Abstracts on entomology

And about" masturbation "take your words" back "(in a good way)?

Vladimir, before you criticize someone else's work in an incorrect form and arrange quizzes on the topic "name a Korean researcher", learn to write correctly in Russian.

And if you like being an opponent, this isn't dissertation advice.
probably.

Justus, put out a list of your works, you understand this, I'll see. As they say, no offense taken. But still.

Such works? Like "our hero"?
I have such a job, I was still in school at that time (I copied the labels of the Spangenberg collection) ...

Such works? Like "our hero"?
I have such a job, I was still in school at that time (I copied the labels of the Spangenberg collection)...

Duc, please...

He? She? M. B. I'll understand the question...

It's just a joke. Du yu andestand?

Justus is a nasty guy, yes. It's interesting to see his work (if he has any at all).

There is a lot of fair criticism in the above blitz review, but the form and tone do not go through any gates.
It seems that the Novel on the creative path was not enough experienced reviewers. This, you know, trains well on the quality of the text!

Thank you for the detailed dissection of my article. It seems to me that I am one of the few people who puts the PDF files of their articles here in order that it may be useful to someone, someone uses the information received. If you have any comments, write your own version of kossid Korea and criticize it in the article. There are Korean sources-pliz, quote. I am sure that a trip to Seoul and 10 years of field work in South and South Korea would have given a lot. Post your publications too - for example, I've already filled whole huge folders with articles-thanks to the forum-and I've learned a lot for myself. for some, the forum is a platform for sharing scientific information, an opportunity to communicate, receive material, for others it is a platform for other things. Free will.

Justus, you're all reading the same article...

Justus, you're all reading the same article...

reads slowly

In order not to be unfounded, I give my review of Solovyov's abstract<...>
A.V. Solovyov's work is devoted to the study of a predominantly tropical group of Insecta – slugs<...>
R. V. Yakovlev, Ph. D., Research Associate of USBS AltSU

Case matching where? Paper-that ("otzyf") - "official".

In order not to be unfounded, I give my review of Solovyov's abstract <...>
1. A very well-written research methodology, which includes both traditional taxonomic analysis, cladistic analysis and molecular research<...>
R. V. Yakovlev, Ph. D., Research Associate of USBS AltSU

"Molecular studies" are "included" in the "research methodology". I cried reading this

I am sure that a lot of established entomologists are not

First of all... Well, they certainly aren't writers.

Thank you for your criticism.

I recommended to one of my graduate students (also, like some, "not a writer") before the defense: "On defense, if you don't know how to answer a question, say" Thank you!""
She answered all the questions (there were more than ten of them) succinctly: "Thank you!"

As an answer to questions, "thank you", of course, does not sound convincing. But Yakovlev, as I understood, did not answer any questions here. But as a response to criticism, in my opinion, "thank you" is quite acceptable. May God grant that we all respond to criticism in this way. I personally understood this "thank you" in the sense that the author intends to continue to carefully monitor the coordination of case endings (which often escapes our attention when we start changing something in the text with computer typing) and appreciates the help of a colleague who drew his attention to this. What else is needed at the moment? Or, as the brave soldier Schweik used to say (quoting someone), " What am I going to do now, throw up blood or something?"

Personally, I quite get along with respect for Yakovlev as an entomologist (who has enough strength and talent to successfully combine the titanic field and titanic desk work) and a serious attitude to the specific comments made by T. A. Tolstoy. Justus, because the little things that many of us would miss and that he does not miss, for scientific work - not small things at all. We would like its causticity. That is why I consider "thank you" to be the correct external response to criticism in such cases. This reaction shows that the author has managed to overcome the ineradicably individual language of the critic himself and, without throwing the ball back (as we often do), concentrate on the content side of criticism and on his own responsibility. And taking into account the criticism, business will also be done in its own way. We don't have to die tomorrow yet.

  

In fact, it's "Thank you!" (Yakovleva) - on the second attempt.
for "thank you!" you should tell the moderator.
Bolivar, thank you!

Very smacks of personal hostility ...
However, since this is being put on public display, I would like to know more about Mr. Yakovlev's opponent. After all, the Novel itself, at least in absentia (and some in person), but we represent. And his articles are not a problem to read, and accordingly inaccuracies and blunders are also found.
It would be fair to subscribe to these reviews with your passport name. Simple, honest. After all, you can find out if you want, but still...
And then, I desperately want to know the name of the supervisor who taught my pupil to answer all the questions on the topic of the dissertation in just three (I hope) years - "thank you".

It would be fair to subscribe to these reviews with your passport name. Simple, honest. <...> i desperately want to know the name.

Don't be so desperate! Fse simply-name is Vladimir (and "by passport" - too, - Vladimir), in "showyuzer" it has long been there.

Mr. Justus, I would like to join the above request - please read out your list of publications. If there are too many of them, then at least the most important ones from your point of view.

the author suggests that in the future more closely monitor the coordination of case endings

Case concordance, - in fact, - is-fleas (meaning-trifles). It would be possible to ignore them, but on one condition – aftar knows how to speak.Leo
Tolstoy (even) "fleas" are excusable.
Even-even the" Great Soviet Encyclopedia ""fleas" are excusable (for its release, I note, an entire institute was created – the Institute of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia).
Even-even-even A. Y. Elez's "fleas" (see photo: "this is the basis for it"; I blame the" proofreader " of the fse in such cases; but in RJ FiS. 1987. No. 2 – alas, the proofreader is not named) are excusable, - A. Y. Elez speaks the language.
But here, in the speech of someone who does not speak the language, "fleas" is a marker of illiteracy: I saw "flea", and then I do not read it.…

Pictures:

__.jpg — (56.64к)

Don't be so desperate!

Agreed. For the name I will try not to despair.
Last name, that's what's really interesting. Everyone needs to know the heroes of literature.

Last name, that's what's really interesting.

Yeah! Schasss! Also your last name... Last name of niskazhunizashto.
Patamushta in the near future I will order 2 volumes of the "Determinant" from you.
And so... I'll say the last name, and you say, " This one?! Justus? I won't send you anything! "

Yeah! Schasss! Also your last name... Last name of niskazhunizashto.

I also have a vested interest as a person from the editorial board: judging by your sarcasm, what kind of reviewer is missing!

If you are serious, then find a Russian-speaking "harmful" (but to the point!) the reviewer is very difficult. This may be a legacy of the "Soviet era", but often renzents prefer to give streamlined, "positive" reviews even for frankly crappy manuscripts.

Actually, everything is clear to me. If you like to play spy games, what can you do?
And at the expense of the Determinant - you are welcome, in the business of selling knowledge, I have no class preferences.

see the photo: "by this time, he's..."

What can I say? I grieve with you. I usually didn't even reread my published research papers. And I can't remember, a quarter of a century later. How many of them were there, those essays... But judging only by what got into the frame, the girl from INION ratted out the more familiar "basis" instead of"skeleton". As a result, there is no meaning, no genders, no cases left. Thank God at least that the line above is exactly "skeleton" and it is easy for the reader to understand that this is not a blunder on approvals, but a mechanical typo in one letter.

If you are serious, then find a Russian-speaking "harmful" (but to the point!) the reviewer is very difficult. This may be a legacy of the "Soviet era", but often renzents prefer to give streamlined, "positive" reviews even for frankly crappy manuscripts.

As a person who has some experience in writing negative reviews, I will say that there are worse situations: after receiving a negative review indicating the great mass of errors of the author of the "frankly crappy manuscript", the institute council recommends this good book for publication on the principle of"our fool"... At the same time, the same council rejects competent work that has excellent reviews from leading experts on the topic, on the principle of "not our smart guy" ...

I also have a vested interest as a person from the editorial board: judging by your sarcasm, what kind of reviewer is missing!

To my great regret, I can't help you in any way: I have absolutely nothing to do with entomology (as a science) (with all the consequences that follow from this in the form of a list of publications). Catching flies for me is an opportunity to discourteously dismiss life's problems (an exotic, but nevertheless effective, way).

To my great regret, I can't help you in any way: I have absolutely nothing to do with entomology (as a science) (with all the consequences that follow from this in the form of a list of publications). Catching flies for me is an opportunity to discourteously dismiss life's problems (an exotic, but nevertheless effective, way).

Sorry. Your comments (not in form, but in meaning) are very interesting.

As a person who has some experience in writing negative reviews, I will say that there are worse situations: after receiving a negative review indicating the great mass of errors of the author of the "frankly crappy manuscript", the institute council recommends this good book for publication on the principle of"our fool"... At the same time, the same council rejects competent work that has excellent reviews from leading experts on the topic, on the principle of "not our smart guy"...

Fortunately, during my time working with several magazines, I encountered this situation only once. But very nasty.

In my post, I was referring to the more common situation when a person hands you a positive review, while saying in an apologetic tone :" I understand everything... , still the final decision is up to the editorial board, etc. etc. " .

Sorry. Your comments (not in form, but in meaning) are very interesting.

Thanks! I tried to...
Allow your remark to be interpreted only as an encouragement (an incentive to continue)?
In fact, implicitly (i.e. covertly) I tried (well, very far away, probably) to raise the question of a line of demarcation separating entomology (as a science) from something scientific (pseudoscientific or" scientific " only in form). Any hypothetical answer to this question is interesting to me... (Especially since many topics on the forum "revolve" "around-yes-about" this question.)
To avoid being abstract (i.e. pointless) I took a "specific" article, the content of which seemed to me (obviously) "lying" (variants: "standing, sitting, ...sitting") behind the demarcation line (please remember the clear remark of Evgenich - No. 195 of 20.01.10 [/b] - " Applicant <...> [in our case, afterthoughts of the article...] - not a schoolboy or even a student who is being led by the hand. They must prove that they are able to work independently: they know the literature on the topic, have erudition, possess techniques, and determine the goal (for what?) and set tasks (how?) to implement it, draw the right conclusions, and so on."
Nothing "like" what [b]Evgenich wrote about (no goals, no tasks, no literature, etc.D., etc.), I did not find it in this "article" (even, - skrytnopolagin), so I took it as a "model"one.
Nothing "personal", just academic interest ...
Now, about the "form" (of my remark), which caused "some" discord on the forum...
In the theory of marketing, there is such a concept – "primoushn" ... Yes, okay, figs with it (with this concept...)...
Anyway-if I had this question (about the limits of "entomology") If I tried to formulate it here in "academic" terms ("intent", "implicit", "demarkacy", etc.), then many participants of the forum "maxillofacial joints" would burst from yawning... (F. E.: "this is not a dissertation council", - Morozzz No. 364. from 15.08.11) Indeed, this is the Internet (and not a DisSovet), here you can send…
And so… I clicked the "button" - translation to Albantsky, - the attention of the "forum obchestvennost" is provided (see marketing theory): in two days – more than a thousand views… Even, vaughn, kaaaa-aakoyeto aaanonymo woke up-post # 368 (I wonder if he has a gender, - fsme sex, - what? - and then I don't know how to turn...)...
Shall we continue?

Clarification: based on the context of Yevgenich's remark above.
The applicant (degree), of course, must prove. Aftar (articles) - does not have to prove it. "Smears" its material and the" form " of feeding this material. (In our case, I would like to point out that the article's material proves nothing, even-does not show, even-saafsem on the contrary...)

Science can be descriptive and experimental. Descriptive science is dying out and is considered unfashionable, primitive. However, it still exists (and probably will continue to exist for a long time) in such fields of knowledge as zoology and botany. Experimentalists, indeed, first go through the formulation of a problem (hypothesis), which is then verified by the experiment. In classical zoology / botany, a lot of naturalistic works are still published-such as"I was walking through the forest, caught a new butterfly for the region". Which, however, have quite a scientific value. Similarly, high-quality faunal lists, new finds, catalogues, etc. can be of scientific value, without any special tasks or hypotheses. But the wild, impudent Albanians don't know that, of course.

This post was edited by aaaaa-17.08.2011 20: 16

I'm afraid descriptive science will never die. Yes, science in its development passes through the descriptive stage and... all subsequent ones. It's easy to be a mathematician or physicist and criticize entomology for being too descriptive. It's just that these sciences passed this period many centuries ago.

  

What are all the fences already the pissans of great vile Justus? Already nowhere to go...?
Yes-ah! shut'ka-this! Relax, aaaaaaaaaaanomim!
The sciences are NOT divided into "descriptive" and "expirimintal".
The ultimate intention of any science (including in its fundamental part) is the "final" description (non - description, - NB) of an object. And entomology, here , is no exception. Faunistic "summaries" (not, well, how much can you already?) - this is fse "science", probably... But here, nano(onano?)description of the differences in the hair on the penis of (such and such) a butterfly is already beyond the limits of science (EMHO) something lying.
In the next century (if there is one) such "entomologists" will "describe" the differences" of these very hairs at the molecular level. And shto?
In fact, fse these "hairs, bristles, pits..." - full.... (var. "shnyaga"). If you take individuals that are reproductively isolated as a "species", then you can look at the hairs...t (as var.: don't care, - roughly, but not "mate"). Here, you prove that these individuals are reproductively isolated, and then "describe" the "new" species.
And so...? Or maybe it got a "hangover"? and the color changed? and the bristles on the penis fell off? And what? A new view? Described by the female?

What are all the fences already the pissans of great vile Justus? Already nowhere to go...?
Yes-ah! shut'ka-this! Relax, aaaaaaaaaaanomim!
The sciences are NOT divided into "descriptive" and "expirimintal".
The ultimate intention of any science (including in its fundamental part) is the "final" description (non - description, - NB) of an object. And entomology, here , is no exception. Faunistic "summaries" (not, well, how much can you already?) - this is fse "science", probably... But here, nano(onano?)description of the differences in the hair on the penis of (such and such) a butterfly is already beyond the limits of science (EMHO) something lying.
In the next century (if there is one) such "entomologists" will "describe" the differences" of these very hairs at the molecular level. And shto?
In fact, fse these "hairs, bristles, pits..." - full.... (var. "shnyaga"). If you take individuals that are reproductively isolated as a "species", then you can look at the hairs...t (as var.: don't care, - roughly, but not "mate"). Here, you prove that these individuals are reproductively isolated, and then "describe" the "new" species.
And so...? Or maybe it got a "hangover"? and the color changed? and the bristles on the penis fell off? And what? A new view? Described by the female?

A very interesting topic was touched upon - "hairs on a butterfly's penis". Unfortunately, accidentally, unconsciously, i.e. without understanding the subject and in a negative aspect, while in my opinion the study of the structure of the vesica surface is a very promising direction. I am convinced of this. I believe that for some groups of scoops, the surface of a member of which has a very complex structure, it is simply necessary to take into account its features and try to use them when comparing similar species. At the moment, I have an article ready with a first description in which I give a description of the surface structure of various sections of the mosaic. In parallel, I am preparing an article about a butterfly from the same subfamily in which the characteristic of the vesica moth will also be given. Both should be released this year. It will be interesting to hear criticism.

... And what? A new view? Described by the female?

Unfortunately, historically there is a tradition of describing new species by males.

first, a problem (hypothesis) is formulated, which is then verified by an experiment.

Vo-vo! It's, like, " boo-boo-boo.".. These are not even words, but so... (Oh! you can
't have a mother but you can't have a mother!)
"First comes the problem statement, " writes aaaaaanonym.
Harasho! Let"there is a problem statement"... We set a task: calculate the area of the countertop on which my computer stands. Knowing the algorithm (multiply the length by the width), we measure the countertop and solve the problem. Aleee-oo, aaaaaanoniim! Where's the experiment here?
And ishko "fingers of oppression" ("verifikiruezza" ).
"Verifikiruezza" is, like, "proveryayezza"? No? So?
If - "so", then I rzhunimagu:

Unfortunately, historically there is a tradition of describing new species by males.

It's a good thing that feminist suffragettes don't know about this yet.
Otherwise, it would be...

What are all the fences already the pissans of great vile Justus? Already nowhere to go...?
Yes-ah! shut'ka-this! Relax, aaaaaaaaaaanomim!
The sciences are NOT divided into "descriptive" and "expirimintal".
The ultimate intention of any science (including in its fundamental part) is the "final" description (non - description, - NB) of an object. And entomology, here , is no exception. Faunistic "summaries" (not, well, how much can you already?) - this is fse "science", probably... But here, nano(onano?)description of the differences in the hair on the penis of (such and such) a butterfly is already beyond the limits of science (EMHO) something lying.
In the next century (if there is one) such "entomologists" will "describe" the differences" of these very hairs at the molecular level. And shto?
In fact, fse these "hairs, bristles, pits..." - full.... (var. "shnyaga"). If you take individuals that are reproductively isolated as a "species", then you can look at the hairs...t (as var.: don't care, - roughly, but not "mate"). Here, you prove that these individuals are reproductively isolated, and then "describe" the "new" species.
And so...? Or maybe it got a "hangover"? and the color changed? and the bristles on the penis fell off? And what? A new view? Described by the female?

These questions are no longer new - and require special training (at least for me, sirogo) to enter the discussion not at the "fence level".

One could philosophize, take Popper and Lakatos in vain, but... laziness is too much babukaf - did I write it correctly?

A very interesting topic was touched upon - "hairs on a butterfly's penis". Unfortunately, accidentally, unconsciously, i.e. without understanding the subject and in a negative aspect, while in my opinion the study of the structure of the vesica surface is a very promising direction. I am convinced of this. I believe that for some groups of scoops, the surface of a member of which has a very complex structure, it is simply necessary to take into account its features and try to use them when comparing similar species. At the moment, I have an article ready with a first description in which I give a description of the surface structure of various sections of the mosaic. In parallel, I am preparing an article about a butterfly from the same subfamily in which the characteristic of the vesica moth will also be given. Both should be released this year. It will be interesting to hear criticism.

There are two types of elephants - Indian and African.
Wouldn't you rather look at the penises of any of these species through a microscope? In the "borders" of one species (one or the other), I am sure (a priori), we will find differences in the structure of" micro hairs " (in one individual - straight, in another - crooked, in the third - and in general, curly), so what? "divide the view in three?" Will be (until new "openers" arrive) Three elephant species in Africa and three in "India".

too much monogabukaf - did I write it correctly?

Wrong. That's right - "too much kamnogabukaf". Two years ago, our university hosted an international conference on Albantsky. Takshto ask, prakansultiruyu vlekhkuyu...

There are two types of elephants - Indian and African.
Wouldn't you rather look at the penises of any of these species through a microscope? In the "borders" of one species (one or the other), I am sure (a priori), we will find differences in the structure of" micro hairs " (in one individual - straight, in another - crooked, in the third - and in general, curly), so what? "divide the view in three?" Will be (until new "openers" arrive) Three elephant species in Africa and three in "India".

The surface of the member of scoops of similar species differs significantly in some groups. These differences can be used like any other feature by setting the boundaries of variability. It is quite applicable as a wing shape or color.

The surface of the member of scoops of similar species differs significantly in some groups. These differences can be used like any other feature by setting the boundaries of variability. It is quite applicable, like the shape of a wing or color.

Vo! Keywords. "Borders of variability" (sorry to be rude, but no one pulled you for the language) - within the species? If within the species, then most likely there are no boundaries of variability; otherwise, speciation (further, as well as previous) would be impossible. And" like any other " (stable, for example) attribute - you can't use it. And where are the homological series, then?