Project of the new Red Data Book of the Russian Federation. Lepidoptera

Draft of a new List (List) of species that need special attention to their state in the natural environment

Appendix to the Red Book: Species requiring special attention

Order Lepidoptera-Lepidoptera

1. Thinworm of Shamil-Zenophassus schamyl. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the CC RF (2001; as Caucasian tonkworm-Phassus schamyl (Christoph 1888)): Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals in need of special attention to their state in the natural environment". A representative of a tropical genus in the Russian fauna. Endemic to the Caucasus. In the Russian Federation, it is distributed on the Black Sea coast, as well as in the foothills and mountains of the Northern Caucasus.
2. Giant leaf wrapper-Eurydoxa advena. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". A representative of a monotypic genus in the Russian fauna. In the Russian Federation, it is located on the northern edge of its range – in Yu. Primorye.
3. Epicopeia-Epicopeia mencia. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". The only representative of the family in the fauna of Russia. The Russian part of the range covers Primorye and the Amur region. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species.
4. Pestrianka leta – Zygaena laeta. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". It is an Eastern Mediterranean species found in Russia on the north-eastern periphery of its range – in the southern European part and the North Caucasus. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a rare species in several regions of the central European part of Russia and in the Belgorod region; in some places of the North Caucasus, it probably belongs to the endangered species.
5. Palearctic nossa – Nossa palaearctica. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. KK RF, as the Ussuri nossa: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals in need of special attention to their state in the natural environment". A member of the tropical family. Endemic to the south of Daln. East of Russia. In the last 10 years, the population is still low.
6. Holly-leaved cocoonworm-Phyllodesma ilicifolia. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a declining or rare species in some areas of the Middle Zone of the European part of Russia and the Center. Chernozem region.
7. Wild silkworm-Bombyx mandarina. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. The closest relative, or perhaps the original form, of the domesticated silkworm (B. mori). In the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia - as Bombyx mori. In the last 10 years, it was marked in Primorye as a species with the same status. An adventitious species introduced to the territory of Russia with mulberry used in sericulture (plants of the genus Morus).
8. Chinese silkworm-Antheraea pernyi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". One of the two representatives of the South Asian genus in the Russian fauna. The northern part of the species ' range is located in the Russian Federation, which includes the south-east of the Amur Region, the south of the Khabarovsk and Primorsky Territories. The abundance of the species is unknown. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a rare or declining species in a number of regions of the Russian Federation.
9. Wavy clanis – Clanis undulosa. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. The only representative of the subtropical genus in the fauna of Russia. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species in Primorye.
10. Proserpine – Proserpinus proserpina. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a rare or declining species in a number of regions of the European part of Russia and in the Novosibirsk region. Volga region on the proximity to extinction in the region.
11. Sea buckthorn hawkmoth-Hyles hippophaes. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species in the Republic of Tuva.
12. Caudate sphecodina – Sphecodina caudata. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. The only representative of an oligotypic relict genus in the fauna of Russia. In the last 10 years, it was marked in Primorye as a species with the same status.
13. Excellent rosama-Rosama ornata. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. The only representative of an oligotypic relict genus in the fauna of Russia. In the last 10 years, it was marked in Primorye as a species with the same status.
14. Gloomy volnyanka – Parocneria furva. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 – an endangered species on the territory of the Russian Federation. Relic of the ancient xerophilic fauna of East Asia. In the last 10 years, it was marked in Primorye as a species with the same status.
15. Unlike volnyanka-Numenes disparilis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. It is the only representative of an oligotypic tropical genus in the fauna of Russia. In the last 10 years, it was marked in Primorye as a species with the same status.
16. Solitary Camptoloma-Camptoloma interiorata. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. Endemic to the Russian Far East. East and adjacent territories.
17. Blue arcte – Arcte coerula. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. In the last 10 years, Sakhalin has been marked as an endangered species.
18. Similar mimeusemia-Mimeusemia persimilis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. In the last 10 years, it was marked as a rare species in Primorsky Krai, and on Sakhalin as being on the verge of extinction; data coming from the Khabarovsk Territory are contradictory (from rare to endangered species).
19. The owl asteropetes-Asteropetes noctuina. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. The last 10-year anniversary was celebrated in the Sakhalin region. as a view with the same status.
20. Four-pointed dipper-Euplagia quadripunctaria. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF, as the Hera Bear: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals in need of special attention to their state in the natural environment". European-Asian Minor species, locally known in Russia from the center and south of the European part, as well as from the North Caucasus. In the last 10 years, it has been noted as a rare or declining species in a number of regions of the European part of Russia, including the regions of the North Caucasus.
21. The lady bear-Callimorpha dominula. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". It is a European-Small Asian species distributed in Russia in the center and south of the European part, as well as in the North Caucasus. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a declining or rare species in a number of regions of the European part of Russia and Europe. Chernozem region.
22. Karelin's bear-Axiopoena karelini. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. A representative of a monotypic genus. In Russia, it is located on the northwestern edge of its range (Sochi). In the last 10 years, the population is still low.

23. Eagle bibasis-Bibasis aquilina. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 2 a species that is declining in number. The only representative of a tropical South Asian genus in the fauna of Russia. In the last 10-year anniversary is celebrated in Primorye as a species with the same status.
24. Andromeda's fathead-Pyrgus andromedae. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. It is found on the Kola Peninsula and in the Northern Urals; there is no information about its rarity.
25. Caucasian zerynthia-Zerynthia caucasica. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. KK RF as Caucasian allancastria-Allancastria caucasica Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". It is endemic to the Western Caucasus. The population is low. In the last 10 years, it was listed as a rare species in Adygea and Krasnodar Krai.
26. Sericinus montela – Sericinus montela. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. In the last 10 years, it has been marked in Primorye as a species with a declining population.
27. Mnemosyne-Parnassius mnemosyne. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. In the last 10 years, it has been celebrated in a number of regions as a rare or declining species.
28. Nordmann's sailboat-Parnassius nordmanni. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF, as Nordmann's Apollo: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals in need of special attention to their state in the natural environment". View of mountain fauna. Endemic to the Caucasus. In Russia, it is known from the subalpine and alpine regions of the Caucasus region. The population has not been studied. In the last 10 years, it was marked as a rare species in a number of regions, and in Dagestan as being on the verge of extinction.
29. Alkinoi-Atrophaneura alcinous. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria.CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. In the last 10 years, it has been marked in Primorye as a species with a declining population.
30. Caucasian jaundice-Colias caucasica. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. Caucasian endemic. In Russia, it is known from Dagestan. In the last 10 years, the population is still low everywhere.
31. Coreana raphaelis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species in Primorye.
32. Excellent protantigius-Protantigius superans. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. Endemic to the Far East. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species in Primorye.
33. Azure marshmallow – Atara coerulea. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. Rapala coerulea: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". East Asian view. In Russia, it is known only from Yu. Primorye. A single copy. (male) collected in July 1964 in the ROC. Ussuriysk. No new data was received.
34. David's golubyanka-Neolycaena davidi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. The last 10-year anniversary was celebrated in the Republic of Tatarstan. Tyva as a rare species, and in Buryatia and the Chita region. as a type of undefined status.
35. Rhymn's golubyanka-Neolycaena rhymnus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. In the last 10 years, it was celebrated in the Krasnodar Territory, Kursk, Orenburg, Samara, Saratov and Sverdlovsk regions. as being on the verge of extinction, less often as reducing the number, and in the Belgorod region. as rare; not listed under other categories.
36. Callimachus-Tomares callimachus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CCRF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". Representative of semi-desert and steppe fauna. In Russia, it occurs locally in the south of the European part. The population data needs to be clarified. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a declining or even endangered species in a number of regions of the European part of Russia, including part of the North Caucasus.
37. Tomares nogelii – Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF; as Southern Tomares: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals in need of special attention to their state in the natural environment". Representative of semi-desert and steppe fauna. In Russia, it occurs locally in the south of the European part. No information was received in the last 10 years.
38. Unpaired chervonets-Lycaena dispar. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, some regions of the Russian Federation have pointed out the rarity of the species.
39. Golubyanka baton-Pseudophilotes baton. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia, it is listed only as presumably occurring in the country. Requires checking whether the species is found in the north-west of European Russia and southern Siberia.
40. Golubyanka arion-Maculinea arion. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it was listed as a rare species for many regions of the Russian Federation. It is listed as endangered in the urbanized Moscow region.
41. Arionides pigeon-Maculinea arionides. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. It is found in the Russian Federation in the south of the Far East. In the Middle East, as well as in Korea and Japan. Proposals for its protection in the Russian Federation are unknown, the occurrence of the species requires study. Official IUCN category: Lower Risk / NT.
42.Maculinea nausithous. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a rare or declining species in a number of regions of Russia.
43. Golubyanka teley-Maculinea teleius. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a rare, sometimes endangered species in a number of regions of the European and Asian parts of Russia.
44. Golubyanka glandon-Agriades glandon. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. A species that is quite widespread in Russia, especially in Siberia, was not proposed for inclusion in the RF CC. However, it is desirable to study the current occurrence of the species.
45. Pyrenean pigeon-Agriades pyrenaicus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as a rare species in a number of regions of the northern part of the European part of Russia, Center. The Black Earth region and the Northern Caucasus.
46. Corydon pigeon-Polyommatus coridon. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species in a number of regions of the northern part of the European part of Russia and Central Asia. Black Earth region, and in the Moscow region as endangered in the region.
47. Lucina-Hamearis lucina. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria VU A1cde. CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as rare in the Belgorod region, decreasing in number in the Volgograd region, and being on the verge of extinction in
the Saratov region48. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been noted most often as a declining species in a number of regions of the northern part of the European part of Russia and the Center. Chernozem region. CC of Europe VU A2c; European Union list: LC; IUCN official category: DD.
49. Mother – of-pearl zenobia-Argynnis zenobia. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. The only representative of the Sino-Himalayan subgenus in the fauna of Russia. In the last 10 years it has been marked as a rare species in Primorye.
50. Hayloft oedipus-Coenonympha oedippus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. It is widely distributed in the Russian Federation. In the last 10 years, it was marked as a rare species on Yu. In the Urals. European CC: EN A2c; European Union List: LC; IUCN official category: Lower Risk / NT. A species with a real threat of extinction within the European part of Russia! For some reason, there has never been much attention paid to it in Russia. Almost all reliable finds in the European part of Russia and the Urals were made in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was indicated: for Bashkiria, Kazan and Orenburg provinces by Eversmann (1844); then by Butlerov (1887), and Krulikovsky (1897) for the roc. Ufa, Alferaki (1872) - for Taganrog… Today, all these areas are well surveyed. Coenonympha oedippus is no longer found there.
51. Beech marigold – Hipparchia fagi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been marked as an undetermined species in the Penza region. KK Europe: endemic to Europe, NT; List of the European Union: NT; official category of the IUCN: NT.
52. Bright marigold-Hipparchia pellucida. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the last 10 years, it has been recorded as a declining species in the Saratov region (as H. volgensis). European CC is endemic to Europe, LC; European Union list: LC [in the European CC it is given twice - as Hipparchia volgensis and as Hipparchia pellucida; 1st as endemic to Europe, which is not indicated for the 2nd], official IUCN category: LC (Pop. trend stable).
53. Semele – Hipparchia semele. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. In the Russian Federation, it is found in the north-west and central European part of Russia; recently, the rarity of the species is indicated near Kaluga, and in the Moscow region and Yaroslavl region. the species probably disappeared. Endemic to Europe, LC; European Union List): LC; IUCN official category: LC (Pop. trend decreasing).

This post was edited by PG18-24.01.2013 05: 40

The fact that the main list has greatly decreased, and most of the types have migrated to the App (for further analysis, clarification of the status...) - I think the right move. But for criticism - still expanse. I offer my own, according to the main list. I understand that these are only superficial subjective recommendations, without criticism/justification of statuses. But to do something more in a few days is really unrealistic.

1. The Order ribbon of Kochubey-Catocala kotshubeji. - You can agree with the expediency of including it. Although very little is known about this species yet. In this regard, it is better to transfer it to the app.

2. Moltrecht Order ribbon-Catocala moltrechti. - The same as the previous type. Better yet, go to the app.

3. Pacific Goldia-Goldia pacifica. – I agree with the expediency of inclusion. I can write a specific essay. Personally observed this species...

1. Order ribbon-naga-Catocala nagioides. - The species is not rare (according to G. A. Grigoriev (St. Petersburg) and others);” In some years it appears in abundance " (Kononenko, 2010). It is widely distributed in China, Korea, and Japan. In Yu. Primorye comes together with the petiolate oak with an insignificant part of its range. Inclusion in the CC is not advisable.

2. Mongolian dipper – Centrarctia mongolica. - It is not clear why this particular species of dipper, which is widely distributed in Mongolia and northern China, is included in the main list. In Russia (Erzinsky district of Tyva), it enters only an insignificant part of its range. I would recommend-in the App, and its...

3. Felder's sailboat-Parnassius felderi. - We can agree with the expediency of including it, although the species is very numerous in some years… There is a lot of potential information on this species (sometimes referred to as a group of southeastern subspecies of P. eversmanni); the essay should be written by a real specialist.

4. Apollo-Parnassius apollo. – I agree with the expediency of inclusion. No comments...

5. Golubyanka Filipyeva-Celastrina filipjevi. - A species with a large range in China, and not endemic to Primorye at all! It is found everywhere where there is a forage plant (Prinsepia chinensis), and has a high number. I don't agree with the feasibility of including it!

6. Golubyanka oreas-Celastrina oreas. - A species with a large range, which extends only a small part of it within the borders of Russia. It is advisable to transfer it to the App. Hardly deserves more attention than the same Protantigius superans, Coreana raphaelis (this is from pigeons)

7. Argali golubyanka-Glaucopsyche argali. - Yes, it is endemic to the Altai (Russian, Kazakh, Mongolian, Chinese). Yes, it is local. But in some places it is also common at the expense of the threat of extinction, given the inaccessibility of habitats – big doubts ... It is better to transfer it to the App.

8. Seokia pratti - One can agree with the expediency of inclusion. The view is relict, unique in a number of features.

9. Erebia kindermanni. Yes, it is endemic to Altai (Russian, Kazakh, Mongolian, Chinese). Yes, it is local. But in some places it is also common at the expense of the threat of extinction, given the inaccessibility of habitats-big doubts… It's probably better to move it to the App.

10. Eneis of Elwesi – Oeneis elwesi. - The species is unlikely to be seriously threatened now, since its range (half of Mongolia, Altai, and Tuva) is located in sparsely populated, hard-to-reach regions. The locality of distribution is not so high. It is also better to transfer it to the App


This post was edited by PG18-24.01.2013 05: 38

Finally, I will offer 5-6 types to add to the main list:
Pyrocleptria cora (recommended by A. Y. Matov)
Catocala detrita
Parnassius arcticus
Neolycaena falkovitchi
?Plebejus cyane
Coenonympha oedippus

Of course, very little depends on me. But I hope for understanding, including on the forum. The red Book should still be there... I want changes and adequacy...

what about Borearctia menetriesii?

In the list, no, as you can see. Although at least in the App it should be recommended. It is unclear whether this species is "threatened"... It seems to have a naturally low population throughout the range, although this is not very natural...

Isn't there a similar list for beetles?

25. Caucasian zerynthia-Zerynthia caucasica. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. KK RF as Caucasian allancastria-Allancastria caucasica Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". It is endemic to the Western Caucasus. The population is low. In the last 10 years, it was listed as a rare species in Adygea and Krasnodar Krai. The species is not endemic to the Western Caucasus. The real area can be viewed on the site Butterflies of the Caucasus.
28. Nordmann's sailboat-Parnassius nordmanni. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. CC RF, as Nordmann's Apollo: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals in need of special attention to their state in the natural environment". View of mountain fauna. Endemic to the Caucasus. In Russia, it is known from the subalpine and alpine regions of the Caucasus region. The population has not been studied. In the last 10 years, it was marked as a rare species in a number of regions, and in Dagestan as being on the verge of extinction. Why would that be? In Dagestan, as well as throughout the Caucasus, the species inhabits the subnival and alpine belts - the most inaccessible places for humans. He's not going to disappear there.
30. Caucasian jaundice-Colias caucasica. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN LC criteria. Caucasian endemic. In Russia, it is known from Dagestan. In the last 10 years, the population is still low everywhere. Well, there is no such species in Dagestan. By the way, this is not a Caucasian endemic. It is believed that the same species lives in the Balkans. Bringing the Caucasian yellowcake to Dagestan or Chechnya is an error of definition.

This post was edited by Valentinus - 24.01.2013 11: 40

Such a species as polyxena is extremely important in the new edition of the CC RF for the conservation of floodplain oak forests and meadows in the middle zone of the Russian Federation and I think in the south this is not an unnecessary biogeocenosis. In addition to rarity, there are also principles for preserving the most important biotopes - and this REQUIRES special markers!!! So if you want, polyxena is a "sacred cow" in the Volga region and we will fight for the preservation of this species and its biotope.
Here is my essay from the CC of the Penza region, volume 1, 2005; + article on polyxene in the software and theses at the REO congress.

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...70#entry1379570

POLYXENE
Zerynthia polyxena
([Denis et Schiffermüller], 1775)
Order Lepidoptera-Lepidoptera
Sailfish Family-Papilionidae


Category and status. 2 – a species that is declining in population.
Description. The length of the forewing is 24-30 mm. The overall color of the wings is yellow-ochre, with a complex pattern of black spots, jagged lines and veins. Along their outer edge are zigzag jagged lines of black color, from the inside (of the hind wings) touching a number of red spots running in pairs with blue dots. The abdomen is black with red spots.
Distribution. South and center of the European part of Russia, Southern Urals [1, 2, 3]. On the territory of the region, it is known to inhabit the Belinsky, Bessonovsky, Kolyshleisky, Luninsky, Penza, Tamalinsky and Shemysheysky districts [4].
Habitats and features of biology. Broad-leaved forest edges and willow associations only in the floodplains of the Sura, Khopra, and Vorona river basins. The distribution is closely related to the presence of the caterpillar's food plant, common kirkazon (Aristolochia clematitis L.). It develops in one generation, butterfly years from late April to mid-June. The species is very local and does not leave its habitat – well-warmed edges, clearings and meadows in river floodplains. Butterflies are active in sunny weather, flying low above the ground in search of flowering plants. It lays its eggs on a young kirkazon plant with not yet fully opened leaves [4]. Caterpillars of the first instars are dark, feeding on various parts of the flowers and young leaves at the top of the shoot. Adult caterpillars are yellow-brown, with five rows of fleshy red outgrowths with black tips. [3] Pupate at the end of June, attaching to the stem of the fodder plant. The pupa overwinters.
Population and limiting factors. Due to the inability of polyxena to leave its local biotope in the floodplains of rivers, the species is very vulnerable to human economic activities: haymaking and grazing, spring burning of dry grass, cutting and uprooting of floodplain forests with subsequent plowing, as well as building floodplain terraces (for example, in Penza) [5]. The construction of the Sur reservoir led to a reduction, fragmentation and complete localization of the local butterfly population in the upper reaches of the RR. Surahs and Bonds.
Security measures. It is protected in the protected areas "Lake ecocomplex Lugovoy" and "Prisurskaya Dubrava".
Information sources: 1. Tolman, 1997; 2. Antonova, 1984; 3. Korshunov, 2002; 4. Polumordvinov and Monakhov, 2002; 5. Polumordvinov, 2005.
Compiled by: O. A. Polumordvinov, A. N. Roganin

This post was edited by Penzyak - 24.01.2013 12: 32

File/s:



 ________________________2008.pdf

size: 268.19 k
number of downloads: 456









 ____________________________2007.doc

size: 37k
number of downloads: 491

In the Saratov region, polyxena is a common species, found everywhere where kirkazon grows. It doesn't need security.

This post was edited by Mantispid - 24.01.2013 12: 45

Pictures:

macro44.jpg — (579.83к)

Ilya, I've lived a little longer and seen a little more of you... and you probably have NEVER encountered the problems of REAL NATURE PROTECTION, Red Books, creation, development, cadastre and monitoring of protected areas, etc. etc. Ilya imagine for example such a picture-in the Saratov region, everywhere where polyxena lives along the river banks-private cottages, castles, villas, piers, yacht clubs, restaurants and brothels... Do you like it more??

For environmentally illiterate entomolukhovs (do not blame me-you can't throw out the words from the song, as they say) read here:

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=428180&hl=

Pictures:

______.jpg — (79.02к)

if you want, polyxena is a "sacred cow" in the Volga region and we will fight for the preservation of this species and its biotope.

Oleg, so put this "sacred cow" in the regional CC of the Volga region. And we have much more of it in the south than cabbage, swallowtail and podaliriya combined.

Boris, well, it's not for me to tell you that for officials of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation this is an UNCONDITIONAL and unconditional animal subject to protection. And the regional status in the local CC is like this ... our whim... well, by God, I don't know how to convey this to people anymore... it's just a pity that time will judge us later... and it will be too late to break down mansions, sow kirkazon and grow Zerynthia polyxena.
P. S. With Apollo and mnemosyne, the situation in the Russian Federation is completely similar.

I don't want to live to see such a regional Red List....

This post was edited by Penzyak - 24.01.2013 14: 13

Pictures:

_____________________.jpg — (132.5к)

R. S. Who managed to bring an adventuring species - a sika deer-to the CC of the Saratov region? And what is the boar doing there? Or is it?

I assure you, this is nothing more than another "joke", we do not have a boar or a deer in the CC and never had one. Of the ungulates, only the European roe deer is recorded.

...polyxena, alas, is no longer in the Red Book of the Russian Federation. She was in the CC of the USSR. Read more carefully CC RF Animals, 2001.

KK poster - there's a whole site for this area...

...polyxena, alas, is no longer in the Red Book of the Russian Federation. She was in the CC of the USSR. Read more carefully CC RF Animals, 2001.

Poster on the CC - there is a whole website for this area...

this is something like KK Markovsky district

Imho, Lycaena dispar and Polyommatus coridon are superfluous in the list.
From what could be included, Eudia spini comes to mind.

I would add:
- Gorgon hawkmoth (Sphingoneopsis gorgoniades
) - Zegris eupheme
- Duponchelle whitefly (Leptidea duponcheli)
- Nekrutenko's golubyanka (Polyommatus yurinekrutenko)

I agree that Eudia spini should be included in the list.
It is also possible that Eudia pavonia.

Polyxena in the Stavropol Territory seems to be disappearing. On the Stavropol upland there are already places where the rampart of kirkazona, but not polyxena.

This post was edited by Valentinus - 24.01.2013 17: 59

?Nogeli?
?A loaf?

?Nogeli?
?A loaf?

The loaf doesn't seem to exist in Russia. And nogels are almost the only population in the world ?Rostov region; 99 % of its range is outside of Russia...

The loaf doesn't seem to exist in Russia. And nogels are almost the only population in the world ?Rostov region; 99 % of its range is outside of Russia...

Where does this data come from in the Rostov region? I've been catching butterflies here since the 60s of the last century, but I missed the nogel, didn't I?

I must also say that the establishment of the IUCN category " LC " is in most cases a complete profanity. This category includes widely distributed non-threatened species such as swallowtail or Arctic haymarket. Most of these types that are in the App can be in the main list with EN or VU categories. . But of course, the CC is not rubber, and here you need to think about who to leave in such a way that the protection of one species allows you to preserve the whole complex.
Yes, golubyanka baton is not even close to Russia. It's no closer than Z.Czech Republic. And nogeli, apparently, is extinct. But Callimachus is still alive in some places.

Where does this data come from in the Rostov region? I've been catching butterflies here since the 60s of the last century, but I missed the nogel, didn't I?

There is a point on the map in the CC of the USSR (1984) in the Ust-Bystryanskaya area. There is a cross in the Catalog of ch. Russia (2008)... Probably nogeli doesn't exist in Russia either...

And what about such different sawyers:
Eriogaster henkei
Hemaris croatica
Eversmannia exornata
Cleta perpusillaria
Limeria macraria
Scopula divisaria
Napuca albaria
Lignyoptera fumidaria

I have a ready - made list of diurnal birds with their ranges in Russia. Of course, you can't fit everything in the CC, but you can fit it in the App without any problems. I'll start with thickheads. Probably, some local Far Eastern species will be offered to be thrown out due to the widespread distribution there. And from the relatively wide-range ones, I included European and Euro-Siberian ones, which are rare throughout the entire range - in any case, no less rare than Apollo. Tomorrow I will continue on other topics. families.
Hesperiidae
Bibasis aquilina (Speyer, 1879).
Lobocla bifasciata (Bremer et Grey, 1853).
Satarupa nymphalis (Speyer, 1879). Priam., Yu. Approx.
Carcharodus lavatherae (Esper, 1783). Southern and in some places Middle European (up to the southern part of the Volga region; according to the materials of the XIX century it was indicated for the Moscow and Lipetsk regions, indications for the Smolensk region, Tatarstan and Trans-Urals (Chelyabinsk region) (Gorbunov et al., 1992; Lvovsky, Morgun, 2007) require verification; Southern Urals; Kavk.
- orientalis (Reverdin, 1913). krainy Yu. Evr. ch.; Kavk.
- flocciferus (Zeller, 1847). Wed. pol. and partly Yu. Eur. Ch., some indications for the extreme Yu. require clarification; Yy and Wed. Ural; Kavk.; Yu. Z. and partly Wed. Sib. to Prisayanya.
Syrichtus protheon Rambur 1858. V. Zabayk.
- gigas (Bremer, 1864). Yu. Note
-proto (Esper, 1805). Yu. and partly cf. gender.
Spialia phlomidis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1845) in the Southern Urals. Dagestan (Rutul) (Morgun and Tikhonov, 2009).
Pyrgus sidae (Esper, 1782). Yu. and places yu. forest-steppe wed. pol. Evr. ch.; South Ural; NW. Kavk..
- carthami (Hübner, 1813). Z, Yu. and partly cf. pol. Heb. ch., in the XIX-beginning. It was found in the Moscow region and Chuvashia in the 20th century. The Urals. Directions for more northern and eastern regions require confirmation.
- andromedae (Wallengren, 1853). Kola Peninsula; Polar. The Urals.
- cinarae (Rambur, 1839). Yu.Eur. ch. and Cf. Volga region; Southern Urals; Caucasian
-armoricanus (Oberthür, 1910). Southern and partly cf. Ural; Kavk. The reference for the Trans-Urals (Chelyabinsk) requires verification; the reference for the Siberian Federal District is not confirmed (Korshunov and Gorbunov, 1995).
- melotis (Duponchel, 1832). Kavk.
- jupei (Alberti, 1967). Kavk.
Leptalina unicolor (Bremer et Grey, 1852).
Potanthus flava (Murray, 1875).
Carterocephalus diekmanni Graeser, 1888 Priam., Yu. Approx.
Thymelicus actaeon (Rottemburg, 1775).? Yu. and partly cf.gender of the European part: recently it is confidently indicated only for the Voronezh region (Gorbunov, 2001).
- hyrax (Lederer, 1861). NW. Predkavk. (near Anapa) (Shchurov et al., 2007).
Hesperia ochracea Bremer, 1861.
Aeromachus inachus (Ménétriès, 1859).
Thoressa varia (Murray, 1875). Southern Sakha, Southern Kuril Islands.
Gegenes nostradamus (Fabricius, 1793). Dagestan (Samur River (Morgun and Tikhonov, 2009)).
Polytremis pellucida (Murray, 1875): Southern Sakha, Southern Kuril Islands (Kunashir).

There is a point on the map in the CC of the USSR (1984) in the Ust-Bystryanskaya area. There is a cross in the Catalog of ch. Russia (2008)... Probably nogeli doesn't exist in Russia either...

In 1984. I wasn't there. But in the 2000s, I repeatedly searched the entire Ust-Donetsk region. Unfortunately, I didn't find Nogel there.

In the 2000s, I repeatedly searched the entire Ust-Donetsky district. Unfortunately, I didn't find Nogel there.

I wonder if there were not only nogels, but also forage plants, or if there were neither.
In the Crimea, the situation is interesting - in the eastern part of the South Coast there is little astragalus, there are nogels, in the central part there is neither astragalus nor nogels, in the western part - astragalus is common, but nogels are not.

In 1984. I wasn't there. But in the 2000s, I repeatedly searched the entire Ust-Donetsk region. Unfortunately, I didn't find Nogel there.

Let me remind you that V. Shchurov wrote in his comments to this draft CC RF:
36. Callimachus-Tomares callimachus.
- This species really needs special protection in the Russian Federation.
Since 2010, it has been partially implemented after the establishment of the Utrish Gas Processing Plant on the Abrau Peninsula in the Krasnodar Territory. Without a doubt, the species should be transferred to "category III" of the CC RF.
The only stable population in the Russian Federation inhabits the Abrau Peninsula

37. Tomares nogelii
-Extinct in the Russian Federation

But reading about the need to PROTECT such banal species (and a bunch of them like that!??) how to:
38. Unpaired chervonets-Lycaena dispar.
43. Golubyanka teley-Maculinea teleius.
46. Corydon pigeon-Polyommatus coridon.
48. Checkerboard maturna-Euphydryas maturna.
53. Semele – Hipparchia semele
, etc.
.. vague doubts creep in, and not whether we are writing the next version of the CC of the Moscow region...

This post was edited by Penzyak - 25.01.2013 09: 22

Semele is located on the edge of our range and can be found in the app. Although I don't know how it is now on the western border - after all, as we have - someone saw 5 butterflies and already shouts "hooray, in the mass". There is still evidence that it lives only in large pine forests on the dunes and eats a very limited range of specific sand fescue. Therefore, it may be more vulnerable than it seems.
I spread the second batch. True, there are many relatively widespread species in these families, but they can be very local - I didn't insert these ones.
Pieridae
Leptidea duponcheli Staudinger, 1871. Caucasian
Colias mongola Alpheraky, 1897).
aurorina Herrich - Schäffer, 1851. Kavk.
Anthocharis gruneri (Herrich-Schäffer, 1845). Dagestan, ?NW. Kavk. (Lvovsky and Morgun, 2007).
- damone Boisduval, 1836. Dagestan.
Paramidea scolymus (Butler, 1866). Editor's note, SE Priam.
Zegris eupheme (Esper, 1805). Yu. and partly cf. pol. (yu. forest-steppe of the Volga region) Heb. ch. (indications for more northern areas require verification);?Ural; Kavk.; Altai (Barnaul region (Yakovlev, 2002)).
Microzegris pyrothoe (Eversmann, 1832). Lower Volga region; Yu. Pre-Urals region.
Pieris canidia Sparrman, 1768.
Libytheidae
Libythea celtis (Laicharting, 1782). Kavk.
Nymphalidae
Seokia pratti (Leech, 1890).
Limenitis amphissa Ménétriès, 1859. Note by Y. Priam.
- doerriesi Staudinger, 1892. Priam.
Argynnis zenobia Leech, 1890.
- ruslana Motschulsky, 1866. Yu. Priam., Yu. Prim., Yu. Sah., Yu.Kurily.
- nerippe C. Felder et R. Felder, 1862).
Boloria perryi (Butler, 1882).
- caucasica (Lederer, 1853). Кавк.
- napaea (Hoffmannsegg, 1804) (= altaica Grum-Grshimailo 1893, ssp.). Locally, Kola Peninsula; locally, Ural Village; mountains of South Siberia, Yakutia.
- purpurea Churkin, 1999. A. Z. Zabayk.
- frigidalis Forster, 1968. Sayan, Central and Southern Russia Altai, ?Zabayk.
- roddi Kosterin 2000. Altai, Tuva.
Thaleropis ionia (Fischer -Waldheim et Eversmann, 1851). Dagestan.
Polygonia interposita Staudinger, 1881. Altai, Tuva.
- egea (Cramer, 1775). Southern European (old reference for the Saratov region); Caucasian
Aglais connexa (Butler et Fenton, 1881). Southern Sakha, Southern Kuril Islands.
Melitaea interrupta Skala, 1907. Kavk.
- persea Kollar, 1849. Dagestan).
- didymina Staudinger, 1895. Yu. Tuva.
- robertsi Butler, 1880 (Melitaea Trivia var. Roberti). South Ural; Lower. Volga area. The uvarovi taxon P. Gorbunov, 1995 is widespread in Russia, and its specific differences from the sympatric M. trivia are beyond doubt (see also Kuznetsov, 2011), but its membership in robertsii is not fully proven.
- telona Fruhstorfer, 1908 (? ornata Christoph, 1893; punica auct., nec Oberthür, 1876). Ниж. Volga region; Southern Urals. The validity of attributing this species to the taxon ornata Christoph, 1893 (Tóth and Varga, 2011) requires verification.
- scotosia Butler, 1878. Note by Y. Priam.
- arduinna (Esper, 1784). Locally Yu. Eur. ch. and partly Wed. Povolzhye; Yu. and partly Wed. Ural; Kavk.; C. and Z. Altai.
- romanovi Grum-Grshimailo, 1891. Yu. Zabayk.
- caucasogenita Verity, 1930. Kavk.

Let me remind you that V. Shchurov wrote in his comments to this draft CC RF:
36. Callimachus-Tomares callimachus.
...
The only stable population in the Russian Federation inhabits the Abrau Peninsula

37. Tomares nogelii
-Extinct in the Russian Federation

It's not all that tragic about Callimachus: http://www.babochki-kavkaza.ru/index.php/l...llimachus-.html
Regarding nogel, I agree.

Let's first determine what the CC is for. Then the expediency of including certain types in the CC will be clear. The rarity/frequency of occurrence of a species is highly subjective. For example, during two trips to Primorye, we met about a hundred catocals of moltrechti, and they flew almost everywhere we shone. Yes, and kachubey, although less common, but also not a rarity. Then katokala musmi should be entered in the CC (we only met 3 of them). In general, it is worth considering why you need to enter species flying at night in the CC. They are also polyphages. Here the bear menetriye should definitely be entered, and under the first number . Really rare butterfly, besides flying during the day. I'd rather agree with Polixena than understand the point of protecting moths. So still, what is CC for? To mark rare species or to make it easier to save something?

This post was edited by sdi-25.01.2013 13: 18

 
Anthocharis gruneri (Herrich-Schäffer, 1845). Dagestan, ?NW. Kavk. (Lvovsky and Morgun, 2007).
Melitaea interrupta Skala, 1907. Kavk.
- caucasogenita Verity, 1930. Kavk.

Anthocharis gruneri is a Transcaucasian species. The error wanders from publication to publication.
Melitaea interrupta and M. caucasogenita are among the most common and numerous species of fauna in the Caucasus.

This post was edited by Valentinus - 25.01.2013 11: 49

Let's first determine what the CC is for. Then the expediency of including certain types in the CC will be clear. The rarity/frequency of occurrence of a species is highly subjective. For example, during two trips to Primorye, we met about a hundred catocals of moltrechti, and they flew almost everywhere we shone. Yes, and kachubey, although less common, but also not a rarity. Then katokala musmi should be entered in the CC (we only met 3 of them). In general, it is worth considering why you need to enter species flying at night in the CC. They are also polyphages. Here the bear menetriye should definitely be entered, and under the first number . Really rare butterfly, besides flying during the day. I probably agree with polixena, and even in the south it may disappear along with kirkazon. So still, what is CC for? To mark rare species or to make it easier to save something?

But after all, the preamble says what it is needed for - to determine priorities in protection. Another thing is that we do not know whether there will be real security, or whether the CC will be released, and this will be all. This may now depend on the local authorities. If you do nothing at all, then nothing will be unambiguous. And if in the composition that is presented in the project, it will also not be of much use.
Here it is necessary to keep in mind who was involved in this business as one of the industry specialists. Here ornithologists-yes, really actively worked, it is known and visible. And those several entomologists (the same ones who were in the CC of the USSR, RSFSR, RF-01), not only did not discuss these cases with anyone, but also built a "state secret"out of it!
This morning I wrote again to V. Y. Ilyashenko that we should give a few more months for normal entomological work, but form a workable team, and finally send the current "paradise group"of entomologists to a well-deserved rest.

But after all, the preamble says what it is needed for - to determine priorities in protection. Another thing is that we do not know whether there will be real security, or whether the CC will be released, and this will be all. This may now depend on the local authorities. If you do nothing at all, then nothing will be unambiguous. And if in the composition that is presented in the project, it will also not be of much use.
Here it is necessary to keep in mind who was involved in this business as one of the industry specialists. Here ornithologists-yes, really actively worked, it is known and visible. And those several entomologists (the same ones who were in the CC of the USSR, RSFSR, RF-01), not only did not discuss these cases with anyone, but also built a "state secret"out of it!
This morning I wrote again to V. Y. Ilyashenko that we should give a few more months for normal entomological work, but form a workable team, and finally send the current "paradise group"of entomologists to a well-deserved rest.

And what is meant by real security? Fishing ban? Or the creation of new protected areas (nature reserves)? How many of them have been created in the last 20 years? And how, for example, to protect the catocala kochebea, whose caterpillars most likely feed on fruit trees in coastal villages? Wouldn't the extensive list just turn out to be a weapon against amateur entomologists? Maybe the CC of Russia should limit itself to the list of insects that are present in international protection lists? And for the rest, create a certain register of rare species encountered by entomologists?

In many ways, all this is a ferment of minds on the occasion of global warming and attempts to bounce in time with the waves of life.

Offhand something about the species mentioned here (which I am personally familiar with). Much has already been said before.

In the Moscow, Vladimir and Voronezh regions, the golubyanka arion is local, but it has never been any other, and you can only talk about reducing the number from a fool (and our CC never needed to be taught this); in general, any local species can be (for the sake of sociologically illiterate projects to fight mansions in the conditions of medium-developed raw material capitalism) drive it to the CC.

Polyxena solely on the grounds that not all regions were lucky with her and that there was still an entomologist over twenty years old on the planet, who considers meeting with this bullshit as a drunken joy, cannot be entered into the all-Russian CC.

Saturnia spini is unlikely to overtake many other species in rarity, just collectors are struck by the rarity primarily of such pontoon species. And it is not a fact that it is mansions that should be blamed for the rarity of this species in the near future, and there is no use for protecting blackthorn, which is full on the edges of forest belts, roadsides, slopes of gullies, etc.from adding spini to the CC is not expected. Other forage plants of the species (now known) are also not under threat. The rarity of this species is clearly not related to something that even indirectly can help QC. I can imagine what faces our impatient guardians will have when, without any mythical help from the CC, a mass flight of this Saturnia will take place in our yugas in a certain number of years. However, the outbreaks of maturna or l-album numbers in the middle band seem to have gone down like water off a goose, shame is not smoke...

Since the beginning of the millennium, the maturna draughtsman in the Moscow region has become a banal species (which even the locality has become somewhat questionable, because the variety of its biotopes is simply amazing), so for this species, QC enthusiasts should hold their itch until the wave of life of this species subsides, in order to observe at least some decency and not profane their own song.

I agree that the pigeon dispar, at least in the Moscow Region for sure , is a banal species, just its number may decrease in other years, if only because climate change (let's say what to do, I won't say what, the CC will try to fight global warming, because this factor is more important than all the mansions in the world) forces some of the the first generation will fly out in the previous year as the third super-millimeter generation and remain without offspring. This factor is generally important for species that do not fundamentally need a winter diapause. For example, the argiad population in the Setuni floodplain in Moscow, which was previously stable, either declined catastrophically or died out altogether after the third super-millimeter generation (the doomed one) appeared within a few years, and it was super-mass, leaving literally nothing for spring.

I agree that the coridon pigeon is not worthy of inclusion in the CC. In general, the impression of the degree of rarity of a species is often mediated by the diarrhoeal entomologist syndrome. The semi-suggestion about Saturnia pavonia is not serious at all. Anyone who sees not only the imago, but also the caterpillars, knows that this species, at least in the middle zone, is not threatened by any circumstances, the prevention of which could in any way depend on the QC.

The panicked information that is given about the golubyanka rimn without specifying the Voronezh region, just the data for the Voronezh Region are refuted. There she has, as Zheglov would say, a rookery. The habitat conditions of the species and the abundance of suitable biotopes make "protection" meaningless, because the number of species (in some years falling, in others - increasing to abundance) depends on a whole host of factors that are not subject to environmental protection activities.

The Parnassiuses. Apollo, which has enough habitats in our central zone (and those reductions in areas that were still caused by the era of industrialization and accelerated urbanization for this species can no longer be returned), can only be entered in the CC due to the obligation to take a visor to the world community, which once decided to turn apollo into a green banner of environmentalists. Many thousands of idiots still need to be encouraged to build mansions along dry sandy forests and clearings in the hinterlands of the Vladimir and Ivanovo regions, while there is a serious threat to apollo, which today is quite background and even takes off on an asphalt highway. And the conscientious nature reserve of the territory (for example, the Darwin Nature Reserve) even prevents this species from surviving. Mnemosyne in the Moscow region has several populations, and I don't think all of them are known yet, the last one I know was discovered by my colleagues at the junction of the Kolomenskoye and Lukhovitsky districts of the Moscow Region around the turn of the millennium, and later T. KAZAX and I discovered a separate individual in the Yegoryevsky district. In known populations, there is no question of a decline in the number. I think it would be more correct to include in the CC as a rarity not mnemosyne, but an entomologist who thoroughly knows the territory of his own region. It is precisely because of their rarity that the idea of mnemosyne's rarity is formed. According to Nordmann's sailboat-I agree that the species is not rare, the number of species in long-term retrospect does not decrease, although it obviously varies from year to year.

By the way, the endemic of the same vast territory is the thinworm of Shamil, it does not even need to be included in any applications, because in the region of its habitat, it will still have enough biotopes for such a long period, during which the CC will be reissued many times, so today you can not worry about this species yet. We will not live to see a time when mansions and other horror stories from the environment will stand up on steep slopes along every mountain path.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01/25/2013 16: 58

G. A. Y. Elez - does this phrase of yours apply to me?

- "Polyxena solely on the grounds that not all regions were lucky with her and that there was still an entomologist over twenty years old on the planet, who considers meeting with this bullshit as a drunken joy, cannot be entered into the all-Russian CC."

Here by the way is information about the rarity and disappearance of insects:

http://naceka-online.ru/stati/paseka-den-z...rez-30-let.html

http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%B2+%D...lid=50368&lr=49

Soon we will also start inviting Chinese people to work as bees... I'd love to send some big-city wordbusters to help them.
Yes, when all the bees take a break, people will probably remember that other insects are basically able to pollinate plants... (just some dialectic of materialism turns out... philosophy again).

This post was edited by Penzyak-25.01.2013 16: 24

Pictures:

_______________.jpg — (10.2к)

I wonder if there were not only nogels, but also forage plants, or if there were neither.

In those places (and this is a bend of the Seversky Donets River), the soil is solid quicksand, on which only large broom bushes (P. eros boisduvalii lives there) or planted forest belts are kept. The sand is so quicksand that it's hard to walk, and when you drive a car, you get very stuck. The grassy vegetation is very sparse because of this-it just can not cling. And of the astragalus trees there, I saw only stunted varius bushes (Pl. maracandicus lives there).

G. A. Y. Elez - does this phrase of yours apply to me?

Oleg, it really depends on you, here it is as you want. Don't be offended , but with polixena the inflection is obvious, it's still, as I understand it, still about the all-Russian CC. And in this case, you can only attach to it a list of regions or villages of the Russian Federation where polyxena is rare or absent, but do not enter the species as a separate item in the general CC.

I looked at the link, thank you; I don't know what kind of scientific help it will provide in working on the new CC RF, but as a methodological foundation for gratuitous panic, as an illustration of what notes a serious scientist can start to degenerate into an ecologist, they are very good. If you wanted to use this link to show the degree of scientific character of your motives for fighting for CC, then you succeeded. After reading these terrible materials, it is not surprising to rush to the protection of anything and anywhere at all, otherwise no species is immune from tomorrow's decline in numbers; we will save ahead of time at least the rutabaga, even the bed bug: by the way, it has been a long time (I won't say about you, but we, the "megalopolis verbiages", - absolutely) is local and rare, but what a stenotope, I personally haven't seen it for more than forty years, and polyxene already makes my eyes ripple, although I visit evon biotopes much more often than in ein ones.. In the Voronezh Region, spots of kirkazon can be found in many ravines up to their upper reaches, and there is polyxena everywhere. The same is true along the banks of rivers, but it is forbidden to bring the borders of "mansions" to the water itself, without any polixenes and red books. You never know where someone was poisoned with something; this is the ground for discussing bills on liability for chemically hazardous emissions and for banning certain chemicals in the agricultural complex, and not for specific scribbling in the CC. And, once again, do not take everything so hostile; maybe not only you (with all due respect to you), but also other people have some grounds in their judgments about the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (I understand yours and will take into account: in China, bees will die).

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 27.01.2013 04: 29