Abstracts on entomology

Everything happens - there are also bad dissertations. But for your own opinion, you can also read the abstract at least - not the entire dissertation-and indicate specific reasons why the dysertationcorresponds or does not correspond. First they write, however, what it is about. That is, in their own words-a statement - so that it is clear that a person has "mastered" or "niasilil". And then there's the criticism. This will be a serious approach.

By the way, there are a lot of boring, empty and boring works on sequencing and molbiology, which do not clarify anything, with "ashipkami" and then closed works. The cost of equipment and reagents is only much higher than usual.

Give me money for molecular medicine and you will have molecular medicine! In the meantime - "The cycle of freeze-dried exoskeletons and rapid "speciation" in the framework of the ICZN"!

"PS: There is an opinion that citizens of some countries should be banned from studying science as a subject that does not correspond to their capabilities.
" Surely everyone who works in a topic wider than their habitat area has their own colleague- "Chinese", behind whom razgr** * and razgr*** waste products....
that's just mentioning and refuting such, according to the rules, you can and (should!) do not quote in the list of references, so as not to add the rating to which the scientific world is moving (CI).
and I did not mean the author's abstract from thanatophilus - it's a pity to have time for such curiosity.

"PS: There is an opinion that citizens of some countries should be banned from studying science as a subject that does not correspond to their capabilities.
" Surely everyone who works in a topic wider than their habitat area has their own colleague- "Chinese", behind whom razgr** * and razgr*** waste products....
that's just mentioning and refuting such, according to the rules, you can and (should!) do not quote in the list of references, so as not to add the rating to which the scientific world is moving (CI).
and I did not mean the author's abstract from thanatophilus - it's a pity to have time for such curiosity.

The Chinese are different from the Chinese, the editor of Zootaxa is also a representative of this people. China remains a rather closed power, and many people there are stewing in their own juice, as the Russians once did. But our people had ZIN, libraries, traditions... The Chinese were deprived of this and contacts with the world, hence a lot of problems. But now there are very big specialists.

Proctos, about "give me money", here I personally, as a layman outside of science, feel my duty B. M. fulfilled-I pay taxes. That is, it seems to me that the problem is somewhere between us and you, where they distribute to whom and how much
And also about the quality of doctorates and "quality of science"(a strange expression actually), here are all those opponents with negative reviews - I have no doubt that they have good doctorates, and I must accept their authority as scientists from the point of view of an amateur. But there is one thing-I think that they all did their doctorates in the USSR, when it was possible to do it-well.
And now they demand quality in the current reality.

I still can't help but remember the words uv. Yakovlev, whose position, if I'm not mistaken, is that private, personal funds should be invested in science. This is the stage at which science was before its involvement in the state - it was based on the private capital of people who decided to devote themselves to science. That is, it is a return back. So a good dissertation will be not only for someone who is really interested, but also for someone who has money, while interest is also needed, but judging by the reality, just an interest in teaching a degree is enough, and that's it. There would be money.

This post was edited by Hierophis - 02/24/2011 23: 59

And now they demand quality in the current reality.

Any work should be done properly - even digging holes, even writing a dissertation.

Any work should be done properly - even digging holes, even writing a dissertation.

Thanks!

To be honest, I am very annoyed (to put it mildly) with excuses in the style of: "I work as they pay", "if they pay more , I will work better". This is a problem not only and not so much of science, but of our entire modern life. If you take on a job , you must do it "as expected". If you are not satisfied with the conditions , quit and make room for someone else.

IMHO, such excuses are a cover for their own inability and unwillingness to work.

I apologize for the offtop. It's just a very painful topic.

Uh-huh, this is annoying, but I want to annoy the current overlords, but I want to return serfdom by applying it to modern realities, I understand

That's why if you connect a voltage lower than the nominal value to the light bulb, it will never light up 100%, if you fill a third of the capacity into the gas tank - the car will never pass the nominal path. And if the horse is not fed, it will not give out its horsepower.
And a scientist on his salary, in addition, in order to provide himself with a minimum current standard of living, food, and sometimes support a family, he must also do "high-quality" work on this salary. Note that not "for this salary" but "for this salary". This is a clear violation of the laws of conservation of energy))) Because by current world standards, you can't do a high-quality job on a typical salary, even if you eat only grass and don't buy anything.
Advancing science now requires molecular data, and ethology requires remote observation methods, radiolabeling of recent samples, and broad time coverage (you just need to live on the spot). Eh?

In short - slave philosophy, work well - and the owner will thank you. Even if we take the meekness and humility proper to a Christian, Paul also said:
"Whether you are called a slave, do not be dismayed; but if you can become free, make use of the best."

...In short - slave philosophy, work well - and the owner will thank you. Even if we take the meekness and humility proper to a Christian, then Paul also said: "Whether you are called a slave, do not be dismayed; but if you can become free, make use of the best."

I wanted to reply, but accidentally clicked "thank you":

Matthew 7: 1-2
Judge not, that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you judge, so you will be judged; and with what measure you measure, so it will be measured to you.

Pirx, there are no accidents
But I don't understand to what extent this parable applies to my statement. Or is it just the implementation of collectivism in the scientific community, such as "let's support a friend"?
The judges are the ones who pass the sentence. In this topic, this is exactly what they do, which, by the way, is also a flood, although "legalized" in the title itself. Because initially it seems like something else was conceived, but they wanted to do the best and it turned out .. as in the BBC always(there is another option, but I will not write, I remember what happened to the Ripper))))

Pirx, there are no accidents

But I don't understand to what extent this parable applies to my statement. Or is it just the implementation of collectivism in the scientific community, such as "let's support a friend"?

... ...but I will not write, I remember what happened to the Ripper))) )

All life is made up of accidents.

Don't get angry - you'd better think about what Pirx was trying to say. This is a quote from the Sermon on the Mount, not a parable.

What happened to the Ripper?

PS
It's generally strange, but where in this topic can I find a link to an abstract published by a forum participant personally? I read this topic for a long time, and just could not follow, but now I flipped through, like nothing there? Or is there? And then here they mostly hang out, discuss and condemn those who simply cannot answer.

PS
It's generally strange, but where in this topic can I find a link to an abstract published by a forum participant personally? I read this topic for a long time, and just could not follow, but now I flipped through, like nothing there? Or is there? And then here they mostly hang out, discuss and condemn those who simply cannot answer.

Never mind, wait a bit longer...
Whose paper is it about?
So what about the Ripper?

Yes, I agree that I was mistaken, a "parable" that is not given to my understanding-who is here and who is judging. I understand that the abstracts of candidate, and / or doctoral Pirx and the author of the topic, including somewhere in this topic is? I just didn't find it, maybe?

Ask the Ripper what happened to him, and in what topic

This post was edited by Hierophis - 02/25/2011 15: 08

Yes, I agree that I was mistaken, a "parable" that is not given to my understanding-who is here and who is judging.
I understand that the abstracts of candidate, and / or doctoral Pirx and the author of the topic, including somewhere in this topic is? I just didn't find it, maybe?
Ask the Ripper what happened to him, and in what topic

Okay with the parable... You'll figure it out.
It's just that Topikstarter and Pirx had already defended themselves.
You're so mysterious... Although it is clear that sooner or later Rip would have reached him, so that he was happy...

Anger, pure anger...
Here I had such a case, I have a very good friend who graduated from the biology department, also likes to haunt current clumsy biologists (but he works in the industry, loves prosperity), that they write in their diplomas/PhD programs how it is done, how much goes into someone's paw and how much alcohol is drunk. I basically agree, but when I asked him to read his essay, for some reason he very politely and with certain subterfuges "sat down" with this topic
Here are the cases.

Anger, pure anger...
Here I had such a case, I have a very good friend who graduated from the biology department... ... ...when I asked him to read his essay, for some reason he very politely and with certain evasions "sat down" from this topic
Here are the cases.

Clear business.
Again, attention to both ideas and their implementation - down to the smallest detail, causticity is a scientist's trait. Although, perhaps, someone will disagree with me.
This is a matter for you and your friend from biofac. And if this is a hint, then it would be better to directly ask those whose works you are interested in to post them on the forum.

That's why if you connect a voltage lower than the nominal value to the light bulb, it will never light up 100%, if you fill a third of the capacity into the gas tank - the car will never pass the nominal path. And if the horse is not fed, it will not give out its horsepower.

The light bulb, the car, and the horse have no choice but to do what it is designed to do and what the laws of physics allow.

Bad Den, I absolutely agree with you on the last points
YOU always need to do your job well, otherwise it's a shame) But when you do someone else's work, you need to do it according to certain factors. But this is true, as described above-it is more typical "for life in general".
After all, a real scientist does not do work(from the word slavery), but enthusiastically learns the world, without regard to mercantile things, or not so)

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work."- in general, this would be an ideal situation, but now it is a little different "From everyone - to the maximum, to everyone-to the minimum" And it seemed to me that some people ideologically support this situation)))

"You don't have to be a poet to know what one poet has to say about another poet.
"
Dear colleagues,
I took a look at your discussion and formed several ideas.

First, most modern research is quite specialized, so only a specialist can give an adequate assessment of the work. All other people are quite free in their opinions and their expression – but it is necessary to treat such statements with some caution.

example. Mr. V. Volkov said that 45 thousand copies is "the work intensity is quite similar to a doctor's degree". I'm sorry, but it's not the activity of the procurement department that is evaluated, so we are not talking about dead beetles, but about conclusions based on them. And if all 45,000 went to prove the six-legged and two-armed ground beetles? Or: on the basis of 44.5 thousand, it was shown for the hundredth time that forest species live in forests, steppe species live in steppes, etc.And all new and original conclusions are based on a couple of hundred specimens. It's time to think about the reliability of the conclusions. Moreover, these 45 thousand do not even indicate the efficiency of the dissertation. For example, B. Y. Filippov collected 61 thousand copies in 7 years in the Arkhangelsk region. ground beetles (4-16 thousand per year); O. S. Trushitsyna in the Ryazan region collected about 12-15 thousand specimens. a year, and my colleague A.V. Matalin and I caught 54 thousand copies in the Volgograd region during the season. ground beetles. I give these figures because in all cases I can imagine how the work was organized and I can say that the fees were made equally conscientiously, and the catches differ significantly. As an expert, I can definitely say that 45 thousand rubles will be spent on the project. ground beetles in 10 years in a region like Stavropol is a sign of very modest efforts. But! All of these considerations are valid as long as we are talking about total catches by traps. If (let's say) the dissertation candidate writes about 45 thousand bitcoins – this will be evidence of exceptionally productive work. The second conclusion follows from this.

Secondly, the expert's opinion must be extremely precise and specific. I.e., the specialist can say that the conclusions are new/not new, justified/not justified, etc. Because it is the specialist who can understand and evaluate all this. Any general conclusions such as "good work / sloppy / innovative" generally do not require special knowledge and thus equate the opinion of a specialist with the opinion of other citizens. This is the professional death of a specialist. Step into the sticky swamp of social activity, where a specialist has no chance of winning.

example. I understand L. G. Bolshakov's indignation and respect his struggle "for science". But initially, he is absolutely convinced that the path he has chosen cannot lead to success. (This does not mean that I know "how to do it". Not at all).

Third, the activity of specialists depends on the world around them. Fact. In the current environment, we are seeing the following collision. Lack of funds, everyday problems, etc. force the specialist to engage not only in the actual science, but also in the organization of his "little science". Therefore, all unnecessary chores, such as completing a dissertation, participating in councils, writing reviews for essays and dissertations, etc., are perceived as an impossible hindrance and are carefully ignored. The nature of society, of course, does not tolerate emptiness. And the place of a specialist in the expert council, etc., is automatically occupied by socially active individuals-regardless of their professional competence. And they strive to evaluate their works to the best of their ideas – that is, often at the "universal" level. And monstrous descriptions of relevance, novelty, practical significance, etc. are born in their ornate and meaningless nature. First of all, because the advantages of special work should be explained to non-specialists. And the specialists mutter something unintelligible under their breath-joyless.

Here, in fact, is the tragedy of modern Russian science: a small quota of social activity of a specialist is entirely spent on self-sufficiency of his professional activity, and the ball is ruled by non-specialists. The local density of the latter may be such that they almost completely complete departments, councils, etc. And for protection in such a council, an approximate correspondence of the wording of relevance, novelty, etc.to some templates is quite sufficient. And someone X clearly knows that by fulfilling the condition Y, he will receive the desired degree in the council of Z. We are no longer talking about facts – because the analysis of facts is the lot of specialists, and the council does not have them or almost none.

Therefore, if you try to do something, then there is no point in discussing individual works/persons on separate forums. You can:
A) defend your dissertation;
B) participate in councils, etc.;
C) write negative reviews and letters to the Higher Attestation Commission.
The last point requires some clarification. A negative review of the abstract is only an "a". As a rule, such reviews are either "lost" or quietly ignored at the defense level – the council concludes that the dissertation candidate "fully answered" the comments. Generally speaking, the Higher Attestation Commission trusts the decisions of dissertation councils by default. And this is logical, since it is the Higher Attestation Commission that gives permission for the council's activities. Therefore, if the defense is properly organized, negative reviews of the abstract will not confuse anyone and will not affect the approval of the defense results in the Higher Attestation Commission. Therefore, we have to say " b " - that is, write to the Higher Attestation Commission, explain that the comments in the review of the abstract are incompatible with a successful defense, etc.Without this, all previous criticism of the dissertation is useless. In order for the Higher Attestation Commission to start discussing the case, it must receive not only a positive decision of the council, but also a reasonable negative opinion of specialists. And here it is very important that specialists show at least minimal teamwork. One letter to the Higher Attestation Commission can easily be presented as a manifestation of personal hostility, etc. Moreover, in this situation, one more effect is important – if there is sufficient critical activity of specialists, the Higher Attestation Commission will have to make a comment to the council that accepts such dissertations for defense. And this may be a more significant result.
All other sufferings for science, alas, are only sufferings.

K. Makarov

PS I repent, I looked through the previous posts "diagonally", so in some places I probably repeated what I had already said. Please excuse me.

"You don't have to be a poet to know what one poet has to say about another poet.
"
Dear colleagues,
I took a look at your discussion and formed several ideas.

First, most modern research is quite specialized, so only a specialist can give an adequate assessment of the work. All other people are quite free in their opinions and their expression – but it is necessary to treat such statements with some caution.

example. Mr. V. Volkov said that 45 thousand copies is "the work intensity is quite similar to a doctor's degree". I'm sorry, but it's not the activity of the procurement department that is evaluated, so we are not talking about dead beetles, but about conclusions based on them. And if all 45,000 went to prove the six-legged and two-armed ground beetles? Or: on the basis of 44.5 thousand, it was shown for the hundredth time that forest species live in forests, steppe species live in steppes, etc.And all new and original conclusions are based on a couple of hundred specimens. It's time to think about the reliability of the conclusions. Moreover, these 45 thousand do not even indicate the efficiency of the dissertation. For example, B. Y. Filippov collected 61 thousand copies in 7 years in the Arkhangelsk region. ground beetles (4-16 thousand per year); O. S. Trushitsyna in the Ryazan region collected about 12-15 thousand specimens. a year, and my colleague A.V. Matalin and I caught 54 thousand copies in the Volgograd region during the season. ground beetles. I give these figures because in all cases I can imagine how the work was organized and I can say that the fees were made equally conscientiously, and the catches differ significantly. As an expert, I can definitely say that 45 thousand rubles will be spent on the project. ground beetles in 10 years in a region like Stavropol is a sign of very modest efforts. But! All of these considerations are valid as long as we are talking about total catches by traps. If (let's say) the dissertation candidate writes about 45 thousand bitcoins – this will be evidence of exceptionally productive work. The second conclusion follows from this.

Secondly, the expert's opinion must be extremely precise and specific. I.e., the specialist can say that the conclusions are new/not new, justified/not justified, etc. Because it is the specialist who can understand and evaluate all this. Any general conclusions such as "good work / sloppy / innovative" generally do not require special knowledge and thus equate the opinion of a specialist with the opinion of other citizens. This is the professional death of a specialist. Step into the sticky swamp of social activity, where a specialist has no chance of winning.

example. I understand L. G. Bolshakov's indignation and respect his struggle "for science". But initially, he is absolutely convinced that the path he has chosen cannot lead to success. (This does not mean that I know "how to do it". Not at all).

Third, the activity of specialists depends on the world around them. Fact. In the current environment, we are seeing the following collision. Lack of funds, everyday problems, etc. force the specialist to engage not only in the actual science, but also in the organization of his "little science". Therefore, all unnecessary chores, such as completing a dissertation, participating in councils, writing reviews for essays and dissertations, etc., are perceived as an impossible hindrance and are carefully ignored. The nature of society, of course, does not tolerate emptiness. And the place of a specialist in the expert council, etc., is automatically occupied by socially active individuals-regardless of their professional competence. And they strive to evaluate their works to the best of their ideas – that is, often at the "universal" level. And monstrous descriptions of relevance, novelty, practical significance, etc. are born in their ornate and meaningless nature. First of all, because the advantages of special work should be explained to non-specialists. And the specialists mutter something unintelligible under their breath-joyless.

Here, in fact, is the tragedy of modern Russian science: a small quota of social activity of a specialist is entirely spent on self-sufficiency of his professional activity, and the ball is ruled by non-specialists. The local density of the latter may be such that they almost completely complete departments, councils, etc. And for protection in such a council, an approximate correspondence of the wording of relevance, novelty, etc.to some templates is quite sufficient. And someone X clearly knows that by fulfilling the condition Y, he will receive the desired degree in the council of Z. We are no longer talking about facts – because the analysis of facts is the lot of specialists, and the council does not have them or almost none.

Therefore, if you try to do something, then there is no point in discussing individual works/persons on separate forums. You can:
A) defend your dissertation;
B) participate in councils, etc.;
C) write negative reviews and letters to the Higher Attestation Commission.
The last point requires some clarification. A negative review of the abstract is only an "a". As a rule, such reviews are either "lost" or quietly ignored at the defense level – the council concludes that the dissertation candidate "fully answered" the comments. Generally speaking, the Higher Attestation Commission trusts the decisions of dissertation councils by default. And this is logical, since it is the Higher Attestation Commission that gives permission for the council's activities. Therefore, if the defense is properly organized, negative reviews of the abstract will not confuse anyone and will not affect the approval of the defense results in the Higher Attestation Commission. Therefore, we have to say " b " - that is, write to the Higher Attestation Commission, explain that the comments in the review of the abstract are incompatible with a successful defense, etc.Without this, all previous criticism of the dissertation is useless. In order for the Higher Attestation Commission to start discussing the case, it must receive not only a positive decision of the council, but also a reasonable negative opinion of specialists. And here it is very important that specialists show at least minimal teamwork. One letter to the Higher Attestation Commission can easily be presented as a manifestation of personal hostility, etc. Moreover, in this situation, one more effect is important – if there is sufficient critical activity of specialists, the Higher Attestation Commission will have to make a comment to the council that accepts such dissertations for defense. And this may be a more significant result.
All other sufferings for science, alas, are only sufferings.

K. Makarov

PS I repent, I looked through the previous posts "diagonally", so in some places I probably repeated what I had already said. Please excuse me.

Thank you for the detailed analysis. Should something change in the tips? What is the HAC's attitude to criticism?
On the website of the Higher Attestation Commission again appeared http://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&source=web&c...z2Ynr7A&cad=rjt

This post was edited by Thanatophilus - 02/28/2011 17: 00

yeah... the formation of consciousness, this does not apply to the biological sciences at all. This is pedagogy. down with the messengers from the HAC list! mom Mia... the list of published works impressed me. And the air, and plants, and consciousness, and Reflection # 2 ... cool
and unforgettable emotions

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 02/28/2011 18: 00

But they would not require settling down from teachers of peds, maybe it would be better.... There are still different specifics than in "real" universities, and even more so in academic institutions - you can not be a scientist, it seems to me... Although, of course...
I wonder if Justus will come and throw poop at me.

if you can't be, then you don't have to be. A person is defended in 2 specialties-zoology and soil science, look at the list of references - this is a stallion. KOPETS!!!
AND THESE ARE:
Atmospheric air quality as the most important factor in the relations between the biosphere and humans.
And these are:
State and use of plant resources of the Stavropol Territory
And this:
Problems of soil cover in the Stavropol Territory and ways to solve them

where is Father VAK??? Where are you looking, dear friend?
In principle, all this means only one thing - the death of our country.

horror list....

VAK _reasons_ doct. degree.....


(in general, they should have been canceled long ago... there is almost no such thing anywhere....)

VAK _reasons_ doct. degree.....
(in general, they should have been canceled long ago... there is almost no such thing anywhere....)

And transfer the VAKA functionality to the Astrakhan State University. to the university.

And transfer the VAKA functionality to the Astrakhan State University. to the university.

No. just one degree is enough (as in many countries). then careerists wouldn't have to pretend to be doctors. and career highlights, grants - by productivity indicators. and people would write books, not diss., when they are ready and it is requested, but not necessary...

From documents:

The Higher Attestation Commission makes decisions on:
2.3.1. on awarding the academic degree of Doctor of Sciences;
2.3.2. on issuing diplomas of Candidate of Sciences or on canceling the decision of the Dissertation Council on awarding the academic degree of Candidate of Sciences;
"Regulations on the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation"

5. The academic degree of Doctor of Sciences is awarded by the Higher Attestation Commission on the basis of the application of the Dissertation Council, adopted by the results of the public defense of the dissertation by the applicant with the academic degree of Candidate of Sciences, taking into account the conclusion of the relevant expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on the compliance of the submitted dissertation with the criteria established by these Regulations.
"Regulations on the procedure for awarding academic degrees"

We have to insist that the possibility of defending a particular work is primarily determined by the state of affairs "on the ground" - that is, the composition of the dis.advice and the presence of non-lazy and caring specialists.

K. Makarov

Astrakhan residents are doing great. Brave people. There, two of the opponents are specialists in sturgeon farming. And the third is in beekeeping. Aren't you ashamed!? Are they really not afraid - It will come, after all? I don't understand anything.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 02/28/2011 19: 54

Astrakhan residents are doing great. Brave people. There, two of the opponents are specialists in sturgeon farming. And the third is in beekeeping. Aren't you ashamed!? Are they really not afraid - It will come, after all? I don't understand anything.

It's already flown in once. Got out of it.

yeah... the formation of consciousness, this does not apply to the biological sciences at all. This is pedagogy. down with the messengers from the HAC list! mom Mia... the list of published works impressed me. And the air, and plants, and consciousness, and Reflection # 2 ... cool
and unforgettable emotions

Mr. Shigida, of course, should not have included a number of papers in the list published on the topic of the dissertation. Apparently, he thought that the phrase "...in the conditions of anthropogenic landscapes ... " was enough.
Well, it's hardly a sin to be interested in all of the above and publish relevant articles. Не?

it's not a sin to be interested, of course, but to publish articles with such titles? This already smacks of something beyond. Both of these formulations are worthy of an immediate degree award. I want prints of these works.

Atmospheric air quality as the most important factor in the relations between the biosphere and humans.

Problems of soil cover in Stavropol region and ways to solve them

And interseno, can any of the experts give a link to the abstract that can be considered "worthy"? Would you like it after 2005?

Abstracts by V. Dubatolov, A. Solovyov, E. Belyaev, for example:

And interseno, can any of the experts give a link to the abstract that can be considered "worthy"? Would you like it after 2005?

cand. or doct.?

Author: Reznik, Sergey Yakovlevich
Title: Ecological, ethological and physiological aspects of oviposition regulation in insects
Original reference: Reznik, Sergey Yakovlevich. Ecological, ethological and physiological aspects of oviposition regulation in insects: abstract of the dissertation.... Doctor of Biological Sciences : 03.00.09 / Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences St. Petersburg, 2005 50 p. : 9 05-11/47-7 9 05-11/48-5
Physical description: 50 pages.
Output data: St. Petersburg, 2005


Alexey V. Solov
'ev TAXONOMIC COMPOSITION AND PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS OF SLUGS OF THE GENUS PARASA AUCT. (LEPIDOPTERA, LIMACODIDAE)

03.02.05-entomology
Abstract
of the dissertation for the degree
of Candidate of Biological Sciences
Saint Petersburg-2010

www.spbu.ru/files/upload/disser/bio/2010/soloviev.pdf

A. Solovyova-without collusion! )

by the way, now the defense at St. Petersburg State University will be broadcast online.

Well, how not to mark Alex here. Brilliant work. Good boy. The listed works are a fest class. There are many good works. There are a lot of works with a sin but good, or a real specialist writes, but he is too lazy and the dissertation is so-so, although everyone knows the person as an expert. But there are also some works that do not fit anywhere-even in the elementary concepts of self-esteem.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 02/28/2011 22: 46

Thank you And is it possible to download or even how to read this abstract- "Ecological, ethological and physiological aspects of egg laying regulation in insects" without"prints"?

I read the abstract of A. Solovyov, to be honest, I don't really like taxonomy, but I liked the abstract! This is the first time I've ever heard of such a genus, and I immediately understood from the abstract where it is found, and most importantly-that we don't have anything superfluous, everything is on the topic, all articles are on the topic. There is a copostovlenie of cladograms, but molecular cladograms personally in my opinion- "for decency" ...