S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 60. (Budapest, 1999)

2. Nagybégányi-hegy (hill): The sampling sites were located on the steep northernnortheastern part of the Tilia tomentosae-Carpinetum forest and on the lower part of the hill, in a pedunculate oak forest. In the herbaceous layer mesophilous forest species predominated, e.g. Polygonatum odoratum, Anemone nemorosa, Lathyrus vemus, while in the oak forest Cephalantera longifolia was characteristic. 3. Beregszászi-hegy (hill): The studied area was situated in an oak-hornbeam (QuercoCarpinetum) forest near to a stream valley. Anemona nemorosa was frequent. 4. Dobronyi-erdő (forest): The sampling area was also in an oak-hornbeam forest, 400500 meters far from the area studied in the previous year (see Magura et al. 1997). 5. Gúti-erdő (forest): The sampling site was located in a Querco-Carpinetum forest. The shrub layer was almost absent, the herbaceous layer was thin. Anemone nemorosa was found in patches. 6. Cigányóc: The sampling area was in a Fago-Carpinetum forest in the valley of the Cigány-stream. In the herbaceous layer Galanthus nivalis, Scilla bifolia and Anemone nemorosa were dominant. 7. Nagyláz: The studied area was also in the valley of the Cigány-stream, in a forest patch containing oak, hornbeam and beech trees. Galanthus nivalis, Leucojum Vernum, Scilla bifolia agg., Lathraea squmaria and Anemone nemorosa were frequent in the herbaceous layer. In each studied area 9 pitfall traps were used during the sampling procedure. In the Nagybégányi-hegy there were altogether 18 traps because of the two forest types (see above). The traps contained a mixture of ethylene-glycol and formalin solution as a killing-preserving agent. Trapped individuals were collected monthly (Niemelä et al. 1990) from May to September in 1997. All trapped carabid beetles were identified to species using standard keys (Csiki 1905-1908, Freude et al. 1976). In order to make a comparison between the carabid fauna of the Beregi-síkság and that of the Carpathians we used our earlier carabid data from the Beregi-síkság (Magura et al. 1997). Therefore we also analysed the carabid samples from the'following forests: 8. Dédai-erdő (forest) on the Hungarian side, 9. Boc-kereki-erdő (forest), 10. Lónyaierdő (forest), 11. Dédai-erdő (forest) on the Ukrainian side, 12. Rafajnai-erdő (forest), 13. Dobronyi-erdő (forest), 14. Téglási-erdő (forest) and 15. Peresi-erdő (forest). For a more detailed description, see Magura et al. (1997). Similarity of the carabid communities of the Beregi-síkság and the Carpathians was calculated by the Matusita similarity. The similarity structure was displayed by cluster analysis using the Ward-Orlóci fusion method (Gordon 1981). The NuCoSA package (Tóthmérész 1993) was used during the calculation. RESULTS During the study in the seven forested areas in the Beregi-síkság and in the foothills of the Carpathians 4294 individuals belonging to 44 species were collected (Table 1). The complete data set (9386 individuals belonging to 69 species) that was used for the biogeographical analysis of the carabid fauna of the Beregi-síkság and the Carpathians is shown in Table 2. Three main groups can be recognised by the cluster analysis using the carabid data (Fig. 2): (1) sampling area of the Carpathians (studied forested area 6 and 7), (2) the Kaszonyi-hegy, the Nagybégányi-hegy, the Beregszászi-hegy, the Gúti-erdő and the