About the Eternal

Of course, it would be best for me if my son continued my business. But, to my great regret, he is absolutely indifferent to entomology, is fond of music. It's my own fault, so, apparently, I brought it up... So there is only one thing left - to bequeath the collection to Alma Mater, if by that time (oh, God forbid, not yet close), YarSU will have someone to do this. To be honest, sometimes in moments of despondency, I think about what will happen to the collection, whether it will be preserved after me... However, we shouldn't have started this "funereal" theme, because we still want to actively hunt and explore...

Why"funeral"? After all, collecting is not an aimless goal.

But in England, it is recommended to appoint in the will an entomological steward (by agreement, of course) from among friends-to sell the collection to some society or museum. The money goes to the owner's family.

Thank God, I haven't come across this yet - I just heard such recommendations (not personally to me

That's right, the money should always go to the owner's family. There are different institutions. In some cases, without exaggeration, the collection will die faster than in private ownership. People tend to take gifts as gifts and accept them. And when a person knows the value of what he has acquired, then the attitude is different. I would like my collection, if it happens to be sold, no matter where, to a private owner, but better of course to a museum, to serve financially either to me or to my closest and dearest people. For their sake we live and because of them we exist. Family is the most valuable thing that there is, everything should go there.

I don't think about it yet. Too early yet ...

The collection must be given to the museum correctly. After all, fees should be processed regularly, treated, and handled. Of course, it should not be a run-down provincial museum, but a solid scientific organization. Why? Yes, it's very simple, in the regions a lot depends on individuals. Sometimes a new director comes in, cleans out the museum, creates funds. And then everything will go away, the museum immediately fades, the collections are sold out at best, and at worst they are simply eaten by the ubiquitous leatherworms. And there are few good shots in the outback. This doesn't happen in the capital's museums. In general, I think that it would be more correct to create a single fund for storing biological objects (preferably an international one). Otherwise, we are more happy for the article, and not for the material on the basis of which it is written. It happens like this - the article is there, but the material is gone. No one knows where he is or what's wrong with him. You can't check the definition. There is also a code of zoological nomenclature regulating the rules for describing new species, and designed to unify the taxonomy. But there are no rules for working with the material. It turns out that he described a new species, did not send the holotype with paratypes anywhere - he kept it as a souvenir and THAT's ALL. No one will tell you anything, and your holotype won't be found later. And how many cases when the location of the holotype is unknown! In short, the confusion is complete and there is no uniformity in this matter.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 01.03.2008 23: 52

Why"funeral"? After all, collecting is not an aimless goal.

I put "funeral" in quotation marks. And I made a black joke, because momento mori is very suitable for the theme as a motto. But although it is necessary to remember the inevitable end, it is often not pleasant to remember and, moreover, to argue about it. However, when you are young, when you are under 30, you don't bother with this, and even it's not difficult to be nervous about death. But with age, the conversation about death and the will no longer seems abstract and abstract.

This post was edited by Dmitrich-02.03.2008 11: 01

Many entomologists try to perpetuate the memory of themselves. They even try to make special labels so that THEIR collection can be immediately distinguished from others. I've been thinking that way for a long time, too. I thought I'd write an article, publish a paper, and keep my memory alive. But recently, I realized that all this is by and large not important. At THAT point, you will think the least about the number of works written and the number of copies collected. It is important that you enjoy this business and try to live one day, enjoying what you have done.

.. In general, I think that it would be more correct to create a single fund for storing biological objects (preferably an international one).

What if there's a fire, or an earthquake, or some other cataclysm? It is safer to store your material in different collections. For the same reason, we recommend sending paratypes and duplicates to different museums. If such a world center appeared, say, in the United States, to study European material, you would have to go overseas... Or vice versa, they will have to come here, to us. Inconvenient.

.. There is also a code of zoological nomenclature regulating the rules for describing new species, and designed to unify the taxonomy. But there are no rules for working with the material. It turns out that he described a new species, did not send the holotype with paratypes anywhere - he kept it as a souvenir and THAT's ALL. No one will tell you anything, and your holotype won't be found later. And how many cases when the location of the holotype is unknown! In short, the confusion is complete and there is no uniformity in this matter.

The new code explicitly requires you to specify the collection where the standard material is stored in the description. There are problems with uniformity. Must all types be stored in the specified state collections? This is hardly possible, and it is impractical. Some private collections are much better placed and more accessible than public ones. Losses of types and ambiguities with standard repositories still mostly concern old materials, when there were no clear rules yet. Now it is rather an exception.

I Support Salix. Before the war, a huge collection of insects was kept in ZINA. Then part of it was evacuated, and many rare specimens were lost, including grylloblattina Diakonova. In Tokyo, almost all the vaults with collections were bombed, and in provincial towns they were preserved.

Now articles are asked to provide the numbers of all studied copies, and the copies shown in the photos become "voucher" ones. Voucher collections are highly valued. It seems to me that a smart collector with a good collection will strive to make his collection a voucher, i.e. publish an atlas with photos of specimens or send photos of rare species for publication in articles and books by specialists. Finally, creating electronic collections...

Many entomologists try to perpetuate the memory of themselves. They even try to make special labels so that THEIR collection can be immediately distinguished from others. I've been thinking that way for a long time, too. I thought I'd write an article, publish a paper, and keep my memory alive. But recently, I realized that all this is by and large not important. At THAT point, you will think the least about the number of works written and the number of copies collected. It is important that you enjoy this business and try to live one day, enjoying what you have done.

I agree. These are the words of Ecclesiastes 2: 13-14
13 And I saw that the advantage of wisdom over folly was the same as that of light over darkness:
14 A wise man has his eyes in his head, but a fool walks in darkness; but I knew that one fate befell them all.
15 And I said in my heart, " The same fate will befall me as that of a fool: why then have I become very wise?"
16 For the wise will not be remembered forever, nor the foolish; in the days to come all things will be forgotten, and alas! the wise die as well as the foolish.
17 And I hated life, because the works that are done under the sun were repugnant to me; for all things are vanity and vexation of spirit.
18 And I hated all my labor with which I labored under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who comes after me.
19 And who knows whether he will be wise or foolish? But he will have charge of all my labor, which I have labored with, and by which I have shown myself wise under the sun. And this is vanity!

And again Ecclesiastes 9: 10

10 Whatever your hand can do, do it with all your might; for in the grave where you are going, there is no work, no reflection, no knowledge, no wisdom.

What if there's a fire, or an earthquake, or some other cataclysm? It is safer to store your material in different collections.

On the one hand, this is true. Indeed, if the material is stored in one place, the risk of complete loss of the collection increases. On the other hand, the risk of losing valuable specimens is just as great if the collection is in private hands of a person who is indifferent to entomology, or even a museum. For example, I myself witnessed that the collection of burrowing wasps of Yaroshevsky in the Kharkiv province of the 19th century was found! in the attic of the Kharkiv Museum of Nature, many copies were eaten, a good half without labels. Horror and nothing more.
At the moment, the technology has reached such a level that it is not only possible, but also quite possible, to minimize the risks of destroying the collection. In the 18th and 19th centuries. or even in the 20th century, this was not the case. I recently watched a program about the creation of the World Bank of wheat varieties. The building was built at a depth of several hundred meters, and it is also capable of withstanding even a nuclear strike! There's no need to talk about a fire or earthquake. They can do it whenever they want. And the safety of entomological collections is no less important. After all, the more time passes, the more our views on the key points of taxonomy change. And in order to have the acceptance of scientific thought, it is necessary to turn to the origins. In our case, to the holotype. And I would very much like our descendants to have something to turn to .
I do not suggest creating one single center, there may be several of them. But oblige scientists to send types there. In addition, it would be nice to store simply processed material in these centers.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 03.03.2008 21: 02

Don't tell Salix... After all, creativity outside of itself is something that allows a person to feel their significance, their "immortality".

Everyone determines their own significance and creativity . And the thirst for immortality is generally a thankless task. No matter how many monuments you create for yourself, you can't take them to your grave . Creating your "immortal future" while you're alive is like putting off your only life for the future. It is important to enjoy life here and now, and not to create "pyramids". You should not set an end in itself to immortalize your name, but you just need to work for your own pleasure. If it is ever appreciated by other people, sincerely rejoice, and that's all.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 03.03.2008 21: 21

Salix
Finally, creating electronic collections...

I may have misunderstood something, but creating "electronic collections" is not a rewarding task at all. If we are talking about DNA or other physical manipulations with the holotype, this method is not acceptable at all.

I Support Salix. Before the war, a huge collection of insects was kept in ZINA. Then part of it was evacuated, and many rare specimens were lost, including grylloblattina Diakonova.

In my opinion, this problem still exists in the former USSR. Take the same ZIN - the building is old, short something and write is gone. And this is not only ZIN, a good half of our museums are located in pre-revolutionary buildings that are not always repaired and the electrics there leave much to be desired. The situation is also made worse by the fact that the average age of our scientists, I'm sorry, is far from 20-30 years old . A person may simply forget to turn off the lamp and say hello. Not to mention the caretakers in these museums, many of whom have also long outlived their youth years.

You should not set an end in itself to immortalize your name, but you just need to work for your own pleasure. If it is ever appreciated by other people, sincerely rejoice, and that's all.

Well, this is what you write when you're young. There is such a thing as RESPONSIBILITY: you are responsible for those you have ruined. If you've built a collection, spent so much effort identifying it, and killed so many insects JUST for fun , it's not worth it. And if pleasure generates creativity (I wrote about it above), then this matter is "pleasing to God". A good collector is someone who believes in the beauty of fleeting decay above the decay of his life.
Through pleasure, we can also justify child murderers...

PS DNA can also be extracted from the foot of a dried holotype. I had in mind creating an electronic database (website, CD) with photos of the collection.

Well, this is what you write when you're young. There is such a thing as RESPONSIBILITY: you are responsible for those you have ruined. If you've built a collection, spent so much effort identifying it, and killed so many insects JUST for fun , it's not worth it. And if pleasure generates creativity (I wrote about it above), then this matter is "pleasing to God". A good collector is someone who believes in the beauty of fleeting decay above the decay of his life.
Through pleasure, we can also justify child murderers...

PS DNA can also be extracted from the foot of a dried holotype. I had in mind creating an electronic database (website, CD) with photos of the collection.

Stop, stop, stop! What does this have to do with the maniacal pleasure that geeks get? Let's separate the wheat from the chaff! In my opinion, Dormidont did not mean the pleasure of killing insects (I am sure that there are no subjects among us who collect insects for the sake of watching them convulse in the stain), but the pleasure of doing research, of new discoveries (even if they have a purely personal significance), of creativity, damn it! Do not worry about the question of what you have done "will remain in the ages" and what is transitory. Life itself will put everything in its place. But measures to preserve the collection (including in order to prevent the aimless extermination of insects), indeed, should be taken both during life and in the future.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 03/04/2008 09: 43

Many entomologists try to perpetuate the memory of themselves. They even try to make special labels so that THEIR collection can be immediately distinguished from others.

Well, that's a moot point. Such labeling helps a lot, especially if the collection is a national team, a museum, and you need to find copies of this particular person. An example is the identifying labels of Ikonnikov's erect-winged animals in the Moscow State University Zoo Museum. They immediately show the material that this researcher worked with.

Well, this is what you write when you're young. There is such a thing as RESPONSIBILITY: you are responsible for those you have ruined. If you've built a collection, spent so much effort identifying it, and killed so many insects JUST for fun , it's not worth it. And if pleasure generates creativity (I wrote about it above), then this matter is "pleasing to God". A good collector is someone who believes in the beauty of fleeting decay above the decay of his life.
Through pleasure, we can also justify child murderers...

Very strange, in my opinion, justification of one's own EGO. It turns out that if you have killed hundreds of thousands of insects, you MUST preserve your memory . I don't think so. Man by nature is afraid of death, he strives to become immortal. And it does it in the way that everyone chooses individually. You can strive to become a world-famous scientist, doctor, ruler at last. You can have lots of kids. And the reason for this is one-one's own EGO and fear of oblivion. A well-known truth - "we are alive as long as we are remembered." And many follow it. There are cases when a scientist publishes a lot of small and monotonous works only to be told about him later - "the professor was the author of 10,000 works" and it does not matter that most of them are co-authored with graduate students, and the rest are variations on the topic of a doctoral dissertation . The truth is that we spend our entire lives striving for posthumous glory and are UNABLE to understand its taste while lying in the grave. The words from the famous Armenian song "Born mortal, left an immortal memory" are applicable only to those who paid the least attention to the formation of their image during their lifetime.

This post was edited by Dormidont - 03/04/2008 15: 14

Well, that's a moot point. Such labeling helps a lot, especially if the collection is a national team, a museum, and you need to find copies of this particular person. An example is the identifying labels of Ikonnikov's erect-winged animals in the Moscow State University Zoo Museum. They immediately show the material that this researcher worked with.

And you ask yourself-why did the scientist do this? For the sake of making it easier to work with the material, or for the sake of your own greatness?

Not everything is so clear, Dormidont. Vaughn Salvador Dali, as you know, did nothing but work on his image all his life. However, the fame is still there. And the scientist who made individual labels just wanted to make a good label for himself, but not like everyone else. Perhaps pride is also completely irrelevant here.

Dmitrich

Dmitrich

real creativity is never pure pleasure. These are doubts, creative torments, and the desire that your work will resonate with others. And pure pleasure is, excuse me, the life of an idiot.

Well, let's not put up labels, let alone make a diagnosis. "Pure pleasure" is an incorrect concept. And what happens when something is "unclean", "dirty", etc.? The dictum "pure pleasure is the life of an idiot" carries a logical fallacy. The conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Can't the pleasure of beautifully, creatively executed work be pure? I do not think that a researcher who gets satisfaction from his activity as a process and from the result achieved, but does not think to the point of headache about whether the result he has obtained will be recognized as genius, can be called an idiot. It just looks rude. And by the way, if "torment and the desire that your work will resonate with others" become the driving force of all activities, an obsession, then this borders on a mental disorder-mania. A person should treat himself with self-mockery, think less about whether he is great, and whether others understand this. I think so.

This post was edited by Dmitrich-03/04/2008 17: 26

Dmitrich
Pure pleasure is pleasure as a goal. This is typical hedonism.

  
I wrote about responsibility. A person can cut down a century-old oak tree, heat a sauna with firewood, enjoy it and have no regrets. So, if a person was invested in the talent to collect insects, then this is probably a reason to direct it in a creative direction. Although no one owes anyone anything.

I don't think entomologists ' fees hold them accountable in any way. The only responsibility that can be, is the one that arises in front of yourself. And the point here is not in the collected insects, but in the invested work - you definitely want the work you have invested to be justified, and receive due recognition.

 
You are still alive, but you are already full of bitterness.

Do you know Juglans, what is the paradox of two disputants? Everyone is convinced of their own rightness . I think this is just such an option. You're wrong about the bitterness. I just want to say that the joy of working with insects is primary. This is the kind of work you should strive for. Without a second thought about your own recognition. And the understanding of this is by no means bitter, on the contrary, once you understand this, you will be cleansed of unnecessary aspirations and fruitless desires. You get rid of all this, and you become brighter and kinder to others.

Collected for decades, the collection, as I understand it, is something native.

I don't quite understand how you came to this conclusion. And I don't know exactly what you mean." But you're partly right.

What difference does it make who has what motivations for doing entomology? Someone is ambitious, someone is looking for fame and recognition, some altruist will have an interest in pure knowledge, someone earns money. The main thing is the result. And the result is mainly expressed in scientific articles and in the set collection - so that followers have something to build on. Different people, different motives. It's OK to not have to search for the only correct line.

This post was edited by Salix - 03/04/2008 22: 42

On the one hand, this is true. Indeed, if the material is stored in one place, the risk of complete loss of the collection increases. On the other hand, the risk of losing valuable specimens is just as great if the collection is in private hands of a person who is indifferent to entomology, or even a museum. For example, I myself witnessed that the collection of burrowing wasps of Yaroshevsky in the Kharkiv province of the 19th century was found! in the attic of the Kharkiv Museum of Nature, many copies were eaten, a good half without labels. Horror and nothing more.

I suggest leaving indifferent people out of brackets. The fact that collections sometimes end up with indifferent people (relatives or just random characters) is not normal. But in any case, when the collection is based on the enthusiasm of one person (a common thing at universities, museums, etc.), then often with the departure of this person - we are all mortal - the collection turns out to be "in the attic of the Kharkiv Museum of nature". Therefore, it is recommended to transfer valuable material, especially standard ones, to large storage facilities, where long-term safety is more or less guaranteed. Things happen there, too... But still, the guarantees are incomparably higher.

At the moment, the technology has reached such a level that it is not only possible, but also quite possible, to minimize the risks of destroying the collection. In the 18th and 19th centuries. or even in the 20th century, this was not the case. I recently watched a program about the creation of the World Bank of wheat varieties. The building was built at a depth of several hundred meters, and it is also capable of withstanding even a nuclear strike! There's no need to talk about a fire or earthquake. They can do it whenever they want.

I think that with wheat it is much easier There are no unique reference seeds. There are a lot of seeds. And the holotype is one

And the safety of entomological collections is no less important. After all, the more time passes, the more our views on the key points of taxonomy change. And in order to have the acceptance of scientific thought, it is necessary to turn to the origins. In our case, to the holotype. And I would very much like our descendants to have something to turn to.

For non-entomologists, this is not obvious. Quite the opposite. Wheat means crops, bread, lots of food. And insects, with a few exceptions, do not have much practical significance. And, by and large, this approach is correct. This is the harsh reality

I do not suggest creating one single center, there may be several of them. But oblige scientists to send types there. In addition, it would be nice to store simply processed material in these centers.

In fact, such centers already exist - these are the largest entomological collections in the world. For example, a collection in Munich is located underground. Modern complex, storage facilities are closed with metal doors in the palm of your hand thick, inside climate control and all that. It is unlikely to survive a nuclear bombardment, but everything else - why create some new bureaucratic structure? Yes, it is necessary to invest money in upgrading existing storage facilities. Move the same ZIN to a modern building specially built for the collection. But this is a purely financial issue, determined by the capabilities and desires of specific institutions, museums, academies, and governments.

But the engine of creativity is dissatisfaction. If at some point you will be satisfied with your collection, then why collect something else, why redefine difficult types, show them to specialists?
P.S. I wrote the word "idiot" because I always put the meaning of "empty person"in it

It is impossible for a true collector to be satisfied with his collection for the rest of his life (and even more so for a real researcher). With each new specimen, with each new species, the horizon moves further and further away, and the interest becomes stronger and more definite. You can call it dissatisfaction, or a burning thirst for knowledge-whatever you want, the meaning of this does not change. Collecting something else, redefining difficult types, etc.is, first of all, extremely interesting, and from this process I (as, I think, each of us) get a real pleasure, comparable...I don't even know what (I don't want to compare it with an orgasm, but it's something close).
In my opinion, a person does everything in this life for the sake of satisfaction. Moreover, satisfaction from the achieved result and pleasure from the process of achieving it are not the same thing. And they don't always "walk side by side". For example, you can be satisfied that you have provided a decent standard of living for your loved ones, but at the same time you do not enjoy the work that has achieved this level. But for the sake of achieving the goal (to do well for the people you love), and, consequently, for the sake of satisfaction, a person is often forced to provide his daily bread with activities that in themselves do not touch his soul. Happy are those for whom professional activity (as a source of prosperity) completely coincides with a hobby.
I can't tell which people are empty and which are not. It's just that there are people whose views, beliefs, and lifestyle I don't accept.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 05.03.2008 13: 54

For me, both insects and fish are all living things. I don't want to kill them just for fun. There must be a goal, and a good one at that.

I am not a fan of the useless killing of living organisms . And I do it solely for the sake of research, and not for fun. But so far, no other effective way to study insects has been found . I recall the words of Fabre, who condemned the killing of a large number of insects - "I study life, and you study death," he exclaimed. The truth is that both ways of learning are valid. Following the postulates of "non-murder", Fabre poorly identified the studied wasps and bees, as a result of which his work lost its value. On the other hand, ignoring ethology and 100% focusing on taxonomy or faunalism does not give a complete picture of the species.

Move the same ZIN to a modern building specially built for the collection.

That's what I mean when I talk about the need to reconstruct our museums. Only here they are in no hurry to restore and repair them .
P.S. Thank you about the storage in Munich, I didn't know .

Collecting something else, redefining difficult types, etc.is, first of all, extremely interesting, and from this process I (as, I think, each of us) get a real pleasure, comparable...I don't even know what (I don't want to compare it with an orgasm, but it's something close).

Well, why, quite a good comparison .

  
In fact, such centers already exist - these are the largest entomological collections in the world. For example, a collection in Munich is located underground. Modern complex, storage facilities are closed with metal doors in the palm of your hand thick, inside climate control and all that. It is unlikely to survive a nuclear bombardment, but everything else - why create some new bureaucratic structure? Yes, it is necessary to invest money in upgrading existing storage facilities. Move the same ZIN to a modern building specially built for the collection. But this is a purely financial issue, determined by the capabilities and desires of specific institutions, museums, academies, and governments.

Actually, the Munich Zoological Museum is not located in a dungeon. This is a ring-shaped or rather eight-shaped (unsteady) building, filled up from the outside with earth to the top, while its inner part (s) is selected to the ground. Employees ' workrooms are located along internal radii and have windows inwards, while collections are located in external radii behind solid doors and without windows. Entomological collections are stored on the lower floor, from 16:00 to 8:00 all under lock and key and on the alarm system. All this is probably done in memory of the fact that during the war some of the collections were destroyed by bombing, although the main funds were taken out of Munich.
The new building was built in 1985 in non-poor Bavaria with the active participation of sponsors, one state would not have pulled such a project. In this regard, various art exhibitions are periodically held in the museum building, etc. Another example is the small Swedish town of Lund, famous for its entomological traditions. There are collections of Thomson, Zetterstedt and many other famous and not so famous comrades. So these collections will soon move to the new museum building, which will be built outside the city (its project was approved in 2006).)
Unfortunately, in our country there are no financial resources, no such traditions, and, most importantly, the authorities ' concern with the problems of science and, in particular, entomology.
On the other hand, imagine Zina moving - it doesn't fit in my head ("1 move = 3 fires"). I think that for most of ZINA's employees-people who are no longer young - such innovations are undesirable. A large building in the city center is certainly a tasty morsel for many figures with money, but it seems to me unrealistic to promote them for the construction of a new museum building.

ZIN's Salix storage facility has already been partially moved to the outskirts of the city, but how do employees get there? It is impossible to completely reconstruct the old building - it is a cultural monument. Don't forget that both the Munich and British Museums are museums, not institutes. And ZIN is an institution that is separate from the Zoo Museum, so the issue of storing material already requires a special solution in terms of rates and areas (which are being reduced).

To IchMan & Juglans:

I am quite clearly aware of the unreality of moving Zin in particular anywhere. Both from an organizational and financial point of view. And what will be the titanic resistance on the part of employees. They introduced salary bank cards almost at gunpoint - people were terribly indignant that this was a product of evil, that they wanted to deceive, etc. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that there will be money to build a modern institute with a storage facility in the city. Well, the museum, of course... Classic conflict - on one side of the scale of expediency, on the other - traditions, habits and "it always was."

Actually, the Munich Zoological Museum is not located in a dungeon. This is a ring-shaped or rather eight-shaped (unsteady) building, filled up from the outside with earth to the top, while its inner part (s) is selected to the ground... In this regard, various art exhibitions are periodically held in the museum building, etc.

I didn't say it was in a dungeon. I wrote that "underground". Only the upper floor comes to the surface (there are three or four of them in total). And even that is mostly covered with earth and planted with grass and shrubs. So from the outside, except for the main entrance, almost nothing is visible. The complex consists of three cylindrical sections that meet at the edges (like the Olympic rings, but not five, but three). The central part of each section is hollow, cylindrical, like an inner courtyard-the windows of workrooms overlook it. Circular corridors surround the sections. Rooms with collections go somewhere in the thickness of the earth along the perimeter of the sections. Here is their website, although the photos are not visible: http://www.zsm.mwn.de/e/
Exhibitions and all sorts of sponsored events are held in many museums - in the British one, too. Probably, almost everywhere where a scientific collection is combined with a museum. I don't see anything wrong with that. Where can you find such sponsors?..

About moving in. If you do everything wisely, then there is no catastrophe in this. Lund is moving out. The British Museum has recently been renovated-entomological collections have been moved back and forth. I don't think this has had or will have a disastrous effect on collections. Yes, indeed, there is not much pleasant about moving. But if the result is worth it..?

On the other hand, imagine Zina moving - it doesn't fit in my head ("1 move = 3 fires").

With what we have now, one fire will be enough. I apologize for the black humor. The wiring is in this state... Some employees still use hot water boilers in their offices.

This post was edited by Salix - 05.03.2008 20: 34

ZIN's Salix storage facility has already been partially moved to the outskirts of the city, but how do employees get there?

If a new modern building is being built for the institute and collection, it should also take into account the convenience of travel. ZIN's storage facility outside the city is generally something strange and incomprehensible...

It is impossible to completely reconstruct the old building - it is a cultural monument.

That's the whole point! In addition to the fact that it is not allowed, its layout was not originally designed for storing collections.

Don't forget that both the Munich and British Museums are museums, not institutes. And ZIN is an institution that is separate from the Zoo Museum, so the issue of storing material already requires a special solution in terms of rates and areas (which are being reduced).

How is it not possible? They look like real institutes combined with museums, just like the ZIN. The Institute of Zoology in Kiev also seems to be connected to the museum. I don't know the subtleties with their internal formal subordination, but outwardly everything is the same. What's the difference, a museum attached to an institute, or a scientific laboratory attached to a museum? The problem is the lack of money and motivation to create a comfortable working environment for both the museum (if any) and the institute. Because to organize something, to look for sponsors-it is necessary to strain, to work. And then you'll get it if something doesn't work out. It is much easier and calmer to put up with what is. Quiet peaceful stagnation.

I once watched zavlab. he complained that the sinks were leaking, that the bathroom was dirty... The authorities, they say, are to blame. We have such a government. Toilets can't be fixed, yeah... And to go and grab a plumber by the scruff of the neck and get him to fix it himself, such an idea does not occur to me. Because you need to strain yourself. Looking for someone. Someone to take by the scruff of the neck. Maybe even raise your voice and stamp your feet. It's hard. It's easier to blame the authorities. Chas, Putin will come and fix the toilets.

I read Piotrovsky's interview about museums and sponsors. To find a sponsor and persuade them to give money, you need to search for sponsors day and night, dig your nose into the ground,persuade and persuade. They'll scowl at you and sometimes even send you away. In such cases, you should not say that our sponsors are wrong and the case is hopeless. And look further. Maybe I'll be lucky for the thirtieth time. That means working very hard. But most people prefer to wait for the sponsor/Putin/plumber will come by themselves, bring money, and at the same time fix the toilet. Of course, it is easier for Piatrovsky and the Hermitage to find money than for the head of a less solid museum. But still.

Oh, dreams... Something got distracted

I don't see what insurmountable difficulties the mere fact of having a public museum can create. It is possible to place everything in one place-excellent. If there is no possibility , it doesn't matter. So the museum is in one building, and the scientific collection and its staff are in another.

This post was edited by Salix - 05.03.2008 21: 42

Unfortunately, in our country there are several gradations of museums according to their departmental subordination. There are scientific ones that are supervised by the Russian Academy of Sciences, scientific and educational ones (in higher education institutions), and there are those that are subordinate to the Ministry of Culture. These are the ones that should be avoided when transferring the collection (I work there myself, and knowing the situation from the inside, I will very much consider transferring my collection to the museum)... Museums of the Ministry of Culture are probably the only "office" in Russia, where the main document regulating accounting and storage was adopted by the authorities of a non-existent state!!! Yes, and if one of you wants to hand over a collection to such a museum , you run in, you bow down - because in the current conditions, it is NOT PROFITABLE for employees to complete new arrivals. And I will keep silent about the volume of paper "products" that you need to draw up and sign... I sometimes have a seditious thought that the deforestization (deforestation) of the Land is caused by the active" activity " of museum employees!!!