist, and even then not everyone, and not "on a whim". And among these superficially similar species, there are really rare ones. But even an employee in the field of nature protection, not to mention ordinary "citizens", will not be able to recognize them in nature. What is the meaning and legal burden of the decision to include such a butterfly in the Red Book? Destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants listed in the Red Book entails administrative liability under Article 8.35 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. This is where something can happen that we once discussed in the topic about the detention of our insect collectors abroad: theoretically, some zealous inspector can draw up a report on an administrative offense against a collector who was detained with non-disappearing pigeons in the stain! And this guy will not be able to prove anything - the butterflies caught by him will look like two drops of water like a drawing or a picture in the Red Book! Who needs it? The Red Book is a document in our country that is largely declarative, propagandistic in nature, addressed not only (and not so much!) to specialists, but also to the widest range of citizens. Therefore, it does not make sense to introduce into it some really rare scoop of nondescript unrecognizable color, flying at night. Most people (both law enforcement officers and "ordinary" citizens) not only do not recognize it in nature, but, most likely, they will never even meet it. And there are such examples - Xylomoia retinax is included in the Red Book of the Yaroslavl region, known for two or three finds in the region. Tell me, how purposefully can you protect it?! This is what I think Rud had in mind, and I completely agree with him on this issue. And as for the protection, first of all, of biotopes, who is arguing? It is clear to a fool that Sunday is a holiday! But the Red Books are not very helpful in this direction yet. This requires a whole range of measures, the adoption of which in our state is currently impossible, no matter how sad it is to admit. The reasons lie in the field of politics, so I consider it inappropriate to discuss them here.

Well, then things are even worse than I thought. The division of insects into "large and beautiful, easily identified" and "other small" is not acceptable to use as a criterion for entering the species in the CC.

"Therefore, it doesn't make sense to introduce some really rare scoop of nondescript unrecognizable color that flies at night."

MAKES sense!
Here, Dmitritch, you probably don't know anything about nondescript dustpans, just as I don't know anything about beetles.
Here, I catch this scoop. I catch one piece from year to year - in some year two will arrive, in some year a hundred, and in some year zero.
Monitoring? He's the one.
The Red Book is probably created more for specialists. And for the layman who is waiting for beautiful pictures, we will introduce a swallowtail.

Why for specialists? For specialists, a simple list with points of discovery, etc. is enough. You yourself have just added a bunch of points to the KKMO. I hold in my hands a thick glossy beautiful KKMO with far from complete information about points - why do specialists need it like this? But the most important thing for the mass reader.
Actually, the lists of types and appearance of the CC should correspond to its actual purpose. I think we should first decide for whom it is made. If for the people, then - a beautiful book, even if with Swallowtails. If for specialists-then detailed lists of any "gray" scoops, points of finds and other information.

Dmitrich-well said!

All this is good and correct, it remains only to convince the government of this. And huntsmen. Try to prove that "I am good, I do not destroy the biotope, and catching butterflies does not harm the species".

All this is good and correct, it remains only to convince the government of this. And huntsmen. Try to prove that "I am good, I do not destroy the biotope, and catching butterflies does not harm the species".

The government does not need to be convinced of this... it knows nothing about it and thinks the least of it. And the huntsmen will not even understand the words "biotop".

In fact, QC should meet the needs of both amateurs and specialists. A sort of universal manual. but it makes sense to include only those species that are really possible and worth protecting, but not species found in 2-3 instantiations

In order to avoid endless disputes and gossip, first of all you need to understand the CRITERIA by which the cat is selected. types should be entered in the CC. And this is a serious problem, because, for example, the CITES criteria will have to be adapted to our realities. Now imagine the inevitable discussion with the entomological community... Are there any kamikazes?
In my opinion, Omar's position is the most reasonable - to enter in the CC ONLY SPECIES THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRE PROTECTION MEASURES. All the others go to apps...
And then, in a number of European countries, there are no "funny pictures" at all - but the so-called red and other sheets, updated, by the way, as needed, and not in the companionship mode.
Unfortunately, our beggary does not involve, in my opinion, such a necessary publication, in particular. It would reflect and concentrate current information (such as the information given above by Frost, for example) on CC-types - both the main list and applications. Then the compilers of CC lists and essays would not rush around in search of information that is not always available "on the fly". And in what avral our KK are usually made-it is known (see the passage about leaf beetles above)...
The latter is naively dreamy... Oh, if only CC's would stop being "commercial enterprises"!
In general, thank you very much to everyone participating in the discussion. I am sure that the opinions expressed during this discussion will be taken into account by professionals.

This post was edited by Papaver - 10/14/2009 22: 31

P.S. Colleagues! And it is hardly productive to discuss who needs the CC more-professionals, amateurs, gamekeepers or bureaucrats... Because in essence, the CC is a LEGAL DOCUMENT. How this is implemented in practice is another question (although no less painful, of course) - but look at how others are implemented. laws...

This post was edited by Papaver - 10/14/2009 22: 45

My attitude to KK in relation to insects, of course – is the attitude of a rude person. But I, having read the ideas of tt. barko, Dmitrich and Rud, would suggest to think a little more seriously about the possibility of using the division, roughly speaking, into "big and beautiful" and "small and uninteresting" in any QC. On the one hand, the CC should be scientifically based, and the scientific content in this division is zero. On the other hand, if the CC is aimed not only at protecting biotopes, but also at protecting individuals from removal from nature (while, alas, "unauthorized collection" is not spared from bullying), we will not avoid very important sub-questions:

1.1. Should the degree of threat to the existence of a population( species) be taken into account when deciding whether to include a species in the CC?
1.2. If so, does this degree of threat depend on the extent to which the species is at risk of unauthorized collection?
1.3. If so, does the degree of danger of unauthorized collection (especially by suckers) depend on the visibility and "beauty" of the view?.. If so, the conclusion will, alas, be very absurd from a purely scientific point of view, but it is quite in the spirit of the very idea of CC: one should take into account, all other things being equal, the greater susceptibility of "beautiful" and so on species to seizure by non-specialists. And then it is possible to return the issue to the scientific plane only by surgical means: by completely rejecting the idea of protecting individual individuals as a principle of QC. When drawing up the CC, T. barko, we can argue as scientifically as we like, but those from whom the CC currently protects the fauna at the level of protecting individuals are not just entomologists, we must admit this honestly. Here and suckers (who give a potachku, so everyone in the country from childhood will be how much in vain 23-kopeck net waving), here and such a statistically important contingent as entomological goods dealers "on the wall", which is not drosophila need, and that popontovee. Therefore, we need to remember not only about our own scientific principles, but also about the fact that QC applies to a whole horde of people with completely non-scientific approaches and criteria, this is the reality.

2.1. Does the degree of vulnerability of a population (species )depend on from the ability of a potential "taker" to distinguish cabbage, which is still among the pests, from apollo? If it depends, then you really will have to think if not about protecting cabbage plants, then about moderating the fight against them in places close to at least mnemosyne stations. I already on the forum once cited the example of my friend from the Odessa region, who, not finding anything darker than Cossus cossus in a book about pests (and this one was painted with terrible colors there), in a panic killed the mating of pear saturnias in his garden.
2.2. Does the degree of vulnerability of a population (species)depend on from the ability of the "inspector" in taxonomically slippery cases to actually carry out electoral protection? And, if so, shouldn't we, contrary to the previous paragraph, propose to remove protection from all species at the individual level altogether, because otherwise the presumption of innocence, which is legally a more fundamental principle than bug-loving, will go down the drain?

I still believe that the solution should be sought not so much in polishing the principles of inclusion (everyone here has long understood everything scientifically, and these practical issues still lead to a dead end of contradictions), but in cutting this knot, in limiting the legal functions of the CC in its entomological part, in reducing them to the protection of biotopes and populations in general, in the strictest exclusion of prosecution for "collection" , while allowing prosecution solely for the judicially proven destruction of a population (species).

But to use the CC data to take measures for the protection of biotopes is the first thing, although in the conditions of clean water it is very problematic...

I'm not talking about the scientific significance of CC, everything is already clear here. It only needs to be upgraded.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10/15/2009 03: 35

Why for specialists? For specialists, a simple list with points of discovery, etc. is enough. You yourself have just added a bunch of points to the KKMO. I hold in my hands a thick glossy beautiful KKMO with far from complete information about points - why do specialists need it like this? But the most important thing for the mass reader.  
Actually, the lists of types and appearance of the CC should correspond to its actual purpose. I think we should first decide for whom it is made. If for the people, then - a beautiful book, even if with Swallowtails. If for specialists-then detailed lists of any "gray" scoops, points of finds and other information.

Dmitrich-well said!

For specialists, the CC will always be interesting, at least as a source for litobzor.
That would be of some use.
Now, regarding the word "policy"that is often used in this topic
, if the protection measures provide for a ban on trapping, then we, professionals and amateurs, should also "lobby" for our own interests.

You can't do it without fees and CC. For example, I went to AV Sviridov, told him about the collected shovel Atypha pulmonaris, and he answered me, saying, " THIS IS ALL GREAT, BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET THE MATERIAL. COULD YOU GIVE ME A RIDE?" AND THEN I'LL WRITE DOWN THE POINT"

And it's good that this summer I got two pieces. I brought it back. And I think Andrey Valentinovich is right.

This scoop also came to me this year. (Chekhov district, pos. Lyubuchany),

as well as such closely related oak species as Comibaena bajularia and Apoda limacodes. This was very strange, since in the sector illuminated by the lamp there was only one oak tree standing on the garden plot, and the other nearest oaks I know are located at a considerable distance from the gathering place.

This post was edited by chebur - 15.10.2009 09: 02

 
To be honest, I don't understand what regional CC is at all. The areas of living creatures do not know state and regional borders.<...> There can be only one Red Book - an international one. All other CC's are made only for the purpose of self-serving siphoning off money from their states. IMHO.

This is all nonsense, of course. Regional red books are of great interest. < ... > Write more meaningful things

I will take on the role of interpreter, although I was not asked (but it seems to me that omar did not understand the obvious in Rud's statement). The fact that "Areas (not areas, of course, but the animals themselves, including insects) living beings do not know state borders" - obviously and does not require proof. This is not "stupidity" at all. In this case, the requirement to write "more meaningful things" is passed over by the addressee. But drawing up a regional CC is not just "nonsense", but "bullshit", in fact. it would have been possible to ignore it if it wasn't burdensome for my pocket (they take money for publishing out of it, just like from yours, without asking).
When you use the term "regional", you replace the concept of zoning with the concept of "administrative-territorial border". When it comes to "CC (some) area", it is considered a part of the range that is completely (and "stupidly") arbitrarily allocated (not only in relation to the animal), - on the basis of economic needs, but not a certain historical and cultural tradition, the dominant ethno-cultural community, etc. (k insects, in this particular case, which has absolutely nothing to do with).
In publishing the KK region, the publisher seems to be following the lead of his "provincial complex": shob bulo is no worse than in the capital (of the world, country, province, etc.). This is why the Eiffel Towers are located in Muhosranskakh. Meanwhile, administrative borders are being redrawn and redrawn (in CHI Rep. we drew a border based on the ethnic principle, separating the Chechens from the Ingush, the Germans were abolished altogether, the Komi were united with the Perm region-you can continue this series yourself). I'm not saying anything about the fact that in the future of administrative frenzy, it may well appear CC regional districts, prefectures, streets ...
Put next to "CC Moscow region" and a hypothetical (?) "KK of the Krasnoyarsk Territory". How's it going?"

Regional CC's make sense, but not a security one, of course. This is a kind of formal result of research on local fauna, documented. That's not a bad thing.

It is difficult to agree that the "formal result of studies of local fauna" is "documented" in scientific reports (and in scientific articles). The compilers of "CC" in the vast majority of cases are "not researchers of local fauna", but they are not very legible compilers.

I apologize for the verbosity , but it's boiling up… In general, for me, the principle of inclusion in the CC of a species with a high (highest) the degree of reproduction (insects, in comparison with some mammals or birds, are just such), is not obvious; while the validity of the requirement "To remove beetles from the CC" is obvious.

For specialists, the CC will always be interesting, at least as a source for litobzor.

Ouch! "I don't think... the CQ compiled on the basis of the spec's research is of any interest to him?"
Including it, as well as the materials of educational (didactic) and encyclopedic (dictionary) literature, in the "litobzor" of a research (scientific) article (monograph)is simply unacceptable in the scientific community. Do you understand? the genres in which the CC and the works of "specialists" are created are different: in one case (CC) – popular science, in the other (scientific articles)-just "scientific". Feel the difference?

The CC is essentially a LEGAL DOCUMENT.

Is this really the case? I don't think so. A "legal document" is an act created in the genre of "decree", "law", "order", "decree", etc. (in each case, it is sealed and certified by the signature of the responsible person). CC – created in a different genre, such as popular science. The CC, in particular, popularizes the content of a legal act adopted by a particular administration concerning "protected species" in the territory" subordinate " to this administration.

why do specialists need it like this? But the most important thing for the mass reader.  

The "mass reader" does not know what even an unpaired silkworm looks like... Will we include it in the "KK-skoi region" so that it (KK) becomes "the very thing"? Moreover, in other years it (unpaired silkworm) "day with fire will not find" ...

I will take on the role of interpreter, although I was not asked (but it seems to me that omar did not understand the obvious in Rud's statement).

Justus, thank you very much - you have quite correctly understood what I have so clumsily tried to explain.
And I absolutely agree with everything else you've written. Especially with the last two phrases of your penultimate post and the last post.

This post was edited on Rud-15.10.2009 11: 26

To include it [...] in the "litobzor" of a research (scientific) article (monograph) is more than "bad form" in the scientific community-it is simply unacceptable.

Nonsense was debated.

Nonsense was debated.

Very well-reasoned.

Nonsense was debated.

If you prove the opposite, then you're in the wrong place. to get a Nobel Prize... but they will look at you "with a squint"...
If "nonsense" (I have no complaints), then I did not" argue", but (with your permission) cut it open.
I meant (in the accepted=good sense of the word) scientists belonging to the academic community, and not at all to any of the "Royal Societies"
In GB, after all, there is no Academy (of Sciences)? so, do not "take it into your head", my remark is past you.

This post was edited by Justus - 10/15/2009 12: 57

I am afraid that kotbegemot is right about something - even in decent journals there are scientific articles that allow themselves to refer to fiction and various dubious or unconfirmed materials.

"Therefore, it doesn't make sense to introduce some really rare scoop of nondescript unrecognizable color that flies at night."

MAKES sense!
Here, Dmitritch, you probably don't know anything about nondescript dustpans, just as I don't know anything about beetles.
Here, I catch this scoop. I catch one piece from year to year - in some year two will arrive, in some year a hundred, and in some year zero.
Monitoring? He's the one.
The Red Book is probably created more for specialists. And for the layman who is waiting for beautiful pictures, we will introduce a swallowtail.

Pavel, don't be offended by the nondescript scoops . This is what I put it from the point of view of the layman (as I imagine it); I myself, even without understanding them, see a bizarre and even refined pattern of gray, brown and other zigzags-streaks on their front wings . However, the opinion that CC is primarily for specialists seems to me incorrect. In fact, only the IUCN Red List provides information on rare species within the entire range. How many species have international status in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation? I didn't count it on purpose, but I think it's a small number, to put it mildly. In addition, what is meant in this case by the term "specialists"? If only biologists (s. str. ), then this is not the case. According to Article 60 of the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection", ccsare created for the purpose of protecting and accounting for rare and endangered plants, animals and other organisms, and therefore Red Books are sent" for use in work " to authorities, organizations engaged in nature management, or whose activities are related to the impact on the natural environment. And there, you will agree, there are not so many biologists, especially among those who are authorized to make fateful decisions. Biologists without a CC know which species are really rare, and some of these actual rarities are often not included in the red Book. And experts carry out monitoring regardless of whether these species are included in the CC. And the criteria for inclusion in the Red Book, by the way, are not arbitrary, they are defined by the standard. According to the Regulation on the Procedure for maintaining the Red Book of the Russian Federation, it includes objects of the animal and plant world that meet the following conditions:
a) objects of the animal and plant world that need special protection measures, namely:
objects of the animal and plant world that are under threat of extinction;
vulnerable, narrowly endemic, endemic and rare objects of the animal and plant world, the protection of which is important for the conservation of flora and fauna of various natural and climatic zones;
objects of the animal and plant world, the real or potential economic value of which is established and at the current rate of exploitation
areas of the animal and plant world that do not require urgent protection measures, but require state control over their condition, due to their vulnerability (living on the edge of their range, naturally rare, etc.); b) objects of the animal and plant world that do not need urgent protection measures, but need state control over their
condition, due to their vulnerability (living on the edge of their range, naturally rare, etc.). international agreements and conventions;
c) objects of the animal and plant world listed in the International Red Book and the Red Book of the CIS member States.

..
1. When publishing the KK region, the publisher seems to be following the lead of his "provincial complex": "shob bulo" is no worse than in the capital (of the world, country, province, etc.). This is why the "Eiffel Towers" are located in Mukhosranskakh". Meanwhile, administrative borders are being redrawn and redrawn (in CHI Rep. we drew a border based on the ethnic principle, separating the Chechens from the Ingush, the Germans were abolished altogether, the Komi were united with the Perm region-you can continue this series yourself).
2. I'm not saying anything about the fact that in the future of administrative frenzy, the CC of regional districts, prefectures, streets may well appear...
3. Put next to "CC of Moscow region" and a hypothetical (?) "KK of the Krasnoyarsk Territory". How's it going?"

1. Well, I don't know about the "provincial complex"... After all, there are people living in" Muhosranskakh " too, and judging by your posts, they are not the most stupid and not the most evil...
You, my dear fellow, somehow miss in a rush of" boiling " emotions that KK is a publication not for the ages, but for the needs of the day. Working document. And the lifetime of this publication is 5-10 years at most.
2. Appear... I didn't think much of it at the time, but I read somewhere that there was a village almost in the Stavropol territory. (I wouldn't lie!), published this work. On the other hand, it means that people live well in that village - nehai buda... I have money, cat. they can spend out of their own pocket for their own pleasure-and thank God!
3. Not hypothetical - CC " Animals "is published not for the first time (the first edition was published in 1995), and CC"plants and fungi" is now being prepared for the second edition.

  
1. ... Including it [CC-Papaver], as well as the materials of educational (didactic) and encyclopedic (dictionary) literature, in the "litobzor" of a research (scientific) article (monograph)is simply unacceptable in the scientific community. Do you understand? the genres in which the CC and the works of "specialists" are created are different: in one case (CC) – popular science, in the other (scientific articles)-just "scientific". Feel the difference?
Same place [Papaver]:
2. Is this really the case? I don't think so. A "legal document" is an act created in the genre of "decree", "law", "order", "decree", etc. (in each case, it is sealed and certified by the signature of the responsible person). CC – created in a different genre, such as popular science. The CC, in particular, popularizes the content of a legal act adopted by a particular administration concerning "protected species" in the territory" subordinate " to this administration.

1. CC is also cited in "proper" scientific "genres". I'm sure Kotbegemot knows this firsthand.
I answer your question - we feel that you are clearly ... mmm... you don't like it.
2. Study. http://www.biodat.ru/db/rb/law.htm
Do you really think that issuing licenses, administrative penalties, and other legal actions are carried out based on viewing the structure of a piece of toilet paper?

  I am afraid that kotbegemot is right about something - even in decent journals there are scientific articles that allow themselves to refer to fiction and various dubious or unconfirmed materials.

Alex to Justus:
Rud! Don't be afraid! But if an essay or article in even "indecent" magazines is signed by a specialist, there is a cat in the info. I have no doubt-I will refer to you in spite of all your painful doubts.

... whether these species are included in the CC. And the criteria for inclusion in the Red Book, by the way, are not arbitrary, they are defined by the standard. According to the Regulation on the Procedure for maintaining the Red Book of the Russian Federation, it includes objects of the animal and plant world that meet the following conditions:
a) objects of the animal and plant world that need special protection measures, namely:
objects of the animal and plant world that are under threat of extinction;
vulnerable, narrowly endemic, endemic and rare objects of the animal and plant world, the protection of which is important for the conservation of flora and fauna of various natural and climatic zones;
objects of the animal and plant world, the real or potential economic value of which is established and at the current rate of exploitation endangered species, as a result of which urgent measures for their protection and reproduction are needed;
objects of the animal and plant world that do not require urgent protection measures, but need state control over their condition, due to their vulnerability (living on the edge of their range, naturally rare, etc.);
b) objects of the animal and plant world that fall under international agreements and conventions;
c) objects of the animal and plant world listed in the International Red Book and the Red Book of the CIS member States.

And a low bow to the people who have spent part of their lives developing these criteria! But based on those many "misunderstandings", the cat. As discussed here, it is clear that "in order to avoid endless disputes and speculation, first of all it is necessary to deal with the CRITERIA" (c).

This post was edited by Papaver - 10/16/2009 08: 35

The CC is essentially a LEGAL DOCUMENT. How this is implemented in practice is another question (although no less painful, of course) - but look at how others are implemented. laws...      

  
Is this really the case? I don't think so. A "legal document" is an act created in the genre of "decree", "law", "order", "decree", etc. (in each case, it is sealed and certified by the signature of the responsible person). CC – created in a different genre, such as popular science. The CC, in particular, popularizes the content of a legal act adopted by a particular administration concerning "protected species" in the territory" subordinate " to this administration.

Here (and not only in this thread), it has often been said (and probably rightly) that you should not talk about what you don't know much about. In particular, I was reasonably told that I was "not Copenhagen" in nondescript scoops . On this basis, I urge you, Justus, not to doubt and not to puzzle over whether the CC is a legal document. I assure you competently: it is. First, Red Books (of course, legitimate ones) are established not at someone's request, but on the basis of a Federal Law (Article 60 of the Federal Law" On Environmental Protection " No. 7-FZ of 10.01.2002). Secondly, the management of the CC is attributed to the exclusive powers of the state authorities of the Russian Federation (Kr. kniga RF; Article 5 of the said law) and the subjects of the Russian Federation (Kr. kniga of the subject of the Federation; Article 6 of the said law). Third, the establishment of the Red List and the inclusion of species in it entails legally significant consequences, since the norms of criminal and administrative law providing for liability for illegal actions in relation to protected species of the animal and plant world are formulated by the legislator as reference, and they refer specifically to the Red Book. By the way, there are genres in art. In law, this term is not applicable in the context of your post.

According to the Regulation on the Procedure for maintaining the Red Book of the Russian Federation, it includes objects of the animal and plant world that meet the following conditions: ...
a) objects of the animal and plant world that need special protection measures, namely:
objects of the animal and plant world that do not require urgent protection measures, but require state control over their condition, due to their vulnerability (living on the edge of their range, naturally rare, etc.);

  
And a low bow to the people who have spent part of their lives developing these criteria! But based on those many "misunderstandings", the cat. As discussed here, it is clear that "in order to avoid endless disputes and speculation, first of all it is necessary to deal with the CRITERIA" (c).

I agree with you. And it is very difficult to formulate these criteria very precisely and, most importantly, exhaustively. Still, as long as phrases like "etc." and "etc." are used, our discussion will be endless. And the CC will include swallowtails, podaliriyas and others like them. Here under these "etc." and "etc." they will fall.