Rovartani Közlemények (Folia Entomologica Hungarica 3/3-4. Budapest, 1950)

Tomala mentioned at the end of his description that he reared this moth in great numbers from the roots and stems of E. lucida collected in various parts of Hungary, which, according to him, would have been enough to prove that he did not deal with a chance local variety but with a new species. Yet, until he could not be sure in this matter, he described his moth as a new variety of empiformis E s p., which really looks like its nearest relation. The cause of his extreme caution is m his German description, where he states that according to the opinion of an „official expert" hungariea belongs to empiformis, and that therefore he is bound to accept it as such. Who this „official expert" was and on what data he based his opinion, Tomala did not say. By trying to demonstrate the autonom specificity of hungariea in the followings I wisli only to prove, after half a century, a correct but timidly unproclaimed recognization of the original describer against the opinion of an „unknown" expert based on „unknown" arguments. I have to mention here that S p u 1 e r split the genus Sesia — belonging to the family Sesiidae, now Aegeriidae, in 1910 erecting among others the genus Chamaesphecia, now our chief concern, choosing empiformis E s p., as its generotype. When, years ago, I have first collected the caterpillars of hungariea in great numbers from the year-old stems and roots of E. lucida and E. palustris (swamp spurge) abounding on the swamp-sedge clearings in the wet woods of the village Érd by the Danube, and then began to rear them, and later to examine the hatched clearwings, it bore on me gradually that I have to identify not a variety of empiformis but a new species. The proving of this is highly facilitated by the fact that this moth stands indeed nearest to empiformis, and I have only to prove therefore whether really deviations exist that claim the autonom specificity of hungariea. Tomala found hungariea only in E. lucida. I can complete this by my observations that it can also be found in the roots and younger, slender, shoots of E. palustris. This herb is identical with the feeding plant of Ch. palustris described by Kautz, but the larva of which chooses only the older and thicker branches of the plant. Both larves can be found therefore in the same place. At least, such is the situation in Érd. E. lucida, as well as palustris, likes a wet, swampy habitat and thrives only there. This, also determines the biotope of hungariea. Now, on the contrary, the caterpillar of empiformis lives in the roots of Euphorbia esula and cyparissias. These Euphorbia species like only dry places and so the biotope of empiformis has obviously other characters than that of hungariea. This is the cause why hungariea is not found where empiformis is and vice versa.