Boros István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 51. (Budapest 1959)
Kovács, L. ; Gozmány, L.: Data to the quantitative relations of the Lepidoptera of the Alderwood Marshes in Ócsa, Hungary
lamp, but 15,1% in tbat of tbe second one. In this site, Lamp II caught always more from this species on every occassion. In the more open forest, Lamp I was the one that gathered more of this species, namely 841 specimens, whdst Lamp II caught but 373 ones. It is, by the way, interesting to note that these values so remote from each other give 21% for both lamps, when expressed as a quota of the total results. On the basis of the data discussed above, it is beyond dispute that the dominant species was indeed very unequally distributed everywhere in the forest, the same within its open as in its closed portions. The case is the same with regard also to the subdominant species. The data of E. griseola show a similar kind of deviation, even if the difference itself is of a smaller rate. In the close forest, Lamp I caught 168 specimens of this species contrarily to Lamp II which attained 198 ones, whilst, in the more open part of the woods, Lamp I captured 293, and Lamp II only 160. As related to the sum total, E. griseola gives a larger quota for Lamp II in both sites. Of the other subdominant species, H. ruralis, Lamp I caught always more, the data being (in the close forest) 254, that is, 154, and those in the open woods 192, that is, 72. This deviation of a contrary nature points out better than anything that the differences hinged on the dispersion of the several species and not on the lamps, for, otherwise, these same deviations would have been of a corresponding direction in the case of the single species. For the sake of any more detailed analysis of the character of the dispersion, we ought to have had the simultaneous functioning of more than two lamps. For the time being, we had to rest content by tabulating the results of the lamps, grouping them seperately, in accordance with the two operational sites and with regard to the 24 species whose d values attained 1 %. (cf. Table IV). Lamp III had mainly the function to enable us to study by its help the effects of the adjacent marshy fields (molinieta). Unfortunately, we did not select carefully enough the place of this lamp : its results shew that it stood deeper in the forest than it ought to have had. So, Ave received butr elatively few data for the study of this problem, though it seems indubitable even so that the majority of lepidopterous species of a field-character do not penetrate deep into the forest. For instance, there appeared 10 specimens on Lamp III of one of our characteristical field-moths, S. immorata, and none shew up at the stage of the next lamp nearest to it, 300 m deep in the forest. Another species, characteristical for wet meadows and observed in masses also in Ócsa (T. arenacearia) , put up its appearance in the form of a single representative specimen even on Lamp III, also disdaining the other lamps. The case is the same with P. contaminella, of which Lamp III. caught but 4 individuals. S. verticalis occurred both within and on the margins of the forest, but, whilst the two lamps functioning in the woods captured a total of 17 specimens, the lamp active on the edge of the forest alone caught 39 ones. This also is a complex problem whose further study would afford very good results, especially if the surveys were made by a large number of lamps, situated in identical distance from each other, from the edge of the forest to its center. In the next year, when the turn came for our informational and control surveys, we have strictly adhered to the conditions of the previous year, concerning the site of the lamps and also everything else. We had naturally no doubts at the very outset that there will occur differences between the results of
