Project of the new Red Data Book of the Russian Federation

III category of environmental status

1. The broad finfish-Dytiscus latissimus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria VU B1ab (ii)c (ii), E. CC RF: was not included. A rare, declining species. It is an inhabitant of water bodies, mainly large ones, and is highly sensitive to the conditions of the aquatic environment. There is a progressive reduction in the area of the range, the number of local populations and the total number (especially in the European part of Russia).

2. Caucasian ground beetle Carabus caucasicus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. Progressive reduction of the area of the range, the number of local populations and the total number.

3. Ground beetle Avinov-Carabus avinovi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (ii) c (ii), B2b(ii), C1. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. It is endemic to Sakhalin and Moneron Islands. Progressive reduction of the area of the range, the number of local populations and the total number.

4. Ground beetle Lopatina-Carabus lopatini. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), B2b(ii) c(ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. It is endemic to Sakhalin and Moneron Islands. Progressive reduction of the area of the range, the number of local populations and the total number.

5. Narrow-chested ground beetle-Carabus constricticollis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), B2b(ii) c(ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. Progressive reduction in the area of the range, the number of local populations, and the total population size

6. Wrinkled-winged ground beetle-Carabus rugipennis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (iii) c (iii), B2b(iii) c(iii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. The Kuril Islands are endemic to North Japan. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

7. Yankovsky ground beetle-Carabus jankowskii. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), B2b(ii) c(ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

8. Ground beetle of Konstantinov-Carabus constantinovi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i)c(i), B2b(i)c(i). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. Representative of the Caucasian endemic subgenus. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

9. Riedel's ground beetle-Carabus riedeli. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), B2b(ii) c(ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. Representative of the endemic West-Central Caucasian subgenus Microplectes. Progressive reduction of the range area and total population.

10. Hungarian ground beetle-Carabus hungaricus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

11. The ground beetle of Menetrieu-Carabus menetriesi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i,ii)c (i, ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

12. Miroshnikov ground beetle-Carabus miroshnikovi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(i, ii) c(i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. A large representative of the Archiplectes subgenus endemic to the Caucasus. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

13.Maksimovich's Calosoma maximowitzi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(i, ii) c (i, ii). CC RF: 2 – a declining species on the northern periphery of its range.. Progressive reduction of the range area and total population.

14. Odorous ash-Calosoma sycophanta. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i, ii), C, E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. Progressive reduction of habitats and total population mainly due to destruction of natural habitats and insecticide treatment.

15. Burrowing sphodrus-Sphodrus leucophthalmus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii, iii), E. CC RF: was not included. An inhabitant of burrows, often a synanthrope, where it lives in basements, in particular in old wine cellars. A rare species with a steadily declining population. There is a progressive decline in the habitat and total population of the species; it has disappeared in part of its range.

16. Rust-red nutcracker-Elater ferrugineus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: was not included. Inhabitant of decaying wood and hollows of mostly large deciduous trees, the number of which (suitable for its settlement) is sharply reduced. There is a progressive decline in the habitat and abundance of the species.

17. Dicerca amphibia. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii). CC RF: was not enabled. It is a very rare and local species throughout its entire range in the Russian Federation. An inhabitant of some freshly dead deciduous trees. There is a progressive decline in the habitat and abundance of the species.

18. Coniferous dicerca-Dicerca moesta. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: was not included. It is a rare and local species throughout its entire range in the Russian Federation. Inhabitant of freshly dead coniferous trees. There is a progressive decline in the habitat and abundance of the species.

19. Oak green gold leaf-Eurythyrea quercus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: was not included. It is a rare and local species throughout its entire range in the Russian Federation. It is an inhabitant of freshly dead deciduous trees, mainly oak. There is a reduction in the habitat and abundance of the species.

20. Black rogachik-Segishis lignarius. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c(i), B2ab(I, ii) c (ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. The progressive decline of habitats and total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats and, in particular, logging.

21. The humble rogachik-Segishis chrysomelinus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: was not included. It is an inhabitant mainly of primary coniferous-small-leaved forests, where it develops on long-dead trees, more often with red-brown wood rot. It is very sensitive to anthropogenic impact on biocenoses and, in particular, to the cutting of stands, especially on large areas. There is a progressive decline in habitats and the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

22. Common stag beetle-Lucanus cervus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i, ii) c (ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. Progressive reduction of habitats and total population mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

23. Spring dung beetle-Trypocopris vernalis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: was not included. Coprophage. The number of this species in most of its range in the Russian Federation is sharply decreasing, although the reasons are not precisely established. There is a progressive decline in the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

24. Common hermit-Osmoderma barnabita. Survival threat status in Russia according to the IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. In the CC of the Russian Federation, as Osmoderma eremita: 2 - a declining species. There is a progressive decline in the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

25. Far Eastern hermit-Osmoderma davidis. Survival threat status in Russia according to the IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii)c (i, ii), E. In the CC of the Russian Federation, as Osmoderma barnabita: 2 - a declining species. There is a progressive decline in the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

26. Sikhote-Alin hermit-Osmoderma sikhotense. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(ii) c (ii). In the CC of the Russian Federation, as a Japanese hermit – Osmoderma opicum: 2-a declining species. There is a progressive decline in the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

27. Smooth bronzer-Protaetia aeruginosa. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i,ii)c (i, ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. There is a progressive decline in the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

28. Beautiful bronzer-Protaetia speciosa. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(i, ii) c(i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. There is a progressive decline in the total population, mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

29. Bronzer Fieber-Protaetia fieberi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: not included. It is a rare and local species throughout its range in the Russian Federation. Inhabitant of hollows and rotten wood of deciduous trees, mainly oak. There is a progressive decline in habitats and total population. It is included in a number of regional CC's.

30. Red-legged melandria-Melandrya barbata. Survival threat status in Russia according to the IUCN EN E criteria. CC RF: not included. Inhabitant of the dead wood of deciduous trees. Very local and rare. On the territory of the European part of the Russian Federation, it is known from only 3 points that are quite far away. It is very likely to preferentially inhabit primary forests, and therefore, of course, belongs to the number of threatened species. In connection with deforestation, there is a progressive reduction in its habitats.

31. Blackish rotten woodpecker-Pytho kolwensis. Survival threat status in Russia according to the IUCN EN E criteria. CC RF: not included. It lives under the bark of old dead coniferous trees. Very local and rare. On the territory of the European part of the Russian Federation, it is known by individual localities. It is very likely to preferentially inhabit primary forests and, therefore, certainly belongs to the number of threatened species. There is a progressive reduction of its habitats due to deforestation.

32. Relict woodcutter-Callipogon relictus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. A tertiary relic, a member of the genus, all other species of which are distributed in Central and South America. The progressive decline of habitats and total population is mainly due to the deforestation of old forests.

33. Toothed-breasted woodcutter-Rhaesus serricollis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2ab(ii) c (ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. The only representative of the genus on the territory of Russia. Progressive reduction of the habitat and total population of the species.

34. Caucasian woodcutter-Xylosteus caucasicola. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(i, ii) c(i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. The only representative of the genus on the territory of Russia. Endemic to the Caucasus. The progressive decline of habitats and total population is mainly due to deforestation.

35. Koehler's redwing-Purpuricenus kaehleri. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i,ii)c (i, ii). CC RF: not included. Inhabitant of the wood of shoots and non-thick branches of deciduous trees. In deciduous forests of various types, but everywhere it is rare and quite sporadic. It is sensitive to anthropogenic impact. There is a progressive decline in habitat and total population, mainly due to deforestation.

36. Knobby woodcutter-Cerambyx nodulosus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(i, ii) c(i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. Progressive reduction of habitats and total population.

37. Alpine barbel-Rosalia alpina. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1ab (i,ii)c (i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. The progressive decline of habitats and total population is mainly due to deforestation.

38. Heavenly barbel-Rosalia coelestis. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b(i, ii) c (i, ii), B2b(i, ii) c(i, ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. The progressive decline of habitats and total population is mainly due to deforestation.
39. Uriankhai leaf beetle-Chrysolina urjanchaica. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria CR B1ab(i,ii)c (i,ii), E. CC RF: 2 – a declining species. Narrow-aeal endemic to the northernmost desert-steppe Central Asian communities on the right bank of the Yenisei River within the Tyva River. Habitat degradation and a sharp decline in the total population.
40. Warty omias-Omias verruca. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c(ii), E. CC RF: 1 - endangered species. Habitat degradation and a sharp decline in the total population.

41. Sharp-winged elephant-Euidosomus acuminatus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. It is a typical inhabitant of the steppes and a representative of the genus endemic to the Southwestern part of Russia. Europe, the Caucasus, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Kopetdag, and Malaya. Asia. Habitat degradation and a sharp decline in the total population.

42. Four-spotted stephanocleonus-Stephanocleonus tetragrammus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (ii) c (ii), E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. Subendemic of the steppes of the European part of Russia. Habitat degradation and a sharp decline in the total population.

Appendix to the Red Book: Species requiring special attention

Order Coleoptera-Coleoptera

1. Ground beetle fraterculus-Carabus fraterculus. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". In Russia, it is distributed in the northern part of its range-in the South. Primorye. A low-population type.

2. Schrenck's ground beetle-Carabus scbrenckii. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". In Russia, it is distributed in the northern part of its range-in the South. Primorye. A species with a relatively low population.

3. Karpinski's ground beetle-Carabus karpinskii. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". Endemic to the upper belt of the Ural Range. The species ' populations are very local. The population has not been studied.

4. Ribbed bombardier-Brachinus aeneicostis. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". In Russia, it is found in the northern part of its range – in the extreme south of Primorsky Krai. It is known from a few finds.

5. The Javanese bombardier-Pheropsophus javanus. 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 a tropical genus with a unique ecology in Russia. The population is low everywhere.
6. Lime rainbow gold leaf – Lamprodila rutilans. A rare xylophilic species that develops on linden trees throughout its entire range in Russia. The abundance is poorly studied, but where the species was recorded, it is low.

7. Black oak large barbel-Cerambyx cerdo. CC RF (2001; as a large barbel): 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 the Mediterranean genus. In Russia, it is known from some rather local points in the south of the European part and from the Caucasus. The population is poorly understood.

8. Pyrocelia rufa firefly. CC RF: Appendix 3 "Annotated list of taxa and populations of animals that need special attention to their state in the natural environment". An exotic element of the Primorye fauna. The population has not been studied.

Yeah. The beetle list is even worse than the butterfly list. Again, Omias verruca and Eusomus acuminatus were included, although these are common species and only their bisexual populations were offered for protection.

I dare to suggest for the new CC RF a beetle living on muskrat:
Muskrat beetle-Silphopsyllus desmaniae Olsufiev, 1923

Muskrat (relict) is an endangered species – why not protect the only insect associated with it. I think that the status should be set as in the muskrat itself.
I will send you articles for the author-compiler on this type. The species was described from near Penza by Olsuf'ev.
View on the Zino website http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/search/default.asp
And here: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=desmaniae&clid=50368&lr=49

About muskrats:

This post was edited by Penzyak - 24.01.2013 12: 37

Pictures:

________.jpg — (132.63к)

I support Oleg Alexandrovich, muskrat really should be included in the CC

Then I also remembered that a rare species of weevil from the Mediterranean genus was described from the Blue Syrt tract in the Samara region, which is still known only from type specimens. The tract is unique and so is the beetle. I don't know much about it, but maybe I should protect it, too.

I dare to suggest for the new CC RF a beetle living on muskrat:
Muskrat beetle-Silphopsyllus desmaniae Olsufiev, 1923

Muskrat (relict) is an endangered species – why not protect the only insect associated with it.

That's just it. Is it possible to protect Silphopsyllus desmaniae separately, independently of the muskrat? The muskrat will be saved , and the beetle will be saved. And so, in my opinion, this is a pro-forma inclusion: the view is rare, they say, period. What separate independent conservation measures can be proposed for this species, other than those related to the conservation of Desmana moschata? And it is even in the new CC will be 100% - there is no doubt.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 24.01.2013 19: 45

That's just it. Is it possible to protect Silphopsyllus desmaniae separately, independently of the muskrat?

And why, on the same principle, then protect Lucanus cervus? After all, the old oaks will be intact, and there will be deer beetles.

And why, on the same principle, then protect Lucanus cervus? After all, the old oaks will be intact, and there will be deer beetles.

The fact of the matter is that no one will simply protect the old oaks by themselves. Any botanist will say - why protect ordinary species? But when there are insects on the oaks, this is already a reason for their protection.

The fact of the matter is that no one will simply protect the old oaks by themselves. Any botanist will say - why protect ordinary species? But when there are insects on the oaks, this is already a reason for their protection.

Hence the conclusion that it is much more logical to protect the biotope as a whole. And do not make a priority of who to protect first: muskrat or muskrat beetle, oak or deer beetle, etc. In general, we are gradually approaching philosophy...

  III category of environmental status


11. The ground beetle of Menetrieu-Carabus menetriesi. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria EN B1b (i,ii)c (i, ii). CC RF: 2 – a species that is declining in number. The progressive reduction of the area of the range and the total population is mainly due to the destruction of natural habitats.

I propose to delete this species from the CC of Russia and replace it with the rarer and less common Carabus nitens.

And why, on the same principle, then protect Lucanus cervus? After all, the old oaks will be intact, and there will be deer beetles.

There is no such biological species "old oak". And so no one has brought old oaks to the CC and will not bring them in. And only some old trees that are officially recognized as natural (historical) monuments for one reason or another are protected (and sometimes even isolated). Therefore, the Bolshakov Laurel is absolutely right - no one will simply protect the oaks themselves. Hence, the inclusion of Lucanus cervus in the CC is justified.
But the muskrat in the CC is already there and definitely will be. If it is protected as it should be (if it is not already too late), and not as it is customary in our country, the muskrat beetle will also be preserved. Their lives are inextricably linked and it is simply impossible to protect them separately by various measures. Or, as one of the measures to protect Silphopsyllus desmaniae, suggest something like "establish muskrat populations where S. desmaniae occurs, and first of all protect only these "aggregates of individuals"? By the way, I have not seen any publications about whether there are populations of muskrat where muskrat is not found. The way of life of this beetle is practically not studied at all. Therefore, I don't see any other way to protect it than to preserve and increase the muskrat population. And the muskrat is already subject to the most careful protection - this is a fact.

I propose to delete this species from the Russian CC and replace it with the rarer and less common Carabus nitens.

Perhaps you don't have to cross it out. And enable both views.

Hence the conclusion that it is much more logical to protect the biotope as a whole.

So this is the only option in the vast majority of cases. For specialists, this is obvious. Unfortunately, as far as I know, it is impossible to explain this to the decision makers involved. Therefore, we have to play by the existing rules.

Hence the conclusion that it is much more logical to protect the biotope as a whole. And do not make a priority of who to protect first: muskrat or muskrat beetle, oak or deer beetle, etc. In general, we are gradually approaching philosophy...

Well, it is this idea that is the main theme for this topic: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=90568 At least as far as insects in the CC are concerned.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 24.01.2013 21: 03

And only some old trees that are officially recognized as natural (historical) monuments for one reason or another are protected (and sometimes even isolated).

And if the larvae of a deer beetle settle in one of these oaks, what should I do: destroy the Red Book insects or give Quercus robur to be torn to pieces by rare beetles?

This post was edited by niyaz - 24.01.2013 21: 53

By the way, how many examples are there of protected areas (not to mention nature reserves), the reason for the status of which is exclusively the inhabitation of the Red Book insect species in these territories?

Perhaps you don't have to cross it out. And enable both views.

I also had the same idea. However, it is not known to what extent C. nitens is common in the Asian part of its range. In Europe, it is local and rare everywhere.

By the way, a relict large beetle known in the Russian Federation only in the Tula region with an area of about 60 square kilometers (with a smaller area of the stations themselves) - Gnorimus nobilis (L.). The main habitat is located to the west of the Dnieper River. In neighboring well-studied areas, it was not found in a thorough search. the proposal to add to the CCRF is published in the abstracts of the last (Krasnodar) Congress of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

I also had the same idea. However, it is not known to what extent C. nitens is common in the Asian part of its range. In Europe, it is local and rare everywhere.

I don't know about the Asian part, but in the north of the European part it is found better than in central Russia.

2. Reticulated bellet-Callisthenes reticulatus. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria CR B1ab (ii)c (ii). CC RF: 1 - an endangered species. Progressive reduction of habitats, mainly fields, as a result of anthropogenic impact. No special security measures have been developed. It is necessary to create protected areas in places where this type is found.

Here, in my opinion, the error crept in

I read the list and these are my thoughts. What is the Red Book in our understanding? If it's just a list-a list of rare species-that's one thing. But I would like to think that this is still, at least in part, a serious document of practical application, defining what types and what specific (at the same time real, feasible) measures can be preserved. And then you read the current sections of the CC devoted to insects, and in the column "protection measures" you often see at best - "prohibit trapping by collectors", or even just - "measures have not been developed". What is all this for, then? To please the self-esteem of the authors-compilers? On the principle of "to be"?
Here, for example, is the first number of the proposed list for category II section - Aphodius bimaculatus. It is well known that one of the main limiting factors for this species due to the preferred diet of horse manure is a sharp decline in the number of horses in recent decades, and accordingly, the pastures on which they grazed. And what to do with it in modern conditions? Do you propose to resume the previous number of horses? Capture aphodia in preserved habitats and reintroduce them? It is obviously not serious: arguments about the proportionality and economic feasibility of such a measure are more than appropriate. No matter how hard it is to talk about it, but you need to be realistic: reducing the number and even (alas!) the extinction of a number of species is impossible to prevent, this process is irreversible.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is incorrect to evaluate the proposed list only by the criterion of the validity of including species in it on the principle of formal compliance with the categories of conservation status (as with the same muskrat beetle). It is worth thinking about what this list is formed for and how to really organize the protection of the insect species listed in it. Although, of course, you can cover yourself with general arguments in the style of"water does not flow under a lying stone".

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 25.01.2013 00: 40

reticulatus earius Obydov et Pütz, 1996

The central part of the Kazakh melkosopochnik (Karaganda region, roc. Zhana-Arki, Kizil-Jara, Atasu, Aktyubinsk region, okr. pos. Novoaleksandrovsky district, okr. Akmola) and Southern Russia, roc. Orenburg. There are references for Tobolsk (Jeannel, 1940; Kryzhanovsky, 1962; Horion, 1941; Obydov and Putz, 1996). From Orenburg and the surrounding area. Novoaleksandrovsky district, known only from old materials.

Living environment.
It inhabits parts of semiarid steppes.

The main limiting factors are direct destruction of habitats as a result of economic development of the territory, uncontrolled use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides.

Question-does anyone know about his new finds on the territory of Russia, and then
protected in the Orenburg region (0* category).

Pictures:

Callisthenes_reticulatus_01.jpg — (494.81к)

reticulatus earius Obydov et Pütz, 1996

The central part of the Kazakh melkosopochnik (Karaganda region, roc. Zhana-Arki, Kizil-Jara, Atasu, Aktyubinsk region, okr. pos. Novoaleksandrovsky district, okr. Akmola) and Southern Russia, roc. Orenburg. There are references for Tobolsk (Jeannel, 1940; Kryzhanovsky, 1962; Horion, 1941; Obydov and Putz, 1996). From Orenburg and the surrounding area. Novoaleksandrovsky district, known only from old materials.

Living environment.
It inhabits parts of semiarid steppes.

The main limiting factors are direct destruction of habitats as a result of economic development of the territory, uncontrolled use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides.

Question-does anyone know about his new finds on the territory of Russia, and then
protected in the Orenburg region (0* category).

There are instructions from Dagestan...
For example, in the theses of the 14th Congress of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences "Materials for understanding the carabid fauna of the Salatau mountain system" G. M. Abdurakhmanov, G. M. Nakhibasheva, G. M. Mukhtarova ..."It should be noted that there is a fairly large population of the rarest species Callisthenes reticulatus in the studied fauna"

This post was edited by Elizar - 25.01.2013 03: 59

Sikhote-Alin hermit-Osmoderma sikhotense

Well, why do the authors make unnecessary confusion with the names? After all, this name was published later than Osmoderma coeleste Gusakov. Although why this is done, you can guess...

As always, there are views that are relatively successful, and not so good. Let's say Dicerca amphibia – Dicerca amphibia. The species inhabits the freshly dead trunks of Populus spp. and Betula. Well, it's rare. Although other diceroc species have relatively similar biology, and are much more common. Does it suffer more from anthropogenic activity? Not a fact... How will we protect them? But not at all. Only "creating protected areas". Although the latter is suitable for most protected and non-protected species. Protected areas are great. But I think D. amphibia will not become a more numerous species there, because this species is NATURALLY RARE, and even if you get hurt, it will no longer be included in the Cc.

This post was edited by Cerambyx - 25.01.2013 04: 47

There are instructions from Dagestan...
For example, in the theses of the 14th Congress of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences "Materials for understanding the carabid fauna of the Salatau mountain system" G. M. Abdurakhmanov, G. M. Nakhibasheva, G. M. Mukhtarova ..."It should be noted that there is a fairly large population of the rarest species Callisthenes reticulatus in the studied fauna"

Thank you, I know about this, but in the Orenburg region?


Distribution of the nominative subspecies in Europe.
It is distributed in Central Europe: from north-eastern Austria in the west, further north to Belgium, Denmark, Southern Sweden; east to the Kaliningrad region of Russia, Grodno region of Belarus; south to Poland (Western Sudetenland), Slovakia and north-western Hungary. An indication of being in Yandex. Metrica. Dagestan, Kurush (Kryzhanovskii, 1983, Kryzhanovskii et all, 1995) - this is incredible, which was discussed earlier (Obydov, 2002). cf. Salatau (Abdurakhmanov, Nakhibasheva, Mukhtarova, 2012). In most areas, it disappeared under the pressure of anthropogenic influence. Currently, it is reliably found in Eastern Germany and Southern Sweden.

subspecies status - if it really exists there (Dagestan) - is still questionable

This post was edited by I. solod - 25.01.2013 05: 39

Thank you, I know about this, but in the Orenburg region?
Distribution of the nominative subspecies in Europe.
It is distributed in Central Europe: from north-eastern Austria in the west, further north to Belgium, Denmark, Southern Sweden; east to the Kaliningrad region of Russia, Grodno region of Belarus; south to Poland (Western Sudetenland), Slovakia and north-western Hungary. An indication of being in Yandex. Metrica. Dagestan, Kurush (Kryzhanovskii, 1983, Kryzhanovskii et all, 1995) - this is incredible, which was discussed earlier (Obydov, 2002). cf. Salatau (Abdurakhmanov, Nakhibasheva, Mukhtarova, 2012). In most areas, it disappeared under the pressure of anthropogenic influence. Currently, it is reliably found in Eastern Germany and Southern Sweden.

And what is the subspecies in Dagestan? Nominative?

I haven't seen this material - so it's hard to say anything in absentia-and the locale is very remote from well-known places

nominative

The head is large, moderately thickened, with a thick neck and slightly protruding bulging eyes. The anterior or frontal grooves are deep or flattened. The front and top of the head and neck are finely dotted. The jaws are long. The antennae are shorter, barely reaching beyond the base of the ndcr. The prothorax is broad, transverse and convex. There are no setae on the back of the prothorax. Pronotum large, transverse, convex. Side edge in front with a single bristle. Wrinkled to varying degrees in the front and sides. Elytra elongated-oval, parallel with protruding shoulders. There are wings. All the spaces above the cr. are of the same type and well developed, forming irregular tubercles, often merging in the transverse direction. Primary pits are clear. The primary gaps are unclear. Side edges of the tax code. narrowly edged. Metapisternes of the posterior thorax are thinly dotted and slightly longer than the width. Abdominal sternites are smooth. The grooves on the sternites are long and shallow. The legs are of normal length, the male has shins without brushes of hairs, forelegs with three extended segments, with a felt pad on the bottom. Penis with a chitinized triangular ligule, with several bristles, with a hooked end. The color is green with a metallic sheen or bronze-green, rarely black with a bronze sheen. Below, the body is black, episternes and epimers of the anterior, middle and posterior thorax, as well as epipleures of the ndcr. with a bright green sheen.

reticulatus earius Obydov et Pütz, 1996
differs from the nominative subspecies by a wider and thicker head. The eyes are less prominent, the mandibles are shorter and not so strongly arched along the inner edge, without a sharp tooth at the top. The pronotum is narrower, the epiglottis more prominent and wider than in the nominative subspecies. The top of the aedeagus lamella is narrower and longer and sloped slightly to the left.

That's just it. Is it possible to protect Silphopsyllus desmaniae separately, independently of the muskrat? The muskrat will be saved , and the beetle will be saved. And so, in my opinion, this is a pro-forma inclusion: the view is rare, they say, period. What separate independent conservation measures can be proposed for this species, other than those related to the conservation of Desmana moschata? And it is even in the new CC will be 100% - there is no doubt.

Viktor, you probably haven't read the available articles on the biology and ecology of the vykholivik beetle very carefully. Let me remind the distinguished assembly that the beetles are quite comfortable in the nest chamber of the muskrat, namely in the bedding material of the nest... Here's a reason not to touch muskrat nests. The species is relict and endemic to the European part of the Russian Federation. For example, muskrat has almost disappeared along the major rivers: Sura, Khoper, Moksha... rather, by their floodplain lakes... and this is without any chemical pollution, for example, in the last two rivers...

Of course, let's better protect these "rarities":
1. The broad finfish-Dytiscus latissimus.
11. The ground beetle of Menetrieu-Carabus menetriesi.
14. Sweet-smelling bellet-Calosoma sycophanta.
16. Rusty-red nutcracker-Elater ferrugineus
17. Amphibian dicerca-Dicerca amphibia.
19. Oak green goldfish-Eurythyrea quercus.
21. Modest hornbill-Segis chrysomelinus
29. Fieber's bronzer-Protaetia fieberi.
30. Red-legged melandria-Melandrya barbata.
35. Koehler's redwing-Purpuricenus kaehleri.
etc. etc.

...it seems that we are writing a new edition of the CC of the Moscow region...

Viktor, you probably haven't read the available articles on the biology and ecology of the vykholivik beetle very carefully. Let me remind the distinguished assembly that the beetles are quite comfortable in the nest chamber of the muskrat, namely in the bedding material of the nest... Here's a reason not to touch muskrat nests. The species is relict and endemic to the European part of the Russian Federation. For example, muskrat has almost disappeared along the major rivers: Sura, Khoper, Moksha... rather, by their floodplain lakes... and this is without any chemical pollution, for example, in the last two rivers...

That's just it, Oleg, I've read it. The reason not to touch muskrat nests is primarily because they are muskrat nests. And if they are not touched, the bug will also be preserved. I, in my opinion, clearly said that I simply do not see special, independent of the protection of muskrat (which in itself is already an indisputable Red Book species) ways (measures) to protect the muskrat. And you just confirmed it. In addition, how do you imagine monitoring the muskrat population? Catch muskrats? Inspect-examine (i.e. touch despite the ban!) their nests? Yes, the muskrat is a relict and endemic species. But its inclusion in the CC only by this criterion, without taking into account its biology, feasibility and generally the feasibility of special protection measures applicable only to this type , is turning the CC from a document of practical application and significance into a list of rare species. This is my opinion.

Again, double standards - here we take for example one of the largest spangles of the Russian Federation. Something that no one enters in the CC of its owner-breadwinner... the bembix colonies will disappear, that's all... the KK species will also die. We have already marked more than 20 habitat points in our region.

1. Large parnopes-Parnopes grandior. Survival threat status in Russia according to IUCN criteria VU A4ac, E. CC RF: 2 - a declining species. The only species of the genus in Russia. Progressive reduction of the species ' habitats and total abundance as a result of widespread overgrowth of open sandy massifs and overregulation of river flow, leading to a reduction in the nesting sites of Bembix wasps, an object of its nesting parasitism, and the use of insecticides. It is an object of amateur collectibles.

- I am especially moved by the last phrase... Who the fuck needs it?..

Again, double standards - here we take for example one of the largest spangles of the Russian Federation. Something that no one enters in the CC of its owner-breadwinner...

Oleg, what does this have to do with double standards? The fact of the matter is that bembiks are not listed in the CC, but muskrat is listed, and no one in their right mind and sober memory will remove it from there. If we assume that Parnopes grandior will be included in the CC, one of the measures of its protection will be the preservation of wasp colonies (which are not protected by themselves). The muskrat would not have lived in the burrows of an already protected (internationally!) area. muskrats, and, for example, in fox holes - another calico: foxes are not Red Books!

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 25.01.2013 11: 17

Oleg, there are so many bembiks in Russia so far that it is impossible to add them to the main CC. It's like old oaks and a stag beetle. It is necessary to protect only those colonies of bembix where there is parnopes. But bembiks is still listed in the Tula Region Agricultural Complex for the company (as the owner), because here we don't have enough sandy wastelands, and that threatens plowing or (in 50 years) overgrowing with "Yeltsin's sowing" (i.e. birch).

.. the fact that the stag beetle needs only oak trees for food is already, as it were, somewhat outdated information (see my article on the stag beetle in the software). Or rather, we need not the oaks themselves, but their derivatives... (ugh, the philosophy has already gone...). For example, (based on extensive field research experience) in the spring, if I walk through some forest , I can say with 99% confidence whether a deer beetle lives here or not.

Well, let's take for example Aphodius two-spotted (frankly speaking, far from the rarest dung beetle!!!). It is clear that he needs horse droppings for food... what do you need to specifically breed horses? For example, the Tatars in our villages live by subsistence farming , mainly raising livestock... I didn't see these beetles at night when I was catching insects in the light... Sometimes it was impossible to breathe under the streetlamp because of the dung...
But take for example the CC of the Ulyanovsk region, where Alexey Isaev (may his memory be blessed) proposed to protect three types of dung beetles: Aphodius ivanovi L., A. exilimanus K. and A. isajevi K. Since, for example, the last two species are associated with" ancient "marmot colonies (the species is no longer found in reacclimatized colonies) and are not capable of migration (they are simply not found in" new " marmot colonies), then in theory for these (very suitable for the CC RF) species, these marmots should be protected first of all... You want a joke... the groundhog is considered a hunting species there! That is, they are shot there by everyone who is not lazy (along with ground squirrels at the same time) and its number has naturally sharply decreased.... The eagle burial ground (I am touched in Ulyanovsk by calling it the sunny eagle was chosen as a natural symbol of the region) the basis of nutrition of which is ground squirrels and young marmots there is simply nothing to eat... so he catches rooks on the territory of the Penza region... I saw it myself... Ulyanovsk residents were confused, but what's the use?.. and there many are still convinced that they have a lot of ground squirrels and marmots... and they make round eyes when they hear that they just disappear...

Polumordvinov O. A., Monakhov A.M., 2005. Deer beetle Lucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera, Lucanidae) in the Penza region // Izvestiya PSPU. Scientific and educational issues. Young Scientists ' Sector. No. 1 (3). Penza: PSPU, pp. 30-32.

This post was edited by Penzyak-25.01.2013 15: 02

File/s:



 ____________________________________________2005.doc

size: 567k
number of downloads: 512

I don't know about the Asian part, but in the north of the European part it is found better than in central Russia.

In the Carabidae of the world, it is shown that nitens occurs in the tundra of the Tyumen region, Yamalo-Nenets auth. the district, as well as in Bashkiria and in the west of the Chelyabinsk region. Here, however, with its biotope is not clear. In the work of Fedorenko, it was given as a meadow species.

In the Carabidae of the world, it is shown that nitens occurs in the tundra of the Tyumen region, Yamalo-Nenets auth. the district, as well as in Bashkiria and in the west of the Chelyabinsk region. Here, however, with its biotope is not clear. In Fedorenko's work, it is referred to as a meadow species.

In Europe, it is said to gravitate towards heatherworms.

In the Carabidae of the world, it is shown that nitens occurs in the tundra of the Tyumen region, Yamalo-Nenets auth. the district, as well as in Bashkiria and in the west of the Chelyabinsk region. Here, however, with its biotope is not clear. In Fedorenko's work, it is referred to as a meadow species.

Although this is not my group, but it is obvious that it is dedicated to the taiga and subtaiga. It can be" meadow " only in connection with its habitation along the edges, clearings, and wastelands on specific soils exclusively near mixed forests.

In the Carabidae of the world, it is shown that nitens occurs in the tundra of the Tyumen region, Yamalo-Nenets auth. the district, as well as in Bashkiria and in the west of the Chelyabinsk region. Here, however, with its biotope is not clear. In Fedorenko's work, it is referred to as a meadow species.

In Europe, it is said to gravitate towards heatherworms.

Although this is not my group, but it is obvious that it is dedicated to the taiga and subtaiga. It can be" meadow " only in connection with its habitation along the edges, clearings, and wastelands on specific soils exclusively near mixed forests.

In the Nizhny Novgorod region, I found only one specimen near the Gorky reservoir, on the territory of a sanatorium near a mixed forest with a predominance of spruce and pine, on a day in May. On dozens of soil traps placed at a distance of approx. 1 km. none of them came from the detection point.

This post was edited by Aaata - 29.01.2013 14: 07

Although this is not my group, but it is obvious that it is dedicated to the taiga and subtaiga. It can be" meadow " only in connection with its habitation along the edges, clearings, and wastelands on specific soils exclusively near mixed forests.

However, it is confined to meadows, to a lesser extent-to the banks of reservoirs. It lives well in burnt areas and fallow fields - until they are overgrown with forest. Extremely local.