Abstracts on entomology

I was at the defense of A. Solovyov. Och. Strongly.

Yes, it's an Asian band.

I will send S. Y. Reznik's ref. - write to me at musolin@gmail.com

There were also good PhD papers on ecophysiology-Balashov SV 2008, on taxonomy-Gapon DA 2008 - I am sure that all this is available on the Web, so I can send it.

  
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 comparison of cladograms, but molecular cladograms personally, in my opinion, are "for decency"...

For decency's sake, there's nothing there. And there are parasites in the fauna of Russia, and this is not the main thing. What's the difference between the tropical protection group or our own?.. Write reviews for such abstracts - how to sing a song.

For decency's sake, there's nothing there. And there are parasites in the fauna of Russia, and this is not the main thing. What's the difference between the tropical protection group or our own?.. Write reviews for such abstracts - like singing a song.

Yes, I also agree with this.

This post was edited by Thanatophilus - 01.03.2011 20: 43

What do you read, people?

It follows from the abstract that the degree applicant considers this gender to be purely American.

Can I have a quote?

We are talking in the revision about all the representatives of Parasa s. l. Yes, Parasa s. stricto is an American genus. And Solovyov managed to understand the chaos of green limacodids. I think he is happy to answer the questions competently. Who is very interested-write to me and I will give his address.

Any work should be done properly - even digging holes, even writing a dissertation.
I am afraid that we have already largely returned back to the level of "1913"

Maybe someday we will reach the level of 1917... in every sense

My thoughts on the part (mat. and methods) of the article by R. S. Sigida I stated in another topic: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=389350&st=50#
Message No. 60
The article is included in the list of works (Vakov's), the abstract.

In order not to be unfounded, I give my review of the author's abstract of Solovyov
's dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Biological Sciences Solovyov A.V. " Taxonomic composition and phylogenetic relationships of slugs of the genus Parasa auct. (Lepidoptera, Limacodidae)»

A.V. Solovyov's work is devoted to the study of a predominantly tropical group of Insecta – slugs, which is still quite rare in the Russian literature. Analysis of the abstract text shows that this work, in my opinion, is one of the most powerful works on lepidopterology in recent years. The following facts speak for this:
1. A very well-defined research methodology, which includes both traditional taxonomic analysis, cladistic analysis and molecular studies, which seems to be a very modern integrated approach to the study group.
2. Study all the standard material for the group. A very large amount of research material, good field research experience and long internship periods in the largest depositories in Europe.
3. VERY high publication activity – what is the cost of a two-hundred-page work on Vietnam, a revision of the family on the fauna of Russia, articles in very scrupulous journals in terms of reviewing: Nota lepidopterologica, Tinea, Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, Zoological Journal. I was somewhat surprised that Alexey Vyacheslavovich was too shy to include his article published in the Journal of Insect Science in the list of "articles in journals from the HAC list".

In general, Solovyov's work seems to me almost flawless. The only comment that can be made is the somewhat ill-advised statement in conclusion # 5 that the distribution of the genus Parasa sensu is strictly limited to the Americas, whereas the distribution map (Figure 4) shows the reader that the genus exists on both continents of the New World.

In conclusion, I would like to note some points that are not very noticeable when reading the lines of the abstract. I have repeatedly worked with a PhD candidate together at neighboring tables – in St. Petersburg, London and Munich. Alexey Vyacheslavovich is a painstaking, fast-growing, well-read young researcher who knows his group and is well-versed in general biological issues. I have often seen older European entomologists bring and send him material for identification, and on the whole huge family of slugs, and not just on green Parasas – and how he confidently coped with the requests of colleagues.

I am glad that I was able to see Solovyov's work in a fairly complete form, I wish him development and success; I urge the members of the dissertation council to definitely vote "Yes", because Alexey Vyacheslavovich undoubtedly deserves the degree of candidate of biological Sciences.

20.01.2011.

Research Associate of USBS AltSU, Candidate of Biological Sciences R. V. Yakovlev

What's interesting is that normal people defend their Ph. D. s - and all sorts of scum get into the doctor's office!

"in the doctor climb" those who already have a PhD. there are...

"in the doctor climb" those who already have a PhD. there is...

Hmm. And what, you can't write/defend your doctoral thesis without having a PhD?

Hmm. And what, you can't write/defend your doctoral thesis without having a PhD?

you can write anything you want. protect - of course not. (there are och. rare cases when during the defense of cand. The Council decides to recommend that VAC award a doctorate).

you can write anything you want. protect - of course not. (there are och. rare cases when during the defense of cand. The Council decides to recommend that VAC award a doctorate).

Often, the candidate's thesis also looks like a good thesis. We need to develop criteria for candidate and doctoral programs. Then the forum topic will disappear by itself.

funny... do you think they don't exist? No one bothered you before? ) Only pts. it's hard to standardize everything...

now there is a policy of double standards. one has to be skinned three times, and this one is useful, or feeble-minded, or very busy... There was even an idea (I have) in the neighborhood of VAK to open a vachok for those to whom these standards are relaxed once in 50 relative to others.

now there is a policy of double standards. one has to be skinned three times, and this one is useful, or feeble-minded, or very busy... There was even an idea (I have) in the neighborhood of VAK to open a vachok for those to whom these standards are relaxed once in 50 relative to others.

Precisely! I totally agree! Even abydna

On February 17, 2011 in the dissertation Council D 212.146.01 at the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Moscow State University of Forest" A.V. Myasnikova defended her PhD thesis on the topic "Dendrophil coccides of green spaces in St. Petersburg". The fact of defense was carefully hidden by the dissertation candidate from all persons who could give a qualified expert opinion on the specified topic. Below are some quotes from an extensive appeal to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation, signed by four employees of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, including specialists in coccidology. For full versions of the abstract and appeal – see the attached files.

…... In the section" Relevance of the topic "it is said that coccids have the ability to" penetrate plantings at all stages of development." This statement is completely illiterate; most coccid species have only one mobile stage of the life cycle – the first instar larva...
.........It goes on to say: "Despite the well-known facts about the harmfulness of coccidae in urban conditions, this group of insects is practically ignored. For example, no coccid studies have been conducted on the territory of St. Petersburg since 1968." This statement is deliberate misinformation. St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region are the most studied regions of Russia with respect to coccidae.
……Everything that is written by the dissertation candidate in the section "Scientific novelty of research" again does not correspond to reality. The abstract contains absolutely nothing new, moreover, it indicates that the dissertation candidate does not know what has been known for a long time.
…..On page 4 of the abstract, it is stated that "the species composition of dendrophilous coccidae in St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast is represented by twenty species"; however, in fact, at least 28 species of coccidae are found in this region, which are associated trofically with tree and shrub vegetation (Danzig, 1959; Gavrilov, 2005). On the same page, the only attempt in the entire abstract is made to name the coccidae suborder with an international Latin name. The attempt was unsuccessful, as a result, instead of the insect name coccidea (Coccinea or Coccoidea), Coccidea is written, that is, "coccidia" - single-celled parasitic organisms.
…...On page 7 of the 20 types, seven are misspelled in the names or surnames of the authors, in particular, diacritics are completely missing. 11 of the 20 species mentioned on this page, according to A.V. Myasnikova, are not found in St. Petersburg, which, however, is presented by her as a certain result of research. With the same success, it was possible to list not 11, but, for example, 110 species of coccidae that were not found in St. Petersburg. The remaining 9 species are the most common, widespread everywhere in urban plantings of St. Petersburg, Europe and the European part of Russia, thoroughly studied both in Russia and abroad. For each of these types, there is a vast scientific literature in different languages, literature about which the dissertation candidate does not have the slightest idea.
Phenacoccus mespili Signoret, which was mentioned by a number of old Soviet authors (and thoughtlessly copied by Myasnikova from their works), is an incorrect definition of Ph. transcaucasicus Hadzibejli and is found on the territory of Russia only in the south of the European part (Rostov region, Volga region) (see, for example, Danzig, 2003).
Pulvinaria betulae is a junior synonym of Pulvinaria vitis. In addition to this species, a twin species Pulvinaria ribesiae Signoret, 1873, which differs slightly morphologically from P. vitis (= P. betulae), but has a different number of chromosomes, is found on the same forage plant species in St. Petersburg (Drozdovsky, 1966; Malumphi, 1991; Gavrilov and Trapeznikova, 2008). Most likely, the dissertation candidate does not even know about the existence of this species, just as she does not know about the special dissertation research of Christopher Malumfi (1991), devoted to the complex of Pulvinaria vitis species, in particular their ecology and lifestyle. Of course, for this reason, all the arguments and tables of Myasnikova concerning the "birch cushion" are devoid of any meaning.
The apple comma-shaped scutellum (Lepidosaphes ulmi Linnaeus) is represented everywhere by bisexual and parthenogenetic populations, which differ from each other and in their ecological features, in particular, the range of forage plants. This fact is not taken into account in any way by A.V. Myasnikova. Meanwhile, thousands of scientific articles are devoted to the ecological research of this species. In particular, in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, this species was studied in detail by E. M. Danzig (1959a, 1959b; for a review, see Danzig, 1993).
The author of the species Planococcus vovae is Nasonov, not Linnaeus and Nasonov.
…...On page 6, it says that " In 2007-2008, the chiliga false shield was found in yard plantings along with the acacia false shield and apple shield on the rose hips." In fact, the chiling false shield (Eulecanium caraganae) is a monophage of yellow acacia and can not be found on wild rose in any way. This species was generally accidentally introduced to Leningrad in the fifties of the last century from the southern regions of the USSR together with a forage plant, and at first it was locally harmful, but then it was completely suppressed by a local species of parasitic horseman Encertus infidus (see the monograph Sugonyaev and Wu Quang Kon, 1979).
…..On page 8, the table and text report some mythical patterns of "distribution of dendrophilous coccid species in various ecological categories". Working for many years with coccidae of St. Petersburg, Leningrad region, Russia and some of the world's fauna, we can state that the presented "patterns" do not correspond to reality and contradict even common sense......
.......Kermes quercus, repeatedly mentioned in the abstract of the dissertation, at least in the last 10 years, is extremely rare in St. Petersburg plantings, as a rule, in the form of single individuals and does not cause any harm to forage plants (oak), contrary to the statements of the dissertant. In this regard, we have no doubt that the given diagrams (Figures 2 and 3), as well as Tables 3 and 4, indicating the dynamics of the abundance of this species and the state of forage plants, are falsifications.....
….. In the same section and the corresponding tables 3 and 4, the most ridiculous parameter appears – the number of kermes individuals per square decimeter. First, in order to actually calculate such a parameter, you need to somehow calculate the surface area of the trunk and branches of the tree, then cut down this tree and strip it of all the coccids sitting separately in the cracks of the bark and on thin branches,and then divide the second number by the first. Secondly, why do we need such a parameter at all? This is as crazy as, for example, counting the number of squirrels per square meter of oak..
......... There is no time and effort to list here all the other small innumerable mistakes and absurdities that we noticed in the abstract. Let us note only in conclusion that the dissertation under discussion has a chance to enter the history of coccidology and entomology for a long time as an example of falsification, fraud and anecdotal illiteracy.

Signed: E. M. Danzig, I. A. Gavrilov, A.V. Stekolshchikov, E. S. Sugonyaev.

Photo by A. V. Myasnikova:

Pictures:

Myasnikova.jpg — (108.18к)



File/s:



 Appeal.pdf

size: 206.48 k
number of downloads: 1377









 MyasnikovaReferat.doc

size: 304.5 k
number of downloads: 715

The dissertation candidate expresses his gratitude to E. Danzig...
And what about the scientific supervisor, that is, A. Selikhovkin? Is there any reaction on his part?

Another appeal from an employee of the ZIN RAS.

In view of the recently frequent cases of defending dissertations of a low scientific level, bypassing logic and the established defense procedure, I consider it necessary to draw the attention of the Higher Attestation Commission to the defense of A.V. Myasnikova's PhD thesis on "Dendrophil coccides of green spaces in St. Petersburg", which took place on February 17, 2011. The defense took place in the dissertation Council D 212.146.01 at the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Moscow State Forest University". This defense is a typical example of the established scheme of protection of low-grade works, in which specialists on the topic of the dissertation are not informed about the ongoing defense in order to avoid criticism of the dissertation work on their part.

Thus, the choice of the leading organization and opponents for the dissertation of A.V. Myasnikova was carried out in violation of the requirements of the "Regulations on the procedure for awarding academic degrees". The aim of the dissertation was "to study the structure of dendrophil coccidae complexes in various ecological categories of urban plantings and to establish the role of dendrophil coccidae in the weakening and death of green spaces". That is, this work is devoted on the one hand to the study of coccid faunistics and ecology, and on the other hand, to the protection of urban tree plantations from representatives of this group. Moreover, judging by the tasks set and the content of the work, most of it is devoted to faunistics and ecology (3 tasks out of 4) and much less-to plant protection.

According to the" Regulations", dissertation councils appoint official dissertation opponents from among scientists who are competent in the relevant branch of science. In other words, the Dissertation Council D 212.146.01 should have appointed at least one opponent for the dissertation of A.V. Myasnikova, a specialist in faunistics and ecology of coccids. However, this was not done. In a special way, it should be noted that coccids are an extremely specialized and peculiar group, sharply differing in all their characteristics (including ecological ones) from other groups of insects, so not every entomologist can give a qualified review of the work on coccids, but only a specialist in this group. The "Regulation" also states that institutions that are widely known for their achievements in the relevant branch of science should be designated as leading organizations. The Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences is the most authoritative Russian organization in the field of zoology (ecology, faunistics, morphology and systematics of animals). I must say that the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences is the only organization in Russia that employs specialists in coccidology. However, in the case of the A.V. defense, For some reason, the St. Petersburg Scientific Research Institute of Forestry was appointed as the leading organization by Myasnikov. And this is despite the fact that the dissertation under consideration, dedicated to the study of coccidae in St. Petersburg, has nothing to do with forestry.

In addition, A.V. Myasnikova did not even send the abstract of her dissertation to any of the Russian coccidologists. Not a single employee of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Department of Entomology of St. Petersburg State University received an abstract of her dissertation, nor did the libraries of these institutions receive an abstract. The mentioned specialists were not even informed verbally or in writing about the upcoming defense. Moreover, when I met A.V. Myasnikova on the eve of her defense and asked her how her work was progressing, I received the answer that the situation with her work was still the same. All of the above points to the deliberate concealment by the dissertation candidate of information about her defense from specialists in the field of research. The reasons for this concealment can be found by reading the abstract of the dissertation. The abstract file was discovered by employees of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the Internet after its protection. Reading this abstract causes a number of serious comments, which, if taken into account, in my opinion, would contribute to the decision of the dissertation council on the non-consideration of the academic degree of A.V. Myasnikova. The most significant of these many observations are listed below...

For more information, see in the attached file.

File/s:



 ________________________________.pdf

size: 101.79 k
number of downloads: 649

why did you put up the photo? If you don't need it, remove it. The topic is too serious to be decorated with photos of girls. the problem is academic supervisors looking for professorships, academic councils that are ready to do anything to support the number of defenses per year. The problem of the bestial policy of the state and the complete moral decay of a significant number of researchers who are ready to put their signature for the sake of fishing, for the sake of hours in another university. I.e., general problems of moral morality and poverty of the country. I think that Ms. Myasnikova is not to blame for anything - there can be no complaints about candidates (more precisely, applicants) - there are complaints about managers. They would have kicked out a dozen shitty managers from universities and institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences and similar organizations (or cut off the phalanx of a finger) and the rest would have thought with their brains. HEAD OFFICE!
by the way, it is not appropriate for the appealing party to act anonymously. Taking into account the fact that there are comments like "On page 7 of 20 types, seven are given with errors in the names or surnames of authors, in particular, diacritics are completely absent" - I understand that you have encountered not the worst work. Read the abstract page - there will be a lot of interesting things about new doctors of science.
Not being an expert on coccides , I can't evaluate this work, but something tells me in the names of the authors of the appeals...
By the way, I should have written 4, not one...

I think that Ms. Myasnikova is not to blame for anything - there can be no complaints about candidates (more precisely, applicants) - there are complaints about managers.

I disagree with this thesis.
"Not job seekers like this-life is like this" ? But after all, no one pulls applicants with tweezers for the genitals to defend a deliberately shitty job for the sake of a degree...

I disagree with this thesis.
"Not job seekers like this-life is like this" ? But after all, no one pulls applicants with tweezers for the genitals to defend a deliberately shitty job for the sake of a degree...

"But no one wants to protect applicants with tweezers for their genitals" meme

I disagree with this thesis.
"Not job seekers like this-life is like this" ? But after all, no one pulls applicants with tweezers for the genitals to defend a deliberately shitty job for the sake of a degree...

I agree in part, because sometimes the applicant does not even know what is good and what is bad. In addition, sometimes the manager may say - yes, bullshit, now is the time, we will break through... Some people in Siberia defend themselves in botany, not knowing that there is a Russian botanical society, but having a high-class magazine like Turchaninovia at hand, they send their opuses to the next bulletin, where no one will see them. if you take a thousand candidates of sciences, whose work can be objectively assessed as weak and put them in a time machine to transfer to other scientific supervisors, then they will have other works (at least 900), and 100 pieces will not be brought to the defense.
And you, Vlad, I'm sorry - you don't write well at all.

"But after all, no one pulls applicants with tweezers for the genitals to protect" meme

We should add it to lurcomoar in the "local memes" section

I agree in part, because sometimes the applicant does not even know what is good and what is bad.

It won't do. This is excusable for a teenager, but not for an adult.

I totally agree. But a lot depends on the activity of the manager. Of course, there are cases - a person is passionate about himself, he wants to study all the time-then he just needs to be helped. But this is not always the case. Soon there will be butterflies shooting out of a nearby village-take my word for it. Ehxx.

no, we have a very nice science. especially in the field of generational change and scientific schools.

Stas, science is what is published in scientific journals. Scientific journals, these are all journals except Rabotnitsa, Murzilka and Vestnikov (author's opinion). And dissertations have a very indirect relation to science. You can have 10 theses, but not be a scientist. You can be a brilliant scientist, but not be a candidate. Take Yu. P. Korshunov. Doctor's degree (in those years), but I didn't even defend my PhD. About 25 years ago, guys like the doctors discussed above would not have been able to defend their diplomas with such nonsense.

Planococcus vovae Linnaeus Nassonov this is just insanity!!!!

that's bullshit... I'll tell you honestly. This may also be a typo. You need to look at the root. Actual errors. The work is not in entomology, but in general agricultural sciences, etc. Although it hits the eyes. I don't dispute it

Roman, I don't agree with you. In addition to journal science - sleek, properly designed, beautifully presented - there are at least two other aspects of it. The first is applied work. Quite often - related to huge inconveniences, dirt, poor or limited nutrition, and other problems (field work). The second is a scientific school. Training of personnel. After all, they do not defend these dissertations to show their parents, do they? They spend time, effort, and money. All this is in order to engage in science in the future, and receive certain dividends from it: either basic research, or field and other applied aspects, or teaching. Worst of all, if such incompetence goes to the "forge of science" - dozens of minds disfigured by ignorance will be the product of such a "scientific school".

forge forge. I can hear the hammers in their forges. I think the surrounding village will soon give us a pack of candidates. A doctor should become a professor. I feel sorry for their students.

Sigida R. S. Prishol the end: http://vak.ed.gov.ru/ru/results/

There is essentially no protection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And why is it possible to post only abstracts in this topic for discussion? <...> It seems to me that the topic was created not in order to criticize the bud. candidate to the nines, showing him that his work is worthless, but in order, on the contrary, to help future candidates write decent works, so that many special experts would speak out and make comments, amendments and indicate for shortcomings and mistakes, because the opinion of one manager is good, but the opinion of 5-7 specialists, each of whom will see some shortcomings, is even better. Isn't that right?

Of course it is.
I'm doing my bit, hoping to "help future candidates write decent papers."
[When students ask me to "read out" a list of academic literature on (some) topic, I start with a list of textbooks belonging to "pen afftaraf", concluding which, I add: "Don't read it!". If the "joke" is not clear, I will explain: those who can write - now och. a lot, but "literate" among them-och. and och. few.
You can"help future candidates" by moving "from the opposite", i.e. showing why you can't write "this way".
N'duk let's go?
- Pa-a-rode!
To understand how to write "you can't", take the article " Woodworms (Lepidoptera, Cossidae) Korean Peninsula" (//Eurasian Entomological Journal. 2005. Vol. 4. Issue 4. pp. 341-344).
First remark.
Article title - "none": Kossids of the Korean Peninsula-shto??? (...xia somehow, in a special way? that is, to put it "academically", it is not clear from the title of the "article" what its content is about: whether it is about the morphology of cossids, or about their ecology, or about taxonomy, etc. From the abstract, we learn that "The article provides an updated list of Cossidae of the Korean Peninsula, including 7 species, one of which is given for the first time "[in afigenno "other" scopes, I will note the" poorest "lexical stock of the aftar: in one sentence – twice "given"; and this is only Abstract, and as an illustration of forum rhetoric, which is almost identical to the language of the "article":

So thinking for myself, I ask people who know.

Afiget, - still "thinks for himself"...].
That is, in the "article" we are not talking about the kossids of the Korean peninsula "vaapshche", but only their "updated" list [pra actually "clarification" - another time...]
So, there is a discrepancy between the content of the "article" and its title (in "normal" dissent councils for such software they beat me on the head, I-kind-beat my graduate students for this with a belt on ...pe).

publish articles with such titles? It already smacks of something transcendent

A variant of the "valid" name is "Clarification to the list of kossids of the Korean peninsula". (Note - not "clarifications", but only "clarification"; we'll come back to that later, I guess).
The psychology of "aftar"is clear:" Well, what is a "Clarification"? "clarification" - not "cool", " Woodworms (Lepidoptera, Cossidae) Korean Peninsula" - oh yes! cool! "(on 3 pages? Yes nicho, will suffer...)
But the" trick " is not buried here... Aftar (the schemer, probably) is silent (to be honest, so to speak: malchit, as ... typing in his mouth) about the author of the "list", which he (the"secondary", so to speak, Aftar) clarifies. N'dyk, who gave (published) the" list "of kossids of the Korean Peninsula, which our "aftar ""clarifies"?
Note two.
The illustrations, which occupy almost a quarter of the volume of the "article", have nothing to do with the" topic " of the Korean peninsula. Figure 1-2: < > Primorsky Krai, Russia; Figure 3-8: < ... > Primorsky Krai, Barabash-Levada; <...> Pogranichny; Southern Urals, Chelyabinsk; Novosibirsk region, Karasuk." Figure 3-8 shows" pipisks " (I will add from myself) of butterflies (who drew them, ... y knows him, - aftar did not bother to indicate). Not, well, normal:" members " of butterflies from the Novosibirsk region (and then who am I-Korean?) and Chelyabinsk ("Nasha Rasha" maybe, at-night watched?) as an illustration of the great butterflies of Korea (and why not Australia?)...
Not a single illustration with the word "Korea"in the caption. Nizachot!
Uffff! Skolkabukafnavalazhpaltsyzabaleliaestmessages-yaylbibeeek ... Well, how else?

Thank you for your criticism.

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