Red Data Book of the Ryazan region. Entomology

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Red Data Book of the Ryazan region. Entomology

mikee, 15.04.2009 16:44

Preamble: Brief history of the issue. Problem statement.
A little over a year ago, I met Marina Vasilyevna Kazakova, a botanist, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, head of the Department of Ryazan State University, etc. She is an active defender of the region's biodiversity and one of the authors of the Ryazan Region's CC. At first, he was lightly obstructed for catching Red Book butterfly species, and later they argued over the issues of CC both in personal meetings and in correspondence. Now the preparation of the planned reissue of the KKK has begun.Marina Vasilyevna believes that our community can provide practical assistance to the region (once every 10 years, i.e. in 2011).
By agreement with Marina Vasilyevna, I start this topic. We need your help in the following areas:
1. maximum possible and complete information on the facts and places of catching insects in the Ryazan region;
2. ideas and their discussion on various aspects of the compilation and content of the new edition of the CC (section Insecta).
Please note that in this case, the discussion will take place BEFORE the publication, and not after, as is usually the case. Marina Vasilyevna promises that, if possible (you are all well acquainted with our reality), our comments and recommendations will be taken into account, although, of course, there can be no guarantees here. I hope that Marina Vasilyevna and other specialists working directly on the CC will not only read our discussion, but also actively participate in the discussion (if it works out).
At the moment, materials on the capture of Red Book butterflies from mikee and kotbegemot have been submitted on the first issue. On the second question to Marina Vasilyevna, I forwarded our discussions on this forum ("CC and insects"). http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=90568 and " Announcements of new literature "( CC MO) http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=177764&st=100) as well as materials on the problems of QC in the regions of Russia, kindly provided by kotbegemot.
I hope for your active and creative participation. Thank you in advance and I hope that something useful will come out of this.

This post was edited by mikee - 04/15/2009 21: 11

Comments

Pages: 1 2 3 4

15.04.2009 16:45, mikee

Reference. List of entomofauna species in Russia.regions (first edition of the CC, 2001).
The first edition has a circulation of 2,600 copies, and is not available in electronic form on the Internet. Therefore, I present a list of species in the taxonomy of the original:

ODONATA: Aeschna viridis, Anax imperator, Sympetrum pedemontanum, Libellula fulva

COLEOPTERA: Calosoma inquisitor, Calosoma sycophanta, Cicindela avenaria, Carabus nitens, Carabus violaceus, Carabus scabriusculus, Dytiscus latissimus, Necydalis major, Osmoderma eremita, Gnorimus octopunctatus, Potosia marmorata, Potosia aeruginosa, Cercoma Schaefferi, Meloe variegatus

HYMENOPTERA: Scolia hirta, Parnopes grandior, Episyron funereipes, Sceliphron destilatorium, Stizus perrisii, Bembecinus tridens, Prosopis nigrita, Andrena carbonaria, Andrena albopunctata, Andrena gallica, Melitturga clavicornis, Halictus xantopus,Halictus costulatus, Rophitoides canus, Systropha curvicornis, Systropha planidens, Dasypoda argentata, Lithurgus fuscipennis, Paranthidiellum litorarum, Stelis punctuletissima, Megachile bombycina, Megachile rotundata, Ammobatoides abdominalis, Triepeolus tristis, Epeloides coecutiens, Tetralonia pollinosa, Ceratina cyanea, Xylocopa valga, Bombus confusus, Bombus maculidorsis, Bombus solstitialis, Bombus jonellus, Bombus muscorum, Bombus proteus, Bombus pomorum, Bombus ruderatus, Bombus serrisquama, Bombus sichelii, Bombus schrencki, Bombus fristis, Dolichoderus quadripunctatus, Diplorhoptrum fugax

TRICHOPTERA: Glyphotaelius pelucidus, Limnophilus nigriceps

LEPIDOPTERA: Korscheltellus lupulinus, Zygaena ephialtes, Parnassius mnemosyne, Parnassius apollo, Zerinthia polyxena, Iphiclides podalirius, Colias palaeno, Coenonimpha hero, Erebia ligea, Nymphalis L-album, Melithea phoebe, Brenthis daphne, Nordmannia spini, Lycaena helle, Cupido minimus, Scolitantides orion, Glaucopsyche alexis, Maculinea alcon, Maculinea telejus, Plebejus argyrognomon, Polyommatus coridon, Polyommatus daphnis, Carcharodus alceae, Carcharodus flocciferus, Muschampia tessellum, Pyrgus alveus, Pyrgus serratulae, Hesperia comma, Eudia pavonia, Stauropus fagi, Leucodonta bicoloria, Arichanna melanaria, Malacosoma castrensis, Lemonia dumi, Catocala sponsa, Catocala electa, Catocala pacta, Municia lunaris, Euchalsia consona, Callimorpha dominula, Epatolmis caesarea

Likes: 1

15.04.2009 16:46, mikee

For the seed, I put up for discussion a provocative question : is CC needed at all, to whom and why? I think that the answer to this question may help to structure our discussion

For example, I use the CC only as a reference on the habitats and rarity of species. Moreover, as a reference book, the CC does not satisfy me, for example, because of the incompleteness of information about the biodiversity of the region. Simply put, there are not enough checklists.
For a wide range of users, the CC circulation is clearly insufficient, especially given the lack of an electronic version on the Internet.
I do not understand the CC's recommendations on security measures, as these measures are either unworkable in practice or controversial. I do not understand how it is possible to protect species that are economically important for the population (edible mushrooms or berries, for example

) or species that have no practical significance for the population (mosses, lichens, nondescript and very small insects, etc.).
To satisfy the ambitions of a narrow circle of authors?

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

20.04.2009 20:23, алекс 2611

I looked at the list of stinging hymenoptera. I got the impression that such regional books don't make much sense. Most of the species are common and frequently encountered insects, whose existence is generally not threatened. Just in the Ryazan region, they are located on the northern border of their habitat. At least Scolia hirta, Parnopes grandior, Sceliphron destilatorium, Bembecinus tridens, Melitturga clavicornis, Halictus costulatus, Systropha curvicornis, Lithurgus fuscipennis, Stelis punctuletissima, Megachile rotundata, Triepeolus tristis were caught in large numbers several hundred hundred kilometers to the south. In the south of European Russia, common species.
The presence of Prosopis nigrita, Rophitoides canus and Epeloides coecutiens in the list is surprising. It is very difficult for me to call these species rare in the Ryazan region. Maybe in the Ryazan region, the bee fauna was not really studied? During my two-week stay in the village of Novoselki, Ryazan region, I caught these species repeatedly and I got the impression that these species are quite common in the Ryazan region.

This post was edited by alex 2611-20.04.2009 20: 28

Likes: 5

21.04.2009 16:38, Yakovlev

My friends, you are digging your own grave. If you bring argyrognomone to the CC, then soon in Europe you will be transferred to the prisons even without the vaunted apollo in the boxes. Well, what is it? Melithea Phoebe, argyrognomon, Alexis - that's nonsense. Drawing up such CC's is a misunderstanding. I'm sorry.
He himself participated in the compilation and was an editor of the CC of the Altai Republic and the Altai Territory. I've removed Swallowtail, Phoebe, Nomion, and Admiral from the list. Throw out everything except apollo and mnemosyne from the list, because this is CITES. If everyone in European Russia introduces banal trans-Palearctic whiteflies and pigeons, this will lead sooner or later to sad misunderstandings. Be more careful.

Likes: 2

21.04.2009 21:44, mikee

My friends, you are digging your own grave. If you bring argyrognomone to the CC, then soon in Europe you will be transferred to the prisons even without the vaunted apollo in the boxes. Well, what is it? Melithea Phoebe, argyrognomon, Alexis - that's nonsense. Drawing up such CC's is a misunderstanding. I'm sorry.
He himself participated in the compilation and was an editor of the CC of the Altai Republic and the Altai Territory. I've removed Swallowtail, Phoebe, Nomion, and Admiral from the list. Throw out everything except apollo and mnemosyne from the list, because this is CITES. If everyone in European Russia introduces banal trans-Palearctic whiteflies and pigeons, this will lead sooner or later to sad misunderstandings. Be more careful.

Well, mnemosyne is not on the CITES list (http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml), so you will have to leave one Apollo and then it is not clear why

, Secondly, why then the CC at all, if there will be nothing in it?

And third, why didn't you throw everything out of the Altai Territory CC, leaving as many as 32 species?
Roman, please formulate your ideas about the ideal CC

Likes: 3

22.04.2009 11:20, А.Й.Элез

What types – the second question. The first question is what the redness of this very book will mean. So, the meaning of the CC in relation to insects is exclusively the protection of biotopes, all phrases about the collection or even about the destruction of individuals of any stage should be excluded. And the protection of the biotope should not mean that everywhere where Apollo flew, you can not pick cleanings or pick strawberries. It is necessary to limit the protection of insects exclusively to the protection of the landscape as a whole from destruction in the form of excavation, development, agricultural use, chemical treatment, etc.

Of course. this measure is not absolute, but it is better not to think of anything. It is not absolute because other types without human activity will be covered (we have already discussed this here). Weather anomalies, and in general time, sooner or later in the middle zone negate all sedimentation with afforestation (how many times have I seen this in my lifetime), and we are supposed to extinguish forest fires. This is what we should think about, and not about the protection of individual specimens of species confined to a settled area. I don't remember if I gave an example: in the vicinity of Donino (Ramenskoye district), there was a huge clearing a few years ago, which once completely burned out in the spring. In place of pala, in a matter of years, the comma thickhead appeared in a completely unthinkable amount for the MOD. In three years, there is not a trace of this species left there, as the clearing is overgrown with tree debris, and in a few more years there will already be a real forest. Once species were compensated for the depression in numbers in one place by an increase in numbers in another, but now there are no fires anywhere, and only human intervention helps such species – cutting down gas pipelines, power lines, laying roads (which, as you know, have an exclusion zone).

Over time, oligotrophic swamps also die. Forests are being cut down, the load of air masses moving downwards on the remaining forests increases, so look at what happened to the north-western part of the Batkovsky swamp a few years ago: trees were felled by a hurricane, the swamp was sharply dried up by the sun and in recent years, having dried up, begins to overgrow with small forest in that place; a few years later, in that place you won't see anything like the original landscape. The Crane swamp to the north-east of Beloomut was also covered, all due to purely natural factors. And the human factor has contributed a lot to the disfigurement of landscapes at one time, when the backfill of swamps that played the role of drainage turned the surrounding forests into a wet dump, or when the formation of anthropogenic drainage below or at the level of the upper swamp turned it into a dry mass of peat, once a swamp. Will the CC handle all these issues? And without this, all the protection of insects is complete nonsense. It's either do it or don't do it. The Moscow CC has a heartfelt foreword by Luzhkov, and the MO CC has Gromov, but which of them would prefer the preservation of optilet or Apollo to kickbacks for construction? Which of them would prefer that his wife was not on the list of billionaires, but on the list of poor fighters for mnemosyne?

For particularly vulnerable species, the CC should, in theory, provide for a complete conservation of the territory. But who will do it? And if they do... Those who work in such territories know that an independent entomologist can break his net there if he wants, but mansions will be built there for a sweet soul. Only so that from the cable car they are not very visible to "dear Russians".

As for the question of species, it requires first solving a small question: what are the minimum limits of the area in which we consider it necessary to preserve the complete set of zonal fauna and flora? For example, if tomorrow they publish the CC of a village, it will be impossible to put a bathhouse in it and dig up an extra bed in your garden. Therefore, you do not need to get senile. CC of Yakutia (the one that is about the size of India) - this can be understood. And whether a CC is needed for each region in the middle band is a big question. Authors, of course, need it, and legislators-prohibitionists need something to eat. But nature? If the view disappeared in this particular neighborhood, what's the problem if it is in the neighboring ones on the right and left? Life goes on, you can't get anywhere. Not every neighborhood has to be Noah's Ark. The butterfly can continue to exist in abundance on the territory of the republic, without necessarily remaining in each of the village councils where it was yesterday, and the village council does not need to fall into hysteria from its disappearance on its territory. For the view, the light did not converge in a wedge on this area. You need to set the minimum boundaries of the region that has the right to its own CC, and then after the CC of the mountains. From Moscow, we are about to see the Lotoshinsky district Construction Complex... Of course, if the species is represented only at a given point and is represented within a huge zoogeographic area, then it is necessary to protect it there in a point-by-point manner, but this can already be done at the level of large CC's, and not local ones.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 04/22/2009 11: 22

Likes: 9

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

22.04.2009 18:33, А.Й.Элез

I totally agree!
Biotope protection. Creation of reserves, nature monuments, and wildlife sanctuaries. Protection of birds and mammals is one thing (you may remember the story about local officials and rich people from Moscow who crashed in a helicopter in the Altai Mountains), who shot mountain sheep from a turntable. That's one thing!
Protection of insects is the protection of their habitats.
The principles of drawing up protected lists are to exclude widely used species unambiguously.
Question on Apollo. This is one of the most common butterflies in the Altai. And what to do - you need to include-CC RF, CITES...

By the way, is there a way to bypass these higher-level CC's? In my opinion, the trouble is that no one is trying to do this, because the more types you cram in, the larger the volume of publication in the author's sheets will be.

But if the method of large CC initially provided only the level of species for insects, then what prevents the local CC from stipulating, with all external respect for the protection of some other subspecies of this species, that, say, our local subspecies is not threatened? After all, to completely ignore the completely cloudless situation in a particular region with a specific subspecies for the sake of CITES or the CC of the Russian Federation, which boasts the entire species (and even that one is sometimes not chosen according to the mind) – is not idiocy? In the end, isn't it time to follow scientific considerations in drawing up the CC, and not just take it under the visor? You can even nominally include a species imposed from above, but write the article as if everything is all right with your head: literally indicate that the species is currently subject to protection in accordance with such and such a higher CC and is included in this local CC solely on this basis, but is not threatened in this region (and it does not migrate to other countries from here) and does not require any security measures at all, moreover, it should even be specified that targeted security measures for this type (i.e. In this area, it would only hinder the protection of truly threatened species and thus only harm what both large and local CC are designed for. That is, to approach the matter creatively and thereby create a precedent, you need to start analyzing these green debris from somewhere.

In the end, the question of measures is at the discretion of scientists who make up a specific regional CC! Besides, every region can't wait for the UN to give the go-ahead to declare a species non-threatened. After all, it is those who work locally who know the local conditions. You need to start on the ground, and then let the higher-level CC grow smarter from edition to edition based on the data of regional CC! When scientists have already expressed their opinion on the regional CC, then let them scratch the turnips of both CITES and the CC of the Russian Federation, and then let them clarify their sprawling lists. After all, a view consists of subspecies, etc., and not vice versa. The world consists of countries and regions, and not the Ryazan region - of the Russian Federation and CITES! Why turn everything upside down, when it is the higher-level ones who should summarize the data from the field? After all, the Red Book is not yet a legislative act (where the vertical is exclusively unidirectional), it may well allow scientists to be guided first of all by the truth, and only then by the rest. If the form is included, and a dash is placed in the column on measures, any formalist in a litigious case will then simply choke on his higher CC, because the law, if there is no agreement in the expert community (that is, if even scientists do not agree among themselves), states the presence of doubt and, accordingly, requires taking the side of the accused. So maybe it wouldn't be a big problem if the CC was made up wisely... By the way, the CC for the Ministry of Defense is already a significant step forward in this regard. There, in those articles that were compiled by serious authors, the old chatter about "collecting" is no longer there.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 04/22/2009 18: 34

Likes: 3

Pages: 1 2 3 4