Preparation of a new edition of the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk region

Colleagues!
I post links to related articles here.
A. Lagunov

RARE BP NP Zyuratkul.

Link to download the file:
http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3063272

Attention! A password was set for downloading the file: lagun1dom
Remember it, no one can download the file without it.

About the Red Book of CHO

link: http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3063292

(without a password)

Link to download the file:
http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3063301

Sozology of abscesses

Link to download the file:
http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3063313

Sozology of lepidoptera

Link to download the file:
http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3063317

Cockroaches

Link to download the file:
http://www.fayloobmennik.net/3063321

A. V. Lagunov

Sozological analysis of protected invertebrates of the Chelyabinsk region

Implemented a sozological analysis of the Guild of protected invertebrates of the Chelyabinsk region. Suggestions for optimizing the list of invertebrates in the new edition of the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk region are formulated. The nature conservation statuses of the species are justified.
Keywords: invertebrates, Red Data Book, Chelyabinsk region, animal protection, sozological analysis.

To date, 136 species of invertebrates listed in the Red Books of various ranks have been registered in the Chelyabinsk Region. Thus, the International Red Book [34] contains 32 invertebrate species, the Red Book of the Russian Federation – 44 [10], and the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk Region [11] – 103. Almost a third (86 species, 63%) of invertebrates protected in the region have a threatened status (CR, EN, VU in the international and 1, 2, 3 categories in the national Red Books). In order to optimize the list of protected invertebrates of the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk Region and clarify their conservation status, a comprehensive sociological analysis of the entire cohort of protected species of this group was conducted.
Sozology - (from the Greek sozo - to protect), sozological ecology, soziecology - a branch of general ecology that develops scientific foundations for the protection of ecosystems, biocenoses, individual plant and animal populations (Bykov, 1983). In the Russian ecological literature, it is often used as a synonym for nature protection (for example, [24]). This term was introduced into science by the Polish ecologist W. Goethel in 1966 [31]. Then it became widely used by Ukrainian ecologists [8, 27-30, etc.] and is now widely used by domestic authors [1, 4, 5, 12, 14, 23, 25 The methodology, basic terms and concepts of this scientific discipline are given in the Green Book of the Ukrainian SSR [7] and in the monograph of V. A. Krasilov [9].
Currently, various morphological methods are used to analyze individual groups of animals and plants. They are sometimes used in regional redlisting, including the most important stage of forming (or correcting) the list of protected species, as well as to establish the conservation status of species on a regional scale. The need to apply sozological methods in the protection of rare species has been repeatedly pointed out by various experts (see, for example, [2, 26]).

Thus, the arealogical analysis was used for lepidoptera of Europe and Ukraine [22, 32]. We performed a meta-analysis for protected invertebrates in the Southern Urals [13]. The application of the IUCN criteria at the regional level [33] is considered in detail for the diurnal butterflies of the Far East [20] and for the cohort of protected coleoptera of the Southern Urals [17]. The above methods have some limitations in their use, primarily due to the lack of detailed data on the distribution in the region and, in part, to a significant lack of quantitative indicators of the abundance of these species in biotopes.
In our opinion, the most universal means of sozological analysis is the use of the Saxon-Rosenberg sozological matrix [25]. This matrix was improved by us (Table 1). 1) and has already been tested on rare lepidoptera of the Ilmen Reserve [14], protected lepidoptera of the Chelyabinsk region [16], orchids of the Southern Urals [18], protected coleoptera of the Southern Urals [17], abscess beetles of the Chelyabinsk region [15], and rare birds of the Chelyabinsk region [6]. The justification of the attribute weight indicators used by us was given earlier in separate publications [13, 14, 17, 18] .

Table 1.
The scale of sozological assessment of rare species (according to [25] with changes)
№ Sozological feature Weight of the feature Sozological rating of the feature, points
1 2 3 4
1 Abundance of the species in typical habitats 5 Dominant Common Rare Very rare
2 Number of habitats in the region 5 More than 30 11 – 30 6 - 10 1 – 5
3 Trend of population changes 4 Growth Stable Gradual decline Sharp decline
4 Anthropogenic vulnerability of the species 4 Weak Medium High Very high
5 Latitude of ecological and coenotic amplitude 3 Euryton Hemi-euryton
Hemisthenoton Stenoton 6 Biogeographic significance 3 Species within the continuous range Species within the spotted range Species at the range boundary Species outside the range (enclave)
7 Topography of the range 3 Intercontinental species Continental species Regional endemic Local endemic
8 Territorial protection of the species (presence in protected areas) 2 Protected areas with a comprehensive protection regime Zoological protected areas Non core protected areas Not in protected
areas 9 Official conservation status 2 IUCN Red List Red Book of the Russian Federation Red Book of the region Not in the Red Book
10 Scientific value 1 Minor Medium Large Extremely high
11 Aesthetic value 1 Minor Medium Large Extremely high
12 Economic value 1 Minor Medium Large Widely used

The integral sozological assessment of species is obtained by multiplying the score by the weight of the trait and summing the results. The assessment was carried out taking into account the totality of information about the state of the species in the region. Three species of protected lepidoptera were excluded from the analysis: two species whose presence in the region is currently questionable (Utetheisa pulchella, Chariclea delphinii) and one migrant species that does not form stable populations in the region (Manduca atropos).
The estimated matrix obtained as a result of the analysis, which includes 133 species of protected invertebrates of the Chelyabinsk region (tab. 2) allows to estimate approximately the current conservation status of species and formulate recommendations for optimizing the lists of protected invertebrates on a regional scale.

Table 2.
Estimated sozological matrix of protected invertebrates of the Chelyabinsk region
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hirudo medicinalis Integrated Assessment 20 20 12 12 9 12 6 8 2 2 2 4 109
Eisenia intermedia 5 15 8 8 3 9 9 2 4 3 2 3 71
Lymnaea glutinosa 15 15 8 8 6 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 80
Planorbis carinatus 20 20 8 8 6 12 6 2 6 2 2 1 93
Gastrocopta theeli 15 20 8 4 12 6 6 2 6 2 2 1 84
Vertigo moulinsiana 20 20 8 8 9 12 6 2 2 2 2 1 92
Dolomedes plantarius 15 15 8 4 9 3 6 2 2 2 3 1 70
Calopteryx virgo 5 5 4 8 6 3 6 2 6 2 3 1 51
C. splendens 5 5 4 8 6 3 3 2 6 2 3 1 48
Ischnura aralensis 10 15 4 8 6 12 9 2 6 4 2 1 79
Leucorrhinia albifrons 10 10 8 8 6 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 60
L. caudalis 10 20 8 8 6 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 70
Ophiogomphus cecilia 10 15 8 8 6 3 6 6 2 2 2 1 69
Anax imperator 20 20 4 8 6 9 3 8 4 3 3 1 89
Aeshna viridis 10 10 8 8 6 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 60
Mantis religiosa 10 5 4 4 3 9 3 2 6 2 3 1 52
Armene pusilla 20 20 12 8 9 9 6 2 6 3 2 1 98
Onconotus servillei 15 15 8 4 6 9 6 2 2 3 3 1 74
Saga pedo 15 10 4 8 6 9 6 2 6 4 4 1 75
Stenobothrus eurasius 10 20 4 4 3 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 59
Cicadella montana 15 10 4 4 6 9 6 2 6 2 3 1 66
Ranatra linearis 15 15 4 8 6 3 6 2 6 2 3 1 71
Gerris sphagnetorum 20 20 8 8 12 12 6 2 6 4 2 1 101
Nebria uralensis 10 20 8 4 12 12 12 2 6 4 2 1 93
Calosoma sycophanta 15 10 4 16 6 3 6 2 6 2 4 4 78
Carabus menetriesi 20 20 4 12 6 9 6 2 4 3 3 2 91
C. karpinskii 15 20 8 4 12 12 12 2 6 4 3 2 100
C. hungaricus 15 20 4 12 6 9 6 2 4 3 3 2 86
C. exaratus 20 20 8 8 9 12 9 2 6 4 3 2 103
Pterostichus kaninensis 15 20 8 4 12 12 9 2 6 3 2 1 94
Pt. urengaicus 10 15 8 4 12 12 9 2 6 4 2 1 85
Amara alpinа 10 20 8 4 12 12 3 2 6 3 2 1 83
Brachinus hamatus 20 20 8 8 9 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 93
Dytiscus latissimus 20 20 8 12 6 3 6 2 6 2 4 1 90
Graphoderus bilineatus 20 20 8 12 6 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 84
Lucanus cervus 20 20 8 16 3 9 3 6 6 2 4 1 98
Lampyris noctiluca 5 15 8 8 9 3 6 2 6 2 4 2 70
Hysperaspis reppensis 20 20 8 8 6 9 6 8 6 2 2 1 96
H. erythrocephala 20 20 8 8 6 9 6 8 6 2 2 1 96
Chilocorus renipustulatus 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 1 82
Prionus coriarius 20 20 12 16 12 9 6 8 6 2 4 1 116
Rosalia alpina 20 20 12 16 12 9 6 6 6 3 4 1 115
Purpuricenus kaehleri 20 20 12 16 12 9 6 6 6 2 3 1 113
Omias verruca 10 20 4 12 9 9 6 2 4 3 2 1 82
Euidosomus acuminatus 10 20 8 12 9 9 6 2 4 3 2 1 79
Ascalaphus macaronius 10 10 8 8 9 9 6 2 6 2 3 1 74
Syrichtus tessellum 10 10 8 8 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 1 63
Neolycaena rhymnus 15 10 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 1 82
Plebejidea cyane 20 20 12 8 6 9 6 8 6 2 2 1 100
Tersamonolycaena dispar 10 10 8 8 6 3 6 2 2 2 2 1 60
Maculinea alcon 10 15 8 12 9 6 6 2 2 3 2 1 76
M. arion 10 10 8 12 9 6 6 2 2 3 2 1 71
M. nausithous 10 15 8 12 9 6 6 2 2 3 2 1 76
M. telejus 10 15 8 12 9 6 6 2 2 3 2 1 76
Lycaena virgaureae 5 10 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 1 67
Polyommatus coelestinus 15 20 8 8 6 9 6 8 6 2 2 1 91
Parnassius apollo 15 5 4 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 4 1 65
P. mnemosyne 10 10 4 4 9 6 6 2 6 2 3 1 63
Iphiclides podalirius 15 5 8 8 3 3 3 2 6 2 3 1 59
Papilio machaon 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 6 1 3 1 40
Zerynthia polyxena 15 20 12 8 12 9 6 2 6 3 4 1 98
Apatura iris 10 10 4 4 6 3 6 2 6 2 3 1 57
Limenitis populi 10 10 4 4 6 3 6 2 6 2 3 1 57
Argyronome laodice 20 10 8 8 6 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 80
Boloria thore 20 20 8 4 9 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 89
B. selenis 20 15 8 4 9 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 84
B. freija 20 20 16 12 12 12 3 8 6 3 2 1 115
B. aquilonaris 15 20 8 8 12 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 91
Hypodryas maturna 15 10 8 8 9 6 6 2 2 2 2 1 71
Crebeta deidamia 20 20 8 8 9 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 93
Coenonympha hero 5 10 4 4 3 3 6 2 4 1 2 1 45
C. oedippus 20 20 8 4 3 3 6 2 6 2 2 1 77
C. tullia 20 20 8 4 3 3 3 6 6 2 2 1 78
C. amaryllis 20 15 8 4 3 3 6 2 6 2 2 1 72
Erebia cyclopius 15 15 8 4 6 9 6 2 6 2 2 1 76
Oeneis jutta 15 20 8 8 6 9 3 2 6 3 2 1 83
Eudia pavonia 20 20 8 8 6 9 6 2 6 2 4 1 92
Phyllodesma ilicifolia 10 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 1 73
Proserpinus proserpina 20 20 4 8 6 9 6 2 2 2 3 1 83
Haemorrhagia tityus 15 20 4 8 6 3 6 2 6 2 3 1 76
Holoarctica puengeleri 20 20 8 4 12 12 3 2 6 3 3 1 94
Callimorpha dominula 20 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 4 1 87
Euplagia quadripunctaria 20 20 4 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 4 1 85
Catocala fraxini 10 10 4 4 3 3 6 2 6 2 4 1 55
Characopygus modestus 20 20 8 8 6 9 6 2 4 4 2 1 90
Parnopes grandior 20 20 8 8 6 9 6 2 4 4 2 1 90
Scolia hirta 15 20 8 8 6 9 3 8 6 2 3 2 90
Rhophitoides canus 10 20 4 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 4 80
Megachile rotundata 15 20 4 12 6 6 3 2 6 1 2 4 81
Xylocopa valga 15 15 4 12 9 9 6 2 6 2 4 2 86
Apis mellifera mellifera 10 15 4 16 6 6 9 4 6 3 2 4 95
Bombus fragrans 20 20 8 12 12 9 6 2 4 3 4 3 103
B. confusus 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 85
B. pascuorum 10 10 4 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 66
B. veteranus 15 20 4 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 81
B. muscorum 10 15 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 75
B. schrenkii 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 75
B. laesus 15 20 8 8 6 6 3 2 6 2 3 3 72
B. maculidorsis 20 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 91
B. ruderatus 20 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 91
B. hortorum 10 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 80
B. consobrinus 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 85
B. armeniacus 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 85
B. pomorum 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 2 3 3 89
B. wurflenii 20 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 90
B. distinguendus 10 15 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 75
B. subterraneus 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 85
B. soroensis 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 85
B. hypnorum 10 15 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 75
B. modestus 15 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 85
B. pratorum 20 20 8 8 6 6 6 2 6 2 3 3 90
B. terrestris 10 20 8 8 6 6 3 2 6 2 3 3 77
B. lucorum 10 15 4 8 6 6 3 2 6 2 3 3 68
B. serrisquama 15 20 8 8 6 6 3 2 6 2 3 3 82
Formica rufa 10 5 4 12 3 3 6 2 6 2 2 3 58
F. polyctena 5 5 4 12 3 3 6 2 6 2 2 3 53
F. aquilonia 10 15 4 12 6 9 6 2 6 2 2 3 77
F. pratensis 5 5 4 12 3 3 6 2 6 2 2 3 53
F. truncorum 20 20 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 93
F. uralensis 10 10 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 73
F. lugubris 5 20 8 12 6 6 6 4 2 2 2 3 76
F. cunicularia 10 5 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 68
F. rufibarbis 5 5 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 63
F. picea 10 10 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 73
F. gagatoides 20 20 12 8 12 12 6 8 6 3 2 3 112
F. fusca 10 10 8 12 6 3 3 2 6 2 2 3 67
F. lemani 15 20 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 88
F. exsecta 10 10 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 73
F. pressilabris 15 10 8 12 6 6 6 2 6 2 2 3 88
F. sanguinea 10 5 4 12 9 9 6 2 6 2 2 3 70
Strongylognathus christophi 20 20 8 8 6 9 6 2 2 4 1 1 87
Bombylius major 15 15 8 8 6 6 3 2 6 2 2 1 74
Laphria gibbosa 15 20 8 8 6 6 3 2 6 2 2 1 79

Integral sociological assessments of species were divided into three groups using a uniform limited scale [21]: threatened species (range 102 – 136 points), rare species (68 – 101), and non-threatened species (less than 68 points). We divided the category of" Rare species " into relatively rare (score in the range of 68-84 points) and very rare (score 85-101 points). Conventionally, these estimates can be compared with the status categories used in the International Red Book, as well as in the national and most regional Red Books of our country (Fig.

Fig. Approximate ratio of indicators of a comprehensive sociological assessment and status categories accepted in the international and national Red Books.

It should be borne in mind that the ratio between the sozological assessment and the categories of environmental status used in the Red Books is not rigid, but relative, due to the fact that several different approaches and criteria are used in the allocation of status categories and in conducting a comprehensive sozological assessment. One more thing to keep in mind is that the list of species included in the International Red List consists of species included in the most threatened categories (VU, EN, CR). By analogy, the core of the national and regional Red Books should be considered species of categories 1, 2, and 3.While category 4 (undefined species) has a pronounced auxiliary and temporary character. By the way, this is also reflected in the verbal characteristics of this category: "Taxa and populations with an uncertain status that probably belong to one of the previous categories, but there is currently no sufficient information about their state in nature" (Krasnaya Kniga CHO, 2005).
The approximate scale of correlations between indicators of a comprehensive sociological assessment and categories of conservation statuses accepted in the Red Books developed by us earlier (Lagunov, 2012) allowed us to formulate the following proposals for the list of protected invertebrates in the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk Region (below, species not previously nominated in the Red Book of the region are highlighted in bold).
1. None of the considered invertebrate species protected on the territory of the region can be classified as CR (Critically Endangered) –
2. Category 1 (Endangered) = Category EN (Endangered) should include 5 species:
* Woodcutter - tanner – Prionus coriarius (Linnaeus, 1758).
* Rosalia alpina (Linnaeus, 1758).
* Koehler's redwing-Purpuricenus kaehleri (Linnaeus, 1758).
* Mother-of-pearl Freija-Boloria freija (Becklin, 1791). In the region, in 1991, the only habitat isolated from the main range (at a distance of about 500 km) was identified in a swamp near the village of Nepryakhino. In the 90s, several dozen specimens were caught, but currently the species is not detected during detailed surveys.
* Steppe bumblebee-Bombus fragrans (Pallas, 1771).
* Polar ant-Formica gagatoides Ruzsky, 1904.

3. To category 2 (a declining species) = category VU (Vulnerable – vulnerable species) you can include 39 species [keeled reel-Planorbis carinatus O. F. Muller, 1774, vertigo De Mouli-Vertigo moulinsiana (Dupuy, 1849), Imperial watchman – Anax imperator Leach, 1815, baby mantis-Armene pusilla (Eversmann, 1859), sphagnum water skimmer - Gerris sphagnetorum Gaunitz, 1947, Nebria uralensis (Glasunov, 1901), ground beetle Menetri – Carabus menetriesi Hummel, 1827, Karpinski's ground beetle - Carabus karpinskii Kryzhanovskii et Matveev, 1993, Hungarian ground beetle – Carabus hungaricus Fabricius, 1792, exaratus ground beetle - Carabus exaratus Quensel, 1806, Pterostichus kaninensis Poppius, 1906, bombardier hamatus - Brachinus hamatus (Fischer von Waldheim, 1828), the broadest flipper – Dytiscus latissimus Blunk, 1923, horned deer-Lucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758), woodland hyperaspis – Hysperaspis reppensis (Herbst, 1783), red – headed hyperaspis – Hysperaspis erythrocephala (Fabricius, 1787), kiana's dove - Plebejidea cyane (Eversmann, 1837), sky dove – Polyommatus coelestinus (Eversmann, 1843), polyxena-Zerynthia polyxena (Denis et Schiffermuller, 1775), Alpine mother-of-pearl-Boloria thore (Hübner, 1803), northern mother-of-pearl - Boloria aquilonaris (Stichel, 1908), Deidamia marigold (Crebeta deidamia (Eversmann, 1851), Eudia pavonia (Linnaeus, 1761), mountain bear (Holoarctica puengeleri (O. Bang-Haas, 1927), lady bear (Callimorpha dominula (Linnaeus, 1758), black-footed harakopygus – Characopygus modestus Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1931, Parnopes grandior (Pallas, 1771), Scolia hirta Schrenck,1781, carpenter bee – Xylocopa valga Gerstaecker, 1872, Bashkir wood bee – Apis mellifera mellifera Linnaeus, 1758, bumblebee pyatnistospinny-Bombus maculidorsis Scorikov, 1922, bumblebee reddish - Bombus ruderatus (Fabricius, 1775), fruit bumblebee - Bombus pomorum (Panzer, 1805), Wurflen's bumblebee - Bombus wurflenii Radoszkowski, 1860, meadow bumblebee - Bombus pratorum (Linnaeus, 1761), red - headed ant - Formica truncorum Fabricius, 1804, Lehman's ant-Formica lemani Bondroit, 1917, ant pressilabris-Formica pressilabris Nylander, 1846, Christophe's ant-Strongylognathus christophi Emery, 1889].

4. To the 3rd category (rare species) = category NT (Near Threatened-a species close to a vulnerable state), we recommend that you include 63 species [Eisenia intermediata – Eisenia intermedia (Michaelsen, 1899), Limnaea mantle - bearing-Lymnaea glutinosa O. F. Muller, 1774; Gastrocopta theeli Westerlund, 1877; Dolomedes plantarius (Clerk, 1757); Ichnura aralensis Haritonov, 1979; Leucorrhinia caudalis (Charpentier, 1840); and Ophiogomphus cecilia (Fourcroy, 1785), sevchuk Odene - Servile – Onconotus servillei Fischer-Waldheim, 1846, steppe dybka – Saga pedo (Pallas, 1771), rod - shaped ranatra - Ranatra linearis (Linnaeus, 1758), odoriferous cauliflower - Calosoma sycophanta (Linnaeus, 1758), Urenga pterostichus –Pterostichus urengaicus Jureček, 1924, Alpine kurtonotus-Amara alpina (Paykull, 1790), Graphoderus bilineatus (DeGeer, 1774), common firefly – Lampyris noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1767), Chilocorus renipustulatus (Scriba, 1791), warty omias – Omias verruca (Steven, 1829), sharp - winged elephant – Euidosomus acuminatus (Boheman, 1839), askalaf motley – Ascalaphus macaronius (Scopoli, 1763), Neolycaena rhymnus (Eversmann, 1832), Maculinea alcon (Denis&Schiffermuller, 1775), Arion's spot – Maculinea arion (Linnaeus, 1758), blackish spot – Maculinea nausithous (Bergstrasser, 1779), teley spot – Maculinea telejus (Bergstrasser, 1779), common apollo – Parnassius apollo Linnaeus, 1758, greenish mother - of - pearl-Argyronome laodice (Pallas, 1771), eastern mother-of-pearl-Boloria selenis (Eversmann, 1837), early shashechnitsa – Hypodryas (Euphydryas) maturna (Linnaeus, 1758), Oedipus hay – Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius, 1787), tullia hay - Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764), amaryllis hay - Coenonympha amaryllis (Stoll, 1782), black cyclops - Erebia cyclopius (Eversmann, 1844) Oeneis jutta (Hübner , 1806), grey indented silkworm - Phyllodesma ilicifolia (Linnaeus, 1758), Proserpine hawk moth – Proserpinus proserpina (Pallas, 1772), scabiose bumblebee - Haemorrhagia tityus (Linnaeus, 1758), Hera bear - Euplagia quadripunctaria (Poda, 1761), grey rophytoides - Rhophitoides canus (Eversmann, 1852) , Megachile rotundata (Fabricius, 1787), unusual bumblebee-Bombus confusus Schenck, 1859, veteran bumblebee-Bombus veteranus (Fabricius, 1793), moss bumblebee - Bombus muscorum (Fabricius, 1775), Schrenk's bumblebee - Bombus schrenkii Morawitz, 1881, evaded bumblebee - Bombus laesus Morawitz, 1875, garden bumblebee - Bombus hortorum (Linnaeus, 1761), consobrinus bumblebee - Bombus consobrinus Dahlbom, 1832, Armenian bumblebee - Bombus armeniacus Radoszkowski, 1877, carding bumblebee - Bombus distinguendus Morawitz, 1869, underground bumblebee - Bombus subterraneus (Linnaeus, 1758), soroensis bumblebee - Bombus soroensis Fabricius, 1777, horse bumblebee - Bombus hypnorum (Linnaeus, 1758), humble bumblebee - Bombus modestus Eversmann, 1852, ground bumblebee - Bombus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, burrowing bumblebee - Bombus lucorum (Linnaeus, 1761), plate - toothed bumblebee – Bombus serrisquama Morawitz, 1888, northern forest ant – Formica aquilonia Yarrow, 1955, black – headed ant - Formica uralensis Ruzsky, 1895, hairy forest ant - Formica lugubris Zetterstedt, 1838, agile steppe ant-Formica cunicularia Latreille, 1798, black shiny ant-Formica picea Nylander, 1846, common thin-headed ant-Formica exsecta Nylander, 1846, slave-owning ant-Formica sanguinea Latreille, 1798, big buzzer - Bombylius major Linnaeus, 1758, Laphria gibbosa (Linnaeus, 1758)].
Due to the data obtained on a fairly high number of species, as well as on their wide distribution in the region, it is proposed to exclude 11 species from the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk Region [pretty girl-Calopteryx virgo (Linnaeus, 1758), pretty girl-Calopteryx splendens (Harris, 1782), Mantis religiosa (Linnaeus, 1758), podalirium – Iphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus, 1758), common swallowtail – Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, field bumblebee - Bombus pascuorum (Scopoli, 1763), red forest ant – Formica rufa Linnaeaus, 1761, small forest ant – Formica polyctena Foerster, 1850, meadow ant – Formica pratensis Retzius, 1783, red-cheeked ant-Formica rufibarbis Fabricius, 1793, brown forest ant-Formica fusca Linnaeus, 1758]. 3 species are also recommended to be excluded from the Red Data Book, the presence of which in the region is questionable [red-dot dipper-Utetheisa pulchella (Linnaeus, 1758), shpornikovaya scoop-Chariclea delphinii (Linnaeus, 1758) or the species does not form stable populations on the territory of the region (Manduca atropos (Linnaeus, 1758)).
For 3 other species, we recommend transferring them from the main part of the Red Data Book to Appendix 2 [mountain cicada-Cicadella montana (Scopoli, 1772), mnemosyne, black apollo - Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus, 1758), great perelivnitsa - Apatura iris (Linnaeus, 1758)]. In the same appendix, it is proposed to include the nominee of the Red Book of the Russian Federation (appendix) - the forest sennitsa-Coenonympha hero (Linnaeus, 1761).
The issue of nominating a medical leech (Hirudo medicinalis Linnaeus, 1758) in the regional Red List remains open. It is possible that an indication of the only place where a view of the lake was found. Tavrankul [19] is based on an incorrect definition. In addition, this species is actively used in the region for hirudotherapy and the formation of stable groups of this species as a result of the release of leeches into natural reservoirs is not excluded.

All proposals formulated here to change the list of protected invertebrates of the Chelyabinsk region are preliminary and subject to further discussion in the preparation of a new edition of the Red Book, scheduled for 2015. The work was carried out within the framework of the budget program of the Ilmen Reserve and the regional program for maintaining the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk region.

References
1. Bolshakov L. V. Bulavovye lepidoptera of the Tula region (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Experience of differentiated chorological-ecological and sociobiological analysis. Tula, 1998. 64 p
. 2. Bolshakov L. V. Review of the book: V. I. Shchurov, A. S. Zamotailov. Experience in developing a regional list of protected insect species on the example of the Krasnodar Territory and the Republic of Adygea / Readings in Memory of N. A. Kholodkovsky. Issue 59, St. Petersburg, 2006, 216 p. / / Eversmannia. Entomological research in Russia and neighboring regions. 2008. Issue 13-14, pp. 87-102
3. Bykov B. A. Ekologicheskiy slovar ' [Ecological dictionary]. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1983, 216 p.
4. Voronov G. A. Problemy sozologii i okhrany prirody [Problems of sozology and nature protection]. Perm: Perm State University Publishing House, 1989. 132 p.
5. Vorontsova L. I., Vasilyeva V. D., Kuliyev A. N., Lomakina G. A. Problems of classification of rare plant communities in connection with their protection. 1988. Vol. 73, No. 5. pp. 733-740.
6. Zakharov V. D. Application of sozological analysis in determining the degree of vulnerability of rare birds in the Chelyabinsk region // Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center. 2011. Vol. 13, No. 1 (5). pp. 1102-1105.
7. Green Book of the Ukrainian SSR: Rare, endangered and typical plant communities in need of protection. Kiev: Naukova dumka Publ., 1987, 216 p.
8. Kondratieva N. V. Primitivnye zadachi algosozologicheskikh issledovaniy [Priority tasks of algosozological research]. 1994. Vol. 4., No. 3. pp. 3-15.
9. Krasilov V. A. Nature protection: principles, problems, priorities. Moscow: Institute of Nature Protection and Conservation, 1992. 174 p
. 10. Krasnaya kniga Rossiiskoi Federatsii (zhivotni). Moscow: AST Astrel, 2001. 862 p
.11. Red Data Book of the Chelyabinsk region: Animals, plants, fungi. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University Publishing House, 2005. 450 p
. 12. Krestov P. V., Verholat V. P. Rare plant communities of Primorye and the Amur region. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003. 200 p
. 13. Lagunov A.V. Protected invertebrates of the Southern Urals: an attempt at meta-analysis // Bulletin of the Orenburg State University. 2009a. no.6. pp. 186-189.
14. Lagunov A.V. Rare lepidoptera of the Ilmen Reserve: sozological analysis. Bulletin of the Orenburg State University. 2009b. No. 10. Special issue, part 1, pp. 98-100.
15. Lagunov A.V. Sozological analysis of abscess beetles (Meloidae, Coleoptera) of the Chelyabinsk region // Bulletin of the Orenburg State University. 2011. No. 12.pp. 101-103.
16. Lagunov A.V. Sozological analysis of protected lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Insecta) of the Chelyabinsk region // Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 14, No. 1 (8). pp. 1903-1906.
17. Lagunov A.V., Rusakov A.V. Protected coleoptera of the Southern Urals: sozologicheskiy analiz [Sociological analysis] / / Izvestiya Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta. 2010. No. 2 (26). pp. 220-223.
18. Lesina S. A., Lagunov A.V. The first attempt at a sociological analysis of orchids (Orhidacea) Southern Urals // Current problems of conservation of diversity in protected and other territories. Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical Conference. Sibay, 2010. pp. 38-41.
19. Maksimova E. A. Zhivotnye vodoemov Cheliabinskaya oblasti (bespozvonochnye) [Animals of water bodies of the Chelyabinsk region (invertebrates)]. Doklady k nauchno-kraevedcheskoy konferentsii, posvyashchennoy 95-letiyu so deya rozhdeniya V. I. Lenin. Chelyabinsk, 1965. pp. 67-70.
20. Martynenko A. B. Experience in applying new categories and criteria of the IUCN red List at the regional level (on the example of diurnal butterflies of the South-East of Russia). 2009. Vol.129, no. 3. pp. 307-318.
21. Pesenko Yu. A. Principles and methods of quantitative analysis in faunistic studies. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. 282 p
. 22. Plyushch I. G. 1989. Problems and prospects of insect protection in the USSR. Kyiv. 26 p
. 23. Reimers N. F. Prirodopol'zovanie [Nature management]. Dictionary of
terms and concepts related to the protection of wildlife. Moscow: Nauka, 1982. 144 p. 25. Saksonov S. V.
, Rozenberg G. S. Organizational and methodological aspects of maintaining regional Red Books. Togliatti: Institute of Ecology of the Volga Basin, 2000, 164 p.
26. Sviridov A.V. Principles of protection of insects (on the example of Lepidoptera): history and prospects. Department of Biology. 2011. Vol. 116, issue no. 6. С. 3–19.
27. Стойко С.М. Науковi основи охорони природи // Охорона природи Украïнських Карпат та прилеглих територiй. Kiev: Naukova dumka Publ., 1980, pp. 7-28.
28. Stoiko S. M. Categorization of rare, unique and typical phytocenoses and their integral sozological assessment // Protection of plant communities of rare and endangered ecosystems. Materials of the scientific conference, Moscow, 1982, pp. 5-7.
29. Stoiko S. M. Ecological bases of protection of rare, unique and typical phytocenoses. 1983. Vol.68, No. 11. pp. 1574-1583.
30. Chopik V. I. Rare and endangered plants of Ukraine. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1978. 211 p
. 31. Goetel W. Sozologia-nauka o ochronie pryrody I jei zasobow / / Kosmos. 1966. Z. 5. S 473-482.
32. Kurdna O. 1986. Butterflies of Europe. 8. Aspects of the conservation of butterflies in Europe. AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden. 323 p.
33. IUCN Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0 IUCN Species Survival Commission. Gland, Switzeland and Cambrige, UK: IUCN, 2003. 26 pp.
34. http://redlist.freenet.uz/rl/rlglobal.html

Alexander V. Lagunov, Candidate of Biological Sciences
Ilmenskiy State Nature Reserve, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Ilmenskiy Nature Reserve, Miass, Chelyabinsk Region, 456317, Russian Federation
E-mail: lagunov@mineralogy.ru

Unfortunately, I don't have time to study it now. One thing I can say. The main criterion for the threat of a species in a region is its degree of locality, which is reduced to the IUCN B2 criterion, which is written in my cit above. in this paper, and in others that are not cited above. Everything else is from the evil one. It has long been obvious that counting "points "is a meaningless task, since the" weight "of different factors is not equal and is not taken into account in"calculations". And some of the above factors are generally harmful to "take into account". Thus, the total size of a species 'range does not in any way affect its "threat" in a particular region: a species may have a narrow range, but it is widespread and not threatened; it may be Holarctic, but it is extremely localized and may disappear at any time. It is absurd to give categories of species in all known CC's so far, including the latest IUCN lists - their "accounting" greatly spoils the overall picture. Of course, it is also valuable to know the dynamics of changes in the locality of invertebrate species. But it is almost impossible to analyze it everywhere because of the lack of old detailed data - we have to calculate it taking into account information about the economic development of territories.

Thank you for responding, Lavr Valeryevich!
Unfortunately, when transferring the text of the article to the forum, the tables took an indigestible form. I will send you this text by email in the next few days.
I would like to note the following:
1. The weight of different factors is different (Table 1).
2. All possible completeness of information on these types is taken into account today. Some of the information was rejected as unreliable.
3. The sozological matrix should be perceived as an auxiliary method (it is simple and convenient to decompose information into a matrix and get a general picture from which you can dance further), the main thing is still an expert decision of specialists. It is also important that such a matrix has a "fascinating" effect on environmental officials (this, of course, is not the main thing, but sometimes it helps to "push" the necessary species (those that really need protection) into the Red Book).
4. Alas! I do not have some of your sozological works, hence some "under-citation".

I really appreciate your opinion and will be glad to hear your comments.
A. Lagunov

No matter how much we have tried to discuss the urgent topic of the Red Book on this Internet resource , it is useless, the idea of NOT RUNNING OUT OF INSECTS IN THE Russian Federation is promoted in every possible way. Something like in the 50s there was a slogan about the endless resources of fish in the oceans and seas...
The list of suggested insects is very large and very similar to a number of long-revised regional CC's (source code of the CC of the Moscow region, 1998).
These species are so rare:
Woodcutter – tanner-Prionus coriarius (Linnaeus, 1758) (do you have this species on the border of your range?? )
Koehler's redwing-Purpuricenus kaehleri (Linnaeus, 1758) (you should have rarer species from this group - Keller is one of the banals! in this group)
carpenter bee-Xylocopa valga Gerstaecker, 1872 (this species is definitely excluded from the CC of the Russian Federation)
Onconotus servillei Fischer-Waldheim, 1846 (S. Servil and S. Laxmani are probably the same species... etc.)
rod - shaped ranatra-Ranatra linearis (Linnaeus, 1758),
common firefly-Lampyris noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1767)
Teley's spot – Maculinea telejus (Bergstrasser, 1779)
Rhophitoides gray-Rhophitoides canus (Eversmann, 1852),
Megachile rotundata (Fabricius, 1787),
etc.etc
. It is surprising that you have almost all bumblebees in the CC... according to modern data, a lot of things have changed there - we need MODERN consultations with specialists!!!
I would leave mnemosyne and sennitsa hera - the first species in Europe is disappearing and is generally one of the first CC butterfly species in Europe (the nominative subspecies in Finland has practically disappeared). And I was going to add hera to our new edition of KK PO - it turned out to be a very local and rare species!?? .. Yes, and
that you have not studied the fauna of wild bees at all (only bumblebees)??
I am very interested in the list of your CC ants - who studied them and are there any publications??

No matter how much we have tried to discuss the urgent topic of the Red Book on this Internet resource , it is useless, the idea of NOT RUNNING OUT OF INSECTS IN THE Russian Federation is promoted in every possible way. Something like in the 50s there was a slogan about the endless resources of fish in the oceans and seas...

Oleg Alexandrovich, well, it's not quite like that. Or rather, not at all (at least on the part of most of your opponents). After all, it was mainly about the fact that the principles according to which vertebrates are included in the CC, and the proposed methods of their protection, are poorly suited (if at all) for insects. You once suggested that Silphopsyllus desmanae, whose biology is inextricably linked with more than the Red Book (who would argue!), should be included in the CC? a muskrat. That's what it's for? After all, the argument that the muskrat should be protected already in order to save the beetle, which will die out if this animal does not become, is hardly valid. What additional, original methods of protecting the muskrat can be proposed and implemented at all, if the muskrat itself should be protected and (hopefully) is already protected? After all, you will not argue that in order to preserve the species diversity of insects, it is important to protect first of all biotopes, islands of untouched nature?
So I wrote it and immediately thought - is it not for nothing? Believe me, I'm not here to continue the discussion at all - just to clarify positions. It broke out.

And if someone thinks that his collection is not complete, because in addition to the muskrat, you need to have its owner in the collection, because their biologies are continuously connected, then what to do

It is possible that the beetle lives in all populations of muskrat. It is necessary to study where he lives and look-maybe his presence will be an indicator of the relative well-being of the muskrat? And the absence - on the contrary? In any case, such a rare consortium should be completely in the CC.

Viktor, I'm sorry, but somehow you" one-sidedly " highlighted the problems of the muskrat beetle and CC. And not to look at this problem from the side of the greens and other nature conservationists and bureaucrats from the bureaucracy. After all, the presence of a completely desman-dependent insect species is an additional trump card (this has not been covered anywhere yet!) in the matter of FULL conservation of muskrat in the Russian Federation. And if this idea does not want to develop beetles working on a new project of the CC RF (the new edition is almost ready) - we will develop regional faunalists. And this view shows much more clearly what KK is needed for - not like the insects I mentioned earlier here... For the muskrat beetle, it is the same "essential biotope" as, for example, for polyxena kirkazon.
And please don't tell us here that in order to preserve a species, it is necessary first of all to preserve its biotope - it is already children in kindergarten who know what to" smear " that?
Before you criticize the CC , try to write at least something on this topic first (Victor, no offense). I'm not against the third volume of the regional CC-only FOR IT!!! But something our officials are in no hurry to give funds for the third volume of the CC, but in vain! After all, this has already been done in the Ryazan, Tula, Leningrad and other regions. There is plenty of material for this - but here is a dig that has drawn up, now that you need 1,000,000 rubles for its registration in accordance with all the rules of the cadastre and other bureaucracy of one protected area. Yes, for this money, you can easily write and publish a third volume.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 03.09.2013 10: 41

here's a twist that was drawn, now that would issue according to all the rules of the cadastre and other bureaucracy, one protected area needs 1,000,000 rubles. for its registration. Yes, for this money, you can easily write and publish a third volume.

That's just it!

CC is an ideal mechanism for protecting officials and oligarchs from nature protection. Printing a beautiful book is much cheaper than actually protecting something. dixi

No matter how much we have tried to discuss the urgent topic of the Red Book on this Internet resource , it is useless, the idea of NOT RUNNING OUT OF INSECTS IN THE Russian Federation is promoted in every possible way. Something like in the 50s there was a slogan about the endless resources of fish in the oceans and seas...
The list of suggested insects is very large and very similar to a number of long-revised regional CC's (source code of the CC of the Moscow region, 1998).
These species are so rare:
Woodcutter-tanner-Prionus tsoriarius (Linnaeus, 1758) (this species is on the border of your range?? )
Koehler's redwing-Purpuricenus kaehleri (Linnaeus, 1758) (you should have rarer species from this group - Keller is one of the banals! in this group)
carpenter bee-Hylotsopa valga Gerstaecker, 1872 (this species is definitely excluded from the CC of the Russian Federation)
sevchuk Odene-Servila-Onconotus servillei Fischer-Schaldheim, 1846 (S. Servila and S. Laxmani are probably the same species... etc.)
rod - shaped ranatra-Ranatra linearis (Linnaeus, 1758),
common firefly-Lampyris noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1767)
telei mottle-Matsulinea teleus (Bergstrasser, 1779),
Rhophytoides grayi – Rhophytoides canus (Eversmann, 1852),
Megachile rotundata-Megachile rotundata (Fabricius, 1787),
etc.etc
. It is surprising that you have almost all bumblebees in the CC... according to modern data, a lot of things have changed there - we need MODERN consultations with specialists!!!
I would leave mnemosyne and sennitsa hera - the first species in Europe is disappearing and is generally one of the first CC butterfly species in Europe (the nominative subspecies in Finland has practically disappeared). And I was going to add hera to our new edition of KK PO - it turned out to be a very local and rare species!?? .. Yes, and
that you have not studied the fauna of wild bees at all (only bumblebees)??
I am very interested in the list of your CC ants - who studied them and are there any publications??

Good afternoon, Oleg Alexandrovich!
I will try to answer your thoughts (I am very grateful for them).
1. Woodcutter-tanner-Prionus tsoriarius (Linnaeus, 1758)
Environmental status: Kk CHO (3 cat.), Kk OO (2 cat.).
Sites of finds: Ashinsky district, village Vilyai district (report by E. A. Chibilev). Earlier indications for the Chelyabinsk region (2-4) based on A. I. Cherepanov's data (1) for the "Southern Urals" are incorrect: Cherepanov's data actually refer to the Orenburg Region, not the Chelyabinsk region.
Bibliography of the species in the region: 1. Cherepanov, 1979; 2. Tyumaseva and Lagunov, 1991b; 3. Lagunov and Novozhenov, 1996; 4 Red Book of the Chelyabinsk region, 2005.
Notes. It lives in old, over-mature massifs of broad-leaved forests of the Southern Urals, in particular, the Ashinsky district of the Chelyabinsk region. Rare.

2. Koehler's redwing, Purpuricenus kaehleri (Linnaeus, 1758)
Conservation status: Kk CHO (4 cat.), Kk RB (adj.), a representative of the oak forest fauna, in the Chelyabinsk region - a marginal species distributed in a limited area.
Places of finds: Ashinsky district, okr-ti pos. Sukhaya Ata and Vilyai (message by E. A. Chibilev). All indications for the Ilmen Nature Reserve (1-3) and for the Karagai Nature Reserve (5) are attributed to Purpuricenus globulicollis Day. (4)
Bibliography of the species in the region: 1. Novozhenov, 1987; 2. Lagunov and Novozhenov, 1996; 3. Red Book of the Chelyabinsk Region, 2005; 4. Danilevsky et al., 2007; 5. Lagunov and Weisberg, 2007.

3. Carpenter bee-Hylotsopa valga Gerstaecker, 1872
Conservation status: Cc RF (2 cat.), Cc CHO (3 cat.), Cc OO (2 cat.), Cc RB (4 cat.). A tertiary relic. A declining species of oriental origin that belongs to the Neogene group of tropical origin.
Localities:
In the Chelyabinsk region, it was recorded in forest-steppe and steppe areas (Tyumaseva, 1987; Tyumaseva, 1988); according to unspecified data, it was also recorded in the vicinity of Chelyabinsk (Tyumaseva and Lagunov, 1988; Tyumaseva and Lagunov, 1991a, b,c). Troitsky and Chernobor nature reserves (Lagunov and Veisberg, 2007). Troitsky Nature Reserve (Lagunov et al., 2006). Arkaim (Lagunov, 2001b; Chibilev et al., 2004). Troitsky Nature Reserve (Lagunov, 2001b).
It is rare everywhere.

4. Sevchuk Odene-Servila-Onconotus servillei Fischer-Schaldheim, 1846
Conservation status: IUCN Cc (cat. VU), Kk OO (adj.).
Places of finds: Chelyabinsk region (2), Troitsky Reserve and Oktyabrsky district (1,3). Arkaim (4), Sanarsky bor, Bredinsky district (3).
Bibliography of the species in the region: 1. Tyumaseva and Lagunov, 1991b; 2. Lagunov, 1997; 3. Lagunov, 1999; 4.Chibilev et al., 2004;
Quite rare in all known localities. Whether this is a synonym for Laxmanov Sevchuk, I'm not sure yet. I'll sort it out.

5. Ranatra rod-shaped-Ranatra linearis (Linnaeus, 1758)
Environmental status: Kk CHO (4 cat.).
Sites of finds: the entire steppe and forest-steppe zone of the region (3), Ilmensky Reserve (4-8,10), Arkaim (9, 10), lakes Alakul and B. Akul near Kyshtym (10), Chernoborsky Reserve (12), East Ural Nature Reserve (1, 11), Magnitogorsk region (2).
Bibliography of the species in the region: 1. Fedorov, 1981; 2. Dergeleva, 1985; 3. Tyumaseva and Lagunov, 1988; 4. Tyumaseva and Lagunov, 1991b; 5. Lagunov, 1992; 6. Aglyamzyanov and Lagunov, 1994; 7. Lagunov, 2000; 8. Zakharov and Lagunov, 2000; 9. Chibilev et al. al., 2004; 10. Red Book..., 2005; 11. Lagunov et al., 2006; 12. Lagunov and Weisberg, 2007.
It occurs only occasionally and in a small number of localities.

6. Common firefly-Lampyris noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1767)
Environmental status: Kk CHO (adj.).
Sites of finds: Kocherdyksky, Uysky, Varlamovsky, Sanarsky nature reserves (2-4), Vostochno-Uralsky Nature Reserve (2), Magnitogorsk region (1), Ilmensky Nature Reserve (our data).
Bibliography of the species in the region: 1. Dergeleva, 1985; 2. Lagunov et al., 2006; 3. Lagunov and Weisberg, 2007; 4. Lagunov et al., 2008.

7. Pyatnashka telei-Matsulinea teleus (Bergstrasser, 1779)
Conservation status: IUCN Cc (cat. LR/nt).
Places of finds: Ilmenskiy Nature Reserve (2), Morozovka village, pos. Bredy, Troitsk, Asha, Chebarkul, Zlatoust, Chelyabinsk, Kasli (1).
Bibliography of the species in the region: 1. Gorbunov et al., 1992; 2. Olshvang et al., 2004.
Notes. The caterpillars feed on the bloodstain (Sanguisorba officinalis), eat parts of the flowers, spend the winter in the litter, and from spring they live in the nests of ants of the genus Myrmica. They pupate near anthills (Korshunov 2002).

8. Rhophytoides grayi - Rhophytoides canus (Eversmann, 1852) Rhophytes ???
Environmental status: Cc RF (adj.), Cc CHO (3 cat.), Cc OO (adj.), Cc RB (adj.). A very rare, poorly studied species.
Localities:
In the Chelyabinsk region,it was recorded in the Troitsky Reserve (Ponomarev, 1975; Ponomarev et al., 1978; Lagunov, 2001b). Kizilsky district (Lagunov, 1999). Arkaim Nature Reserve (Lagunov, 2001).

9. Megachile rotundata-Megachile rotundata (Fabricius, 1787)
Environmental status: Cc RF (adj.), Cc CHO (3 cat.), Cc OO (adj.), Cc RB (adj.). A rare, poorly studied species.
Localities:
In the Chelyabinsk region, it was recorded in the Troitsky Nature Reserve (Ponomarev et al., 1978; Lagunov, 2001b).
Commercial breeding of megahila has been carried out in our country since 1980 (Golikov, 1986; Palevich, 1992). It is cultivated for release to alfalfa fields in order to increase the yield of seeds of this crop. It is possible to attract individuals for nesting using elderberry branches, glass and polyethylene tubes, hollow stems of umbrella and large cereals (Dorofeev and Syuborova, 1987). Conservation of local megahila populations is undoubtedly more effective than breeding imported families.

Here's what we have for the types you mentioned.
The situation with bumblebees is not clear yet, there are really a lot of them, but we are actively accumulating material on this group.
Of the wild bee species, nothing has been studied in practice except bumblebees; there is, however, the work of Ponomarev et al. on the Troitsky Reserve (pollinators of alfalfa and some other plants, but I have not yet been able to get to the deposited manuscript with the list.
Ants were studied by us in the 70s and 2000s (together with A. Gilev), the summary is published. I'll send it to your address later.
Thanks again for the discussion. A. Lagunov

  
6. Common firefly-Lampyris noctiluca (Linnaeus, 1767)

Well, Latin names should be written in Latin, and not colloquially, in Russian, even In the "Red Book"
It doesn't sound in Russian

Bee-carpenter-Khylotsopa

It looks like Gravitsapa
Actually in Russian-Latin it is Xylocopa

Well, what can I say, everything is basically clear and understandable - you will have these species mostly probably extreme and with a low population... on our side of the Urals, on the contrary, they are the most commonplace (so far...). After all, no matter how you look at it, to justify the protection of a particular territory, it is necessary to have INDICATOR SPECIES in this area and preferably not only rare tops but also representatives of the animal world, in our case insects. Without this, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to protect a particular area of the area, and if our opponents do not understand this, then this is their gap in education (which will soon disappear not only in school but also in universities...- "fish is known to rot from the head").
After all, to compile lists of species of a particular territory, you just need HUGE research in different biotopes and at different times... and in the mountains, this is also the height, that is, the belt... And the list of species for the CC is a kind of "foam" on the boiling" milk " of the entomofauna of the region - in which competent researchers enter indicator species of certain communities and biotopes...
Of course, entomologists and competent amateurs who have worked and studied your entomofauna are more aware of the situation on the spot... I think there are quite a few of them and it's not just worth maintaining contacts with them - it's NECESSARY!!! Only modern monitoring, knowledge of the situation in the past and close contact with neighbors at the present time will allow us to isolate grains of truth from the chaff of everyday life. So no matter how you look at it, the Red Book is aerobatics - and not manual labor and poor wit, as various naturalists often try to tell us.

Yes, I strongly advise you to study this VERY useful work in understanding the allocation of taxa in need of protection (as a classic example) in certain territories (if anyone knows of other similar studies, please let us know!!!).
Fridolin V. Yu., 1935. Significance of relief elements as oases-shelters of relict fauna in the Gulf of Finland basin, Khibiny Mountains and Central Karelia // Proc. Of the First All-Union Geographical Congress, Moscow: 3, Pp. 1-14.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 05.09.2013 09: 55

Colleagues! Please excuse me. In the original text, from where I copied the pieces, Latin is normal-in Latin. And when transferring to the forum, for some reason it was converted to Cyrillic, and in the most bizarre way. Please excuse me.
A. Lagunov

The CC cannot and should not be a list of "protected species"... as they say here. "Protected" means that the security mechanisms must work strictly. From whom, how? Truly protected species should be listed in official documents, at the level of legislation, which are checked by executive bodies in their work. For example, if you have built a residential area or road on the site of a forest area with protected species, then the head of the district or the mayor must certainly be put in very remote places for twenty years without any options. After all, the species are protected, and in this case a mass murder was committed in the amount of several thousand individuals of each species!!!
This is if they are endangered, and if they are rare, then hundreds of thousands, and if they are not very rare, but protected, then millions.

You should honestly write "rare and in need of protection", and not "protected".
The book only recommends protecting, and protected areas, nature reserves, and the executive branch perform the function of "Protection". That is, the CC is only an application for creating protected areas and nothing more.

This post was edited by Seneka - 05.09.2013 10: 43

As they say, "again - twenty-five"!
This is in what (sorry) "tutunovka" You Lucius Annaeus SĕNĕCa saw the CC without PRE-compiled specialists (local or invited Varangians) NECESSARILY approved and accepted for protection in a CERTAIN territory (+ types of MANDATORY protection throughout Russia mothers - from the list of CC RF) by the legislative assemblies of local convocations with countless checks and proofs it is present at many meetings of the senate of the local bureaucracy!?? Why turn everything upside down again?
And if security mechanisms do not work in the Russian Federation, then find out there in your swamp areas... Where did you see pardontes so that you could organize a protected area just from baldy Ali at the whim of a local "aligarhofren" who suddenly got into a hurry to assign such a status to a beautiful little forest on the high bank of the river where he grazed sheep in his youth Pardontes... and from the living creatures I heard the nightingale sing in the spring when he first picked beautiful flowers for the local beauty at the edge of that forest - which she then used to brush away mosquitoes on the bank of that river.... it doesn't happen that way! First, lists are approved that need to be protected - based on the material already KNOWN to local specialists - that is, they grow/live in this area. Money is allocated for these studies so that you can collect up-to-date material! And for several years they have been analyzing the past (publications, herbariums, collections, etc.) by conducting monitoring - with the publication of articles, discussions with local neighbors and communication with leading experts on various groups of animals/plants in the Russian Federation. Everything else is, alas, "Acey's nonsense on a May night" and clearly from the evil one!

This post was edited by Penzyak - 05.09.2013 12: 43

As they say, "again - twenty-five"!
This is in what (sorry) "tutunovka" You Lucius Annaeus SĕNĕCa saw the CC without PRE-compiled specialists (local or invited Varangians) NECESSARILY approved and accepted for protection in a CERTAIN territory (+ types of MANDATORY protection throughout Russia mothers - from the list of CC RF) by the legislative assemblies of local convocations with countless checks and proofs it is present at many meetings of the senate of the local bureaucracy!?? Why turn everything upside down again?
And if security mechanisms do not work in the Russian Federation, then find out there in your swamp areas... Where did you see pardontes so that you could organize a protected area just from baldy Ali at the whim of a local "aligarhofren" who suddenly got into a hurry to assign such a status to a beautiful little forest on the high bank of the river where he grazed sheep in his youth Pardontes... it doesn't happen that way! First, lists are approved that need to be protected - based on the material already KNOWN to local specialists - that is, they grow/live in this area. Money is allocated for these studies so that you can collect up-to-date material! And for several years they have been analyzing the past (publications, herbariums, collections, etc.) by conducting monitoring - with the publication of articles, discussions with local neighbors and communication with leading experts on various groups of animals/plants in the Russian Federation. Everything else is, alas, "Acey's nonsense on a May night" and clearly from the evil one!

Sorry, I didn't understand a damn thing.

Men as they say pardontes ... but it reminds me of that old joke...

Pictures:

______.jpg — (59.38к)

But seriously here you are the work of Penza botanists led by I. I. Sprygin on conservation and protection in the Russian Federation:

http://savesteppe.org/ru/archives/10491

A for security:
Legislation
New regulatory acts of the Russian Federation
Criminalize illegal extraction and trafficking of protected animal species

Federal Law No. 150-FZ of 02.07.2013 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" supplemented the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with Article 258.1-Illegal extraction and trafficking of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and (or) protected by international treaties of the Russian Federation.

http://savesteppe.org/ru/archives/10496

This post was edited by Penzyak - 05.09.2013 13: 43

Oleg Alexandrovich, that's right, don't delay, go back to work and continue studying the material, and don't write nonsense in the form of a CC. It didn't work out for you with the Muskrat, so try to solve another problem. Here is an example. In the Smolensk region, Carabus coriaceus is listed in the CC as a rare category III species (how much is it?), and in the Moscow region (according to my personal observations and not only), this species is banal(sometimes subdominant...) and occurs everywhere(even in the near Moscow region), from the very borders of the Smolensk region to the South- eastern borders, from the taiga zone to broad-leaved forests, on water meadows and burnt hayfields... Really, to preserve this species in the Smolensk region, it needs to be built up with new buildings, demarcated for cottages, paved with roads and mowed down? What criteria were used by the authors of the CC when they included this type? Or did they just learn the material poorly? What would you suggest to save it?

Red Data Book of the Penza Region (2005). Volume # 2 Animals.

GROUND BEETLE SHAGREEN
Carabus coriaceus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Coleoptera Order Coleoptera
Ground Beetle Family-Carabidae

Category and status. 2 – a species that is declining in population.
Description. Beetle with a length of 33-41 mm, the largest of the family of ground beetles in the region. The color of the body and legs is monotonous black, almost matte. Elytra are peculiar: rounded, strongly elongated, wrinkled and evenly smoothed. The upper lip is three-lobed, the jaws are narrow, long, strongly curved along the outer edge and up to the top.
Distribution. In the European part of Russia, there are forest and partly forest-steppe zones [1]. On the territory of the region, it is known to inhabit Luninsky, Shemysheysky, Kuznetsky [2] and Kondolsky districts [3].
Habitats and features of biology. Forest view. In the region, it adheres to old-growth broad-leaved and mixed forests, periodically observed in small-leaved birch and aspen forests. It prefers fairly moist forest areas with sparse herbage in floodplains of rivers and streams, wet peaty depressions and willows on the outskirts of swamps [4]. Here, beetles are active mainly at night, moving around the ground in search of various invertebrates, preferring mollusks and earthworms. The highest peak activity of the species occurs in the second half of summer and early autumn during the breeding season. Larvae are burrowing, litter-soil predators. Active in the evening and at night. Depending on the climatic conditions, development lasts 1-2 years. Young beetles of this year of birth appear in late summer. Overwinter mainly larvae, young beetles and some beetles that have been breeding in the past year [5].
Population and limiting factors. The reduction in the area occupied by old-growth deciduous and mixed forests led to a general decrease in the number and localization of the species in the region [6]. During the research period (1988-2005), the following negative factors were noted: the death of beetles on forest roads in deep ruts from motor transport, deforestation of broad-leaved and floodplain forests, which leads to a violation of the hydrothermal regime in the habitats of the species and a reduction in its food supply.
Security measures. It is protected on the Upper Sura section of the Privolzhskaya Forest-Steppe Nature Reserve and the Lugovoy Lake Ecocomplex protected area.
Information sources: 1. Kryzhanovsky, 1965; 2. Polumordvinov and Monakhov, 2003; 3. N. F. Zolina, personal message; 4. A.M. Monakhov, personal message; 5. Gruntal, 1988; 6.Polumordvinov, 2005.
Compiled by: O. A. Polumordvinov, I. V. Glebov

P.S. You will be interested to read this:
Gruntal S. Y. 1988. Seasonal dynamics of ground beetle activity (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the forests of the Moscow region // Ecology, No. 6, pp. 32-37.

This post was edited by Penzyak - 05.09.2013 14: 06

But seriously here you are the work of Penza botanists led by I. I. Sprygin on conservation and protection in the Russian Federation:

http://savesteppe.org/ru/archives/10491

A for security:
Legislation
New regulatory acts of the Russian Federation
Criminalize illegal extraction and trafficking of protected animal species

Federal Law No. 150-FZ of 02.07.2013 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" supplemented the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with Article 258.1-Illegal extraction and trafficking of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and (or) protected by international treaties of the Russian Federation.

http://savesteppe.org/ru/archives/10496

First, these harsh laws are directed in the wrong direction. Secondly, they are not binding. Third, how many examples can you give of insect species that:
1) it is proved that they currently live on the territory of the Penza region (how is it proved?)
2) listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation
3) protected by international treaties

I don't think so much. And what are the others doing in the CC?

This post was edited by Seneka - 05.09.2013 14: 16

Red Data Book of the Penza Region (2005). Volume # 2 Animals.

GROUND BEETLE SHAGREEN
Carabus coriaceus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Coleoptera Order Coleoptera
Ground Beetle Family-Carabidae

Category and status. 2 – a species that is declining in population.
Description. Beetle with a length of 33-41 mm, the largest of the family of ground beetles in the region. The color of the body and legs is monotonous black, almost matte. Elytra are peculiar: rounded, strongly elongated, wrinkled and evenly smoothed. The upper lip is three-lobed, the jaws are narrow, long, strongly curved along the outer edge and up to the top.
Distribution. In the European part of Russia, there are forest and partly forest-steppe zones [1]. On the territory of the region, it is known to inhabit Luninsky, Shemysheysky, Kuznetsky [2] and Kondolsky districts [3].
Habitats and features of biology. Forest view. In the region, it adheres to old-growth broad-leaved and mixed forests, periodically observed in small-leaved birch and aspen forests. It prefers fairly moist forest areas with sparse herbage in floodplains of rivers and streams, wet peaty depressions and willows on the outskirts of swamps [4]. Here, beetles are active mainly at night, moving around the ground in search of various invertebrates, preferring mollusks and earthworms. The highest peak activity of the species occurs in the second half of summer and early autumn during the breeding season. Larvae are burrowing, litter-soil predators. Active in the evening and at night. Depending on the climatic conditions, development lasts 1-2 years. Young beetles of this year of birth appear in late summer. Overwinter mainly larvae, young beetles and some beetles that have been breeding in the past year [5].
Population and limiting factors. The reduction in the area occupied by old-growth deciduous and mixed forests led to a general decrease in the number and localization of the species in the region [6]. During the research period (1988-2005), the following negative factors were noted: the death of beetles on forest roads in deep ruts from motor transport, deforestation of broad-leaved and floodplain forests, which leads to a violation of the hydrothermal regime in the habitats of the species and a reduction in its food supply.
Security measures. It is protected on the Upper Sura section of the Privolzhskaya Forest-Steppe Nature Reserve and the Lugovoy Lake Ecocomplex protected area.
Information sources: 1. Kryzhanovsky, 1965; 2. Polumordvinov and Monakhov, 2003; 3. N. F. Zolina, personal message; 4. A.M. Monakhov, personal message; 5. Gruntal, 1988; 6.Polumordvinov, 2005.
Compiled by: O. A. Polumordvinov, I. V. Glebov

P.S. You will be interested to read this:
Gruntal S. Y. 1988. Seasonal dynamics of ground beetle activity (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the forests of the Moscow region // Ecology, No. 6, pp. 32-37.

I've read it all. I see that you don't understand the questions that are simply formulated, you just don't see what is written in the text, and you answer some other questions that you have come up with yourself.

What did you want to say with this link? Please explain. Did you want to refute something? I didn't understand.

This post was edited by Seneka - 05.09.2013 14: 34