Popularization of the works of colleagues

I do not know how to feel about this. Clearly not the case, but... The situation from a relatively recent past is drawn in this way. Typical, I think. Here is a man sitting somewhere in the outback, stewing in his own juice, reading only what passing entomologists left in the toilet for wiping - because there are simply no other channels of information. And as a result, something crystallizes. If a person is outstanding, then Fabre. And if it's simpler , then it's good, if not Poprishchin-the king of Spain from Gogol's "Notes of a Madman". It's not laughter, it's pity. You think: if such an enthusiast got into a normal environment, he would turn out to be a "strong middle peasant", and so on... There was once such a grandfather L***. from the Pamirs, I gave out such theses... It's clear that this is an anachronism in the Internet age, but still...

I know what it's called and Pasha Morozov knows

I'm going to be at the admissions committee for the postgraduate entrance exams on Friday. There are signs that it will be as usual: preparation for textbooks of the 80s, ignorance of modern literature, inability to answer not according to the template. I really want to make a mistake in this prediction.

Well, promote duc! - Revision to the stage!

Who has it? Please give us a link.

Lastukhin A. A. Butterflies of the genus Thera Stephens, 1831 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in
the Chuvash Republic and the Volga region with a description of a new subspecies Thera britannica
oligeri ssp. n. / / Ecological Bulletin, 2002: No. 31. - pp. 3-11.

Well, promote duc! - Revision to the stage!

Enjoy:



 Lastukhin_EUPHYDRYAS.pdf

size: 9.41 mb
number of downloads: 2717

Be curious. Not an abstract, but... worthy, oh so worthy

This is good to take on the train to read

Funny theory.But only a theory.Well, I can't wait for someone to write a dissertation.And most importantly, it is almost unprovable.What now-look for fossils?
I also liked the answer about the pre-stage stage.(!)Gentlemen, if you are impatient to describe a new species / subspecies, then do it on a full cycle.And then when there is an external description of the type and color of the wing, in principle indistinguishable, then such a description can also be taken as a theory

I don't know why, but I really liked this one: Hypodryas (Hypodryas) ichnea kondor ssp. n. (Color Plate, figs. 10-11)
Holotype: male, 11.6.1980 Ural, Sverdlovsky region, Verhotursky distr., vill. Krasnaja gora, leg. A. Kondratjev
(coll.ZI St.-Petersburg).
So far

Just a little more

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 26.11.2009 08: 03

File/s:



 ___________________________2006.pdf

size: 3.93 mb
number of downloads: 1753









 _______________________________________.pdf

size: 184.71 k
number of downloads: 1722









 Astrahan_1_.pdf

size: 2.2 mb
number of downloads: 1552

Funny theory.But only a theory.Well, I can't wait for someone to write a dissertation.And most importantly, it is almost unprovable.What now-look for fossils?
I also liked the answer about the pre-stage stage.(!)Gentlemen, if you are impatient to describe a new species / subspecies, then do it on a full cycle.And when there is an external description of the type and color of the wing, which is basically indistinguishable, then this description can also be taken as a theory

Pasha, I'm sorry, but you misinterpret these states

I don't know why, but I really liked this one: Hypodryas (Hypodryas) ichnea kondor ssp. n. (Color Plate, figs. 10-11)
Holotype: male, 11.6.1980 Ural, Sverdlovsky region, Verhotursky distr., vill. Krasnaja gora, leg. A. Kondratjev
(coll.ZI St.-Petersburg).
Still    

And I know why you liked it - you can't help but like it!
Yes, this is amazing-the disappeared Kondratev is a vanished bird. The trouble is that there is no article of the ZN code that allows you to ignore this and fight it. Once upon a time, Ustyuzhanin and I (a big jolly fellow, I must pay tribute to him) wanted to establish the journal Absurd Entomology... And still thinking about new methods of taxonomy-they said that it is necessary to prick the genitals, and cook the wings and guess on the broth as on coffee grounds. Here and here in the article on the Astrakhan zap-ku type looks like a boiled body, wings under tape and genitals in a test tube. Previously, the genitals were also rolled up in scotch...

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 26.11.2009 13: 31

This is a good thing to take on a train to read

On the train that Johnny Depp's character rode to the Wild West in the movie Deadman

Who has it? Please give us a link.

Lastukhin, A. A., Butterflies of the genus Thera Stephens, 1831 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in
the Chuvash Republic and the Volga region with a description of the new subspecies Thera britannica
oligeri ssp. n., Ekologicheskiy vestnik, 2002: No. 31, pp. 3-11.

I think it should be at Zolotukhin

Thank you to the nice moderator for organizing our
topics Sincerely

I read it. First I wanted to comment. However, it is scary to comment on this. Some kind of mixture of banal incompetence and delirium.
And if a person is delusional, then it is impossible to dissuade him.

The dispute between the author of the triad theory and S. Vasilenko reminded me of the recent dispute about the crackdown of Sugercete with forumchanami.

Cool reading material for the night!
To Roman Yakovlev-many thanks!
Oh, yes! I completely forgot! There is a proposal to introduce a short course in psychiatry for teachers, members of dissertation councils, etc. in a number of universities and other scientific non-medical institutions.
In such a thematic course, you should then pay special attention to delusional disorders.

This post was edited by Morozzz - 11/27/2009 00: 59

Oh, the Frost, oh!!! That's who appreciated it. Thank you. You've given old Yakovlev a drop of balm. Livanul even in a sense.

My question is, who publishes this?

Many of those present at the forum will pass the exam-in your opinion?

Roman-you are a hammer and you are right in many points-and you address the moderator correctly-and in the case of our skirmish then-you correctly asked the moderator to remove our unflattering conversations

Many of those present at the forum will pass the exam-in your opinion?

Yes, the vast majority. I'm sure. There are no more psychos in entomology and collecting butterflies than in the Airborne Forces, programming, and other fields of activity.
Morozov is talking about the exam, not the diagnosis. About the fact that the chairmen of dissertation councils and scientific secretaries of councils can identify gross disorders of thinking and give them the correct interpretation.
All other things being equal-pedagogy councils should still be closed-where even relatively normal girls are taught to talk and think like schizophrenics. This area is a well-developed science of pseudoscientific reasonableness.

You're a doctor, and you were very good at talking about schizo in the summer.But I think that among entomologists, just the same, psychos are rarely found.Profession or hobby-still fewer psychos than in some other specialties.

You're a doctor, and you were very good at talking about schizo in the summer.But I think that among entomologists, just the same, psychos are rarely found.Profession or hobby-still fewer psychos than in some other specialties.

Schizophrenia is a democratic thing - a collective farmer, an entomologist, a physicist, an electrician-all come up short. 1% of population

I propose a toast on this occasion to all forumchanam:achievements, victories, achievements, passion, not the gray routine.Good health(in nature, on hikes, it is better).

Toast is always a good thing. I have a joy tomorrow and to prepare myself a little bit, I bought a bottle of cheap dry Gabrovo wine. Until recently, I was not a big fan of Bulgarian wines, although I started my drinking school with Ludogorsky at the age of 7-8. But after trying a few dry reds-Troyanu, Gabrovo-I realized that the Slavic brothers can do it. Can. Although he did not forgive them for their bestial behavior during the Second World War.
Health to all.
And given the fact that our mental health clings to everything-both genetics and our well-being and the well-being of our children-then for it in the first place.
If we continue to toast here, the wise Bolivar will expel us.
So I ask you to remember Mr. Albert Lastukhin, the triad theory that ornithologists need to eradicate... and what to do about it. I am frustrated by the inertia in this post.
When we discussed the prices of books in the Chikolovets series, so many people with their finger on the pulse, so many poor and destitute, so many miserly and miserly, fighting for the happiness of the proletariat - almost tore my whole mouth for the price put up by the Czechs for our book....
And when it comes to the obserania of Russian science, the impotence of editorial boards - only Frost found the strength to say something. I was counting on some kind of resonance - it turned out to be a dummy. A pity.

I remember doing an ambulance internship. On one of our visits to the sick population, a female paramedic and I were attacked by a schizophrenic woman. The call was from her husband (who regularly suffered from severe hangover), who complained of "high blood pressure", headache, malaise, etc.
In general, I was very scared, but everything turned out fine. It's a long story to tell.

And indeed, no one is immune both from the disease itself and from the actions of the person suffering from the disease. It's one thing if it's a quiet, dazed type like the character in Gogol's "Notes of a Madman", but quite another when it's a patient with catatonic excitement or manifestations of hebephrenic schizophrenia. Yes, such a person is simply socially dangerous.
And if you also complain about the "device installed in the body by special services employees" - then this is just a song!
So, Roman, there is a resonance. Although minimal, but there is. It's just that the population is still poorly aware of such things, which is why the population trusts the Malakhovs, Kashpirovskys, Chumaks and other charlatans and psychos too much.

I repeat, the whole catch here is that such people themselves perceive their delusions as indisputable things and do not have criticism for their condition. And many delusions are perceived as some fresh idea, thought or theory, and an ardent belief in delusional ideas - as dedication and perseverance.

In general, psychiatry is an interesting science. Very much so.

This post was edited by Morozzz - 28.11.2009 20: 15

Roman-it's not all that bad and shitty today.And we are Slavs.Booze is good or bad-not a very difficult question.But the classics are right-Aristotle-a little wine is medicine, a lot is poison, Socrates-the truth is in wine.I had my first drink at the end of ninth grade.Couldn't walk for 3 years-drank

So Lauret of the Nobel Prize is not immune, no, not from schizophrenia, but from dilentatism and falling into pseudoscience.

http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/kurochkin1.pdf

In general, the "creations" of physicists on biological topics too often cause "gnashing of teeth". Maybe the reason for this is a simplified view of the world around us?

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 11/28/2009 20: 49

It's just that the population is still poorly aware of such things, which is why the population trusts the Malakhovs, Kashpirovskys, Chumaks and other charlatans and psychos too much.

It's his general darkness that matters, not his psychiatric awareness. Our people are dark, dense, and profess a mystical consciousness for the most part.

Toast is always a good thing. I have a joy tomorrow and to prepare myself a little bit, I bought a bottle of cheap dry Gabrovo wine. Until recently, I was not a big fan of Bulgarian wines, although I started my drinking school with Ludogorsky at the age of 7-8. But after trying a few dry reds-Troyanu, Gabrovo-I realized that the Slavic brothers can do it. Can. Although he did not forgive them for their bestial behavior during the Second World War.
Health to all.
And given the fact that our mental health clings to everything-both genetics and our well-being and the well-being of our children-then for it in the first place.
If we continue to toast here, the wise Bolivar will expel us.
So I ask you to remember Mr. Albert Lastukhin, the triad theory that ornithologists need to eradicate... and what to do about it. I am frustrated by the inertia in this post.
When we discussed the prices of books in the Chikolovets series, so many people with their finger on the pulse, so many poor and destitute, so many miserly and miserly, fighting for the happiness of the proletariat - almost tore my whole mouth for the price put up by the Czechs for our book....
And when it comes to the obserania of Russian science, the impotence of editorial boards - only Frost found the strength to say something. I was counting on some kind of resonance - it turned out to be a dummy. It's a pity.

Roman, you're seriously calling for something to be eradicated. Well, this theory is stupid, well, the author claiming this is how to put it mildly.., well, the editorial board is weak and stupid to miss this, so what? It won't make science any worse. Don't take away the paper and pen from everyone until the certificate from the madhouse is brought. The reaction to such pseudoscientific nonsense is kg/am. And no more. You should not discuss this seriously, otherwise it will turn out like in the notorious topic about straightening. Without recognition, this scribble will fall into oblivion, without any rooting.

There is an article called that-what will have to eliminate more than one generation of ornithologists. A person describes new taxa, including those in non-existent categories - sections, forms... I report to my colleagues-elachistids are described, eufidrias are described... And they ask - what is it?.. Well, not even a question for me, but just a rhetorical one... what is it? And what I'll tell them. And I'm ashamed.
I wrote a letter to many people asking them to write to the ZN commission with many signatures. All interested parties say that something must be done... but how, what.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 28.11.2009 22: 30

There is an article called that-what will have to eliminate more than one generation of ornithologists. A person describes new taxa, including those in non-existent categories - sections, forms... I report to my colleagues-elachistids are described, eufidrias are described... And they ask - what is it?.. Well, not even a question for me, but just a rhetorical one... what is it? And what I'll tell them. And I'm ashamed.
I wrote a letter to many people asking them to write to the ZN commission with many signatures. All interested parties say that something must be done... but how, what.

I don't know why you should be ashamed. You're not his supervisor, co-author, or anything like that ...
And at the expense of working for entire generations, so today Bryophila raptricula has 13 synonyms that have accumulated from 1775 to 1962. True, since 1962, God has been merciful to this species, but for many others, the accumulation of synonyms is currently in full swing and not crazy people are contributing to this. I personally, personally know the people who described the BULLSHIT, so what? Expose it? Not specifically. The time will come and everything will fall into place.

Yes, I agree with barko.It will stall on its own.If not, it will go to a separate branch.Maybe one of us will pull along.Or maybe it won't.Not for the first time in history, after all.But here, Rum, really, a storm in a glass will not help much.So if you look at it,I don't see anyone on this forum who sits on such "weak editorial boards".Therefore, there is no point in arguing and driving empty cars.
Yes, theory, yes, stupidity-and then what?How can we specifically help and are we competent?

I will be brief - any theory has the right to life, any person has the right to voice ANYTHING. I am not a fan of discussing psychiatric issues, I think that everyone has deviations. This is a matter of views on life - here one earns money, and the second collects butterflies, 99 % will say-the butterfly farmer is sick in the head. What do you think? About the outback. Dear forumchane, again this is a matter of looking at things. Here someone sits in central universities, research institutes and does nothing, and the other sits in the fields and works, while the issue of literature is no longer relevant. I really like the idea - the one who does nothing is not mistaken, this is true, I would say super true! And then, you know, for such a person, sometimes a POSITIVE opinion of the call center is important, you can give a damn about ANY job, but finding a rational grain in the most spat-out one is a talent... Briefly, for some reason, it didn't work out.

I read these works in the field of ornithology... Bredyatina rare-if this goes, each bird instance will soon become a separate taxon As they say, there are two varieties of fool-just a fool and a fool with initiative....

So Lauret of the Nobel Prize is not immune, no, not from schizophrenia, but from dilentatism and falling into pseudoscience.

http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/kurochkin1.pdf

In general, the "creations" of physicists on biological topics too often cause "gnashing of teeth". Maybe the reason for this is a simplified view of the world around us?

Representatives of all sciences have a desire to prove their theory, and this is absolutely normal. True, physicists have a much larger apparatus precisely for obtaining evidence. The article is dated 1990, but even then there were methods and equipment for unambiguous determination of the authenticity of museum exhibits. And right now... But is it surprising that the museum staff, in order to once and for all dismiss all attacks on the inauthenticity of their "birds", did not themselves perform a spectrographic / spectrophotometric analysis in a neutral place? Maybe they themselves are not sure about the results of such an analysis?

True, physicists have a much larger apparatus precisely for obtaining evidence.

Please explain. In general, I associate the words" apparatus for obtaining evidence " with the inventory of, for example, the inquisition .

The article is dated 1990, but even then there were methods and equipment for unambiguous determination of the authenticity of museum exhibits.

Unambiguous? In my humble opinion, there is nothing "unambiguous", "precisely known", etc. in science at all. Think of the well-known Shroud of Turin.

But is it surprising that the museum staff, in order to once and for all dismiss all attacks on the inauthenticity of their "birds", did not themselves perform a spectrographic / spectrophotometric analysis in a neutral place? Maybe they themselves are not sure about the results of such an analysis?

And why? there are more than enough facts confirming the authenticity of the object. Another thing is that physicists do not understand either the morphology of feathers or the processes of fossilization, i.e. they simply do not understand what they are writing about.

It seems to me that you understood everything I wrote perfectly, but decided not to agree

Please explain. In general, I associate the words" apparatus for obtaining evidence " with the inventory of, for example, the inquisition .

This means that physicists usually have easier access to the most up-to-date equipment than representatives of other scientific fields.

 
Unambiguous? In my humble opinion, there is nothing "unambiguous", "precisely known", etc. in science at all. Think of the well-known Shroud of Turin.

It is not a problem for geophysicists at this stage of technology development to determine the approximate age by which it is possible to make an unambiguous conclusion about the authenticity of these subfossils.

 
And why? there are more than enough facts confirming the authenticity of the object. Another thing is that physicists do not understand either the morphology of feathers or the processes of fossilization, i.e. they simply do not understand what they are writing about.

Which ones exactly, what year are they dated, and who received them?
You can argue for a long time, but it's all pointless. There are no doubts from scratch, and when they can be dispelled quite easily, it is not clear why to give up?

PS I don't know the exact development of events with these birds, I was guided by the above note, maybe after 1990, they were studied, but I can't conclude from the note either about schizophrenia or about the fall into pseudoscience of the mentioned Nobel laureate.