About tropics, merchants, and personal preferences

I wonder if V. Sinyaev really sells it, or if it's some kind of scam at all

In any case, judging by the photo, this is the same copy from the article, but the picture itself is different. Therefore, the ad was submitted by a person who has access to the instance.

And why Sinyaev? He also transferred (sold?) beetle Lazoreva with Murzin, or after the description back took? Judging by the record on the Resershgate "Maxim Lazarev FreeEconomicSociety of Russia" , there is a main suspect...

The message was edited INO-28.12.2020 14: 04

And why Sinyaev? He also transferred (sold?) beetle Lazoreva with Murzin, or after the description back took? Judging by the record on the Resershgate "Maxim Lazarev FreeEconomicSociety of Russia" , there is a main suspect...

I do not know, but the article says that the type. material in the collection of V. Sinyaev

Ah, I didn't finish reading it, so.

why discuss someone again?!!!
I take it you don't personally know the people you're discussing. It must be a shame,a shame...
you've traveled a lot...did you spend a lot of your money?
either the museum or institute has allocated money for the trip...trips?
go, spend, for example, your $ 10,000, then describe it and give it back...risk your life...
Criticize all garazd! What interesting things did you catch? where you've been,what you've been doing all these years...

Is someone forcing you to drive?
If you don't have enough money, stay at home.

And there are certain rules in science. Access to the holotypes should be free. You can only do this by placing them in a large museum. Just don't tell me that you can come and see it in a private collection. We swam, we know something once, then business, then there is no mood.

Good luck with your swim on the water surface!

Thank you, I don't need any luck here.
You need to work.

PS: I was not too lazy and looked:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33...e_from_Colombia

Facepalm... :/

I don't know about the issue of selling types. But the very fact of the description raises some questions. I'm not an expert on the c subject of beetles (I do taxonomy of other groups of arthropods), but it seems to me that such work only complicates and introduces problems. First, it raises the question of the differential signs themselves - in fact, only a metric. Here it would be necessary either genetics, or a large sample with morphometry, and so I remember the same deer beetle, which in one of my areas is large and small, but these are not different species.
Secondly, the publication in such a journal of a description of a new species indicates the value of this description. Today, there are enough good people who would take a good description. However, I think here I really just want to describe a new species in a home (personal) magazine, which none of my European colleagues will probably find out about.
I will say from experience, razgr* * * then such descriptions are not very pleasant and interesting.
It doesn't look professional.

This hole may turn out to be much deeper than many would like. Because if you do not have reliable data on the absence of free interbreeding between populations in natural conditions (and, frankly, we must admit that almost no one ever has them), then the ground for giving them a species status becomes very shaky... Morphometry here is generally no sideways, molecular science at first glance looks promising, but so far in many cases does not justify the hopes placed. So in the current reality, this music with a constant description-mixing will continue forever

I don't know why morphometry was so discarded. All identification of a species is based on dimensions, and how significant are these dimensions?
In taxonomy, this method is sometimes used. I don't know about insects - I am an acarologist - but it is sometimes used in arachnids, both with a positive and conditionally negative result (the species specificity of signs is not confirmed). For example, here is an article on morphometry of false scorpion traits
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080...33.2020.1781273

Well, the fool with her, with morphometry-he is not her supporter. With genetics, too, it is clear - this is a special work that requires much more time and expense.
But as for the problem of new species and constant synonymy, I don't quite agree with you here.
It just turns out that if we don't know the boundaries of populations (and we really never do), then we shouldn't rush to describe a new species if it differs so vaguely from others. It's one thing if you have a large sample, from different points of view. Or if the group itself is highly endemic, with subtle features (again, I do not know about this genus - maybe everything is really like that, although I looked briefly - other species differ quite well visually). But then the question arises : why not publish all this in a more reputable taxonomic journal? What's stopping you?

Morphometry works well after the fact, when we know a priori for sure that here is Type A, and here is Type B and start looking for differences. When it (and only it!) is used to describe a new species, the cart is placed in front of the horse. In entomology, this is very common, alas, and it has nothing to do with the authority of journals or authors.

A large sample is also not a panacea, because the corpses of suspected members of species A cannot be questioned about the fact of their lifetime sexual relations with suspects of species B. Many species are stratified into several clearly morphologically differentiated ecological forms, which, however, does not prevent them from exchanging genetic material. But if representatives of two such forms fall into the collection of a taxonomist who is not familiar with their biology, then what will he do with a very high probability? That's right: it will immediately describe them as different types.

The problem with electronics is not limited to its high cost and low prevalence. Unfortunately, the answers she gives so far are often vague and contradictory. If several independent researchers are trying to conduct a revision of the same group based on genetic material. then very often they come to completely different results. Obviously, the methodology of this case is still in its infancy, and such research cannot be trusted unconditionally.

What's left? Obviously, only a deep dive into the ecology of the studied group, which implies many years of field research. In practice, almost none of the descriptors-reducers do not bother with this.

  

How does morphometry not work?
Here are two hundred butterflies. I collected them as a single species. And then, at some point, I think, let me see, something is wrong. Two dozen copies are out of the picture. It turns out that there are two types. Further more. Good differences in genitalia, in genetics, in ecology, in preimaginals.
Everything works! You just need to be clear about what you're doing and why you're doing it.

Morphometry does not work by itself, but in combination with" differences in genitals, genetics, ecology, and preimaginal", B. M. works. But in practice, to this day, most often insect species are described without studying all this, on the basis of morphometry and "visionary intuition" alone, and this often does not work.

 

Again for fish money!
The situation has just been described. I didn't even look at the labels, just the appearance. This is the most important thing, otherwise it is completely unclear in which specimen to study genitals and genetics. And in nature? How do you see it? Catch that, I don't know what?

I've lost track of something and I don't understand what you're talking about at all.Of course, you need to look at the external morphology, but you can't just limit yourself to this. In the article under discussion, as well as in the vast majority of other primary descriptions of insects, alas, they are limited.

The message was edited INO-02/15/2021 21: 20