Revised status, additional records, and a second species of the genus Chenzhilinus Yin & Zhou, 2024, stat. nov. (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Scydmaeninae)

A new bamboo-feeding species of the genus Mukaria Distant (Hemiptera:Cicadellidae:Deltocephalinae:Mukariini), M. hainanensis sp. nov., is described and illustrated. The new species was collected on bamboo (Bambusa chungii)from Jiangfengling National Natural Reserve, Hainan Province, China. The new species is closely related to M. ablinotata Cai & Ge, 1996 , but can be distinguished by the characters below:forewing yellowish brown; ventral process of male pygofer long and sinuate, turning outside apically at ventral view; male aedeagus without process between two shafts, inside process of shaft near apex stout and straight. In this paper, the external morphological characteristics of the new species are described in detail.A key to Chinese species of the genus Mukaria is compiled, and the photograph illustrations of the new species and M. ablinotata, colour photographs of new species and its host plants are provided. The type specimens of the new species are deposited in the Institute of Entomology, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China.

Ziegler, Thomas, Tran, Vu A., Babb, Randall D., Jones, Thomas R., Moler, Paul E., Van Devender, Robert W., Nguyen, Truong Q. (2019): A new species of reed snake, Calamaria Boie, 1827 from the Central Highlands of Vietnam (Squamata: Colubridae). Revue suisse de Zoologie 126 (1): 17-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2619512

Shadwick, Lora L., Brown, Matthew W., Tice, Alexander K., Spiegel, Frederick W. (2016): A New Amoeba with Protosteloid Fruiting: Luapeleamoeba hula n. g. n. sp. (Acanthamoebidae, Centramoebida, Amoebozoa). Acta Protozoologica 55 (3): 123-134, DOI: 10.4467/16890027AP.16.012.5744, URL: https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/865f014f-9b4c-3650-8099-18274e46c1e2/

Recently, Meierotto et al. (2019) proposed a 'revolutionary' protocol for the description of understudied hyperdiverse taxa. The premise of their study was to champion exclusively DNA-barcode-based species descriptions (=diagnoses), which would dramatically increase the rate of description and provide a 'human-readable record in the literature' (unlike a Barcode Index Number, BIN; Ratnasingham & Hebert, 2013) that can later be supplemented with additional information. Species are always delimited against already known species (Linnaeus, 1753, 1758; Mayr, 1992; ICZN, 1999; Naciri & Linder, 2015; Renner, 2016). This was also recognized by Meierotto et al. (2019, p. 120): 'Requirements for the publication of new species include (…) that they be accompanied by either a description or diagnosis which can separate them from any known species with which they are likely to be confused'. However, the latter authors failed to diagnose their 15 new Zelomorpha Ashmead, 1900 species from 51 out of 52 previously known species (only the type species was used in the analysis) and their three new Hemichoma Enderlein, 1920 species from any of the five previously known species. This is not the first case of its kind in zoology; Hebert et al. (2004) proposed to recognize ten species of skipper butterflies (genus Astraptes) based on DNA characters and ecology and some morphological characters, but the species were not formally named until Brower (2010) described them based exclusively on unique mutations in the DNA barcode region. Brower (2010) hailed this method as a flagship example of DNA barcoding's success in overcoming the 'taxonomic impediment' (Brower, 2010). However, it has received extensive criticism (DeSalle et al., 2005; Pons et al., 2006; Rubinoff et al., 2006; Elias et al., 2007; Dupérré, 2020). Meierotto et al. (2019) have taken this approach one step further by immediately assigning names to the lineages. This is, in our opinion, a step too far. Each description includes a lateral habitus image of a single specimen, a short diagnosis based solely on COI barcode nucleotide differences, brief notes on biology, and largely unannotated type specimen information except for brief mention of the locality and host caterpillar of the holotype. There are no morphological descriptions, and as mentioned, the 'molecular diagnosis' of their new Zelomorpha spp. are compared only with that of the type species, and not to the other 51 already known species of that genus, and in the case of Hemichoma, with none of the five species that were already described. We consider this poor taxonomic practice, and their approach to be fundamentally flawed. We urge innovators to pursue revolutionary new approaches that do not undermine the value of taxonomic expertise or produce sloppy results, but rather seek to draw on the latest methodological advancements to increase the rate of taxonomy without compromising on quality. Over the last 20 years, there have been many calls for an increase in the rate of taxonomic description (Mora et al., 2011). Few have delivered on that promise. Undoubtedly, the single steepest increase in this rate was made possible by DNA barcoding (Hebert et al., 2003). Yet, in the wake of the genetic revolution, there were already concerns that too much emphasis might be placed on DNA barcoding data alone, leading taxonomists to neglect the importance of other data—integrative approaches, taking the congruence of genetic signals with other datasets, would be required to keep describing biologically meaningful units (Dayrat, 2005; Ebach & Holdrege, 2005; Will et al., 2005). DNA barcoding is a rapid means to sort specimens into clusters, identify species and discover new ones (when a library of the relevant named species is already available), but does not overcome the bottleneck of the description process itself. Proposals for methods to speed up that process were dubbed 'turbo' or 'fast-track' taxonomy—an approach that does not differ fundamentally from previous species descriptions, but relies more heavily on formulaic descriptions of large numbers of new species (Butcher et al., 2012; Riedel et al., 2013). In essence, the approach of Meierotto et al. (2019) is simply another one of these turbo-taxonomic approaches except in three key aspects: Fundamentally, a diagnosis should identify features or combinations of features of a new species that are unique, that is, that allow it to be distinguished from all previously named taxa. It thereby gives a means not only to identify the new species but also to demonstrate that the new taxon is not a synonym of an existing one. The diagnoses of Meierotto et al. (2019) are based solely on DNA barcodes, but no barcodes are presented for 51 of the 52 existing species of Zelomorpha. Indeed, the existing taxa are summarily ignored, except for a statement that the notes of the second author (M.J. Sharkey) were used to verify that the new species are distinct from the existing taxa, without providing any evidence. As a result, it is impossible, based on the study of Meierotto et al. (2019), to assess whether or not their 15 new Zelomorpha names are distinct from 51 of the 52 species that were already described. In our opinion, Meierotto et al. (2019) have impeded, not enhanced, the taxonomy of these wasps. Ignoring almost all previously described species in a genus is indeed a way to speed up taxonomy—the process of comparison becomes very easy when you neglect practically all existing names—but it also creates chaos. Even the fastest approach to taxonomy will always require consideration of existing names before new ones can be established. Morphologically homogeneous ('cryptic') species are difficult to diagnose from one another, even when substantial differences exist in their DNA barcodes. This can delay taxonomy, because more effort must be invested per species to identify characters that do indeed differ. To overcome this problem, Renner (2016) recently called for more widespread inclusion of DNA sequence data in diagnoses. However, we do not believe that Renner (2016) envisioned the complete replacement of the diagnosis by single nucleotide changes, but rather expansion of concise but comprehensive diagnoses with such information. In some cases, restriction exclusively to genetic markers may be appropriate (e.g. where morphology is highly plastic, or where extremely distinctive genetic lineages are demonstrably cryptic in all other available lines of evidence), but such cases are likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Having complementary lines of evidence, such as morphology, is particularly important when, as is the case in Meierotto et al. (2019), only a tiny portion of the available names have DNA sequence data available. The lack of overlap between morphological and genetic data will further delay the process of clarifying whether or not the new names are synonyms of existing species. It is also important to note that DNA barcoding relies wholly on mitochondrial markers (usually cytochrome oxidase-I). Mitochondrial trees often disagree with nuclear species trees, especially in taxa where Wolbachia may be altering mtDNA introgression (Klopfstein et al., 2016). In these cases, and especially when genetic data are the sole basis of species-level recognition, congruence between nuclear and mitochondrial signal should be tested to better reinforce the species units identified. Moreover, as explained by Dupérré (2020), purely DNA-based descriptions will not only make the identification of millions of historical specimens impossible, it will impair this science in developing countries which house most of the undiscovered portion of biodiversity, due to high costs and lack of staff and technology. Considering the status of taxonomy as a fundamental science, this would drastically affect other related fields of study and, importantly, conservation. Renner (2016) also called for more emphasis on diagnosis and not description. With highly descriptive taxonomy, a great deal of time is invested in description of features that are not informative for the distinction of species from one another, which is time that could be spent instead diagnosing substantially more species. Instead, she and others have emphasized the importance of high-resolution photographs as supplements to diagnoses. We agree that detailed high-resolution photographs of specimens can indeed be highly valuable, but we contend that (i) there must be several photographs available, not a single lateral photograph of a single specimen, as provided by Meierotto et al. (2019), and (ii) some text highlighting important diagnostic features is valuable to experts, and of paramount importance to nonexperts, who must instead play a game of 'spot-the-difference' when such information is lacking. Experts might know the difference between variable and nonvariable characters, whereas such features cannot be distinguished by nonexperts, and it is the purpose of the diagnosis, if not the description, to point such features out. Moreover, we note that the photographs of Meierotto et al. (2019) are sometimes blurry and almost all of them cut off the tips of the antennae! Finally, it has been shown that (e.g. in case of tropical parasitoid wasps) the most time-consuming part of species discovery is field sampling (Sääksjärvi et al., 2004; Hopkins et al., 2019), and the actual description of the species may be written within minutes when material and expertise are already available. To make up the gaps in the existing barcode database, which contains maybe 2% of currently named species worldwide (see http://www.boldsystems.org/), far more survey work needs to be undertaken. A comprehensive barcoding database for a given taxon is a prerequisite to contemplating a DNA-only approach akin to that of Meierotto et al. (2019), and one that will require substantial further work to assemble. In the face of the Holocene (=sixth) extinction, taxonomists are racing to describe the 8 million unnamed eukaryotes that lie between the 2.07 million species currently named (Frid & Caswell, 2016), and the estimated ten million extant species (Mora et al., 2011; but see also Larsen et al., 2017 for well-reasoned estimates orders of magnitude higher). Currently, the rate of description is around 18 000 species per year (IISE, 2011), but with species going extinct at a rate 1000 times higher than the natural background rate of extinction, the annual species loss is clearly within or even higher than the rate of new descriptions (Dirzo & Raven, 2003; Mora et al., 2011), and thousands of species will undoubtedly go extinct before they can be described to science (IPBES, 2019). As the current average shelf life of new species between discovery and description is about 21 years (Fontaine et al., 2012), we do indeed need revolutionary new approaches to the discovery and description of new species. BINs and candidate species numbers (Vieites et al., 2009) already serve a valuable purpose as alphanumeric placeholders to recognize potentially evolutionarily significant diversity before it is taxonomically described. Simply assigning all BINs taxonomic names as Meierotto et al. (2019) propose would indeed complete the inventory of life on Earth extremely quickly (at precisely the same pace as the rate of barcoding)—that we do not dispute. But it would also remove the quantitative and qualitative difference between these preliminary identifiers (based on a single DNA marker) and full taxonomic recognition (based on a more comprehensive diagnosis, ideally supported by multiple lines of evidence including genetic data) that lend taxonomy its value. It would supplant taxonomists with technicians, who need to know nothing of the biology of the units with which they are dealing. The purpose of inclusion of molecular data in species descriptions should be to produce more precise taxonomic framework. A species description can be thought of as a hypothesis that can be supported or rejected when more data are obtained. Other researchers must have an opportunity to scientifically evaluate the status of the species in question. In our eyes, methodological changes to the way species are delineated and described are an important component of increasing the rate of species description, but dismissing the existing literature, and producing 'descriptions' that contain almost no information on the morphology of species, its variation, their unique features, their biology, or other aspects, do not constitute a revolution, and cannot be adopted. We note that real revolutions are undoubtedly coming, especially from the fields of machine learning and integrative species delimitation (Solís-Lemus et al., 2015; Favret & Sieracki, 2016), and also that it is possible to produce massive, rapidly assembled taxonomic monographs without compromising on quality (Rakotoarison et al., 2017). But we also want to emphasize that there is no shortcut to nirvana, and a true paradigm shift in taxonomy will come only when there is a revolution in the level of financial investment in taxonomy and the natural history museums that house the described and undescribed reference material of life on Earth (Wheeler, 2020), and when legislature stops acting to prohibit the collecting work of dedicated taxonomists while turning a blind eye to the innumerable organisms destroyed with every hectare of habitat that is lost (Britz et al., 2020). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The hexapodid genera Hexapus De Haan, 1833, Hexapinus Manning & Holthuis, 1981, Latohexapus Huang, Hsueh & Ng, 2002, and Hexaplax Doflein, 1904, are revised and redescribed on the basis of their respective type species. Hexapus s. str. is redefined and a new species is described from Indonesia. Hexapinus is restricted for H. latipes (De Haan, 1835), H. edwardsi (Serene & Soh, 1976) and three new species from Indonesia, Philippines, China and Japan. A new genus, Mariaplax, is established for Lambdophallus anfractus Rathbun, 1909, Hexapus granuliferus Campbell & Stephenson, 1970, and 11 new species from the China, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, New Guinea and Australia. A new genus, Rayapinus, is recognised for an unusual new species from Japan. Two new species of Hexaplax from Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan are described. A new genus, Theoxapus, is also established for the east Atlantic Hexapus buchanani Monod, 1956, which had previously been placed in Hexapinus. A revised key to the genera of Hexapodidae is presented. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Vol. 62 4 July 2014. P: 396-483

Nature reserves are widely considered as one available strategy for protecting biodiversity, which is threatened by habitat fragmentation, and wildlife extinction. The Chinese government has established a goal of protecting 15% of its land area by 2015. We quantitated the characteristics and distribution of nature reserves in mainland China and evaluated the expansion process for national nature reserves. National nature reserves occupy 64.15% of the total area of nature reserves. Steppe and meadow ecosystem, ocean and seacoast ecosystem, and wild plant nature reserves represent lower percentages, particularly in national nature reserves, in which they comprised 0.76%, 0.54%, and 0.69%, respectively, of the area. Furthermore, medium and small nature reserves compose 92.32% of all nature reserves. The land area under any legal protection has reached 14.80%, although only 9.78% is strictly protected. However, if 9 super-large national nature reserves, located in Southwest and Northwest China were removed, the percentage of strictly protected area decreases to 2.66% of the land area of China. The areas contained in nature reserves in each province are not proportional to the areas of the provinces, particularly for national nature reserves, with higher protection rates in Southwest and Northwest China than in other regions. Of the 31 provinces, 22 provinces feature strict protection of less than 4% of their areas by national nature reserves; these provinces are mainly located in East, Central, South, and North China. Moreover, the unevenness indexes of the distribution of nature reserves and national nature reserves are 0.39 and 0.58, respectively. The construction of nature reserves has entered a steady development stage after a period of rapid expansion in mainland China. In recent years, the total area of national nature reserves has increased slowly, while the total area of nature reserves has not increased, although the number of nature reserves continues increase.

Ssu-Li Chen and Hsi-Te Shih (2018) The harvestman genus Metadentobunus is endemic to Taiwan, and has two taxa, M. formosae formosae Roewer, 1915 and M. formosae garampiensis Suzuki, 1944. The two subspecies have been raised as two species, and this study redescribes the type species M. formosae based on the type specimen and a neotype of M. garampiensis Suzuki, 1944 is assigned. A new species, Metadentobunus brevispinus sp. nov., is also established from central Taiwan based on morphological and molecular evidence. This new species differs from other congeneric species by having one pair of shorter (than other congeners) spines at frontal margin of the ocularium. It can also be distinguished from M. garampiensis by the basal shape of the penile shaft (constricted vs. parallel), location of the seminal receptacle in ovipositor (5th-6th segment vs. 6th-7th segment) and number of ampullas in the terminal of the seminal receptacle (2 vs. 3). Molecular evidence from mitochondrial 16S rDNA and cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) further supports the identity of this new species. An identification key for this genus is included as well.

Two new genera and seven new species of the family Linyphiidae from the collections of the Museum d'histoire naturelle de Geneve are described: Kalimagone gen. nov. with Kalimagone cuspidata sp. nov. (the type species) and K. rotunda sp. nov. from Borneo; Tegulinus gen. nov. with Tegulinus sumatranus sp. nov. (the type species) and T. bifurcatus sp. nov. from Sumatra; Dumoga buratino sp. nov. and Prosoponoides jambi sp. nov. from Sumatra; and Oedothorax bifoveatus sp. nov. from Borneo and Java. A list of the linyphiid species currently known from Borneo, Sumatra and Java is presented.

Sri Lanka is rich with its Bryoflora (mosses, liverworts and hornworts) even it is a small island. There are 560 species of mosses in the country and Fissidentaceae is the richest monogeneric family among Sri Lankan moss flora, with 38 species of Fissidens. Fissidens is an acrocarpous moss with distichous, alternate and complanate leaves with costae (very rarely lack), size ranges from a few mm (minute bud like) to several cm (medium sized) and the presence of vaginant lamina is very characteristic to the family.Preliminary survey of mosses conducted in Hakgala Botanic Gardens, including the edge adjacent to Hakgala Strict Nature Reserve and Peradeniya Royal Botanic Gardens on August 08 and 10, 2012 respectively with special emphasis on the genus Fissidens. This study was done as a practical component of the National Workshop on Evolution, Biodiversity and Conservation of Sri Lankan Bryoflora organized and conducted by National Herbarium, Department of National Botanic Gardens, Sri Lanka (August 06-12, 2012). Random opportunistic sample collections were done, using a pair of forceps, into paper packets, after careful observations in the field using a set of hand lenses (x10, x15 & x20). Identification was done up to species level and further up to varietal level following some standard taxonomic keys and texts, using stereoscopic and light microscopes.Nine species of Fissidens were identified from the collections; Fissidens anomalus Mont., F. bryoides var. bryoides Hedw., Fissidens ceylonensis Dozy & Molk., Fissidens crenulatus Mitt., Fissidens crispulus Brid., Fissidens flaccidus Mitt., Fissidens gardneri Mitt., F. hyalinus and Fissidens taxifolius Hedw. (F. hyalinus is a species without costae). Four species out of nine have not previously been recorded from Sri Lanka, viz. F. bryoides var. bryoides, F. crenulatus F. hyalinus and F. taxifolius. Therefore, the discovery of these four new species of Fissidens is announced here for the first time, as new species for Sri Lanka. F. bryoides var. bryoides and F. hyalinus, Fissidens taxifolius recorded from Hakgala Botanic Gardens, and F. crenulatus from Peradeniya Royal Botanic Gardens. With addition of 4 new species, number Fissidens species rose to 42 and hence the number of Sri Lankan moss flora increased to 564 specieThe necessity of careful systematic collections, proper identification and determination, reporting and taking suitable measures for in situ conservation of these tiny mosses is a timely requirement. Hence, further survey of Fissidens is being conducted at present.

LONDON Entomological Society, Aug. 2.—Sir Sidney Smith Saun-ders, vice-presdent, in the chair.—Messrs. Harold Swale and T. S. Hillman were elected ordinary members.—Mr. Stevens exhibited Tillus unifasciatus and Xylotrogus brunneus taken on an.oak-lence at Upper Norwood; and Mr. Champion exhibited Harpulus 4.punctatus, Dendrophagus crenatus, and other rare Coleoptera from. Aviemore, Inverness-shire.—Mr. Forbes exhibited a specimen of Quedius dilatatus taken by him with sugar in the New Forest.—From a despatch from H. M. Charge dj Affaires at Madrid, a copy of which was forwarded to the secretary through the Foreign Office, it appeared that the damage done this year by the locusts was considerably less than that of last year, owing to the number of soldiers which the Government had been able to employ since the war was over, in assisting the inhabitants of the districts where the plague existed, in destroying the insects. Specimens of the locust, as well as a number of earthen tubes containing the eggs, were forwarded to the society, and on examination they were found to be the Locusta albifrons, Fab. (Decticus albifrons, Savigny).—Mr. M'Lachlan. exhibited a series of thirteen examples of a dragon-fly (Diplax meridionalis, Selys), recently taken by him in the Alpes Dauphines, remarkable for the extent to which they were infested by the red parasite described by De Geer as Acarus libel-lulee. They were firmly fixed on the nervures at the base of the wing, almost invariably on the underside, and being arranged nearly symmetrically, had a very pretty appearance, the wings looking as if they were spotted with blood-red. He considered that the Acari must have attained their position by climbing up the legs of the dragon-fly when at rest —Mr. F. Smith read a note on Nematus gallicola, Steph., the Gall-maker, so common on the leaves of species of Salix but of which the male had, apparently, not previously been observed. From 500 or 600 galls collected by him in 1875, he had obtained a multitude of females, but only two males; and he thought that by perseverance in this way it would be possible to obtain the males of this and other allied species, of which the males were practically unknown, the female being capable of continuing the species without immediate male influence; and he argued from this that the long-sought males of Cynips might some day be found by collecting the galls early in the year. He expressed his belief that Mr. Walsh had proved, beyond question, the breeding of a male Cynips in America, although the precise generic rank of the supposed Cynips was disputed by some of the members present.—The president (ProL Westwood), who was unable to be at the meeting, forwarded some notes of the habits of a Lepi-dopterous insect, parasitic on Fulrora candelaria, by J. C. Bow-ring,, with a description of the species and drawings of the insect in its different stages, by himself. It appeared that the Coccus-like larvæ were found attached to the dorsal surface of the Fulgora, feeding upon the waxy secretion of the latter, and covering itself with a cottony substance. From its general appearance the Professor was disposed to place the insect among the Arcliidæ. It was discovered many years ago by Mr. Bowring, and he (Mr. Westwood) had noticed it at the meeting of the British Association at Oxford, in 1860, under the name of Epipyio-bs anomala.—The Rev. R. P. Murray forwarded a paper by Mr. W. H. Miskin, of Brisbane, containing descriptions of new species of Australian Diurnal Lepidoptera in his own collection. —Mr, Edward Saunders communicated the third and concluding portion of his synopsis of British Hemiptera-Heteroptera.

China's national nature reserve network shows great imbalances in conserving the country's mega-diverse vegetation

A new genus with six new species of Naucoridae inhabiting waterfalls of Indochina are described from a decade of aquatic insect collections in Thailand and Vietnam. Namtokocoris Sites NEW GENUS is diagnosed by a pair of prominent scutellar protuberances, the prosternal midline bears an expansive, thin, plate-like carina, the forelegs of both sexes have a one-segmented tarsus apparently fused with the tibia, and a single claw. Prominent linear series of stout hairs occur on the hemelytra, although this attribute is not unique within the subfamily. Despite the lack of sexual dimorphism in the forelegs, this new genus is a member of the subfamily Laccocorinae, an assignment based on other characters consistent with this subfamily. Character states of this genus are compared with those of other Asian genera of Laccocorinae. The type species, Namtokocoris siamensis Sites NEW SPECIES, is widely distributed from northern through eastern Thailand in waterfalls of several mountain ranges. Namtokocoris khlonglan Sites NEW SPECIES was collected only at Namtok Khlong Lan at Khlong Lan National Park. Namtokocoris minor Sites NEW SPECIES was collected at two waterfalls near the border with Burma in Kanchanaburi Province and is the smallest species known. Namtokocoris akekawati Sites NEW SPECIES occurs in waterfalls from Kanchanaburi Province south to Ranong Province along the Burmese border. In Vietnam, Namtokocoris dalanta Sites NEW SPECIES was collected in Thac Dalanta near Da Lat in Lam Dong Province. Namtokocoris kem Sites NEW SPECIES was collected from Thac Kem, a limestone waterfall in Pu Mat National Park in Nghe An Province, as well as in Nan Province of northern Thailand. Few characters are available to distinguish among the species; however, genitalic features are reliably diagnostic.

In total, 28,385 higher plants were distributed in the nature reserves, accounting for 77.0% of the total number of higher plants in China. Among them, there are 3842 species which are effectively protected; 2478 species are better protected. More than 84.4% endangered species grow in national and/or provincial natural reserves. On the national scale, there are 237 state key protected species distributed in national nature reserves (NNRs), approximately 80% of the total key protected plants. More than 30% species with extremely small populations occur in NNRs and provincial nature reserves (PNR), while 35 species (29% of the total) are not covered by any national or provincial nature reserves. There were 162 botanical gardens or arboreta in China. In total, 22,104 native species from 2911 genera and 288 families are cultivated ex situ at botanical gardens or arboreta. These account for 65%, 86%, and 91% of all native flora species, genera, and families, respectively. The number of endangered and threatened plants in ex situ conservation was about 1500 species, which was about 39% of the endangered and threatened species recorded in China. By 2015, Chinese arboreta and botanical gardens had successfully introduced approximately 270 species on the checklist of state key protected wild plant species.

Purpose. Ecological description of rare species of plants of Cheremskyi nature reserve included in international Red lists and their distribution on territory of the Volyn area as of 2016. Methods. Comparatively-geographical, analytical, generalization, ystematizations, and also cartographic with the use of the computer programs of MapInfo Professional 8,0. Results. On the basis of analysis of the natural preservation network of the Volyn area certainly, that 3 objects of natural reserve fund have a most area on Volyn: Shatsk National Nature Park, National Nature Park “Prypiat – Stokhid” and Kivertsi Nаtional Nature Reserve «Tsuman Virgin Forest» in addition after an area Cheremskyi nature reserve is distinguished natural reserve thati s only on Volyn. It is in these objects of nature reserve fund is most of the species included in International Red Lists. It grows 6 species listed in Annex 1 of the Berne Convention (Aldrovanda vesiculosa L.), (Cypripedium calceolus L.), (Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich.), (Pulsatilla Latifolia Rupr. Pulsatilla), (Thesium ebracteatum Hayne), (Dicranum viride (Sull., Lesq.) Linbd.). Also grows 4 species listed in the IUCN Red List, European Red List: Crataegus ucrainica Pojark), (Cypripedium calceolus L.), (Silene lithuanica Zapal), (Tragopogon ucrainicus Artemcz). Species of plants included in to Annex 1 of the Berne Convention and Red list of the International union of conservancy, widespread as early as 4 landscape wildlife preserves, 1 to the forest wildlife preserve, 3 botanical wildlife preserves, 1 zoological wildlife reserve, and 3 botanical monument of nature, a total in 15 objects of nature reserve fund located throughout the region. Conclusions. Thus, analyzing the state of distribution in the Volyn region of the flora Cheremskyi nature reserve listed in the International Red Lists found that species growing within 15 separate nature protection objects that are not part of other objects of nature reserve fund, but the status and protection of rare form not always corresponds main goal, as the vast majority of them located within the forests where the active economic activity, therefore proposed a number of optimization measures.

候鸟类型国家级自然保护区保护成效评估指标体系构建与案例研究