S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 48. (Budapest, 1987)

and 56 he states that I had not given any differential diagnoses for the new Oppiidae genera described. Apparently he does not know, or does not want to know that when a taxon is included in an identification key, this key is equivalent to a differential diagnosis. I wish to call WOAS' attention to my identification keys published in 1961, in 1965 and then in 1972, and in 1983, in my work criticized by WOAS, I gave detaliled keys to the subfamilies, artificial generic groups and genera so far described. Irrespective whether WOAS considers these supraspecific groups systematic taxa, it is I who published the most differential features for dividing the supraspecific groups of Oppioidea in the whole orl batl dologi cal literature. It must also be mentioned that, suprisingly, WOAS did not give any differential diagnosis for any of the 15 species newly described in his paper. Is he exempted from the rules of nomenclature which he considers obligatory for others ? I do not think his approach is permissible when he criticizes other authors for omitting details from the diagnoses that he considers important. It is the privilege of an author to group the Oppioidea from points of view different from those of HAMMER, SUBIAS, MAHUNKA or BALOGH, he should examine the types accordingly. The types deposited in Budapest are always available for study, and in fact several types were on loan in his institute There is no mention made why these types have not been included in his study. I believe WOAS would have fared better if instead of examining 50 species, he would have examined the types of 50 genera he considered the most important for the systematics of Oppioidea. In such a case his discussions of the various taxa would not have contained suppositions, conjectures, conceited comments addressed to the cited authors, but rather, objective facts . Finally, it would have been useful for WOAS to adopt the style of GRANDJEAN, who is not only the greatest acarologist of this century, but also argued in a civilized manner with true French wit. Besides studying the morphology of the oribatids, one can learn this style from his works as well. Besides correcting the abvious errors and untrue statements of the author, I do not wish to debate with WOAS on the issue of the relationship between taxonomy and systematics. On the one hand, I am not a polemic type of person (this is my first, and I hope also the last such a paper of mine), on the other hand, I have already expressed my opinion in a paper co-authored by L. PAPP (BALOGH and PAPP, in print). There is no point in repeating my arguments here, but I wish to highlight some major points. I consider myself a taxonomlst and take the first one in the hierarchy of supraspecific categories characterized by combinations of differential attributes as a genus. WOAS used a different combination of characters and designated a supraspecific category two or three steps higher, as a genus. I do not think it is important either from taxonomical or from evolutionary systematical points of view, whichever category we name

. What is important, however is to be consistent in the usage of these names. The principle of stability, in my view, is more Important than that of priority. I believe we are not very far off from such a time when the most important taxonomical knowledge will be stored in computer memories and the work of identification will become computerized. At the same time maintenance and updating of the whole zoological nomenclature, which at present takes up so much time of the zoologists, will become a practically oriented code system. Until such time as when such a system is plausible, I believe we serve our cause better by erecting smaller and easily comprehended genera. The recent work of several oribatidologists, e.g. PASCHOAL (1982), indicate that there is not such a great gap between practically oriented taxonomy and evolutionary systematics, as believed by WOAS. REFERENCES BALOGH. J. (1961): Identification keys of world Oribatei (Acari) families and genera, - Acta Izool. hung., J7_

: 243-344. BALOGH, J. (1965): A synopsis of the world Oribatid (Acari) genera. - Acta zool. hung., 11: 5-99. BALOGH. J. (1972): The Oribatid genera of the world. - Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 188 pp. 71 pis. BALOGH, J. and PAPP, L. (1987): How to avoid debate on systematics among taxonomists. Opusc. Mol. Budapest, 23: In print. MAHUNKA, S. (1983): Neue und interessante Milben aus dem Genfer Museum XLV. Oribatida Americana 6: Mexico II. (Acari). - Revue suisse Zool., 90: 269-298. PASCHOAL, A.D. (1982): Revised classification of the Gymnodamaeidae (Acari: Oribatei), with a key to the genera. - Rev. Brasil. Biol., 42: 461-466. PÉREZ-INIGO, C. (1971): Acaros oribátidos de suelos de Espana peninsular e Isias Baléares (Acari, Oribatei) Parte III. - "EOS", Revista Espanola de Entomologia, 46: 263-350* SELLNICK, M. (1937): Die Gattung Trizetes Berlese und ihre Stellung im System der Oribatei (Acar.). - Zool. Anz., 120: 76-79.