Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 60. (Budapest 1968)

Kovács, L.: Data to the knowledge of Hungarian Macrolepidoptera III. New taxa from the subfamily Hadeninae

east of Debrecen. I have published all three data in my list of the Hungarian fauna (13). The finer delineation of the distribution of porosa in Hungary was made possible only by the organisation of the nationwide light-trap network. To this day, 6 lighttraps have collected the species, all of them in numerous instances. The first data derive frcm Tass, Mikepércs, and Hódmezővásárhely in 1959, then from Kenderes in 1960, frcm Tarhos and Gerla in 1962. Accordingly, two of the known localities lie in the central part of the area between the Danube and the Tisza, the other seven beyond the Tisza. The distances frcm one another of the localitis is considerable, at least 40 km. Ecological and coenological references. The main foodplant of 0. porosa is, according to literature, Artemisia maritima. This plant grows in Hungary chiefly on alkali flats, and also in sandy areas. Since both kinds of soil are present in each of the known localities, one might suppose that the range of the species is closely connected with that of the fccdplant. This presumption is, however, at variance with the fact that the species was not found in numerous other places where A. maritima thrives, indeed, it was caught in one or two specimens or observed in small individual numbers in the majority of even the known localities. There is no doubt therefore that the conditions favourable for its proliferation are rather limited. By a study of the quantitative data of the continuously operating light-traps, we have attempted to find a clue to the problem. Of our light-traps, the one in Hódmezővásárhely captured one specimen each in two years during the nine years it functioned, the trap at Gerla secured 4 specimens in three years in the course of its six years of operation, the trap at Tarhos collected 7 exemplars in five years during the operational nine, and the one at Mikepércs 12 specimens during five years in the course of its ten functional years. On the other hand, the light-trap at Tass caught 24 specimens in seven years (operating since eight years), therefore almost continuously. The majority of specimens, an exceedingly high number of individuals, was captured by the trap in its first location at Kenderes, namely 865 during five years. After the trap was transferred to a second site, there appeared but 9 specimens in two years of the three functional periods, while a provisionally operating UV trap secured 14 exemplars in 1963. However, the two latter traps were operating in agricultural sites. The total number of porosa specimens caught by the light-traps is 944, up to the end of 1967. Evidently, if we wish now to gain information on our home conditions most favourable to the breeding of porosa, the first site of the trap at Kenderes should first of all he scrutinized. The trap was situated on the side of the Plant Protection Station nearest the market-place. The market was as good as unused for a long time, and it is now entirely overgrown by the plant community Artemisio-Festucetum psendovinae, characteristical of our dry alkaline flats, with the dominant species Artemisia maritima. The market passes into an extensive pasture covered by the same plant community. This dry natron field, with its characteristical plant association offers porosa the most favourable breeding possibilities available in our home conditions. The other station where our species appeared yearly is at Tass near the Danube. Though the trap here operates in agricultural conditions, there are vast alkaline fields in the environment, and also in the near neighbourhood, of the village. We probably have the same situation here as in the case of the traps operating at Kenderes in the second site, namely in agricultural surroundings, which also continuously captures porosa, although in small numbers. The probability is not precluded that