This period of my scientific activity can be divided into two stages: the first is a “budding entomologist”, the second is a “novice professional”. But there are not so many works here, and the publications of the first period (before 1984) are unlikely to interest anyone. So I decided not to separate them. In general, at that time I had not yet got rid of “youthful maximalism”, and on its basis I made many mistakes, including unforgivable ones.
Personal photos of this period were not digitized, and are not available to me now.
1993 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1993) Various types of disjunctions in the areals of scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the Eastern Palearctic. Khark. Entomol. Soc. Gazette. V. 1, iss. 2. С. 92–95. (In Russian)
Examples of Boreomontane, Arcto-Alpine, Montana and Baltic-Caspian disjunctions in areals of water scavenger beetles are given. Range maps are provided for Cercyon impressus and Laccobius decorus.
The work is based mainly on the materials of the thesis research. More information like this should have been posted.
Shatrovskiy, A. (1993) New species of the scavenger water beetles to the fauna of the CIS countries (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Khark. Entomol. Soc. Gazette. V. 1, iss. 1. P. 38–43. (In Russian)
Three species of water scavenger beetles are reported for the first time for the territory of the CIS: Sphaeridium marginatum, Hydrochus megaphallus and Anacaena lutescens.
In connection with the revisions in different groups of water scavenger beetles from foreign colleagues, a number of names received a valid status. In collections from the territory of the CIS, some species in the new status were found and are given in this article. The publication remained unnoticed, and is still not reflected in the Catalog of the Palearctic. I intend to correct this defect.
Shatrovskiy, A. (1993) About new and little-known scavenger water beetles of the genus Hydrochus Leach (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Entomol. Review. V. 72, iss. 4. P. 827–829. (In Russian)
The problems of the nomenclature of three species of the genus are discussed: Hydrochus flavipennis, H. kirgisicus, and H. nodulifer. H. roberti is described as new one.
One of the articles that I can be proud of. All statements and descriptions remain relevant after 30 years.
1992 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1992) New and little-known scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) from Southern Primorye and adjacent territories. Entomol. Review. V. 71, iss. 2. P. 359–372. (In Russian)
New species and generic taxa included in the Key to Insects of the Far East of the USSR are described: the subgenus Cyceron in the genus Cercyon, the new genus Agnaeformia with the new species A. lucida, and new species: Hydraena flavomarginata, Ochtnebius mamagri, Limnebius glabriventris, Hydrochus laferi, Cercyon kryzhanovskii, C. exorabilis, C. verus, C. numerosus, C. symbion, C. noctuabundus, Megasternum japonicum, Hydrocassis lucifer, Crenitis kanyukovae and Paracymus zaitzevi.
The article was to be published before the publication of the Far East Key in 1989. The Key contains an erroneous reference to it on page 261: “Shatrovskiy, 1988: 000-000”) and an indication in the list (p. 538) with the wrong title, year (1990), volume and issue of the journal − without pages. I did not follow the way of the manuscript to the editor. It turned out that she did not get there in time (I think that it was my fault: I had to check). I had to apply to the Commission for Zoological Nomenclature to consider the year of description as 1989 (the release of the Key), despite the fact that the descriptions did not fully meet the criteria (there were no references to types in the Key). The request was granted.
Not all names are now valid: the name Agnaeformia has been reduced to synonyms with Pacrillum (the species P. lucida remained new, but I did not designate the name as an adjective, and it “automatically” became a noun − not consistent with a valid generic name). Hydrocassis lucifer turned out to be an unknown me species from North America, Ametor scabrosus. Cercyon exorabilis has become a synonym for the European montane species C. tatricus (the most annoying mistake: the species is well known to me, I myself collected it in the Carpathians). Hydraena flavomarginata was synonymized with H. miyatakei from Japan (Manfred Jäch told me about this in a personal meeting − but I could not change anything). But with the reduction of the subgenus Cyceron into a synonym for the nominative subgenus (A. Smetana), I do not agree. Anyway − not me, so Sergey Ryndevich will restore a valid status of this name.
1989 year
Schatrowskij, A. (1989) Kaukasische Hydrophiliden der Gattung Megasternum Mulsant 1844 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Senckenbergiana biolologica. Bd. 70, Hf. (1/3). S. 83–87. (In German)
A new species, M. prometheus, collected in the burrows of the vole of Prometheus (Prometheomys schaposchnikovi) by Yury Leister, together with new species of beetles from other families, is described. It is compared with another species M. concinnum, distributed in the Caucasus (at the time of publication of the article, the name M. obscurum was used).
These fees were pointed out by my supervisor in graduate school O. L. Kryzhanovsky. He also proposed a name for the new species. It was not easy to find Y. Leister’s collection among numerous boxes and cabinets at the Zoological Institute in Leningrad. And if I had not set the task of bringing all the scavenger water beetles into one closet, I would hardly have found them.
I really wanted to describe the species in German especially for the collector − an ethnic German. I managed not only to do this, but also to present a reprint to a well-deserved colleague.
Shatrovskiy, A. (1989) Family Hydraenidae. Key to insects of the Far East of the USSR. V. III. Coleoptera, or beetles. Pt. 1. Leningrad: Nauka. P. 260–264. (In Russian)
The Key was “unlucky” because its publication took place at the time of the processes that preceded the collapse of the USSR. The release of the Key is considered to be the year of my descriptions of new species, published for technical reasons in the article not before, but after the Key: “New and little-known scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) from South Primorye and adjacent territories” (see above).
Shatrovskiy, A. (1989) Family Hydrophilidae. Key to insects of the Far East of the USSR. V. III. Coleoptera, or beetles. Pt. 1. Leningrad: Nauka. P. 264-293. (In Russian)
1988 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1988) Towards the study of scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the European part of the USSR and the Caucasus. Vestn. Kharkiv. University. № 313. P. 75–77. (In Russian)
Text is not available now
A short, insignificant article, written at the request of the editors of a very little-known magazine at that time.
1986 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1986) Scavenger water beetles of the genus Hydrochara (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the fauna of the USSR. Bulletin of Zoology. № 4. P. 29–34. (In Russian)
The statuses, authorship and priorities in indicating the type species of the generic names Hydrochara, Hydrocharis, Hydrophilus and Hydrous are discussed. For six species of the genus Hydrochara of the fauna of the USSR (H. caraboides, H. dichroma, H. flavipes, H. affinis, H. libera, and H. semenovi), a key table is given and the distribution is specified. At the same time, it was established that H. affinis is not allopatric (as previously thought), but sympatric with H. flavipes.
On the one hand, I should be proud of this work, on the other hand, I feel discomfort because of it.
First of all, I did not figure out the nomenclature problems myself: I. M. Kerzhner (the name needs no introduction) helped me, and at the same time he refused to be co-author. Secondly, I acted very incorrectly with respected colleague A. Smetana, not warning about his mistakes in identifying the material from Leningrad, and incorrectly putting them on public display. Of course, I should not have done this, and I am ready to offer a belated apology to a prominent entomologist who does not communicate with me after that.
The path to publishing the article was thorny. First, the manuscript was returned to me with hasty remarks from a member of the editorial board, V. G. Dolin. They had to be answered. Time passed, and the article did not get into the next issue. But the fact that it was published in unchanged form testifies to the incorrectness of the remarks, tacitly acknowledged by the reviewer himself.
The exit was also delayed by the need to re-do the drawings. There were no remarks on them, but they were returned to me in a wrinkled form due to packaging in a thin envelope.
And while I was solving the problems that had arisen, an article by a British author with a discussion about the status of the same generic names managed to be published. So my priority was lost.
Shatrovskiy, A. (1986) Peculiarities of distribution of scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the European part of the USSR and the Caucasus. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of the USSR. V. 68. P. 28–31. (In Russian)
Text is not available now
Materials of one of the chapters of the dissertation. The statement of common truth, but on the example of one group of insects.
1985 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1985) Beetles of the family of scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the European part of the USSR and the Caucasus. Systematics, fauna, ecology. Abstract thesis…. cand. biol. sciences.Kharkiv. 24 с. (In Russian)
Abstract of my thesis, defended on April 26, 1985.
The defense asked a lot of questions. Everyone was to the point, and I was pleased to see interest in my research. Especially many questions were asked by V. A. Tryapitsyn. But I must also say about a fair remark: V. I. Tobias noted that he liked the work, but did not like the author’s abstract, as it did not reflect level of thesis. After the defense, he came up to me and said: “Shatrovskiy is a pest, enemy and exterminator of the fauna,” and explained: he excluded two species from the fauna of the USSR. I began to answer that I really excluded the species that were cited erroneously. This was followed by a rhetorical question: “So, from the fauna − or from the list of fauna”? This is never forgotten.
1984 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1984) Towards the definition of scavenger water beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the fauna of the USSR. Vestn. Kharkiv. University. № 262. P. 86–88. (In Russian)
Text is not available now
I pointed out that Hydraenidae is a separate family. For science, this is not news, but for Soviet entomologists, it was information at that time. To save space, the table for definition was typed without line separation − despite my requirements for proofreading.
Shatrovskiy, A. (1984) Review of scavenger water beetles of the genus Laccobius Er. (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) of the fauna of the USSR. Entomol. Review. V. 63, iss. 2. P. 301–325. (In Russian)
For the territory of the USSR, 30 species from four subgenera are given. Two species are described as new ones (L. znojkoi and L. kunashiricus). Two species are listed for the first time for the USSR (L. nobilis and L. formosus). There are synonymized one subgenus name (Macrolaccobius to Dimorpholaccobous) and three specific names (L. czerskii, L. bucciarellii and L. farsicus − respectively with L. binotatus, L. striatulus and L. hindukuschi). The valid name L. simulatrix has been restored. A number of lectotypes have been designated. For most of the considered species, new localities are indicated.
Postgraduate work of the second year. In many ways − immature and incorrect. In the text, I allowed remarks on the work of my colleague Elio Gentili that could not have made. I posted drawings of the genitals of a dubious form, which Gentili, on the basis of this article, described as a new species, naming it by my name. One species (L. znojkoi) turned out to be a synonym of L. hoberlandti (not known to me at the time of submission of the article).
1982 year
Shatrovskiy, A. (1982) Towards the study of water beetles of the families Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae and Hydrophilidae of the forest-steppe and steppe zones of the Left-Bank Ukraine. Vestn. Kharkiv. University. № 226. P. 67–69. (In Russian)
Text is not available now
Brief review of three years of research.
Article based on the materials of the diploma work. In the university edition it was impossible to count on a larger volume. Therefore, we got a faceless review, which has only a “historical” value.
1981 year
Solodovnikova, V., Gramma, V., Prudkina, N., Maksimova, Yu., Naglova, G., Shatrovskiy, A. (1981) On the connectivity of some components of biogeocenoses on the example of studying the entomofauna of southeastern Ukraine. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of the USSR. V. 63. P. 22–24. (In Russian)
Text is not available now
The next statement of the role of metacoenotic species.
Where there are many co-authors, your role is reduced to a minimum. I don’t even remember which part I wrote – and whether I wrote it at all.
1980 year
Solodovnikova, V., Gramma, V., Prudkina, N., Shatrovskiy, A. (1980) On the question of the formation of links between biogeocenoses and the influence of some anthropogenic factors on them. Biogeocenotic aspects of forest reclamation of disturbed lands in Western Donbass. Dnepropetrovsk: Publishing House Dnepropetr. State University. P. 159–164. (In Russian)
Text is not available now
The next statement of the role of metacenotic species.
My first publication (apart from two abstracts). I visited the Samara hospital of Dnepropetrovsk University – and received the right to publish in their publication. In the content, he made an inaccuracy in describing the nutritional features of the spinners. It was awkward and funny. But almost no one read it.