Kovács I. Endre szerk.: Rovartani Közlemények (Folia Entomologica Hungarica 12/1-23. Budapest, 1959)

For the sake of decreasing these three sources of fault

, I deviated from the method applied up to now. I didn't release the known numbered and marked specimens at the beginning of the surveys /as Yan_der_Drift did/ but I marked the beetles continuously. By employing this method, I cut down the three sources of fault mentioned above as far as possible, since: 1/ I marked a certain proportion of also the freshly hatched specimens within the square during the survey. 2/ The marked specimens were as active as the unmarked ones, since they were not in captivity /i.e. Van_der_Drift held the captured beetles in terrariums till he collected 80-100-120 specimens/. 3/ I marked a certain proportion of also the immigrated specimens

. On the other hand, by this method I was unable to eliminate mortality and emigration as a sources of fault. Activity was approximately estimated by the following method: I marked the beetles on their right or their left elytra as originating from the square I. or II. The beetles finding their way into the other square traveled at least 300 m - the distance between the two squares - during the time of their first marking and recapture. They also could leave the square in all directions, and of these, only such could be recaptured again which „g°t over" into the other square. From this point of view beetles recaptured at the first in the neighboroughing square have the highest importance /right marked elytra in square II. and vice versa/. These beetles namely need that much time to arrive at from one square to the other. The results are not essentially influenced whether covered on the distance between the two squares in a straight or in a roundabout way. This value of dispersion is, of course, very relative. The establishment of the absolute dispersion is difficult as that of the absolute abundancy.