Is it worth investing in butterflies?

Not worth it... There is nowhere to invest in a butterfly, the abdomen is small. Although, if in hawkmoth or tropical Saturnia, then you can cram one small bill if you try. Better in larger beetles, they are stronger and more reliable!

...
It's the same story with beetles. The sawyers from Thailand that Taler brought had their sawyers chewed off just like that. One eupatorus has someone sitting in its belly, constantly spilling dust, which just did not do-in vain.
...

And freezing didn't help?

damn... for Guest-and this is me fleymanul.

Long poddrezhivayu such an idea And even pictures - not glavoe, for me the main thing-the campaign itself, caught someone-well, did not catch-well, let it, photographed, no-also not the most glanvoe, well, rather it matters to share photos, at least on the same site.

Collections should be scientific, in the full sense, not just with labels, but located in scientific institutions, stored using modern technologies. And so, the decay will take its toll, nature is just trying to return what is rightfully due to it, so all living things get into the most sealed boxes in order to return to the cycle of substances what was taken from there

In butterflies, you need to invest not money, but your soul! IMHO finitely

Long poddrezhivayu such an idea And even pictures - not glavoe, for me the main thing-the campaign itself, caught someone-well, did not catch-well, let it, photographed, no-also not the most glanvoe, well, rather it matters to share photos, at least on the same site.

Collections should be scientific, in the full sense, not just with labels, but located in scientific institutions, stored using modern technologies. And so, the decay will take its toll, nature is just trying to return what is rightfully due to it, so all living things get into the most sealed boxes in order to return to the cycle of substances what was taken from there

Well, yes. The collector at least somehow keeps track of his collection (and even if he bought something). And in museums and universities, curators change, and there are those who only hold a position, they do not care at all. And, in general, for science, whole copies are not required. You should have seen the funds of Tel Aviv University. An undamaged copy is rare, and everything is fine. And there is a draw, and here-its own. Collected, purchased and-spoils.

One eupatorus has someone sitting in its belly, constantly spilling dust, which just did not do-in vain.

Did you give him an injection? The beetle is huge.
There is nothing easier: take a syringe, pump in some nasty stuff like galoshes and inject it carefully through the ass. Tested on large beetles-it helps.
Here this treated by this method.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 26.04.2012 07: 32

We are not talking about the prevention of collections, Is it even worth buying such a fragile product for a lot of money?

Financial analysts say that the second wave of the crisis is just around the corner, so it is better to invest in fruit flies. Your money will multiply very quickly and exponentially.

The question, IMHO, is wrong in itself.

Is it worth investing in an iPhone? he's going to die.
Is it worth investing in bucks? after all, interest rates on foreign currency are lower than on state money.
Is it worth investing in paintings? after all, they can burn.

Etc. etc. Based on this, even investing money in health is stupid - after all, we will die anyway.

Let's invest in booze and weed. Pro#bem life is fun.

 
Is it worth investing in paintings? after all, they can burn.

Having developed the idea of incorruption, we come to the conclusion that it is worth investing in manuscripts, because manuscripts do not burn and have eternal value. In a manuscript about butterflies, if you like.

[quote=rhopalocera.com,26.04.2012 17:36]

Is it worth investing in a hobby? I think so. I have a marine aquarium worth so much.........
Is it worth killing for a hobby? No. What's the point of killing? You can buy a good camera instead of sushnyak and take great photos. You can spend money on a printout.
You can collect live insects.....

For the sake of science, this is different, but very few people do the same.

Is it worth investing in a hobby? I think so. I have a marine aquarium worth so much.........
Is it worth killing for a hobby? No. What's the point of killing? You can buy a good camera instead of sushnyak and take great photos. You can spend money on a printout.
You can collect live insects.....

For the sake of science, this is different, but very few people do the same.

Is it worth killing for a hobby-who?
If there are no people, then definitely not.
What about insects?
Why not? Insects are the biomass of the earth. This is food for 90 % of the planet's predators. These are huge volumes of decomposing flesh, giving a lot of trace elements and so on to plants. These are animals that directly participate, with their own bodies, in the construction of ecosystems - the largest volume after plants.
You see yourself as a murderer.
I see myself as a predator. How many insects do birds devour, how many people can catch them? Disparate numbers. We also, like any other predator, participate in the selection of the strongest-we participate in breeding - and, no matter how little we catch, our catches directly affect the evolution of species, selecting the weakest or not too agile.

Well, if we take the current state of affairs, that is, the current number of entomologists, amateurs, and other insect catchers, then I think that absolutely no significant impact on the ecosystem occurs, even if the catch is massive. Well, unless you take some special cases with microstations in which subspecies with micro-acidification live.

So for now, it's just that in my opinion, every idle destruction of a living thing, even a plant, is not a good step. That is, I'm not saying that I didn't catch a fly, but before I catch someone "for fixing", I'll think about whether it's necessary

But that's not all, here I was called a troll when I wrote something like this, of course, this is entomological sacrilege)) but, if we imagine that entomology in the aspect of collecting collections will become popular, for example, like drinking beer?
And now imagine, dear entomologists, a horde that regularly makes raids on the stations closest to the cities
Therefore, I believe that the popularization of entomology is evil. Who really wants to get involved in insects - he will get involved in them no matter what, by himself or not by himself, with or without forums

Well, if we take the current state of affairs, that is, the current number of entomologists, amateurs, and other insect catchers, then I think that absolutely no significant impact on the ecosystem occurs, even if the catch is massive. Well, unless you take some special cases with microstations in which subspecies with micro-acidification live.

So for now, it's just that in my opinion, every idle destruction of a living thing, even a plant, is not a good step. That is, I'm not saying that I didn't catch a fly, but before I catch someone "for fixing", I'll think about whether it's necessary

But that's not all, here I was called a troll when I wrote something like this, of course, this is entomological sacrilege)) but, if we imagine that entomology in the aspect of collecting collections will become popular, for example, like drinking beer?
And now imagine, dear entomologists, a horde that regularly makes raids on the stations closest to the cities
Therefore, I believe that the popularization of entomology is evil. Who really wants to get involved in insects - he will get involved in them no matter what, by himself or not by himself, with or without forums

you, young man, with your views - to Asia, to a Buddhist monastery, and not to the entomological community. here people ruin their lives by tens of thousands.

I fully agree , but to these words it would be possible to add-an intellectual predator . A predator that does not just kill, that is completely absorbed in the limitless variety of what "other predators" do not see, but find in supermarkets, participating in even greater destruction of nature . So that we are all bound by the same chain .
If it weren't for the butterflies, I probably wouldn't have seen the beauty of the Earth. Insects are the undisputed guides to the natural world, and how to handle them: collect or take photos is everyone's choice.
Personally, I recommend investing money not so much in buying materials, but in traveling for them. Butterflies and beetles will really fall into disrepair someday, but never minutes of meeting them.

I do not attribute myself to the entomological community

Tens of thousands, per person? Per catch, or even per season? I think this harmfulness is greatly exaggerated, well, unless if you regularly drive a blowtorch on a screen made of heat-resistant stainless steel during night fishing, and then..

So unless tens of thousands of nerve cells with excessive use of C2H5ON, the cells are also alive, also die ))))

Predators, you say ))) Then, if you killed him, you must eat it! This is already even useful, and there is a variety in food, and the biogenic substance will return to the general cycle )))

Well, if we take the current state of affairs, that is, the current number of entomologists, amateurs, and other insect catchers, then I think that absolutely no significant impact on the ecosystem occurs, even if the catch is massive. Well, unless you take some special cases with microstations in which subspecies with micro-acidification live.

So for now, it's just that in my opinion, every idle destruction of a living thing, even a plant, is not a good step. That is, I'm not saying that I didn't catch a fly, but before I catch someone "for fixing", I'll think about whether it's necessary

But that's not all, here I was called a troll when I wrote something like this, of course, this is entomological sacrilege)) but, if we imagine that entomology in the aspect of collecting collections will become popular, for example, like drinking beer?
And now imagine, dear entomologists, a horde that regularly makes raids on the stations closest to the cities
Therefore, I believe that the popularization of entomology is evil. Who really wants to get involved in insects - he will get involved in them no matter what, by himself or not by himself, with or without forums

Roman, your concern is understandable, but people in the world are more concerned about finding money , and soon they will be concerned about finding food . That's when these crowds will no longer collect insects, but just eat . Probably then entomology will end . Everything depends on how many billions will live on Earth.

Yes, already insects are eaten by the Chinese, Papuans, and many more places . And nothing: is it considered normal for some reason? That they don't have enough cows. Ai-yay-yay
http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=89298

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 04/27/2012 10: 06

Calm down, it'll get to us soon enough.

http://www.ridus.ru/news/29621/

  
Personally, I recommend investing money not so much in buying materials, but in traveling for them. Butterflies and beetles will really fall into disrepair someday, but never minutes of meeting them.

Murzin in "Travels for butterflies" wrote about showing the collection to Stekolnikov (if I don't feel bad). He was surprised by the latter's scowl.
I don't remember any more.. But Stekolnikov put it something like this-and I remember not the circumstances of the capture, but the people I happened to meet... And your
future book should be primarily about people.

Murzin in "Travels for butterflies" wrote about showing the collection to Stekolnikov (if I don't feel bad). He was surprised by the latter's scowl.
I don't remember any more.. But Stekolnikov put it something like this-and I remember not the circumstances of the capture, but the people I happened to meet... And your
future book should be primarily about people.

And I didn't have time to buy this book... Maybe someone will shoot it?

Murzin in "Travels for butterflies" wrote about showing the collection to Stekolnikov (if I don't feel bad). He was surprised by the latter's scowl.
I don't remember any more.. But Stekolnikov put it something like this-and I remember not the circumstances of the capture, but the people I happened to meet... And your
future book should be primarily about people.

Dear Vladimir, if you have read my reports on fishing, you would be able to see this, of course, an important aspect. Nowhere and nothing, now, happens without the participation of people. For which, I always thank them. But, in my opinion, all the same, in the memories there are more minutes spent in complete solitude from people, in an intimate environment, alone. Only the observer and nature. This, of course, is more of a philosophical question and everyone decides for themselves how to comfort themselves. One person passes by, and another notices something interesting for himself, one sees a mushroom, and the other does not see, although he follows. Everyone is different, everyone thinks and sees differently.
A good naturalist, from my point of view, should rather convey the mood and feelings experienced by him. And a book about people would be too boring. I think that it will leave little impression in the soul.

There are a lot of books about people. One of my favorites -

Master and Margarita
Dersu Uzala
Idiot

And many, many, many thousands more.
Are there so many good and kind books about insects?
Let's do some math, maybe? From my memory:

Akimushkin, Igor Mikhailovich:
Animal world. Rassakazy about insects.

Arakcheev, Yuri Sergeevich:
Jungle in the yard
In search of Apollo
In the land of blue swallowtails
Journey to an amazing world

Vinogradova, Elena Borisovna:
Urban mosquitoes, or children of the dungeon.

Grebennikov, Viktor Stepanovich:
A million riddles. Notes of an entomologist
In the land of insects
My wonderful world

Zakharov, Anatoly Aleksandrovich:
Ant, family, colony

Kaabak, Leonid Vladimirovich:
I'm going to look
for Butterflies of the world: the most beautiful and famous (co-author: Sochivko, Andrey)

Kozlov, Mikhail Alekseevich:
Not just beetles

Kuvykina, Olga Vladimirovna:
Insect letters

Murzin, Vladimir Sergeevich:
Blue swallowtail
Altai diary

Marikovsky, Pavel Iustinovich:
Small workers of the desert
To the Young entomologist
Insects around us
Insect friends
Small workers of the forest
Small workers of the mountains
In the world of insects with a camera

Plavilshchikov, Nikolay Nikolaevich:

Entertaining entomology for young entomologists

Tanasiychuk, Vitaly Nikolaevich:
The insects around us
are six legged neighbors

Panfilov, Dmitry Viktorovich:
In the world of insects

Stekolnikov, Lev Borisovich:
What is ascalafus?
An extraordinary swallowtail

Shevyrev, Ivan Yakovlevich:
The Bark Beetle Puzzle

Le Moult, Eugene:
My butterfly hunts

Murzin, it seems, Travels for butterflies — more or less in the direction of insects book, and the Altai diary-in the direction of how good it was in the USSR and how bad it became in the Russian Federation.
Although I have both works in the same volume, yes.

This post was edited by Asar - 28.04.2012 17: 20

I didn't like the Altai diary. A dreary book with vague philosophy and arguments about the meaning of life. It would be more interesting to talk about Altai insects.

I haven't read it yet. The total print run was 2000, but I didn't have time to buy it. Now I'm looking for second-hand booksellers )

I really liked the recently published book "Nanuni" about the Far East and the Yankovsky family. Penzyak has already written about it somewhere on the forum. I advise you, very exciting.

I haven't read it yet. The total print run was 2000, but I didn't have time to buy it. Now I'm looking for second-hand booksellers )

There's nothing to thank you for, I was the one who got the button wrong in my drunkenness. What I wanted to say was that you would have let me know, and I would have brought it back and delivered it to you next week. And now we'll see you next time :--)

  
A good naturalist, from my point of view, should rather convey the mood and feelings experienced by him. And a book about people would be too boring. I think that it will leave few impressions in the soul .

I'm not talking about your future book, but about Murzin's book, and it's already been published, whether it's good or bad... In my opinion interesting

I didn't like the Altai diary. A dreary book with vague philosophy and arguments about the meaning of life. It would be more interesting to talk about Altai insects.

Well, yes, nostalgia for the USSR. You can understand the author)))

I'm not talking about your future book, but about Murzin's book, and it's already been published, whether it's good or bad... In my opinion interesting

And I'm not going to write anything in the future. My nose isn't big enough yet . Following the topic of the question, I just suggested that you spend more time on fieldwork, being saturated with the diversity of the micro and macro worlds .
And you can, of course, continue to buy material, carefully selecting each series and giving each insect a detailed label. And if you are lucky, then at the end of your life you will successfully sell what you have collected. As the saying goes, " As it came, so it went." Also a lot of work. Just remember, except as "money-goods-money" will be nothing .

  
I see myself as a predator. How many insects do birds devour, how many people can catch them? Disparate numbers. We also, like any other predator, participate in the selection of the strongest-we participate in breeding - and, no matter how little we catch, our catches directly affect the evolution of species, selecting the weakest or not too agile.

In my opinion, the influence on evolution is not very useful. We often catch the most beautiful, often fresh and, preferably, not banal specimens. Perseverance and intelligence given to us (whether by nature or by God) deprive even the most cunning insects of the chance of salvation. We no longer use only our eyesight and dexterity for fishing, we use all kinds of traps. For different insects - different, and the further, the more effective.
To escape from human collectors, insects need to pretend to be crippled and worn, and best of all, all types of insects become like one gray, nondescript species. Then we will simply not be interested in collecting them.
Until now, in 2 years of more or less serious collecting, my most terrible insect trap was a net with a diameter of 50 cm. Now, if everyone was caught like this, then of course, the weakest and slowest insects would show off in our boxes.
And if on the topic, then for me there is nothing more valuable than an endromis, for example, caught in a net. Taken from the screen, and even more so bought, personally I will not give much joy.
Stamps, banknotes, and other collectible items are often obtained only by buying or exchanging them. And no one will reproach or dislike, for example, a bonist, for not adding to the collection in some other more interesting way. It's the same with insects, I think. If someone is interested in the instance itself, and not the method of its extraction, and this someone is quite satisfied with the fact that they have this instance, then this person will not ask the question "Is it worth investing...".

In my opinion, the influence on evolution is not very useful. We often catch the most beautiful, often fresh and, preferably, not banal specimens. Perseverance and intelligence given to us (whether by nature or by God) deprive even the most cunning insects of the chance of salvation. We no longer use only our eyesight and dexterity for fishing, we use all kinds of traps. For different insects - different, and the further, the more effective.
To escape from human collectors, insects need to pretend to be crippled and worn, and best of all, all types of insects become like one gray, nondescript species. Then we will simply not be interested in collecting them.

This is true of mammals. The effect of hunters shooting the most "spectacular specimens" has already been noted. If I remember correctly, there has been a relative drop in the number of large-horned male elk in Northern Europe, even though there is nothing wrong with the size of the species. This was explained precisely by the fact that hunters choose the most spectacular trophies.

As for insects, I think you are wrong. The relative size and age structure of the populations of the vast majority of arthropods and "higher vertebrates" are radically different. In order for the insect population to "notice" the effect of catching the most spectacular specimens, it is necessary that the number of specimens caught by collectors becomes comparable to the number of insects dying for "indiscriminate" reasons.

You see yourself as a murderer.
I see myself as a predator. How many insects do birds devour, how many people can catch them? Disparate numbers. We also, like any other predator, participate in the selection of the strongest-we participate in breeding - and, no matter how little we catch, our catches directly affect the evolution of species, selecting the weakest or not too agile.

Stas, you can consider yourself as anyone, but in fact you are not a predator, but a killer. The fact that the killer of insects, and not cattle and, especially, not people — no one disputes this, and the difference, I think, is clear to everyone. But what does this have to do with predators? You don't kill for food, like. And whether you influence evolution or not has nothing to do with the definition of predator/killer. So even argumentation is somehow wrong;--)

In my opinion, the influence on evolution is not very useful.

And how in general can influencing evolution be useful or harmful? Or are we looking at the same type of tokma?..

This is Hishnik!:--))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZnGTtEd7YM

And th on the Forum code for embedding YouTube is not? Somehow not ice...

This post was edited by Asar - 29.04.2012 17: 00