Abstracts on entomology

It's been a long time since any news has been posted on this topic. But take a look. Very interesting sample. I hung on to it for a long time, and it seemed to me that something obviously went wrong at the conservatory. Maybe I don't understand, colleagues, and the job is really cool?

http://isu.ru/ru/science/boards/biol7/SuslovAV.pdf

when you first view it, it's a little weak... And I don't know such a leader, although I am engaged in forest entomology. But Yu. N. Baranchikov and ZIN would hardly agree to be ofits. opponents, if everything was bad...

Cool start, already unsettling, everything is so-so peaceful, and then suddenly on you -..... are one of the most dangerous... brrr )))

By the way, even I noticed that there is something wrong in this paragraph, for the study of this text, it would be nice to invite Justus to ask why one of the most dangerous and at the same time diverse are lepidoptera, a group of insects that

when you first view it, it's a little weak... And I don't know such a leader, although I am engaged in forest entomology. But Yu. N. Baranchikov and ZIN would hardly agree to be ofits. opponents, if everything was bad...

Isn't this the job that YOON was talking about during the coffee break at the last Katai games??? I did not delve into it, but it seems that he and ZIN (represented by Sinev S. Yu.) refused to oppose the defense of some Irkutsk work...

someone was drinking tea during breaks, and someone was running around on business.

  

Roma, you zhe'zh after all - "good" (fsme - kind) boy? So what's the big deal?
Kaneshna in aftariferate - a lot of "holes". So what?
The " main provisions submitted for defense "(not without great reproach) are "very weakly" consistent with the provisions contained in the "Conclusions". E't the first.
Dalshe need?

  

Do not wake up "famously" while "it" is quiet (option sleeps.

Read this, it's a good thing:
http://www.zin.ru/boards/00222301/materials/ShapovalNA.pdf

Read this, it's a good thing:
http://www.zin.ru/boards/00222301/materials/ShapovalNA.pdf

I heard this report at the REO Congress, and at the same time Lukhtanov asked me not to post it online - something was unpublished. Now, I think, you can already post it (I kept a record). So, this report was blown to smithereens by Rasnitsyn with just one question: "And how??? Through spermatozoa??? Is mitochondrial DNA transmitted???".

But really. How?)))

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 10.12.2013 22: 43

Do not wake up "famously" while "it" is quiet (option sleeps.

Wow, I certainly imagined that you are very cold, but to such an extent that some fall into hibernation......

So, this report was blown to smithereens by Rasnitsyn with just one question: "And how??? Through spermatozoa??? Is mitochondrial DNA transmitted???".

But really. How?)))

Perhaps through spermatozoa, it is sometimes possible. Otherwise, how could there be CO1 heterogeneity? Very rare, but it comes across - for example, the result of tsvetaevi-icarus hybridization. And Martin Wiemers once came across a similar specimen of Agrodiaetus.

This post was edited by bora - 11.12.2013 06: 02

Pictures:

hybrid.jpg — (203.51к)

While running through the "pests of birch forests". I did not understand on what basis many of the listed species are associated with them. Yes, they live in them, but they eat primarily grasses and bushes of undergrowth. And the very phrase "pests" is absurd. There are no other pests in birch forests other than humans, and in the long term they are more harmful to successions.

Work on "pests of birch forests" is removed from protection. Baranchikov and ZIN gave negative reviews.

I also read Shapoval's a-paper. This is the first very, very decent work on butterflies, submitted to the court on this branch in the current period of time. I can't argue about how MT DNA and other subtle substances are transferred (I'm a complete teapot here). However, it is noteworthy that taxa with small "percentages" for CO1 and ITS2 are accepted in the status of species. Does this mean that the notorious "2%" is being quietly but steadily abandoned?

Read this, it's a good thing:
http://www.zin.ru/boards/00222301/materials/ShapovalNA.pdf

The work is interesting, quite worthy of the desired degree, and raises some topical questions:
1. How much can statistical differences in mtDNA be trusted?
The author himself lists several options:
- polyphelitic taxon
-intrapopulation genetic polymorphism
-borrowing of mitochondria from other species
As I understand it, all variants in nature are possible. Hence the second question.
2. Maybe abandon COI and trust nuclear ITS2 more
In Nazar Shapoval's atoreferat, as I understand it, the evidence for borrowing mitochondria is based precisely on the analysis of the nuclear gene.
From the last systematic perturbations, I immediately recall the story with Callophrys chalybeitincta, when Ten Hagen reduced the species to synonyms with C. rubi, and B. V. Stradomsky's analysis of nuclear DNA returned the taxon to the status of a species.

However, it is noteworthy that taxa with small "percentages" for CO1 and ITS2 are accepted in the status of species. So, the rejection of the notorious "2%" is quietly but steadily going on?

2% is not a dogma, but an average difference over a very large sample, and 2% is completely out of character for ITS2. What is important here is the complex difference or identity of a complex of loci, especially both mitochondrial and nuclear loci at the same time.

The work is interesting, quite worthy of the desired degree, and raises some topical questions:
1. How much can statistical differences in mtDNA be trusted?
The author himself lists several options:
- polyphelitic taxon
-intrapopulation genetic polymorphism
-borrowing of mitochondria from other species
As I understand it, all variants in nature are possible. Hence the second question.
2. Maybe abandon COI and trust nuclear ITS2 more
In Nazar Shapoval's atoreferat, as I understand it, the evidence for borrowing mitochondria is based precisely on the analysis of the nuclear gene.
From the last systematic perturbations, I immediately recall the story with Callophrys chalybeitincta, when Ten Hagen reduced the species to synonyms with C. rubi, and B. V. Stradomsky's analysis of nuclear DNA returned the taxon to the status of a species.

Indeed, in about 5% of the studied species, CO1 fails. But in 95% - it works very well. As I just wrote, we need a comprehensive approach. And one ITS2, I think, is not enough - it's just a protein-non-coding sequence. For completeness, a protein-coding gene is also needed, for example, EF-1a.

Indeed, in about 5% of the studied species, CO1 fails. But in 95% - it works very well. As I just wrote, we need a comprehensive approach. And one ITS2, I think, is not enough - it's just a protein-non-coding sequence. To complete the picture, we also need a protein-coding gene, for example, EF-1a.

OK, but the protein-non-coding sequence is not subject to selection, and the protein-coding sequence is subject to selection. After all, the beauty of mitochondria was that their genome can tell about evolutionary time, since they are not selected. No?

Why aren't they selected? Even as selected. It's just that substitutions mostly follow the third letters of triplets. Their replacement most often does not change the amino acid sequence.
For this reason, it is the nuclear protein-coding sequence that is needed. With preferential substitutions for the third letter, as in mitochondrial cells. These patterns do not apply to ITS2.This locus has both insertions and giant deletions.

The promised report of V. A. Lukhtanov.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bnRangaMXU

This is a restricted video....

I apologize.
opened

uh, so at the most interesting place!!! Strangely, it was during the answer to the most interesting question that the video ended)

I didn't write any further. Lukhtanov couldn't answer Rasnitsyn clearly.

Asked to write a review, I read the first word of the title (CARABIDAE (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA, CARABOIDEA) of the KHANTY-MANSIYSK AUTONOMOUS OKRUG-UGRA) and immediately decided not to write, so as not to harm even more...
But then I foolishly started reading the full text of my dissertation and fell off my chair
In general, I recommend it as a light reading material. So many pearls. Here you will find a link to the author's website vk.com and the difficulties of detecting amphibian excrement in nature, and finally, our own system of abbreviating the names of taxa authors, developed to save space and put out in a separate appendix (the applicant spared only Linnaeus ). I will keep silent about the design, scientific blunders and gaps, this is for three sheets of scribbling.
dissertation
author's abstract

This post was edited by scarabee - 27.11.2015 17: 02

if you have something to say, then you should write a negative review and send it. what is then surprising that you were given a degree? ...

Asked to write a review, I read the first word of the title (CARABIDAE (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA, CARABOIDEA) of the KHANTY-MANSIYSK AUTONOMOUS OKRUG-UGRA) and immediately decided not to write, so as not to harm even more...
But then I foolishly started reading the full text of my dissertation and fell off my chair
In general, I recommend it as a light reading material. So many pearls. Here you will find a link to the author's website vk.com and the difficulties of detecting amphibian excrement in nature, and finally, our own system of abbreviating the names of taxa authors, developed to save space and put out in a separate appendix (the applicant spared only Linnaeus ). I will keep silent about the design, scientific blunders and gaps, this is for three sheets of scribbling.
dissertation
author's abstract

Abbreviations of taxa authors ' surnames, of course, were killed. Especially Du., Ga., Pi.& Mi.

Mda, it works powerfully, only splinters fly:
"Pterostichus brevicornis is a dendrobiont, an inhabitant of the bark of trees..."
The list of publications also delivers.

if you have something to say, then you should write a negative review and send it. why then be surprised that you were given a degree?...

I fully agree with you on this point. And then after all, mutual responsibility, fear of "harm" or "offend" (how gentle they are, these dissertation rogues!) as a result, it leads to the "settling down" of outright cattle and attempts to organize appropriate "scientific schools".
In this case, you should also look at the support group of the "applicant" - "boss", oponents, etc. After all, this rogue has a "scientific supervisor", there are loyal "oponents", clackers of calls and other "pushers".
I don't know what the current situation is in the Higher Attestation Commission. A few years ago, the entire near-scientific mafia felt very comfortable. Any dissertation-based nonsense supported in thoroughly corrupt dissertation councils was automatically submitted for approval.
Therefore, if you are really concerned about the fate of education - write negative reviews, copies to the Higher Attestation Commission and the Ministry, and publish them in the scientific press.

We recommended that you remove the work from protection and rework it

...they recommended removing the work from protection and reworking it

Here it is necessary not to "recycle" a funny text (they will easily find a "Negro" for this), but to force the "applicant" himself to really retrain. Otherwise, he will hire a "negro", hand over the "revised" text in a month, and routinely defend himself. At best, with its "float" will go to clerks, at worst - will carry to the masses "carbine"

Colleagues,
since the dissovet does not post reviews immediately (in theory, after receiving the paper original), M. B.-post them here?

Colleagues,
since the dissovet does not post reviews immediately (in theory, after receiving the paper original), M. B.-post them here?

Why not?

For the sample

File/s:



 Akopyan_Makarov.doc

size: 49k
number of downloads: 586

For the sample

Kirill, I think YOUR name and patronymic should be written in full in the review (according to formal requirements)

Yes, this is true - the final waanit has already been fixed

you can view the protection materials here: http://www.ams.tsu.ru/TSU/QualificationDep...hK24122015.html

Judging by the fact that colleagues from Novosibirsk gave a formally positive review as a leading organization, the opinions of other colleagues expressed in the reviews of the abstract are unlikely to be particularly taken into account DS.

The trouble with these formally positive reviews. The leading organization in this sense has created a unique text. On the second page of the review, it is written that there is a proven border between the middle and southern taiga, and therefore the dissertation student is well done. And on the following pages - that this conclusion is unfounded. And so on, and in the end-all is well.
I wonder what ordinary citizens would say about the court proceedings, where instead of the prosecutor there would be a second lawyer? At best , it means that the outcome of the trial is known in advance.
Therefore, Maxim is most likely right.
Unless someone decides to fight for the truth later.

Just shocking reviews, of course.
"The abstract of the dissertation is well written, easy to read, illustrated with a map-diagram, diagrams and table" - as it is written in one of the reviews for this opus. Then you don't have to read it...