Coenonympha oedippus

Lavr Bolshakov from
23.01.2013 CC of the Samara region, for reasons that are not yet clear to me, is very interestingly different from the generally accepted requirements of the relevant bodies of the Russian Federation and the IUCN for CC publications. "Extremely rare...", " very rare...", " very rare...", " rare...", " conditionally rare...". For each of these items from 2 to 5 subheadings - "Population trends are unknown", "sharply reducing the number", " with the number fluctuating by year", "with a stable population", etc. There are 30 (!) positions in total. A little further on, the authors open up - "The structure of specific essays is somewhat (!) different from the generally accepted scheme....". And at the same time, for each position, you still need to develop measures. For whom only? Or maybe a dog from the authors of CC SA is buried here. The more events, the more.... And finally. Who is bigger? There are 188 species of insects in the CC SO! One staphylinid 21 (!) .

Yura, I have this article only in the form of a bad photocopy... I'll try to find it. But, it is very outdated for the Volga region! What are the only fees for the south of Gennady Kuznetsov... he made a lot of things clear. According to CC SO-there is a lot of outdated information about butterflies because this book was written in 2000. and recently published... A more sensible article on proposals for a new edition of the Red Book of the Russian Federation was published recently in the Steppe Bulletin:

Protection of vulnerable species
Proposals for the new list of the Red Book of Russia: steppe insects of the Volga region

V. V. Anikin (Saratov State University, Saratov), V. V. Zolotukhin (Ulyanovsk Pedagogical University, Ulyanovsk), S. A. Sachkov (Samara State University, Samara)

http://savesteppe.org/ru/archives/9987

.. I am more than sure that their opinion of field entomologists will once again be forgotten to take into account... Unfortunately, this is almost always the case in Russian nature protection...

Lepidoptera, Satyridae

29. Huebner's krupnoglazka – Hyponephele huebneri Koçak, 1980. A rare species. Isolated populations of the species are known in the Astrakhan region. Suggested CR status.

30. Volga marigold-Hipparchia volgensis (Maz. - Porsh., 1952). A rare, locally occurring species. It lives in forest-steppe biotopes of mixed forests along the Medveditsa River. Suggested NT status.

31. Hippolytus marigold-Pseudo-chazara esperi Kozak, 1981. An extremely rare initially vulnerable species with a mosaic habitat. Suggested VU status.

32. Iron satyr-Hipparhia statilinus (Hufnagel, 1766). A rare, declining species. Prefers limestone slopes and chalk outcrops along the Volga River bank with deciduous woodlands, with sedimentary and steppe vegetation. The species occurs sporadically. Over the past ten years, the general trend of population decline has continued. Suggested NT status.

33. Satyrus virbius Herrich-Schaeffer, 1843. Initially, a species with a low abundance everywhere, an indicator of virgin steppes, with a broken mosaic area; conditional endemic to the Lower Volga region, where the type locality of the species is located. Suggested VU status.

- judging by the list of satyrs, the authors do not know anything about the presence of Coenonympha oedippus not only in the Samara region but also in the Volga region!? Or do they not consider this species so valuable and rare for our places...?

So I always say what can be useful for any collectors of insects and lovers of their native nature on the ground-the fact that they can have such interesting finds that even local experts do not suspect anything about!? And this is in our time of transmitting information!?

.... again, in this article, some incomprehensible discrepancies with the title of the article-look at the sem. golubyanok, there are often Ural species...??? And the list seems to be announced about the Volga region-can Vadim Zolotukhin clarify the situation for us?

This post was edited by Penzyak - 11.04.2014 18: 44

Lavr Bolshakov from
23.01.2013 CC of the Samara region, for reasons that are not yet clear to me, is very interestingly different from the generally accepted requirements of the relevant bodies of the Russian Federation and the IUCN for CC publications. "Extremely rare...", " very rare...", " very rare...", " rare...", " conditionally rare...". For each of these items from 2 to 5 subheadings - "Population trends are unknown", "sharply reducing the number", " with the number fluctuating by year", "with a stable population", etc. There are 30 (!) positions in total. A little further on, the authors open up - "The structure of specific essays is somewhat (!) different from the generally accepted scheme....". And at the same time, for each position, you still need to develop measures. For whom only? Or maybe a dog from the authors of CC SA is buried here. The more events, the more.... And finally. Who is bigger? There are 188 species of insects in the CC SO! Some staphylinids 21 (!)

To make a good regional CC, you need to stay away from what the bureaucracy that runs the CCRR puts down from above. Since the CCRR does not have ANY SPECIFIC criteria for what parameters a species should be considered "rare", "shrinking" , etc. And each regional team or even the author understands this in their own way. And it is good if they try to introduce their own criteria for internal use, this is officially allowed so far. I am not familiar with the system of kpiteriyas of the Samara region KK. If such a large number of "rare" categories are officially registered there, then this is simply bureaucratic tongue-tied.
As for the threatened species, 20% of all organisms (i.e. about 2 thousand species of insects only) belong to them in any economically developed area. But traditional QCs cannot physically accommodate such a large number of species - it remains to choose only the most noticeable ones, which theoretically fall into the field of view of ordinary people. The figure of 188 species is average. But staphylins are not the object that should be added to the CC. It is impossible to study them properly, especially to determine the catgory. That is, it is just an outlet for a local specialist who also needs to earn money, and the QC can provide such an opportunity.
Moreover, all this is not included in the IUCN at the regional level - and, as a matter of fact, the IUCN on insects is reduced only to Z. Europe - they have no idea there and don't want to know what lives in Russia. As a result, such a ubiquitous species as the unpaired chervonets occupies an honorable place in all IUCN lists! This is the clearest indicator of the complete failure of this organization in the field of entomology! I personally have completely ignored the IUCN in my entomological work for about 10 years now.

Lavr Bolshakov from 23.01.2013
CC of the Samara region, ......

This was performed by L. Bolshakov-but from someone else's computer-in the district.

Coenonympha oedippus in the book (Lvovsky and Morgun, 2007: 354) is indicated for the vicinity of Kazan with reference to (Gorbunov and Olshvang, 1997). Is this really true or is there some mistake?

This is again L. B. In Gorbunov and Olshvang (1997), this species is indicated from the Urals from 2 points-No. 21 " G. Dvurechensk (USU Biostation)" and No. 43 "Chishma village area" with a reference (Urulikovsky, 1897). For such "malicious trolls" ((as Lvovsky and Morgun, this is not the first wild misrepresentation of sources. In addition, for them, such concepts as "Kazan Province" and " ocd. Kazan" - this is the same thing They were taught at uni that butterflies fly anywhere and everywhere and it makes no sense to accurately list the places of their finds.

This is again L. B. In Gorbunov and Olshvang (1997), this species is indicated from the Urals from 2 points-No. 21 " G. Dvurechensk (USU Biostation)" and No. 43 "Chishma village area" with a reference (Urulikovsky, 1897). For such "malicious trolls" ((as Lvovsky and Morgun, this is not the first wild misrepresentation of sources. In addition, for them, such concepts as "Kazan Province" and " ocd. Kazan" - this is the same thing They were taught at uni that butterflies fly anywhere and everywhere and it makes no sense to accurately list the places of their finds.

In addition, they indicate Pyrgus sidae and Hyponephele lupinus for RT with reference to Gordienko (1990). Despite the fact that these types are not included in the specified link. Found someone to link to)

This post was edited by niyaz - 11.04.2014 22: 46

30. Volga marigold-Hipparchia volgensis (Maz. - Porsh., 1952). A rare, locally occurring species. It lives in forest-steppe biotopes of mixed forests along the Medveditsa River. Suggested NT status.

?????
http://babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php/satyr...volgensis-.html
?????

In fact, I informed A. S. Sachkov about the discovery of another S. oedippus just over a month ago. On the other hand, I have long reported to him, to the university, to the IEVB of the Russian Academy of Sciences, etc. on the findings at various times of rare and previously unknown taxa for the Samara region: Parahypopla caestrum, Catocala detrita ? ( it may be C. lupina (a double species)). Panchrysia aurea, Autographa bractea, Trichoplusia ni, Hadena picturata, Cryptocala chardini, Pericallia matronula and many others. I don't know about the specialists, but I am pleased that something else can be found in our region.
Thank you for the steppe sites. And for that job, that I asked to hang up.

This post was edited by Natura - 12.04.2014 19: 57