Search

The second, updated edition of the Catalogue of Palaearctic cerambycids is discussed in detail. The unprecedented huge amount of gross mistakes, highly dubious and controversial data held in the first edition of the Catalogue was one of the main reasons for republication. Special attention is paid here to the sections of the first edition authored by M.L. Danilevsky, which contained the vast majority of the serious errors and unfortunate inaccuracies. These sections actually were only a careless and rough draft of a catalogue but by no means a complete and full-fledged scientific work. Very sadly, the updated catalogue is shown not only to have inherited a very large number of M.L. Danilevsky’s mistakes from the first edition but it was substantially replenished with other wrong and very dubious information of this author. Significant additions and changes to the catalogue are introduced, and its numerous mistakes and misprints are corrected. The following new synonymy is established: Paracorymbia Miroshnikov, 1998 = Maculileptura Danilevsky, 2015, syn. n.; Monochamus Dejean, 1821 = Murzinia Lazarev, 2011, syn. n.; Monochamus ruspator (Fabricius, 1781) = Murzinia karatauensis Lazarev, 2011, syn. n. The previously established synonymy Batesiata Miroshnikov, 1998 = Pyrrholeptura Lazarev, 2016, Neocerambyx J. Thomson, 1861 = Bulbocerambyx Lazarev, 2019, Melanoleptura scutellata scutellata (Fabricius, 1781) = M. scutellata ochracea (Faust, 1878), Anaglyptus mysticoides Reitter, 1894 = A. mysticoides obscurissimus Pic, 1901, Purpuricenus neocaucasicus Rapuzzi et Sama, 2014 = P. caucasicola Danilevsky, 2015, Purpuricenus renyvonae Sláma, 2001 = P. baeckmanni Danilevsky, 2007, Cerambyx cerdo acuminatus Motschulsky, 1853 = C. cerdo manderstjernae Mulsant et Godart, 1855 is confirmed. Various cases of pure plagiarism by M.L. Danilevsky and his disrespect to scientific ethics are presented, as well as some vivid examples of this author’s falsifications of diverse data and his manipulations with published scientific evidence are given. The mentioned investigator is demonstrated to have utterly disregarded a wealth of valid and reliable data by some other authors he is well aware of. Very obscene and unjust cases of substitution of some authors in the second edition are discussed. Attention is drawn to M.L. Danilevsky’s various data given in the catalogue, which do not correspond, either completely or in part, to the information published in his own, relatively recent monograph on longicorn beetles of the former USSR plus Mongolia. Such an inconsistent and contradictory presentation by that author is argued to be directly related to the question of his data reliability as a whole contained in the updated catalogue. In contrast, the honest and fruitful contributions of almost all other authors to the second edition are to be emphasized.

The government of the Republic of Latvia began creating a penal system as soon as it took control of the territory it claimed. According to the international understanding, imprisonment was not only seen as the isolation of a person, but also included serious steps in ‘correctional practices’. The article deals with the first stage of the creation of a penal system in Latvia, of which the end can be linked to the ‘Instructions for Prison Employees’, the first law regulating prisons in the Republic of Latvia, which was passed on 16 April 1921. This stage coincided with the period when Latvia switched to peacetime order after the end of the War of Independence. By presenting an overview of the creation of the state penal system, the author highlights the most important steps taken by the prison administration, and the conditions the state prison system faced.