The Red Book and insects

I wondered what is the reason for the surge and rapid growth of regional faunal work since the beginning of the 90s, with the collapse of the USSR? Many researchers note this phenomenon in their publications. In one book, I read that this was allegedly due to the establishment of regional Red Books, the organization of nature reserves and protected areas, better funding for research, an increase in the number of universities, easier information exchange and the process of publishing research results. I think the reasons are deeper, I would like to know the opinion of forumchan.

I wondered what is the reason for the surge and rapid growth of regional faunal work since the beginning of the 90s, with the collapse of the USSR? Many researchers note this phenomenon in their publications. In one book, I read that this was allegedly due to the establishment of regional Red Books, the organization of nature reserves and protected areas, better funding for research, an increase in the number of universities, easier information exchange and the process of publishing research results. I think the reasons are deeper, I would like to know the opinion of forumchan.

My guess is that it was simply difficult to publish faunal science in the USSR. Still, it was only printed with permission.
And what is the economic significance of faunal lists, if they are not about pests?
So they officially dedicated their lives to the "beet weevil".

Was faunalism difficult to publish in the USSR? This can be confirmed by people of the older generation, who caught this time? Judging by my works, faunistics at the level of the country, the Soviet republics, and the macro-region (the Far East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus) was published regularly.

Was faunalism difficult to publish in the USSR? This can be confirmed by people of the older generation, who caught this time? Judging by my works, faunistics at the level of the country, the Soviet republics, and the macro-region (the Far East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus) was published regularly.

Regularly, yes. 3 - 4 jobs per year.
And take a look at how these jobs are done. As a rule, no exact localities. In the best case - a table with crosses for some areas, in the worst-just a list. There is very little normal faunalism. I'm talking about butterflies, of course.

 
And take a look at how these jobs are done. As a rule, no exact localities. In the best case - a table with crosses for some areas, in the worst-just a list. There is very little normal faunalism. I'm talking about butterflies, of course.

And this is despite the fact that Soviet science was considered almost the most advanced in the world, and in fact apparently even inferior to regional faunal research in pre-revolutionary Russia, both in quality and quantity.

I think that the reason is just that they started publishing. Every scientist in the former USSR had a huge amount of faunal information, which, naturally, they, as scientists, had to be published. You will remember these first faunal articles of the early 90's. I don't know how it was in other groups, but absolutely all regions - the ridges of Central Asia, Chukotka, Siberia, the European part, etc. - went by day butterflies. There was literally a wave of them right after the restriction on publishing faunistics disappeared.

So more than half of modern entomologists in the USSR pulled luggage all in school bags. Among them, young people, there is a strong bias towards pure faunalism, at least in Ukraine.

In Soviet times from faunistics in scientific journals (as well as in the defense of candidate's works) as a rule, the prevailing trend was towards faunistics of distant" unknown " outskirts of the Soviet Empire, at the same time, what was happening literally "under the nose" was supposedly not relevant and "long ago studied"... At the same time, the publications were dominated by ostentatious "generalizing" works, clearly weak - "forced" to the next need to defend a candidate's thesis... But, from time to time (unfortunately, often after the death of the author and collector) very interesting faunal works on the fauna of certain areas surfaced-based on a lot of factual material and usually for a rather long period of collecting (20-30 years), and if there was also a comprehension of what was collected-then in general excellent! The bad thing is that even now there are some entomological journals / collections whose editorial boards explicitly state to the authors - "We do not publish pure faunistics"! Although in fact there are still a lot of "white spots" in the faunistics of many insect orders... I remember my epic story with the publication of materials on Penza hemiptera... this has been going on for many years, but soon this work will have to be published and one white spot in entomology will appear on the map of Russia.

In Soviet times from faunistics in scientific journals (as well as in the defense of candidate's works) as a rule, the prevailing trend was towards faunistics of distant" unknown " outskirts of the Soviet Empire, at the same time, what was happening literally "under the nose" was supposedly not relevant and "long ago studied"... At the same time, the publications were dominated by ostentatious "generalizing" works, clearly weak - "forced" to the next need to defend a candidate's thesis...

Indeed, in the USSR, "local lore" as a scientific discipline was "not in fashion". And here we can say not faunistics, but interest in local lore in general was banned. I would describe my attitude to "malaya rodina "with the lines from the song"My address is not a house or a street, my address is the Soviet Union". And works on faunistics were "tortured", apparently due to the fact that this work often did not bring moral satisfaction to their authors.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a turning point in public consciousness, when the processes of federalization revived interest in the "small homeland". After all, even in the names of products, the names of regional toponyms are increasingly beginning to appear. By the way, regional faunalism "in the west" developed steadily at a high level during the Soviet era.

This post was edited by niyaz - 09.01.2017 22: 19

In Soviet times from faunistics in scientific journals (as well as in the defense of candidate's works) as a rule, the prevailing trend was towards faunalism in the remote" unknown " outskirts of the Soviet Empire, while at the same time what was happening literally "under the nose" was supposedly not relevant and "long ago studied"

. About the "empire" - potentially a long song; but the bias of entomological interest could not be associated with the numerical and territorial ratio of the center ("nose") and the outskirts: the suburbs, by definition, are always larger in total than the center, the "nose" is not rubber, and every year reprint the same list of Masokhin-Porshnyakov (the one where the agestis near Moscow first flashed) or the same list of Sirotkin in the Moscow and Kaluga regions with scanty adjustments from year to year for the money of the "empire" (i.e., for the first time in the history of e. both the center and the outskirts) would be a waste.

And to the question of local lore: I have rarely encountered such overturned ideas as the one just highlighted here regarding local lore as a science in the USSR. Local lore literature (both scientific and popular science) was published in the USSR, perhaps more (not only in circulations that any other country can only dream of, but also in variety) than in the rest of the world combined. It was enough to receive catalogs of local publishing houses in the Soviet years, or to look through the bulletins of the Book Chamber of the USSR and compare them with thematic summaries of new arrivals to the Library of Congress of the United States, to make sure of this. "Their" local history was the main topic for local publishing houses; in the autonomous republics of the Volga region or in the union republics of Central Asia, this was visible to the naked eye even in relation to Russian-language publications, what to say about publications in other languages of specific regions. As for local history in the "nose of the empire", in the Moscow region, in particular, a special bibliographic bulletin of new local history literature in the Moscow region was published for libraries (I don't remember the frequency, but at least once a month) (reflecting not only individual publications, but also articles in periodicals); I believe, in other " nozdryah"the situation was not much worse, because in the USSR the principles of completing libraries varied depending on their rank, but not depending on their location in the nose or armpits. From trips to the USSR, those who wanted to bring local lore literature in unlimited quantities, there would be a hunt to drag it. And in the Moscow House of Books on Kalininsky Prospekt, local history publications occupied a separate large section on the second floor (despite the fact that local history, as a fairly "consolidated" scientific branch, can also include a considerable part of literature from other departments - i.e., history, literary studies, geography, travel and tourism, biology, economics, art, etc.). And God forbid you then allow at least half of those typos and factual nonsense, which abounds in modern local history (and not only) the concoction of publishers who save on proofreaders and adequate scientific editors, under the guise of the Moscow State University building on the Leninsky Hills showing the building of the hotel "Ukraine", and the church in Moscow Kolomenskoye showing as an architectural monument of Siberia. This was simply unthinkable in the USSR. I understand that today remembering this is only a soul-poisoning experience, but for the sake of peace of mind, one should not prefer speculation to the truth.

Entomology is a special article (in terms of volume and content), which is not comparable to any other scientific branch in terms of the need for employees and printing space, and it is difficult to hoe this science even within its own workshop, so no one thought of spurring it to local lore and trying to cram the non - cram into it.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 13.01.2017 01: 06

  
Entomology is a special article (in terms of volume and content), which is not comparable to any other scientific branch in terms of the need for employees and printing space, and it is difficult to hoe this science even within its own workshop, so no one tried to encourage it to study local lore and try to cram the non - cram into it.

And yet, no matter how much you want to separate local lore from faunalism, the latter is still an integral part of it, although it is extensive in its scale. Why local lore in the USSR could not "cram" faunistics into itself remains an open question. Why the USSR was never able to raise faunalists from entomology to the level of the same Grigory Yakobson or Eduard Eversman, who somehow appeared in tsarist Russia.

And yet, no matter how much you want to separate local lore from faunalism, the latter is still an integral part of it, although it is extensive in its scale. Why local lore in the USSR could not "cram" faunistics into itself, the question remains open. Why the USSR was never able to raise faunalists from entomology to the level of the same Grigory Yakobson or Eduard Eversman, who somehow appeared in tsarist Russia.

Didn't I say that the literature on biology (it is clear that it also includes the faunal part) can be listed in a certain part by the Department of local lore? But from a certain level of its own scientific knowledge, it is no longer perceived as local history by any classifier of scientific disciplines, so although the USSR did not generate polygraphically stunning Abrera and Smart (that's a great grief), and spent more and more money on science, the series " Fauna of the USSR – - judging by your words, is not known to you at all, – was not perceived as a local history book by anyone. But she is, figuratively speaking, the Jacobson of her time, because in terms of the faunal part of local lore, you were talking, I hope, about the consolidated work of Jacobson, and not about some of his publications on specific issues.

The "Jacobson level" level is historically passed. In addition, the faunalism of huge regions has nothing to do with local lore at all. A continental-scale object is not a subject of local lore. In any case, Yakobson's beetles are no more local historians than Plavilshchikov's three-volume barbels or Kozhevchikov's one-volume volnyanki in Fauna of the USSR, and since you started with a question about scientific local history, Yakobson is generally resting against the background of Plavilshchikov, Kozhevchikov, etc.

By the way, with one "n" is written not Eversmann, and, say, Rasputin, and Gregory was it, and not Jacobson...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 12.01.2017 21: 14

 
By the way, with one "n" is not written Eversmann,

counterargument https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%...%8F#cite_note-8

This post was edited by niyaz - 20.01.2017 21: 22

All German surnames with their endings-mann in Russian are written exclusively with c-man. There are millions of examples . There are no exceptions here.

And yet, no matter how much you want to separate local lore from faunalism, the latter is still an integral part of it, although it is extensive in its scale. Why local lore in the USSR could not "cram" faunistics into itself remains an open question. Why the USSR was never able to raise faunalists from entomology to the level of the same Grigory Yakobson or Eduard Eversman, who somehow appeared in tsarist Russia.

Local lore is not a science, but a collective hodgepodge of all sciences that focus on individual regions and regions. There is no clear boundary between, say, entomological local lore and entomological faunistics. Entomology in the USSR was practiced by a limited number of people, and all of them somehow collaborated with special scientific institutions, and were published in specialized publications. There were no faunists of the Eversman level in the USSR, because faunistics was not dissertable. Therefore, faunistics existed either at the regional level (including some small union republics), and these were the works of "young scientists" or amateurs who did not apply for a scientific career, or at the all-union and global levels, but then it was engaged in major luminaries, and they called it zoogeography, or a total review of the type of "Fauna of the USSR". And the level of large regions such as the Volga region or the Volga-Urals was not filled. If we talk about the degree of activity of regional faunistics in the USSR, then it sought to copy the schemes of the 19th-early 20th centuries. In the 20th century, exceptions were infrequent. A typical example of the most superficial faunalism at the level of not even the end, but the first half of the 19th century, is the well-known magazine version of the list of MI. Sirotkin's research on the Moscow and Kaluga regions (his deposited manuscript is only marginally more complete). And an example of relatively advanced faunistics is O. V. Shlykov's list for the Penza region, but it was published apparently because the volume of collections was quite moderate, i.e. there were not enough points. A detailed presentation of faunal material required a lot of space, which was always not enough.

All German surnames with their endings-mann in Russian are written exclusively with c-man. There are millions of examples . There are no exceptions here.

  

The magazine is named after the" name " of the butterfly, and the name is already romanized...
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%B2%...%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F

All German surnames with their endings-mann in Russian are written exclusively with c-man. There are millions of examples . There are no exceptions here.

In this case, all German surnames with such endings become names of mental disorders in Russian.

Seneka, alas, so it is - there is not a single exception in Russian literature.

There are plenty of exceptions, and the rules need to be remembered where they need to be (with what here - chronic tension), and not where you really want to give them retroactive force in writing proper names and tear someone into a hundred small bears. By what rule we have the original Van Clyburn for some time traskribiruetsya as Van Clyburn, look in the rules. Look for the rule and the exception, when Newton is Isaac, and the same name for Asimov, who is no less Isaac, is transcribed mainly as Isaac. But at the same time, for Newton, no one has yet taken it into their heads to replace the accepted Russian spelling of the name with Isaac for the sake of uniformity and out of respect for the pathetic bits of rules that someone just happens to see. From reading the rules, it is high time to make a rule, not an exception, then there will be no unnecessary misunderstandings. And Huckleberry Finn, as long as the editors remain adequate, will never be Huckleberry Finn again. And Mark will still be Twain, despite all the rules.

There is such a rule (which is assumed before all current transcription rules) as the priority of the established spelling of a proper name. You can, of course, with the current violence against the Russian language, start talking about the Atlas of the Hare, but I still advise you to stick to Seitz and not shock people with the great fact of your familiarization with the rules. As for the endings in-mann, which must necessarily be transcribed with a single "h", this should no longer be valid for the long-known Russian spelling of Eversmann. There are also newer examples: in -mann, so you know, they end with – a back and start (which is not a hindrance to the ending!)"and Thomas Mann, and Heinrich Mann, and Klaus Mann... This is not hindered by the fact that at the same time Martin was registered with us (and will continue to be) as Bormann... You can change the spelling of proper names retroactively, but not in relation to established spellings.

In this case, all German surnames with such endings become names of mental disorders in Russian.

Sometimes the ending will not save you from a mental breakdown. Pushkin, apparently, did not bother to learn the rules for Ozhegov, Shapiro and Rosenthal, so he has the main character of the "Queen of Spades" in a madhouse, but the last name is (German) Herma nn.

Colleagues! The media reported that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment approved a list of animal control systems... Has anyone seen the official lists? And how much do they differ from the project posted in September???

Colleagues! The media reported that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment approved a list of animal control systems... Has anyone seen the official lists? And how much do they differ from the project posted in September???

Where does the info come from, in which media? There is no information available on the official website of the Ministry...
P.S. Ah, here's what I found: http://tass.ru/obschestvo/4035001

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 19.02.2017 21: 26

Darwin Award, Light version

what we fought for, that's what we ran into
museum directors have begun to be tried for illegal storage of weapons and ammunition from the Second World War and to withdraw them from expositions and storerooms, so you should not be surprised
if your action is included in one of the articles of the program for preparing the CC, preserving biodiversity, etc. of course, all this should be formalized long ago, agreed and signed by the same Ministry of Natural Resources

This post was edited by AGG - 11.07.2017 19: 09

Need some advice on what to do:

The situation is this: the region caught a dozen Red Book beetles in nature and decided to release them in a forest area near the city. They say the year of ecology-here we are working to save a rare species... mon lives here but its population is small... the devil pulled the local correspondent to shout. And what did the news story show and here came as many as three papers from the regional Ministry of Natural Resources where we increment: illegal collection of KK beetles, transportation and resettlement.... And this person is a considerable fine and the organization is threatened with an afigenny fine... And what should I do?

Well that's right: you collected it, didn't you? Collected!
Everything is correct, you got it from the Ministry, in accordance with the current idiotic legislation, where invertebrates are "protected" from being collected.

I only have one question: why the fuck did you do that?
Where you released them, they probably won't live.
So you caused some damage to the population (insignificant, most likely - but explain this to the officials).

Need some advice on what to do:

The situation is this: the region caught a dozen Red Book beetles in nature and decided to release them in a forest area near the city. They say the year of ecology-here we are working to save a rare species... mon lives here but its population is small... the devil pulled the local correspondent to shout. And what did the news story show and here came as many as three papers from the regional Ministry of Natural Resources where we increment: illegal collection of KK beetles, transportation and resettlement.... And this person is a considerable fine and the organization is threatened with an afigenny fine... And what should I do?

The reaction of tt. AGG and kotbegemot is completely fair; it's not for nothing that I believed all these years that I wouldn't die without seeing the inevitable transformation of our wise battle behemoth into a cold-blooded academic hippopotamus. However, at the same time, I learned from the original source that "increment" should be checked for "Kremlin", "Ministry of Education" - for a word that I hesitate to write, and "preglasit" – except for the English "pregnant".

With a tenner (!) beetles do not contribute to the settlement, this number is enough only for the police protocol. Wonderful are your works, O Lord... Only who was it that pushed these beetles into the CC, who was it that put such a pig on our T. Penzyak? And for advice, you had to come on time (tips in this topic were formulated more than once), and not do it in your own way, and now in a topic where, I remember, all the "enemies of nature" gathered, ask how to rake out your own pile of what was intended against them.

Alas, you don't often see how the reward that adequate people spit on and sometimes really suffer from finally gets to the heroes who are used to thinking that they are insured against their products, which will fall not into their own, but for some reason exclusively into other people's pockets; this mentality-since from the outside for scientific reasons, a multi-year fortress wall is exposed here – it is treated (and then without a guarantee) only with the help of the impartial work of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Police. So that the next time they were asked to write an article about insects for the next CC, these enthusiasts treated them like the store owner in the movie "Bluff" - to the desire of a crook (who allegedly escaped from the leper colony) to shake his hand.

P.S. It would be interesting to know what specific beetles were "settled". You don't have to be afraid to make us laugh, because we've been getting tough on the topic of CC for years, and not thanks to reports from Tuva or Honduras...

It turns out that, In principle, anyone who published an article indicating the collected material on any Red Book type, ill-wishers can report to the environmental authority? And there, if the authorities want to report for the rapid activity in the environment, looms the initiation of a criminal case with an authorized search of the suspect (to find evidence).

It turns out that, In principle, anyone who published an article indicating the collected material on any Red Book type, ill-wishers can report to the environmental authority? And there, if the authorities want to report for the rapid activity in the environment, looms the initiation of a criminal case with an authorized search of the suspect (to find evidence).

With the "federal" Red Book guards - yes (there are fines for killing them)!, with regional ones-hz. If there are no legally prescribed sanctions, then most likely you can "get away". Penzyak, judging by the links in the Internet, "settled" deer beetles. for what and "flew"
http://penza.bezformata.ru/listnews/zhukov...allee/58870693/
A bunch of links are already "worn", but their copies remain
https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esr...KpUxvTw&cad=rjt

This post was edited by Elizar - 13.07.2017 19: 21

Yes, the wrong office tied up... Within the region (and even on the mainland), helping a deer beetle settle is like pulling the icebreaker Krasin from the ocean shore with boatmen so that it sails faster. A clean fiver of fly, as if from a bush...

And if they also" increment " the compulsion to mate with unfamiliar females...

It comes out all of us we can grab it....
And the fact that there are dachas built nearby and there is an active development of that area by summer residents, etc., etc. with all the consequences, no one cares?
Sometimes the stupidity of our legislators is striking.
Well, what the fuck are these CC's to write? So that the people who deal with insects should be transplanted more? Dolb...some kind of change.....
Sorry, it just broke through.

Most recently - in the topic about mnemosyne:

About the dispersal of such species. There is experience. The clearing where these insects were filmed is adjacent to the highway. Two years ago, some work was being done there at all, and it was not clear whether the locus would remain in the same state. In general, mnemosyne was settled in a similar clearing, 5 km away. Got used to it.

And how were they resettled?

... first, and at the same time, how the crested duck was cultivated and the ants were relocated!??

But what does ants have to do with it?..

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 13.07.2017 22: 07

Conclusion: in articles where Red Book species are listed, it is impossible to list them as material.

"Parnassius apollo L. We saw two males in the village of Maloe Ermilovo."

Something like that in the future, you can see...

  
Sometimes the stupidity of our legislators is striking.

And to no lesser (if not greater) extent - some authors-compilers of the CC, who just recommend that legislators ban trapping as a measure for the conservation of rare insect species.

Conclusion: in articles where Red Book species are listed, it is impossible to list them as material.

"Parnassius apollo L. We saw two males in the village of Maloe Ermilovo."

Something like that in the future, you can see...

For articles, there is a more "advanced" formula: "The village of Maloe Ermilovo, two males (photo fixation)" .

And I have long come across such publications, with wording like "threatened species were recorded on the basis of visual observations", and with respect to any groups up to genital ones. A surreal picture immediately presented itself: the entomologist turned out the aedeagus to the male wasp, without distracting it from feeding on the flower, examined it under a magnifying glass, if it was red - book-screwed it back and left it alone, if not-in the stain.

It's dumb to write about photofixing without doing it, in case someone might be interested in the pictures later.

Yes, who would doubt what kind of beetle we are talking about. The reporters wouldn't have come to some obscure little place. But I wonder how exactly the creation of conditions for the development of larvae took place in the alley - hollows in oaks were hollowed out and infected with tinder? And to ensure the nutrition of adults, did they pick holes for sap flow?

This post was edited by ENO-14.07.2017 17: 52

They also told Penzyak - don't wake up famously while it's quiet. It's time to collect the stones...