News
We are pleased to welcome a Aleš Sedláček from Czech Republic! Thanks to him, our project was enriched with lots of great pictures.
Many thanks to all participants for their cooperation.
Many thanks to all participants for their cooperation.
Announcement:
Terms and Conditions for Authors
1. Editors
I’m looking to strengthen our team with a new editors.
2. Administrators
This role demands scientists and the real fans of the beetles to develop this project yet further.
Administrators may change any content in database and make decisions about the future development of the Carabidae of the World project (Administrator's log-in required).
Please volunteer.
3. Authors
3.1. Scientific Contributors
Scientific content is authored by professional scientists (Administrator's log-in required)
Scientific contributors may add and change any content in database of the Carabidae of the World project.
If you are interested in authoring , please contact with Editor.
3.2. Media Contributors
Media Contributors provide images, PDF's, etc. that can be viewed by Carabidae of the World visitors.
Professional scientists, students and anybody else with an interest in creating media files about carabids can become a Carabidae of the World media contributor. If you are interested in contributing, please contact with Editor or any Administrator.
Scientific and Media contributors keep the copyright for materials submitted to the Carabidae of the World project. By default, contributions are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. Contributors who prefer another license can specify alternative default licenses for their text and media contributions.
Attention Administrators:
for security purposes your passwords have been changed. Please contact me to confirm your administrator status and new passwords.
Alexander
Terms and Conditions for Authors
1. Editors
I’m looking to strengthen our team with a new editors.
2. Administrators
This role demands scientists and the real fans of the beetles to develop this project yet further.
Administrators may change any content in database and make decisions about the future development of the Carabidae of the World project (Administrator's log-in required).
Please volunteer.
3. Authors
3.1. Scientific Contributors
Scientific content is authored by professional scientists (Administrator's log-in required)
Scientific contributors may add and change any content in database of the Carabidae of the World project.
If you are interested in authoring , please contact with Editor.
3.2. Media Contributors
Media Contributors provide images, PDF's, etc. that can be viewed by Carabidae of the World visitors.
Professional scientists, students and anybody else with an interest in creating media files about carabids can become a Carabidae of the World media contributor. If you are interested in contributing, please contact with Editor or any Administrator.
Scientific and Media contributors keep the copyright for materials submitted to the Carabidae of the World project. By default, contributions are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. Contributors who prefer another license can specify alternative default licenses for their text and media contributions.
Attention Administrators:
for security purposes your passwords have been changed. Please contact me to confirm your administrator status and new passwords.
Alexander
1. Project participants as well as wishing to join, send the administrator information and photos for personal pages.
2. All you have good photos of interesting species. Why do not you send them and help the common cause?
2. All you have good photos of interesting species. Why do not you send them and help the common cause?
Happy New Year of the Black Water Snake!
Chapters of presentation on 15th European Carabidologists’ Meeting, 23-27 of August 2011
TAXONOMY IN XXI CENTURY: HOBBY OR BUSINESS?
Alexander ANICHTCHENKO & Alexey SHAVRIN
We would like to expose a little different point of view and another information for thinking about.
May be our presentation will be nonconformist, but we think is necessary to speak about some modern tendences in science and in carabidology in particular. Part of them is positive but unfortunatedly not all.
The main idea was to look development of taxonomy as a science in a gradient of -holders of knowledge (taxonomists) on a time piece from beginnings of 20 century till present time.
Normally at the base of any biological investigation, from revision to faunistic or ecological studies, the principal unit for manipulate or process data is a species. Wrongly determinated material leads to wrong result.
Whether there is a future of taxonomist?
Taxonomy is for beetles lovers or for "professionals"?
Whether commercialization of science will result to deadlock of taxonomy?
The questions partly philosophical and senseless, also doesn't find the concrete answers.
In present study we are made analysis of the number of taxonomic publications and new described taxa on examples of two large families of the beetles (Carabidae and Staphylinidae) for the period from 1900 to 2008, besides that we are registered all authors on the countries, years and their fruitfulness. The quality of papers was considered and whether is the author the professional (i.e. work as the museum employer or the research assistant in the scientific organization, institute, etc.), or he is engaged in taxonomy at amateur level (hobby), the number of coauthors was considered also.
Cooperation in preparation for publication of taxonomic paper - it is not bad. But whether always authorship mean inquisitive interest to studied object. Is are not ambitions? Practical benefit? Desire to receive new grant at any cost?
Activity of actual Carabidae specialists by countries:
Italy is on the first place. Number of taxonomists from USA, Germany and Japan is traditionally high. It is necessary to note, that the number of hobbists in Germany and Japan is high too. There are no hobbists in China. Also it is necessary not forget that the beetles fans are not bad, frequently they are very high quality experts in taxonomy.
If one hundred years ago or less, the entomology was in the hands of enthusiasts exclusively. Now the balance of people involved in entomology is move to busyness. The great part of so called specialist prefers follow any modern tendency (from ecology to scientology) if only receive money.
Writing of paper for the report to justify financing, and to receive new,
IT leads to occurrence of superficial, poor-quality publications, as a rule with several coauthors. For the sake of quantity it is endowed by quality of works
Occurrence of concept "Impaсt factor" and “Citation index” as deification of commercialization of a science.
IMPACT FACTOR – I can give good idea to increase citation factor, the perfect way is to publish absolutely absurdic article because everybody will citate it as stupidity, but the goal will be achieved – high citation and more money.
The most obvious shortcomings (defects) of impact factor as follows:
- number of citations, in fact, does not reflect the quality of research, however, as the number of publications;
- period of time are taken into account citation is too short, only two years (the classic articles are cited frequently even several decades after publication);
- Different results in various fields of science leads to a different frequency of publication, which influence on the impact factor. For example, medical journals often have largest impact factors than mathematical.
Using English as the universal in the writing of scientific papers
It is much easier to prepare a quality manuscript in native language, without the time and cost of translation work. The lack of knowledge of English leads to a simplification of the text.
The presence of literature on the native language promotes the emergence of young lovers of nature to scientific studies. For example see huge entomological literature of Germany, France, Italy and as result – many specialists. These traditions are continues today in some countries, that can only be welcomed. Moreover, nowadays any publication if you want you can translate from any language with the help of automatic translators.
“Principal aim of this publication VS “Principal aim is publication”
The accumulation of individual results, but not understanding and not generalization of them. The work is from the "Method" by Francis Bacon (father of empiricism), the main task of science is getting more and more empirical facts, the need for verification and interpretation of results, which nowadays is often not done.
As an example : the great part of last ten years publications about taxonomy of the genus Carabus.
It was noted that the “union” of carabidologists is more fragmented if compared with staphylinidologists. As an example, a presence of annual meeting of staphylinidologists in Europe (each year more and more participants from around the world) as well as existance of specialized mailing “staphlist”. From other hand, meetings of carabidologists are organize one time for three years.
The appearance of «Carabidae of the World» project (free online data base) showed reluctance of taxonomists to collaborate, despite the large number of visitors per day.
Only 2-3 enthusiast (from 300 registered and 100 included in list of Authors/Participants) are actively take part in the project.
A significant number of professionals simply refused to take part in the project, I suppose, not because of lack of time. Who wish to see a list of them?
The "aging-and-extinction" of taxonomists.
Becoming of expert-taxonomist is a long process, as well as ripening of a good taxonomic publication. The youth are moves with market condition, and old men try to be arranged with them. As we can see, the majority of taxonomists is around 50-60 years, and yuong people not arrive.
Another relatively recent problem is so-called «Vandalism in taxonomy» (see Jach, 2006) which essence consists that nonprofessional fans of insects, without having necessary preparation and qualification, can publish descriptions of new taxa, ignoring rules of International Code of the Zoological Nomenclature.
1. Type material deposited in private collections
2. Incorrect not reviewed papers
3. Self-published works (print copies)
4. The description of new inadequate taxa within commercial groups for the purpose of sale (for example: Carabus) to collectors
Occurrence of a considerable quantity of not reviewed and badly reviewed scientific magazines, and as result increase in number of poor-quality and erroneous publications.
Summarizing the aforesaid, it would be desirable to pay attention to a question of SOUL. The subject needs to be loved, in our case – beetles. To make business (money) on a subject it is possible, but it contradicts the primary goals of fundamental science, process of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
We are try to develop the elementary units, "figures" in the living world which can be put or developed further in "higher mathematics" of the Animal Kingdom, and not contaminate science with absurd data and publications.
Now we are also notice that last of Mohicans, professional taxonomists, publish their remarkable works in which long-term experience, and also love to the object, not spoiled by momentary profit sees in respectable age.
We are wish them strong health and longevity!
TAXONOMY IN XXI CENTURY: HOBBY OR BUSINESS?
Alexander ANICHTCHENKO & Alexey SHAVRIN
We would like to expose a little different point of view and another information for thinking about.
May be our presentation will be nonconformist, but we think is necessary to speak about some modern tendences in science and in carabidology in particular. Part of them is positive but unfortunatedly not all.
The main idea was to look development of taxonomy as a science in a gradient of -holders of knowledge (taxonomists) on a time piece from beginnings of 20 century till present time.
Normally at the base of any biological investigation, from revision to faunistic or ecological studies, the principal unit for manipulate or process data is a species. Wrongly determinated material leads to wrong result.
Whether there is a future of taxonomist?
Taxonomy is for beetles lovers or for "professionals"?
Whether commercialization of science will result to deadlock of taxonomy?
The questions partly philosophical and senseless, also doesn't find the concrete answers.
In present study we are made analysis of the number of taxonomic publications and new described taxa on examples of two large families of the beetles (Carabidae and Staphylinidae) for the period from 1900 to 2008, besides that we are registered all authors on the countries, years and their fruitfulness. The quality of papers was considered and whether is the author the professional (i.e. work as the museum employer or the research assistant in the scientific organization, institute, etc.), or he is engaged in taxonomy at amateur level (hobby), the number of coauthors was considered also.
Cooperation in preparation for publication of taxonomic paper - it is not bad. But whether always authorship mean inquisitive interest to studied object. Is are not ambitions? Practical benefit? Desire to receive new grant at any cost?
Activity of actual Carabidae specialists by countries:
Italy is on the first place. Number of taxonomists from USA, Germany and Japan is traditionally high. It is necessary to note, that the number of hobbists in Germany and Japan is high too. There are no hobbists in China. Also it is necessary not forget that the beetles fans are not bad, frequently they are very high quality experts in taxonomy.
If one hundred years ago or less, the entomology was in the hands of enthusiasts exclusively. Now the balance of people involved in entomology is move to busyness. The great part of so called specialist prefers follow any modern tendency (from ecology to scientology) if only receive money.
Writing of paper for the report to justify financing, and to receive new,
IT leads to occurrence of superficial, poor-quality publications, as a rule with several coauthors. For the sake of quantity it is endowed by quality of works
Occurrence of concept "Impaсt factor" and “Citation index” as deification of commercialization of a science.
IMPACT FACTOR – I can give good idea to increase citation factor, the perfect way is to publish absolutely absurdic article because everybody will citate it as stupidity, but the goal will be achieved – high citation and more money.
The most obvious shortcomings (defects) of impact factor as follows:
- number of citations, in fact, does not reflect the quality of research, however, as the number of publications;
- period of time are taken into account citation is too short, only two years (the classic articles are cited frequently even several decades after publication);
- Different results in various fields of science leads to a different frequency of publication, which influence on the impact factor. For example, medical journals often have largest impact factors than mathematical.
Using English as the universal in the writing of scientific papers
It is much easier to prepare a quality manuscript in native language, without the time and cost of translation work. The lack of knowledge of English leads to a simplification of the text.
The presence of literature on the native language promotes the emergence of young lovers of nature to scientific studies. For example see huge entomological literature of Germany, France, Italy and as result – many specialists. These traditions are continues today in some countries, that can only be welcomed. Moreover, nowadays any publication if you want you can translate from any language with the help of automatic translators.
“Principal aim of this publication VS “Principal aim is publication”
The accumulation of individual results, but not understanding and not generalization of them. The work is from the "Method" by Francis Bacon (father of empiricism), the main task of science is getting more and more empirical facts, the need for verification and interpretation of results, which nowadays is often not done.
As an example : the great part of last ten years publications about taxonomy of the genus Carabus.
It was noted that the “union” of carabidologists is more fragmented if compared with staphylinidologists. As an example, a presence of annual meeting of staphylinidologists in Europe (each year more and more participants from around the world) as well as existance of specialized mailing “staphlist”. From other hand, meetings of carabidologists are organize one time for three years.
The appearance of «Carabidae of the World» project (free online data base) showed reluctance of taxonomists to collaborate, despite the large number of visitors per day.
Only 2-3 enthusiast (from 300 registered and 100 included in list of Authors/Participants) are actively take part in the project.
A significant number of professionals simply refused to take part in the project, I suppose, not because of lack of time. Who wish to see a list of them?
The "aging-and-extinction" of taxonomists.
Becoming of expert-taxonomist is a long process, as well as ripening of a good taxonomic publication. The youth are moves with market condition, and old men try to be arranged with them. As we can see, the majority of taxonomists is around 50-60 years, and yuong people not arrive.
Another relatively recent problem is so-called «Vandalism in taxonomy» (see Jach, 2006) which essence consists that nonprofessional fans of insects, without having necessary preparation and qualification, can publish descriptions of new taxa, ignoring rules of International Code of the Zoological Nomenclature.
1. Type material deposited in private collections
2. Incorrect not reviewed papers
3. Self-published works (print copies)
4. The description of new inadequate taxa within commercial groups for the purpose of sale (for example: Carabus) to collectors
Occurrence of a considerable quantity of not reviewed and badly reviewed scientific magazines, and as result increase in number of poor-quality and erroneous publications.
Summarizing the aforesaid, it would be desirable to pay attention to a question of SOUL. The subject needs to be loved, in our case – beetles. To make business (money) on a subject it is possible, but it contradicts the primary goals of fundamental science, process of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
We are try to develop the elementary units, "figures" in the living world which can be put or developed further in "higher mathematics" of the Animal Kingdom, and not contaminate science with absurd data and publications.
Now we are also notice that last of Mohicans, professional taxonomists, publish their remarkable works in which long-term experience, and also love to the object, not spoiled by momentary profit sees in respectable age.
We are wish them strong health and longevity!
For the long time the taxon frivaldskyi Kraatz, 1887 was wrongly considered as the subspecies of Carabus (Morphocarabus) excellens or Carabus (Morphocarabus) scheidleri. Also was erroneously cited for Moldova (Nekuliseanu Z.Z. & Matalin A.V., 2000. A catalogue of the ground-beetles of the Republic of Moldova (Insecta, Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pensoft: Sofia-Moscow, 164 p.; Puchkov, A.V., 2008. A Review of the Ground Beetles of the Genus Carabus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Ukraine. Vestnik Zoologii 42 (3); Lassalle B., 2011. Liste des Carabes du Monde, part. 9. online publication)
The taxon was described as a form of the Carabus (Morphocarabus) scheidleri excellens var. frivaldskyi (with 4 primary intervals) from Galicia (NW Podolia), = W Ukraine. At present this taxon is rightly considered a synonym of exellens (Brezina B., 2008. Carabus checklist).
The form I found in nominative population of the species near Zolocziv at 2008 (W Ukraine) and in SE Ukraine: Andreevka, Dnipropetrovsk region. There are founds in next regional populations probable, including Moldova.
http://carabidae.pro/carabidae/exce...icius-1798.html
Personal comments of Ruslan Panin
The taxon was described as a form of the Carabus (Morphocarabus) scheidleri excellens var. frivaldskyi (with 4 primary intervals) from Galicia (NW Podolia), = W Ukraine. At present this taxon is rightly considered a synonym of exellens (Brezina B., 2008. Carabus checklist).
The form I found in nominative population of the species near Zolocziv at 2008 (W Ukraine) and in SE Ukraine: Andreevka, Dnipropetrovsk region. There are founds in next regional populations probable, including Moldova.
http://carabidae.pro/carabidae/exce...icius-1798.html
Personal comments of Ruslan Panin
For the long time С. (Morphocarabus) zawadzkii dissimilis, now synonym of zawadzkii (Lorenz, 2005), was wrongly considered as C. scheidleri pseudopreyssleri Breuning, 1932, = scheidleri helleri, or in the better case as C. zawadzkii ronayi Csiki, 1906 (Puchkov, A.V., 2008. A Review of the Ground Beetles of the Genus Carabus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Ukraine. Vestnik Zoologii 42 (3); Різун В.Б., 2003. Туруни Українських Карпат. – Львів.). As I remark, the true ronayi has not any relationship to zawadzkii (http://carabidae.pro/carabidae/scheidleri-ronayi-csiki-1906.html).
Jiri Niedl (1956) in his famous work "Monografie ceskoslovenskych druhu tribu Carabini. Cast. I." doubts about validity of subspecies status zawadzkii dissimilis, and cited C. scheidleri pseudopreyssleri from the locality where I collected С.zawadzkii dissimilis.
The taxon dissimilis is a low-mountain, western population of C. (Morphocarabus) zawadzkii. It is really hardly differs exteriorly from C. (Morphocarabus) scheidleri pseudopreyssleri because of the presence of four primary intervals of elytra, the main external differential character of C. (Morphocarabus) zawadzkii , are almos absent here. This character have only a few very large females. All intervals of elytra of dissimilis are uniform and well defined, the dots here relatively large and deep. Pronotum is more narrow than in nominative subspecies. The body color is diverse.
It should be noted that not all specimens of C. zawadzkii s.str. have four primary intervals (on 20-30% specimens of population this character are missing). The further we go from the type locality of dissimilis (Uzhgorod), and as the rise in the mountains, the more transition features to nominative form we find. But at altitudes 200-300 m where I collected beetles in this season, there were no one sample (from near 40) similar to nominative subspecies. Other population of C. zawadzkii dissimilis was found by me in the similar habitat on the north side of Carpathians Mountains (Dobromyl district, 2006). However, it is less definite externally – only the marginal forms are differ conspicuously.
Personal comments of Ruslan Panin
Jiri Niedl (1956) in his famous work "Monografie ceskoslovenskych druhu tribu Carabini. Cast. I." doubts about validity of subspecies status zawadzkii dissimilis, and cited C. scheidleri pseudopreyssleri from the locality where I collected С.zawadzkii dissimilis.
The taxon dissimilis is a low-mountain, western population of C. (Morphocarabus) zawadzkii. It is really hardly differs exteriorly from C. (Morphocarabus) scheidleri pseudopreyssleri because of the presence of four primary intervals of elytra, the main external differential character of C. (Morphocarabus) zawadzkii , are almos absent here. This character have only a few very large females. All intervals of elytra of dissimilis are uniform and well defined, the dots here relatively large and deep. Pronotum is more narrow than in nominative subspecies. The body color is diverse.
It should be noted that not all specimens of C. zawadzkii s.str. have four primary intervals (on 20-30% specimens of population this character are missing). The further we go from the type locality of dissimilis (Uzhgorod), and as the rise in the mountains, the more transition features to nominative form we find. But at altitudes 200-300 m where I collected beetles in this season, there were no one sample (from near 40) similar to nominative subspecies. Other population of C. zawadzkii dissimilis was found by me in the similar habitat on the north side of Carpathians Mountains (Dobromyl district, 2006). However, it is less definite externally – only the marginal forms are differ conspicuously.
Personal comments of Ruslan Panin
Seeking for PDF of article
MATEU, J. (1971) - Nuevos datos sobre lo Microlestes Schmidt-Goebel de Asia (Coleopt. Lebiinae). Arquivos do Museu Bocage, III (4): 51-90.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Alexandr beetl2000(dog)mail.ru
MATEU, J. (1971) - Nuevos datos sobre lo Microlestes Schmidt-Goebel de Asia (Coleopt. Lebiinae). Arquivos do Museu Bocage, III (4): 51-90.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Alexandr beetl2000(dog)mail.ru
Abstract
Two new species of Pterostichus Bonelli subgenus Pseudoferonina Ball, are described from the mountains
of central Idaho: Pterostichus bousqueti Bergdahl [type locality = small tributaries of South Fork of Payette
River watershed, ca. 1170 m (3840 ft), 44.0675°/-115.6822°, near Lowman, Salmon River Mountains,
Boise County, Idaho, U.S.A.] and Pterostichus lolo Bergdahl [type locality = Cottonwood/Orogrande
Creek, ca. 870 m (2850 ft), 46.5528°/-115.5522°, North Fork of Clearwater River watershed, Clearwater
Mountains, near Bungalow, Clearwater County, Idaho, U.S.A.]. Males of P. bousqueti and P. lolo are easily
distinguished from each other and the seven previously described Pseudoferonina species by the form of the
median lobe of the aedeagus, and from most individuals of the other species of Pseudoferonina in Idaho by
features of pronotal shape and macrosculpture. Both species appear to be obligate ripicolous hygrophiles,
restricted in distribution primarily to the margins of small montane streams in forested areas. Widespread
intensive stream surveys for Pseudoferonina over many years indicate the geographic ranges of both species
are highly localized, and additional undescribed species may occur in Idaho.
Two new species of Pterostichus Bonelli subgenus Pseudoferonina Ball, are described from the mountains
of central Idaho: Pterostichus bousqueti Bergdahl [type locality = small tributaries of South Fork of Payette
River watershed, ca. 1170 m (3840 ft), 44.0675°/-115.6822°, near Lowman, Salmon River Mountains,
Boise County, Idaho, U.S.A.] and Pterostichus lolo Bergdahl [type locality = Cottonwood/Orogrande
Creek, ca. 870 m (2850 ft), 46.5528°/-115.5522°, North Fork of Clearwater River watershed, Clearwater
Mountains, near Bungalow, Clearwater County, Idaho, U.S.A.]. Males of P. bousqueti and P. lolo are easily
distinguished from each other and the seven previously described Pseudoferonina species by the form of the
median lobe of the aedeagus, and from most individuals of the other species of Pseudoferonina in Idaho by
features of pronotal shape and macrosculpture. Both species appear to be obligate ripicolous hygrophiles,
restricted in distribution primarily to the margins of small montane streams in forested areas. Widespread
intensive stream surveys for Pseudoferonina over many years indicate the geographic ranges of both species
are highly localized, and additional undescribed species may occur in Idaho.
