How do you like it?...

Damn, I didn't see that the Web master there is a respected Dmitry Telnov.
It's very interesting how they came up with such an idea. Of course, it's a sin not to earn money on self-loving fools, but what will you do if the customer names some bystryanka in memory of Toto's favorite dog, the victim of a neighbor's Doberman, or the bratva chips in and calls the scorpion "Vovan"?!

This post was edited by scarabee - 23.01.2008 19: 25

Linnaeus was also guilty of naming toads and thorns after Buffon... Perhaps this can happen: first Vovan will order to name the dung beetle in Kolyan's part, and then Kolyan will roll both Vovan and the first writer into the asphalt...

It is interesting to look at such a custom publication, how they will explain the etymology.

By the way, I noticed that many authors do not always bother to explain the etymology.
As for selling titles , I don't see anything special. They are also named after colleagues, friends, and collectors. There were even some beetles named after politicians...
And the money seems to be promised to be used to support programs for the study of biodiversity.

I also don't see it as a big crime. A much less sinful business, in my opinion, than selling rare insects for the sake of collecting, or including all sorts of outsiders who are not related to the work, just for paying for something, inviting someone, providing material, etc.

yes, I must admit, I also did not see any crime there, just somehow uncomfortable .
In any case. thank you all for your feedback.

"...about times, about morals ... " © Where money begins-the Fatherland and morality end. This will probably be treated differently by everyone. For example, I like to read the names of insects associated with the myths of Ancient Greece or other mythologies. Today, for the loot, many are ready to do things that are unjustified for entomology. No comments.

This post was edited by Entalex - 23.01.2008 22: 16

"...about times, about customs ..."

As far as I can remember (if it's not a duck), in the century before last, the British Museum staff was financially encouraged to describe new species...

Carabus is generally a highly commercialized group...

This post was edited by Bad Den - 23.01.2008 21: 36

Hehe... for the sale of names, they offer beetles or a scoop, but there are no perepons.
And I have hundreds of new species of riders from Africa...

Set an affordable price, arrange a sale... Wholesale customers - discounts

I found one in the grid here very interesting site They offer for a certain amount of money (probably a lot) to name an undescribed view with any word offered by the buyer. It is interesting to look at such a custom publication, how they will explain the etymology.

Yes, it's a nasty business, of course. A scientist should have pride and principles. It is unprincipled to give names for money that will remain in the system for centuries. And in general, this is not the approach of a master, but of a merchant. Great masters, of course, also fulfilled the requirements of rich amateurs; for example, Tchaikovsky took paid orders, he called it "baking pancakes", but the hell with it he would have allowed a "patron" to stick his nose in a work written by inspiration.

Linnaeus was also guilty of naming toads and thorns after Buffon...

But Buffon didn't pay him for it-they were very clever names. For example, he named the plant genus Kommelina, which has three stamens in its flowers: two long and one short, in honor of the three Commelin brothers, two of whom were famous botanists, and the third was not famous for anything. Or he named a plyugavoe weed from sem. The name of a compound flower he obtained from Siberia, Siegesbeckia orientalis, in honor of his famous opponent Johann Georg Sigesbek. This Sigezbek (by the way, the director of the St. Petersburg Imperial Botsad) sharply criticized Linnaeus ' plant system, based on the structure of the reproductive organs, as "immoral".

As far as I can remember (if it's not a duck), in the century before last, the British Museum staff was financially encouraged to describe new species...

Yes, it's true. One well-known entomologist (we will not name names, so as not to cast a shadow on the reputation) re-described the butterflies described by him earlier in order to collect the dowry of his daughter

On the one hand, it's bad, of course..
On the other hand, I don't agree with the Tentator.. A person, in my opinion, should not have principles, because this is the same as putting oneself in chains, according to the doctrine of "principle".. Common sense is another matter.
What, for example, is the best way to name a species when coming up with an unknown name?? What is the best way to describe someone you know by name?
What is not connected with money and happens just like that is called nobility, and what is for money is condemned as commercialism.. What is money? You can say payment for labor.. How many people actually find new species..?
And who will be offended by the name Koliasomia vovanensis, Petrov 2008 ??? If it does hurt, then a person already needs to fight with their complexes, and not with people selling names..
Generally again phallosophy. Let everyone count as they want

As far as I can remember (if it's not a duck), in the century before last, employees of the British Museum were financially encouraged to describe new species

In fact, this is quite a sound idea. Let's recall the sensational article in Zootaxa last year (http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2007f/zt01407p012.pdf) that taxonomists are too lazy to describe new species. Now, if they were given money for this, for example, they described a species - they received$ 10-50, and not for research, but personally in their pocket!
Here it is necessary to explain that such groups as diptera, eardrums or bedbugs are currently collected using modern fishing methods (traps) simply in innumerable quantities and from the richest areas of the earth in terms of species. These are thousands and tens of thousands of new species, who will describe them, how to stimulate it? Grants are given only for research (travel, equipment, BUT NOT FOR SALARY!)

On the one hand, it's bad, of course..
On the other hand, I don't agree with the Tentator.. A person, in my opinion, should not have principles, because this is the same as putting oneself in chains, according to the doctrine of "principle".. Common sense is another matter.
What, for example, is the best way to name a species when coming up with an unknown name?? What is the best way to describe someone you know by name?
What is not connected with money and happens just like that is called nobility, and what is for money is condemned as commercialism.. What is money? You can say payment for labor.. How many people actually find new species..?

You're wrong about the principles. You also have them, just like any civilized person, but they are not always conscious. Freedom is not total limitlessness, but a limitation of internal limits, not external ones. A truly free man is a moral man, Homo moralis. For example, do not steal or kill - these are the moral principles of everyday life. Science has its own principles, the most important of which is the primacy of truth. But there are other old principles. For example, the separation of the sublime from the ordinary. P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky said that an intelligent person is someone who, " shaking off the prose of everyday life, selflessly acts for the benefit of humanity, science or neighbor." You may disagree with me again, but then we stand on different understandings of science: either the way of earning money or the way of life.

For science, of course, it doesn't matter what a good species is called: an elegant Latin name or an unpronounceable meaningless combination of letters. But every science, especially zoology and botany, has its own traditions. For example, the Zinovsky patriarchs do not like names made up of Greek and Latin roots, they consider them not beautiful. Names taken from non-ancient languages are called barbaric and advised to avoid them. Another point is psychological. Any business can be done only as a way to get out of it, but you can do it lege artis, according to the rules of art. It all depends on how a person feels about their business, but here we return to two options for understanding the meaning of science.

By the way, it is very difficult to come up with a good name, but it is a vivid way of self-expression for a zoologist or botanist. Do you think Raphael would agree to paint a portrait of some fat cardinal instead of the Sistine Madonna?

In fact, this is quite a sound idea. Let's recall the sensational article in Zootaxa last year that taxonomists are too lazy to describe new species. Now, if they were given money for this, for example, they described a species - they received$ 10-50, and not for research, but personally in their pocket! These are thousands and tens of thousands of new species, who will describe them, how to stimulate it? Grants are given only for research (travel, equipment, BUT NOT FOR SALARY! )

This will also lead to an exorbitant increase in the number of synonyms. I thought the example I gave was quite eloquent about this. Yes, grants are not given for a salary, and many of the participants of this forum are professional entomologists? They don't get paid money, so why are they doing all this?

For example, the separation of the sublime from the ordinary. P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky said that an intelligent person is someone who, " shaking off the prose of everyday life, selflessly acts for the benefit of humanity, science or neighbor." You may disagree with me again, but then we stand on different understandings of science: either the way of earning money or the way of life.

"Shake off the prose of everyday life" can only be directed at someone (so that this someone nearby is engaged in everyday life, earning money, etc.) - this is the ideal. By the way, I think that it is not necessary to contrast science as a way of life and as a way of earning money. Strictly speaking, researchers in institutes receive a salary, after all

Mdyaya. I have a commitment (from my student days!) describe the earwig genus Gubanidura gen. nov. It has not yet been completed, since the other party has not yet described the genus Tritankista (with the type species T. isobaka).
Yes, at first new descriptions cause a sacred awe-like, like for the ages, nomenclature," ... I built a monument to myself that wasn't made with hands...". When the number of taxa exceeds N, everything becomes easier to relate to.
Those who painfully came up with new names will understand me.

Do you think Raphael would agree to paint a portrait of some fat cardinal instead of the Sistine Madonna?

Well, Raphael won't tell us anything (acts of table-turning don't count). So let's be happy for the highly spiritual Raphael!

"Shake off the prose of everyday life" can only be directed at someone (so that this someone nearby is engaged in everyday life, earning money, etc.) - this is the ideal.

Semyonov's words can also be understood as you understood them, although I meant something slightly different. And with regard to everyday life, I will only note that the less you put it on yourself, the easier it will be to shake it off

I also don't see it as a big crime. A much less sinful business, in my opinion, than trading rare insects for the sake of collecting ...

No fundamental difference, only commercial interest. It would be naive to assume that people engaged in such a "business" will miss the opportunity to sell rare insects for the collection. The whole point of the discussion is about morality. There is a sad assumption that this concept is becoming an anachronism for many.

By the way, Tentator, Misha Danelia also lived and worked with us (see above). He said he was just cultivating stoicism. As a result, he went to Finland and works there, getting along much better with "life".

By the way, Tentator, Misha Danelia also lived and worked with us (see above). He said he was just cultivating stoicism. As a result, he went to Finland and works there, getting along much better with "life".

I would tell you real stories about polbaton, but the place is not suitable. And about "Misha" you have some inaccurate information.

> "...about times, about morals ... " © Where money begins-the Fatherland and morality end.

> Today, for loot, many people are ready to do things that are unjustified for entomology. No comments.

Pathetic nonsense. Modern science requires money, money, and more money. Or a lot of money, if such a term is closer to the author. In the light of this discussion, I see two ways to "rejoice" in science. The first is to seek adequate funding for research and researchers. Or look for such funding where it is available, if you are too lazy to achieve it. Or look for intermediate options. This, of course, is not easy. The second option is easier-to complain that money is evil, and poverty is not a vice. Well, God forbid, Kneshna, if he had a pernicious idea to earn money - he is not worthy to wear the proud title of a scientist, and in general, I will not give such a hand. The search for earnings on the side in most cases is a forced measure and does not come from the sweet life. In order to minimize such earnings, the researcher's work should be adequately evaluated; according to the principle, since he takes a well-paid job, which he values very much, demand from him such productivity that there is neither time nor energy left for left-hand side jobs. This is probably the only effective way to "fight". Not high calls.

As for the formal side of the question. Anything that does not contradict the Criminal Code and the Code of Zoological Nomenclature is acceptable. And to what extent to limit yourself beyond this, everyone decides for himself. I admit that calling species by the names of familiar girls, some of whom can even pronounce the word "Entomology" not for the first time, I will greatly offend fans of mythology and classical morphological names. Well, that's their problem. In general, the name of a taxon can be a set of letters that are not completely unreadable. Although, when faced with Chinese names, you will understand that "readable" is a very flexible concept...

It's about morality... When people start referring to this morality and blaming it, it becomes terribly boring. Probably because of a deep personal immorality. It is a very similar situation - when the devastation comes, and real achievements come to naught, they immediately remember the great past, start talking a lot about traditions, about the special path of national science, aha.

This post was edited by Salix - 25.01.2008 00: 17

I would tell you real stories about polbaton, but the place is not suitable. And about "Misha" you have some inaccurate information.

You don't have to tell me about the loaves, I passed them. Now I have loaded my shoulders with a thick layer of"everyday dust".

What information do I have that isn't accurate? About his life in Finland?
At the Russian State University, I spent 3 years with him in room 505.

This post was edited by Adamov - 25.01.2008 01: 45

Semyonov's words can also be understood as you understood them, although I meant something slightly different. And with regard to everyday life, I will only note that the less you put it on yourself, the easier it will be to shake it off

If you don't mind, can I have your interpretation?
About everyday life: so everyday life is an evil that you need to get rid of? The ideal option is a hermit in the laboratory, (in which someone has already set up life)?

As for selling titles, I don't mind. This is probably better than the description fees.
If we talk about strange names, they are already coming up with quite a few of them, but for free.

> "...about times, about morals ... " © Where money begins-the Fatherland and morality end.

> Today, for loot, many people are ready to do things that are unjustified for entomology. No comments.

Pathetic nonsense. Modern science requires money, money, and more money. Or a lot of money, if such

Let's be clear: does modern science require money or do you? Molecular physics or entomology? You and your colleagues in your beliefs are exaggerating unnecessarily; no one denies that a scientist should eat, have a roof over his head, and generally live with dignity. Your words about adequate earnings would come out of your mouth and into the ears of the deputies of the State Duma. You can get money in many ways. For example, you can kill someone and appropriate their property. However, this is prohibited by the Criminal Code. And if so, what is guaranteed that no one will know? Would you do that? I would not like to live in a society where everyone is guided only by the prohibitions of the Criminal Code. You can act more morally and "seek adequate funding". But, excuse me, when is it time to do science itself? Many "Captain Grant's kids" do just that: they spend a lot of time knocking out a giant grant, spend the money in the remaining time before the report, and on all sorts of nonsense, adjust the results, and another thick stack of scientific waste paper is ready. Yes, morality is a boring topic, and it is also known that the most useful food is terribly tasteless…

Anyway, I must disappoint you and your colleagues. If you ask serious specialists to name a certain number of taxa with the names of girls you know for money, with sooo rare exceptions, you will hear something that is not very pleasant for your hearing in response.

This post was edited by Tentator - 01/25/2008 02: 21

If you don't mind, can I have your interpretation?
About everyday life: so everyday life is an evil that you need to get rid of? The ideal option is a hermit in the laboratory, (in which someone has already set up life

Science, taxonomy - this is creativity. And creativity requires abstraction from everyday life, requires rising above it. Whether you like it or not, the real scientist always lives in an ivory tower, in a sense. Of course, there is no escape from everyday life, but for many people it becomes a part of their life. They want dachas, cars, apartments, jewelry, God knows what else. The question is: why? Will all this junk bring them happiness?

Although it is not written to me, I will still answer

Science, taxonomy - this is creativity. And creativity requires abstraction from everyday life, requires rising above it. Whether you like it or not, the real scientist always lives in an ivory tower, in a sense. Of course, there is no escape from everyday life, but for many people it becomes a part of their life. They want dachas, cars, apartments, jewelry, God knows what else. The question is: why? Will all this junk bring them happiness?

I beg to differ. You can't be such a fanatic, except for beetles, not noticing anything else around you and scoring everything else. I know people like scientists, they are super, but as people... I won't tell you. Each person should be a well-rounded, harmoniously developed personality. And people's everyday life should be well organized, and personal life, and interests should be different. If a person wants it, they will have it all! And he will achieve good success in his field. Definitely!!! And if he doesn't want to do it, it's up to him, there's no one to help him.

Yes, and in your opinion, if I arrange my life , personal life, etc. well, but at the same time achieve good success in science, then I'm not a real scientist?! At least that's what you thought. Here everything depends on the specific situation. And this division , whether you are a real scientist or a fake one, is very strange. If you are a scientist , then this word already has a deep meaning. A scientist cannot be fake by definition. Another thing is that the high title of a scientist is covered by all sorts of crooks and scammers who only need loot, and they don't care about science.

This post was edited by Ekos - 25.01.2008 08: 53

I will formulate my opinion briefly, so as not to"post". I'm not a taxonomist, but I don't want the following species: benladeni; basaevi; talibani; djikhadi, etc. And the authors of the site may well slide down to this. "Kolyany" and "Vovan" are not so burdened with intelligence to take sophisticated revenge or make gifts. And here are our southern "friends".... They can also "throw a bone" to the "cursed gyaur" to glorify their "warriors of Allah"!

The ascetic scientist, as well as the mad artist, is in a sense a product of the PR of the 20th century. Let me remind you that such gentlemen as Newton, Gauss, Kapitsa, Krylov, Strahovich (and most of the most important scientists) were very versatile and far from shunning material benefits. Not to mention the recognition of colleagues, academic degrees, awards, etc.
Fundamental science, of course, is schema. But the ability to get funding for your own research is also an indicator of the level of a scientist, and money may not be the most noble, but it is quite an objective criterion for evaluating the significance of your work.

Money is a means to an end (success in science), not the end itself (C)

Whether you like it or not, the real scientist always lives in an ivory tower, in a sense.

This is also sometimes called " living inside your head."
There are examples of real scientists who quite harmoniously combined everyday life and science.

This is exactly what I expected from the majority of people

Yes, by the way, I wonder if they will describe the types for which there are no customers, or will they remain "in reserve" until someone wants to perpetuate themselves once again?

Yes, by the way, I wonder if they will describe the types for which there are no customers, or will they remain "in reserve" until someone wants to perpetuate themselves once again?

For what purpose are you interested?