Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 5. (Budapest 1954)

Kovács, L.: New data relating to systematical and zoogeographical problems of some Macrolepidoptera

but irregular grey spot near costa. Submarginal line indistinct, its place generally shown by grey spots only. Courses of lines bordering median field were dealt with above. Hindwings dirty greyish-white with a continuous but in individually varying broad grey streak before cilia. Cilia of forewings concolorous with the basic leaden gray; black, and almost connected, small lines separate them from inner wing surface. Color of abdomen conforming to the color of hindwing margin. Regarding the course of the lines bordering the median field, and the peculiarities in the copulatory organs of the males, I refer to the description given above. I nominate this species Sarrothripus hungarica sp. n. Holotype : ló* Bátorliget, 19. June, 1948, leg. Kaszab & Székess y, in the Collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum. Allotype : 1$ Balatonkenese, 1. Sept., 1928, leg. L. К Q v á с s , in the collection of L. К о v á с s. — Paratypes 78$ and 48$ : 1. In the Collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum : Bátorliget : 1 ^ 19. VI. 1948, leg. L. К о v á с s, Budapest : 1$ 13. IX. 1951, leg. Boros, Csepel : 1$ 24. III. 1928, e 1., leg. Uhrik, Kaposvár: 1# Coll. Hámori, Kisbalaton : 40* 24. VIII., 28. VIII. (spec. 2), 8. IX. 1950, leg. Kaszab, 1 $ 21. VI. 1950, leg. L. Kovács, Magyaróvár: 4$ 21. VIII., 10. IX. (spec. 2), 6. X. 1947, leg. Ruff, Monor : 1$, leg. Anker, Nadap : 9o* 12. IX. (spec. 6.), 13. IX. (spec. 2.), 14. IX. (spec. 1), 2 $ 12. IX., leg. L. К о v á с s, Nagykovácsi : 1 Q 21. II. 1937, leg. Szent-Iván y, Ócsa : 3<$ 1 $ 1. VII., leg. G о z ma n y, 1 $ 15. VU.', leg. L. К о v á с s, 1 <J 18. VII., leg. Vêlez, 5Q* 1 $ 22. VII., leg. L. К о v á с s, .3$ 24. VII., leg. L. К о vác s, 3^ 28. VIL, leg. V el ez (spec 1.) and Éhik (spec. 2.), 15 1 $ 4. VIII. leg. L. Kovács, 1^1$ 4. VIII. leg. S z ő с s, 2^ 19. VIII. leg. L. К о v á с s, all 1952 ; Ohat : 1$ 5. X. 1951, leg. L. К о v á с s, Pécel : 1 ^ 1. VIL, leg. U 1 b r i с h, 2$, Coll. U 1 b r i с h, Tahi : 1 $ 8. VII. 1934, leg. Vêlez, Tihany : 2$ 4—12. IX. 1937,1. VIII. 1942, leg. Szent-Ivány, Zamárdi : 3ó* 14—31. VIL, 28. VIL, 1—12. VIII. 1951, leg. К a s z a b, 4o* VII—VIII. 1951, leg. J. Balogh, Herkulesfürdő : 1$ 25. VIL 1907, leg. A. S с h m i d t. — 2. In the collection of J. É h i к : Budapest : 2$ 29. VIII. 1951, 24. IX. 1952,1$ 11. IV. 1952, leg. Éhik, Ócsa: 1 (J 1$ 28. VIL 1952, leg. É h i k. — 3. In the collection of E. F a b r i с i u s : Fót : 1 ó* 2$ 26. VIII. 1934, leg. ?, 1 $ 1935, leg. О s z t e r m a n n. — 4. In the collection of L. I s s e к u t z : Kaposvár : 1$ 17—20. VII. 1948, leg. I s s e к u t z, Szentendre : 2$ 1$ 10. VI. 1937, e. 1., leg. 11 о s v a i Varga, 5^ 4$ 28. IX. 1947, e. 1., leg. Ilosvai Varga. —-5. In the collection ofj. Jablonkay: Budapest: 2$ IX. 1931, leg. M a j t h é n y i, 13. IX. 1948, leg. J a b 1 о n к a y, 2$ IX. 1935, leg. Majthényi, 13. IX. 1948, leg. Jablonkay, Pestújhely: 1С 30. X. 1935, leg. Jablonkay, Rákoskeresztúr: 1 ó* 4. IX. 1940, leg. Majthényi, 1$ 11. III. 1937, leg. Jablonkay. — 6. In the collection of L. К о v á с s : Balatonkenese : 1 £ 1. IX. 1928, leg. L. Kovács, Bátorliget: 2ó* 17., 18. VI. 1948, leg. L. Kovács, Budapest: 1$ 17. IX. 1946, 7. IX. 1947, 4. VIII., 3. IX. 25. IX. 1948, 15. IX. 1950, 29. IX. 1951, 2$ 14, 27. IX. 1948, leg. L. К ovács, Nadap : 2^6.12. IX. 1951,1$ 12. IX. 1951, leg. L. Kovács, Ócsa: 1 ^ 31. VII. 1948, 1 $ 12. VI. 1948, leg. L. К о v á с s, Ohat : \$ 1$ 5. X. 1951, leg. L. К о vá с s, Szentendre : 30* 3$ 29. IX. 1947, e. L, leg. Ilosvai Varga, Vörs : 3Q* 6.", 8. IX. 16. X. 1950, leg. L. К о v á с s. — 7. In the collection of J. S z ő с s : Budapest : 2$ 26. X. 1948, leg. Szó'cs. A most interesting fact, regarding S. hungarica, is that all of its known specimens originate from Hungary, with the exception of one specimen only, but this also, as may be seen from the enumerated data, comes from a relatively near place (Herkulesfürdő). It would yet be early to state that its distribution could not range over a larger, even significantly larger, area, but it is very curious that it was not represented in our dilutana material from abroad. There is also another circumstance worthy of mention, that is, the abundancy of the new species in our country. Of the Sarrothripus material at my disposal, only 12 are revayana, 6 dilutana. and more than 120 hungarica. Accordingly, the known number of collecting localities of hungarica is also great : 20 in all, of revayana but 8, while dilutana only 4.