S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 59. (Budapest, 1998)

Masner's and Kozlov's works) were at his disposal - for example reprints of almost all of Masner's papers are present in the library of the Hymenoptera Collection of the Hungarian Natural History Musem. On the other hand, he did not use some early works, such as those of Ashmead (1893). It is questionable whether he did not know about or did not want to accept these papers. This fact caused many junior synonyms, even some homonyms (!, see below), different views and misunderstandings of specific and supraspecific classification and re-use of previously synonymized names. Examination of types. Besides of checking and examining the types deposited or found in the collections of the Hungarian Natural History Museum (mostly types of Kieffer's, Szelényi's and Marshall's species), the Natural History Museum of Vienna (Förster's types), the Swedish Natural History Museum and the Museum of Zoology of Lund University (some of Thomson's types), he described numerous taxa without examining the types of allied species or genera. This also ended up in unnecessarily proposed new taxa, or contrary, sometimes unnecessary synonymizations. Also, there is an example for an inadequate examination of type-material and descriptions. In 1979 Szabó described a new genus, Praeloxotropa from Mongolia. He also included there Eoxotropa hirta Thomson. Thomson never described that species, but there is a sepcimen in Lund with Thomson's manuscript name "hirta". Huggert (see Huggert, 1982: 199) pointed out that the name hirta should be nomen nudum, but since Szabó included a fonnál description with the name, it must be named as hirta Szabó. It is also obvious, that Szabó originally described - in manuscript - the same species under the name curiosiceps, but when he saw the specimens labelled by Thomson, he changed the name, thinking, that Thomson already named it. Parts of his manuscript were not changed, when he submitted it, so he applied both the name curiosiceps (as it is distinguishable from carinifrons Szabó in etc., etc.) and hirta (the name preceding the formal description). Technical background. Most of his works were completed either in the Hungarian Natural History Museum or at the Epidemiological Institute. In the latter facilities and conditions were largely unsuitable for a good examination, drawing or photographing of a species in question. His hand-made drawings carry no or very little taxonomical information, although he always endeavoured to illustrate the differential features of a new taxon. Also - because of the above mentioned disadvantages - in some of his descriptions there are incorrect morphological statements, which made the correct placement of his taxa impossible, or new genera and species had been described after other specimens, which - after the examination of Szabó's types - turned out to be synonyms. The species concept. J. B. Szabó sometimes unnecessarily proposed new taxa for peripherical specimens of a species, neglecting intraspecific - or sometimes intrageneric - variability. This maybe because of the previously mentioned handicap in technical support or he might be a disciple of a fragmentate classification. Other, mainly publicational reasons. Two examples are mentioned here, first, the case of the genus Haustagaster. Szabó described this genus twice. In 1978 his manuscript on the Platygastrid fauna of the Hortobágy National Park was accepted for publication in the book The Fanua of the Hortobágy National Park. In 1979 he described a new species of the genus Haustagaster Szabó from Mongolia, although the above-mentioned book was published only in 1981. This fact is interesting enough and there is no explanation why did not he know that the book has not yet been published. So, the genus Haustagaster Szabó (1981Ű, see below) with the formal description and diagnosis is a junior synonym of the genus Haustagaster Szabó (19796).