Abstracts on entomology

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?

We are talking about the same thing, but from different points of view. There are signs and they vary. I think it is possible to distinguish species based on these characteristics, whether you question it or completely deny this possibility. We have different views on this issue. No big deal.

We are talking about the same thing, but from different points of view. There are signs and they vary. I think it is possible to distinguish species based on these characteristics, whether you question it or completely deny this possibility. We have different views on this issue. It's not a big deal.

Can you imagine a curve describing a" normal " Poisson distribution? If so, then "join" the two curves (let them characterize the frequency of some trait in two "different" species). So what? Will the use of this feature play the role of "species-discriminating"? I'm talking about "borderline" situations. Well, after all, no, it won't! Well, then what... (option: FIG)?

Can you imagine a curve describing a" normal " Poisson distribution? If so, then "join" the two curves (let them characterize the frequency of some trait in two "different" species). So what? Will the use of this feature play the role of "species-discriminating"? I'm talking about "borderline" situations. Well, after all, no, it won't! Well, then what... (option: FIG)?

If you basically accept the existence of different species, then we have a complete agreement of views. The dispute can only be about close species, which one is the most common./what features are considered "species-discriminating"? Such disputes constantly arise and are sometimes successfully resolved over time using new methods, new approaches, and so on. Therefore, I do not consider the momentary difficulty in determining a reliable "species-distinguishing" trait to be a problem that makes it unnecessary to deal with close species.

Justus, do you know the word hiatus?

Is this an interrogation?
Or a question?
If it's a question, then it's rhetoric again...
Even... (I don't care who...), "Googling" will find the answer to your "question"...
What's the big deal? Niponyal... Even if in the context of our dialogue with barko, - fsiravnoniponyal... Palyubom does not possess any epistemological" explanatory " value, contextually.
This term, remember, I interpreted for the ignorant a quarter of a century ago with a circulation of, I note, about fifty thousand. And replicated my kamenty (for niskazhu kavo) publishing house "Science "(Shtopvamt)
Not, well, panimaiti(...iti), "show-offs" vit nor only at ... (opyatzhetaki, niskazhu at kavo...).

This post was edited by Justus - 08/20/2011 17: 36

So fuck off here in all sorts of nonsense...
Surely not Cuvier (with his "theory of catostrophic progress") here (in the" question "registered to ask this single" question", Fitzcarralds) "came to life"?
Alleooo-oo! Fitzcarraldaa-aa...

This post was edited by Justus - 08/20/2011 17: 55

So, if you understand (I emphasize, as the classic said, in red pencil) as for hiatus, your criticism of the description of new species based on differences in the structure of genitals or something else seems strange. If the study of the material reveals hiatus for this trait, then this is highly likely to indicate a genetic discreteness of the sample due to reproductive isolation. And, if the author knows the group well and is confident in the sufficiency of the studied material, then he describes a new species, not studying reproductive isolation in this case as such, but judging its presence by indirect signs. And what do you think is all this nonsense?
P.S. I fixed a random case mismatch especially for you.

This post was edited by Fitzcarraldo - 08/20/2011 19: 50

I can't disagree with your criticism of a single article as "typical of its type," Justates, even though you're a bully. The appearance of such articles is not due to the ignorance (professional or even linguistic) of the authors, but is a consequence of the form of organization of the scientific process that has spread throughout the world. Under conditions when articles are charged with PRND and affect the author's earnings and prestige level, the author tries to make the article as large as possible (due to completely inappropriate extracts from catalogs and previously published works, due to unnecessary drawings, etc.) and name it louder (so that it sounds more convincing in grant applications). And the grant system itself contributes to the writing of small, essentially incomplete works, which again need to be presented as full-fledged... Hence, articles appear in the mass, such as, for example, an article I recently saw on the fauna of a long-studied group from a long-studied region of India, which indicates 3 new species for the region (it does not matter that they are in the neighborhood) and provides a list of previously known species (many names are long junior synonyms), a key and for some reason, diagnoses from an English monograph of the beginning of the XX century. And all this on 20 (!) pages in the manuscript. Yes, the authors of the article also wanted to describe two variations.

Well, these are not the words of a boy, but of a husband...
Right now, we'll finish the pie and answer...

Well, these are not the words of a boy, but of a husband...
Right now, we'll finish the pie and answer it...

pies should be shared (c) jesus christ

Sorry if I'm out of order...
what about the "form"matrix:

Even though you're a bully

M. B., let's not switch to "personalities" - eh? And then, again - "word for word"….
To be honest, I'm puzzled: why did I get such a bad name, that I'm an Albany obscenity and a brawler?
Essentially your replicas

descriptions of new species based on differences in the structure of the genitals

it seems to me that you are substituting concepts: there are no differences in the structure of the genitals (in "close" and not only species), there are only (well, not to go far for an example – post 395 – barko says) differences in the structure of the vesica surface (shape, etc., I will add). Feel the difference: differences in structure and differences in surface structure?
By and large, when it comes to the description (discovery) of a new species, the scientist should be aware of the scope and content of the concept of "species" (at least).
Should I or shouldn't I? Rhetoric…
Otherwise, he (the"scientist") declares the discovery of a "new species", not having felt a hair on his penis. What am I talking about?
Without an answer to the question: what categories are "basic" in the content of this concept (the concept of "view")? "there's no need to build a vegetable garden. For me, so (and I, fortunately, am not alone) this is "reproductive isolation." If the number of hairs on the "penis" (1, or 10, or ...) does not interfere with ... ca (option: razmnazhatstsa), and as a result, we have fertile offspring, then there is no need to talk about" different species".
If the "extra" hair (bristle, spike, villi, etc.) on the "penis" does not allow the male to "inseminate" the female, - oh! then yes! But you prove it. And then describe the "new" view.
I'm not saying that species without any "differences in the structure of the genitals" (in your words) will not be able to have (not only fertile offspring, but also in general) offspring, being reliably isolated ecologically (some in arid areas are found, others in waterlogged areas), temporarily (in some – peak "
Actually, these considerations could have been answered ("score", like), if not for one annoyance - the "perpetual motion machine" only "visibility" of the movement: this one missed a hair and "opened a " new ""view", that (other) reduced this "view" to synonyms (and then the fse was repeated, and then many more times). Is this science? Her "progress"? Here it is necessary to choose (considering alternative options): either the first" article " is scientific, or the second, with all the consequences that follow from this...

pies should be shared (c) jesus christ

There were seven "pies" there, but I only had two...

Sorry if I'm out of order…

Discussing this topic (as well as any other), we are already moving on to personalities: Your position on this or that issue follows from the characteristics of your personality. As for hooliganism, this is just a description of the object of observation. There are different styles of communication (based on goals, self-identification of the subject, etc.) - academic, friendly, etc., and you have-hooligan. I'm sorry if I offended you. By the way, I am also touched by your assessment of my maturity, since the format allows for such assessments.

I do not substitute concepts: a structure is a structure (synonym-structure), no matter what, the surface of the vesicle or the genitals as a whole. Structure is usually contrasted with color and often with form, but if you start to understand, then color also comes down to structure-at the microscopic or molecular level, and form is only an attribute of the structure. Why a researcher should ignore the structure of the vesicle surface and prefer some other feature to it is not clear. Evolution does not choose any specific structures, any morphological detail can evolve, even one that you are used to skimming. In other words, I do not see a difference in the fundamental reliability of the presence/absence of any branched horn or bump on the vesicle and the presence/absence of a microtrichia site on it.

The number of animal genera alone in nature is enormous, not to mention species, and it is impossible to set up an experiment for each species to determine the presence or absence of reproductive isolation, just as it is impossible, for example, to see phylogeny, but this does not mean that you do not need to reconstruct the phylogeny from indirect data or that you do not need to model the conditions of the Big Bang. If it is not possible to see firsthand the reproductive isolation (they do not mate or mate, but there are no offspring, etc.), its presence must be judged by indirect data. If two closely related species are, say, spatially isolated from each other, then over time their populations accumulate genetic differences (at some point reaching the threshold of reproductive isolation), which are expressed in morphological differences-sometimes very unexpected and not important for the viability of organisms. If you find this stable difference (hiatus) in large series of specimens uniformly collected from a large area , you can speak with a HIGH DEGREE of PROBABILITY about the presence of reproductive isolation (especially if the species or "species", if you like, are sympatric).

A scientist, of course, should understand what is and what is not a biological species. And I doubt that those researchers who describe new species based on the structure of the vesica surface do not share your opinion about reproductive isolation as the main criteria of a biological species (at least, I do not know those who do not share it, perhaps due to the specifics of the social circle). But you criticize this traditional taxonomic approach in the same way that people criticize the scientific approach in general by telling the fable of three people who were given an elephant to touch in a dark room and asked to describe it; one said the animal looked like a hose, another like a fan, and a third like a pole. Here, as in the fable, there is no mistake in the methodology, there is an inability to use it (when examining an object by touch, you need to at least find its beginning and end and touch it in three dimensions). If the researcher takes a small sample and finds a difference in the structure something, even a surface, is usually not enough to describe a new species. As a rule, because the trait found by them can be unique for the wei group (provided that the researcher knows the group well), and the fallen bristle (if it was) can be detected in the form of a place of its attachment or not detected if the place of breakage simply does not exist.

Unfortunately, your words do not indicate that you yourself are fully aware of the scope and content of the concept of "view "(at least)." Since it is even reliable (but recently; and in general, what does it mean, reliable?) isolated populations may not have mechanisms for reproductive isolation (subspecies); or, if the peaks of "copulatory periods" occur in different seasons, this does not mean that these periods themselves do not overlap, at least in the sense of a small number of individuals copulating when they overlap. So, the indirect criteria for the presence of reproductive isolation, which you adhere to, do not have absolute value (they do not work in all cases), while the criterion for the presence of a hiatus of a particular trait (provided that the method is used correctly) allows you to judge with much greater confidence about the presence of such isolation.

This post was edited by Fitzcarraldo - 08/20/2011 22: 47

Sorry if I'm out of order...
what about the "form"matrix:

M. B., let's not switch to "personalities" - eh? And then, again - "word for word"….
To be honest, I'm puzzled: why did I get such a bad name, that I'm an Albany obscenity and a brawler?
Essentially your replicas

it seems to me that you are substituting concepts: there are no differences in the structure of the genitals (in "close" and not only species), there are only (well, not to go far for an example – post 395 – barko says) differences in the structure of the vesica surface (shape, etc., I will add). Feel the difference: differences in structure and differences in surface structure?
By and large, when it comes to the description (discovery) of a new species, the scientist should be aware of the scope and content of the concept of "species" (at least).
Should I or shouldn't I? Rhetoric…
Otherwise, he (the"scientist") declares the discovery of a "new species", not having felt a hair on his penis. What am I talking about?
Without an answer to the question: what categories are "basic" in the content of this concept (the concept of "view")? "there's no need to build a vegetable garden. For me, so (and I, fortunately, am not alone) this is "reproductive isolation." If the number of hairs on the "penis" (1, or 10, or ...) does not interfere with ... ca (option: razmnazhatstsa), and as a result, we have fertile offspring, then there is no need to talk about" different species".
If the "extra" hair (bristle, spike, villi, etc.) on the "penis" does not allow the male to "inseminate" the female, - oh! then yes! But you prove it. And then describe the "new" view.
I'm not saying that species without any "differences in the structure of the genitals" (in your words) will not be able to have (not only fertile offspring, but also in general) offspring, being reliably isolated ecologically (some in arid areas are found, others in waterlogged areas), temporarily (in some – peak "
Actually, these considerations could have been answered ("score", like), if not for one annoyance - the "perpetual motion machine" only "visibility" of the movement: this one missed a hair and "opened a " new ""view", that (other) reduced this "view" to synonyms (and then the fse was repeated, and then many more times). Is this science? Her "progress"? Here it is necessary to choose (considering alternative options): either the first" article " is scientific, or the second, with all the consequences that follow from this...

Justus, you must have misunderstood me. Maybe I didn't explain it well. The new species I mentioned differs from similar ones in several ways at once. The differences are sufficient - the shape of the wing, uncus, valva, and females are generally different. At the same time, I consider it necessary to give a description of the surface of different parts of the mosaic and try to compare it with similar views. No one is talking about a new kind of"missing a hair on your penis."

There were seven "pies" there, but I only had two...

well, we also do not have 40 tribes of Israel here)

I can't disagree with your criticism of a single article as "typical of its type," Justates, even though you're a bully.

And how glad I am that you agreed with the "criticism", you won't even believe it...
But the fact is that I didn't have time to say the main thing (mea maxima culpa, I started too far away). The summary of this "article" says: "The article presents an updated annotated list of Cossidae of the Korean Peninsula, including 7 species, one of which is listed for the first time – Holkocerus insularis Staudinger, 1982". Fse, nothing else is said in the abstract.
That is, there is already a certain list of cossids, the author only "clarifies" it, giving one view. About this latter (in honor of which, in fact, the article was started), the following is literally said::
"Material. 1 [male] - " Korea, Seul, (Sei-Rio-Ri), 5.07.1961, Pak leg. "(MWM). Note. East Palaearctic species. First recorded for the fauna of the Korean Peninsula."
Fse!!! Nothing more is said.
It seems to me, dear Fitzcarraldo, that even for "its type" it (the "article" of the tipo) is not "typical".
Fsa " article "(actually rewritten label) fits in one line. Is it nuka? For me, it's better to "swing a net".
Why is it written at all? To then "bend your fingers": "I have 6 articles published in the EEA"? There is another explanation.
I have already noted (but it is so "in passing" that it is not a sin to repeat) that neither Japanese nor, even, Korean studies (researchers) are mentioned. This is evidence that the author does not "own the material". Why doesn't he own it? Because he doesn't speak Japanese or Korean. So is it worth writing an article whose meaning boils down to a declaration ("to the whole world") - "I do not know Japanese!"
I believe that the author does not know Filipino either. So what? Waiting for the 7th article? And there, you see, and ...tsatuyu, because the author is not a polyglot.
[Just don't attribute to me what I didn't say and then challenge it. I mean, a researcher writing about cossides (for example) doesn't have to know all the languages that are written about cossides. No, of course, English is enough. But he must know the content of the main articles, in whatever language they are written.
And that's not all, unfortunately. The article, I thought, was almost a detective story worthy of Agatha Christie's attention. Eh! I wouldn't have died, would I…

[Well, I missed the comma. Half past three - it's time to go to bed!]

This post was edited by Justus - 08/20/2011 23: 35

Justus, you must have misunderstood me. Maybe I didn't explain it well. The new species I mentioned differs from similar ones in several ways at once. The differences are sufficient - the shape of the wing, uncus, valva, and females are generally different. At the same time, I consider it necessary to give a description of the surface of different parts of the mosaic and try to compare it with similar views. No one is talking about a new kind of"missing a hair on your penis."

Of course, I "misunderstood" you. In my defense, I will say that in your 395th post you are all about vesik, yes about vesik... But don't get me wrong, I didn't speak out against "morphology"in any of my posts.

And how glad I am that you agreed with the "criticism", you won't even believe it…

Again, anyone who is currently editing or reviewing zoological articles will agree with this reasoning of yours. This article (about cossids) is not typical of the type of faunal articles, but it is typical of the type of modern faunal articles that prevail in the mass. From friendly Asia, I receive such articles for review in a wide stream, and I am already tired of wiping everything out of them and explaining to journal editors and authors that their information is from the "short reports" section, that it is not necessary to rewrite long-published information in pages, that a faunal note is not a monograph on dwarf fauna that you don't need to redescribe a species unnecessarily if you find it in a new location, but if you do, do it wisely, based on your knowledge of the morphology and sismematics of the group... And all to no avail, a week or a month later I get the same article from the same magazine, or even from the same authors. (By the way, a faunalist doesn't need to know Korean or Filipino: the names on the lists are Latin.) But, having undertaken to fight this phenomenon on a domestic basis, what path do you suggest? Demonstrate on forums, in print, at lectures that you don't need to write articles like this? Well, you will demonstrate, the authors of a well-known variety (and the vast majority of them) They'll read you, but they won't write it any other way-there's no motivation. What is their motivation now? -- greed and pride: the desire for a large number of works (preferably in "prestigious" magazines), large earnings and fame. And these properties are characteristic not only for people of science (for them, perhaps, even to a lesser extent, if we consider them on an average), they are characteristic of modern man in general and follow from the organization of modern society. These properties are characteristic of what the great Fromm called the mode of having in a person's life, which is opposed to the mode of being-orientation to self-realization in productive activity and love for all people. The society that feeds consumers will not change in the foreseeable future, but a single person who reflects, is not satisfied with the world around him, his life in it and wants to change this life, a person who wants to understand himself, can change. I think that the book of Fromm mentioned above can help such a person in this, which I wholeheartedly advise every reasonable person (not only by the name of the species) to read: http://www.philosophy.ru/library/fromm/haveorbe.html. At least for the pleasure of reading an intelligent person, for, to paraphrase you, Justus, there are many writers, but few who have anything to write about.

This post was edited by Fitzcarraldo - 08/21/2011 00: 02

Colleagues, please cite well-known works on the fauna of Korea in Korean. They will be useful to me. Yes, I have written articles (or participated in) on the fauna of Thailand, Vietnam, Mongolia, Georgia, the Andaman Islands, and Lebanon, without knowing the languages. I wrote an article on Siberia, although I don't know Yakut. I described the view from Rutul, although I don't know Rutul. It's a pity, but it's true. If Vladimir is convinced that the discovery of a particular species in Korea was already published earlier by Korean authors, this belief is probably based on knowledge of these sources. I will be grateful to him for the scans of these valuable pages for me.
A few words in the magazines. The policy of many journals is to increase the volume of articles due to very detailed lists of species, keys, and the most detailed mention of synonymy (already published). I can't understand why this is happening. But it is in many magazines now. For example, in the ZooKeys magazine.
Indeed, the policy of many specialists now is to increase the volume of publications, split them up, increase author teams, etc. So far, this financially concerns only the employees of the Academy of Sciences (of course, a lot of specialists from these institutions did not go along with it). But, believe it or not, I myself saw how the teachers of one university, having entered into a conspiracy, published everything in a bunch (about 10 friends and comrades) both in botany and zoology, and in urban ecology,and in the methodology of teaching in. the language. I just couldn't believe my eyes. That is, one person writes - and then all of them are attributed as co-authors. A person actually wrote 1 article, but according to the report, 10-12 passed. And all well done.
There is a lot of rational information in recent posts here. I will be glad of actual help and scans of local endemic literature in local languages.

As for my article about Korea, the main point was to clarify the status of small fragments from Primorye, Korea, and Northern China. But I didn't want to write down just that. There was a small (I agree that it is small) material on Korea, there was literature (in my opinion exhaustive) on this territory. I'm sorry that Vladimir turned on me in a strange way. Not even at me, but at an article on Korea. Unfortunately, he did not send me any Korean literature, did not write that he had material from Korea, 20 times more, and that this material was not used. It seems to me that this is an average faunal article (and I know how it could be improved). There was no list of Korea's kossids - there were scattered pieces of information scattered across various sources. We managed to put everything together, clarify the status of one species, and add 1 new species for Korea. I don't see any crime in this article. I didn't consider it necessary to give you maps - there are very few points, so there is no point.
Next week I will go to the capital of Siberia - I invite Vladimir to a meeting. I would like to get acquainted-maybe the material will show its own in Korea

There was a small (I agree that it is small) material on Korea, there was literature (in my opinion exhaustive) on this territory.

Here," offhand "is hardly a tenth of what a conscientious author writing on Korea should "look through" (at least): Korean Journal of Entomology, Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, Japanese Jounal of Entomology, Japanese Jounal of Systematic Entomology, Transactions of the Lepidopterological Sosiety of Japan, Insecta Matsumurana, Etizenia (Occasional publications of the Biological Laboratory Fukui University), Kansai Entomol. Soc., Kontyu, Tyo to ga... - most journals have annotations in English, chast.most of the articles - and even-are in English. Part of it is available in the Internet. There is also such a "thing" - RZHB, called...
Or do you need to submit it" ready-made"?

Unfortunately, he did not send me any Korean literature, did not write that he had material from Korea, 20 times more, and that this material was not used.

Is this waapshche pra shto?
Or maybe write an article for you?
Oh, fuck it; I'm not interested.
My advice: look for literature... (guess where? didn't you guess? I'll tell you) in the library!

  
Here," offhand "is hardly a tenth of what a conscientious author writing on Korea should "look through" (at least): Korean Journal of Entomology, Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, Japanese Jounal of Entomology, Japanese Jounal of Systematic Entomology, Transactions of the Lepidopterological Sosiety of Japan, Insecta Matsumurana, Etizenia (Occasional publications of the Biological Laboratory Fukui University), Kansai Entomol. Soc., Kontyu, Tyo to ga... - most journals have annotations in English, chast.most of the articles - and even-are in English. Part of it is available in the Internet. There is also such a "thing" - RZHB, called...
Or do you need to submit it" ready-made"?

Is this waapshche pra shto?
Or maybe write an article for you?
Oh, fuck it; I'm not interested.
My advice: look for literature... (guess where? didn't you guess? I'll tell you) in the library!

Thanks for the advice. In these publications, there are no articles on the faunistics of woodworms and most other Moths of Korea. There is such a thing as Zoological Records. And Biological Abstract. I think that RZHB referees about 5% of what is currently published, and the publications mentioned above up to 80%. The numbers are certainly inaccurate, maybe someone knows. Unfortunately, it is impossible to track all the literature. In addition, the collections of the University of Tokyo and the Tokyo Institute of Evolutionary Biology, for example, also did not contain materials on Korea. Surprisingly, this is true. The Matsumura collection in Sapporo has also been reviewed. In addition to Japan, Taiwan and Sakhalin, there is nothing on cossides there.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 21.08.2011 11: 24

Dear colleagues,
I would very much like to know your thoughts on the next dissertation work:

http://vak.ed.gov.ru/ru/dissertation/index...=14502&from54=2

Sincerely,
K. Makarov

I just read it out of interest

That's what surprised me

Large mammalian corpses contain a large amount of organic matter, keratinized components. Among the necrophilous coleoptera, representatives of the following families are always present: Silphidae, Histeridae, Staphylinidae, Scarabaeidae, Nitidulidae, and Hydrophilidae. In summer, cadaver tissues (m=3-4 kg) decompose within 30-40 days, while bones, claws, and fur take more than 2 years to decompose. Corpses (m= 10 kg) – more than 4 years; cattle-up to 7 years.


Is it really that long, a 10kg corpse decomposes for more than 4 years?? Or is it about the bones? A sheep's body is found in the catchments of southern Ukraine, and only bones remain in less than a month.

Thank you, very interesting. And then I, sinfully, was going to write a negative review - and this occupation is disgusting and not very successful. Apparently, it is necessary to engage in self-education.
K. Makarov

I just looked through it, looked at the Conclusions and publications. I thought it was very faint... Does WB Chernyshev give a positive review? will he be on defense?

It also seemed to me that it was too weak for a doctor's degree. And there are a lot of typos. What is "extraterritorial coitus"? Extrapolated, apparently?

Very awkward, of course. But both the first and second works are beyond constructive criticism. A multi-faceted literary compilation, sometimes in blocks of text. There was very little of our own material, and unreliable definitions are not uncommon (especially among the Histeridae).

But he will surely defend himself, or rather, the degree will be awarded. There were a lot of worse jobs and nothing - everything passed.

In the abstract, among the" 69 main out of 230 works " of the dissertation candidate under number 5, the following is also given:
Belous V. N., Ivanov A. L., Ilyukh M. P., Likhovid A. A., Nemirova E. S., Pushkin S. V., Sigida S. I., Tertyshnikov M. F., Tikhonov V. V., Trotskaya I. V., Khokhlov A. N., Chenikalova E. V. Additions to the Red Book of the Stavropol Territory for 2003. - Stavropol: Service School, 2004. - 104 p.
As it is not difficult to notice, E. V. Chenikalova is a co-author of the dissertation. In this case, how can she act as an official opponent?

Actually, it was impossible, as I understand it. A new diss regulation has been published today. tips: http://vak.ed.gov.ru/ru/news/index.php?id54=526

Maybe I'm wrong, of course, but it seems that according to the new rules, the results of a dissertation work (some number of them) should be published partially in specialized publications from the HAC list... That is, for example, in the Zoological Journal, once defense in zoology... Or is it not so?

Not being a narrow specialist on the topic-the lack of normal publications in good, at least domestic, journals is alarming.

about co-authorship. Just today, the secret of one of the Moscow councils wrote to me:

"We will probably have to cancel the protection here ..., since "suddenly" it turned out that the applicant and the opponent have a joint publication.

opponents and applicants should not have joint publications."

-- so you need to write to the secretary of the Council (email is in a / abstract) and/or to the Higher Attestation Commission....

Surname, first name, patronymic of the applicant: Pushkin Sergey Viktorovich
Organization address: 355009, Stavropol, Pushkin str., 1

  
opponents and applicants should not have joint publications."

The Caucasus has its own laws

This post was edited by Coelioxys - 03.02.2012 02: 51

Not being an expert on beetles, and knowing Sergey Pushkin well by correspondence, I have to say that this work occupies exactly the middle position between Sigida and Bondarenko. I'm sad

And about Bondarenko I recently said on another topic: "at the kindergarten level". And I wrote a negative review, and I wasn't the only one who wrote it - but prostituted dissovets don't care - it's time to close them all together.
I heard about Sigida on the sidelines of the Zinovites that his dissertation on ground beetles was plagiarized.... his father's dissertation, defended many years ago, and so when it was realized, it was removed (for what I bought for what I sell).
I'm not an expert on Pushkin's beetles, and I don't see the abstract myself - but what can be the "average" between these "professionals"....

I looked at the abstract. The first thing that came out: "Ay yes Pushkin, ay yes..."
"Quick" conjunctural revision of the abstract of the candidate's 2002 thesis.
You don't have to be a Dantes to fill up an applicant...

Very awkward, of course. But both the first and second works are beyond constructive criticism.

Vladislav Olegovich, and you monograph Pushkin with Kharchenko " Dead Eaters of Russia "( atlas determinant)(Stavropol, 2010) have you seen it?! I'm just wondering what might have appeared after your 2002 monograph with Nikolayev. The pictures are only colored....

This post was edited by scarabee - 02/14/2012 17: 25

Unfortunately, I have not seen this atlas, as well as many other recent works, which S. V. probably prefers to hide. I know him personally. The material on Silphidae and Histeridae (as, by the way, and Carabidae) was not shown to me in Stavropol (excuses: collections are damaged by pests, in front of colleagues, etc.) I have mixed feelings and embarrassment, but I am convinced that it is impossible to work like S. I. and his student S. V.. There are a lot of publications, but, unfortunately, known facts are presented in detailed author's processing, or "information noise" is made. Compilation is also talked about (and even written about) Rostov residents. The material (and in the articles) is largely copied from the publications of other authors. About "extraparous coitus": those interested can view easily accessible original foreign articles on this subject. Numerous errors, typos in taxa names, and some definitions are sometimes embarrassing to read (Hister sibiricus in the North-West Caucasus... etc. - http://files.mail.ru/XE89TY) I can provide you with files of some of S. V.'s works that I have.
As for my chapter on Nicrophorinae in the book by G. V. Nikolaev: information on nicrophorinae twenty years ago (I designed the manuscript in the early 90's), they are seriously outdated, they were presented even before our acquaintance with D. Sykes and, alas, were not corrected by me after. So there's a lot of new data coming in.