2nd edition of the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia

I think that if the public is involved in the work on the text, the catalog will turn out better. But I do not think that our academic circles will agree to this - we will have to prepare the 4th edition of the catalog of daytime butterflies of the former Soviet Union.

only Crimea will be added from the regions.

Sinev, 2018, On the way to the second edition of the catalog of lepidoptera of Russia



 Sinev__2018.pdf

size: 976.01 k
number of downloads: 658

It would be nice if the authors of the catalog gave a list of species excluded from the fauna of Russia with an indication of the reason for this action. And sometimes you will find in some literary source a species that is not in the catalog and it is not clear whether the authors excluded this indication, or forgot about it.
And then apparently some researchers believe that if the view is not in the catalog, then it is new. As an example, in the publication of Bashkir ecologists, you can meet such moths as Erannis ankeraria Stng., Peribatodes secundaria D. Et Sch., Theria rupicapraria D. Et Sch. Clearly wrongly given and there are not a few such species throughout Russia.



 Chabibullin__2018.pdf

size: 504.62 k
number of downloads: 492

It would be nice if the authors of the catalog gave a list of species excluded from the fauna of Russia with an indication of the reason for this action. And sometimes you will find in some literary source a species that is not in the catalog and it is not clear whether the authors excluded this indication, or forgot about it.
And then apparently some researchers believe that if the view is not in the catalog, then it is new. As an example, in the publication of Bashkir ecologists, you can meet such moths as Erannis ankeraria Stng., Peribatodes secundaria D. Et Sch., Theria rupicapraria D. Et Sch. Clearly wrongly given and there are not a few such species throughout Russia.



 Chabibullin__2018.pdf

size: 504.62 k
number of downloads: 492

But I didn't understand - what did the Author of this opus mean by the concept of "archival data" - the manuscripts of diplomas or the material on the basis of which the diplomas were written??? If the second - then where are the labels and authors of the definition/redefinition, and if-the first then finally tin... It is a pity that the author did not think to take theses on fish nutrition - there such species would "appear"

But I didn't understand - what did the Author of this opus mean by the concept of "archival data" - the manuscripts of diplomas or the material on the basis of which the diplomas were written??? If the second - then where are the labels and authors of the definition/redefinition, and if-the first then finally tin...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 324495333_Catalogue_of_animals_of_the_Republic_of_Bashkortostan_2015_Baanov_MG_Kniss_VA_Habibullin_V
F_Katalog_zivotnyh_Baskortostana_Ufa_2015

 
And then apparently some researchers ....



 Chabibullin__2018.pdf

size: 504.62 k
number of downloads: 492

rough...

The second edition of the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia is available on the ZIN website. The promised bibliographic database is not yet visible.
https://www.zin.ru/books/Lepidoptera_Russia/index.html

The folder was removed from the site.
No one knows why this was done?
I attach the original pdf version of the catalog and a list of references.

This post was edited by niyaz - 08/15/2020 11: 54

File/s:



 Catalogue_of_the_Lepidoptera_of_Russia.pdf

size: 7.3 mb
number of downloads: 515









 Literature_ZIN.pdf

size: 1.7 mb
number of downloads: 364

  

The second edition of the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia is available on the ZIN website. The promised bibliographic database is not yet visible.
https://www.zin.ru/books/Lepidoptera_Russia/index.html

"A depressing sight!" It seems that there is some kind of parallel universe of its own...

The post was edited by guk-13.01.2020 09: 02

A complete wreck of all hopes, six letters, the last "c"...

The post was edited by kotbegemot - 13.01.2020 17: 39

I found some nomenclatural inaccuracies in generic names and specific epithets. This is despite the fact that I only saw representatives of the Volga-Ural fauna.
Spiniphalellus desertus Bidzilya & Karsholt, 2008
Micropterix thunbergella (Fabricius, 1787)
Nemophora molella (Hübner, 1816)
Ceratuncus affinitellus (Rebel, 1901)
Caloptilia juratae Bengtsson, 2010
Phyllonorycter emberizaepennella (Bouché, 1834)
Multicoloria incostans (Reznik, 1975)
Apista callipepla (Falkovitsh, 1979)
Filatima tephriditella (Duponchel, 1844)
Hypotia opsima (Falkovitch, 1976)
Ancylosis sareptella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1861)
Casilda sonsecraria (Staudinger, 1871)
Thylacigyna antiquiodes (Hübner, 1822)
Euxoa segnilis (Duponchel, 1836)

If anyone needs it, I divided the file into two parts: I cut out the tables and rotated them.
Personally, it's more convenient for me-maybe someone else...



 Catalogue_of_the_Lepidoptera_of_Russia__1_.pdf

size: 2.98 mb
number of downloads: 805










 Catalogue_of_the_Lepidoptera_of_Russia__2___1_.pdf

size: 4.58 mb
number of downloads: 698

If anyone needs it, I divided the file into two parts: I cut out the tables and rotated them.
Personally, it's more convenient for me-maybe someone else...

All in one glass.



 ___________________________2019_2.pdf

size: 5.66 mb
number of downloads: 577

From the detected omissions.

- Blastobasis pannonica is listed as new to Russia, although it has already been cited from Yu. Of the Urals:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29...ae_Gelechioidea

- Labdia semicoccinea is not mentioned , but we did, and Sinev also confirmed the definition:
http://eversmannia.entomology.ru/eversmannia_17-18_100.pdf

- For the Eastern Caucasus, Cydalima perspectalis, Scythris sinensis, Calamotropha aureliella, Spoladea recurvalis, Eugnosta magnificana and many other things were omitted-although we have already mentioned them:
http://ssc-ras.ru/files/files/11_%20Proklov.pdf
http://www.ssc-ras.ru/ckfinder/userfiles/f...%20Karayeva.pdf

The post was edited by kotbegemot - 13.01.2020 18: 27

From the detected omissions.

- Blastobasis pannonica is listed as new to Russia, although it has already been cited from Yu. Of the Urals:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29...ae_Gelechioidea

- Labdia semicoccinea is not mentioned , but we did, and Sinev also confirmed the definition:
http://eversmannia.entomology.ru/eversmannia_17-18_100.pdf

- Cydalima perspectalis, Scythris sinensis, Calamotropha aureliella, Spoladea recurvalis, and Eugnosta magnificana were omitted for the Eastern Caucasus, although we have already mentioned them:
http://ssc-ras.ru/files/files/11_%20Proklov.pdf
http://www.ssc-ras.ru/ckfinder/userfiles/f...%20Karayeva.pdf

Yes, Yponomeuta rorrella was omitted for the 8th region, which reached all Moscow news outlets last year!

Yes, Yponomeuta rorrella was omitted for the 8th region, which reached all Moscow news outlets last year!

Well, I would not take news publications into account...
But I personally caught it at the Oka station near Serpukhov. And this is the biggest ermine in my collection )



The post was edited by kotbegemot - 13.01.2020 18: 25

Well, I would not take news publications into account...
But I personally caught it at the Oka station near Serpukhov. And this is the biggest ermine in my collection )

So she gave an outbreak of numbers in the east of Moscow, devoured all the willows, if not for the news, I would not have known that I had to go and catch!

I quickly reviewed my region No. 22. Yes, there are a lot of missed views. Unfortunately, the Catalog does not include data published by us in November last year on 147 new or "forgotten" species for the region. Data about the article was posted by Konung in the section "Publications of forum participants" on 22.12.2019 (Maksimov R. E., Ivanov M. A., Knyazev S. A. 2019. New records of Heterocera (Insecta, Lepidoptera) from the Republic of Khakassia and South of Krasnoyarsk region (South Siberia, Russia). Acta Biologica Sibirica 5(4): 12-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.14258/abs.v5.i4.6803)
However, I am not inclined to angrily scold the respected authors of Catalog 2. They were faced with an extremely difficult task to collect and summarize disparate information from all over our Long-suffering country. I guess it's not easy.
Yes, and, of course, I really want to get acquainted with the bibliographic database. I don't want to say, but knowing the situation in my 22nd region, I assume that the authors did not have all the necessary literary sources at their disposal. This is easily explained by the fact that a number of very significant "regional" articles were published in local publications with a ridiculous circulation of 200 copies!! (but, at the same time, by very reputable authors)
By the way, if any of the sincerely respected authors of the Catalog have a desire to check this out, please contact the personal account. I will share the missing works with pleasure.

I quickly reviewed my region No. 22. Yes, there are a lot of missed views. Unfortunately, the Catalog does not include data published by us in November last year on 147 new or "forgotten" species for the region. Data about the article was posted by Konung in the section "Publications of forum participants" on 22.12.2019 (Maksimov R. E., Ivanov M. A., Knyazev S. A. 2019. New records of Heterocera (Insecta, Lepidoptera) from the Republic of Khakassia and South of Krasnoyarsk region (South Siberia, Russia). Acta Biologica Sibirica 5(4): 12-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.14258/abs.v5.i4.6803)
However, I am not inclined to angrily scold the respected authors of Catalog 2. They were faced with an extremely difficult task to collect and summarize disparate information from all over our Long-suffering country. I guess it's not easy.
Yes, and, of course, I really want to get acquainted with the bibliographic database. I don't want to say, but knowing the situation in my 22nd region, I assume that the authors did not have all the necessary literary sources at their disposal. This is easily explained by the fact that a number of very significant "regional" articles were published in local publications with a ridiculous circulation of 200 copies!! (but, at the same time, by very reputable authors)
By the way, if any of the sincerely respected authors of the Catalog have a desire to check this out, please contact the personal account. I will share the missing works with pleasure.

I looked at it: an article on Khakassia was published on 20.11.2019. Even if it was promptly sent to the ZIN, it would have been impossible to include this data in the catalog - the book was printed in December. And before the publication of the article, the authors, as you know, do not publish the data - so they did not have time.

In the daytime butterflies just fierce trash. One gets the feeling that a huge layer of publications over the past 5 years has simply not been used. I'll have to write about it.

Inaccuracies, omissions and omissions are not the worst part.
I got the impression that the authors do not follow and do not understand (we are talking only about daytime ones).
Two examples. Telona is not a synonym for ornata.
The distribution of mestizo is taken absolutely from the ceiling. And there are a lot of such things there.

However, I am not inclined to angrily scold the respected authors of Catalog 2. They were faced with an extremely difficult task to collect and summarize disparate information from all over our Long-suffering country. I guess it's not easy.

Such a difficult task faced the first edition, and this is already the second, so there can be no" wow " effect, especially since the reader is already more prepared. When the number of omitted species, for example, for region No. 10, approaches 200, and the number of species not included in the catalog at all exceeds 30 only in the Volga-Urals, then this probably indicates, at least, a careless attitude to the matter. But no matter how sad it is to realize that the compilers of the catalog are some of the best scientists in the country, and unfortunately, we have what we have.

Currently, this publication should reflect each subject of the Russian Federation-and not the amazing hybrids of often significantly dissimilar physical and geographical areas close to each other, and should be at least three volumes:
1 volume. Lepidoptera of the European part and the Urals.
Volume 2. Lepidoptera of Siberia and the Far East.
Volume 3. Regional faunal literature.
This would provide a good example of finding out the range of a particular species in the Russian Federation and, most importantly, encourage regional faunalists to continue their activities in the field.

Converted tables from pdf to xls. This is much more convenient, in my opinion. You can select the desired columns in color or delete unnecessary ones, leaving only the region of interest.



 katalog_2019.xls

size: 3.33 mb
number of downloads: 480








Nothing seems to have moved out or strayed during the conversion, but I didn't check it thoroughly. If you notice any errors, please report here or in PM.

According to the catalog itself, I can say that I looked only at the Crimean diaries, as the most studied group. What to say... The authors cite a number of species that we don't have any real finds of in Crimea. The same Colias hyale, which has long been excluded from the Crimean list. The publication is available on the Internet, but who will read it?..

  
According to the catalog itself, I can say that I looked only at the Crimean diaries, as the most studied group. What to say... The authors cite a number of species that we don't have any real finds of in Crimea. The same Colias hyale, which has long been excluded from the Crimean list. The publication is available on the Internet, but who will read it?..

The lack of up-to-date data on the finds is not a reason for not including the previously listed species in the catalog, and it is not proven that its definition is incorrect. Definition errors have been corrected. According to Colias hyale, I think the authors have read, but they have their own opinion on this species.

Here is another clear nonsense. In the first Catalog, this species was listed as Hyles chuvilini Danner, Eitschberger & Surholt, 1998. The current status of the taxon is downgraded to the subspecies Hyles exilis chuvilini (which, by the way, does not raise any questions). The piquancy is this: Chuvilini was described by the above-mentioned authors from several imagos bred from caterpillars in laboratory conditions by Alexander Chuvilin. He found caterpillars in my presence in Khakassia (and this is region 22!!), in the vicinity of Abakan in July 1992.
Not only is this taxon not included in the first edition for region 22, but now it is also included in the second edition.; (( In addition to the article (I think, in the Atalanta magazine, where the taxon was described as early as the end of the last century) , information is definitely available in the Pittaway atlas (its electronic version can be viewed in a couple of seconds anyone who wants to). Sadly..

The Zin website contains a list of 3,496 names in Cyrillic and 1,223 in Latin. https://www.zin.ru/books/Lepidoptera_Russia/index.html
Of course, this is not the same database mentioned in the Catalog, which includes, in addition to a full link to each work, information about the taxa (families) and regions considered in it, but thank you for that.

Currently, this publication should reflect each subject of the Russian Federation-and not the amazing hybrids of often significantly dissimilar physical and geographical areas close to each other, and should be at least three volumes:
1 volume. Lepidoptera of the European part and the Urals.
Volume 2. Lepidoptera of Siberia and the Far East.
Volume 3. Regional faunal literature.
This would provide a good example of finding out the range of a particular species in the Russian Federation and, most importantly, encourage regional faunalists to continue their activities in the field.

Doubling the number of regions will only result in a fourfold increase in the number of errors. This is due to the outdated method of marking with a "+" sign of one type or another in the region, which was already in the first catalog of Yershov and Field in 1870, with modern computerization.
Do we need such faunalists who cannot independently assess the degree of knowledge of their region and will be based only on one source of literature?

This post was edited by niyaz - 10.02.2020 12: 53

There is a point of view that such mega-catalogs are more convenient to maintain on the Internet - the ability to quickly correct something, the convenience of coordinating researchers, integration with third-party databases.

There is a point of view that such mega-catalogs are more convenient to maintain on the Internet - the ability to quickly correct something, the convenience of coordinating researchers, integration with third-party databases.

It seems that something similar will happen.
But looking at the current ZIN site, it will be very inconvenient to use it.

ZIN, like other academic institutions, is a subordinate organization. Employees must fulfill a state task, for which they are actually paid a PO. Websites, electronic databases, etc. are completely excluded from the list of reports. Moreover, according to the rules that came into force this year, the price of the entire book Catalog is 1 point, which still needs to be divided by the number of authors and the number of affiliations.
In total, it turns out that the employees, conditionally ZINA, prepared this book, again conditionally, for a year. We have also attracted a number of colleagues from other Russian organizations and foreign countries as co-authors. As a result, after all recalculations, for this book on the current state of affairs in the Academy of Sciences, ZIN will receive, again conditionally, 0.5 points.
And you need to get about 500 points for the entire ZIN according to the state task in a year. This is approximately 1000 such books.
And you say, internets, sites, databases... Points are collected by articles, mainly from the journals Q1-Q2.

It seems that something similar will happen.
But looking at the current ZIN site, it will be very inconvenient to use it.

But it will be better to add a specific point than some abstract plus to the region.
And to make it convenient to use it, you need to entrust this matter to specialists.

But it will be better to add a specific point than some abstract plus to the region.
And to make it convenient to use it, you need to entrust this matter to specialists.

You need to do it the way it was done, for example, on the site http://ukrbin.com/. There are photos, and definitions of specialists, and updated maps with points, and phenology, and literature, and what not.

A review has been published:

Bolshakov L. V., Korb S. K.. Book review. Catalog of Lepidoptera Of Russia. 2nd edition / Edited by S. Yu. Sinev-St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2019. - 448 p. Part 1. General questions and problems of illumination of club-whiskered Lepidoptera (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea)

http://eversmannia.entomology.ru/011_Ev61_Bolshakov_Korb.pdf

This post was edited by niyaz - 03/27/2020 07: 27

Thank you very much! Indeed, it is much more convenient to work this way.

And just a question, can anyone have an electronic version of the 2008 edition? I can't find a free download yet.

http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/school/book...era_rossii.djvu
http://ashipunov.info/shipunov/school/book...tera_rossii.pdf

Thank you very much! Indeed, it is much more convenient to work this way.

One of the tables in this XLS still turned out to be broken - in the original PDF, this table is made crooked. That's why the conversion didn't work out right for her.

This post was edited by okoem - 03.05.2020 19: 15

The second part of the Catalog review has been published

L. V. Bolshakov, N. N. Ismagilov
Book review. Catalog of Lepidoptera Of Russia. 2nd edition / Edited by S. Yu. Sinev-St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2019. - 448 p. Part 2. Shortcomings in the coverage of higher lepidoptera (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae – Noctuidae) in the middle and southern bands of European Russia and the Urals

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jRrsgo86bv...ew?usp=drivesdk

This post was edited by niyaz - 13.06.2020 11: 15

The second part of the Catalog review has been published

L. V. Bolshakov, N. N. Ismagilov
Book review. Catalog of Lepidoptera Of Russia. 2nd edition / Edited by S. Yu. Sinev-St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2019. - 448 p. Part 2. Shortcomings in the coverage of higher lepidoptera (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae – Noctuidae) in the middle and southern bands of European Russia and the Urals

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jRrsgo86bv...ew?usp=drivesdk

Everyone doesn't care, and even the fact that everyone doesn't care, also doesn't matter.
The main reference is in the review of Anikin 2017. I have already said it and I will say it again: Anikin did not have any material on the Volgograd region, nor did he have it in 1993. Everything that concerns the Volgograd region is taken from the ceiling, and has nothing to do with reality, and Niyaz Nazipovich refers to all this, but because poh.
Two examples.
Half-breed. There are no mestizos in the Saratov and Rostov regions, there are no mestizos in the Caucasus (there is no material), there are mestizos in the Astrakhan region, and in the very south of the Volgograd region. How so??? But the fact is that neither Vasily Vasilyevich, nor Lavr Valeryevich, nor Poltavsky can distinguish a half-breed from a form of Elijah. Will this change anything? Absolutely nothing, and they will always refer to each other. Because poh.
Орната. It is not available in the Astrakhan region, Anikin refers to Wink, and Wink had no material on ornata from the word "at all". Because poh.
Two more points.
Latification. At the end of 2013, there was a discussion on this issue on the forum with a completely unclear outcome, and so everything remained.
Genetics. Either we use this tool, or we don't use it. If we don't trust this tool, well, let's go back to the feelers and claws. And then somehow it's ugly, when the results are "good", then genetics suits us quite well, if the" results " are bad, then dances begin: half-species (non-species, over-species), then we need to reconsider the distance between species, then we need to hybridize. And all all poh.