The Red Book and insects

Wow, it turns out that the number and survival rate of offspring has nothing to do with the characteristics of its offspring, nutrition and settlement  
You would have decided for yourself, then for example you have the presence of care for the offspring, then the care of mice is so-so (although, maybe a person has never bred mice)..
In addition to the actual number of offspring hatched, there are other criteria, and many organisms combine criteria for both k and p strategies. Read the Internet, Google chtoli ))

Once again, I advise you to learn the matcha. Start with a textbook on population ecology. Maybe it will help.

Wow, it turns out that the number and survival rate of offspring has nothing to do with the characteristics of its offspring, nutrition and settlement  
You would have decided for yourself, then for example you have the presence of care for the offspring, then the care of mice is so-so (although, maybe a person has never bred mice)..
In addition to the actual number of offspring hatched, there are other criteria, and many organisms combine criteria for both k and p strategies. Read the Internet, Google chtoli ))

The fact that organisms combine signs of one type or another is understandable. At least because K and r strategies are a human-made model.
You are trying to reduce to a model of K/r strategists (breeding strategies) the general adaptability of species to environmental changes.
Both the swallowtail and the Apollo laid their eggs and forgot about them, except that Apollo, for example, left offspring in a limited area with a cleaning plant, which is much easier to destroy than a field with umbrella plants, over a large area of which the swallowtail caterpillars sit. And the question is: who put in more effort and took better care of their offspring?

Just in case))
Wikipedia

By the way, swallowtail consistently gives three generations per year, and how many generations does apollo give per year, if their strategies are similar? )) This is due to the speed of maturation of the offspring)

  
Take and compare the breeding strategy of these species according to the table in wikipedia.

Don't read Wikipedia. Read textbooks. Learn matchmaking. Maybe this will help you.

By the way, swallowtail consistently gives three generations per year, and how many generations does apollo give per year, if their strategies are similar? )) This is due to the speed of maturation of the offspring)

And this, by the way, is correct! Therefore (with 100 eggs in a clutch), in the most favorable conditions for a year, we will get 125,000 females from one female swallowtail, and only 50 from one female apollo. And we will get 50 deer beetles only in 5 years. That's the trick.
They have completely different reproduction rates.

Yes, there are just a lot of smart people who throw out such words as a textbook, publications, but the question arises - did they read the textbooks themselves?

Population biology, quote
Especially for special strategists in a frame with a blue border))

Especially shows the "experts" haughty attitude to Wikipedia, which has long been not only a simple encyclopedia for "quick" satisfaction of curiosity in areas that are not professional for the interested person, but also meth. a manual, at least because Rus. its section is 90% already a copy of the English section, where a responsible approach to writing articles is applied, and the article about r k is no exception.

And this, by the way, is correct! Therefore (with 100 eggs in a clutch), in the most favorable conditions for a year, we will get 125,000 females from one female swallowtail, and only 50 from one female apollo. And we will get 50 deer beetles only in 5 years. That's the trick.
They have completely different reproduction rates.

By the way, the figure is agon) Somehow did not think about it, but the fact is, the figure is correct, if of course you deal with spherical swallowtails in a vacuum, but in reality the second and even more so the third generation is still cool
And by the way, while on a whim, it is stenobiont butterflies like the same golubyanka-bavius or polyxena, which are tied to their stations, that give one generation. although they could easily give at least two, given their very early start and long vegetation of forage plants.

And this, by the way, is correct! Therefore (with 100 eggs in a clutch), in the most favorable conditions for a year, we will get 125,000 females from one female swallowtail.,

And you try to get this amount at least in artificial conditions on clean napkins, with good ventilation and at a temperature of +25))) I think that even approximately such figures will not come out, they bear 100 eggs for a reason, because they turn out to be about 2 butterflies in the end.

There is one more point about rare species. If you mentioned it earlier, I'm sorry. Not everything that is rare makes sense to protect. Here in the Penza region there are such animals as Acherontia atropos - several catches, there are Hyles livornica - (I caught it myself, I gave Oleg a copy) and there is an ephemeral ghostly Saturnia pyri, known from one copy killed with a tire iron, which flaunts in the KK P. O. It is clear to any deer (except one) that the animals are stray.
And the second option, such as Lemonia dumi, Callimorpha dominula, Proserpinus proserpina, Lycaena thersamon, Favonius quercus, which we will bend in the afternoon and disperse in the evening. But they are caught everywhere. And it is very strange to protect biotopes with dandelion, nettle or knotweed.
* went on a binge

This post was edited by t00m - 27.11.2017 22: 39

And all 1st and rarely 2nd category. That is, put out the light, drain the water. And, as it turned out, it is almost impossible to remove all this from the CC. You can only soften the categories.

You can't remove it because the categories are exactly like this? Why I ask — quite a lot of species were excluded from the latest edition of the CC of our region, however, plants (I didn't pay attention to insects). They were obviously not needed there, because in more southern areas they are widely distributed. For example, adoxa or strawberry. But they also had a different category, of course.

I read as a child a note about flies, which, if everyone survived, then by the end of the year it would be possible to build a bridge to the Moon, or ring the Earth, I can't remember the exact details, but the moral is clear.

And you try to get this amount at least in artificial conditions on clean napkins, with good ventilation and at a temperature of +25))) I think that even approximately such figures will not come out, they bear 100 eggs for a reason, because they turn out to be about 2 butterflies in the end.

Creating the right artificial conditions is not easy, I agree. But if you create them , what will prevent you from getting such numbers? Unless there are some genetic anomalies, i.e. harmful mutations. By definition, there are no bacteria, viruses, mold, etc. in our laboratory (this is a spherical laboratory in wakkum). If in ideal conditions 2 butterflies were obtained, then in nature, in the presence of predators, parasites, bad weather, etc., etc., the species would not survive.

I read as a child a note about flies, which, if everyone survived, then by the end of the year it would be possible to build a bridge to the Moon, or ring the Earth, I can't remember the exact details, but the moral is clear.

This is not from entomology, but from entertaining mathematics. Like Perelman's problem book or something. That is, "spherical flies in a vacuum".

This is from the series "in a cylindrical glass put a little magic bacteria that feed on air and all as if on command divide once a second at the same time. After 545000 seconds, the bacteria filled half the glass, in how many seconds will they fill the whole glass?"))

Wow. Just a day ago, I asked a friend not to start the topic on a new circle, going through the entire gentleman's set of long-refuted ones, and if there is a real interest, reread the topic to raise only new questions. But obviously, the real need for someone else's answers is nothing compared to the need for your own questions. However, this has already been seen here.

As for the swallowtail, let me remind you that the third generation in a large part of its range (sometimes even the second) should be perceived as"super-noticeable". Of course, the degree of "hypermetricity" is adjusted depending on weather conditions in different years. And the fact that this "supermajority" is sometimes more numerous than the first and second combined - but in fact it is nothing more than the first generation of the next season that has already flown out in advance-often leads to the fact that there is almost no one to fly out in the spring, because everyone has already flown out foolishly in the third generation before winter and left with their eggs (or at best not having time to pupate caterpillars) under the snow. And from the very few who have had time to pupate before winter in conditions of hunger and cold, bastard imagos come out in the spring; this explains why in our band, in other years, normal-sized swallowtails and individual swallowtails fly together in the spring almost as big as a burdock (and there are no average ones). Accordingly, only an idiot would be able to say that Argiades should be more numerous in its normal habitat than Lycaon in its normal habitat, just because Argiades has long been giving us three generations. As if not so. The third generation, the most numerous in good years, is the impatient first for the coming year, its offspring go under the snow, and in the spring, instead of the first generation, only those one and a half pieces appear who were smart enough not to succumb to the autumn heat and not fly out ahead of time. Therefore, only monovoltaic species can be guaranteed against such a situation, which most polyvoltaic species are not guaranteed against. Arithmetic is not dialectic. It should be understood that the last pre-winter generation in a huge part of the range does not increase, but destroys the number of swallowtail, which could be much higher if it had only one stable generation and was insured against leaving for the winter in an unsuitable stage for wintering. If you understand this (even in addition to other harmful factors for the species), then you will not be surprised that the sky does not buzz from swallowtails.

Apollo, on the other hand, is a strictly monovoltaic type and cannot cut down the next year by flying out prematurely before winter. And the Russian winter will not be banned by any CC and no cop will not fine, and in comparison with its impact on the number of polyvoltine (at least potentially) species, all other six-legged troubles are as stupid to discuss as treating burns in the epicenter of a nuclear explosion with ointment. Leave these nonsense to those dairy farmers who suffer from polyxena over-grazing, over-mowing, and almost firewood harvesting.

Generations go almost exclusively in integers - one, two, three, and the difference in the duration of the development of two and the development of three generations is not days, but months. The climate changes more or less smoothly from latitude to latitude (and not only that, but, of course, in addition to the relief factor). Therefore, there are often situations when, say, two generations are too few, and three are too many for a given species in a given place.

And the abstract arguments of those who are not able to visit at least our near south and see who is more there - the swallowtail (with its opupennoy fecundity) or, say, the cervus-are worthless. This is despite the fact that the swallowtail does not hide, and the cervus does not flutter in the meadows in broad daylight, you still need to look out for it. So only those who have never seen the cervus in its typical habitats can relay information about 20 (!) eggs in five years as a proven truth. But if Wikipedia is so important to them, let them figure out how little that cervus will be, even if on average there will be four offspring per female per year, of which two will be females. How many of those females will be there (from one source!) after 10 years of pure mathematics (i.e., if not for the intervention of natural and unnatural enemies)? Does anyone else remember how much two is in the tenth power, for God's sake?

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 28.11.2017 03: 13

  http://a-j-elez.narod.ru/publicat/index.htm

On the "people" for a long time nothing can be added and updated, Oleg, so for a newer one follows on academia.edu address it. This is just for the future, when you again think that my presence of non-entomological publications is somehow hindering me here, and that your presence of entomological publications softens, rather than aggravates, your guilt here or makes your position in this topic less miserable.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 28.11.2017 03: 28

Elez, what you wrote about the sufferings of swallowtails is true, and that's what I meant when I wrote that Apollo actually takes more care of its offspring, laying down within its microstationand forming one generation per year. The swallowtail's troubles are precisely because of the elements of the p-strategy in its reproductive behavior.
However, swallowtails get an important advantage from this, as I have already pointed out - unlike naphthalene-coated apollons and similar butterflies, which are buried in their stations and have been cooking there for thousands of years, swallowtails prefer to take risks, mastering more and more new stations, and eventually win when the environment changes.

As for the number - the question is not simple) If from my own experience, then the same baviuses and polyxenes in the places of their brood are sooo numerous, And from the mid-2000s to the present time, I really don't remember that they had any problems with the number. But such species as swallowtails, podalirias, turnips/rutabagas, they really catch the eye much less than bavius and polyxenus, but if you consider that the species that are not tied to their stations are distributed evenly over the area, then you still need to calculate who is more)

I have a question.
Here we discuss the number of offspring of a single individual and some features of their reproductive behavior. But doesn't larval stenophagy play a big role if the species is vulnerable?
At least that is why, from my point of view, it is not entirely correct to compare the swallowtail with Apollo through the prism of breeding strategies. The "all other things being equal"condition doesn't work here.

This post was edited by molek - 28.11.2017 11: 35

So the swallowtail, in principle, also has stenophagia, it is not particularly better for him than for Apollo))
Yes, and all this is interrelated, the reproductive strategy should also take into account the feeding characteristics of larvae

Putting all the blame on stenophagy is also a mistake, think of the Colorado potato beetle. We have a lot of different cleanings in some places, but there is no Apollo at all. The whole complex of adaptations of a species forms its ecological niche, which is individual for each individual, and vulnerability is determined comprehensively. Moreover, both the surface features, such as diet and fecundity, and the deeper ones are equally important: requirements for nesting shelters, climatic conditions, a complex of natural enemies, etc., which may remain unknown to science for a long time.

And the abstract reasoning of those who are not able is worthless... So only those can relay here information about 20 (!) eggs in five years as a proven truth... But if Wikipedia is so important to them, let them figure it out...

You, Mr. philosopher, are not arguing here with me, or even with Wikipedia, but with Harvey D. J., Gange A. C. The Private Life of the Stag Beetle (Lucanus cervus) / / The Bulletin of the Amateur Entomologists' Society. - 2003. - Issue 62. - P. 240-244. There are other publications that indicate this number. And it would be necessary to contrast them not with your own expert opinion, but with a similar publication, which would provide data that

You, Mr. philosopher, are not arguing here with me, or even with Wikipedia, but with Harvey D. J., Gange A. C. The Private Life of the Stag Beetle (Lucanus cervus) / / The Bulletin of the Amateur Entomologists' Society. - 2003. - Issue 62. - P. 240-244. There are other publications that indicate this number. And you should contrast them not with your own expert opinion, but with a similar publication that would provide data on what
or how much you think is necessary there.

In fact, 20 or 100 eggs (as in "old works") does not matter. 100 beetles in 5 years is also very small, much less than 2 to the tenth power.

You're distorting it. Not 100 in 5 years, but 20 descendants of one couple annually - this is at least. In this case, you will get not 100 for 5 years, but 20 + 10x20 + 100x20 + 1000x20 + 10000x20 = 222220 for 5 years, if no one would eat them. Is it R or K?

Even if the development cycle is 5 years, it turns out 222k + individuals in 25 years. From one pair. This is still slightly more than that of roe deer or eagles )))

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 28.11.2017 15: 52

Putting all the blame on stenophagy is also a mistake, think of the Colorado potato beetle. We have a lot of different cleanings in some places, but there is no Apollo at all. The whole complex of adaptations of a species forms its ecological niche, which is individual for each individual, and vulnerability is determined comprehensively. Moreover, both the surface features, such as diet and fecundity, and the deeper ones are equally important: requirements for nesting shelters, climatic conditions, a complex of natural enemies, etc., which may remain unknown to science for a long time.

My point is that it is better to consider it in the complex, which is why I wrote "big".

If "in a complex" then in this regard, I recently expressed one "theory" in the topic about training for an entomologist, it can be expanded and assumed that living beings are divided into specialists, conformists and nonconformists.
The names determine the attitude to the environment and lifestyle, the specialist lives only in this way, and only in such conditions for which he is adapted and/or in which he was born. A conformist can choose slightly different conditions if there are no suitable ones, refusing something from his usual lifestyle. A nonconformist has the opportunity to create conditions for their lifestyle.
Among insects, as an example, the same Apollo, the conformist swallowtail, nonconformists - among social insects, some species of ants and termites especially, but also German wasps too
By the way, a good example of how harmful a bias in specialization is for me is honeybees and German wasps. They basically have a lot in common, although the nonconformity of germanics is stronger, they not only support the microclimate, but can also create the necessary volume in the soil themselves, but this hardly helps them much to be more numerous than honeybees "in the wild", it's all about the problems when choosing a nest and breeding strategy.
If it were not for honey, the honey bee would have been in the CC long ago, in the same place as some bumblebees

You can't remove it because the categories are exactly like this? Why I ask — quite a lot of species were excluded from the latest edition of the CC of our region, however, plants (I didn't pay attention to insects). They were obviously not needed there, because in more southern areas they are widely distributed. For example, adoxa or strawberry. But they also had a different category, of course.

Removal of a species (s) from the Red List takes place after passing an environmental assessment. Experts of the regional scale, they should not be associated with this project, All specialists in the field are involved to one degree or another in the management of the CC. There are still pensioners or so of the old school, who believe that it is necessary to protect the swallowtail, the blue order ribbon, etc. So the problems are purely bureaucratic.
We have removed some of the most inadequate types from the CC, but it is difficult to explain that the cc list should be reduced by half to both experts...

You, Mr. philosopher, are not arguing here with me, or even with Wikipedia, but with Harvey D. J., Gange A. C. The Private Life of the Stag Beetle (Lucanus cervus) / / The Bulletin of the Amateur Entomologists' Society. - 2003. - Issue 62. - P. 240-244. There are other publications that indicate this number. And you should contrast them not with your own expert opinion, but with a similar publication that would provide data on what
or how much you think is necessary there.

You, comrade philosopher, are not arguing with me here, but rather with yourself. Closer to the body! I've been observing an object in nature for too long to turn to the Amateur Entomologists' Society or anywhere else for "data provided"for such nonsense. I gave you the data myself, in this case I don't need to take someone else's "given data" from somewhere on trust, as is usually done by those who are not directly aware and therefore are often ready to believe information that does not agree with the obvious facts. Those who defend such figures (of which only the first ones are usually mentioned with reference to at least some kind of empiricism, and the next ones only repeat, as you do, on the great trust in the printed word, and from there "and other publications" appear), should be sent to me, if not immediately further, and not me to them.

About four offspring per female for an average of a year, after all, I did not invent it, but your precious source. That's why I brought it up to show that even with your number, you can't cheat the geometric progression. The figure is derived from the 20 eggs you took in 5 years. Do the math carefully. 20 for five years is an average of 4 for a year; when you understand, then we will move on to how I got two out of these four as the average number of females, and then to how to raise two to the power from year to year, if these calculations were not immediately given.

But what is more important is that the figure (whether this one or another) in fact turns out to be quite successful for preserving the species in suitable conditions as a background. Given how many cervus die at least at the stage of imago, not allowing the progression to cover the entire surface of the planet with this species, and I have to believe that the mass of imagos that survived during these troubles to reproduce is a consequence of the average annual fecundity of a female in two females and two males. And more than enough has already been said about the area (and the areas of suitable conditions in it), which prevents you from rewinding a few pages back. Let them write at least about reproduction in the order of geometric regression, the cervus from this writing will not be less. It will definitely not affect the waves of life.

T. has already given us some details on fertility. rhopalocera.com.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 28.11.2017 18: 28

Even if the development cycle is 5 years, it turns out 222k + individuals in 25 years. From one pair. This is still slightly more than that of roe deer or eagles )))

But, alas, clearly no more than that of cormorants...

However, swallowtails get an important advantage from this, as I have already pointed out - unlike naphthalene-coated apollons and similar butterflies, which are buried in their stations and have been cooking there for thousands of years, swallowtails prefer to take risks, mastering more and more new stations, and eventually win when the environment changes.

Leave these conversations about "sticking in your station" for very cool specialists. Think seriously about how the species managed to survive in" its own station "during" millennial cooking", if successions pass much faster. I'm not even talking about anthropogenic changes, thanks to which the same apollo is preserved, for example, on the Volga pine terraces opposite Cheboksary or in a number of points in the Kaluga region. Long ago there would have been no mention of that Apollo with your eschatology.

I adhere to the version that seems to have been expressed more than once here, that Apollo used to have an advantage due to a different climate, earlier-meaning the period of millennia ago, when the climate certainly changed after the glaciers, but very slowly. In such conditions, it is unlikely that there will be rapid successions and clean-cut meadows can live for hundreds and thousands of years. And to judge the mentioned anthropogenic habitats, you need to know the history of those places, namely, there were refugiums with typical Apollo stations in which they rested before people formed more extensive stations, or they were long-distance migrations. By the way, I don't think I've mentioned yet that it was a person who brought Apollo out by his activities, but for some reason I don't doubt that he helped in this, and if a suitable station was formed somewhere, then more should be destroyed.

You're distorting it. Not 100 in 5 years, but 20 descendants of one couple annually - this is at least. In this case, you will get not 100 for 5 years, but 20 + 10x20 + 100x20 + 1000x20 + 10000x20 = 222220 for 5 years, if no one would eat them. Is it R or K?

Even if the development cycle is 5 years, it turns out 222k + individuals in 25 years. From one pair. This is still slightly more than that of roe deer or eagles )))

You are missing one point.
"20 offspring of one pair annually" can not be obtained - after laying eggs, the beetles die.
And not "even if", but quite precisely, in a deer beetle, unlike rhopalocera, the development cycle is 5 years.

And you can compare it with roe deer, I was even surprised myself. Roe deer bring 2 cubs every year. And it lives for about 10 years, and reproduces from the age of 2 years. Therefore, we can roughly assume that the population of roe deer in ideal conditions doubles every year. For 5 years 2*2*2*2*2 = 32. And 20 deer beetles have not yet managed to get out of the pupae )))

I've been observing an object in nature for too long to turn to the Amateur Entomologists' Society or anywhere else for "data provided"for such nonsense.

Ah you didn't like the name of the magazine... Here's another one, read for your health: HARVEY, D. J., GANGE, A. C., HAWES, C. J. and RINK, M. (2011), Bionomics and distribution of the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus (L.) across Europe. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4: 23–38. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00107.x

I gave you the data myself

Please read more here. I didn't notice any data in your messages. Have you studied clutch size in Lucanus cervus? Then be so kind as to tell the forum how many eggs a female stag beetle lays according to your observations?

The figure is derived from the 20 eggs you took in 5 years. Do the math carefully. 20 for five years is an average of 4 for a year;

Well, what can you talk about with a person who does not understand the difference between arithmetic and geometric progressions?

Stag beetle-does not belong to periodic species. So with one pair, the settlement of the biotope never begins, there is always a certain number of adults annually. And yes, 5 years is not on the tablets of this divine installation, in different places it happens differently. Absolutely accurate (TM). The deer beetle differs from the roe deer in one small feature - population density. On a piece of forest that can feed a couple of roe deer, a few orders of magnitude larger number of beetles will live quietly. This implies that the vulnerability of these two types is not equal. Once again, stop praying for eggs, because fertility is just one of the greatest number of factors that affect this property, and usually not the main one. Here is an example: barn owl - up to 14 eggs up to twice a year (in the tropics - up to three); rook - up to 7 eggs once a year, which of them is more vulnerable and rare?

This post was edited by ENO - 29.11.2017 13: 36

Yes, it doesn't even matter if there is or not. Here some actively promote the idea - and let's exclude all insects from the Red List. And what will happen to your wildlife sanctuaries then?

And what happened to them before the CC? Nature reserves (until special decisions at the state level on changing borders or on non-core use of small parts of territories that were recognized as not harmful to the main functions of protected areas) remained nature reserves, and nature reserves remained nature reserves. Not that today, when you can do anything with protected areas, but cutting money for the next CC (with the release date of which the waves of life of the species driven into the CC do not have to coincide at all) is a sacred thing. The state is harassing our comrade for helping the cervuses (apparently disabled people with broken wings) to fly somewhere within the region, and it could have thrown these forces at the criminal investigation and trial, at least in relation to those who actually destroyed the PTZ and its security zone in the Ministry of Defense. And the fact that with all the perturbations (I don't want to rhyme) already in our days around the joint zone of the national park, the reserve (hunting!), the reserve and even the state border in Greater Sochi, no one cared about any CC, you can also be sure. The state of protected areas and the presence or absence of CC are absolutely not causally related to each other; they are parallel consequences of the same socio-economic causes. Conclusion: you need to read the topic in order not to ask long-worn-out questions.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 29.11.2017 15: 33

Please read more here. I didn't notice any data in your messages. Have you studied clutch size in Lucanus cervus? Then be so kind as to tell the forum how many eggs a female stag beetle lays according to your observations?

I gave data (if you read the topic) not about eggs, dig into them yourself. I wrote to the Russians in black and white that I was providing empirical data that your two-egg version does not agree with.

Well, what can you talk about with a person who does not understand the difference between arithmetic and geometric progressions?

Therefore, a mathematician in entomology is good (while a philosopher is bad). You still don't understand that I put your own data on the average female, i.e. since there is a mass of them in the biotope, the departure in any particular locality is not once every five years, but annually (there are such species with a departure cycle of more than one year, but the cervus is not one of those), and we will not start counting from a single ancestor in any situation. But if replacing the word "arithmetic" helps you understand my words, I don't mind and I will even be happy. Now there is only one small thing left - to find out whether the mathematician (the philosopher is already known) observed cervus in normal biotopes for him, and how the version of almost impotent fecundity of cervus agrees with his observations. After all, if we limit ourselves to the only female you know with 20 eggs (as, in your opinion, we should have done), then according to the figure you took on trust, we will get 10 females from the female in five years and then we will calculate the last total every five years, right? We get, of course, less than in my version of the calculus, but still from edition to edition of the CC we get exactly a hundredfold increase in the number of females. For a mathematician, this is more than enough to burn all the CC's where at least a hint of cervus was mentioned (and what is it like for elephants?for someone who takes into account the actual state of the species in nature, who knows how many cervus imagos die in the first hours of active life and at the same time how many survive to reproduce, the figures of your sources are ridiculously small, and to understand this, picking eggs is just fun. And then I give you the option to choose - either a bare figure and then go to the KK bath, or a real mass cervus - then go to the bath Your numbers, and KK-again next.

Ah you didn't like the name of the magazine... Here's another one, read for your health: HARVEY, D. J., GANGE, A. C., HAWES, C. J. and RINK, M. (2011), Bionomics and distribution of the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus (L.) across Europe. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4: 23–38. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00107.x

I didn't like it either. Professionally protected publications are no more authoritative than amateur ones. Look for more.

Honestly, I don't understand the problem. What prevents you from gutting a female soon after mating and counting her eggs? Or are we, as nature conservationists, unable to do this?

What prevents you from gutting a female soon after mating and counting her eggs?

Kindness, Alexander. This behavior, even "shortly after mating", is not considered normal. I still understand-just in case, "count the eggs"; but starting at this moment to gut the female (especially the cervus, when winter is coming and imago is not found in nature) is not an option. Further, it is possible that past authors indicated the fecundity of cervus precisely by gutted females (which is easier), and new authors decided not to identify (which in principle is not without logic, there are a number of reasons for this) the stock of eggs in a fertilized female with the number of eggs that she is biologically capable of laying on average, but real clutches were observed either in captivity (then this is no smarter than finding out the fecundity of the same apollo in the same way, which in captivity you can't even force to mate, and let such" data " be taken seriously by the guards who inspire them), or by observing in nature, driving a drone through the crowns and through the deadwood for a specific fertilized female (which is generally doubtful). So they go to Penza. The state of the species is obvious, and attempts to make changes to the CC based on how bad it will be for the species later, when it finally learns mathematics, have already been said here, how many times you can shout to the deafness and endlessly start a conversation from scratch. Cervus doesn't care about the formulas, nor do the creators of the CC, who don't consider these formulas a mandatory guide to selecting candidates, otherwise the lepidoptera that lay eggs by the hundreds and more than once every five years would have been removed from the CC long ago. But bedbug protectors have their own motives for their actions (they only manipulate"scientific" ones, fitting them to specific cases under the guise of formally uniform categorization criteria), and all these motives have already been exposed here, and the revelations have not been refuted.