Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 5. (Budapest 1954)
Issekutz, L. ; Kovács, L.: Melitaea britomartis Assmann, with special regard to its occurrence in Hungary
At the time, when our collectors began to busy themselves with the problem of the occurrence of britomartis in Hungary, an important change in the taxonomical valuation of this species took place. Its discoverer, A s s m a n n, judging correctly, described it as a distinct species in 1847, and his contemporaries joined in his view. Staudinger, however, relegated it as a variety to aurelia (now parthenie) in the second edition of his well-known Catalogue of Lepidoptera, in 1871. With regard to th e fact that his opinion carried much weight in the taxonomic evaluation of palaearctic lepidoptera, britomartis was regarded as a variety of aurelia also in Hungary. So it was mentioned by the Fauna Regni Hungáriáé in 1896, and by L. A b a f i - A i g n e r in his work ^Magyarország lepkék. Abafi-Aigner knew, in all probability, the work of Hormuzaki on the aí/ia/í'a-group, as he presents var. dyctinnoides Horm, under the title aurelia, both in the above mentioned work as in his »Magyarország pillangoi«. In every сазе, he does not mention that Hormuzaki was not convinced on the Tightness of S t a u d i n g e r's sentiments with regard to the athalia-group, indeed, that he tended to recognize britomartis as a distinct species, — but on the other hand he proved to have interpreted rightly the characters of the britomartis of A s s m a n п. The first, indubitably Hungarian, britomartis specimens were caught by A. Se h m i dt» the erstwhile Keeper of the Lepidoptera Collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum in the Mts Bakony, and by A. Kiss, teacher in Sárospatak, in Sárospatak, in the summer of 1 908. These did not attract much attention which is to be .explained, besides the mix-up about the right interpretation, by the fact that the majority of britomartis of the Central Mountains resembles parthenie (flying at the same places) to a perplexing degree. We met with specimens in greater numbers from the end of the 'twenties only, from the time when intensiver collecting was carried on also in the Central Mountains. As a result, britomartis was found in more and more localities, but no momentum appeared either in the 'twenties or in the 'thirties which should have facilitated their identification. The collected britomartis were still believed to be parthenie not only in regard to determination but also in keeping only fresh specimens, throwing away other individuals as a well-known and common butterfly. The solving of the problem of the Hungarian occurrence of britomartis was the result of a collecting in a place formerly not much frequented. One of the authors caught about one and a half dozen Melitaea species of a more colored underside than the Central Mountainous form of parthenie, which it rather resembled, on the side of Mt. Nagykevély, looking on Budakalász, in 1943. Regarding the differences, these insects had to be separated from parthenie, with an endeavour to secure further material. As a result of the investigations carried on in this district, a teeming Melitaea population was succesfully discovered in a relatively small area on the Szentendre side of the Kőhegy, a few kilometres distance from the former collecting place, in 1946. In the material collected here, — consisting indubitably of the same species, — there were found some specimens resembling the Budakalász ones. Though we had now ample material at our disposal to continue researches, the case was further assisted by a possibility to examine the material of the Natural History Museum. In this material we came to know the britomartis of the Kaposvár area, displaying much more the »dyctinnoid« characters mentioned by A s s m a n n than those found in the Central Mountains. This is the cause why the collectors residing in Kaposvár held the majority of them to be diamina (dyctinna). Examined material and methods After having found, on the ground of the external features, the Hungarian inhabitance of britomartis an indubitable fact, it was yet left to support our conclusions by the examination of the copulatory organs. The first aim of our researches into the structure of the genital armature was to be able to precisely separate the britomartis of the Central Mountains from parthenie (in this aspect we had not troubles with the Kaposvár material). The borderline questions with regard to athalia were not complicated, the special features of our Hungarian specimens rather well distinguish them from the other two species. They are characteristically large and rounded, with many other important differences also in minor points. The single spots of the first row are extensive on the forewings, sometimes almost touching, the black color intruding only as a fine separating line amongst the neighbouring spots. The spots of the third row (sensu A s s m a n n) on the underside of the hindwings are large, rather rounded, the yellow of the light spots are of a quite dissimilar tone than those of the two other species. Contrarily, among britomartis and parthenie specimens of the Central Mountains, some happen to resemble each other in aspect of color and pattern to such extent that they do not strike out against the respective series even when changed-up. The character given in respect to the color of the palpus (russet hairs in the palpus of parthenie, with no such hairs in britomartis )
