S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 27/2. (Budapest, 1974)
goes widely differ from each other. No real close-distant relationships are indicated if Triaspiinae is included into Blacinae simply because its head capsule morphology in the last instar stage seems to indicate so. Apparently it is inevitable that systems based exclusively on larvae or adults are in some way or other in contradiction with one another. Due to the radical differences between larva and adult morphology-bionomics certain features always remain to hinderus in reaching unequivocal inferences. As it has already been mentioned, even since DARWIN modern systernaties try to show natural relationships as much as possible. The most conspicuous aspects (morphology, anatomy, ethology, physiology, geographical distribution, etc .) are the basis for comparison to reveal either convergences and divergences, which may indicate recent natural relationships. The greater the likeness in eidonomy, bionomics, physiology, anatomy and chorology within a group of living beings (be that species, species-groups, genera, tribes, subfamilies, families, etc. ) the more we consider the members of that group relatives of one another. Time is a difficult factor when establishing the degree of relationship. As far as we know today, life developed through the past 1500 million years from inorganic ("lifeless") matter to what we see nowadays, a medley of plants and animals running to the incredible number of some two million known species. And what was in between it is almost impossible to even guess the immense number of extinct species. It would be very useful to have time to participate in our calculations when the relationships are discussed but our limitations make that impossible. It is beyond us to foretell what is going to happen, as we cannot even reconstruct the past what had taken place there, what the sequence of forms could have been. Those are rare cases when we can trace back the lineage of some recent forms and can see the series in prehistory in petrified remains. Thus, we can but initiate time in an indirect way. This problem has been tackled by HENNIG (1950, 1965) when he clearly determined the meaning of the termsplesiomorph and apomorph features and at the same time he sharply delimited the question of convergence: - Plesiomorph features are bound to common ancient features of common origin. - Apomorph features are bound to common recent features of common origin. - Converging features are bound to common features of different origin. HENNIG said that it often happened that phylogenetic systems were based on converging features. It is a mistake to lay our foundation on convergence. A thorough study of our group may only reveal plesiomorph and apomorph features on which we should build our zoological systems. Otherwise we diverge from the only one and realmonophyletic system and find ourselves landed up with para- or even polyphyletic systems. The plesio- and apomorph features are as a rule mixed with each other. It is quite probable that there is not one single .group of living things which would either show only plesio- or apomorph features (i.e the heterobatmy of features). The recently acquired characters are seen side by side with very old features which inevitably helped the prevalence or the further development of the species, specie s-group, genus, etc.
