The Red Book and insects

  
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.

A colleague! Duc and I'm all about what I'm talking about!

A colleague! Duc and I'm all about what I'm talking about!

By the way, there are genres in art. In law, this term is not applicable in the context of your post.

Dear Dmitrich,
do you need it? I mean, for the words chiplazza?
This, well, absolutely has nothing to do with the CC and the question of "the origins of this nonsense".

Not, well, of course, if you really need "it" ("chiplatsa"), then it made sense to look at the lexicon (dictionary) beforehand (I don't have any medicines, they are in the pharmacy). If you really can't handle using the dictionary, I'll help you. I quote: "The concept of genre is not limited to fiction: any text <...> refers to a particular genre. Each genre is characterized by a number of formal and substantive features; the main substantive feature of the genre is a certain set of conventions concerning the relationship between the author and the addressee of this text." And then follow the text. So what have I done wrong? (Actually, the question is rhetorical)

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.

Everyone can "competently declare", the trouble is that the level of" competence " in different cases is often significantly different. Well, as in our case, when it is clearly directed to zero. I'm not "racking my brains", the tea is not official-it's a pity. Moreover, there is no need, just read the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation (dated 19.02.1996 No. 158) "On the Red Book of the Russian Federation". It says: "The Red Book of the Russian Federation is an official document." If you, dear Dmitrich, do not understand the meaningful difference between the words "official" and "legal", then, alas, I can't help you in any way. So what is the level of "competent assurance"? (Oh, well, this is also a rhetorical question.)
Well, now the world?

This post was edited by Justus - 10/16/2009 11: 38

  
Everyone can "competently declare", the trouble is that the level of" competence " in different cases is often significantly different. Well, as in our case, when it is clearly directed to zero.

I don't know your profession, Eustace, but dear Viktor Dmitrievich, as far as I know, is a lawyer by education and profession... Although, as you know, where there are two lawyers, there are three opinions

Now let's digress and look at this example.
I warn you, MY example IS NAIVE, INFANTILE AND A LITTLE VULGAR.
But, still:
Let's say an entomologist (whether an amateur or a certified specialist) comes to a school where he was asked to make a report on the butterflies of "our region" and butterflies in general.
He makes a report to the class, showing the "collection of dried butterflies" to the kids. After the story of the mysterious transformations from egg to imago, the conversation turns to the PROTECTION of LEPIDOPTERA.
And in the demo box there are also Red Book butterflies. Take, for example, the peat yolk Colias palaeno, introduced at least in the KK MO.
The entomologist can immediately ask the question "how did you catch it, because you can't?"
And then the entomologist will explain about the high number and fecundity of butterflies and that a few specimens caught by humans will not have a clear detrimental effect on the population. But if the swamp is drained, peat bogs are burned, etc. - then yes, we will definitely destroy it.
And the kids will absorb it. Easy. After all, there is a chance that one of these kids will not throw a match in last year's grass. Scanty, but there is.

So, regional Red Books are even necessary. You just need to learn how to correctly and effectively (and effectively too) convey information about protected species to the layman.

In the end, the Moscow Region apollo was not brought together by entomologists.

In the end, the Moscow region Apollo was not brought together by entomologists.

They could have finished it off.

Dear Dmitrich,
do you need it? I mean, for the words chiplazza?
This, well, absolutely has nothing to do with the CC and the question of "the origins of this nonsense".

Not, well, of course, if you really need "it" ("chiplatsa"), then it made sense to look at the lexicon (dictionary) beforehand (I don't have any medicines, they are in the pharmacy). If you really can't handle using the dictionary, I'll help you. I quote: "The concept of genre is not limited to fiction: any text <...> refers to a particular genre. Each genre is characterized by a number of formal and substantive features; the main substantive feature of the genre is a certain set of conventions concerning the relationship between the author and the addressee of this text." And then follow the text. So what have I done wrong? (Actually, the question is rhetorical)

And I don't cling to words. Simply, speaking categorically on any issue, you must first have an idea of the subject, learn the terminology. What you have listed (resolutions, decrees, laws, etc.) are not genres, but types of legal acts.

 
Everyone can "competently declare", the trouble is that the level of" competence " in different cases is often significantly different. Well, as in our case, when it is clearly directed to zero. I'm not "racking my brains", the tea is not official-it's a pity. Moreover, there is no need, just read the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation (dated 19.02.1996 No. 158) "On the Red Book of the Russian Federation". It says: "The Red Book of the Russian Federation is an official document." If you, dear Dmitrich, do not understand the meaningful difference between the words "official" and "legal", then, alas, I can't help you in any way. So what is the level of "competent assurance"? (Oh, well, this is also a rhetorical question.)

Oh, how you have everything running! The difference between the concepts of "official document" and "legal document" really exists, and, above all, in terms of volume. The concept of "legal document" is broader. In other words, not every legal document is official (for example, a simple contract that is not notarized is a legal document, but not an official one). Official documents are documents issued by the official bodies authorized to accept or issue them. In this sense, the Red Book is certainly an official document. And the legal nature of the CC is given by the fact that it records the facts on which the legal regime of objects of law depends, as well as entailing legally significant consequences (including, as I have already said, the occurrence of legal liability - criminal, administrative). A legal document is a document containing legal information. And the CC certainly contains such information. Do you understand now?"

Well, now the world?

I didn't fight you, Justus. I just don't like militant amateurism.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 10/16/2009 15: 25

So everything seems to be beautiful - in the example. But what does the regional CC have to do with it? We need enthusiasts, devotees, lecturers-if we are talking about the education of children... and adults, too. And what they will rely on is their own business. I suspect that not on the CC.
And Apollo near Moscow, of course, was not brought together by entomologists. But in the presence of such CC, it is entomologists, if they find themselves without properly corrected documents with this apollo in their hands (or backpack) in front of the inspectors, who will suffer first.

This post was edited by Rud - 17.10.2009 00: 13

  
Let's say an entomologist comes to school, where he was asked to make a report on the butterflies of "our region" and butterflies in general.
He makes a report to the class, showing the "collection of dried butterflies" to the kids.
And in the demo box there are also Red Book butterflies.
The entomologist can immediately ask the question "how did you catch it, because you can't?"
And then the entomologist will explain about the high number and fecundity of butterflies and that a few specimens caught by humans will not have a clear detrimental effect on the population. But if the swamp is drained, peat bogs are burned, etc. - then yes, we will definitely destroy it.
And the kids will absorb it. Easy. After all, there is a chance that one of these kids will not throw a match in last year's grass. Scanty, but there is.
So, regional Red Books are even necessary.

And if well-read children ask an entomologist - " Why is this butterfly rare in our country, and in neighboring regions it has always been like dirt?So is it rare, in general, or not?.. "

Now let's digress and look at this example.
<...><<...> convey information about protected species to the layman.

And even more "impressive": to enter (in a similar situation) in the classroom in a "spinjak" made of the skin of a "red book" leopard and just shake your finger

This post was edited by Justus - 10/16/2009 17: 07

And even more "impressive": to enter (in a similar situation) in the classroom in a "spinjak" made of the skin of a "red book" leopard and just shake your finger

Well, post***xia we're all big, yeah.

And about the skin of the Red Book leopard, you will personally shake your finger (any finger, at your discretion) at major government officials who practice hunting large mammals listed in the IUCN CC

I hope everyone remembers the incident with the helicopter crash and the scattered carcasses of Red Book argali in order to attract the equally Red Book snow leopard?

This post was edited by Morozzz - 10/16/2009 17: 26

Of course, it would be good to protect (insects, of course, not at the level of individuals) within their ranges, and not along administrative borders, but this, alas, is hindered by two circumstances. First, in most cases, the ranges of different species are different, and it is painfully expensive to write a separate CC for each species or for each pair or three of species. Secondly, protection has a certain legal function (those who recognize the legal significance of the CC are absolutely right, there is nothing to argue about), and legal (like any administrative) function is more convenient to perform for administrative-territorial units; roads usually break off at the junction of regions (i.e., between the closing bear corners of neighboring regions). public transport turns around, policemen disappear; what can we say about the protection of an inter-regional bug?

On the scientific significance of CC. m. b., don't take each other's arguments to heart? I understand that what is discussed here is not a certain set of cash CC, but tasks and prospects, i.e. what should be sought. And you should strive "forward and higher". Even today, ccscontain information that is not a sin for a scientist to refer to (especially due to the fact that in the age of the Internet, CC can take into account the results of field work of an increasing number of specialists and amateurs). Some faunal information is generally published for the first time in the CC (for example, the recent edition of the CC of the Moscow region); well, now, for the sake of snobbery, should we ignore the information from the CC and puff up our cheeks, pretending to be giants of thought? Another thing is that it is precisely because of the legal significance of the CC that its authors should strive to be at the highest level of modern science-both taxonomy, faunistics, and biology of specific species. The movement towards the translation of this very legal book from the level of a green horror story to the joy of cops to the level of serious scientific work has already begun (at least in the mentioned CC MO), there is still a lot of work there, and climate changes will not allow faunistics to stand still, biological data is growing, so from edition to edition the scientific level of QC should, in theory, increase. It is precisely because of the" legal nature " of its CC that it has no right to be a scientific hack, but simply must be scientific material of the highest quality!

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10/16/2009 23: 38

And again – about Apollo in MO. It wasn't like it used to be somewhere with Steller's cow or Tur. I didn't deal with Apollo in the Serpukhov district myself after 1992, I just didn't go there in the appropriate time frame. This was discussed here in another topic, I will repeat very briefly. The native population in the Serpukhov district had long since died out due to a very sharp reduction in the area of growth of forage plants, plus something else that is still difficult for me to judge, but not because of trapping. Serpukhov is still an industrial city today, and in Brezhnev's times there was a lot of industry there, you can look through the local history literature; and the PTZ is located below Serpukhov on the Oka River and actually opens the southern border into the Oka floodplain, especially in the central part of the southern border. Namely, along the southern border, the apollo biotope was located (there were no suitable conditions for apollo elsewhere in those parts). Reintroduction somewhere at the turn of the 1980s-1990s reached its peak somewhere around 1992, apollo was then observed even outside the reserve (and even hatched from the pupa). The bulk of it lived precisely on the territory of the reserve and was not in danger of extermination, I can say that I know this from the most authoritative persons in this matter. Somewhere around 1992, a cordon ranger mowed down the main clearing with a clearing house (inside the PTZ) for animal feed (almost in the "Young Naturalist" even wrote about this), and experts considered this a decisive blow to the population. I strongly doubt the significance of this blow, because I saw Apollo in 1992 on a much wider area, including outside the reserve, and the light did not converge in a wedge on the clearing. In addition, whether until 1994, or until 1995, the entomologists of the Apollo reserve themselves still celebrated in it, although in the last year very little. And the khan of all reintroduction. Unfortunately. It can't live there in the current ecological situation, and it won't; the first environmental disaster, like a bad rainstorm from an industrial center, will lead the bulk of the caterpillars to such twists of the intestines that the population will quickly come to naught. But this needs to be investigated by specialists, and for now we are only guessing. By the way, on the famous Apollo road (running meridional from Kratovo), where Tsvetaev once fished for apollo, Apollo was also destroyed not by entomologists, but, alas, by completely natural successions. Nothing even remotely similar to the apollo biotope has been found on that road for a long time. So in both cases, of course, one can speculate that Apollo could have lasted two days or even two hours longer if it hadn't been for entomologists, but objectively, due to factors beyond the control of entomologists, the populations were somehow doomed. Moreover, if the Apollo road was a place of pilgrimage for decades (but it was perfectly maintained until the vegetation cover changed!), then reintroduction in the PTZ was almost never caught, and the number of butterflies in the field of view reached several dozen on the best days.

I have personally seen Apollo many times on the asphalt highway, and in the countryside, but never near functioning industrial centers, no matter how "suitable" the biotopes might seem. By the way, it would be interesting to know if someone has ever observed Apollo near the centers of industrial production. And if so, what kind of production. You can go to the topic about the Apollos.

By the way, it would be interesting to know if someone has ever observed Apollo near the centers of industrial production. And if so, what kind of production. You can go to the topic about the Apollos.

Ever
This year, 12. VII. 2009 in the industrial zone of Dzerzhinsk (Nizhny Novgorod region) Near the Zarya plant, I was fishing for Cicindela sylvatica, so I spotted one female apollo. There was a female with a sphragis.

This post was edited by Bad Den - 10/17/2009 14: 07

those who recognize the legal significance of the CC are absolutely right, there is nothing to argue about

Ba-ba-ba!.. (all faces are familiar!) Have I heard that somewhere before? And I'm not the only one… And I'm not the only one who caused this... (it's easy to guess that...). One "speaker" said that " parliament is not a place for discussion." In our case, we have a forum where "there is nothing to argue". No-e po-onyal?
Moreover, it is stated with stunning peremptoriness: consider these people right ("absolutely right"!), and those – no. We talked... it's called. Ordinances are no longer held in high esteem, democracy, sir... if "those" are "absolutely right," then Kozma Prutkov is right "in the cube of absoluteness." "If you read 'buffalo' on an elephant's cage, don't believe your eyes," he said. Compare: if (in the above-quoted Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation)you read the CC is an "official document" - do not believe your eyes, read – a legal one. So what? the authors are completely "no good": they don't know the word "legal", or they know... and confuse it? Dmitrich himself says, here I point my index (index, insist) finger up:

There is indeed a difference between the concepts of "official document" and "legal document"

Don't you believe Dmitrich (I believe, absolutely)? Then, well, well...
and "official" is not official (but "legal", it turns out), and the forum is not a place for a dispute. No-e po-onyal? K. P. Prutkov's demand to "let the fountain rest"involuntarily comes to mind.

First, in most cases, the ranges of different species are different, and it is painfully expensive to write a separate CC for each species or for each pair or three of species.

If this is your personal "contribution" to science, then there will be no prize for a number of reasons: first, - the species are different – the areas are different (this is a nominological truism, they do not give prizes for it, because they believe that the hedgehog knows this); second, if the first is not true (i.e. – if it is not a truism), then it is still not true (because the vast majority of "island" species have congruent ranges, i.e. they are not different, and these "island" species are not a minority), etc.
As for "writing a separate CC for each species<...>", the phrase, in general, does not make sense: the CC "includes a list (list) of objects of the animal and plant world" (See: Regulation on the procedure for maintaining the CC of the Russian Federation, clause 7.2). A list (list), by definition, cannot consist of one (in your terms – "each") type. A "costly" and "painful" meaning in this phrase to look for.

it is more convenient to perform a legal (as well as any administrative) function based on administrative divisions.

Zugunderom " smells… in the sense that separatism (regional autonomism, etc.) was equally persecuted by monarchs, general secretaries, and is still being persecuted by presidents. You what? do you think that it is "inconvenient" for federal agencies to "perform a legal function"? What? should they be abolished as unnecessary?

This post was edited by Justus - 10/17/2009 17: 21

Guys-s-s-s(and gentlemen-comrades, and colleagues, etc.)!
Well, in fact, how is it possible to "protect" species without knowing not only the population dynamics of individuals, but even their (species') ranges?!! I, after all, did not just mention the Krasnoyarsk Territory above (in fact, I did not receive an answer). If it were not for akulich-sibiria, then nothing would have happened since Catherine's time (entomologists-voyageurs – do not count) (I round it up, coarsening it). The territory of the Russian Federation is gaping with gaps ("hiatus") of entomological lack of study. The abundance of" white spots "on her map is akin to the whiteness of a blank sheet (pathos and" high calm", I believe, in this case is excusable-excusable). The Red Data Book of the Russian Federation, which is supposed to be updated every 10 years (at least), refers to territories that the researcher has not set foot on in the last 200 years!
Are you still serious about the "red book of the Russian Federation"? - then we are coming to you: this is not just nonsense (as specified! in the subtitle of the topic), this is a fever.
KK of Mongolia (after the abundance of volumes "Insects of Mongolia": in the first volume only – 990 pages, in the 9th-576 pages-even if you close your eyes to Czech, German and, in fact, Mongolian studies; I'm silent about Yakovlev from Barnaul) can be compiled. I'll probably add it. But the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation???
Well, let it be-KK of the Moscow region. But what does it matter to me here (in the middle of the country, 3 thousand versts from M)? – Purely academic (bibliophile, etc.) interest. Mongolia (China) - near; M-va-so far away that ...
Johanne Wilhelmo Zetterstedt in the 40-50s of the XIX century (!!!) Veka has published 12 volumes only (!) by dipters and only (!) Scandinavia (compare with the Krasnoyarsk Territory), and research is being conducted to this day, so they, the Scandinavians, have such a task-the creation of a regional (Scandinavian) CC "on the shoulder"...
It seems to me that one of the "sources of this nonsense" (see the title of the topic) is the lack of exploration of the territory that was threatened.

This post was edited by Justus - 10/17/2009 17: 34

  
Everyone can "competently declare", the trouble is that the level of" competence " in different cases is often significantly different. Well, as in our case, when it is clearly directed to zero.

Justus, your reasoning on the topic of what kind of document, official or legal, is the Red Book, shows that the level of your personal competence in this matter clearly does not tend to zero, that's for sure. It is equal to it.

If you, dear Dmitrich, do not understand the meaningful difference between the words "official" and "legal", then, alas, I can't help you in any way. So what is the level of "competent assurance"?

Compare: if (in the above-quoted Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation)you read the CC is an "official document" - do not believe your eyes, read – a legal one. So what? the authors are completely "no good": they don't know the word "legal", or they know... and confuse it? Dmitrich himself says, here I point my index (index, insist) finger up:
Don't you believe Dmitrich (I believe, absolutely)? Then, uh-oh...
and "official" is not official (but "legal", it turns out)

Responding to the post of the respected A. Y. Elez, you once again convinced me that you really can't help anyone in understanding the question of the relationship between the concepts of "official" and "legal", because not only do you not understand anything yourself, but you also do not realize it, since you are trying so hard prove the unprovable. Well, I have to repeat myself, since in your reply you allowed yourself to refer to me, saying that you believe me unconditionally (I would naively like to think that you did this without your inherent, but inappropriate sarcasm here).
To claim after you that the CC is not a legal document, because it is an official document, is just as stupid as to say that a butterfly is not an insect, because it is a lepidopteran. Finally, please understand that all documents are divided into official and unofficial ones according to their source of origin, while legal documents are recognized based on their content, regardless of whether they come from any person or body (according to their legal status). documents are being sent out. I have already given an example of a legal document above, but it is unofficial. If you want, look again. Official documents must have the following mandatory characteristics: they must have legal significance, have a certain form (except for cases established by law), and come from state bodies, local self-government bodies, as well as from organizations authorized by these bodies to certify facts of legal significance. Thus, the Red Book is an official legal document.

And here's another thing. Your comments on the forum are often not just sarcastic. They border on rudeness. I hope no one will answer you in the same spirit. But I advise you to change your tone: the moderator, I think, also reads your posts.

In general, I was understood, despite some attempts not to understand. Of course, each species has its own range, but a purely selective parasite may well coincide with the host in its range (at least, it cannot climb outside the host's range). That's all I had in mind by area. CC includes a list – list) - this is true; that is why my phrase about the overhead of compiling CC for each one type should be understood as hyperbole, and not evidence of ignorance of the alphabet; however, the alphabet and the fact that there are lists in life and from one position. But, of course, such a CC would be nonsense, I don't see any differences here, and when the subject is clear, we shouldn't argue about words (I remember Augustine saying this even before the current democracy).

As for the fact that the Red Book is contraindicated approximate and incomplete information, this is also absolutely true, but there is no limit to perfection. We need to develop! Over the past two decades, much has been written about how questionable the CC's recommendations are for species whose population dynamics - and sometimes their ranges and even taxonomic affiliations - have not been properly established. So skepticism in relation to the CC already available by yesterday is quite justified, you can even use the term "nonsense" somewhere (I admit), but I suggest that we still talk more about how our CC can get out of this state today and tomorrow, and not comb our favorite poacher's calluses... In addition, even on our forum, the topic of QC arose (in this topic) not for the first time.

What I definitely do not agree with is the fact that with the compilation of any CC, one should expect a "Scandinavian" level of knowledge of the fauna (if, of course, this is what one of the comrades had in mind). By the time the science of each of our neighborhoods is deconstructed, the CC of these neighborhoods will have time to spread a hundred times. The position of the Russian Federation in the global economy is such that it is necessary to strive for the ideal, of course, but it is better to recompose the CC regularly, and each time – at the level of the latest achievements, and not postpone the creation of a very full-fledged CC until the Scandinavian kalends, when there will be nothing to protect. But I agree that a certain minimum level of knowledge of the region is necessary, and that it is not possible to create regional protection lists from any level of knowledge of the region. So everything depends on the work, scientific information does not fall from the sky.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 10/17/2009 22: 54

I understand that you can only protect what you know well.
But back to our Muh-sk. There isn't even a list of such groups as the Bulavousye here, let alone any cartography. And there is a Red Book of the Mukh region! And it was written by specialists who do not distinguish polychrome from perelivnitsa! Well, what is the price of this QC?
Well, yes, the law is harsh...

Gennady!
Unfortunately, the price of this QC is just too high. Because the money is sold, as we usually do, to realize the money; it got out of the pockets of taxpayers to useless specialists through useless administrators who do not have a clear idea of QC (how, why, for whom, what is the output; their views on QC clearly coincided with those of Justus - "this is not a legal document"), and as a result, the criminal "product" of their activities is precisely the unaddressed "funny pictures" - neither the mind nor the heart, and even discrediting the idea... It is not the idea of creating a CC of the nth region that is flawed, but the implementers of this project.
As for the statement of Justus about the very lack of research of the expanses of Russia in entomological terms, who is arguing? There is also an article (one of...), for example, Gorodkov shaggy for a year about the degree of study of Diptera in the USSR confirms his words. Yes, but this is clear even without the emotional speeches of the" visionary " Justus. As for the general state of science in the Russian Federation, including funding for research, I think it is unnecessary to complain, but here, for example, is a particular problem today - to publish a faunal article... So according to Mr. Roosevelt's commandment: work now with what you have.
I don't know what was "boiling over" there, but only if Justus lived (figuratively, of course!) in a communal apartment, where all the rooms are a mess, in his own, probably, he would still restore order? So if there is something to protect today-why wait until they conduct a cadastre of the entire Russian Federation? But what is offered by the most amiable Eustace? Drop the reins and drop your hands? It seems that this is another globalizing nonsense about Western and Eastern friends, who, if necessary, will study everything for us here...

Duc I wrote above that to work on it - to know what and where lies in your-my communal apartment. What you're doing is not without success...
And what was published (CC of the N-th region) - I repeat - unfortunately, is not a document...
Well, in addition, there are examples of worthy publications-that is, I think, which should be encouraging and neutralize to some extent our pessimistic moods about KK...

I don't quite agree with Justus about Mongolia. Mongolia is studied much worse than most administrative divisions of the Russian Federation. In the Russian Federation, real white spots remain, for example, Koryakia. It should be noted that the vast territories of the Central Siberian plateau are generally inhabited by very, very poor biota. I.e., the Balkans, for example, are more rich entomologically and phorisically, despite the difference in area of 100 times.
When Churkin and my expeditions started in Mongolia. They were launched in 1999 - it felt like we were moving through terra incognita. In 10 years of operation, the fauna of the Mongolian Altai has been increased by 35%!!! And this is after the 12-volume edition. As you know, the study of butterflies more than a centimeter in size was not in honor of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which led to terrible distortions in the study of Mongolia, where only Hungarians really hammered butterflies. But look at the territory! It is huge, a lot of places are almost inaccessible due to problems with water and gasoline.
The Russian Federation is much better researched.
CC's should probably be there, but in some cases they are filled with views due to the fact that the author gets a bigger fee.
In recent years, Bolshakov, Shchurov, and Plyushch have given some very thoughtful theoretical approaches to CC and the introduction of insects into them.
It's all about time.
Running to the train station....

I was referring to the fauna of some groups of butterflies - diurnal, cossidae, hawkmoth, fingerwings

.. It should be noted that the vast territories of the Central Siberian plateau are generally inhabited by very, very poor biota. I.e., the Balkans, for example, are more rich entomologically and phorisically, despite the difference in area of 100 times. ...

And here I agree with Justus. Being engaged in Central Siberia, I can not say that the SS plateau is sufficiently studied.

Papaver!
How do you guard what you don't know?
In your room in a communal apartment, at least you know where everything is!
A vicious circle!
And no one will be able to force me, first of all, I will not be able to force myself, to take this DOCUMENT seriously.

In my opinion, the attitude should be divided: a) to the very idea of establishing Red Books; b) to the product of implementing this idea, i.e. to specific published CC; c) to the idea of including insects in the Red Book lists.
As for point "a", the participants of our discussion probably do not have serious disagreements: of course, Red Books themselves are necessary - including as an element of legal regulation in the field of environmental protection.
But as for putting this idea into practice... However, it has long been known that in our country performers are very good at defaming any, even the most good, undertaking in the process of practical implementation. Of course, the existing QC systems are far from perfect, to put it mildly. Here is an example - 18 (!) species of bumblebees, the barbel Purpuricenus kaehleri, known in the region from a single find, and not a living individual, but a "corpse" (as indicated in the CC!) are included in the Red Book of the Kaluga Region. the beetle. And these examples can be given endlessly.
It seems to me that one (but by no means the only) reason for this state of CC in Russia lies in the economic sphere. Who are the authors of these documents? At the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (I don't take Moscow and the Moscow Region, everything is separate here) , these are, as a rule, teachers of local universities, specialists working in various local organizations whose activities are related to environmental protection or other topics, etc. its use in subsequent monitoring is, first of all, an opportunity to get a one-time increase to your meager earnings. So it turns out that people who are not actually specialists often take up writing a CC. Who wouldn't want an extra penny? And I will not throw a stone at them for this, the well-fed does not understand the hungry. And the amounts allocated for the establishment and publication of regional CC's are not so large as to attract venerable luminaries to their creation. I admit that many of these luminaries themselves do not seek to become authors of the CC, because the general level of these books warns them against the danger of discrediting their good name. They will not be able to influence the quality of the final, already published product - the editorial board and representatives of government agencies will be behind everything (and these are definitely far from the essence of the problem), so then prove to your colleagues that you had a special opinion.

Dmitrich!
I totally agree with you!
Especially about "the well-fed does not understand the hungry"!
I mean, it may be hard for you to imagine that there are no luminaries in Mukh-sk, but there should be a QC, we are no worse, and what to do... The question is rhetorical.
(I don't take Moscow and the Moscow region, everything is separate here)

Well, why is it hard to imagine? I don't go to the capitals either ! Only here is his Homeland, where he was born, and, I want to believe, came in handy, to call Muh-skom language does not turn.
Yes, in the provinces (I will make a reservation, not in every province) there may not be luminaries. But "in the capitals" they are! If we had the money , we could attract it. And we are talking about spending not only (and not so much) on remuneration for work, but, first of all, on conducting serious preparatory and, most importantly, research work.
As for the fact that in many regions of the Russian Federation decisions of local executive and legislative authorities on the establishment of Red Books are published without serious consideration of the degree of readiness for such a step, according to the principle "what about us, and we are no worse than many, we can also drink a lot", I can say that this is, to my deep regret, exactly so.

Being engaged in Central Siberia, I can't say that the SS plateau has been studied sufficiently.

And I will allow myself an anecdote about the SW of Siberia (I live here, you know) (in the narrow, original, etymological sense of the word as an unpublished historical narrative about the lives of individuals), about the "study" of Siberia, specifically – the Novosibirsk region.
So, Nikolai Alexandrovich Violovich, who spent more than 40 years studying diptera (horseflies and sirfids, mostly) Having explored the regions of Altai, Tuva, and the Kuril Islands on an expedition basis (which resulted in the monograph "Sirfids of Siberia", 1982), I once walked (Note that after 40 years of study) around the city (Novosibirsk, of course), well, to be precise (administrative, "legally"), then in its vicinity (imagine a city stretching for 30 km along the river, here areas are interspersed with "neighborhoods"); so, I walked-walked, caught a fly and (!) described it as a new species – Pipiza westsibirica (See: N. A. Violovich New species of sirfids of the Palearctic fauna // Taxonomy and biology of arthropods and helminths. N-sk, 1985, pp. 91-92).
And yet, but not a joke, but just a quote. I quote an article (available online) by R. Y. Dudko and I. I. Lyubechansky on the ground beetle fauna (!) Novosibirsk region " The ground beetle fauna of the Novosibirsk region is better studied than the fauna of the surrounding regions (<...>Omsk, Tomsk, and Altai Krai). ... Collections of ground beetles <...> for almost a century. <...> No data available from Dovolensky, Kyshtovsky, Hungersky, and Tatarsky districts. [For 100 years of studying data from 4! districts of the region, not the smallest, I note, not at all! Only in 14 regions out of 31 [Nota bene-2/3 of the region – almost a blank sheet] ground beetle data are sufficient for faunal analysis." Poor readers of the CC of Omsk, Tomsk and many other regions!
I'm not against species protection as such, but just tell me if you know (and no one does, it turns out) who to protect. The CC of the Novosibirsk region (and not only the N region, as it seems) is a cart rushing at a gallop, ahead of the plodding nag of a scientific (faunal in this case, I don't say anything about population dynamics) study.

This post was edited by Justus - 10/18/2009 17: 34

Why the poor?

See above, in Dudko and Lyubechansky: "The fauna is better studied than the fauna of the surrounding regions (<...>Omsk..."
I.e. (this is not what I said) the fauna (ground beetles, in particular) In the Omsk region, the fauna of the Novosibirsk region has been studied even worse (in the sense of less). Or did I not understand the question?

call Muh-skom language does not turn

My wife, seeing this remark over my shoulder, was surprised: "Offended? For what? We have all the cities-Muhosranski, including M-va, only M - va-bolshoy Muhosransk".

And I'm talking about the use of Siberia (I live here, you know)
By 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.). That's why the Eiffel Towers are located in Mukhosranskakh... (c)
Justus! The term "Muhosransk" was introduced by you (reread your post and my answer to it) - do not distort it. And I have too much respect for my compatriots to differentiate by place of residence. And I have never considered Novosibirsk as such (greetings to your wife). You don't seem to understand my sarcasm, my dear fellow... So you're the interpreter... mmm... not really...
A short course of educational programs about the activities of N. A. Violovich is not at the right address. Yes, and the works of Roma and Lubechansky were also read... Don't underestimate the forum members.
And you are tired of repeating yourself - you demand an endlessly boring replication of a simple idea: if there is already something to protect, it is necessary to protect; research - to continue; to approach the creation of a QC responsibly...
To avoid misunderstandings , I'm NOT A FAN of CC. But in the end, what other mechanisms for protecting biota exist today, other than CC and the creation of protected areas?
And who to protect... Well, reread the posts in this thread...

This post was edited by Papaver - 18.10.2009 18: 30

My wife, seeing this remark over my shoulder, was surprised: "Offended? For what? We have all the cities-Muhosranski, including M-va, only M - va-bolshoy Muhosransk".

I agree.
MOSCOW-THE BIGGEST MUHOS* * * SK!

My wife, seeing this remark over my shoulder, was surprised: "Offended? For what? We have all the cities-Muhosranski, including M-va, only M - va-bolshoy Muhosransk".

No, I wasn't offended. Why take offense? On the fact that someone feels pleasure, desecrating the city in which they were born? There is something of masochism in this, and it causes not resentment - pity. By the way, an insult is a negative assessment expressed in an indecent form, and it does not matter whether such a negative assessment corresponds to reality. Someone will argue that the word Muhosransk is very decent? In that case, I have a different idea of propriety.

Let me interrupt a fruitful discussion for now. Should we take a look at the link for a moment:

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=363047
?

I'm sorry!
I myself am the author of the regional CC, and even one of the organizers of the publication. Maybe this has already been discussed a thousand times on the forum, but I'm too lazy to read several hundred messages. Therefore, if I repeat other people's thoughts - I'm sorry and ignore the post.
And I want to say the following.
1. The principle of the existing CC is absolutely unsuitable for the protection of insects, because it is "sharpened" for birds, milks ... (in general, vertebrates), i.e. objects of hunting and production, but not having the same reproduction potential that insects have.
2. Protection of insects at the level of "penalty for catching Papilio machaon" - a classic biological joke.
3. The benefit of the so-called regional CC and, especially, their management, is that in those regions where the nature protection committees do not "cut money" for themselves, it becomes possible for entomologists to travel on expeditions at least a little not at their own expense, but at their own expense. Even if the reports submitted to these Committees are absolutely stupid, and most importantly, absolutely no one in these committees needs them (they need to invest the allocated funds), but during these trips they really manage to find something useful and can help where they haven't been able to yet.

And in conclusion. It is not necessary to take CC in terms of insects seriously. Individual insect species cannot be protected in principle! I'm not even talking about the fact that most often many really rare species are indistinguishable from banals for those who are supposed to protect them by their position. Well, where not to poke here - the situation is completely stupid. And a lot of smart specialists have written and talked about this a lot. However, this is the only way to get money for research from our respected state ... So we write KK.

I wonder what kind of nonsense in Red Data Book of the Chelyabinsk region-insects?
And who do you mean, Andrey, by a beetle that is not present in the South Ural fauna? If ribbed ground beetle then such a statement is possible after peropisaniya copies from the Urals.

Still read the forum from the beginning! I couldn't resist, even though it was a long time ago!
More delirium is hard to imagine - http://www.redbook.ru/redbook219.html And it STILL HANGS IN THE NETWORK!!!
Anyone who understands will understand. No comments.

This post was edited by evk - 18.10.2009 19: 48

Dmitrich!
Attract luminaries from the "capitals"!!!!????
But this, sorry, I don't understand at all! It's like!?
A luminary will come and tell you who lives where, and what needs to be protected.
Well, yes, I talked with such luminaries, heard their opinions about my favorite field and saw the lists they make.
That's just our QC and is a reflection of their opinion.

Why do honest entomologists at the regional level participate in writing the CC, the post above absolutely frankly said evk, honor to him and praise! That's right, with (we know which ) sheep-even a tuft of wool, since it is impossible to get money for research in any other way-then this path is acceptable. This is better than doing nothing and complaining about the lack of funds.
As for the "luminaries", then, apparently, I did not accurately express my idea, since I was not fully understood.
First of all, "luminaries" is a collective image , I meant recognized and respected specialists in their field. Those "experts" with whom you spoke, and who compiled" such "lists for your field (I take your word for it, since I have not seen the lists myself, nor do I know your field), are in no way considered" luminaries " in the sense in which I used this word. they apply.
Secondly, I spoke about a hypothetical situation in which so much money is suddenly allocated for research related to the establishment and maintenance of the Red Book that (due to the sufficiency of these funds for serious research!) it can not fail to interest serious scientists. I agree that today it is fantastic, and far from scientific.

Dmitrich!
Attract luminaries from the "capitals"!!!!????
But this, sorry, I don't understand at all! It's like!?
A luminary will come and tell you who lives where, and what needs to be protected.
Well, yes, I talked with such luminaries, heard their opinions about my favorite field and saw the lists they make.
That's just our QC and is a reflection of their opinion.

Gennady!
I very much understand and share your indignation.
I didn't want to speak about it... Oh, well. Have you ever thought about what happens and exactly the opposite situation? For example, I have been working in one of the Russian regions for almost 10 years. I've been all over it... Moreover, a lot has been done in terms of entomology (of course, not all groups) and botany. They know me here. But they didn't let me go to the "feeder" of the CC, although I immediately outlined the situation: I can make a number of essays for free, but with my own signature... And the output, apparently, will be exactly what you are so sorry about.

 
Secondly, I spoke about a hypothetical situation in which so much money is suddenly allocated for research related to the establishment and maintenance of the Red Book that (due to the sufficiency of these funds for serious research!) it can not fail to interest serious scientists. I agree that today it is fantastic, and far from scientific.

This is a "hypothetical" situation." When they wrote their own, I was in charge of insects (I didn't protect myself from stupidities - it's impossible by definition in our situation, but I tried). So to the question-I personally asked Sviridov (the Moscow State University Zoomuseum) to suggest a list of different people and make competent articles. Although, as a result, I was once again convinced that there is no point in the CC (both regional and Federal) for scoops, moths (I'm not talking about more complex groups) No! Yes, in principle, they are useless FOR THE REAL PROTECTION OF INSECT SPECIES!
You can use the CC in order to try (it is unlikely to work) to defend a certain plot of land from developers (etc.), you can earn a little money or just practice at government expense ... I repeat - DO NOT TAKE CC SERIOUSLY IN RELATION TO INSECTS!

This post was edited by evk - 18.10.2009 20: 15

I'm sorry!
I myself am the author of the regional CC, and even one of the organizers of the publication. Maybe this has already been discussed a thousand times on the forum, but I'm too lazy to read several hundred messages. Therefore, if I repeat other people's thoughts - I'm sorry and ignore the post.
And I want to say the following.
1. The principle of the existing CC is absolutely unsuitable for the protection of insects, because it is "sharpened" for birds, milks ... (in general, vertebrates), i.e. objects of hunting and production, but not having the same reproduction potential that insects have.
2. Protection of insects at the level of "penalty for catching Papilio machaon" - a classic biological joke.
3. The benefit of the so-called regional CC and, especially, their management, is that in those regions where the nature protection committees do not "cut money" for themselves, it becomes possible for entomologists to travel on expeditions at least a little not at their own expense, but at their own expense. Even if the reports submitted to these Committees are absolutely stupid, and most importantly, absolutely no one in these committees needs them (they need to invest the allocated funds), but during these trips they really manage to find something useful and can help where they haven't been able to yet.

And in conclusion. It is not necessary to take CC in terms of insects seriously. Individual insect species cannot be protected in principle! I'm not even talking about the fact that most often many really rare species are indistinguishable from banals for those who are supposed to protect them by their position. Well, where not to poke here - the situation is completely stupid. And a lot of smart specialists have written and talked about this a lot. However, this is the only way to get money for research from our respected state ... So we write the CC.

That's the argument!
This is an honest and decent remark. (I tactfully keep silent about the" lamentations " of collectors who support the creation of KK regions-edges...)
Thanks!